So far as I can tell, this dump contains only the SHA-1 hashes of passwords and no one has figured out how to invert SHA-1.
The SHA-1 hashes of common, already-known passwords are available, so it's possible to invert hashes for these passwords. But, claiming that you can recover any of the passwords is wholly different from being able to confirm that a few well-known passwords were used by a segment of the population. Case in point: Of the ~420 million passwords in the leak, only about 7 million are in the top 55 board on leakedsource.com/blog/myspace, i.e., 1.6%.
It would appear that, if anything, this is really a list of email addresses from circa 2013. It could also be interesting to look at the distribution of passwords by looking at frequencies of specific hashes.
To be fair, the timeline proposes to get to a human brain not in a decade, but about 2030 -- or two decades.
I think it's impossible to say right now that the project will fail. Lab-based neuroscientists talk a lot about what we don't know, and how this is all pie-in-the-sky, but so what? The people in the labs will never by themselves figure it all out because they don't have a unifying architecture for understanding their data, generating new hypotheses and testing them. In short, the theory component is lacking.
For example, there are research papers where the authors have disabled the ability of an enzyme to become phosphorylated at a particular site (CaMKII at Thr 286) and then had these rats perform a standard test for finding their way through a maze. The result was that they had a harder time remembering where they were. Now, what can you really learn from that? CaMKII's ability to become autophosphorylated is important for forming memories..., and that's about it. There are so many layers in between cause and effect: The success rate of the gene transfer, gene expression, unknown variability in the formation of rat brains, and maybe, hey, maybe the rat was just having a shitty day and that's why it couldn't find the pad under the water. How does this help you generate new ideas for experiments? I don't know.
At any rate, when people say that there's so much that we don't know, this is partly what they're referring to: We have tons and tons of information, but no framework to hold it together and make sense of it.
The vision is that HBP will fill that role as a site for the assimilation of data into models that are constantly being refined and tested. They've spent years building the infrastructure necessary to gather standardized* data, build the models, run them, and analyze them. The idea now is to start taking in even more data, and just build things up one little bit at a time. Build a better cortical column, build several and hook them up together, build a rat cortex, a rat brain, a cat brain, a macaque brain, and then a human brain, learning along the way how to get it right and what the patterns are.
Make no mistake: The people working there are some of the brightest in the world. I see no technical reason why they won't succeed; I think it's only a matter of time and effort.
* Standardized data is very important because every lab tends to do things a little differently and there are so many variables that have to be pinned down. You might be amazed at what a difference 5 deg C can make in protein phosphorylation rates (about 20%, actually.)
I wanted to add on to this. I've had pretty painless experiences using the nvidia drivers under linux for several years, now. If you don't want or need the most up-to-date driver, Ubuntu has the older ones in their repository. 3D, window acceleration, and various display-, TV-, and HDMI-out work with no issues.
I wanted to especially point out that the latest driver release from nvidia fixes the Youtube blue-tint video problem, so you can again enjoy hardware-accelerated Youtube videos. Nvidia did this despite having essentially no financial incentive to do it (so far as I can tell.) Kudos to them, and I'm happy to say I'm a satisfied nvidia customer and Linux user.
I think that your reasons for wanting to be in a relationship align perfectly well with hers: You want to be in a relationship, in part to gain access to sex.
Now, don't get me wrong: As a male, I know this is a fundamental power imbalance. We want pussy more than women want dick, and the market price of pussy and dick accurately reflects that. But, at the same time, she did not say that sex should be a tool of manipulation. She said it was a "short-term hook" until deeper emotions develop, which I interpreted to mean that it keeps bringing you back to her.
What's wrong with that? If you're spending time with her and getting what you want, you've won. If you feel like she's manipulating you or using you, you always have the option to leave. I get the feeling that what you're afraid of is the emotional vulnerability that comes with investing in something risky. Yeah, good luck solving that one. At 31, I have not found an easy way.
Last but not least, I want to point out that women typically develop much stronger emotions much more quickly than men when sex comes into play. It's usually the men who walk away with fewer scars.
Nevertheless, I end up feeling the same way after about a week. I'm more outgoing, a little bit more aggressive, and a bit more upbeat. I don't know what combination of hormones/neurotransmitters/receptor density makes that happen.
It's a cute story at face value, but I think it misses the fact that in every economic situation, there is a context which determines what is cheapest / most efficient to do. Even today, I would bet it's cheaper for the Chinese to use manpower rather than gasoline to accomplish the same thing.
I am a physicist. (OK, I'm a grad student, but I just had thermo.)
The article says that at 600 degC, a Carnot cycle engine would have a theoretical efficiency of 60%, but nowhere do they say anything about the efficiency of this development.
It's possible to prove that no thermodynamic cycle is more efficient than a Carnot cycle, so you can expect the actual efficiency of this product, if development finishes, to be less than the numbers they're giving.
Which is great, because the Russians have not been very kind to the Finns in the last 100 years or so, perhaps going back even further (you can start by looking up Karelia). So I would bet that even in that no-nonsense culture of theirs, a couple of Finns somewhere in the world are having a private chuckle on how the tables have turned.
So of course I looked up quite a lot about your bio the other day, read your commencement speech at Beloit (which was really nice, BTW), and then got to the bit where you had designed the tech that became Hydroflow for Brooks.
I thought you might like to know that I had ordered a pair of shoes last week and upon inspecting them today, I saw they had that same technology.:-) That was really impressive.
Well, to be entirely honest, because it's the only way we know how. If we knew a better, cheaper, or faster way, we'd use that, I'm sure. That's not to say that I don't think there is something cool about building the next generation of bigger and more complex detectors, but the conventional wisdom is that after CMS and ATLAS, no one would fund another generation of even bigger accelerator rings and accompanying detectors, so if particle physics has anything left to figure out, they'll have to try one of the newer techniques (wakefield accelerators?::shrug::).
I'm very sorry, but I just won't be able to make it in the middle of the semester (first semester in the grad physics program at Purdue..., gotta study.:-), though I really wish I could. Really, thanks for taking the time out to reply, I really appreciate it. It's awesome when people who know what they're talking about take the time to step in.
Unfortunately, I can't find anything on the web or (specifically) nasa.gov to confirm it, but still, thanks for replying.:-) If you are (in fact) Daniel Barry (Ph.D., MD, etc..., the credentials are stupefyingly long:-) then that's awesome that you took the time to reply -- thanks!
It reveals that I think the world is filled with boring people, a lot of whom are posers and wish they were cooler, and some of whom like to pretend that they are cooler than they really are.
Regarding Slashdot, it would reveal that IMHO, that the vast majority of comments on articles contain no useful information and are therefore useless. I don't know what starshining's original comment is rated now, but when I got to it, it was rated +3. In other words, the one real, useful comment by someone who had actually *been there*, was not even rated a 5. Conclusion: there are a lot of posers on Slashdot who like to think they know what they are talking about, and few genuine articles.
I'm intrigued -- you seem to know what you are talking about, but it sounds suspiciously cool to have someone who's been in space comment on Slashdot. Could you give a name or some kind of reference that I could look up and attach some cred to your comment? I would really appreciate it.:-)
The blueberries the link mentions look like they're on the order of mm, not m, which would be a thousandfold difference.
Let's assume for a second that the energy required to form these little balls goes as their volume (that is, the balls are created by fusing a lot of stuff together into a single ball), and volume goes as 4/3*3.14*r^3; therefore, a thousandfold difference in radius would require 10^9 times more energy, and that would be just to create a ball 1m in diameter! I don't know anything about the Martian atmosphere, but it seems impossible that the lightning on mars varies in strength by over a billion.
Also, FWIW, the other pictures of supposed domes all show a sloped shape, while this one retains a spherical and textured shape. Again, I don't know anything about Mars' atmosphere, but I've never seen spherically-shaped sand domes on Earth. Whatever that thing is, it looked like it crashed into the surface of Mars and decided to just chill for a while, without disintegrating. It would be nice to know if it has changed over time.
That was a really interesting write-up you did a while back. Can you tell us more about what kinds of trends the datacenter you built the tracking sytem for has found? Like, what sort of people/equipment use the most power? What does power usage look like over the course of the day? How have customers responded to the changes?
I don't work at a data center, but I think the project was really interesting!
What the hell is wrong with the world when an article claims something about 400% efficiency gets modded to +5? I'm awe-struck.
No, Virginia, there is no machine with an efficiency over and including 100%. I don't even have a clear idea of what the OP is talking about about ("efficiencies approaching 400%" -- which efficiency, exactly?), but the claim is so outlandish and against all my physics training that I'm stunned people would actually believe this stuff.
Unfortunately, you could not run an active Gentoo system without at least about 1GB of space, given that the portage tree takes up about 700MB. Yes, I've tried.
Slashdot Mirror
If those measurements came in that order in time, then, yeah, that looks pretty suspicious.
So far as I can tell, this dump contains only the SHA-1 hashes of passwords and no one has figured out how to invert SHA-1.
The SHA-1 hashes of common, already-known passwords are available, so it's possible to invert hashes for these passwords. But, claiming that you can recover any of the passwords is wholly different from being able to confirm that a few well-known passwords were used by a segment of the population. Case in point: Of the ~420 million passwords in the leak, only about 7 million are in the top 55 board on leakedsource.com/blog/myspace, i.e., 1.6%.
It would appear that, if anything, this is really a list of email addresses from circa 2013. It could also be interesting to look at the distribution of passwords by looking at frequencies of specific hashes.
* Soul required for activation not included.
Hey, that's really helpful. Thank you!
Could you expand on this? In what parts of the world are you seeing this kind of work? What companies?
Why do you think ODE modeling is on the way out? Can you point me somewhere to start understanding "non-linear mixed effects"?
Thanks, buy you a beer sometime when I'm in the UK. ;-)
To be fair, the timeline proposes to get to a human brain not in a decade, but about 2030 -- or two decades.
I think it's impossible to say right now that the project will fail. Lab-based neuroscientists talk a lot about what we don't know, and how this is all pie-in-the-sky, but so what? The people in the labs will never by themselves figure it all out because they don't have a unifying architecture for understanding their data, generating new hypotheses and testing them. In short, the theory component is lacking.
For example, there are research papers where the authors have disabled the ability of an enzyme to become phosphorylated at a particular site (CaMKII at Thr 286) and then had these rats perform a standard test for finding their way through a maze. The result was that they had a harder time remembering where they were. Now, what can you really learn from that? CaMKII's ability to become autophosphorylated is important for forming memories..., and that's about it. There are so many layers in between cause and effect: The success rate of the gene transfer, gene expression, unknown variability in the formation of rat brains, and maybe, hey, maybe the rat was just having a shitty day and that's why it couldn't find the pad under the water. How does this help you generate new ideas for experiments? I don't know.
At any rate, when people say that there's so much that we don't know, this is partly what they're referring to: We have tons and tons of information, but no framework to hold it together and make sense of it.
The vision is that HBP will fill that role as a site for the assimilation of data into models that are constantly being refined and tested. They've spent years building the infrastructure necessary to gather standardized* data, build the models, run them, and analyze them. The idea now is to start taking in even more data, and just build things up one little bit at a time. Build a better cortical column, build several and hook them up together, build a rat cortex, a rat brain, a cat brain, a macaque brain, and then a human brain, learning along the way how to get it right and what the patterns are.
Make no mistake: The people working there are some of the brightest in the world. I see no technical reason why they won't succeed; I think it's only a matter of time and effort.
* Standardized data is very important because every lab tends to do things a little differently and there are so many variables that have to be pinned down. You might be amazed at what a difference 5 deg C can make in protein phosphorylation rates (about 20%, actually.)
I wanted to add on to this. I've had pretty painless experiences using the nvidia drivers under linux for several years, now. If you don't want or need the most up-to-date driver, Ubuntu has the older ones in their repository. 3D, window acceleration, and various display-, TV-, and HDMI-out work with no issues.
I wanted to especially point out that the latest driver release from nvidia fixes the Youtube blue-tint video problem, so you can again enjoy hardware-accelerated Youtube videos. Nvidia did this despite having essentially no financial incentive to do it (so far as I can tell.) Kudos to them, and I'm happy to say I'm a satisfied nvidia customer and Linux user.
I think that your reasons for wanting to be in a relationship align perfectly well with hers: You want to be in a relationship, in part to gain access to sex.
Now, don't get me wrong: As a male, I know this is a fundamental power imbalance. We want pussy more than women want dick, and the market price of pussy and dick accurately reflects that. But, at the same time, she did not say that sex should be a tool of manipulation. She said it was a "short-term hook" until deeper emotions develop, which I interpreted to mean that it keeps bringing you back to her.
What's wrong with that? If you're spending time with her and getting what you want, you've won. If you feel like she's manipulating you or using you, you always have the option to leave. I get the feeling that what you're afraid of is the emotional vulnerability that comes with investing in something risky. Yeah, good luck solving that one. At 31, I have not found an easy way.
Last but not least, I want to point out that women typically develop much stronger emotions much more quickly than men when sex comes into play. It's usually the men who walk away with fewer scars.
Thanks for your post. Your approach to getting more attention from women is generally in-line with mine, so I think you're right.
A small correction: There doesn't appear to be evidence that abstaining from sex increases testosterone levels. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_masturbating_increase_testosterone_levels
Nevertheless, I end up feeling the same way after about a week. I'm more outgoing, a little bit more aggressive, and a bit more upbeat. I don't know what combination of hormones/neurotransmitters/receptor density makes that happen.
It's a cute story at face value, but I think it misses the fact that in every economic situation, there is a context which determines what is cheapest / most efficient to do. Even today, I would bet it's cheaper for the Chinese to use manpower rather than gasoline to accomplish the same thing.
The US spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on healthcare, and it's still something like 34th ranked in the world.
We have the same infant mortality rate as Cuba. CUBA!
I'll dig up sources if you're interested. Right now, I have a meeting in 10 minutes.
I am a physicist. (OK, I'm a grad student, but I just had thermo.)
The article says that at 600 degC, a Carnot cycle engine would have a theoretical efficiency of 60%, but nowhere do they say anything about the efficiency of this development.
It's possible to prove that no thermodynamic cycle is more efficient than a Carnot cycle, so you can expect the actual efficiency of this product, if development finishes, to be less than the numbers they're giving.
That said, I think it's a very intriguing idea.
Actually, Linux Torvalds is Finnish.
Which is great, because the Russians have not been very kind to the Finns in the last 100 years or so, perhaps going back even further (you can start by looking up Karelia). So I would bet that even in that no-nonsense culture of theirs, a couple of Finns somewhere in the world are having a private chuckle on how the tables have turned.
So of course I looked up quite a lot about your bio the other day, read your commencement speech at Beloit (which was really nice, BTW), and then got to the bit where you had designed the tech that became Hydroflow for Brooks.
:-) That was really impressive.
I thought you might like to know that I had ordered a pair of shoes last week and upon inspecting them today, I saw they had that same technology.
Mine too; apologies from this end as well.
:-)
I should have added earlier, to be fair, that I am pretty unimaginitive, but that's not important right now.
Well, to be entirely honest, because it's the only way we know how. If we knew a better, cheaper, or faster way, we'd use that, I'm sure. That's not to say that I don't think there is something cool about building the next generation of bigger and more complex detectors, but the conventional wisdom is that after CMS and ATLAS, no one would fund another generation of even bigger accelerator rings and accompanying detectors, so if particle physics has anything left to figure out, they'll have to try one of the newer techniques (wakefield accelerators? ::shrug::).
I'm very sorry, but I just won't be able to make it in the middle of the semester (first semester in the grad physics program at Purdue..., gotta study. :-), though I really wish I could. Really, thanks for taking the time out to reply, I really appreciate it. It's awesome when people who know what they're talking about take the time to step in.
Unfortunately, I can't find anything on the web or (specifically) nasa.gov to confirm it, but still, thanks for replying. :-) If you are (in fact) Daniel Barry (Ph.D., MD, etc..., the credentials are stupefyingly long :-) then that's awesome that you took the time to reply -- thanks!
Good luck with Denbar Robotics!
It reveals that I think the world is filled with boring people, a lot of whom are posers and wish they were cooler, and some of whom like to pretend that they are cooler than they really are.
Regarding Slashdot, it would reveal that IMHO, that the vast majority of comments on articles contain no useful information and are therefore useless. I don't know what starshining's original comment is rated now, but when I got to it, it was rated +3. In other words, the one real, useful comment by someone who had actually *been there*, was not even rated a 5. Conclusion: there are a lot of posers on Slashdot who like to think they know what they are talking about, and few genuine articles.
I'm intrigued -- you seem to know what you are talking about, but it sounds suspiciously cool to have someone who's been in space comment on Slashdot. Could you give a name or some kind of reference that I could look up and attach some cred to your comment? I would really appreciate it. :-)
The blueberries the link mentions look like they're on the order of mm, not m, which would be a thousandfold difference.
Let's assume for a second that the energy required to form these little balls goes as their volume (that is, the balls are created by fusing a lot of stuff together into a single ball), and volume goes as 4/3*3.14*r^3; therefore, a thousandfold difference in radius would require 10^9 times more energy, and that would be just to create a ball 1m in diameter! I don't know anything about the Martian atmosphere, but it seems impossible that the lightning on mars varies in strength by over a billion.
Also, FWIW, the other pictures of supposed domes all show a sloped shape, while this one retains a spherical and textured shape. Again, I don't know anything about Mars' atmosphere, but I've never seen spherically-shaped sand domes on Earth. Whatever that thing is, it looked like it crashed into the surface of Mars and decided to just chill for a while, without disintegrating. It would be nice to know if it has changed over time.
That is, actually, kind of exciting.
Nice summary and point; thanks. :)
That was a really interesting write-up you did a while back. Can you tell us more about what kinds of trends the datacenter you built the tracking sytem for has found? Like, what sort of people/equipment use the most power? What does power usage look like over the course of the day? How have customers responded to the changes?
I don't work at a data center, but I think the project was really interesting!
What the hell is wrong with the world when an article claims something about 400% efficiency gets modded to +5? I'm awe-struck.
No, Virginia, there is no machine with an efficiency over and including 100%. I don't even have a clear idea of what the OP is talking about about ("efficiencies approaching 400%" -- which efficiency, exactly?), but the claim is so outlandish and against all my physics training that I'm stunned people would actually believe this stuff.
Unfortunately, you could not run an active Gentoo system without at least about 1GB of space, given that the portage tree takes up about 700MB. Yes, I've tried.