> And why haven't terrorists used biological weapons successfully before if there is such a risk from them?
"And why haven't terrorists used large passenger planes successfully for killing thousands by collapsing multibillion dollar landmarks such as the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, if there's such a risk from them?"
-- everyone, till 9/10/2001
The difference is, biological can be far more devastating. Think about what 9/11 did to society, multiply the effect by 1000 and it's the end of liberal democracy as we know it.
You can't make a conclusion about mean or average _excess_ speed, or prevalence of speeding on highways just by working with the population of all the measured drivers and the caught drivers. For there is a subgroup of drivers who successfully evade such measurements, e.g. by featuring radar-detection tools, obtaining info about speed detector locations, having the connection to erase records, favoring unmetered places or times etc. You can establish lower _bounds_ on speeding behavior but the _real_ numbers can be vastly different (e.g. some large multiple of the lower bounds, might be a small increment, or potentially some order of magnitude).
The GP's point is that, since conspiracies never uncovered weren't (and obviously couldn't) be included in the study, the whole exercise attempts to give the lowest bounds on how long it may take to have a conspiracy unravel. For example, take the climate change example from the study. Its higher range is 26.8 years. If, however, lots of conspiracies are never uncovered, then it means that, were they to be uncovered and included in the study, the number of years would probably become much larger. So we have an already pretty comfy 26.8 years for a conspiracy - a time span enough for the original conspirators to achieve their purpose, go through their productive lives till retirement and be comfortable, not to mention a lot of crimes aren't punishable after some number of years - and it is feasible that it's just a lower bound (again, because the hypothetical inclusion of uncovered conspiracies would imply reduced chance of finding out).
Yes, one can say that 'sure but working with the numbers of proven cases can still be representative'. Not really, because it's a _model_, and nobody proved this model, moreover, there may be systematic factors that separate successful and unsuccessful conspiracies which, in terms of metrics, would have the same input and output numbers in this specific study.
As an example, think of a group of 5 with small children vs. hardened criminals. It's more likely that the former group will not keep a secret for a day and the latter may stick to their wows forever. Same model, huge difference. So unfortunately this study is actually optimistic, because the stronger the reason for maintaining secrecy, the more likely it is that politicians, secret services, military and other, more resilient actors make up the conspiracy, and more likely that good planning went into keeping secrets within a small group (mafia organizations practice this art since forever). So as we move toward the more and more interesting and relevant conspiracies, so decreases the reliability of the proposed model.
I believe we can safely say that a conspiracy that stays secret for 4-27 years based on a small sample size study that obviously couldn't factor in uncovered conspiracies, it's not only believers of conspiracy theories who conclude that 'yeah, numbers support the sentiment that there can be vast conspiracies that go undetected during my lifetime, but for sure there's a large likelihood that a good number of conspiracies on crucial matters must be going on all time'.
I haven't RTFA but what's underwater specific about it? The haptic gloves stop working above sea level? If you have haptic gloves - basically a rendering device like a computer screen - you can show anything on it, like virtual objects in a 3D scene, or... surface scenery, or cloud distributions (I mean old fashioned, floating clouds in the air) or even remote galaxies.The very definition of a rendering device is that you can render whatever you want, up to the constraints of the device (resolution etc.) which all have nothing to do with what is rendered.
This. It's not even more sensational if it fails after 'seconds' rather than in a minute, so this is probably a routine journo hyperbole, the problem is, as you say, that they write without considering the target audience (i.e. they don't give a shit about them).
This. While most replies assume it's okay for local responders to triage, it's just a waste of time. Even calling security adds a layer of indirection. In case of emergency, call 911 and then security - this way the ambulance will be on the road and security will still have ample time to give guidance to them.
The fact that people obviously versed in the art are commenting on Slashdot, rather than excitedly hunching over the algorithm, putting it in whatever they work on, is telltale sign that it's not as revolutionary as the gushing summary states.
Because the ISP can't tell what is being encrypted. Naturally, if torrents are throttled and encrypted streams aren't, then all P2P data sharing will move to encrypted.
The simulation part is very performance intensive, but the visualizations themselves look like something you could do with WebGL, or often, just some SVG and CSS. What are the thousands of cores used for? Not even a super-high resolution seems warranted, because of the continuity of material properties etc. Apparently the result is some 3D model which can be interactively rotated and zoomed, likely on a single local machine that takes direct input from the user, i.e. the thousands of cores don't even seem to do the real time part of the rendering.
I'm gonna whoosh on this but there was something about the approachability of computers for kids in the Commodore era. Kids of course including girl kids too. You took out a keyboard-sized device, plugged it in the wann and a tv, switched it on mechanically, and you were instantly greeted with a REPL prompt. There was no facebook or web or 'online', so you had a chance to explore what it does, do some programming initially with a book or magazine article on the side, and of course gaming.
Now, a kid has to wade through lots and lots of unappealing layers (the OS, installing some language, selecting its application etc.) and alternative diversions (social, slashdot etc.) and the programming part, to a beginner, can feel really artificial, they can't create anything like what surrounds them on the desktop.
So, in the past, using a personal computer typically meant programming, and the meaning first shifted to using Lotus / Excel / Word, then to just browsing. From programming, to content creation, to content consumption.
A 7 digit id can be a result of a rich, fulfilling professional and personal life (no time for slashdot posting; only reading when it was still worth it); he might also be a good listener who didn't speak up on first inclination (i.e. didn't need a user id). In the good old days the summaries were still bad, but there was enough meat in the discussion to reverse engineer what it was about. These days, I'd have to RTFA - I'm in the middle of the stream and still haven't an idea of what Apple did as optimization that was proprietary, not to mention how many other CPU patents there may be that will have a similar outcome. A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.
I suppose fracking can happen at random places. However, most of the land area in the US is characterized by lower than average socioeconomic status, as expressed on a per capita basis, for the simple reasons that cities tend to have higher population and higher per capita income. This way, even a random site selection leads to a bias in the welfare of the neighboring population. Add to this that fracking is more restricted in and around large cities.
While the study may have accounted for these factors, the linked abstract and the long article are silent on these.
And of course there may be a lot of other factors even if they have.
Slashdot Mirror
> We've got the assembler / disassembler, but are clueless as to how 99.9% of the code works
Maybe this is a significant component of the risks then?
> And why haven't terrorists used biological weapons successfully before if there is such a risk from them?
"And why haven't terrorists used large passenger planes successfully for killing thousands by collapsing multibillion dollar landmarks such as the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, if there's such a risk from them?"
-- everyone, till 9/10/2001
The difference is, biological can be far more devastating. Think about what 9/11 did to society, multiply the effect by 1000 and it's the end of liberal democracy as we know it.
According to US demographics projections, Caucasians will soon be a minority, period.
You can't make a conclusion about mean or average _excess_ speed, or prevalence of speeding on highways just by working with the population of all the measured drivers and the caught drivers. For there is a subgroup of drivers who successfully evade such measurements, e.g. by featuring radar-detection tools, obtaining info about speed detector locations, having the connection to erase records, favoring unmetered places or times etc. You can establish lower _bounds_ on speeding behavior but the _real_ numbers can be vastly different (e.g. some large multiple of the lower bounds, might be a small increment, or potentially some order of magnitude).
The GP's point is that, since conspiracies never uncovered weren't (and obviously couldn't) be included in the study, the whole exercise attempts to give the lowest bounds on how long it may take to have a conspiracy unravel. For example, take the climate change example from the study. Its higher range is 26.8 years. If, however, lots of conspiracies are never uncovered, then it means that, were they to be uncovered and included in the study, the number of years would probably become much larger. So we have an already pretty comfy 26.8 years for a conspiracy - a time span enough for the original conspirators to achieve their purpose, go through their productive lives till retirement and be comfortable, not to mention a lot of crimes aren't punishable after some number of years - and it is feasible that it's just a lower bound (again, because the hypothetical inclusion of uncovered conspiracies would imply reduced chance of finding out).
Yes, one can say that 'sure but working with the numbers of proven cases can still be representative'. Not really, because it's a _model_, and nobody proved this model, moreover, there may be systematic factors that separate successful and unsuccessful conspiracies which, in terms of metrics, would have the same input and output numbers in this specific study.
As an example, think of a group of 5 with small children vs. hardened criminals. It's more likely that the former group will not keep a secret for a day and the latter may stick to their wows forever. Same model, huge difference. So unfortunately this study is actually optimistic, because the stronger the reason for maintaining secrecy, the more likely it is that politicians, secret services, military and other, more resilient actors make up the conspiracy, and more likely that good planning went into keeping secrets within a small group (mafia organizations practice this art since forever). So as we move toward the more and more interesting and relevant conspiracies, so decreases the reliability of the proposed model.
I believe we can safely say that a conspiracy that stays secret for 4-27 years based on a small sample size study that obviously couldn't factor in uncovered conspiracies, it's not only believers of conspiracy theories who conclude that 'yeah, numbers support the sentiment that there can be vast conspiracies that go undetected during my lifetime, but for sure there's a large likelihood that a good number of conspiracies on crucial matters must be going on all time'.
I haven't RTFA but what's underwater specific about it? The haptic gloves stop working above sea level? If you have haptic gloves - basically a rendering device like a computer screen - you can show anything on it, like virtual objects in a 3D scene, or ... surface scenery, or cloud distributions (I mean old fashioned, floating clouds in the air) or even remote galaxies.The very definition of a rendering device is that you can render whatever you want, up to the constraints of the device (resolution etc.) which all have nothing to do with what is rendered.
Or node.js for non-blocking IO.
That would be U2
This. It's not even more sensational if it fails after 'seconds' rather than in a minute, so this is probably a routine journo hyperbole, the problem is, as you say, that they write without considering the target audience (i.e. they don't give a shit about them).
Birds use a simpler approach: no 3d modeling; they just respond to relative speed of edges on their retina.
This. While most replies assume it's okay for local responders to triage, it's just a waste of time. Even calling security adds a layer of indirection. In case of emergency, call 911 and then security - this way the ambulance will be on the road and security will still have ample time to give guidance to them.
The fact that people obviously versed in the art are commenting on Slashdot, rather than excitedly hunching over the algorithm, putting it in whatever they work on, is telltale sign that it's not as revolutionary as the gushing summary states.
Alphabet, the wholly owning subsidiary of Google
Why would anyone switch to encrypted if unencrypted packets get higher priority?
Because the ISP can't tell what is being encrypted. Naturally, if torrents are throttled and encrypted streams aren't, then all P2P data sharing will move to encrypted.
Thanks, got it!
The simulation part is very performance intensive, but the visualizations themselves look like something you could do with WebGL, or often, just some SVG and CSS. What are the thousands of cores used for? Not even a super-high resolution seems warranted, because of the continuity of material properties etc. Apparently the result is some 3D model which can be interactively rotated and zoomed, likely on a single local machine that takes direct input from the user, i.e. the thousands of cores don't even seem to do the real time part of the rendering.
...kjhwekfhciu876*&^8gjHGJt&T*&hjhVJHjhgj^*&*fjhjhbkjhpjvhgd
Doubles as a password.
I'm gonna whoosh on this but there was something about the approachability of computers for kids in the Commodore era. Kids of course including girl kids too. You took out a keyboard-sized device, plugged it in the wann and a tv, switched it on mechanically, and you were instantly greeted with a REPL prompt. There was no facebook or web or 'online', so you had a chance to explore what it does, do some programming initially with a book or magazine article on the side, and of course gaming.
Now, a kid has to wade through lots and lots of unappealing layers (the OS, installing some language, selecting its application etc.) and alternative diversions (social, slashdot etc.) and the programming part, to a beginner, can feel really artificial, they can't create anything like what surrounds them on the desktop.
So, in the past, using a personal computer typically meant programming, and the meaning first shifted to using Lotus / Excel / Word, then to just browsing. From programming, to content creation, to content consumption.
I see you waited with getting your six digit accout as long as you could :-)
No worries unless it turns out someone has another 249 patents like this, which actually isn't a lot of patents.
A 7 digit id can be a result of a rich, fulfilling professional and personal life (no time for slashdot posting; only reading when it was still worth it); he might also be a good listener who didn't speak up on first inclination (i.e. didn't need a user id). In the good old days the summaries were still bad, but there was enough meat in the discussion to reverse engineer what it was about. These days, I'd have to RTFA - I'm in the middle of the stream and still haven't an idea of what Apple did as optimization that was proprietary, not to mention how many other CPU patents there may be that will have a similar outcome. A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.
Why not call it .ORB?
> Someone tells them that in North American culture that extension carries a connotation they didn't realize.
What's that connotation? Nice, rolling discussion, but I don't know what the problem is with bro. Hell I'm being called bro by some dudes at work.
I suppose fracking can happen at random places. However, most of the land area in the US is characterized by lower than average socioeconomic status, as expressed on a per capita basis, for the simple reasons that cities tend to have higher population and higher per capita income. This way, even a random site selection leads to a bias in the welfare of the neighboring population. Add to this that fracking is more restricted in and around large cities.
While the study may have accounted for these factors, the linked abstract and the long article are silent on these.
And of course there may be a lot of other factors even if they have.
What's a stomp rocket?