yes, most students have `learned' that the socialization and credentialization are all that matters.
on the other hand, that shouldn't have any bearing on how you conduct yourself (although, yeah, it's piss-annoying).
then again you may also, frankly, be a faulty observer. i have no experience with either UC Berkeley or community college. i went to a freaky liberal arts college for undergrad, worked like a demon on mathematics and research, and have done... mostly fine.
Anyway, I think that was an "eye phone", which I guess was a combined HUD and... phone? Well it doesn't make any less sense than the rest of the movie. It was a fun cheesy movie though.
That's true but sort of the converse of what I was trying to say. Sorry for the confusion. I agree that a government could do this, but I don't see how it's necessarily too complicated for a group of skilled and motivated activists.
What I meant was, hacking doesn't take particle accelerators or other expensive components. Even if you had the information from the manhattan project, you'd need roomfuls of specialized and dangerous equipment and materials and a large diversely trained staff.
All you need for something like stuxnet is a smaller group of the "right" people and the right information, and maybe a hatful of money for PCs and some specialized hardware. I mean, I personally know people who do static analysis of computer viruses for fun. This doesn't make them virus writers - it makes them better than virus writers, if given enough time to adapt their reverse-engineering skills to reverse-reverse-engineering. Put them in a room with one or two hardware and microcode engineers with knowledge of the target Siemens chip, and I don't see how this project would not basically write itself in a month or so. What am I missing here?
It doesn't require state or massive corporate investment, so I don't see the basis for ruling out the hypothesis of a group of hacker/security activists.
no, of course they aren't omnipotent gods, but on the other hand you don't need to be a god to cause serious damage to human beings. you just need to be intelligent; properly specialized; and oddly motivated. fortunately, the old "pick two of three" rule seems to apply here.:)
I do personally know some security professionals whom I suspect would have a pretty good shot at something like this, if they were both unethical and had a little bit of inside knowledge.
admittedly, most of what i know about US gov't cybersecurity is what i read on slashdot which tends to be negative. so i am biased there. still, it's a bit hasty to assign credit to a state. small groups of the right people could get a lot done. i mean, all you need is the information; this isn't the manhattan project.
I think that the serious hacking groups could totally pwn the United States on "cybersecurity" if they bothered.
It pains me to say, that maybe we've forgotten the power of individuals and small groups being dedicated to causes which are directly connected to neither State initiatives, nor immediate profit.
The sad thing is that they really are that open, more often than not. People eat that shit up. There is something alluring about being "in on an open secret," especially a profitable one. It tends to turn off critical thinking and activate denial.
I've seen many auditing/unofficially visiting students who contribute more to the class discussion than the "paying" students. After all, they are a pretty damned self-selecting group. Of course maybe this only applies to the more academic/fundamental courses. Not many people crash a quantum computation class looking for a quick buck. Intro to Java may be different.
I still think that any interloper who actually steals time in such a manner as you describe, would be asked to leave in short order.
Woe betide any society which identifies academia with training.
i was wondering about this. there is a correspondence at least between certain statistical models, and physical machines. That is, the magnitude of a squared-error penalty term can be represented as torque by placing weights (corresponding to data) appropriately along a lever. The machine will find the minimum energy solution (which corresponds to the maximum-likelihood estimator = the mean). I am pretty sure that certain bayesian models (which can be elaborate enough to do some heavy lifting) can be realized as physical objects (=analog computers) with the right connections and counter-weights.
And at that point, yeah, using a non-least-squares model basically means a machine operating under imaginary physical laws (i.e. the energy minimization occurs on a probability space with no physical analogue). What's the big difference?
My point is, there are many algorithms whose physical machine instantiations would be possible to build, but horrendously inefficient and fantastical. Does this discredit the algorithm somehow?
It'd be nice if the various foo-modes' syntax highlighting updated immediately. I get a little bit of anxiety everytime I open a quote, since if I don't close it immediately, the whole subsequent buffer will stay pink for up to 10 seconds after I close it. I am guessing this is an intrinsic limitation in the hooking backend of emacs; either that, or every foo-mode was based on the crappy C-mode, and inherited its mistakes.
Also it'd be great if the line-number-mode didn't crap itself upon opening a file larger than O(10K) lines. This really baffles me, because M-x count-lines still works and M-x goto-line still works. The only thing is that the line indicator at the status bar says "L??". This problem has persisted for years.
I'd also be grateful if the configuration interface were smoothed out a bit. It took an hour for me to learn how to change the typeface for various modes, and I still don't totally get it. This has gotten a lot better recently, but it's still a little weird, to the beginner, to have to jump through so many hoops just to change the font. It could be presented much more cleanly.
Also, it's worth noting that anti-aliasing sat around half-finished for nearly a decade. Another bug they recently fixed was an immediate hard crash, if you resized a frame past the edge of window.
So yeah, for something three decades old and up to version 23(!), emacs has a shocking number of gotchas. That it's still the best editor in existence is a testament to its basic design goals and philosophy, but man it could sure use some brushing up...
Everyone is genetically predisposed to suboptimal performance, and retardation (in either the popular or technical sense) doesn't a priori mean anything about genetics.
Really, "retard" is interesting. First, it harkens back to the naive days when either psychometrics were meant to identify who needed more help (as opposed to who was better); or the whole "helping people" was just a smoke-screen or white-wash from the beginning.
More interestingly, like most labels for "low intelligence", it started out as a technical term and became a slang term with a generalized meaning. Notably all of these slang terms are interchangable and seem to have a consistent, although vague, interpretation. This suggests to me that formalizations of intelligence and ability are not totally inadequate for day-to-day use (that is, they are best interpreted statistically as correlations and aggregate predictors). There are plenty of smart retards, and even though that's an apparent oxymoron, I'm pretty sure you have an idea of what I'm getting at.
The sad thing is the lack of specificity about "retard" and its kin. Since intelligence is probably a sum total of many individual contributions (as evinced by its gaussian distribution), it's just lazy to insult someone's intelligence as opposed to singling out the specific failing contributing to the offense. (An exception can be made perhaps for those at the very end of the curve, true geniuses like von Neumann or Einstein, but I hardly think they would need to point it out). It's better and more civilized to insult those specific failings which are relevant to the offense at hand. It is more clear and provides better feedback to the fuckwit who just shat in your punch bowl.
Yeah... I realized this flaw just after posting. So it's not "exactly" the same way and I'm sorry for this. But the reduction of sucrose to fructose; and the reduction of fructose itself, may interact on the biological level. At the very least we can't a priori exclude the possibility.
Anyway, we can agree that saying sucrose is "50% fructose" is just dumb.
Cane sugar is 50% fructose, in exactly the same way that baking soda (NaHCO3) is 50% lye (NaOH).
PROTIP: if you want to retry this troll, replace "sugar" with "honey". Honey is ~40% fructose, ~30% glucose. Bonus credit if you start calling honey "medium fructose bee syrup".
And that poorly scaled image of Isaac Newton by the author's name. Classy.
Thanks for the quick laffs. "In that paper I tied James Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to Albert Einstein and Max Planck’s quantum of electromagnetic energy concept. Those papers can be found circulating the internet." BWA HA HA!
It is different. A postal mailbox doesn't have a button hidden behind the hinge of the front door which, unless you press it, will publish the fronts of your envelopes (but only the fronts, anything more would be invasive y'see) and summary statistics on mail received, in the Orangeville Residents' Bulletin and Book of Faces.
OK it's not a perfect analogy, and maybe it's not fundamentally different, but online life has more gotchas than what meets the eye. Privacy and forgetting have to be engineered in; there aren't physical limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, most students have `learned' that the socialization and credentialization are all that matters.
on the other hand, that shouldn't have any bearing on how you conduct yourself (although, yeah, it's piss-annoying).
then again you may also, frankly, be a faulty observer. i have no experience with either UC Berkeley or community college. i went to a freaky liberal arts college for undergrad, worked like a demon on mathematics and research, and have done... mostly fine.
it has none.
Anyway, I think that was an "eye phone", which I guess was a combined HUD and ... phone? Well it doesn't make any less sense than the rest of the movie. It was a fun cheesy movie though.
That's true but sort of the converse of what I was trying to say. Sorry for the confusion. I agree that a government could do this, but I don't see how it's necessarily too complicated for a group of skilled and motivated activists.
What I meant was, hacking doesn't take particle accelerators or other expensive components. Even if you had the information from the manhattan project, you'd need roomfuls of specialized and dangerous equipment and materials and a large diversely trained staff.
All you need for something like stuxnet is a smaller group of the "right" people and the right information, and maybe a hatful of money for PCs and some specialized hardware. I mean, I personally know people who do static analysis of computer viruses for fun. This doesn't make them virus writers - it makes them better than virus writers, if given enough time to adapt their reverse-engineering skills to reverse-reverse-engineering. Put them in a room with one or two hardware and microcode engineers with knowledge of the target Siemens chip, and I don't see how this project would not basically write itself in a month or so. What am I missing here?
It doesn't require state or massive corporate investment, so I don't see the basis for ruling out the hypothesis of a group of hacker/security activists.
no, of course they aren't omnipotent gods, but on the other hand you don't need to be a god to cause serious damage to human beings. you just need to be intelligent; properly specialized; and oddly motivated. fortunately, the old "pick two of three" rule seems to apply here. :)
I do personally know some security professionals whom I suspect would have a pretty good shot at something like this, if they were both unethical and had a little bit of inside knowledge.
admittedly, most of what i know about US gov't cybersecurity is what i read on slashdot which tends to be negative. so i am biased there. still, it's a bit hasty to assign credit to a state. small groups of the right people could get a lot done. i mean, all you need is the information; this isn't the manhattan project.
I think that the serious hacking groups could totally pwn the United States on "cybersecurity" if they bothered.
It pains me to say, that maybe we've forgotten the power of individuals and small groups being dedicated to causes which are directly connected to neither State initiatives, nor immediate profit.
The sad thing is that they really are that open, more often than not. People eat that shit up. There is something alluring about being "in on an open secret," especially a profitable one. It tends to turn off critical thinking and activate denial.
I've seen many auditing/unofficially visiting students who contribute more to the class discussion than the "paying" students. After all, they are a pretty damned self-selecting group. Of course maybe this only applies to the more academic/fundamental courses. Not many people crash a quantum computation class looking for a quick buck. Intro to Java may be different.
I still think that any interloper who actually steals time in such a manner as you describe, would be asked to leave in short order.
Woe betide any society which identifies academia with training.
in a sense, no. you can almost always make a mockup that doesn't need it, and then hire some slaves to actually build the thing.
good coursework would help with getting good ideas but if you want to make money, I think you're better off with the mediocre ones anyway.
so it's a physical drm token for the unbutchered audio.
one which, itself, introduces noise and discrepancies.
yeah, perfectly reasonable.
distractions from the serious business of slashdot, of course.
i'll take this comment in a positive light. :) could you elaborate on the connection with descartes, please?
filler text. i'm really just posting my sig.
:)
23 minor versions then.
This really only makes it worse.
i was wondering about this. there is a correspondence at least between certain statistical models, and physical machines. That is, the magnitude of a squared-error penalty term can be represented as torque by placing weights (corresponding to data) appropriately along a lever. The machine will find the minimum energy solution (which corresponds to the maximum-likelihood estimator = the mean). I am pretty sure that certain bayesian models (which can be elaborate enough to do some heavy lifting) can be realized as physical objects (=analog computers) with the right connections and counter-weights.
And at that point, yeah, using a non-least-squares model basically means a machine operating under imaginary physical laws (i.e. the energy minimization occurs on a probability space with no physical analogue). What's the big difference?
My point is, there are many algorithms whose physical machine instantiations would be possible to build, but horrendously inefficient and fantastical. Does this discredit the algorithm somehow?
Yeah, and now imagine that even after you close the tag, the narcoleptic editor doesn't realize it for a few more seconds.
I'm participating in the contest. The training set is 100 months; the test set is months 101-105.
It'd be nice if the various foo-modes' syntax highlighting updated immediately. I get a little bit of anxiety everytime I open a quote, since if I don't close it immediately, the whole subsequent buffer will stay pink for up to 10 seconds after I close it. I am guessing this is an intrinsic limitation in the hooking backend of emacs; either that, or every foo-mode was based on the crappy C-mode, and inherited its mistakes.
Also it'd be great if the line-number-mode didn't crap itself upon opening a file larger than O(10K) lines. This really baffles me, because M-x count-lines still works and M-x goto-line still works. The only thing is that the line indicator at the status bar says "L??". This problem has persisted for years.
I'd also be grateful if the configuration interface were smoothed out a bit. It took an hour for me to learn how to change the typeface for various modes, and I still don't totally get it. This has gotten a lot better recently, but it's still a little weird, to the beginner, to have to jump through so many hoops just to change the font. It could be presented much more cleanly.
Also, it's worth noting that anti-aliasing sat around half-finished for nearly a decade. Another bug they recently fixed was an immediate hard crash, if you resized a frame past the edge of window.
So yeah, for something three decades old and up to version 23(!), emacs has a shocking number of gotchas. That it's still the best editor in existence is a testament to its basic design goals and philosophy, but man it could sure use some brushing up...
Everyone is genetically predisposed to suboptimal performance, and retardation (in either the popular or technical sense) doesn't a priori mean anything about genetics.
Really, "retard" is interesting. First, it harkens back to the naive days when either psychometrics were meant to identify who needed more help (as opposed to who was better); or the whole "helping people" was just a smoke-screen or white-wash from the beginning.
More interestingly, like most labels for "low intelligence", it started out as a technical term and became a slang term with a generalized meaning. Notably all of these slang terms are interchangable and seem to have a consistent, although vague, interpretation. This suggests to me that formalizations of intelligence and ability are not totally inadequate for day-to-day use (that is, they are best interpreted statistically as correlations and aggregate predictors). There are plenty of smart retards, and even though that's an apparent oxymoron, I'm pretty sure you have an idea of what I'm getting at.
The sad thing is the lack of specificity about "retard" and its kin. Since intelligence is probably a sum total of many individual contributions (as evinced by its gaussian distribution), it's just lazy to insult someone's intelligence as opposed to singling out the specific failing contributing to the offense. (An exception can be made perhaps for those at the very end of the curve, true geniuses like von Neumann or Einstein, but I hardly think they would need to point it out). It's better and more civilized to insult those specific failings which are relevant to the offense at hand. It is more clear and provides better feedback to the fuckwit who just shat in your punch bowl.
Base 1.01 - when you need to make drastic improvements fast.
Point taken. I should have said "in a similar way" instead.
See also my above reply.
Yeah... I realized this flaw just after posting. So it's not "exactly" the same way and I'm sorry for this. But the reduction of sucrose to fructose; and the reduction of fructose itself, may interact on the biological level. At the very least we can't a priori exclude the possibility.
Anyway, we can agree that saying sucrose is "50% fructose" is just dumb.
The possibilities are endless. This substance, although widely believed by experts to be safe, is a byproduct of the combustion of rocket fuel!
Cane sugar is 50% fructose, in exactly the same way that baking soda (NaHCO3) is 50% lye (NaOH).
PROTIP: if you want to retry this troll, replace "sugar" with "honey". Honey is ~40% fructose, ~30% glucose. Bonus credit if you start calling honey "medium fructose bee syrup".
HTH.
And that poorly scaled image of Isaac Newton by the author's name. Classy.
Thanks for the quick laffs. "In that paper I tied James Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to Albert Einstein and Max Planck’s quantum of electromagnetic energy concept. Those papers can be found circulating the internet." BWA HA HA!
It is different. A postal mailbox doesn't have a button hidden behind the hinge of the front door which, unless you press it, will publish the fronts of your envelopes (but only the fronts, anything more would be invasive y'see) and summary statistics on mail received, in the Orangeville Residents' Bulletin and Book of Faces.
OK it's not a perfect analogy, and maybe it's not fundamentally different, but online life has more gotchas than what meets the eye. Privacy and forgetting have to be engineered in; there aren't physical limitations.