Intergraph's workstation business died before SGI was in real trouble. Intergraph had spent $1B on their workstations and wound up with a buggy (due to Intel) machine that went for $20k, while at the time most people could get an Octane for that same price. The only people who bought Intergraph workstations were people who bought Intergraph software, so there wasn't any overlap in markets through the 90s. In fact, we often used the Intergraph example as why you should buy an SGI workstation.
3dfx didn't run OpenGL at all. 3dfx ran Glide. At the time, Glide was far superior to OpenGL because it was almost direct to hardware, vs. OpenGL's abstraction layers, which further complicated things since game developers often assumed that a rendering feature was supported by hardware, when it wasn't. Games were written for Glide. 3dfx had 80-85% of the 3d accelerator market from 1995-2000. It was 3dfx's capabilities that opened the eyes of our team and all of our customers that PCs were ready for a lot of what O2, Octane, and even Onyx computers could do. (Search on the Voodoo and the Voodoo2.)
Windows NT, launched in 1993 while SGI sales were still rising. If anything, the work in porting from Irix to WindowsNT caused people to stay with Irix. You could list NuTCRACKER, released in 1998(?), was a catalyst, but NT itself was not.
Pentium Pro was a good chip - that's why SGI used it in some of their low end server offerings. However, the Pentium Pro suffered from a hobbled floating point pipeline - running about half as fast as MIPS and SPARC risc cpus. So, the Pentium Pro did not encroach at all on SGI's core business.
NVidia was there to pick up the pieces, but at the time it was one of many PC graphics card manufacturers. NVidia didn't have a market leading card until the TNT/GeForce releases in 1999/2000.
Don't know why you're getting all the hate, but I have squashed my share of dumb ideas. I love it when new people come in and instantly know what we should change.
The SGI story above just isn't true. In fact, SGI bosses there typically said "yes," costing the company billions, and in my opinion, causing it's ultimate (1st) downfall.
NVidia:
First off, NVidia was founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang (from LSI and AMD), Chris Malachowsky (from Sun), and Curtis Priem (from Sun). None of these guys worked at SGI. Yes, there were trickles of engineers who left SGI to go to NVidia - and 3dfx, Quantum3d, ATI, and E&S. The mass exodus of SGI engineers to NVidia did not happen until 1999, and that was a byproduct of SGI imploding. You might be thinking of 1997 and Quantum3d, but that was SGI execs not developers who helped that spinoff.
SGI Did Build PC Graphics Cards and PC Graphics Workstations:
Throughout the 1990s, engineers at SGI kept pushing the PC-graphics solution. Probably the first one, IrisVision, was introduced in 1991 as an offshoot of IBM licensing the Personal Iris tech for their PowerStation. The really important byproduct of this effort was converting IRIS GL into OpenGL. SGI knew OpenGL could cost them workstations but saw the future of PC graphics. IrisVision wasn't successful, mainly because of the PCI port speed. So, SGI engineers sold management on making their own motherboard. Which they did, and the SGI 320 and 540 Visual Workstations were begun and finally launched in 1999 to a cost of approx. $300million. These were great machines with tremendous capabilities, and were met with strong initial demand. However, each rev to CPU or memory or PCI required an incredible amount of work and SGI's advantages were quickly surpassed by AGP 2.0. So, SGI scrambled to find a more sustainable solution. Intergraph, who had made similar blunders (building their own motherboard in the 1990s, for an estimated engineering cost of $1billion), sold their workstation business to SGI in 2000 for $100m.
SGI - The company where Bosses never said "no"
I worked there for a short time, and worked closely with them through the 1990s. I use them as an example of the value of middle management. Engineers were constantly coming up with ideas, and frequently those ideas would go right to the top. "Instead of releasing Performer, let's add new features" "Let's build rides for DisneyQuest" "Let's try a completely new process to build the next InfiniteReality cards" "I know, let's make a whole new kernel and include every feature we can think of" "Let's compete against the WinIntel machine and build our own motherboard." There were tons of great engineers who tried in vain to throttle some of this, but the execs would treat any idea as gold - especially those that had nothing to do with the core business. Some were just ahead of their time, like IrisVision and Infrastructure As A Service so I don't fault them on that, but when you spend 80% of your attention on new ideas, your core business just goes away.
By the way, the real boom in 3d graphics was the Voodoo cards from 3dfx and then the spinoff tech in Quantum3d. Those cards were the reason why game developers built 3d games. But, they, and the majority of the other PC graphic card manufacturers, eventually ceded the market to NVidia and ATI.
Liberals, put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you deny when life begins? Scientists point to conception. No scientist says that the third trimester has any event as significant. Abortion is (scientifically and semantically) murder, but we choose a non-scientific event to say what is morally and legally acceptable.
When I "deny" Global Warming (oops - I mean Global Climate Change), I am simply asserting that it isn't "settled science." Sure, CO2 levels rising is scary, but is it as scary as the 1970 fuel shortage or the 2008 housing crisis? Why don't the predictions hold true? Why are the headlines false? For example, you all know the ice caps are melting. But in fact, that's only the Arctic. 2014 saw record Antarctic ice, and 2016 is running just a bit above average. Islands going under? Sure, some are going away. But a recent study says that while 20% have eroded, 40% have stayed the same size while 40% have gained.
No, it's like going to a safe company and saying "hey - disable that mechanism for this safe that causes it to self destruct."
"That's just like what we make other safe manufacturers do, and what we have safe deposit boxes do, and what we have for all telecom equipment. I know you're the best safe company in the world and we just have this little old court order and it's part of your responsibility for being an American company (and by the way, can you onshore some of those profits you've been squirreling away in China and perhaps think about hiring some Americans to build the safes)"
Or, I suppose for the members of the Slashdot community, it's like saying "hey, Apple sucks and you're all a bunch of losers and we want to control your lives by screening every pixel on your monitor and we want to kick your dog while we go through your desk which will cause the end of civilization"
Clearly, the people on Slashdot are on the side of privacy over all else.
But how does illogical, hyperbolic reasoning like this (and other similar alarmist posts) keep getting modded up?
Tim Cook is now protecting the gays? And somehow if you're for the FBI being able to access a phone, with the owner's permission and under a warrant and followed up by a court order, then why would you want a PIN anyway?
As Tim Cook said recently, "You probably have as much private information on your phone as you do in your house." Maybe - and the police have full, legal, and acceptable procedures for going into someone's house and looking for evidence.
The idea that something that's been created in the past 1 or 2 years is now the one and only thing that is protecting civilization is an argument only the very young can make. It's a phone. If being caught being gay is a threat to your life, don't put it on instagram.
Yes, the government can compel Apple to write code. The government can compel Ford to make a truck that gets 30MPG, compel a mining company to dig another shaft to let air into a mine, and make me pay for health insurance I do not want. If you think the direction the country is going in is to have more freedom than the past, you are sorely wrong.
Case in point - the government's suit against Microsoft and their inclusion of Internet Explorer bundled tightly with Windows. The terms of the settlement included Microsoft having to divulge all internal APIs and allow 3 people to have access to all their code. Microsoft wrote a ton of software to isolate IE from the OS in order to minimize exposed APIs.
In many other cases, companies have had to write scripts, etc. in order to search their systems for data.
What is the extent of the government's power? Well, we have three branches of government that figure all of that out for us. Currently, all three agree with the FBI. When the abuse is too much, we have the right to petition and make changes. But Apple, in this case, is on the wrong side of history.
"Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? "
That's what I'm referring to - breaking into an iPhone leads us to recording conversations. No judge in the US would ever use this case as precedence to tracking locations.
It's old vs. young. The youth in America trust for-profit companies more than the government and the young have some fantastic association of themselves with the devices they bought from a store.
Apple's main argument is one of conspiracy and conjecture - if we do it this one time (with a Judge's order) then we'll have to do it whenever the police ask, and the keys will fall into the wrong hands and anyone can break into an iPhone.
It's an iPhone. It's not your soul. It's not even your DNA or your fingerprints. Breaking open one phone does not cause the end of civilization because you know what?
Really? You honestly look at the ychart data that you point to and say "Yep, unemployment is going down????" It was at 3.0% in April (when the increase to $11 / hour took effect) and as of December is at 4.2%. In 2 months, the new minimum will be $13, and I'm sure there will be another surge of unemployment.
Compare this to any other city in the US. Let's pick San Francisco, since that's where our "victim" lives. San Francisco unemployment has actually dropped since April - from 3.4% to 3.3%.
Now if you're truly interested in looking at data, and how the increases in minimum wage increase unemployment, you can start with the CBO study on raising the minimum wage to $10.10, or many of the other studies that show that minorities - especially those in high unemployment urban areas - are severely impacted by raises to the minimum wage
In the case of San Francisco specifically, do you think there are large tracts of land with available space, utilities, and infrastructure to build a significant amount of housing?
There's a lot of information out there - a lot of people have studied this issue specifically - there is a tremendous difference between $7 and $8. This is not a captive market - where do you think Yelp gets their money from?
Your logic presupposes two assumptions that I do not agree with, and draws a conclusion that ignores the downside. On the whole, $25 minimum wage is unsupportable.
First, someone on minimum wage should not expect to be living in an apartment on the own - driving a car. I'm not sure when it came to pass that minimum wage was equated to a living wage, but Pres. Obama seemed to draw that conclusion with his $10.10 minimum wage - the figure he uses that would provide a worker with the funds for themself and two dependents.
Second, life in Tennessee is different from life in San Francisco. The folks in Knoxville chose to have lower taxes, less social services, etc. to fit their life choices, just as the folks in San Francisco choose to have very high taxes. The people who own the buildings there choose to offer their apartments at high rents because people are desperate enough to pay them. Food is expensive there because the workers want exotic food.
Your conclusion that $25/hour fixes a lot of things is short sighted. Sure, it would make some of the lowest paid workers there happy for awhile, but Yelp and other employers would do one of two things: either reduce their workforce or move it entirely somewhere else. And rents for everyone would go up. As would tolls, gas prices, etc.
For evidence on layoffs, look what's happening in Seattle - as there minimum wage goes up (beyond what the market used to support), unemployment is going up. That's right - while the national and even regional unemployment numbers are approaching record lows, unemployment in Seattle is increasing.
It's all supply and demand. If more workers can now afford the $1600 rent, there will be a shortage of apartments and owners will charge more. They will have to charge more because their burger prices went up so that the restaurant can pay their busboys $25/hour.
I hate it when people jump in and claim what I said was misguided when they clearly don't understand what (in this case) the Judge ordered Apple to do.
The judge ordered Apple to provide a mechanism to disable the self destruct, and an electronic method to enter in the pin. The desire is also there to get rid of the delay between pin submissions.
Go to the app store. Get the Waze app. Proof that Apple sells your location.
Want more proof that Apple themselves do this? Do a job search for data mining at Apple.
I'm not a lawyer. Or a judge. However, the judge that did hear the arguments sided with the FBI.
Regardless, I'm surprised how cracking this one phone leads to the demise of liberty. Up until a year ago, all iPhones were decryptable. Somehow, over the course of 12 months civilization itself rests on Apple's new lock-out feature.
Apple can dress this up all they like, but they're a company that sells your location, mines your e-mail, selects which music you listen to, and makes a tidy profit from all of that.
The idea that somehow one's iPhone now contains your soul and that should be exempt from a court ordered search underscores how Tim Cook views Apple's place in your life.
This isn't about some unreasonable search and seizure - some mass collect of phone records - some abstract "what will happen next?" This is a specific request for a specific iPhone that a judge has deemed within the constitutionality of the United States.
I am mystified by the support that Apple is garnering. I am surprised that young people today trust a for-profit multi-national corporation more than a federal judge. I am curious why Apple is thinking that if they break open this one phone, then all the security dominoes fall and civilization is left in ruins.
Machine learning is a pretty big field. What other subjects do you like? That will definitely help figure out what part of Machine Learning would be more interesting to you.
Statistics: The core of conceptual clustering is finding data that relate to each other. Both supervised (you define the concepts and say what the data is) and unsupervised (the machine identifies clusters based on proximity to each other) are heavy into using all of those statistics functions on your calculator.
Probability: Bayes Nets are the core of diagnosis and analysis. Deriving Bayes net from real world data is a huge problem area.
Puzzles/Shortest Path/Graphs: Machine planning or game theory is less math intensive. The idea is that you may not know if you've "won" until you've reached the end of a bunch of steps - like learning a card game. You may win a trick / hand but lose the game.
Relying on SSL/SSH only protects the socket between you and the server that you're talking to - which may not be the server that you think you're talking to. You are including a whole lot of stuff in your trust circle.
Now if you meant use OpenSSL or similar libraries for your encryption core, then I agree.
From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade
"Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement."
So, after all of this, it's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that's the evil guy and there are 322 (and counting) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article (including me until just now).
In 2007, the U.S. exported 991 tonnes of sug1r beet for $76,000.
In 2007, the U.S. exported 373 tonnes of sugar cane for $190,000.
In 2007, the U.S. exported 103,138 tonnes of processed sugar for $391m.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx
Slashdot Mirror
Nope
Intergraph's workstation business died before SGI was in real trouble. Intergraph had spent $1B on their workstations and wound up with a buggy (due to Intel) machine that went for $20k, while at the time most people could get an Octane for that same price. The only people who bought Intergraph workstations were people who bought Intergraph software, so there wasn't any overlap in markets through the 90s. In fact, we often used the Intergraph example as why you should buy an SGI workstation.
3dfx didn't run OpenGL at all. 3dfx ran Glide. At the time, Glide was far superior to OpenGL because it was almost direct to hardware, vs. OpenGL's abstraction layers, which further complicated things since game developers often assumed that a rendering feature was supported by hardware, when it wasn't. Games were written for Glide. 3dfx had 80-85% of the 3d accelerator market from 1995-2000. It was 3dfx's capabilities that opened the eyes of our team and all of our customers that PCs were ready for a lot of what O2, Octane, and even Onyx computers could do. (Search on the Voodoo and the Voodoo2.)
Windows NT, launched in 1993 while SGI sales were still rising. If anything, the work in porting from Irix to WindowsNT caused people to stay with Irix. You could list NuTCRACKER, released in 1998(?), was a catalyst, but NT itself was not.
Pentium Pro was a good chip - that's why SGI used it in some of their low end server offerings. However, the Pentium Pro suffered from a hobbled floating point pipeline - running about half as fast as MIPS and SPARC risc cpus. So, the Pentium Pro did not encroach at all on SGI's core business.
NVidia was there to pick up the pieces, but at the time it was one of many PC graphics card manufacturers. NVidia didn't have a market leading card until the TNT/GeForce releases in 1999/2000.
On one of my early evaluations, I got a "too creative" comment. Now I just use my creativity on Easter Eggs that the bosses don't see.
Don't know why you're getting all the hate, but I have squashed my share of dumb ideas. I love it when new people come in and instantly know what we should change.
Success is 99% hard work and 1% innovation.
The SGI story above just isn't true. In fact, SGI bosses there typically said "yes," costing the company billions, and in my opinion, causing it's ultimate (1st) downfall. NVidia: First off, NVidia was founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang (from LSI and AMD), Chris Malachowsky (from Sun), and Curtis Priem (from Sun). None of these guys worked at SGI. Yes, there were trickles of engineers who left SGI to go to NVidia - and 3dfx, Quantum3d, ATI, and E&S. The mass exodus of SGI engineers to NVidia did not happen until 1999, and that was a byproduct of SGI imploding. You might be thinking of 1997 and Quantum3d, but that was SGI execs not developers who helped that spinoff. SGI Did Build PC Graphics Cards and PC Graphics Workstations: Throughout the 1990s, engineers at SGI kept pushing the PC-graphics solution. Probably the first one, IrisVision, was introduced in 1991 as an offshoot of IBM licensing the Personal Iris tech for their PowerStation. The really important byproduct of this effort was converting IRIS GL into OpenGL. SGI knew OpenGL could cost them workstations but saw the future of PC graphics. IrisVision wasn't successful, mainly because of the PCI port speed. So, SGI engineers sold management on making their own motherboard. Which they did, and the SGI 320 and 540 Visual Workstations were begun and finally launched in 1999 to a cost of approx. $300million. These were great machines with tremendous capabilities, and were met with strong initial demand. However, each rev to CPU or memory or PCI required an incredible amount of work and SGI's advantages were quickly surpassed by AGP 2.0. So, SGI scrambled to find a more sustainable solution. Intergraph, who had made similar blunders (building their own motherboard in the 1990s, for an estimated engineering cost of $1billion), sold their workstation business to SGI in 2000 for $100m. SGI - The company where Bosses never said "no" I worked there for a short time, and worked closely with them through the 1990s. I use them as an example of the value of middle management. Engineers were constantly coming up with ideas, and frequently those ideas would go right to the top. "Instead of releasing Performer, let's add new features" "Let's build rides for DisneyQuest" "Let's try a completely new process to build the next InfiniteReality cards" "I know, let's make a whole new kernel and include every feature we can think of" "Let's compete against the WinIntel machine and build our own motherboard." There were tons of great engineers who tried in vain to throttle some of this, but the execs would treat any idea as gold - especially those that had nothing to do with the core business. Some were just ahead of their time, like IrisVision and Infrastructure As A Service so I don't fault them on that, but when you spend 80% of your attention on new ideas, your core business just goes away. By the way, the real boom in 3d graphics was the Voodoo cards from 3dfx and then the spinoff tech in Quantum3d. Those cards were the reason why game developers built 3d games. But, they, and the majority of the other PC graphic card manufacturers, eventually ceded the market to NVidia and ATI.
In fact, if there were a Stingray or other Fake Cell Phone then the protestors' batteries would last longer than usual because it would be closer.
Why does Slashdot keep posting this fake news?
Liberals, put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you deny when life begins? Scientists point to conception. No scientist says that the third trimester has any event as significant. Abortion is (scientifically and semantically) murder, but we choose a non-scientific event to say what is morally and legally acceptable.
When I "deny" Global Warming (oops - I mean Global Climate Change), I am simply asserting that it isn't "settled science." Sure, CO2 levels rising is scary, but is it as scary as the 1970 fuel shortage or the 2008 housing crisis? Why don't the predictions hold true? Why are the headlines false? For example, you all know the ice caps are melting. But in fact, that's only the Arctic. 2014 saw record Antarctic ice, and 2016 is running just a bit above average. Islands going under? Sure, some are going away. But a recent study says that while 20% have eroded, 40% have stayed the same size while 40% have gained.
That's some pretty strong fiber. So there are worse things than just getting fired.
No, it's like going to a safe company and saying "hey - disable that mechanism for this safe that causes it to self destruct."
"That's just like what we make other safe manufacturers do, and what we have safe deposit boxes do, and what we have for all telecom equipment. I know you're the best safe company in the world and we just have this little old court order and it's part of your responsibility for being an American company (and by the way, can you onshore some of those profits you've been squirreling away in China and perhaps think about hiring some Americans to build the safes)"
Or, I suppose for the members of the Slashdot community, it's like saying "hey, Apple sucks and you're all a bunch of losers and we want to control your lives by screening every pixel on your monitor and we want to kick your dog while we go through your desk which will cause the end of civilization"
Clearly, the people on Slashdot are on the side of privacy over all else.
But how does illogical, hyperbolic reasoning like this (and other similar alarmist posts) keep getting modded up?
Tim Cook is now protecting the gays? And somehow if you're for the FBI being able to access a phone, with the owner's permission and under a warrant and followed up by a court order, then why would you want a PIN anyway?
As Tim Cook said recently, "You probably have as much private information on your phone as you do in your house." Maybe - and the police have full, legal, and acceptable procedures for going into someone's house and looking for evidence.
The idea that something that's been created in the past 1 or 2 years is now the one and only thing that is protecting civilization is an argument only the very young can make. It's a phone. If being caught being gay is a threat to your life, don't put it on instagram.
Yes, the government can compel Apple to write code. The government can compel Ford to make a truck that gets 30MPG, compel a mining company to dig another shaft to let air into a mine, and make me pay for health insurance I do not want. If you think the direction the country is going in is to have more freedom than the past, you are sorely wrong.
Case in point - the government's suit against Microsoft and their inclusion of Internet Explorer bundled tightly with Windows. The terms of the settlement included Microsoft having to divulge all internal APIs and allow 3 people to have access to all their code. Microsoft wrote a ton of software to isolate IE from the OS in order to minimize exposed APIs.
In many other cases, companies have had to write scripts, etc. in order to search their systems for data.
What is the extent of the government's power? Well, we have three branches of government that figure all of that out for us. Currently, all three agree with the FBI. When the abuse is too much, we have the right to petition and make changes. But Apple, in this case, is on the wrong side of history.
From Apple's Open Letter:
"Second, the order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? "
That's what I'm referring to - breaking into an iPhone leads us to recording conversations. No judge in the US would ever use this case as precedence to tracking locations.
It's old vs. young. The youth in America trust for-profit companies more than the government and the young have some fantastic association of themselves with the devices they bought from a store.
Apple's main argument is one of conspiracy and conjecture - if we do it this one time (with a Judge's order) then we'll have to do it whenever the police ask, and the keys will fall into the wrong hands and anyone can break into an iPhone.
It's an iPhone. It's not your soul. It's not even your DNA or your fingerprints. Breaking open one phone does not cause the end of civilization because you know what?
The iPhone 7 is coming out soon.
Really? You honestly look at the ychart data that you point to and say "Yep, unemployment is going down????" It was at 3.0% in April (when the increase to $11 / hour took effect) and as of December is at 4.2%. In 2 months, the new minimum will be $13, and I'm sure there will be another surge of unemployment. Compare this to any other city in the US. Let's pick San Francisco, since that's where our "victim" lives. San Francisco unemployment has actually dropped since April - from 3.4% to 3.3%.
Now if you're truly interested in looking at data, and how the increases in minimum wage increase unemployment, you can start with the CBO study on raising the minimum wage to $10.10, or many of the other studies that show that minorities - especially those in high unemployment urban areas - are severely impacted by raises to the minimum wage
In the case of San Francisco specifically, do you think there are large tracts of land with available space, utilities, and infrastructure to build a significant amount of housing?
There's a lot of information out there - a lot of people have studied this issue specifically - there is a tremendous difference between $7 and $8. This is not a captive market - where do you think Yelp gets their money from?
Your logic presupposes two assumptions that I do not agree with, and draws a conclusion that ignores the downside. On the whole, $25 minimum wage is unsupportable.
First, someone on minimum wage should not expect to be living in an apartment on the own - driving a car. I'm not sure when it came to pass that minimum wage was equated to a living wage, but Pres. Obama seemed to draw that conclusion with his $10.10 minimum wage - the figure he uses that would provide a worker with the funds for themself and two dependents.
Second, life in Tennessee is different from life in San Francisco. The folks in Knoxville chose to have lower taxes, less social services, etc. to fit their life choices, just as the folks in San Francisco choose to have very high taxes. The people who own the buildings there choose to offer their apartments at high rents because people are desperate enough to pay them. Food is expensive there because the workers want exotic food.
Your conclusion that $25/hour fixes a lot of things is short sighted. Sure, it would make some of the lowest paid workers there happy for awhile, but Yelp and other employers would do one of two things: either reduce their workforce or move it entirely somewhere else. And rents for everyone would go up. As would tolls, gas prices, etc.
For evidence on layoffs, look what's happening in Seattle - as there minimum wage goes up (beyond what the market used to support), unemployment is going up. That's right - while the national and even regional unemployment numbers are approaching record lows, unemployment in Seattle is increasing.
It's all supply and demand. If more workers can now afford the $1600 rent, there will be a shortage of apartments and owners will charge more. They will have to charge more because their burger prices went up so that the restaurant can pay their busboys $25/hour.
I hate it when people jump in and claim what I said was misguided when they clearly don't understand what (in this case) the Judge ordered Apple to do. The judge ordered Apple to provide a mechanism to disable the self destruct, and an electronic method to enter in the pin. The desire is also there to get rid of the delay between pin submissions. Go to the app store. Get the Waze app. Proof that Apple sells your location. Want more proof that Apple themselves do this? Do a job search for data mining at Apple.
I'm not a lawyer. Or a judge. However, the judge that did hear the arguments sided with the FBI. Regardless, I'm surprised how cracking this one phone leads to the demise of liberty. Up until a year ago, all iPhones were decryptable. Somehow, over the course of 12 months civilization itself rests on Apple's new lock-out feature.
Unlike the typical Democratic BS. Both Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders said that the FBI was right, but so was Apple. http://www.thewrap.com/clinton...
Apple can dress this up all they like, but they're a company that sells your location, mines your e-mail, selects which music you listen to, and makes a tidy profit from all of that. The idea that somehow one's iPhone now contains your soul and that should be exempt from a court ordered search underscores how Tim Cook views Apple's place in your life. This isn't about some unreasonable search and seizure - some mass collect of phone records - some abstract "what will happen next?" This is a specific request for a specific iPhone that a judge has deemed within the constitutionality of the United States. I am mystified by the support that Apple is garnering. I am surprised that young people today trust a for-profit multi-national corporation more than a federal judge. I am curious why Apple is thinking that if they break open this one phone, then all the security dominoes fall and civilization is left in ruins.
Machine learning is a pretty big field. What other subjects do you like? That will definitely help figure out what part of Machine Learning would be more interesting to you. Statistics: The core of conceptual clustering is finding data that relate to each other. Both supervised (you define the concepts and say what the data is) and unsupervised (the machine identifies clusters based on proximity to each other) are heavy into using all of those statistics functions on your calculator. Probability: Bayes Nets are the core of diagnosis and analysis. Deriving Bayes net from real world data is a huge problem area. Puzzles/Shortest Path/Graphs: Machine planning or game theory is less math intensive. The idea is that you may not know if you've "won" until you've reached the end of a bunch of steps - like learning a card game. You may win a trick / hand but lose the game.
Believe the true intent is to have a ground force that can repel Amazon's copters.
Relying on SSL/SSH only protects the socket between you and the server that you're talking to - which may not be the server that you think you're talking to. You are including a whole lot of stuff in your trust circle. Now if you meant use OpenSSL or similar libraries for your encryption core, then I agree.
Wouldn't that be a better world? Posts would be short. And insightful. Like this one.
From the original article that spurned all of this anti-U.S. tirade "Arguedas said another issue stalling passage of the 14th amendment is the fact that legislators are looking to pass a law that is more extensive than the requirements of the agreement." So, after all of this, it's the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly that's the evil guy and there are 322 (and counting) posts from people that never read the 300 word original article (including me until just now).
In 2007, the U.S. exported 991 tonnes of sug1r beet for $76,000. In 2007, the U.S. exported 373 tonnes of sugar cane for $190,000. In 2007, the U.S. exported 103,138 tonnes of processed sugar for $391m. http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx