it's all explained in the paper, so I highly recommend that you read it.
Looking at stupid vs. 'smart' terrorists, it all really depends on how many stupid terrorists there are per smart terrorist. The smart ones shift the number of false negatives (passengers which are wrongfully not flagged) while the stupid terrorists increase the number of true positives. Obviously, to determine if this shifts the balance in favour of the terrorists (over purely random searches) or if it puts them at a disadvantage would require an analysis with some actual numbers.
I do believe evidence (even if obtained through illegal means) is in fact admissible provided it was not obtained by a "agent" of law enforcement. (Where "agent" is either a officer of the law or someone who has been asked (however idirectly) by law enforcement to obtain said evidence).
That does not mean that the person who obtained the evidence illegally is not going to be charged with the illegal activity through which the evidence was obtained.
I think you have hit a bug in Portage itself... I seem to recall something very similar happening to my system when I removed a virtual (can't remember which one I'm afraid). You probably need to look for any suspicious looking virtuals (i.e. anything to do with X) in/var/cache/edb/virtuals and remove them manually.
AFAIK the "anticipation" bit is not so much about predicting head movement, but is more about reducing head movement. Reads cause processes to block while waiting for the data (and can thus stall processes for long amounts of time if not scheduled appropriately), whereas writes are typically fire-and-forget. This last bit means that you can usually just queue them up, return control to the user program, and perform the actual write at some more convenient time, i.e. later. Since reads (by the same process) are usually also heavily interdependent, it is also a win to schedule them early from that POV.
Statistically, I'm very *very* unlikely to ever be in a wreck again,
Oh, I'd say the odds are about the same as before your first accident... The odds of getting into two accidents within, say, 1 year are pretty slim. That does NOT mean that you suddely become "almost immune" to accidents for 1 year if you happen to get into an accident today.
I believe Rice's Theorem only applies if your computational model allows for infinite storage (or something equivalent).
Computers don't have infinite storage, so you could theoretically map out all possible states that a computer could be in and get a proof of termination (or any other property) that way.
Obviously this isn't practical by any means, but that's no excuse for being imprecise.:)
I can't be bothered to find any references, but it seems rather obvious to me that microevolution and natural selection is a type of local optimization (i.e. find the set of genes which maximize survival rate within a species). Even if the survival of an individual in a species is 90% pure luck and 10% natural selection, the species as a whole will tend towards a local maximum (the 'location' of which is dependent on the initial conditions and random chance) -- it will just do so more slowly that if it's pure natural selection. This ignores other external factors such as changes in the environment and/or competition/predation by other species, etc., but these have not been terribly relevant to human evolution for at least a few thousand years.
I wasn't actually arguing with the original assertion that there isn't an optimal form of human organization; I was just pointing out a flaw in the "experiment".
... to me that the people behind the proposal are complete morons.
As someone pointed out in a thread above there is no good reason to just use a reverse blacklist (like DNSRBL et al.) which identifies certain senders as non-spammers instead of identifying them as spammers.
"[...] set up to be more robust and attack resistant [...]". Oh please. If you get $2k from each and every person/corp. in your whitelist you sure as hell can afford some professional DNS hosting for your whitelist.
Evolution does not find a global maximum for "fitness". It finds a local maximum for "fitness" -- exactly where this lies is a question of initial conditions and some degree of randomness. Therefore your 'experiment' is meaningless.
How is trying to replicate the natural interface that we use every day a dumb idea?
Oh, I don't know... because a computer can store and retrieve information much more efficiently than you ever could in the Real World? Look, it's very simple: In almost all cases Real World metaphors do not work in the Computer World (for lack of a better term).
Just to give one example which is cited in the submission text: Flipping through CDs looking for the right one. That is such a blindingly stupid idea that I don't know where to begin. "Oh, but it's intuitive!". That may be, but it's nowhere as efficient as me pressing a "Search" key and typing the name of the artist/album title a be instantly shown the relevant results. If I have two CDs, it might be faster to flip through them, but not if I have more than ten CDs.
There's one important lesson here: Intuitive != Efficient.
Don't you think people have tried to apply Real World metaphors to the Computer World before? There's a reason that nobody does to any great extent anymore...
Try telling that to someone who has received thousands of bounces because some idiot mail server admin decided it was a good idea to send bounces to mail addresses that have obviously been forged.
Btw: I thought that it contradicts the SMTP standard to reject messages after the DATA portion -- this would mean that the direct-connecting clients could do anything when being told that the message was rejected -- including silently dropping it -- and still be standards compliant! Am I missing something?
By separating the widgets and toolkits from the X server, you again reduce complexity and allow for multiple implementations at these different layers. I guess the widgets and themes could somehow be linked into the X server, but now I'm rapidly entering the realm of speculation.
Oh, I don't think anybody is talking about having the toolkit intergrated into the "X server" so tightly that it cannot be replaced with something else; that doesn't make sense. It's just a question of disallowing many different toolkits on the same desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it trademark infringement that's protected? (Or is it both trademark and copyright infringement?)
it's all explained in the paper, so I highly recommend that you read it.
Looking at stupid vs. 'smart' terrorists, it all really depends on how many stupid terrorists there are per smart terrorist. The smart ones shift the number of false negatives (passengers which are wrongfully not flagged) while the stupid terrorists increase the number of true positives. Obviously, to determine if this shifts the balance in favour of the terrorists (over purely random searches) or if it puts them at a disadvantage would require an analysis with some actual numbers.
there is a difference between REMOTE ROOT exploits and LOCAL PRIVILEGE-ESCALATION exploits. But then, you just wanted to appear clever, didn't you?
You have the choice of working for another employer. Welcome to capitalism.
I don't think they do anymore. I seem to remember something about them switching to something else. (Can't remember what, though).
You do realize that most places you actually have to pay extra to not have a Microsoft OS preinstalled when you buy a new computer? Don't you?
I do believe evidence (even if obtained through illegal means) is in fact admissible provided it was not obtained by a "agent" of law enforcement. (Where "agent" is either a officer of the law or someone who has been asked (however idirectly) by law enforcement to obtain said evidence).
That does not mean that the person who obtained the evidence illegally is not going to be charged with the illegal activity through which the evidence was obtained.
That's my understanding of it, anyway.
I think you have hit a bug in Portage itself... I seem to recall something very similar happening to my system when I removed a virtual (can't remember which one I'm afraid). You probably need to look for any suspicious looking virtuals (i.e. anything to do with X) in /var/cache/edb/virtuals and remove them manually.
AFAIK the "anticipation" bit is not so much about predicting head movement, but is more about reducing head movement. Reads
cause processes to block while waiting for the data (and can thus stall processes for long amounts of time if not scheduled appropriately), whereas writes are typically fire-and-forget. This last bit means that you can usually just queue them up, return control to the user program, and perform the actual write at some more convenient time, i.e. later. Since reads (by the same process) are usually also heavily interdependent, it is also a win to schedule them early from that POV.
That's my understanding of it.
Well... a 1000% = 10 (by the definition of %), but a 1000% increase is equivalent to multiplying by 11. (As you correctly stated).
Likening Bud to beer is just wrong (yes, I'm European). Please don't do it again.
Only one of those has a nice unixy OS. Hint: It's not the Sun.
Oh, I'd say the odds are about the same as before your first accident... The odds of getting into two accidents within, say, 1 year are pretty slim. That does NOT mean that you suddely become "almost immune" to accidents for 1 year if you happen to get into an accident today.
Yeah, and 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Source please?
In that case you might be the one breaking the law. Where I live, any ISP is required by law to keep such logs for at least a month.
I believe Rice's Theorem only applies if your computational model allows for infinite storage (or something equivalent).
:)
Computers don't have infinite storage, so you could theoretically map out all possible states that a computer could be in and get a proof of termination (or any other property) that way.
Obviously this isn't practical by any means, but that's no excuse for being imprecise.
And they say its syntax is easier to understand than LISP? I wonder what they're smoking...
I can't be bothered to find any references, but it seems rather obvious to me that microevolution and natural selection is a type of local optimization (i.e. find the set of genes which maximize survival rate within a species). Even if the survival of an individual in a species is 90% pure luck and 10% natural selection, the species as a whole will tend towards a local maximum (the 'location' of which is dependent on the initial conditions and random chance) -- it will just do so more slowly that if it's pure natural selection. This ignores other external factors such as changes in the environment and/or competition/predation by other species, etc., but these have not been terribly relevant to human evolution for at least a few thousand years.
I wasn't actually arguing with the original assertion that there isn't an optimal form of human organization; I was just pointing out a flaw in the "experiment".
... to me that the people behind the proposal are complete morons.
As someone pointed out in a thread above there is no good reason to just use a reverse blacklist (like DNSRBL et al.) which identifies certain senders as non-spammers instead of identifying them as spammers.
"[...] set up to be more robust and attack resistant [...]". Oh please. If you get $2k from each and every person/corp. in your whitelist you sure as hell can afford some professional DNS hosting for your whitelist.
Evolution does not find a global maximum for "fitness". It finds a local maximum for "fitness" -- exactly where this lies is a question of initial conditions and some degree of randomness. Therefore your 'experiment' is meaningless.
Oh, and btw: Limiting yourself to Real World metaphors when the possibilities in the Computer World are almost limitless seems pointless at best.
Oh, I don't know... because a computer can store and retrieve information much more efficiently than you ever could in the Real World? Look, it's very simple: In almost all cases Real World metaphors do not work in the Computer World (for lack of a better term).
Just to give one example which is cited in the submission text: Flipping through CDs looking for the right one. That is such a blindingly stupid idea that I don't know where to begin. "Oh, but it's intuitive!". That may be, but it's nowhere as efficient as me pressing a "Search" key and typing the name of the artist/album title a be instantly shown the relevant results. If I have two CDs, it might be faster to flip through them, but not if I have more than ten CDs.
There's one important lesson here: Intuitive != Efficient.
Don't you think people have tried to apply Real World metaphors to the Computer World before? There's a reason that nobody does to any great extent anymore...
Try telling that to someone who has received thousands of bounces because some idiot mail server admin decided it was a good idea to send bounces to mail addresses that have obviously been forged.
Btw: I thought that it contradicts the SMTP standard to reject messages after the DATA portion -- this would mean that the direct-connecting clients could do anything when being told that the message was rejected -- including silently dropping it -- and still be standards compliant! Am I missing something?
Talk about missing the point... You've missed it by so far that it isn't even funny.
Oh, I don't think anybody is talking about having the toolkit intergrated into the "X server" so tightly that it cannot be replaced with something else; that doesn't make sense. It's just a question of disallowing many different toolkits on the same desktop.