10 is an even number. There's no duplicates. None of them are filler. I don't understand how this happened. Did someone plan this before they wrote it? What gives?
Its an acm.org article. Not only did the author probably plan, re-read and revise the article before submitting it but a technically knowledgable editor probably read it and may have offered useful and insightful suggestions. Now there may not have been a formal peer review process but the editor may have also had one or more experts in the field read it and offer comments and suggestions.
Yes the above seems an archaic process but consider that the acm is full of old people who had experience publishing back when things were done with dead trees.;-)
And how durable is the circuitry? Abrasion, water, folding, chemicals (ex. laundry soap), etc are usually hazardous to circuitry. Seems like there will be a few false positives, assuming of course they could even manufacture such notes in a cost effective and reliable manner. The US is already having problems printing its own money.
<snoot>It's been on MY desktop since 199x! </snoot>
I don't think dual booting counts in the "year of" context. And I say this as a Linux user since 1994, I even have the Yddrasil plug-and-play CD to prove it.;-)
No-one hauled any gear over for split-screen co-op. Young people still go round each other's houses and would often end up playing split-screen co-op because the option was available.
Yes, but the original post was mentioning things that were a bit more involved than that. Two TVs for some team vs team, LAN parties,...
They were obsoleted by a more convenient technology. Internet based multiplayer was not possible or practical at the time but today it is. In this era of immediate gratification it's too much effort to organize a bunch of friends and wait until you can all haul your gear over and set it all up. In may be more fun but the incremental amount of fun must not be worth it for most gamers.
Doubtful. Today's suits were yesterday 60-70s hippies with long hair and ripped jeans and t-shirts or 70-80s punk rockers with a purple mohawk and ripped jeans and t-shirts. ;-)
If you think those are the only types of people who existed on the planet in the last 40 years, then you should try to find a source of cultural information other than the internet.
Let me draw your attention to the ";-)" that follows the statement. Also having lived through those eras I can state that there is some truth behind the joke. I feel it would be safe to say that some of tomorrows suits will have "healed up" piercing holes that have closed and some erased tattoos underneath their button down shirts and ties.
To be fair, there are also plenty of people in suits that don't understand why the ripped jeans and t-shirt crowd doesn't think they're cool.
Doubtful. Today's suits were yesterday 60-70s hippies with long hair and ripped jeans and t-shirts or 70-80s punk rockers with a purple mohawk and ripped jeans and t-shirts.;-)
If you think about it for a moment, you will see that it is kind of silly that you're only taken seriously if you tie a strip of cloth around your neck tight enough to slightly restrict blood flow to your brain. Beyond avoiding holes where they shouldn't be and not being offensive, it is all rather arbitrary and even childishly silly.
Not at all, there is actually science behind the concept of dress codes. Basically the idea is to dress to meet the expectations of the customer, client, potential employer, etc - basically the person you are trying to influence. Non-verbal communication is an important part of building credibility and appearance is part of that communication. Dressing to expectations is just leveraging the workings of the human mind.
I haven't seen much consumer electronics equipment that could survive a combat environment. Seems like just the sand alone in Iraq would mess up a lot of devices pretty quick.
My iPhone survives water, sand, etc when I am out hiking in wilderness areas. I use a ziplock bag. I recommend the freezer bags over the sandwich bags, the freezer bags are a bit more durable.
Unlike the standalone calculator the functionality is not tied to the hardware. The phone's battery may die over time but people tend to replace their phones before that happens. The calculator app may be portable to the new phone. If not it was probably a very small fraction of the cost compared to the standalone.
I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.
It was probably 8 minutes and based upon Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). ICBMs going over the north pole would take 20-30 minutes but SLBMs off the coast could hit their targets in as little as 3 minutes.
What do you mean waiting? I have an iPhone app, Perpenso Calc 4 that offers the functionality of the non-graphing TI and HP scientific, statistical and hex calculators and more.
Do they run for weeks to months on 4 x AAA user replaceable batteries?
People tend to keep their phones charged. Face it, convergence has happened with standalone MP3 players and it is currently in progress with respect to dedicated calculators.
Munich Linux migration is "dead - abandoned in all but name."
Last I heard it was a migration to open source and they were successfully using open source desktop applications. The operating system may be Windows rather than Linux but this still seems to be a victory for open source. On the desktop the applications are far more important than the operating system.
TI's scientific and statistical calculator market share is waiting for an Android tablet or iPad app to come along and render it completely irrelevant.
What do you mean waiting? I have an iPhone app, Perpenso Calc 4 that offers the functionality of the non-graphing TI and HP scientific, statistical and hex calculators and more. It offers a la carte pricing so you only pay for the functionality you need. Features like the alternate worksheet interface leverage the handheld computer nature of the device.
Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias.
The question is irrelevant, since adding commercial bias through ad-dependence wouldn't eliminate personal bias unless it also involved eliminating community editing completely. So it doesn't matter if advertising is, on its own, more distorting than the existing sources of distortion, since advertising adds to, rather than replacing, those sources.
The problem with your argument is that politics, bias and advertising are not equivalents. Politics and bias can not save wikipedia but advertising may. If wikipedia fails no good is served. In its failure it would not even achieve a philosophical victory given that it is already tainted. Its a negative/negative decision. The lesser negative of an incremental and possibly inconsequential(*) tainting versus the far greater negative of complete failure.
(*) Ads are not negotiated or served directly by wikipedia. A third party aggregates and serves targeted ads. Google for example, an organization that already has an influence on wikipedia via its multi-million dollar donations.
"politics" and "bias" aren't, contrary to your presentation, two separate sources of distortion, its two different ways of referring to the personal biases of editors
No. Politics can make one say things they do not believe, things contrary to their bias, or to withhold things they do believe. There is an intersection between politics and personal bias but it is only a partial intersection.
Whenever commerce touches information, information has a way of getting warped.
It's really as simple as that.
No. There is commerce, politics and personal bias. All three of these warp information. Wikipedia is already warped by 2 of the 3 to some degree. Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias. Also all the arguments made about the corrupting influence of ads can also be made for non-anonymous donations, especially those big ones that currently save wikipedia from financial collapse.
"The great thing about a good open source project that solves a shared challenge is that it develops it's own momentum and it is sustained for a long time by a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement. At Netflix we jumped on for the ride a long time ago and we have benefited enormously from the virtuous cycles of actively evolving open source projects. We benefit from the continuous improvements provided by the community of contributors outside of Netflix. We also benefit by contributing back the changes we make to the projects. By sharing our bug fixes and new features back out into the community, the community then in turn continues to improve upon bug fixes and new features that originated at Netflix and then we complete the cycle by bring those improvements back into Netflix."
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
Such math skills are needed to develop the algorithms but not to implement a provided algorithm or to verify the coded implementation.
Right. That's why theorists who understand the heart write detailed lists of instructions so that any hourly temp worker can perform heart surgery without incurring the expense of employing an actual heart surgeon with a medical degree.
Adapting theory to the complexities and irregularities of the real world does require a thorough understanding of theory. Otherwise, the moment you step outside of the ideal case -- which is nearly always -- you have no way to make the necessary adjustments, and worse, you have no way of knowing that adjustments need to be made, what they could be, or what the consequences are.
You present a straw man argument that is irrelevant in this context. Encryption does not have the irregularities and the unexpected that heart surgery does.
That said, how do you think expert systems are developed? They are not coded by these experts. There is an extremely detailed knowledge dump in some manner. Some day in the future when we have robotic based surgery the system is unlikely to have been coded by heart surgeons. Can the expert system handle the unexpected as well as an expert surgeon, perhaps not. However how many of those unexpected circumstances are the fault of human error during the surgery? A robot that can perform the basics perfectly, even if it can not handle the exceptional circumstances as well, may yield better outcomes overall. And over time the handling of the exceptional can be improved.
Yes this sounds a bit outlandish, but not so long ago having an onboard computer land a commercial jet liner with hundreds of passengers sounded outlandish too. OK, the later still sounds outlandish but it can be done.
So you're saying that a person without a math doctorate is qualified to assess, for example, what granularity of statistics about the crypto core performance are safe to export out of the kernel without exposing side-channel key leaking?
Actually I'm saying that if the algorithm is specified so insufficiently that the implementor must make such decisions then the algorithm needs more details. For example, in a journal article it may be perfectly acceptable to wave one's hands and say that a magically random variable appears here but in an implementation specification the seeding and calculation of that random variable must be addressed.
Also, why is anything beyond ciphertext being exported out of the kernel in a production environment? Regarding side channel information embedded into the ciphertext any random data incorporated should be addressed as mentioned above. Anything being incorporated that can not be directly linked back to the specification should be considered suspect, although more likely an omission in the specification that must be addressed rather than an attack.
What? Have you ever heard of the broken Netscape SSL implementation, or WEP (RC4 was an adequate algorithm), or any other broken crypto implementation? It's almost always the implementation of a provided algortihm that falters, not the algorithm itself!
People implementing and verifying provided algorithms need more math doctorates.
Or perhaps the algorithm was incompletely defined and left details to the reader? The algorithm as defined for implementation would not be as concise as the algorithm provided in a mathematical journal.
For example, in a journal article it may be perfectly fine to state merely that r is a random variable and say nothing more about it. However this is insufficient for the algorithm definition with respect to implementation. The seeding and computation of the random variable must be defined to a sufficient degree. One can not just wave their hands and say we have a magically random variable appear at this point, as one can do in a journal article.
Slashdot Mirror
10 is an even number. There's no duplicates. None of them are filler. I don't understand how this happened. Did someone plan this before they wrote it? What gives?
Its an acm.org article. Not only did the author probably plan, re-read and revise the article before submitting it but a technically knowledgable editor probably read it and may have offered useful and insightful suggestions. Now there may not have been a formal peer review process but the editor may have also had one or more experts in the field read it and offer comments and suggestions.
;-)
Yes the above seems an archaic process but consider that the acm is full of old people who had experience publishing back when things were done with dead trees.
And how durable is the circuitry? Abrasion, water, folding, chemicals (ex. laundry soap), etc are usually hazardous to circuitry. Seems like there will be a few false positives, assuming of course they could even manufacture such notes in a cost effective and reliable manner. The US is already having problems printing its own money.
<snoot>It's been on MY desktop since 199x! </snoot>
I don't think dual booting counts in the "year of" context. And I say this as a Linux user since 1994, I even have the Yddrasil plug-and-play CD to prove it. ;-)
It claims that a human female was somehow involved in this.
Paid or otherwise coerced could explain it.
No-one hauled any gear over for split-screen co-op. Young people still go round each other's houses and would often end up playing split-screen co-op because the option was available.
Yes, but the original post was mentioning things that were a bit more involved than that. Two TVs for some team vs team, LAN parties, ...
They were obsoleted by a more convenient technology. Internet based multiplayer was not possible or practical at the time but today it is. In this era of immediate gratification it's too much effort to organize a bunch of friends and wait until you can all haul your gear over and set it all up. In may be more fun but the incremental amount of fun must not be worth it for most gamers.
Doubtful. Today's suits were yesterday 60-70s hippies with long hair and ripped jeans and t-shirts or 70-80s punk rockers with a purple mohawk and ripped jeans and t-shirts. ;-)
If you think those are the only types of people who existed on the planet in the last 40 years, then you should try to find a source of cultural information other than the internet.
Let me draw your attention to the " ;-)" that follows the statement. Also having lived through those eras I can state that there is some truth behind the joke. I feel it would be safe to say that some of tomorrows suits will have "healed up" piercing holes that have closed and some erased tattoos underneath their button down shirts and ties.
To be fair, there are also plenty of people in suits that don't understand why the ripped jeans and t-shirt crowd doesn't think they're cool.
Doubtful. Today's suits were yesterday 60-70s hippies with long hair and ripped jeans and t-shirts or 70-80s punk rockers with a purple mohawk and ripped jeans and t-shirts. ;-)
If you think about it for a moment, you will see that it is kind of silly that you're only taken seriously if you tie a strip of cloth around your neck tight enough to slightly restrict blood flow to your brain. Beyond avoiding holes where they shouldn't be and not being offensive, it is all rather arbitrary and even childishly silly.
Not at all, there is actually science behind the concept of dress codes. Basically the idea is to dress to meet the expectations of the customer, client, potential employer, etc - basically the person you are trying to influence. Non-verbal communication is an important part of building credibility and appearance is part of that communication. Dressing to expectations is just leveraging the workings of the human mind.
I haven't seen much consumer electronics equipment that could survive a combat environment. Seems like just the sand alone in Iraq would mess up a lot of devices pretty quick.
My iPhone survives water, sand, etc when I am out hiking in wilderness areas. I use a ziplock bag. I recommend the freezer bags over the sandwich bags, the freezer bags are a bit more durable.
Unlike the standalone calculator the functionality is not tied to the hardware. The phone's battery may die over time but people tend to replace their phones before that happens. The calculator app may be portable to the new phone. If not it was probably a very small fraction of the cost compared to the standalone.
I am not sure if this is true anymore or even if it were ever true; but I was told at the height of the cold war we had the capability to make the entire world uninhabitable in 8 seconds.
It was probably 8 minutes and based upon Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM). ICBMs going over the north pole would take 20-30 minutes but SLBMs off the coast could hit their targets in as little as 3 minutes.
If only Firefly and SGU were 30 minute cartoons. /I'd actually watch a 30 minute Firefly cartoon.
It worked for Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
What do you mean waiting? I have an iPhone app, Perpenso Calc 4 that offers the functionality of the non-graphing TI and HP scientific, statistical and hex calculators and more.
Do they run for weeks to months on 4 x AAA user replaceable batteries?
People tend to keep their phones charged. Face it, convergence has happened with standalone MP3 players and it is currently in progress with respect to dedicated calculators.
Perfumers on the team used their professionally trained noses to identify specific embalming substances in the mouth used to hide nasty odors.
I bet the brochures for "perfumers school" does not mention that particular specialty.
Munich Linux migration is "dead - abandoned in all but name."
Last I heard it was a migration to open source and they were successfully using open source desktop applications. The operating system may be Windows rather than Linux but this still seems to be a victory for open source. On the desktop the applications are far more important than the operating system.
TI's scientific and statistical calculator market share is waiting for an Android tablet or iPad app to come along and render it completely irrelevant.
What do you mean waiting? I have an iPhone app, Perpenso Calc 4 that offers the functionality of the non-graphing TI and HP scientific, statistical and hex calculators and more. It offers a la carte pricing so you only pay for the functionality you need. Features like the alternate worksheet interface leverage the handheld computer nature of the device.
Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias.
The question is irrelevant, since adding commercial bias through ad-dependence wouldn't eliminate personal bias unless it also involved eliminating community editing completely. So it doesn't matter if advertising is, on its own, more distorting than the existing sources of distortion, since advertising adds to, rather than replacing, those sources.
The problem with your argument is that politics, bias and advertising are not equivalents. Politics and bias can not save wikipedia but advertising may. If wikipedia fails no good is served. In its failure it would not even achieve a philosophical victory given that it is already tainted. Its a negative/negative decision. The lesser negative of an incremental and possibly inconsequential(*) tainting versus the far greater negative of complete failure.
(*) Ads are not negotiated or served directly by wikipedia. A third party aggregates and serves targeted ads. Google for example, an organization that already has an influence on wikipedia via its multi-million dollar donations.
"politics" and "bias" aren't, contrary to your presentation, two separate sources of distortion, its two different ways of referring to the personal biases of editors
No. Politics can make one say things they do not believe, things contrary to their bias, or to withhold things they do believe. There is an intersection between politics and personal bias but it is only a partial intersection.
There is information.
Then there is commerce.
Whenever commerce touches information, information has a way of getting warped.
It's really as simple as that.
No. There is commerce, politics and personal bias. All three of these warp information. Wikipedia is already warped by 2 of the 3 to some degree. Its unclear as to whether letting google or some other third party feed ads is more or less warping than politics or bias. Also all the arguments made about the corrupting influence of ads can also be made for non-anonymous donations, especially those big ones that currently save wikipedia from financial collapse.
What O/S are they running all that on?
The environment these projects seem to target is Apache/Java.
They are mooching.
They have taken from the commons and aren't giving back.
Wrong. They contribute to the projects they use.
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
From the Netflix website:
"The great thing about a good open source project that solves a shared challenge is that it develops it's own momentum and it is sustained for a long time by a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement. At Netflix we jumped on for the ride a long time ago and we have benefited enormously from the virtuous cycles of actively evolving open source projects. We benefit from the continuous improvements provided by the community of contributors outside of Netflix. We also benefit by contributing back the changes we make to the projects. By sharing our bug fixes and new features back out into the community, the community then in turn continues to improve upon bug fixes and new features that originated at Netflix and then we complete the cycle by bring those improvements back into Netflix."
"Here is an incomplete sampling of the projects we utilize, we have contributed back to most of them: Hudson, Hadoop, Hive, Honu, Apache, Tomcat, Ant, Ivy, Cassandra, HBase, etc, etc."
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/why-we-use-and-contribute-to-open.html
Such math skills are needed to develop the algorithms but not to implement a provided algorithm or to verify the coded implementation.
Right. That's why theorists who understand the heart write detailed lists of instructions so that any hourly temp worker can perform heart surgery without incurring the expense of employing an actual heart surgeon with a medical degree.
Adapting theory to the complexities and irregularities of the real world does require a thorough understanding of theory. Otherwise, the moment you step outside of the ideal case -- which is nearly always -- you have no way to make the necessary adjustments, and worse, you have no way of knowing that adjustments need to be made, what they could be, or what the consequences are.
You present a straw man argument that is irrelevant in this context. Encryption does not have the irregularities and the unexpected that heart surgery does.
That said, how do you think expert systems are developed? They are not coded by these experts. There is an extremely detailed knowledge dump in some manner. Some day in the future when we have robotic based surgery the system is unlikely to have been coded by heart surgeons. Can the expert system handle the unexpected as well as an expert surgeon, perhaps not. However how many of those unexpected circumstances are the fault of human error during the surgery? A robot that can perform the basics perfectly, even if it can not handle the exceptional circumstances as well, may yield better outcomes overall. And over time the handling of the exceptional can be improved.
Yes this sounds a bit outlandish, but not so long ago having an onboard computer land a commercial jet liner with hundreds of passengers sounded outlandish too. OK, the later still sounds outlandish but it can be done.
So you're saying that a person without a math doctorate is qualified to assess, for example, what granularity of statistics about the crypto core performance are safe to export out of the kernel without exposing side-channel key leaking?
Actually I'm saying that if the algorithm is specified so insufficiently that the implementor must make such decisions then the algorithm needs more details. For example, in a journal article it may be perfectly acceptable to wave one's hands and say that a magically random variable appears here but in an implementation specification the seeding and calculation of that random variable must be addressed.
Also, why is anything beyond ciphertext being exported out of the kernel in a production environment? Regarding side channel information embedded into the ciphertext any random data incorporated should be addressed as mentioned above. Anything being incorporated that can not be directly linked back to the specification should be considered suspect, although more likely an omission in the specification that must be addressed rather than an attack.
What? Have you ever heard of the broken Netscape SSL implementation, or WEP (RC4 was an adequate algorithm), or any other broken crypto implementation? It's almost always the implementation of a provided algortihm that falters, not the algorithm itself! People implementing and verifying provided algorithms need more math doctorates.
Or perhaps the algorithm was incompletely defined and left details to the reader? The algorithm as defined for implementation would not be as concise as the algorithm provided in a mathematical journal.
For example, in a journal article it may be perfectly fine to state merely that r is a random variable and say nothing more about it. However this is insufficient for the algorithm definition with respect to implementation. The seeding and computation of the random variable must be defined to a sufficient degree. One can not just wave their hands and say we have a magically random variable appear at this point, as one can do in a journal article.