It could be a U.S. military exercise, but the article states the jamming source is within 20 miles of Havana. Guantanamo bay is several hundred miles away. Maybe Navy Seals could plant a transmitter 20 miles off the north coast, but if they can transmit to a fixed source from the water I'm very impressed (perhaps use a set of gyroscopes to stabilize it). Are the waters very calm there?
Feeding an AC troll, perhaps, but I am compelled by the ridiculous current (1,informative) score: there is no practical use! That's the point.
We use old computers because they remind us of when we were young. I learned 6502 assembly language on an Apple IIe when I was 13 and had one of my programs published in the November 1988 issue of Nybble (one/two-liner contest). _Those_ were the days when we did things because they were fun, not necessarily practical! Nowadays we must suffer with not-so-fun programming to earn a paycheck, and so we enjoy these moments of nostalgia. It may not matter, but it's news for nerds.
I don't know, but I know how to look it up. Programming is a thought process, not memorization of syntax eccentricities.
Is the syntax question annoying because it's about syntax or because you don't know the answer? ...and the job goes to...someone who could answer the question. Maybe I don't thoroughly understand your statement, but my thought process constantly involves "syntax eccentricities."
When I interviewed for my current job position, I was give a brief syntax/data structures exam on paper. No computer, not even a text editor.
Maybe you think syntax questions are annoying, but I got a 50% pay increase out of it!
Ahh, but power corrupts. I see this as a design issue, not a code issue. That is, I would code your (apparently java) example above as
public int AverageAsInt(int a, int b)...
public double AverageAsDouble(int a,int b)...
simply because it makes the code more readable, and readily understandable by someone else. For example, in the following example, which form would someone read faster (and with less risk of misunderstanding):
public double Average(double a, double b)......
Average(Average(1,2),Average(3.0,4))
How "Average(1,2)" is interpreted (although you'd rightly expect a compile-time error) is a big difference, mathematically.
I wondered how long it would be until someone wondered how long it would be until someone suggested a beowolf cluster, etc. 11:56a - 12:02p = six minutes
It may be that all of the IP is in the software. The network chip could be the NIC equivalent of a software modem (I don't know). As an example, that the SB 16 PCI is just a DSP. The vast majority of Ensoniq's software engineering effort is in the driver.
This creates a predicament because in order for a driver to be "certified" by Microsoft, they require source code to the driver. A ridiculous request when the source code is 90% of the product! Thus, you can't open-source the driver for the same reason.
Additionally DirectX 9.0 drivers (perhaps the linux drivers too) from nVidia and ATI include run-time compilers for the shader programs. These are closely guarded trade secrets that will never see the light of day.
They completely circumvent the whole "1984" discussion because it's totally unnecessary to monitor what someone is doing if you've already restricted what they can do.
Microsoft needs to find examples of open-source failures for future PR material. What better source of expertise is there than Slashdot?:)
Seriously, though, it is likely the question's author is asking because his company's (SoftXS) clients are asking the same question. Alan uses open-source tools widely in his business, so an awareness of what can go wrong (especially from a political standpoint) and how to prevent it are of critical importance. Indeed, it is important for everyone in the business of providing open-source solutions.
I didn't read it that way at all. Apparently they needed and wanted the function that the software provided, or they'd not have paid him so easily for his services. He left it to the company to hire an appropriate admin for the system, which they did not do. IMHO, it is the company's fault for not finding an approprate admin, as well as the admin's fault for not telling them he wasn't experienced enough (and didn't care to learn) to support their system! However, it's the company's money, so if they want to spend it fixing something that isn't broke, that's their perogative (as ridiculous as it may seem).
Shots for "the cure" they come up with will be mandatory, with the chip implanted/injected at the same time as the only way to "prove" you are safe to be around other "approved" citizens who've gone through the procedure previously
I'd not thought of that. It would have to be an extraordinarly threatening disease, although it would be an extremely effective tactic: comply or die.
Personally, I don't think RFID will be the tool used because it has already attracted an extreme amount of "big brother" attention. If one truly attempts to deceive "even the very elect", it won't be with something as invasive or obvious as RFID! Additionally, RFID (and UPC codes, etc.) can serve as a decoy to detract attention from the actual "mark" itself. That's why I am suspicious of the retinal/fingerprint method. It's very subtle, efficient, and accurate, and is becoming more economically feasable every day. There is no action on your part aside from submitting your biometrics for inclusion in a database (thereby marking you as "clean" in your example). It's a simple and innocent-sounding process. It's even becoming increasingly accepted by the public. There are several slashdot stories that make mention of the fact that grocery stores are using fingerprints to identify "shopping club" memebers. And this is just to save a few bucks!
There are religious groups today that oppose any sort of innoculations, and un-vaccinated children attend public schools in the face of state laws requiring vaccinations. This implies the current state of affairs is such that social and legal pressures to vaccinate your children against the worst of today's diseases is insufficient to infringe on one's liberty. It'll take something more dangerous than Anthrax or SARS to tip the scales.
The Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases is at the forefront of SARS research. Perhaps this is to bring the military into the public eye as a provider of the "cure" in preparation for "the big one"?
This is only the tip of the iceberg, I fear. There are times when you need to ask yourself, what if? I did not live during the McCarthy era, but I feel this is one of those times. I may seem paranoid, but here is my "what if?" for the Bush administation's plan: 1) Use the term "terrorist" to refer to a small number of individuals that are a threat to peace and security in order to justify sweeping changes to policy and laws but more importantly as justification to begin developing a system to track every individual, everywhere (the system will, unfortunately, improve over time). 2) Once the necessary tracking infrastructure is in place (perhaps not perfected yet), change the term from "terrorist" to "criminal" . The justification will be that criminals are bad too, and they threaten peace and security just like terrorists, right? 3) Once the system has improved to the point that false positives are indeed negligable, gradually redefine the term "criminal" to discreetly include groups and individuals of the government's choosing.
Does this sound like an unlikely scenario? If you have an opinion, what social forces do you believe would act to reinforce or inhibit this scenario?
One might also discuss the similarities of the TIA (Total Information Awareness) and TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance). Both seek to create an environment that a person or an application, respectively, must be pre-authorized to enter. Without proper authorization, you or your application are not allowed to be a part of the system or interact with other authorized entities.
Eventually, I expect the "fly-list" to become the dominate list, and the "no-fly-list" to become increasingly obscure. You will then no longer be able to fly without identifying yourself to the system.
My greatest fear is that one will no longer be able to "buy or sell without the mark [of approval]", in the Biblical sense. What we see today certainly allows for that, especially if you take into consideration the infusement of funds by the government into bioinformatics R&D. The "mark in the forehead or right hand" easily translates into a retinal scan or fingerprint. When positive identification becomes cheap, efficient, and accurate, it will become ubiquitous, and we will all be rows in a (probably Oracle) database.
Whitty said there will be no privacy issues because the machines are being designed to store only the number of miles traveled, not the exact locations visited. "We're very confident we've resolved the privacy issue," he said.
There's a saying that if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly heat the pot, the frog will boil to death without ever trying to escape. That's exactly what this is: getting their "foot in the door" for future, more invasive privacy violations. Anyone knows if you give lawmakers an inch, they take a mile.
a) Built into a Phone, it could download and store rates of various phone companies based on area code and time of day and then the phone could use this database to route your call to the beste carrier.
PBX's already do this (Avaya calls it "Advanced Route Selection"). As for a home phone, using more than one carrier ala 10-10 dialing greatly complicates things since each carrer may tack on fees, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be a U.S. military exercise, but the article states the jamming source is within 20 miles of Havana. Guantanamo bay is several hundred miles away.
Maybe Navy Seals could plant a transmitter 20 miles off the north coast, but if they can transmit to a fixed source from the water I'm very impressed (perhaps use a set of gyroscopes to stabilize it). Are the waters very calm there?
Ah, you're right. I remember now that ProDOS ensures it came from a BASIC print statement.
Feeding an AC troll, perhaps, but I am compelled by the ridiculous current (1,informative) score: there is no practical use! That's the point.
We use old computers because they remind us of when we were young. I learned 6502 assembly language on an Apple IIe when I was 13 and had one of my programs published in the November 1988 issue of Nybble (one/two-liner contest). _Those_ were the days when we did things because they were fun, not necessarily practical! Nowadays we must suffer with not-so-fun programming to earn a paycheck, and so we enjoy these moments of nostalgia. It may not matter, but it's news for nerds.
Unless you're using ProDOS, and it spits out ^D
I don't know, but I know how to look it up. Programming is a thought process, not memorization of syntax eccentricities.
...and the job goes to...someone who could answer the question. Maybe I don't thoroughly understand your statement, but my thought process constantly involves "syntax eccentricities."
Is the syntax question annoying because it's about syntax or because you don't know the answer?
When I interviewed for my current job position, I was give a brief syntax/data structures exam on paper. No computer, not even a text editor.
Maybe you think syntax questions are annoying, but I got a 50% pay increase out of it!
"Being able to do so would be extremely powerful"
... ...
... ...
Ahh, but power corrupts. I see this as a design issue, not a code issue. That is, I would code your (apparently java) example above as
public int AverageAsInt(int a, int b)
public double AverageAsDouble(int a,int b)
simply because it makes the code more readable, and readily understandable by someone else. For example, in the following example, which form would someone read faster (and with less risk of misunderstanding):
public double Average(double a, double b)
Average(Average(1,2),Average(3.0,4))
How "Average(1,2)" is interpreted (although you'd rightly expect a compile-time error) is a big difference, mathematically.
Cilk is my favorite. It's not a general C language (although it is a superset), but I've used it and it's pretty nifty for distributed problems.
I wondered how long it would be until someone wondered how long it would be until someone suggested a beowolf cluster, etc.
11:56a - 12:02p = six minutes
It may be that all of the IP is in the software. The network chip could be the NIC equivalent of a software modem (I don't know). As an example, that the SB 16 PCI is just a DSP. The vast majority of Ensoniq's software engineering effort is in the driver.
This creates a predicament because in order for a driver to be "certified" by Microsoft, they require source code to the driver. A ridiculous request when the source code is 90% of the product! Thus, you can't open-source the driver for the same reason.
Additionally DirectX 9.0 drivers (perhaps the linux drivers too) from nVidia and ATI include run-time compilers for the shader programs. These are closely guarded trade secrets that will never see the light of day.
Heh-heh..."Dammit, Jack, quit humping my leg!"
1) Open this link in a new window.
2) Cut and paste the following unicode string into the "Translate a block of text" area3) Select "Chinese to English"
4) Click Translate
5) Click Translate
Result: "All your computer is belongs us"
I think you've hit the nail on the head!
They completely circumvent the whole "1984" discussion because it's totally unnecessary to monitor what someone is doing if you've already restricted what they can do.
Moreover, since you are now a data stream, can you copyright yourself? What do you do if you are "pirated"? :)
They shouldn't have believed the ads and switched from cable! It must've been that free installation offer :)
The craft travels on an elliptical orbit and its antenna must be moved periodically to keep it pointing Earthward.
I wonder if multiple, non-moving antennae would have been feasible?
Microsoft needs to find examples of open-source failures for future PR material. What better source of expertise is there than Slashdot? :)
Seriously, though, it is likely the question's author is asking because his company's (SoftXS) clients are asking the same question. Alan uses open-source tools widely in his business, so an awareness of what can go wrong (especially from a political standpoint) and how to prevent it are of critical importance. Indeed, it is important for everyone in the business of providing open-source solutions.
I didn't read it that way at all. Apparently they needed and wanted the function that the software provided, or they'd not have paid him so easily for his services. He left it to the company to hire an appropriate admin for the system, which they did not do. IMHO, it is the company's fault for not finding an approprate admin, as well as the admin's fault for not telling them he wasn't experienced enough (and didn't care to learn) to support their system! However, it's the company's money, so if they want to spend it fixing something that isn't broke, that's their perogative (as ridiculous as it may seem).
I'd not thought of that. It would have to be an extraordinarly threatening disease, although it would be an extremely effective tactic: comply or die.
Personally, I don't think RFID will be the tool used because it has already attracted an extreme amount of "big brother" attention. If one truly attempts to deceive "even the very elect", it won't be with something as invasive or obvious as RFID! Additionally, RFID (and UPC codes, etc.) can serve as a decoy to detract attention from the actual "mark" itself. That's why I am suspicious of the retinal/fingerprint method. It's very subtle, efficient, and accurate, and is becoming more economically feasable every day. There is no action on your part aside from submitting your biometrics for inclusion in a database (thereby marking you as "clean" in your example). It's a simple and innocent-sounding process. It's even becoming increasingly accepted by the public. There are several slashdot stories that make mention of the fact that grocery stores are using fingerprints to identify "shopping club" memebers. And this is just to save a few bucks!
There are religious groups today that oppose any sort of innoculations, and un-vaccinated children attend public schools in the face of state laws requiring vaccinations. This implies the current state of affairs is such that social and legal pressures to vaccinate your children against the worst of today's diseases is insufficient to infringe on one's liberty. It'll take something more dangerous than Anthrax or SARS to tip the scales.
The Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases is at the forefront of SARS research. Perhaps this is to bring the military into the public eye as a provider of the "cure" in preparation for "the big one"?
I so enjoy a good conspiracy theory discussion. :)
This is only the tip of the iceberg, I fear. There are times when you need to ask yourself, what if? I did not live during the McCarthy era, but I feel this is one of those times. I may seem paranoid, but here is my "what if?" for the Bush administation's plan:
1) Use the term "terrorist" to refer to a small number of individuals that are a threat to peace and security in order to justify sweeping changes to policy and laws but more importantly as justification to begin developing a system to track every individual, everywhere (the system will, unfortunately, improve over time).
2) Once the necessary tracking infrastructure is in place (perhaps not perfected yet), change the term from "terrorist" to "criminal" . The justification will be that criminals are bad too, and they threaten peace and security just like terrorists, right?
3) Once the system has improved to the point that false positives are indeed negligable, gradually redefine the term "criminal" to discreetly include groups and individuals of the government's choosing.
Does this sound like an unlikely scenario? If you have an opinion, what social forces do you believe would act to reinforce or inhibit this scenario?
One might also discuss the similarities of the TIA (Total Information Awareness) and TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance). Both seek to create an environment that a person or an application, respectively, must be pre-authorized to enter. Without proper authorization, you or your application are not allowed to be a part of the system or interact with other authorized entities.
Eventually, I expect the "fly-list" to become the dominate list, and the "no-fly-list" to become increasingly obscure. You will then no longer be able to fly without identifying yourself to the system.
My greatest fear is that one will no longer be able to "buy or sell without the mark [of approval]", in the Biblical sense. What we see today certainly allows for that, especially if you take into consideration the infusement of funds by the government into bioinformatics R&D. The "mark in the forehead or right hand" easily translates into a retinal scan or fingerprint. When positive identification becomes cheap, efficient, and accurate, it will become ubiquitous, and we will all be rows in a (probably Oracle) database.
Thoughts?
There's a saying that if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly heat the pot, the frog will boil to death without ever trying to escape.
That's exactly what this is: getting their "foot in the door" for future, more invasive privacy violations. Anyone knows if you give lawmakers an inch, they take a mile.
PBX's already do this (Avaya calls it "Advanced Route Selection"). As for a home phone, using more than one carrier ala 10-10 dialing greatly complicates things since each carrer may tack on fees, etc.
A pity it doesn't use PoE (power over ethernet) like those nifty 3Com wall switches.
Diablo2 meets ProgressQuest but with the programmability of Robocode!
I love it! I can't wait to try it.
ooops...wrong window - sorry.
Diablo2 meets ProgressQuest but with the programmability of Robocode!
I love it! I can't wait to try it.
But it will run on Bochs.