The simplest thing they could do is use IPv6 extended headers to carry a security label, and/or a short digital signature or other indicator that would permit packets to be more tamper-resistant, and/or a Kerberos token, and/or enough additional markings that IPSec could operate per-connection.
In fact, if you had one extended header for each of those, you could mix-and-match security extensions according to needs. And because IPv6 only defines a handful of extended headers at present, there's virtually no risk of creating an incompatible protocol. Everything will still "just work", it'd "just work" in a much more secure fashion.
Ok, Internet reinvented in a secure fashion. Can I have my $31 million now, please? No personal checks.
Of course. The Only Survivor is Terry Nation's. Reality TV is a Borg invention designed to soften the minds prior to invasion. (See the prequel to Tripods for details.) As such, it does not really exist.
It would not surprise me if your ancestors did get up to exactly that. In the 1930s, kids did a lot of things which were extremely high-risk by today's standards. You only have to look at Boy Scout manuals, the "Handy Boy's Book" and other stuff aimed at kids to understand both why they were a lot more capable in the wild and why they had a high mortality rate.
Ah, but the variabilities cancel out to produce an invariant within the dynamic system. It is the interpretation of that invariant which is subject to change without notice.
Since technobabble is itself non-deterministic, what's the problem? And surely the function is deterministic but merely sensitive to initial conditions, as the brain is merely a chaotic system.
"Swallows and Amazons" is "just a book". (It's actually a damn good kid's book.) Didn't stop it from also being extremely realistic and very technical. "Weirdstone of Brisingamon" and "Moon of Gomrath" are also just books, but didn't stop the author from having a very elegant magical system.
In short, the realism, the technicality and the elegance don't alter the enjoyability. What dictates the enjoyability is the script, how the writer employs the universe to tell the tale.
Let's compare two movies - "Dr No" and "The IPCRESS File". Both came out about the same time. The former used babble and glitz, the latter used some ideas circulating at the time on brainwashing techniques and was dark/gritty. The latter probably gets a lot more airtime today.
Ok, here's a crude (and not necessarily accurate) chart of series' technobabble quotient, with 100 being equal to a typical pop sci program on Discovery. (Technobabble that is consistent in the series is not considered true technobabble, as it becomes part of the workings of that universe.)
Star Trek - TOS: 500 Star Trek - TNG: 600 Star Trek - Voyager: 500 Star Trek - DS9: 600
Doctor Who - Original: 200 Doctor Who - New Series: 300 Blake's 7: 200 Sapphire and Steel: 125 The Omega Factor: 150 Day of the Triffids: 110 Survivor - Original: 110 The Stone Tape: 125 Quatermass II: 125 A For Andromeda: 120 Space 1999: 300 The Tomorrow People - Original: 150 The Tripods: 140 Project Icarus: 115 Moondial: 120
Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek. And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.
This not only shows that ST IS different from other sci-fi series.Maybe not different from, say, Firefly, but it's not where the real heavy-hitting series are.
To me, part of the problem is the US legal system itself. Both sides sought to be obstructive, in their own ways. Both sides were guilty of mud-slinging. Both sides made it hard for the judge to make any kind of reasoned decision.
But I cannot blame the lawyers for this, because this is how the system itself is set up. There is little interest in the truth, especially when a favorable lie could get you so much more. The lawyers, by mistreating reality and harassing their opponents merely did what they were paid to do, and did a good job of it.
If you don't like the conduct of either side (and I certainly loath the conduct of the RIAA lawyers), don't yell at those who are just doing their jobs. That won't make any difference. You've gotta dig deeper. Those playing the game will always opt for the best strategy, so change the rules and the strategy - and players - will follow.
Thanks for the link. The study on Malaysia interested me, as it's been a well-known paradox in the West that up to the age of 12, girls are vastly superior in maths and science to boys. People have looked at all kinds of explanations, but if there are countries where they're expected to do better throughout their lives and actually do, then the social expectation is clearly a sizable factor.
I'm glad they mentioned Aspergers in the article. Now that the US has finally admitted that it gets the same incidence rate as every other western nation, it might be possible to identify how this affects communities and hobbies.
As much as the F/L/OSS community likes to pretend that it is distinct from the "real world" communities, it isn't. But whereas the "real world" is mostly comprised of idiots who lack the mental capacity to understand anything new, let alone seek it, F/L/OSS developers often represent some of the most curious, information-seeking individuals and some of the highest-calibre intellects out there.
So if we have trouble excusing such behaviour for the "normals", we must be far, far harder on ourselves for those same flaws.
There is a flip-side, though, that the original poster may have neglected to consider. F/L/OSS developers ARE amongst the brightest and the best, but they also have extraordinarily high levels of autistic behaviours, anti-social disorders, emotional instability and alienation.
(The first two are collectively known as "Geek Syndrome". The latter two are the inevitable consequence of Geek Syndrome in a society that tolerates no differences, no matter what it says.)
It is not just likely, but a near-certainty that people with that kind of internal and external pressure WILL fragment into groups that conceal differences by being essentially uniform.
I'm not sure if it can be called sexism when such behaviour is, at least in part, a mask to conceal what's going on. The mask can be sexist without the person underneath being.
However, true misogyny does exist, independent of the mask. THAT particular aspect of sexism should be rooted out and burned, as it is warped, buggy thinking. Bugs SHOULD be erased, and a buggy brain SHOULD be patched.
The problem is how to tell the mask from the person underneath. These are distinct issues. The mask doesn't need fixing, rather the person needs an extended API to handle errors, and the Real World needs replacing with Real World 2.0 to debug the flawed mental processes that produce the garbage in the first place.
Once either the person has better exception-handling or error trapping, and/or there's less noise generating errors, the mask can be erased. It's a filter that exists to hide bad wet-coding and so the sooner we get rid of the bad code, the sooner we can get rid of the filter.
My guess would be that if the mask died, a good 75% of the perceived sexism in F/L/OSS would die with it, without a single F/L/OSS coder needing to change their view of gender.
...when I see a fossil that appears to be disproportionate. It's too easy to forget that there are many fossil forgers out there and Piltdown Man was not the last hoax that fooled otherwise reputable scholars.
It may also be genuine but of an individual who suffered from some sort of condition, as was suspected for Homo Florensis.
Unless the fossil has been X-Rayed or otherwise tested to confirm it is authentic, AND until a second specimen has been found, I'll remain unconvinced that this is anything new.
(The long delay in publishing is another concern, as I would not expect that unless there was some questionmark over the reliability of the find.)
Well, has it worked for car dashboards? The economics of just the front panel are a tiny fraction of the whole. Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine the total cost because part of that cost is concealed in maintenance manuals, driving instruction, word-of-mouth and other sources. To figure out how the net economics have changed, you'd have to total up ALL the costs of the different forms, and that information just doesn't exist.
It would be more correct that it has made the economics for CAR MAKERS better, but they are only one piece of the puzzle and rather an insignificant piece at that.
It actually measures a magnetic moment that is exhibited by oxygenated hemoglobin, but there's bacteria with magnetic fields themselves and there may be bacterial interactions with hemoglobin that result in the specific binding of iron to oxygen that actually generates that moment.
A correct theory is one that has not yet been falsified within the range and at the degree of precision for which that theory has been defined, whether or not the theory has been falsified outside those parameters.
An incorrect theory is one that has been falsified within its own parameters.
The particle theory of light is "correct" within its own parameters, as is the wave theory of light. Neither are "right", but correctness does not require or imply this, so frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn.
Conflating "correct" and "right" is a common error, particularly as they are often abused in education, politics and religion.
Time-averaged basically means long timebase, or at least relatively long. Poor contrast-to-noise indicates many alternative ways of producing similar results. This one deserves more thought.
Which is faster? To craft an individual character, or to cursively slam out an entire word in one go? Chinese-style writing is character-based and is the ultimate in printing. If printing is so good, why don't people use Chinese?
Answer - because people like to complain. They don't actually want to DO anything, because then they'd either have nothing left to complain about or they'd have to admit their complaints were stupid.
Almost everything "modern" uses iconographic or pictographic writing. It's also horribly space-consuming, completely non-portable between cultures (international symbols exist because they're imposed on those nations that would never have used them otherwise).
The sole exceptions are 0 through 9, where you have iconographs representing universal (near-enough) concepts and are highly compact. These symbols, however, are not modern.
You'll observe that GUIs such as Gnome and KDE very rarely use standardized iconographic or pictographic images. Words are the rule, followed by custom images unique to the case in point. Why? Because this is what is sensible, as shown by the past 5,500 years of evolution in writing.
Systems that devolve into pre-writing imagery are inefficient, slow, cumbersome and will eventually die off completely. They're a dead-end. Pre-writing GUIs are trying to take us back to the days of cave paintings. There's a reason civilization didn't exist then - it can't with such inferior media.
If you're good with cursive, or even adequate, it should be a LOT faster for all words exceeding one character in length. Which will be most of them. That's a big reason it was invented. The other being that it's more compact. Unless you want to deforest the region each time you want to go shopping, compact writing for lists and other one-use writings saves on resources you're otherwise expending for no added value.
Given that pigeons can deliver your email faster and more reliably than the Internet (according to experimental evidence), you might want to think about that.
If you can find any carrier pigeons, I'd be impressed - the US exterminated them all, one of the best-documented cases of deliberate extermination of a species.
Cursive was invented because printing is wasteful of space. Cursive is much more compact (when done correctly). It is also faster to produce. To me, these are the only arguments that matter in handwriting - am I wasting time and other resources for no gain?
Print serves a purpose, and is valuable, but only a fool wastes on the theory that there's always plenty. Space and time are always premium. It may be harder to read bad cursive, but then why produce bad cursive?
Mathematical sequences are inherently symbolic, so naturally you use self-contained symbols for them. It's a different animal. (Speaking of Animal, I wonder if muppets use cursive...)
Well we already knew that. There's plenty of research showing journals won't publish negative studies concerning products made by key advertisers and that there's enormous pressure on researchers from the corporate sector to only ever generate favourable studies.
Now we have a paper that disses not one product or one company but EVERY product, EVERY company and EVERY study that falsely assumes a specific cause for a much more general effect. What do you think the journals are going to do? This gets published, especially in the current economy, and the only thing the editors will be selling will be newspapers on homeless issues as they struggle to pay for the next cup of tea.
Slashdot Mirror
...is that this is something the US was planning to smuggle INTO China and Russia...
The simplest thing they could do is use IPv6 extended headers to carry a security label, and/or a short digital signature or other indicator that would permit packets to be more tamper-resistant, and/or a Kerberos token, and/or enough additional markings that IPSec could operate per-connection.
In fact, if you had one extended header for each of those, you could mix-and-match security extensions according to needs. And because IPv6 only defines a handful of extended headers at present, there's virtually no risk of creating an incompatible protocol. Everything will still "just work", it'd "just work" in a much more secure fashion.
Ok, Internet reinvented in a secure fashion. Can I have my $31 million now, please? No personal checks.
Of course. The Only Survivor is Terry Nation's. Reality TV is a Borg invention designed to soften the minds prior to invasion. (See the prequel to Tripods for details.) As such, it does not really exist.
It would not surprise me if your ancestors did get up to exactly that. In the 1930s, kids did a lot of things which were extremely high-risk by today's standards. You only have to look at Boy Scout manuals, the "Handy Boy's Book" and other stuff aimed at kids to understand both why they were a lot more capable in the wild and why they had a high mortality rate.
Ah, but the variabilities cancel out to produce an invariant within the dynamic system. It is the interpretation of that invariant which is subject to change without notice.
Since technobabble is itself non-deterministic, what's the problem? And surely the function is deterministic but merely sensitive to initial conditions, as the brain is merely a chaotic system.
"Swallows and Amazons" is "just a book". (It's actually a damn good kid's book.) Didn't stop it from also being extremely realistic and very technical. "Weirdstone of Brisingamon" and "Moon of Gomrath" are also just books, but didn't stop the author from having a very elegant magical system.
In short, the realism, the technicality and the elegance don't alter the enjoyability. What dictates the enjoyability is the script, how the writer employs the universe to tell the tale.
Let's compare two movies - "Dr No" and "The IPCRESS File". Both came out about the same time. The former used babble and glitz, the latter used some ideas circulating at the time on brainwashing techniques and was dark/gritty. The latter probably gets a lot more airtime today.
Ok, here's a crude (and not necessarily accurate) chart of series' technobabble quotient, with 100 being equal to a typical pop sci program on Discovery. (Technobabble that is consistent in the series is not considered true technobabble, as it becomes part of the workings of that universe.)
Star Trek - TOS: 500
Star Trek - TNG: 600
Star Trek - Voyager: 500
Star Trek - DS9: 600
Doctor Who - Original: 200
Doctor Who - New Series: 300
Blake's 7: 200
Sapphire and Steel: 125
The Omega Factor: 150
Day of the Triffids: 110
Survivor - Original: 110
The Stone Tape: 125
Quatermass II: 125
A For Andromeda: 120
Space 1999: 300
The Tomorrow People - Original: 150
The Tripods: 140
Project Icarus: 115
Moondial: 120
Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek. And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.
This not only shows that ST IS different from other sci-fi series.Maybe not different from, say, Firefly, but it's not where the real heavy-hitting series are.
To me, part of the problem is the US legal system itself. Both sides sought to be obstructive, in their own ways. Both sides were guilty of mud-slinging. Both sides made it hard for the judge to make any kind of reasoned decision.
But I cannot blame the lawyers for this, because this is how the system itself is set up. There is little interest in the truth, especially when a favorable lie could get you so much more. The lawyers, by mistreating reality and harassing their opponents merely did what they were paid to do, and did a good job of it.
If you don't like the conduct of either side (and I certainly loath the conduct of the RIAA lawyers), don't yell at those who are just doing their jobs. That won't make any difference. You've gotta dig deeper. Those playing the game will always opt for the best strategy, so change the rules and the strategy - and players - will follow.
Thanks for the link. The study on Malaysia interested me, as it's been a well-known paradox in the West that up to the age of 12, girls are vastly superior in maths and science to boys. People have looked at all kinds of explanations, but if there are countries where they're expected to do better throughout their lives and actually do, then the social expectation is clearly a sizable factor.
I'm glad they mentioned Aspergers in the article. Now that the US has finally admitted that it gets the same incidence rate as every other western nation, it might be possible to identify how this affects communities and hobbies.
As much as the F/L/OSS community likes to pretend that it is distinct from the "real world" communities, it isn't. But whereas the "real world" is mostly comprised of idiots who lack the mental capacity to understand anything new, let alone seek it, F/L/OSS developers often represent some of the most curious, information-seeking individuals and some of the highest-calibre intellects out there.
So if we have trouble excusing such behaviour for the "normals", we must be far, far harder on ourselves for those same flaws.
There is a flip-side, though, that the original poster may have neglected to consider. F/L/OSS developers ARE amongst the brightest and the best, but they also have extraordinarily high levels of autistic behaviours, anti-social disorders, emotional instability and alienation.
(The first two are collectively known as "Geek Syndrome". The latter two are the inevitable consequence of Geek Syndrome in a society that tolerates no differences, no matter what it says.)
It is not just likely, but a near-certainty that people with that kind of internal and external pressure WILL fragment into groups that conceal differences by being essentially uniform.
I'm not sure if it can be called sexism when such behaviour is, at least in part, a mask to conceal what's going on. The mask can be sexist without the person underneath being.
However, true misogyny does exist, independent of the mask. THAT particular aspect of sexism should be rooted out and burned, as it is warped, buggy thinking. Bugs SHOULD be erased, and a buggy brain SHOULD be patched.
The problem is how to tell the mask from the person underneath. These are distinct issues. The mask doesn't need fixing, rather the person needs an extended API to handle errors, and the Real World needs replacing with Real World 2.0 to debug the flawed mental processes that produce the garbage in the first place.
Once either the person has better exception-handling or error trapping, and/or there's less noise generating errors, the mask can be erased. It's a filter that exists to hide bad wet-coding and so the sooner we get rid of the bad code, the sooner we can get rid of the filter.
My guess would be that if the mask died, a good 75% of the perceived sexism in F/L/OSS would die with it, without a single F/L/OSS coder needing to change their view of gender.
...when I see a fossil that appears to be disproportionate. It's too easy to forget that there are many fossil forgers out there and Piltdown Man was not the last hoax that fooled otherwise reputable scholars.
It may also be genuine but of an individual who suffered from some sort of condition, as was suspected for Homo Florensis.
Unless the fossil has been X-Rayed or otherwise tested to confirm it is authentic, AND until a second specimen has been found, I'll remain unconvinced that this is anything new.
(The long delay in publishing is another concern, as I would not expect that unless there was some questionmark over the reliability of the find.)
Well, has it worked for car dashboards? The economics of just the front panel are a tiny fraction of the whole. Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine the total cost because part of that cost is concealed in maintenance manuals, driving instruction, word-of-mouth and other sources. To figure out how the net economics have changed, you'd have to total up ALL the costs of the different forms, and that information just doesn't exist.
It would be more correct that it has made the economics for CAR MAKERS better, but they are only one piece of the puzzle and rather an insignificant piece at that.
IP-over-Avian permits compressed formats, so I guess it depends on the codec.
Odd. I don't remember getting the invisible ink in the post.
It actually measures a magnetic moment that is exhibited by oxygenated hemoglobin, but there's bacteria with magnetic fields themselves and there may be bacterial interactions with hemoglobin that result in the specific binding of iron to oxygen that actually generates that moment.
Possibly. You will observe I did not reject the idea that dark matter exists.
A correct theory is one that has not yet been falsified within the range and at the degree of precision for which that theory has been defined, whether or not the theory has been falsified outside those parameters.
An incorrect theory is one that has been falsified within its own parameters.
The particle theory of light is "correct" within its own parameters, as is the wave theory of light. Neither are "right", but correctness does not require or imply this, so frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn.
Conflating "correct" and "right" is a common error, particularly as they are often abused in education, politics and religion.
Time-averaged basically means long timebase, or at least relatively long. Poor contrast-to-noise indicates many alternative ways of producing similar results. This one deserves more thought.
Which is faster? To craft an individual character, or to cursively slam out an entire word in one go? Chinese-style writing is character-based and is the ultimate in printing. If printing is so good, why don't people use Chinese?
Answer - because people like to complain. They don't actually want to DO anything, because then they'd either have nothing left to complain about or they'd have to admit their complaints were stupid.
Almost everything "modern" uses iconographic or pictographic writing. It's also horribly space-consuming, completely non-portable between cultures (international symbols exist because they're imposed on those nations that would never have used them otherwise).
The sole exceptions are 0 through 9, where you have iconographs representing universal (near-enough) concepts and are highly compact. These symbols, however, are not modern.
You'll observe that GUIs such as Gnome and KDE very rarely use standardized iconographic or pictographic images. Words are the rule, followed by custom images unique to the case in point. Why? Because this is what is sensible, as shown by the past 5,500 years of evolution in writing.
Systems that devolve into pre-writing imagery are inefficient, slow, cumbersome and will eventually die off completely. They're a dead-end. Pre-writing GUIs are trying to take us back to the days of cave paintings. There's a reason civilization didn't exist then - it can't with such inferior media.
If you're good with cursive, or even adequate, it should be a LOT faster for all words exceeding one character in length. Which will be most of them. That's a big reason it was invented. The other being that it's more compact. Unless you want to deforest the region each time you want to go shopping, compact writing for lists and other one-use writings saves on resources you're otherwise expending for no added value.
Given that pigeons can deliver your email faster and more reliably than the Internet (according to experimental evidence), you might want to think about that.
If you can find any carrier pigeons, I'd be impressed - the US exterminated them all, one of the best-documented cases of deliberate extermination of a species.
Cursive was invented because printing is wasteful of space. Cursive is much more compact (when done correctly). It is also faster to produce. To me, these are the only arguments that matter in handwriting - am I wasting time and other resources for no gain?
Print serves a purpose, and is valuable, but only a fool wastes on the theory that there's always plenty. Space and time are always premium. It may be harder to read bad cursive, but then why produce bad cursive?
Mathematical sequences are inherently symbolic, so naturally you use self-contained symbols for them. It's a different animal. (Speaking of Animal, I wonder if muppets use cursive...)
Well we already knew that. There's plenty of research showing journals won't publish negative studies concerning products made by key advertisers and that there's enormous pressure on researchers from the corporate sector to only ever generate favourable studies.
Now we have a paper that disses not one product or one company but EVERY product, EVERY company and EVERY study that falsely assumes a specific cause for a much more general effect. What do you think the journals are going to do? This gets published, especially in the current economy, and the only thing the editors will be selling will be newspapers on homeless issues as they struggle to pay for the next cup of tea.