So you are confirming that the hype is without any basis in reality. People are claiming it's a good language without actually having tried to use it to build anything substantial. That is not encouraging at all.
Software security people are saying it's a good language because it has features that very much matter to software security and there's nothing else out there that is even attempting to solve the same problems.
That's not something without basis in reality. It's hard learned experience creating requirements that rust is out to meet.
While Portland gets fewer days, but big, blatty raindrops when it does rain and more water overall. It's one state closer to CA as well. However Oregon isn't about to hand the water over to California. I don't see electoral success in the future of the politician who inks that deal with CA.
I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
Right. So you know first hand how ignorant it is to say math and statistics have nothing to with social science.:-)
Do you not realize that you are running an Operating System, written in a Turing Complete language, and that it is only possible because the other problems can(and have) been addressed? Also:
" Now solve all the other problems without knowing what they are."
Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean that they aren't well known and understood.
An operating system has a API through which you communicate with it. Much like a protocol. Of course the compute environment the programs, both kernel and application are turing complete and operating systems and applications have vulnerabilities.
If on the watch, between application and screen, XML is being generated and parsed into DOM like things to render the user interface of the application, web browser stylee, it's no surprise it runs slow.
Because identifying the 10 million and sampling the 1 million will be expensive. Worse, that many people in the class may not exist. If your class is 'residents of Boring, Oregon', there may simply be too few of them to randomize away the confounders and drive the p-value down.
Top tip. If you want to find something in the data, it helps if it sticks out above the noise floor like a sore thumb. If you're having to push the noise floor down with sample size to make something visible, the odds you got something else wrong go up in proportion.
MC is not even willing to use standard things like TLS.
I'm a cryptographic security architect (their name, not mine) for a large techy corporation and I am not willing to use the steaming pile of poo that is TLS. This was a good call on the part of the Minecraft developers. They might not be able to write a good security protocol, but they sure avoided a bad one.
If I succeed in destroying TLS, X.509 and all that goes along with it, replacing it with something sane, I will have succeeded and I can die content.
Personally, I think that Minecraft needs a lot of work. The gameplay itself is pretty good, but it really needs to be reworked in terms of performance and stability. I was hoping that things would change with MS buying it as they could hire more people to work on it, but I don't think they've actually done anything noteworthy with it yet.
I don't know much about game programming, but I know how big corporations work. 1) Buy a company 2) Leave it there doing what it does. 3) Think hard about how to integrate it, use it's technology etc. 4) Do that.
From what I've read on the minecraft reddit, it seems like there were 2 approaches to exploit this bug.
They patched one and thought that also covered the other, but it didn't and they weren't aware then fast forward 2 years.
It's not a bug. It's a property of Turing complete languages. You cannot show the server will behave for all inputs. Computer science is a bitch sometimes.
Are you sure that the term "well-controlled study" applies, given how you repeatedly used the term "random" when describing this experiment?
Randomness is not compatible with experimental control. Additionally, randomness itself cannot be controlled, because doing so would prevent it from being true randomness.
Friends don't let friends put Turing complete languages in communication protocols. This cannot be fixed in general. The behavior of a Turing complete language executor is formally undecidable over all inputs.
Minecraft (and X.509 certs and HTML 5.0 and SQL and, and, and...) all need to switch to non Turing complete languages if they are to have the option of secureable implementations.
I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
There really aren't any good ways to measure those other effects. If you knew how your experiment was biased, you'd try and fix it.
Randomized sampling goes a long way, but only if you have a large enough population. This is one of the problems of social sciences. A randomized 10% subsample from 100 subjects ain't gonna cut it. A randomized subsample from 10,000,000 people isn't going to get funded.
P-values certainly are probabilities. You just argued they aren't probabilities, but they are probabilities of this other thing. You contradicted yourself. I was specifically vague when I called it 'something' because it changes with the type of test and there are many to choose from and I didn't want to write a whole book. That book has already been written by smarter people than I.
I used 'scientists' in quotes in the same sense I'd put computer 'scientistis' in quotes. My degree is computer science, but I dispute that it's a science in the conventional sense.
I find debugging hardware is closer to science. You can't really see inside the chip, but you can develop hypotheses about what it wrong and come up with tests that will refute (or not) the hypotheses. Iterate until you think you probably know the truth.
Doing things well in social sciences is hard. The field (human subjects, IRB etc.) doesn't admit normal testing methods readily. You can't set up a control group and not teach them anything when the control group are school children, or not treat them when the control group is cancer patients, or not house them when the control group is people of the prevalent skin color in the area. The statistics to do things correctly are therefore non trivial and are all about making do with what you have and not over-inferring. If your professors don't know this stuff, and you don't know this stuff, and the paper reviewers don't know this stuff, then it's going to be hard to be rigorous.
I design chips and I do new things that haven't been done before in the analog/digital overlap. So I need data to test. My curves and P-values look great, since I just pull a couple of gig of data when I need it. The control group won't get upset, it's a chip. This is easy compared to statistics in the social sciences. So it's less 'science' and more 'advanced inference'.
It's reasonable for a journal to declare that it (and it's reviewers) don't know that stuff. Presumably there a journal with statistically skilled reviewers and you should submit there if you need that sort of peer review.
This is social science. Mathematics and statistics aren't even relevant.
Yes they are. Get quantitative data, use quantitative methods. Just because most social 'scientists' are not experts at statistical inference, it doesn't mean it can't be done correctly.
p-values are just a probability of something. Do you experiment well and 'something' makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are confirming that the hype is without any basis in reality. People are claiming it's a good language without actually having tried to use it to build anything substantial. That is not encouraging at all.
Software security people are saying it's a good language because it has features that very much matter to software security and there's nothing else out there that is even attempting to solve the same problems.
That's not something without basis in reality. It's hard learned experience creating requirements that rust is out to meet.
Sorry. I had a bit of a whooshy moment.
A PCIe SSD opens up the sole SATA slot for the backup disk in the small form factor PCs that are currently in vogue.
Well swift has a bucket load of nice clean language features for a compiled language.
That seems like a reason to me. Cleanliness.
He's not a politician. He's a star captain. Military seniority doesn't carry much capital with us hippy dippy Oregonians.
While Portland gets fewer days, but big, blatty raindrops when it does rain and more water overall. It's one state closer to CA as well. However Oregon isn't about to hand the water over to California. I don't see electoral success in the future of the politician who inks that deal with CA.
What he wants is automated regression testing. They did know about the bug before they tried to fix it.
I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
Right. So you know first hand how ignorant it is to say math and statistics have nothing to with social science. :-)
It wasn't me who said that.
No but he determined the limits of decidability. Keep up please.
Do you not realize that you are running an Operating System, written in a Turing Complete language, and that it is only possible because the other problems can (and have) been addressed? Also:
Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean that they aren't well known and understood.
An operating system has a API through which you communicate with it. Much like a protocol. Of course the compute environment the programs, both kernel and application are turing complete and operating systems and applications have vulnerabilities.
If on the watch, between application and screen, XML is being generated and parsed into DOM like things to render the user interface of the application, web browser stylee, it's no surprise it runs slow.
I may be wrong, but I fear I may not be.
>Sandboxing solves pretty much all other problems.
Like Java and ActiveX?
Because identifying the 10 million and sampling the 1 million will be expensive. Worse, that many people in the class may not exist. If your class is 'residents of Boring, Oregon', there may simply be too few of them to randomize away the confounders and drive the p-value down.
Top tip. If you want to find something in the data, it helps if it sticks out above the noise floor like a sore thumb. If you're having to push the noise floor down with sample size to make something visible, the odds you got something else wrong go up in proportion.
You solved one problem. Now solve all the other problems without knowing what they are. The problem space is undecidably large.
>Also, being Turning-complete is sufficient but not necessary to have this problem
Yes. No argument there. Once free of Turing you can hedge with the simplest possible design. Formal methods may help.
MC is not even willing to use standard things like TLS.
I'm a cryptographic security architect (their name, not mine) for a large techy corporation and I am not willing to use the steaming pile of poo that is TLS. This was a good call on the part of the Minecraft developers. They might not be able to write a good security protocol, but they sure avoided a bad one.
If I succeed in destroying TLS, X.509 and all that goes along with it, replacing it with something sane, I will have succeeded and I can die content.
Personally, I think that Minecraft needs a lot of work. The gameplay itself is pretty good, but it really needs to be reworked in terms of performance and stability. I was hoping that things would change with MS buying it as they could hire more people to work on it, but I don't think they've actually done anything noteworthy with it yet.
I don't know much about game programming, but I know how big corporations work.
1) Buy a company
2) Leave it there doing what it does.
3) Think hard about how to integrate it, use it's technology etc.
4) Do that.
The gap between 2 and 4 can be years.
From what I've read on the minecraft reddit, it seems like there were 2 approaches to exploit this bug.
They patched one and thought that also covered the other, but it didn't and they weren't aware then fast forward 2 years.
It's not a bug. It's a property of Turing complete languages. You cannot show the server will behave for all inputs. Computer science is a bitch sometimes.
Are you sure that the term "well-controlled study" applies, given how you repeatedly used the term "random" when describing this experiment?
Randomness is not compatible with experimental control. Additionally, randomness itself cannot be controlled, because doing so would prevent it from being true randomness.
Quick! Someone is wrong on the internet.
Friends don't let friends put Turing complete languages in communication protocols.
This cannot be fixed in general. The behavior of a Turing complete language executor is formally undecidable over all inputs.
Minecraft (and X.509 certs and HTML 5.0 and SQL and, and, and...) all need to switch to non Turing complete languages if they are to have the option of secureable implementations.
I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
One hour warning is ridiculously short. Also - there was no way for the White House to know he was just delivering letters and not a bomb.
Well it was statistically unlikely. 100% of gyrocopter visits to the white house have no been to deliver a bomb.
There really aren't any good ways to measure those other effects. If you knew how your experiment was biased, you'd try and fix it.
Randomized sampling goes a long way, but only if you have a large enough population. This is one of the problems of social sciences. A randomized 10% subsample from 100 subjects ain't gonna cut it. A randomized subsample from 10,000,000 people isn't going to get funded.
P-values certainly are probabilities. You just argued they aren't probabilities, but they are probabilities of this other thing. You contradicted yourself. I was specifically vague when I called it 'something' because it changes with the type of test and there are many to choose from and I didn't want to write a whole book. That book has already been written by smarter people than I.
I used 'scientists' in quotes in the same sense I'd put computer 'scientistis' in quotes. My degree is computer science, but I dispute that it's a science in the conventional sense.
I find debugging hardware is closer to science. You can't really see inside the chip, but you can develop hypotheses about what it wrong and come up with tests that will refute (or not) the hypotheses. Iterate until you think you probably know the truth.
Doing things well in social sciences is hard. The field (human subjects, IRB etc.) doesn't admit normal testing methods readily. You can't set up a control group and not teach them anything when the control group are school children, or not treat them when the control group is cancer patients, or not house them when the control group is people of the prevalent skin color in the area. The statistics to do things correctly are therefore non trivial and are all about making do with what you have and not over-inferring. If your professors don't know this stuff, and you don't know this stuff, and the paper reviewers don't know this stuff, then it's going to be hard to be rigorous.
I design chips and I do new things that haven't been done before in the analog/digital overlap. So I need data to test. My curves and P-values look great, since I just pull a couple of gig of data when I need it. The control group won't get upset, it's a chip. This is easy compared to statistics in the social sciences. So it's less 'science' and more 'advanced inference'.
It's reasonable for a journal to declare that it (and it's reviewers) don't know that stuff. Presumably there a journal with statistically skilled reviewers and you should submit there if you need that sort of peer review.
This is social science. Mathematics and statistics aren't even relevant.
Yes they are. Get quantitative data, use quantitative methods.
Just because most social 'scientists' are not experts at statistical inference, it doesn't mean it can't be done correctly.
p-values are just a probability of something. Do you experiment well and 'something' makes sense.