1). There are studies on the impact of CCD on agriculture. If nothing else, the costs of colony rentals have gone up. That impacts you at the grocery store.
2). The actual cause of CCD is still undetermined. It might be a calm before the storm, or it might be something else.
Could we coin a bee related term such as CMOS, just to make it more confusing?
With a background in Pascal you can graduate to Ada and nobody uses Ada.
Many people use ADA. It's the procedural subset of VHDL. Just because it's not seen in the world of webs and apps, it doesn't mean there isn't a vast chip design community for which is it one of the 2 principle languages.
Indeed. My CS degree in 1991 included no programming instruction. They were completely clear that it was your job to teach yourself to program. There was an assumption that most people had grown up programming basic and assembler on home 8 bit machines and had got over the hump of comprehension about what programming is before arriving. What there was plenty of was courses on language theory, formal semantics, CPU architecture, compiler design and the whole gamut of CS things.
To this day, I have no problem assimilating a new language quickly in terms of the language features I learned in college. On the other hand, learning someone's OO library for UI (Windows, Mac, iOS, Android etc) is a nightmare of vast complicated message passing schemes with perverse naming schemes. I've done it a few times, but it never ever sticks in my head if I stop.
Some programmers don't respond well to subtlety in humor, even when it's not very subtle at all. I'm not a programmer. I have programmed, but these days, I make computers do my bidding by force of will.
Low security margin? Perhaps you care more about idealism than security. AES-256, as it stands with current methods, can't be feasibly broken within the lifetime of the sun with all of the energy contained within the sun. Just ask Bruce Schneier, whom, by any account, is more of a valid authority than butzwonker.
Lower. Jesus H. Read before you type. Also learn what security margin means with respect to block ciphers. It's difference between the number of rounds in the algorithm and the number of rounds broken in the best known attack. With AES it is absolutely lower than many other block ciphers.
What makes you think this is about AES and what makes you think the algorithms that China wants to use are not superior to the NIST options?
In the case of hashes, the Chinese options are simply better both in terms of resistance to known attacks and implementability and come courtesy of the professor who broke SHA-1, who is Chinese.
NIST fucked up royally with SHA3, putting it up to a popularity vote. The Europeans turned up at the meeting in strength and voted for the home team. It had nothing to do with the algorithm. Hence the adoption of SHA3 in hardware is going nowhere. We wanted a new hash, not a license to waste gates and power.
There was an interesting dynamic at ISO SC27 WG2 a couple of years ago, where the Chinese (literally, the proposals come from nation state delegates) hash proposal was presented, along with a proof of why all the SHA were fucked and why the new structure dealt with it. At the same meeting, the NSA were there presenting Simon and Speck block ciphers for adoption by ISO (which are superb ciphers from any way you look at it, far superior to AES or SMS4 in implementability and at least as secure in security). The crows were having none of it. All comments were of the form "You're the NSA and we don't trust you". Keep in mind the comments are coming from representatives of governments. not individuals. I am not a US citizen, but I was a US delegate.
China has a legitimate reason to dislike some of the NIST crypto options and legitimate reasons to prefer their own.
If this was open source people would be happy that you could use your own choice of crypto algorithms. Microsoft would be better off making the crypto plugable in windows for the rest of us, not just the Chinese government.
You could but if you chose to not bother, you would get a faster executable that doesn't need a boatload software bloat to even run.
I still remember the day when Microsoft C Compiler had an option to compile to bytecode. In the days of 16-bit, it made a certain amount of sense because memory was tight and the code density was so much better.
The apple ][ came with a bytecode called Sweet16 that let you do 16 bit code on an 8 bit CPU and yielded better code density. But requiring a browser or JVM seems to require a large amount of code bloat.
1. It's statically typed. 2. It compiles to JVM and JavaScript. 3. It's nothing at all like Ruby, except to the extent that Ruby borrows from the same languages that Kotlin borrows from.
It's A) Curly braces B) OO boilerplate
So I throw it in the same basket with C++, C#, Java etc.
It also isn't a real language because it compiles to a JVM rather than machine code. So it's less useful than C.
>Our increasing obsession with trailers is changing how we watch movies.
Your obsession. I don't have an obsession with trailers. They barely register on my personal radar of things I'm aware of and they certainly aren't something I care about.
I don't like Uber much mostly due to the socially awkward tipping thing, but I hate traditional taxis a lot more. Uber just brings the hate to Slashdot. So yes, I use Lyft.
>1000 times NO - you cannot use the same definition language across different input strata.
Let me fix that for you.
1000 times NO: You cannot use the same user interface across devices with and without a keyboard.
If Microsoft did one good thing here, it was to cease calling a visual style a 'language'. You might get with the program by not calling input devices "strata".
I'm not appealing for anyone to believe anything.I neither saying he's right nor wrong. The argument was very interesting and worth checking out.
The "== magic" thing was the scale free nature of the equations of photons leading them to be being conformally equal to the low entropy state at the start of the universe when there's no mass around. So more of a mathematical observation.
I guess we could just ignore all this stuff and live under a rock until someone declares science to be complete, but I find it interesting.
Penrose's Cycles of Time puts forward a really straightforward mechanism for the big bang. When the last massive particle pops and all the energy in the universe is massless photons, you have no mass, so no gravity and no time. Everything is simple, low entropy, dominated by photons and bingo you have something that looks (and is) identical to the state at start of the big bang.
Slashdot Mirror
>If you say "degreed engineer" or "PE", that has specific qualifications, but "engineer" just means you know how to build stuff.
Just to be difficult, PE is an internal grade of engineer in my mega-corp, completely unrelated to state licensing.
>We watch sports to get a break from politics
Suit yourself. I shoot zombies. If the zombies were playing American football, I might be encourages to aim better.
Oh c'mon... It's only 120 million euros. How much is that in Beluga Caviar?
I much prefer osetra.
1). There are studies on the impact of CCD on agriculture. If nothing else, the costs of colony rentals have gone up. That impacts you at the grocery store.
2). The actual cause of CCD is still undetermined. It might be a calm before the storm, or it might be something else.
Could we coin a bee related term such as CMOS, just to make it more confusing?
With a background in Pascal you can graduate to Ada and nobody uses Ada.
Many people use ADA. It's the procedural subset of VHDL. Just because it's not seen in the world of webs and apps, it doesn't mean there isn't a vast chip design community for which is it one of the 2 principle languages.
Indeed. My CS degree in 1991 included no programming instruction. They were completely clear that it was your job to teach yourself to program. There was an assumption that most people had grown up programming basic and assembler on home 8 bit machines and had got over the hump of comprehension about what programming is before arriving. What there was plenty of was courses on language theory, formal semantics, CPU architecture, compiler design and the whole gamut of CS things.
To this day, I have no problem assimilating a new language quickly in terms of the language features I learned in college. On the other hand, learning someone's OO library for UI (Windows, Mac, iOS, Android etc) is a nightmare of vast complicated message passing schemes with perverse naming schemes. I've done it a few times, but it never ever sticks in my head if I stop.
It's
A) Curly braces
For some reason, the programming world has convinced itself that "C-like" means "curly braces".
B) OO boilerplate
Again, for some reason, the programming world has convinced itself that "OO" means "Simula".
Programmers really don't understand programming languages.
Some programmers don't respond well to subtlety in humor, even when it's not very subtle at all.
I'm not a programmer. I have programmed, but these days, I make computers do my bidding by force of will.
Since when did Netflix sell a game pass?
Low security margin? Perhaps you care more about idealism than security. AES-256, as it stands with current methods, can't be feasibly broken within the lifetime of the sun with all of the energy contained within the sun. Just ask Bruce Schneier, whom, by any account, is more of a valid authority than butzwonker.
Lower. Jesus H. Read before you type. Also learn what security margin means with respect to block ciphers. It's difference between the number of rounds in the algorithm and the number of rounds broken in the best known attack. With AES it is absolutely lower than many other block ciphers.
What makes you think this is about AES and what makes you think the algorithms that China wants to use are not superior to the NIST options?
In the case of hashes, the Chinese options are simply better both in terms of resistance to known attacks and implementability and come courtesy of the professor who broke SHA-1, who is Chinese.
NIST fucked up royally with SHA3, putting it up to a popularity vote. The Europeans turned up at the meeting in strength and voted for the home team. It had nothing to do with the algorithm. Hence the adoption of SHA3 in hardware is going nowhere. We wanted a new hash, not a license to waste gates and power.
There was an interesting dynamic at ISO SC27 WG2 a couple of years ago, where the Chinese (literally, the proposals come from nation state delegates) hash proposal was presented, along with a proof of why all the SHA were fucked and why the new structure dealt with it. At the same meeting, the NSA were there presenting Simon and Speck block ciphers for adoption by ISO (which are superb ciphers from any way you look at it, far superior to AES or SMS4 in implementability and at least as secure in security). The crows were having none of it. All comments were of the form "You're the NSA and we don't trust you". Keep in mind the comments are coming from representatives of governments. not individuals. I am not a US citizen, but I was a US delegate.
China has a legitimate reason to dislike some of the NIST crypto options and legitimate reasons to prefer their own.
If this was open source people would be happy that you could use your own choice of crypto algorithms. Microsoft would be better off making the crypto plugable in windows for the rest of us, not just the Chinese government.
The backdoor in AES is the selection of strong keys.... Do not forget this.
Please identify a weak key or a structure for a weak key for AES that leads to a practical attack. I know of no such attack.
You could but if you chose to not bother, you would get a faster executable that doesn't need a boatload software bloat to even run.
I still remember the day when Microsoft C Compiler had an option to compile to bytecode. In the days of 16-bit, it made a certain amount of sense because memory was tight and the code density was so much better.
The apple ][ came with a bytecode called Sweet16 that let you do 16 bit code on an 8 bit CPU and yielded better code density. But requiring a browser or JVM seems to require a large amount of code bloat.
>One can create a C compiler that outputs bytecode
You could but if you chose to not bother, you would get a faster executable that doesn't need a boatload software bloat to even run.
>Your comment represents a general lack of understanding of languages and their implementations, and a false belief that the two are tightly coupled.
No. It represents disillusionment at there still being nothing much new after 30 years of hardware and software development.
There are a few differences:
1. It's statically typed.
2. It compiles to JVM and JavaScript.
3. It's nothing at all like Ruby, except to the extent that Ruby borrows from the same languages that Kotlin borrows from.
It's
A) Curly braces
B) OO boilerplate
So I throw it in the same basket with C++, C#, Java etc.
It also isn't a real language because it compiles to a JVM rather than machine code. So it's less useful than C.
Then sell it to me in the US and let me worry about my local laws when I "import" the content.
The Berne convention is a treaty that permits you to buy content for personal use abroad and import it.
You are over thinking it.
>Our increasing obsession with trailers is changing how we watch movies.
Your obsession. I don't have an obsession with trailers. They barely register on my personal radar of things I'm aware of and they certainly aren't something I care about.
> It is a rigorous introductory CS course.
So they learn how to compute a fibonacci sequence in Haskell?
I don't like Uber much mostly due to the socially awkward tipping thing, but I hate traditional taxis a lot more. Uber just brings the hate to Slashdot. So yes, I use Lyft.
>1000 times NO - you cannot use the same definition language across different input strata.
Let me fix that for you.
1000 times NO: You cannot use the same user interface across devices with and without a keyboard.
If Microsoft did one good thing here, it was to cease calling a visual style a 'language'. You might get with the program by not calling input devices "strata".
Fair enough. I was wrong. https://physics.stackexchange....
Photons are massless, so they don't create gravitational curvature.
I'm not appealing for anyone to believe anything.I neither saying he's right nor wrong. The argument was very interesting and worth checking out.
The "== magic" thing was the scale free nature of the equations of photons leading them to be being conformally equal to the low entropy state at the start of the universe when there's no mass around. So more of a mathematical observation.
I guess we could just ignore all this stuff and live under a rock until someone declares science to be complete, but I find it interesting.
>There are also electrons, mass and gravity.
Not if you wait long enough.
Penrose's Cycles of Time puts forward a really straightforward mechanism for the big bang. When the last massive particle pops and all the energy in the universe is massless photons, you have no mass, so no gravity and no time. Everything is simple, low entropy, dominated by photons and bingo you have something that looks (and is) identical to the state at start of the big bang.
It hard to see why it isn't true.
He's a smart fellow that Penrose.