I'd be most concerned about other products that use a Raspberry Pi internally. Can't be sure if the maker secured the thing and the consumer of these are likely to be less tech savvy and may not even know about the security concerns.
Decentralized solutions are difficult when the majority of participants cannot easily be hosts. The asymmetric download/upload rates seen in many popular Internet deployments has meant serving content is often not effective. Additionally, every ISP I have had has forbid running servers on home plans.
The above has really makes it so there is no real market for decentralized solutions. Even as someone who wouldn't need a turnkey solution, I find the unfortunate reality is that it is the more centralized solution of renting capacity in some data center wins out over needing a business plan for the home.
Putting a bytecode interpreter into your browser is exactly what malware sites want you to do, when they bitch about you needing to install the Java plugin into your browser.
I feel like this is a stupid question, so this is probably over my head, but why is a bytecode interpreter worse on this front than an a compiler likewise accepting arbitrary code from the Internet?
I understood WhatsApp covered the communication of the data (message) in motion (transit). If they have recovered a message from the phone, that is data at rest and WhatsApp's encryption seem to have little to do with it. Even if WhatsApp does encrypt the message locally, the keys are on the device, rendering the encryption moot.
I agree this almost seems to be a non-story. I read it as the FCC Chairperson announcing a possible way to curry favor with the FCC. I suppose time will tell if any non-mandating initiatives are introduced to encourage adoption.
that the free market isn't implementing a feature he thinks is necessary - sounds like a failure of the free market to me.
That would imply the market is supposed to have optimized in accordance with preferences of one man. Excepting possibly a post-scarcity society (replicators anyone?), the market cannot optimize everyone's preference. There are lots of things I would like the market to manifest but that I don't see them doesn't mean the market has failed.
Tell that to people from Wisconsin, it is recognized by both sides that theirs is better. We are better than we were thanks to a tax hike in 2015. I would not be one to call what we have bad, but it is not "great."
Tons and tons of barely used roads (and bridges, obviously).
Barely used? I suppose you could find ways to measure it to make that case, but no one here is thinking that way. If you look at the number of cars per unit time compared to some congested California corridor sure it would seem barely used but that is not really a fair comparison if you consider, say, population density.
It might be worth mentioning that a lot of the lesser roads are limestone / gravel.
People in the least dense parts of the state even get fiber to their doors
I am reading this over an expensive (>$90/mo for 50 GB of daytime usage) satellite Internet connection because that is the only access available. It is so slow at the moment, that I cannot even load my account information to see what the exact cost it.
The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges
In the 5 miles to get from my home to the post office, I cross 5 bridges. Really not sure how else to deal with all the running water that needs to be crossed.
I think there is a pretty clear distinction between standard functions you DON'T have to provide definitions for because they are standard, and arbitrary functions you made up on the spot, and had to define before using.
This is where we disagree. Someone had to define the functions (NB. many functions include constants in their definition). From what you have said, I can derive two possible definitions of "standard". The first being functions you expect people to know. This is not a reproducible definition because what you expect is not likely to be the same as what another individual expects. For example not everyone knows the inverse trig. functions. The second interpretation would be functions that are externally defined such that the definition can be looked up. To me, this does not provide any clear restrictions on the mathematical domain, opening up for all sorts of tricks:
naming f(x) was only for convenience, I could have written it as:
((lambdan . (n + pi)) 4+4-4-4) [lambda should be the lambda character, but/. does not seem to display it.]
Valid math. Everything is externally defined. Sure it is technically still an arbitrary function, but then I could also argue repeated application of a function you consider "standard" is also an arbitrary function. I do not see what grounds is there are for disallowing an entire mathematical system, but if you did, then I'd re-write it using currying notation. If you disallow that too, then I might try restating it using category theory. This continuing shows the distinction is arbitrary.
You seem to be confusing operators (or, more generally, functions) with constants here. arccos is just an operator, much like negation, addition, subtraction, etc. Pi is a constant, a numerical value, it has no other interpretation.
I think you overstate the distinction.
I guess you could also claim: 4+4-4-4+pi, claiming that that thing on the end is just a mathematical symbol and therefor a legitimate part of the equation
Let f(x) = x + pi (NB. we just curried addition)
Therefore, 4+4-4-4+pi = f(4+4-4-4).
Indeed, that part at the end was just some mathematical function. In fact, lambda calculus could be used to show all all your constantsarefunctions.
I am not saying that opening up the problem beyond arithmetic is consistent with the spirit of the question, just pointing out the once the metaphorical flood gates are open, the distinction between what is and isn't allowed is not simple.
I may have to go back and read Code Complete, it was thick and seemed to cover topics I had already read or been reading about in other other books, so I passed it over.
Step 1: Write a software emulator for a mechanical computer
Step 2: Obtain a patent for said software
Step 3: Use above to obtain patents on any other software patents you want
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!!! (at society's expense)
Slashdot Mirror
So we arrive at 2*X + 6 = 26
Dividing by two X + 6 = 13
Nope :)
I'd be most concerned about other products that use a Raspberry Pi internally. Can't be sure if the maker secured the thing and the consumer of these are likely to be less tech savvy and may not even know about the security concerns.
Decentralized solutions are difficult when the majority of participants cannot easily be hosts. The asymmetric download/upload rates seen in many popular Internet deployments has meant serving content is often not effective. Additionally, every ISP I have had has forbid running servers on home plans.
The above has really makes it so there is no real market for decentralized solutions. Even as someone who wouldn't need a turnkey solution, I find the unfortunate reality is that it is the more centralized solution of renting capacity in some data center wins out over needing a business plan for the home.
You may not want to be part of the projects, but it is practically unavoidable that you use projects that have a code of conduct. Even the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has a code of conduct and they publish a lot of important bits.
Putting a bytecode interpreter into your browser is exactly what malware sites want you to do, when they bitch about you needing to install the Java plugin into your browser.
I feel like this is a stupid question, so this is probably over my head, but why is a bytecode interpreter worse on this front than an a compiler likewise accepting arbitrary code from the Internet?
I understood WhatsApp covered the communication of the data (message) in motion (transit). If they have recovered a message from the phone, that is data at rest and WhatsApp's encryption seem to have little to do with it. Even if WhatsApp does encrypt the message locally, the keys are on the device, rendering the encryption moot.
I thought they had already switched to Mir, but the article says Wayland will be in place of X11.
It would be even more impressive if its motion displaced the falling notes from the easter egg.
It was like evolution on steroids, new and interesting designs were thrown out there to see what worked and what didn't
In other words, it was like the web programming world of today.
*ducks*
I believe they meant which tasty treat starting with the letter O would become the codename.
N if for Nougat
O is for O.....
can it do car analogies?
It can, but there are none: https://sidewaysdictionary.com...
can it do car analogies?
We know all the scenarios where AI fucks us over, it's about time we heard about the scenarios where AI gets us fucked. ;)
How do we know it won't do both? It could control the gene pool.
For those who don't know, libsodium is a C library that PHP will be utilizing. It is not a PHP library.
that the free market isn't implementing a feature he thinks is necessary - sounds like a failure of the free market to me.
That would imply the market is supposed to have optimized in accordance with preferences of one man. Excepting possibly a post-scarcity society (replicators anyone?), the market cannot optimize everyone's preference. There are lots of things I would like the market to manifest but that I don't see them doesn't mean the market has failed.
The infrastructure there is great.
Tell that to people from Wisconsin, it is recognized by both sides that theirs is better. We are better than we were thanks to a tax hike in 2015. I would not be one to call what we have bad, but it is not "great."
Tons and tons of barely used roads (and bridges, obviously).
Barely used? I suppose you could find ways to measure it to make that case, but no one here is thinking that way. If you look at the number of cars per unit time compared to some congested California corridor sure it would seem barely used but that is not really a fair comparison if you consider, say, population density. It might be worth mentioning that a lot of the lesser roads are limestone / gravel.
People in the least dense parts of the state even get fiber to their doors
I am reading this over an expensive (>$90/mo for 50 GB of daytime usage) satellite Internet connection because that is the only access available. It is so slow at the moment, that I cannot even load my account information to see what the exact cost it.
The most surprising thing about this story for me is that Iowa needs 5,000 bridges
In the 5 miles to get from my home to the post office, I cross 5 bridges. Really not sure how else to deal with all the running water that needs to be crossed.
I have coded processors with only 16 bytes of data memory.
Honestly curious, what did you use it for?
... to produce a secure system that is closed source?
It may not make a difference in your argument, but it is worth noting that Fuchsia is currently open source: https://github.com/fuchsia-mir....
I think there is a pretty clear distinction between standard functions you DON'T have to provide definitions for because they are standard, and arbitrary functions you made up on the spot, and had to define before using.
This is where we disagree. Someone had to define the functions (NB. many functions include constants in their definition). From what you have said, I can derive two possible definitions of "standard". The first being functions you expect people to know. This is not a reproducible definition because what you expect is not likely to be the same as what another individual expects. For example not everyone knows the inverse trig. functions. The second interpretation would be functions that are externally defined such that the definition can be looked up. To me, this does not provide any clear restrictions on the mathematical domain, opening up for all sorts of tricks:
naming f(x) was only for convenience, I could have written it as: /. does not seem to display it.]
((lambdan . (n + pi)) 4+4-4-4) [lambda should be the lambda character, but
Valid math. Everything is externally defined. Sure it is technically still an arbitrary function, but then I could also argue repeated application of a function you consider "standard" is also an arbitrary function. I do not see what grounds is there are for disallowing an entire mathematical system, but if you did, then I'd re-write it using currying notation. If you disallow that too, then I might try restating it using category theory. This continuing shows the distinction is arbitrary.
You seem to be confusing operators (or, more generally, functions) with constants here. arccos is just an operator, much like negation, addition, subtraction, etc. Pi is a constant, a numerical value, it has no other interpretation.
I think you overstate the distinction.
I guess you could also claim: 4+4-4-4+pi, claiming that that thing on the end is just a mathematical symbol and therefor a legitimate part of the equation
Let f(x) = x + pi (NB. we just curried addition) Therefore, 4+4-4-4+pi = f(4+4-4-4).
Indeed, that part at the end was just some mathematical function. In fact, lambda calculus could be used to show all all your constants are functions.
I am not saying that opening up the problem beyond arithmetic is consistent with the spirit of the question, just pointing out the once the metaphorical flood gates are open, the distinction between what is and isn't allowed is not simple.
At blocking ads on my phone. No other mobile browser allows this.
Opera and Opera Mini have built-in ad blockers.
Am I the only one that read the title thinking the data was recovered?
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
So appoint the chimps as members of a corporation?
Here I liked Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship better than Pragmatic Programmer. I guess it just seemed a little more modern to me, though in general the knowledge of both was timeless.
I may have to go back and read Code Complete, it was thick and seemed to cover topics I had already read or been reading about in other other books, so I passed it over.
Exactly where I was going with this.
Step 1: Write a software emulator for a mechanical computer
Step 2: Obtain a patent for said software
Step 3: Use above to obtain patents on any other software patents you want
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit!!! (at society's expense)