Apple still hasn't removed the fifteen (!) references to G5 in the page. If you use the "binhex" decryption program on the HTML code, you will find many references to G5. Here are the most tantalizing ones:
Line 124: +BACK8f0bDA"d)L"dHA"P25*dCAKd,fTKGQ&cBh*TF(3 L2M`K, 5d0$5mU)&P[G5"
Note the word "back" near the beginning.
Line 287: b)(P[GA)JEQpdC@*[EfXJEQ9PC(-JEh)JC'9cDA*PFb" KFQ8X) (P[G5"MB@iJBQ8
See how the same string 'P[G5"' occurs. Clearly an intentional consistency. There are over ten occurrences of this.
Line 400: `CA*NFQPfC5jSG'eX)Mj6GA"PFN4bDACP2#pK2L`JB@j N)(P[G 5"SBACP)'&Z)'9
Could the "SBACP" be part of the model number???
I haven't yet found what the decryption protocol "base64" reveals when run on the HTML. I'll let someone else be the first to reveal what that finds.
From Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, pages 95-96:
Let me turn to the most amazing plasticity of all: the rewired ferrets whose eyes fed their auditory thalamus and cortex and made those areas work like a visual thalamus and cortex. Even here, water is not being turned into wine. Sur and his colleagues noted the redirected input did not change the actual wiring of the auditory brain, only the pattern of synaptic strengths. As a result they found many differences between the co-opted auditory brain and a normal visual brain. The representation of the visual field in the auditory brain was fuzzier and more disorganized, because the tissue is optimized for auditory, not visual, analysis. The map of the visual field, for instance, was far more precise in the left-right direction than in the up-down direction. That is because the left-right direction was mapped onto an axis of the auditory cortex that in normal animals represents different sound frequencies and thus gets inputs from the inner ear that are precisely arranged in order of frequency. But the up-down direction was mapped onto the perpendicular axis of the auditory cortex, which ordinarily gets a mass of inputs of the same frequency. Sur also notes that the connections between the primary auditory cortex and other brain areas for hearing were unchanged by the new input.
So patterns in the input can tune a patch of sensory cortex to mesh with that input, but only within the limits of the wiring already present. Sur suggests that the reason the auditory cortex in the rewired ferrets can process visual information at all is that certain kinds of signal processing may be useful to perform on raw sensory input, whether it is visual, auditory, or tactile:
On this view, one function of sensory thalamus or cortex is to perform certain stereotypical operations on input regardless of modality [vision, hearing, or touch]; the specific type of sensory input of course provides the substrate information that is transmitted and processed.... If the normal organization of central auditory structures is not altered, or at least not altered significantly, by visual input, then we might expect some operations similar to those we observe on visual inputs in operated ferrets to be carried out as well in the auditory pathway in normal ferrets. In other words, the animals with visual inputs induced into the auditory pathway provide a different window on some of the same operations that should occur normally in auditory thalamus and cortex.
The suggestion that the auditory cortex is inherently suited to analyze visual input is not far-fetched. I mentioned that frequency (pitch) in hearing behaves a lot like space in vision. The mind treats soundmakers with different pitches as if they were objects at different locations, and it treats jumps in pitch like motions in space. This means that some of the analyses performed on sights may be the same as the analyses performed on sounds, and could be computed, at least in part, by similar kinds of circuitry. Inputs from an ear represent different frequencies; inputs from an eye represent spots at different locations. Neurons in the sensory cortex (both visual and auditory) receive information from a neighborhood of input fibers and extract simple patterns from the. Therefore neurons in the auditory cortex that ordinarily detect rising or falling glides, rich or pure tones, and sounds that come from specific places may, in the rewired ferrets, automatically be capable of detecting lines of specific slants, places, and directions of movement.
There's something wrong with your stolen number list because when I try to click on the text box and type my number, there's no cursor. Plus I couldn't find the Submit button.
'Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe?' Now why would I want to do that? With my luck, I'd wind up in a universe where we had President George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore beginning his second term.
Oops, looks like you took that worm hole after all.
anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?
Sure! Just e-mail the (l)user of the computer that his computer has a nasty virus that can only be eradicated by doing <damaging action> to computer. You don't even need to write any machine code!
Still, you've got to realize that the reseeding farmer is trying to save money by copying superior product. Call it the genetic equivalent of P2P or whatever you like, but trying to use superior seed to grow it to avoid paying- that's not quite kosher.
(warning: ramble follows)
I really would like to avoid misunderstanding the issue in a way that leaves me angry. I think this helps. Basically, Monsanto produces special seed and has the buyer agree not to collect the new seed from the plant. It seems wasteful to not use the new seed, since it's right there. Perhaps it is actually more "eco friendly" to use seed from Monsanto, who might have designed a production process that uses fewer resources per seed than a farmer would use collecting new seed. The market might be such that it costs fewer dollars for the farmer to collect the new seed rather than buy it from Monsanto (if he doesn't get caught), but I tend to focus on resource usage rather than dollar transactions.
So, a question to slashdotters: do you think this kind of invention deserves to be protected by a patent?
The question shouldn't be who deserves patents, since patents aren't just a way to reward people; the question should be, would a patent be beneficial for the advancement of technology, or a harm? If it prevents widespread use of the technology, then it's a harm.
It's a good thing LEGO bricks are made from high-strength plastic; I'd hate to see the puddle of melted plastic the servers would have been if he had used the cheap imitation "LEGOH" bricks.
You know Roland, you'd come across as far more credible in your quest to present yourself as a journalist if you could spell simple words like "rinse" correctly.
Heh, I noticed that too but figured maybe "rince" was the British spelling <ducks>.
Longevity: properly stored and cared for, analog tape lasts decades. Perhaps even a century or more. [...] I have reels from the '70s that I can still listen to. Compare this with my own personal dead media problem: I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. [...]
You're comparing different things here; a correct comparison would be between the original performance that the analog tape is a recording of, and the Mac playing the MIDI sequences, or a comparison between an analog tape of the original performance and an analog tape of the Mac playing the MIDI sequences. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the computer material actually has an advantage: you can still recreate the original performance. It might require particular old hardware and software, but compare this to recreating a performance involving people: much more difficult.
Perhaps the only argument for (simple) analog formats is that there is little question as to the best way to record the data, thus none of the endless formats as with digital.
Time is the enemy of anyone looking to commit theft/robbery, whether that person is working physically or digitally. So the longer it takes the more secure the system it is.
The overall point was more suble than that: knowing the time it takes to crack the safe allows the available window allowed by the surrounding environment to be made reliably shorter. The key element is a reliable time rating that can be built on by the overall system.
So you think it's science fiction? Not at all. You'll see that some people are so convinced that this kind of human enhancements will happen that they predict than in a few decades, all sporting events 'will be split up to accommodate enhanced and unenhanced athletes.'
So something isn't fiction if people are really convinced that it will take place in the future? Is the present so unbearable that living in a fictional future, and needing others to join in, is the only way to get by?
Also, sporting events are already split up based on the use of "enhancements" (drugs): if you use 'em, you're not allowed in many of the events.
Re:More Thoughts on Cars and Society
on
Time Sharing Cars
·
· Score: 1
An advanced society is able to have effective, efficient, and cheap public transportation. The fact that we rely on cars to move people around shows how far we have to go towards an advanced society, not just a rich one.
An advanced society, like an advanced microprocessor design, eliminates the need for transportation devices in most cases, by having the resources and users close together. This of course requires pre-planning and a lack of corporate interests stomping on residents' interests.
...companies around the world are choosing to charge for services that they have determined would otherwise be a significant burden to continue to give for free.
Things are often offered with the understanding that they will only be lightly used. Once they become more heavily used, a different arrangement must be worked out. There is no clear division between the two, so the decision of transition is somewhat arbitrary.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If every decision involving other countries is interpreted as having a hidden meaning, how can countries ever get along?
Setting aside the matter of whether or not low-frequency electromagnetic radiation poses a biological hazard, would this paint also serve as a shield for this electromagnetic radiation?
The Free Software movement is more idealist: "Don't use it if its not free, whether or not there are practical advantages".
The Open Source movement is more pragmatic, even at the cost of some Freedom: "Use whatever is better technically for your purpose, even if its not free".
Looked at another way, ideals are a practical way of incorporating the long view into daily actions, a way to keep the overall purpose in mind while dealing with the details. I think you'll find plenty of practical thinking on the Free Software Foundation web pages.
The difference that stands out for me is in consideration of the larger effects of one's engineering decisions on the people involved, i.e. political. I value both approaches because they can be used to find a comfortable moderation between short-term practical issues and big-picture ideals.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple still hasn't removed the fifteen (!) references to G5 in the page. If you use the "binhex" decryption program on the HTML code, you will find many references to G5. Here are the most tantalizing ones:
3 L2M`K, 5d0$5mU)&P[G5"
" KFQ8X) (P[G5"MB@iJBQ8
j N)(P[G 5"SBACP)'&Z)'9
Line 124:
+BACK8f0bDA"d)L"dHA"P25*dCAKd,fTKGQ&cBh*TF(
Note the word "back" near the beginning.
Line 287:
b)(P[GA)JEQpdC@*[EfXJEQ9PC(-JEh)JC'9cDA*PFb
See how the same string 'P[G5"' occurs. Clearly an intentional consistency. There are over ten occurrences of this.
Line 400:
`CA*NFQPfC5jSG'eX)Mj6GA"PFN4bDACP2#pK2L`JB@
Could the "SBACP" be part of the model number???
I haven't yet found what the decryption protocol "base64" reveals when run on the HTML. I'll let someone else be the first to reveal what that finds.
From Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, pages 95-96:
Let me turn to the most amazing plasticity of all: the rewired ferrets whose eyes fed their auditory thalamus and cortex and made those areas work like a visual thalamus and cortex. Even here, water is not being turned into wine. Sur and his colleagues noted the redirected input did not change the actual wiring of the auditory brain, only the pattern of synaptic strengths. As a result they found many differences between the co-opted auditory brain and a normal visual brain. The representation of the visual field in the auditory brain was fuzzier and more disorganized, because the tissue is optimized for auditory, not visual, analysis. The map of the visual field, for instance, was far more precise in the left-right direction than in the up-down direction. That is because the left-right direction was mapped onto an axis of the auditory cortex that in normal animals represents different sound frequencies and thus gets inputs from the inner ear that are precisely arranged in order of frequency. But the up-down direction was mapped onto the perpendicular axis of the auditory cortex, which ordinarily gets a mass of inputs of the same frequency. Sur also notes that the connections between the primary auditory cortex and other brain areas for hearing were unchanged by the new input.
So patterns in the input can tune a patch of sensory cortex to mesh with that input, but only within the limits of the wiring already present. Sur suggests that the reason the auditory cortex in the rewired ferrets can process visual information at all is that certain kinds of signal processing may be useful to perform on raw sensory input, whether it is visual, auditory, or tactile:
The suggestion that the auditory cortex is inherently suited to analyze visual input is not far-fetched. I mentioned that frequency (pitch) in hearing behaves a lot like space in vision. The mind treats soundmakers with different pitches as if they were objects at different locations, and it treats jumps in pitch like motions in space. This means that some of the analyses performed on sights may be the same as the analyses performed on sounds, and could be computed, at least in part, by similar kinds of circuitry. Inputs from an ear represent different frequencies; inputs from an eye represent spots at different locations. Neurons in the sensory cortex (both visual and auditory) receive information from a neighborhood of input fibers and extract simple patterns from the. Therefore neurons in the auditory cortex that ordinarily detect rising or falling glides, rich or pure tones, and sounds that come from specific places may, in the rewired ferrets, automatically be capable of detecting lines of specific slants, places, and directions of movement.
You're much more likely to have your identity stolen offline (72% of the cases).
To all my ex-friends who said I was wasting my time by staying online all the time, you see, it was to protect my finances!
There's something wrong with your stolen number list because when I try to click on the text box and type my number, there's no cursor. Plus I couldn't find the Submit button.
Yes, but is that in 1024 = 1K or 1000 = 1K units? Sure we'll all be glowing plasma but 264 less would give me comfort.
The original post. And yes, he is alive, well and still reachable at the easily-despamed email address used there.
:(
But not easily de-googled
'Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe?'
Now why would I want to do that? With my luck, I'd wind up in a universe where we had President George W. Bush, instead of Al Gore beginning his second term.
Oops, looks like you took that worm hole after all.
Now I need to worry about keeping my computer in shape as well as myself.
For once, defragging the hard drive will be getting it in shape, rather than wearing it out!
anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?
Sure! Just e-mail the (l)user of the computer that his computer has a nasty virus that can only be eradicated by doing <damaging action> to computer. You don't even need to write any machine code!
Still, you've got to realize that the reseeding farmer is trying to save money by copying superior product. Call it the genetic equivalent of P2P or whatever you like, but trying to use superior seed to grow it to avoid paying- that's not quite kosher.
(warning: ramble follows)
I really would like to avoid misunderstanding the issue in a way that leaves me angry. I think this helps. Basically, Monsanto produces special seed and has the buyer agree not to collect the new seed from the plant. It seems wasteful to not use the new seed, since it's right there. Perhaps it is actually more "eco friendly" to use seed from Monsanto, who might have designed a production process that uses fewer resources per seed than a farmer would use collecting new seed. The market might be such that it costs fewer dollars for the farmer to collect the new seed rather than buy it from Monsanto (if he doesn't get caught), but I tend to focus on resource usage rather than dollar transactions.
So, a question to slashdotters: do you think this kind of invention deserves to be protected by a patent?
The question shouldn't be who deserves patents, since patents aren't just a way to reward people; the question should be, would a patent be beneficial for the advancement of technology, or a harm? If it prevents widespread use of the technology, then it's a harm.
[...] build them small enough that they can only hold 2 songs. This way you only need an On/Off button and an Other Song button.
I can't believe you missed this obvious optimization: by reducing the song capacity by a mere song, you can cut the number of buttons in half!
It's a good thing LEGO bricks are made from high-strength plastic; I'd hate to see the puddle of melted plastic the servers would have been if he had used the cheap imitation "LEGOH" bricks.
You know Roland, you'd come across as far more credible in your quest to present yourself as a journalist if you could spell simple words like "rinse" correctly.
Heh, I noticed that too but figured maybe "rince" was the British spelling <ducks>.
Longevity: properly stored and cared for, analog tape lasts decades. Perhaps even a century or more. [...] I have reels from the '70s that I can still listen to. Compare this with my own personal dead media problem: I have to keep a Mac 512K running if I want to be able to access MIDI sequences I wrote back in the mid-'80s. [...]
You're comparing different things here; a correct comparison would be between the original performance that the analog tape is a recording of, and the Mac playing the MIDI sequences, or a comparison between an analog tape of the original performance and an analog tape of the Mac playing the MIDI sequences. With this in mind, it becomes clear that the computer material actually has an advantage: you can still recreate the original performance. It might require particular old hardware and software, but compare this to recreating a performance involving people: much more difficult.
Perhaps the only argument for (simple) analog formats is that there is little question as to the best way to record the data, thus none of the endless formats as with digital.
Time is the enemy of anyone looking to commit theft/robbery, whether that person is working physically or digitally. So the longer it takes the more secure the system it is.
The overall point was more suble than that: knowing the time it takes to crack the safe allows the available window allowed by the surrounding environment to be made reliably shorter. The key element is a reliable time rating that can be built on by the overall system.
What the hell are you talking about? Ignore this guy. He's just making it up.
In Korea, only old people aren't excited about Samsung's new LCD policy.
So you think it's science fiction? Not at all. You'll see that some people are so convinced that this kind of human enhancements will happen that they predict than in a few decades, all sporting events 'will be split up to accommodate enhanced and unenhanced athletes.'
So something isn't fiction if people are really convinced that it will take place in the future? Is the present so unbearable that living in a fictional future, and needing others to join in, is the only way to get by?
Also, sporting events are already split up based on the use of "enhancements" (drugs): if you use 'em, you're not allowed in many of the events.
An advanced society is able to have effective, efficient, and cheap public transportation. The fact that we rely on cars to move people around shows how far we have to go towards an advanced society, not just a rich one.
An advanced society, like an advanced microprocessor design, eliminates the need for transportation devices in most cases, by having the resources and users close together. This of course requires pre-planning and a lack of corporate interests stomping on residents' interests.
...with generic numbered cards letting you into all the enemy's buildings! Maybe they'll be named "Card 1", "Card 2" etc.
The truck have started to move!
...companies around the world are choosing to charge for services that they have determined would otherwise be a significant burden to continue to give for free.
Things are often offered with the understanding that they will only be lightly used. Once they become more heavily used, a different arrangement must be worked out. There is no clear division between the two, so the decision of transition is somewhat arbitrary.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If every decision involving other countries is interpreted as having a hidden meaning, how can countries ever get along?
What is this E-bay?
Probably some kind of electronic harbor, perhaps a fancy name for the collection of ports a machine has available for connection.
Setting aside the matter of whether or not low-frequency electromagnetic radiation poses a biological hazard, would this paint also serve as a shield for this electromagnetic radiation?
The Free Software movement is more idealist: "Don't use it if its not free, whether or not there are practical advantages".
The Open Source movement is more pragmatic, even at the cost of some Freedom: "Use whatever is better technically for your purpose, even if its not free".
Looked at another way, ideals are a practical way of incorporating the long view into daily actions, a way to keep the overall purpose in mind while dealing with the details. I think you'll find plenty of practical thinking on the Free Software Foundation web pages.
The difference that stands out for me is in consideration of the larger effects of one's engineering decisions on the people involved, i.e. political. I value both approaches because they can be used to find a comfortable moderation between short-term practical issues and big-picture ideals.