You've spoken about scientific precision. I wasn't. Another example:
A cyclist can travel 30 km/h on his bicycle. That means if I see him at noon, and I see him again at 1pm, he could have travelled 30km. Simple.
A cyclist at 30 km/h is not a cyclist at 720 km/day. I cyclist simply cannot travel 720 km/day, because food and sleep is required as a part of the cycling. If a cyclist could actually traverse 720 km in a single day, that would be incredible!
The words used next to numbers matter. Most speeds, for example, are implicitly averages -- that's an average speed of 30 km/h, obviously with hills and breathing no cyclist is ever at a constant speed for very long. Same goes for the units. Just because a cyclist is measured at an [average] speed of 30 km/h doesn't mean you can say he's going 262'800 km per year. You didn't measure to the year, just like you didn't measure to the day. You also didn't measure to the hour, by the way, so metres per second would probably have been the correct unit, presuming you were using some sort of speedometer.
Though, now that I think about it, most bicycle speedometers don't measure distance over time, they measure time through distance. But that's another conversation.
Actually, 0.1 metrers per second is different than 1 decimeter per second.
Between precision-factors, accuracy-factors, and tools used, it can be quite different. An odometer doesn't measure in micrometres, but a micrometer does.
So I would presume that 0.1 metres per second, is being measured with a device that measures in metres (and perhaps the "tenth" is an interpolation, or a secondary measurement), whereas 1 decimetre per second would be measured with a device that measures in decimetres.
That said, I have no idea what kind of device they've used, so I don't know if they've written along these lines.
It's long been said that nuclear weapons are the first mechanisms of peace in human history. So I'm willing to say that I hope this is a good thing. I hope that, like everyone else, north korea doesn't wind up using it for anything more than garnering respect for their own sovereignty.
I do find it upsetting, disappointing, and just plain odd that the U.S.A. would try to stop a country from developing a technology that the U.S.A. developed 65 years ago. It would seem to be a futile effort. Obviously they'll eventually figure it out -- it's documented all over the web, and now in this slashdot discussion myriad times.
The enemy is always irrational and unpredictable and crazy and dangerous and out to destroy you. Let's hope that the leader of a nation is truthfully none of those in this regard.
I'm think it's a good thing; I really don't want to be proven wrong.
I certainly understand the need to secure the video, fully encrypted, of my home. But I'd be willing to have it unencrypted, and fully open in fact, during a break-in. It's a big call for help for anyone looking, and it really ought not be that often. And anyone whe'd stage a robbery to see the footage as recon for next time, well, that sounds foolish.
So, while not perfect, why not switch to unencrypted during alarm scenarios?
Worried about getting bogged down? Got something better to do for the next five years? Shouldn't prisons just become full-fledged universities and be done with it? Isn't that the rehab hope?
I'm quite tired of the hi-tech this-security-is-hackable discussion. Of course it's hackable. Everything is. That this product doesn't require ethan hunt just makes it worthless for bank vaults.
I highly doubt that this product is being sold as a replacement for secure systems. It's being sold as a supplement to, wait for it, a lock and key.
It's better than the fake camera with the blinky light.
This isn't slashdot-worthy news. There are lesser products out there. That's never news.
A sensitive bunch, to be sure. Perhaps, if a group isn't interested in a subject, just maybe you shouldn't try to con them into it? There's nothing wrong with someone being disinterested in something.
You can't just change operators, some ways of changing them would break the parser. For example: "if 5 > 6" might be normal, you can't change it to "if 5 0 6", you can't map "if" to "38" either.
But you can always do whatever you want to do, in your own pre-compile stage. Write code however you like, then write a converter to convert your syntax to the other one. If you can parse your own syntax, that's all that matters.
Also, > and GT are not the same in good languages. In perl, for example, the former is mathematical, the latter is linguistic. That means more than just a differing precedence too. It's a type-casting difference, it's also a readability difference. Am I reading math or logic, logic or instruction, programmatic algorithm or business application logic?
The difference is particularly functional with languages that recognize ">" as non-legible, and "GT" as letters. "gt" can be a case-insensitive match, whereas "GT" can be case-sensitive. > could interpret strings containing numbers (e.g. "File 123") as logically padded so File123 would come after File21, whereas gt would to the opposite.
Welcome to linguistic development. Anything can be done in at least a dozen ways. Some believe that makes the choice meaningless. Quite the opposite. It means that the choice you make says something about your code, and that enhances readability.
Those aren't considered serious injuries. We're talking broken bones, and potentially life-long injuries.
But, as was said by another, within a licensed sparring gym is a different matter. I'd imagine that it's supervised, there are medical-safety measures and procedures in place, including someone to stop the fight, and I'd guess that the gym is somehow licensed or registered for it.
In many countries, you simply cannot consent to serious injury -- at all, ever.
Things like boxing (and hockey) wind up being "prize fights", are under heavy regulation, and are supposedly set up with enough safety procedures to avoid serious injury, with exceptions being considered errors, and dealt with accordingly.
Cool, I guess there's one exception: you can consent to organ donation!
There's often a lot of focus on actual/active security, and a lot less on determining the need for that security. Think of security like a power-to-weight ratio for performance.
The goal isn't to have great security. The goal is to have no successful attacks. "no successful attacks" is approachable from two primary vectors: "successful" and "attacks". Security focuses on the successful vector, by resisting.
Certainly, when it comes to contracting a provider, or rolling my own, a big provider might be better than I am. Of course, I can hire a consultant and get the best of both, and a big bill to match.
Obfiscation is not security. But it is a reduction in the actual number of attacks -- so long as it's working, of course.
I've been with small providers, I've been with large providers, I've been with Rackspace, and I've rolled my own.
The truth is that all four scenarios have had plenty of attempted attacks. But dive a little deeper, and something way more interesting appears.
When I rolled my own, I got loads of random attacks, mostly from China. Nothing persisted for very long. Nothing was particularly focused. And nothing was complicated. Almost all were easily dodged with standard surface-area-of-attack controls, like closing unused ports and not having general server bloat.
When I was with Rackspace, I had loads of help from their excellent support teams, and on occasion, wow did I ever need it! Persistant attacks, lasting for days, targeted attacks, ddos attacks with large systems on the other end. At one point we had over a dozen rackspace support personnel just fighting to kill stuff fast enough to keep performance up long enough to identify and resolve the issue without needing to take the server entirely offline.
I was very happy with Rackspace, and was with them for a decade. Now I'm rolling my own again, things are just much more stable that way.
So what's your preference? Being in a military compound, protected by a thousand soldiers in the middle of a war-zone; or being completely unprotected, on a mountain side, in upstate montana?
I'm choosing big-sky country, personally.
Also, I believe that Rackspace is partnered with a very familiar government spy agency quite directly -- since they both moved campuses at the same time the other year, and I was greeted quite aggressively, as you would imagine, when I visited Rackspace for a tour, and accidentally pulled up to the unmarked neighbour. Probably appropriately so, given that it was on a september 10th.
So what's it gonna take? VW has big expensive dealerships, fully staffed with commission-based personnel. It'd be easy to walk in, waste their time, and walk out.
So then let's pick a clock; one that can govern us all. It doesn't matter which clock, as long as it's the same clock. So let's go either with one sitting an the north pole, or one sitting on the sun. Home world or home star. I don't really care which at this point.
In those cases, where your plans are based on the sun, you ought to be basing your schedule on the sun.
You can easily start work an hour after sunrise. If the sun matters to you, you'll skip the days when it's raining, or you'll wait for the rain to pass.
"we leave at first-light" means when you can see, not when the sun is blocked by clouds.
Say what you actually mean.
But the primary function of time today, is not to synchronize activity with the sun. Today, it's to synchronize human activity with other human activity, often across great distances.
For example, I'll call you at noon. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the same noon? I'll see you in six hours -- on the clock or on the stopwatch? Wouldn't it be nice if 8 were 6 hours after 2 -- always?
I just watched a few series of baseball playoffs. The number of broadcast networks who said "the game starts at 7" for a game being played by two teams local to different time-zones! So half the fans are early or half the fans are late?!
Hey, one network even said "...at 7 ET". There is no such thing as ET. There's EDT, and there's EST. You figure out which one they meant.
And oh, by the way, what happens when a game is announced this week for next week? Which time do you think the announcer's schedule is going to show him?
You mean if 12am is 12pm? Don't get me started on the stupidity of repeating times in the same day, or starting counting at 12, or that no girlfriend I've ever had can handle a 24-hour clock on the night table, or that every clock in my life, including six clocks in my kitchen, supports a 24-hour clock except my microwave.
But to answer your question directly, no, I don't care. It's been so many seconds since I started counting. It's 1205 because it's been 12 hours and 5 minutes since we started counting.
I'm really tired of stupid date math. Bad enough it's already five different bases across six different numbers, with three of those bases dynamic based on four of the others.
In my 35 years, I've always seen time as a counted measure of how much time has passed since I started counting. I seem to be forever learning that's my novel idea.
Why should I care where the sun is, where the moon is, where the earth is, with respect to time? If it's winter, I can start work at 9, I can start at 10, I can start an hour after sunrise. I don't need to adjust my clock to start work at the same clock-display every day. I see nothing wrong with a company that has different business-hours by the season.
Similarly, since I'm not in the old west, I don't care if "high noon" is an noon, or 1, or 1 second after noon. I've never determined the time based on the sun.
Last I checked, we have perfectly wonderful time-keeping and gps devices these days. So ocean ships and submarines no longer need a sextant and a chronometer to figure out when and where they are.
So here's my petition. I'd like time to always move forward, and the same rate of 1 second per second. I'd like it to not jump, leap, crawl, rewind, fast forward, restart, end , or eject.
Shit, I just realized that I'm not 35 years old. Or I am 35 years old, but not when measured in seconds. Wait for it...ok, now I'm 35 years old. Phew.
Welcome to allowing anyone to make my phone beep a thousand times every minute while I'm at dinner.
What do you think my father is going to do when his phone asks for authorization that he didn't instigate? He's going to call me saying that his e-mail is being hacked....and when it happens a dozen times an hour, he's going to accidentally authorize something -- and then have no idea what's happened as a result.
Yeah, food pairings, who'd have thunk it?! Oh wait, every chef since the middle ages.
And no, veggies don't pair with fried foods. I'm betting that after fried chicken nuggets, and fried burgers, there's no nutrition left from the veggies that just slide right through.
Oh, the sequence you say? Right, like the antipasti course, the salad course, the appetizer course.
And, this is just my observation, tell me if you've heard this before, you don't want your burger to get cold, so you'll eat it while it's hot. Then you've got cold veggies, which are decidedly less appealing.
So, let's summarize: children, aka hungry hungry humans, forced to eat an entire meal in a single plate, choose to eat the hot entree, aka the most nutrient-filled, food, first, and then may not remain hungry for something that should have been eaten long before.
And we're surprised? We're surprised that a one-plate one-course meal isn't fully balanced? That's why the nuggets ought to have been served with a tangy marinara dipping sauce, wherein three servings of veggies could have been blitzed.
Are we still expecting to build a system that can't be hacked? I don't understand why anyone would think that possible.
We gave up on that hundreds of years ago for so many things -- think the lock on your front door, next to the glass window; or your car, with the slim-jim. You can walk up to anyone on the street, and just stab them to death with a kitchen knife. You can drive your car onto the sidewalk and kill a dozen people in mere seconds.
I think it's high-time we stop wasting so much time and money trying to resist, and start planning to deter and penalize.
So, in a commercial environment, it would cost $5 Billion of commercial developers being paid a proper wage. I get that. But in this day and age, if you wanted to build that sort of thing, you wouldn't hire developers commercially. You'd create an open source project and let the developer community at large assist in your project.
In doing so, it would cost far less. I cite, as my proof-of-concept example, an organization called the linux foundation, which has 115,013,302 total lines of source code and didn't spend $5 billion to get there.
I used to wonder how I'd dig up my shovel, without my shovel. Now I wonder how I buried my shovel, without my shovel.
Slashdot Mirror
You've spoken about scientific precision. I wasn't. Another example:
A cyclist can travel 30 km/h on his bicycle. That means if I see him at noon, and I see him again at 1pm, he could have travelled 30km. Simple.
A cyclist at 30 km/h is not a cyclist at 720 km/day. I cyclist simply cannot travel 720 km/day, because food and sleep is required as a part of the cycling. If a cyclist could actually traverse 720 km in a single day, that would be incredible!
The words used next to numbers matter. Most speeds, for example, are implicitly averages -- that's an average speed of 30 km/h, obviously with hills and breathing no cyclist is ever at a constant speed for very long. Same goes for the units. Just because a cyclist is measured at an [average] speed of 30 km/h doesn't mean you can say he's going 262'800 km per year. You didn't measure to the year, just like you didn't measure to the day. You also didn't measure to the hour, by the way, so metres per second would probably have been the correct unit, presuming you were using some sort of speedometer.
Though, now that I think about it, most bicycle speedometers don't measure distance over time, they measure time through distance. But that's another conversation.
Actually, 0.1 metrers per second is different than 1 decimeter per second.
Between precision-factors, accuracy-factors, and tools used, it can be quite different. An odometer doesn't measure in micrometres, but a micrometer does.
So I would presume that 0.1 metres per second, is being measured with a device that measures in metres (and perhaps the "tenth" is an interpolation, or a secondary measurement), whereas 1 decimetre per second would be measured with a device that measures in decimetres.
That said, I have no idea what kind of device they've used, so I don't know if they've written along these lines.
It's long been said that nuclear weapons are the first mechanisms of peace in human history. So I'm willing to say that I hope this is a good thing. I hope that, like everyone else, north korea doesn't wind up using it for anything more than garnering respect for their own sovereignty.
I do find it upsetting, disappointing, and just plain odd that the U.S.A. would try to stop a country from developing a technology that the U.S.A. developed 65 years ago. It would seem to be a futile effort. Obviously they'll eventually figure it out -- it's documented all over the web, and now in this slashdot discussion myriad times.
The enemy is always irrational and unpredictable and crazy and dangerous and out to destroy you. Let's hope that the leader of a nation is truthfully none of those in this regard.
I'm think it's a good thing; I really don't want to be proven wrong.
There are two things that people crave -- money, and power. Getting everyone to buy your products, over and over again, makes you money.
Capitalism is great at the money part, but decidedly less so at the power part. These "upper-echelons" are now looking for power.
Getting everyone to take your products, for free, is how you get power -- especially inside of a capitalist system.
Don't worry, when the time comes, they'll have no trouble converting power into more money.
I certainly understand the need to secure the video, fully encrypted, of my home. But I'd be willing to have it unencrypted, and fully open in fact, during a break-in. It's a big call for help for anyone looking, and it really ought not be that often. And anyone whe'd stage a robbery to see the footage as recon for next time, well, that sounds foolish.
So, while not perfect, why not switch to unencrypted during alarm scenarios?
Can we just give up on the whole letters and numbers thing and go back to hieroglyphics?
I, for one, look forward to another thousand years of archeologists trying to figure out what was being written.
Worried about getting bogged down? Got something better to do for the next five years? Shouldn't prisons just become full-fledged universities and be done with it? Isn't that the rehab hope?
I'm quite tired of the hi-tech this-security-is-hackable discussion. Of course it's hackable. Everything is. That this product doesn't require ethan hunt just makes it worthless for bank vaults.
I highly doubt that this product is being sold as a replacement for secure systems. It's being sold as a supplement to, wait for it, a lock and key.
It's better than the fake camera with the blinky light.
This isn't slashdot-worthy news. There are lesser products out there. That's never news.
Pesticides harm pests. Bees are pests. Pesticides harm bees. And we're done.
Back to cave walls? I guess we're fueling the future of archeology.
A sensitive bunch, to be sure. Perhaps, if a group isn't interested in a subject, just maybe you shouldn't try to con them into it? There's nothing wrong with someone being disinterested in something.
You can't just change operators, some ways of changing them would break the parser. For example: "if 5 > 6" might be normal, you can't change it to "if 5 0 6", you can't map "if" to "38" either.
But you can always do whatever you want to do, in your own pre-compile stage. Write code however you like, then write a converter to convert your syntax to the other one. If you can parse your own syntax, that's all that matters.
Also, > and GT are not the same in good languages. In perl, for example, the former is mathematical, the latter is linguistic. That means more than just a differing precedence too. It's a type-casting difference, it's also a readability difference. Am I reading math or logic, logic or instruction, programmatic algorithm or business application logic?
The difference is particularly functional with languages that recognize ">" as non-legible, and "GT" as letters. "gt" can be a case-insensitive match, whereas "GT" can be case-sensitive. > could interpret strings containing numbers (e.g. "File 123") as logically padded so File123 would come after File21, whereas gt would to the opposite.
Welcome to linguistic development. Anything can be done in at least a dozen ways. Some believe that makes the choice meaningless. Quite the opposite. It means that the choice you make says something about your code, and that enhances readability.
Those aren't considered serious injuries. We're talking broken bones, and potentially life-long injuries.
But, as was said by another, within a licensed sparring gym is a different matter. I'd imagine that it's supervised, there are medical-safety measures and procedures in place, including someone to stop the fight, and I'd guess that the gym is somehow licensed or registered for it.
In many countries, you simply cannot consent to serious injury -- at all, ever.
Things like boxing (and hockey) wind up being "prize fights", are under heavy regulation, and are supposedly set up with enough safety procedures to avoid serious injury, with exceptions being considered errors, and dealt with accordingly.
Cool, I guess there's one exception: you can consent to organ donation!
You beat me to it. Speculative, relatively small dollar amount, toy. Seems that the possibility of failure is quite well understood.
Paying for something, in-advance, is always understood to be a risk. That's why we have various forms of eskrow.
There's often a lot of focus on actual/active security, and a lot less on determining the need for that security. Think of security like a power-to-weight ratio for performance.
The goal isn't to have great security. The goal is to have no successful attacks. "no successful attacks" is approachable from two primary vectors: "successful" and "attacks". Security focuses on the successful vector, by resisting.
Certainly, when it comes to contracting a provider, or rolling my own, a big provider might be better than I am. Of course, I can hire a consultant and get the best of both, and a big bill to match.
Obfiscation is not security. But it is a reduction in the actual number of attacks -- so long as it's working, of course.
I've been with small providers, I've been with large providers, I've been with Rackspace, and I've rolled my own.
The truth is that all four scenarios have had plenty of attempted attacks. But dive a little deeper, and something way more interesting appears.
When I rolled my own, I got loads of random attacks, mostly from China. Nothing persisted for very long. Nothing was particularly focused. And nothing was complicated. Almost all were easily dodged with standard surface-area-of-attack controls, like closing unused ports and not having general server bloat.
When I was with Rackspace, I had loads of help from their excellent support teams, and on occasion, wow did I ever need it! Persistant attacks, lasting for days, targeted attacks, ddos attacks with large systems on the other end. At one point we had over a dozen rackspace support personnel just fighting to kill stuff fast enough to keep performance up long enough to identify and resolve the issue without needing to take the server entirely offline.
I was very happy with Rackspace, and was with them for a decade. Now I'm rolling my own again, things are just much more stable that way.
So what's your preference? Being in a military compound, protected by a thousand soldiers in the middle of a war-zone; or being completely unprotected, on a mountain side, in upstate montana?
I'm choosing big-sky country, personally.
Also, I believe that Rackspace is partnered with a very familiar government spy agency quite directly -- since they both moved campuses at the same time the other year, and I was greeted quite aggressively, as you would imagine, when I visited Rackspace for a tour, and accidentally pulled up to the unmarked neighbour. Probably appropriately so, given that it was on a september 10th.
So what's it gonna take? VW has big expensive dealerships, fully staffed with commission-based personnel. It'd be easy to walk in, waste their time, and walk out.
A very good point, actually.
So then let's pick a clock; one that can govern us all. It doesn't matter which clock, as long as it's the same clock. So let's go either with one sitting an the north pole, or one sitting on the sun. Home world or home star. I don't really care which at this point.
In those cases, where your plans are based on the sun, you ought to be basing your schedule on the sun.
You can easily start work an hour after sunrise. If the sun matters to you, you'll skip the days when it's raining, or you'll wait for the rain to pass.
"we leave at first-light" means when you can see, not when the sun is blocked by clouds.
Say what you actually mean.
But the primary function of time today, is not to synchronize activity with the sun. Today, it's to synchronize human activity with other human activity, often across great distances.
For example, I'll call you at noon. Wouldn't it be nice if we had the same noon? I'll see you in six hours -- on the clock or on the stopwatch? Wouldn't it be nice if 8 were 6 hours after 2 -- always?
I just watched a few series of baseball playoffs. The number of broadcast networks who said "the game starts at 7" for a game being played by two teams local to different time-zones! So half the fans are early or half the fans are late?!
Hey, one network even said "...at 7 ET". There is no such thing as ET. There's EDT, and there's EST. You figure out which one they meant.
And oh, by the way, what happens when a game is announced this week for next week? Which time do you think the announcer's schedule is going to show him?
You mean if 12am is 12pm? Don't get me started on the stupidity of repeating times in the same day, or starting counting at 12, or that no girlfriend I've ever had can handle a 24-hour clock on the night table, or that every clock in my life, including six clocks in my kitchen, supports a 24-hour clock except my microwave.
But to answer your question directly, no, I don't care. It's been so many seconds since I started counting. It's 1205 because it's been 12 hours and 5 minutes since we started counting.
I'm really tired of stupid date math. Bad enough it's already five different bases across six different numbers, with three of those bases dynamic based on four of the others.
In my 35 years, I've always seen time as a counted measure of how much time has passed since I started counting. I seem to be forever learning that's my novel idea.
Why should I care where the sun is, where the moon is, where the earth is, with respect to time? If it's winter, I can start work at 9, I can start at 10, I can start an hour after sunrise. I don't need to adjust my clock to start work at the same clock-display every day. I see nothing wrong with a company that has different business-hours by the season.
Similarly, since I'm not in the old west, I don't care if "high noon" is an noon, or 1, or 1 second after noon. I've never determined the time based on the sun.
Last I checked, we have perfectly wonderful time-keeping and gps devices these days. So ocean ships and submarines no longer need a sextant and a chronometer to figure out when and where they are.
So here's my petition. I'd like time to always move forward, and the same rate of 1 second per second. I'd like it to not jump, leap, crawl, rewind, fast forward, restart, end , or eject.
Shit, I just realized that I'm not 35 years old. Or I am 35 years old, but not when measured in seconds. Wait for it...ok, now I'm 35 years old. Phew.
Welcome to allowing anyone to make my phone beep a thousand times every minute while I'm at dinner.
What do you think my father is going to do when his phone asks for authorization that he didn't instigate? He's going to call me saying that his e-mail is being hacked. ...and when it happens a dozen times an hour, he's going to accidentally authorize something -- and then have no idea what's happened as a result.
Yeah, food pairings, who'd have thunk it?! Oh wait, every chef since the middle ages.
And no, veggies don't pair with fried foods. I'm betting that after fried chicken nuggets, and fried burgers, there's no nutrition left from the veggies that just slide right through.
Oh, the sequence you say? Right, like the antipasti course, the salad course, the appetizer course.
And, this is just my observation, tell me if you've heard this before, you don't want your burger to get cold, so you'll eat it while it's hot. Then you've got cold veggies, which are decidedly less appealing.
So, let's summarize: children, aka hungry hungry humans, forced to eat an entire meal in a single plate, choose to eat the hot entree, aka the most nutrient-filled, food, first, and then may not remain hungry for something that should have been eaten long before.
And we're surprised? We're surprised that a one-plate one-course meal isn't fully balanced? That's why the nuggets ought to have been served with a tangy marinara dipping sauce, wherein three servings of veggies could have been blitzed.
Are we still expecting to build a system that can't be hacked? I don't understand why anyone would think that possible.
We gave up on that hundreds of years ago for so many things -- think the lock on your front door, next to the glass window; or your car, with the slim-jim. You can walk up to anyone on the street, and just stab them to death with a kitchen knife. You can drive your car onto the sidewalk and kill a dozen people in mere seconds.
I think it's high-time we stop wasting so much time and money trying to resist, and start planning to deter and penalize.
So, in a commercial environment, it would cost $5 Billion of commercial developers being paid a proper wage. I get that. But in this day and age, if you wanted to build that sort of thing, you wouldn't hire developers commercially. You'd create an open source project and let the developer community at large assist in your project.
In doing so, it would cost far less. I cite, as my proof-of-concept example, an organization called the linux foundation, which has 115,013,302 total lines of source code and didn't spend $5 billion to get there.
I used to wonder how I'd dig up my shovel, without my shovel. Now I wonder how I buried my shovel, without my shovel.