The universe is always broken in this example, as there's nothing there to overwrite pChars[0]. pInts[1] == pChars[0] + sizeof(int). Since on no platform is zero the size of an int, pChars[0] (which was memset back to 0) will always be zero.
Endianness refers to the internal representation of the numbers, i.e. what's happening in pChars[3] through pChars[7]. The ints themselves still advance normally.
Rocks is serving a different purpose here; it's managing breaks in connectivity inbetween periods of great interactive conectivity.
These guys are solivng the problem -- what if there's never low latency, high bandwidth, bidirectional connectivity between two sites? In that case, the answer is a sort of generalization of email to arbitrary applications (possibly with a TCP gateway, as horrifying as that might be).
Now that I think about it, file-oriented rsync might be the approach to take...
ROCKS + SSH Dynamic Forwarding would make a really interesting combination for making a net connection completely portably across many AP's. Thanks for the idea.
There are...issues with the GBA lineup. To put it bluntly -- outside of Metroid and Castlevania, there's a real sense in the games for the system that it's for kids 16 and under. It pervades what's available, and even what you eventually get.
Don't get me wrong, I'll play through it, but you very quickly get the sense that you're dealing with a piece of fluff rather than a mature game platform (despite the fact that technically the GBA is an absolute marvel of efficiency and price).
Nintendo's platform is so kiddie-infused that they really will have alot of trouble when Sony gets PSP out. Well, if.
This is ridiculous. The ads contained a cover of the songs being sung, and like every other cover you hear, there's a compulsory license you can pay to get the right to perform someone else's music.
There was no sampling. Sampling is when I record what you say and play it back. Covering is when I just reperform it.
I agree with what some other people said -- Eminem suing Apple? I should download his audio on MP3 and show the whole world how he's got...oh crap, now I'm being sued.
In the past fifty years, we have started to gain the technological capability to detect potential collisions with asteroids.
That does not make such a collision more likely in the next fifty years -- or hundred and fifty, or fifteen hundred. Significant and successful collision are _rare_, much rarer than earthquakes, tornados, or even human-caused meteorological effects (as in weather systems, not meteors).
It doesn't matter if we can see "just how close we came". It matters that we know, empirically, that there are vastly more pressing concerns.
What I don't want to see is an orbital weapons platform deployed under false premises. If the pretenses are true, that's a different story. Just don't tell me its to shoot down asteroids!
I'm sure there's something really cool these guys are doing, but there is a very strong distinction between Big F*cking Huge Graphs (like we see a bunch of in the links) and Big F*cking Graph Analysis using some new technique, which isn't really clearly anywhere in there.
I've been singing the praises of LGL as of late, pushing it into the Opte project (mass internet viz) and such, but truly the interesting applications involve analysis -- and where's the beef on that in this story?
That's what's so cool about the diamonds. The utility of the $10,000 diamond is that it's a $10,000 diamond, not something that came out of a cracker jack box. It's a sign that the guy is serious about his proposal (and something to thus brag about).
The problem with cash is that it's a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Giving the cash gives a long stream of small purchases of little importance save for survival -- a much different context than what the diamond blast represents.
Check through the comments. One person said the price had something to do with the cost of mining em -- how the fact that prices are high with DeBeers marginalized proves that.
My point is that the price is basically self-fulfilling -- by being cheaper, they become inferior for it. So they might be profitable to the extreme, like all diamond mining is -- but they can't undercut.
The reason a $10,000 diamond is valuable is because it cost $10,000. If it cost $100, you just bought your girl -- the love of your life -- a symbol worth less than an XBox.
Rarity in fashion is a strange thing; the cost of the object becomes an inherent part of the value -- it's not that the object is worth some certain amount, it's that the acquisition of it was so horrifyingly expensive and difficult that only a very precious few could achieve it. To gift someone with the results of this effort -- that's a sign of significance.
This might seem difficult to comprehend, so let me jump domains for a moment. What's the value of a moon rock? I mean, it's just rock from the moon; we could probably synthesize something chemically identical trivially. Ah, lets say you got an award, and were given the moon rock as a prize. Tell me you wouldn't show it off to everyone.
Same sh*t -- only difference is, instead of the cost being that of a trip to the moon, the cost is an enormous amount of one's savings. The price of diamonds is set high enough to be interesting but low enough to be possible.
It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the value of the rocks themselves.
It doesn't matter if it's a brain dead monthly fee or a brain dead hourly fee; the cost of the infrastructure necessary to support _any_ fees vastly exceeds the revenue received from them.
Want universal access in an airport? Use a cell, or go Vivato.
Want cheap access? Drop WiFi next to pre-existing areas where net already comes to, or at least it's not too expensive to put it. Put up a marker saying "come here for net".
There's net at most of the gates, so often the wire's already been laid.
You do have a valid point -- but you have to understand, it's obsessively perfect engineering that you describe that's put Starbucks so tremendously in the hole with their WiFi plans.
Cost to DSL providers for providing net access to a residence is down to $20/mo. Quintuple that to $100/mo for shits and giggles. Tack on another $100 for the access point.
For a year, that's $1200+$100 = $1300 / 365 = $3.56 per day per access point. If your business can make an extra three and a half dollars per day by having net access around, you should set up wifi.
Of course, if you TRY to charge, and TRY to set up all these complicated access mechanisms, you have to spend all this money on support -- money you never make back.
It's really easy to find the people doing the spam:
Buy Viagra. See who prescribed it. Mortgage a house. See who backs the mortgage. Enlarge your penis. See where the buck stops.
There's lots of shell games that try to cloak sales as opportunities. But we've got a huge amount of precedent for banning pass-throughs from the medical world, due to lack of risk -- if you benefit from spammers, you really should have to show you had nothing to do with the SPAM (indeed, eventually forcing legitimate businesses to ask "were you brought here by unsolicited email?").
In a communist nation, the commodity becomes attention and/or influence. There are always commodities -- morality itself is measured in terms of accounting (owing favors, repaying a debt, etc).
I'm a geek. I'm a security engineer. I'm here to say -- the solution is not in the packets, but the dollars.
Spammers have gotten to the point where they're breaking into people's machines to get them to illicitly send spam. Look at that carefully -- you can't even trust your friends not to spam you anymore. If you don't think Spyware is going to adapt to a spam transport, you're not paying attention. Ultimately, we need criminal prosecution for fraud that follows the money (because money transfers are really well traced). The money link needs to be broken.
Yeah, I'd like to see some code -- anywhere -- that really did new, interesting things more efficiently and more correctly than a traditional approach.
Prime composite factorization? Pattern matching? Auto-clustering?
This is a new kind of science; why can't I find, a good amount of time after publication, some new solutions?
Yeah. That's why we do our radial distribution functions with respect to the idea ideal gas. If the system is vapor the radial distibution function will look like a line at 1. If it has some order to it there will be peaks and valleys.
It's kind of amusing that perfect noise is simultaneously 100% and 0% information.
Nope. We do molecular simulation. Our webpage. Ah, heck, now look what I've done. Now you will know who I am. I guess the value of communication overcame my value for privacy.;) See, we are on topic.:)
*laughs* That's pretty funny. Did you see the SIGGRAPH movie rendering of DNA replication? Absolutely insane.
Heh, mail me personally (dan@doxpara.com). I've got a couple things to show you.
Yes, quite true, but no more than there has ever been (i.e., there are approximately as many interparticle distances now as there will be then).
Particles in liquid water cannot separate as much as particles in water vapor. Therefore, the former must have a lesser range of distances than the latter (at least on the mini-macro scale that allows for a concept of distance).
reference for the watches?
I believe it's from Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier. I haven't read through AC in some time, though, and I could be wrong. There's definitely a reference to this in The Codebreakers.
This is all rather astonishing material to be coming up in a discussion of human privacy, isn't it?:-)
WW2 is so fasinating. It is in someways both the apex and nadir of humanity's stay here on Earth thus far.
The interesting thing about encryption is that it does not imply data expansion, except for the size of the key (a fact that can be seen in every XOR-against-this-stream-cipher style algorithm). So I don't think we disagree much at all.
It's easy to say "homogeneous gas at a few Kelvin", but is every particle precisely equidistant from every other particle? Remember, molecules actually enforce a surprising amount of order upon eachother's position. If the particles aren't equidistant, then there's a gigantic amount of information contained in the precise interparticulate distance.
Do not underestimate accidental data sources -- during WW2, an intercepted shipment of watches had to have every clock's time altered, just in case the so-called "random times" were actually code to a huge message. A large mass of perceptually random data is always a great place to hide encrypted data.
If the particles are equidistant, of course, you get to kick Heisenberg around a little (not that this is a bad thing).
Slashdot Mirror
Typo, pChars[4] through pChars[7]. Damn fence posts.
Cecil,
The universe is always broken in this example, as there's nothing there to overwrite pChars[0]. pInts[1] == pChars[0] + sizeof(int). Since on no platform is zero the size of an int, pChars[0] (which was memset back to 0) will always be zero.
Endianness refers to the internal representation of the numbers, i.e. what's happening in pChars[3] through pChars[7]. The ints themselves still advance normally.
--Dan
www.doxpara.com
Rocks is serving a different purpose here; it's managing breaks in connectivity inbetween periods of great interactive conectivity.
These guys are solivng the problem -- what if there's never low latency, high bandwidth, bidirectional connectivity between two sites? In that case, the answer is a sort of generalization of email to arbitrary applications (possibly with a TCP gateway, as horrifying as that might be).
Now that I think about it, file-oriented rsync might be the approach to take...
ROCKS + SSH Dynamic Forwarding would make a really interesting combination for making a net connection completely portably across many AP's. Thanks for the idea.
--Dan
There are...issues with the GBA lineup. To put it bluntly -- outside of Metroid and Castlevania, there's a real sense in the games for the system that it's for kids 16 and under. It pervades what's available, and even what you eventually get.
Don't get me wrong, I'll play through it, but you very quickly get the sense that you're dealing with a piece of fluff rather than a mature game platform (despite the fact that technically the GBA is an absolute marvel of efficiency and price).
Nintendo's platform is so kiddie-infused that they really will have alot of trouble when Sony gets PSP out. Well, if.
Microsoft is the X factor here.
--Dan
This is ridiculous. The ads contained a cover of the songs being sung, and like every other cover you hear, there's a compulsory license you can pay to get the right to perform someone else's music.
There was no sampling. Sampling is when I record what you say and play it back. Covering is when I just reperform it.
I agree with what some other people said -- Eminem suing Apple? I should download his audio on MP3 and show the whole world how he's got...oh crap, now I'm being sued.
--Dan
Except we don't live forever, so eventually you hit a nonlinearity where the probability is so low that the consequence is irrelevant.
For example, the sun WILL eventually expand and broil the Earth. This does not mean we should invest now in active heliodynamics.
--Dan
In the past fifty years, we have started to gain the technological capability to detect potential collisions with asteroids.
That does not make such a collision more likely in the next fifty years -- or hundred and fifty, or fifteen hundred. Significant and successful collision are _rare_, much rarer than earthquakes, tornados, or even human-caused meteorological effects (as in weather systems, not meteors).
It doesn't matter if we can see "just how close we came". It matters that we know, empirically, that there are vastly more pressing concerns.
What I don't want to see is an orbital weapons platform deployed under false premises. If the pretenses are true, that's a different story. Just don't tell me its to shoot down asteroids!
--Dan
Exhibit One: Saul , right after Foo Camp.
"This...is going to change...my life..." he says.
"A wireless rotary saw?" says I.
"Ice racing."
Ah.
--Dan
Weird. I remembered hearing the transcript version.
Bizarre.
No, the officer actually said he was "investigating an investigation." You can see it and read it here.
==
D: Because I'm investigating an investigation
==
It's interesting how your memory rewrote what you watched.
--Dan
I'm sure there's something really cool these guys are doing, but there is a very strong distinction between Big F*cking Huge Graphs (like we see a bunch of in the links) and Big F*cking Graph Analysis using some new technique, which isn't really clearly anywhere in there.
I've been singing the praises of LGL as of late, pushing it into the Opte project (mass internet viz) and such, but truly the interesting applications involve analysis -- and where's the beef on that in this story?
--Dan
danila--
That's what's so cool about the diamonds. The utility of the $10,000 diamond is that it's a $10,000 diamond, not something that came out of a cracker jack box. It's a sign that the guy is serious about his proposal (and something to thus brag about).
The problem with cash is that it's a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Giving the cash gives a long stream of small purchases of little importance save for survival -- a much different context than what the diamond blast represents.
--Dan
Check through the comments. One person said the price had something to do with the cost of mining em -- how the fact that prices are high with DeBeers marginalized proves that.
My point is that the price is basically self-fulfilling -- by being cheaper, they become inferior for it. So they might be profitable to the extreme, like all diamond mining is -- but they can't undercut.
--Dan
The reason a $10,000 diamond is valuable is because it cost $10,000. If it cost $100, you just bought your girl -- the love of your life -- a symbol worth less than an XBox.
Rarity in fashion is a strange thing; the cost of the object becomes an inherent part of the value -- it's not that the object is worth some certain amount, it's that the acquisition of it was so horrifyingly expensive and difficult that only a very precious few could achieve it. To gift someone with the results of this effort -- that's a sign of significance.
This might seem difficult to comprehend, so let me jump domains for a moment. What's the value of a moon rock? I mean, it's just rock from the moon; we could probably synthesize something chemically identical trivially. Ah, lets say you got an award, and were given the moon rock as a prize. Tell me you wouldn't show it off to everyone.
Same sh*t -- only difference is, instead of the cost being that of a trip to the moon, the cost is an enormous amount of one's savings. The price of diamonds is set high enough to be interesting but low enough to be possible.
It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the value of the rocks themselves.
--Dan
It doesn't matter if it's a brain dead monthly fee or a brain dead hourly fee; the cost of the infrastructure necessary to support _any_ fees vastly exceeds the revenue received from them.
--Dan
Want universal access in an airport? Use a cell, or go Vivato.
Want cheap access? Drop WiFi next to pre-existing areas where net already comes to, or at least it's not too expensive to put it. Put up a marker saying "come here for net".
There's net at most of the gates, so often the wire's already been laid.
You do have a valid point -- but you have to understand, it's obsessively perfect engineering that you describe that's put Starbucks so tremendously in the hole with their WiFi plans.
--Dan
Cost to DSL providers for providing net access to a residence is down to $20/mo. Quintuple that to $100/mo for shits and giggles. Tack on another $100 for the access point.
For a year, that's $1200+$100 = $1300 / 365 = $3.56 per day per access point. If your business can make an extra three and a half dollars per day by having net access around, you should set up wifi.
Of course, if you TRY to charge, and TRY to set up all these complicated access mechanisms, you have to spend all this money on support -- money you never make back.
--Dan
It's really easy to find the people doing the spam:
Buy Viagra. See who prescribed it.
Mortgage a house. See who backs the mortgage.
Enlarge your penis. See where the buck stops.
There's lots of shell games that try to cloak sales as opportunities. But we've got a huge amount of precedent for banning pass-throughs from the medical world, due to lack of risk -- if you benefit from spammers, you really should have to show you had nothing to do with the SPAM (indeed, eventually forcing legitimate businesses to ask "were you brought here by unsolicited email?").
--Dan
In a communist nation, the commodity becomes attention and/or influence. There are always commodities -- morality itself is measured in terms of accounting (owing favors, repaying a debt, etc).
--Dan
I'm a geek. I'm a security engineer. I'm here to say -- the solution is not in the packets, but the dollars.
Spammers have gotten to the point where they're breaking into people's machines to get them to illicitly send spam. Look at that carefully -- you can't even trust your friends not to spam you anymore. If you don't think Spyware is going to adapt to a spam transport, you're not paying attention. Ultimately, we need criminal prosecution for fraud that follows the money (because money transfers are really well traced). The money link needs to be broken.
Nothing else has even a hope of working.
--Dan
Yeah, I'd like to see some code -- anywhere -- that really did new, interesting things more efficiently and more correctly than a traditional approach.
Prime composite factorization?
Pattern matching?
Auto-clustering?
This is a new kind of science; why can't I find, a good amount of time after publication, some new solutions?
--Dan
Yeah. That's why we do our radial distribution functions with respect to the idea ideal gas. If the system is vapor the radial distibution function will look like a line at 1. If it has some order to it there will be peaks and valleys.
;) See, we are on topic. :)
It's kind of amusing that perfect noise is simultaneously 100% and 0% information.
Nope. We do molecular simulation. Our webpage. Ah, heck, now look what I've done. Now you will know who I am. I guess the value of communication overcame my value for privacy.
*laughs* That's pretty funny. Did you see the SIGGRAPH movie rendering of DNA replication? Absolutely insane.
Heh, mail me personally (dan@doxpara.com). I've got a couple things to show you.
--Dan
Being a bit more extreme, water vapor is "noisier" than solid ice, with liquid water somewhere in the middle.
Tell me -- have you experience with bioinformatic code? Curious.
--Dan
Yes, quite true, but no more than there has ever been (i.e., there are approximately as many interparticle distances now as there will be then).
:-)
Particles in liquid water cannot separate as much as particles in water vapor. Therefore, the former must have a lesser range of distances than the latter (at least on the mini-macro scale that allows for a concept of distance).
reference for the watches?
I believe it's from Applied Cryptography, by Bruce Schneier. I haven't read through AC in some time, though, and I could be wrong. There's definitely a reference to this in The Codebreakers.
This is all rather astonishing material to be coming up in a discussion of human privacy, isn't it?
WW2 is so fasinating. It is in someways both the apex and nadir of humanity's stay here on Earth thus far.
An interesting description. What do you teach?
--Dan
The interesting thing about encryption is that it does not imply data expansion, except for the size of the key (a fact that can be seen in every XOR-against-this-stream-cipher style algorithm). So I don't think we disagree much at all.
It's easy to say "homogeneous gas at a few Kelvin", but is every particle precisely equidistant from every other particle? Remember, molecules actually enforce a surprising amount of order upon eachother's position. If the particles aren't equidistant, then there's a gigantic amount of information contained in the precise interparticulate distance.
Do not underestimate accidental data sources -- during WW2, an intercepted shipment of watches had to have every clock's time altered, just in case the so-called "random times" were actually code to a huge message. A large mass of perceptually random data is always a great place to hide encrypted data.
If the particles are equidistant, of course, you get to kick Heisenberg around a little (not that this is a bad thing).
--Dan