> What I don't know is how muslims manage to live in this country given the climate of hysteria
Well, what I did when the FBI called me and asked me to come in for questioning is call a lawyer.
They called me in the middle of the day at my office, knew everything about me and started asking questions about my brother, family, etc.
They then told me that I could come into their office for questioning... or if more convenient, they would come to my office and question me there.
After asking them what they wanted, they finally told me that with the upcoming war in Iraq (this was about a year ago), they wanted to know if I had any knowledge about weapons of mass destruction (really, I'm not joking). I told them that I was 3 at the time I had left, but they wanted me to come in anyway.
Apparantly, they were just on a fishing trip. So I got a lawyer to find out what this all meant. She called and they immediately said there was no need for me to come in anymore, and they didn't have any specific questions but they would contact me if they could think of any.
Anyway, I've been in the US a while and know my rights as a citizen, but I know it would have terrified some others to be taken in for questioning - they have this way to make you feel that something ominous is about to happen.
P.S. I'm a computer geek, and don't show any terrorist tendencies:) - just in case someone suggests that they had reason to be suspicious.
> On the one hand, we have people who don't like Moore and his films, and they cry "YOU'RE ALL WACKO LEFTIES!", and on the other hand, we have people who do like Moore and his films, crying "YOU"RE ALL WACKO RIGHT-WINGERS!".
I can see how you disagree with this name calling, YOU WACKO MODERATE!
> I could see that; Ahhnold is about to make a speech, and right before he takes the podium he disposes of the coughdrop, which he had been using to soothe a throat sore from too many campaign speeches. Someone (with too much free time) sees this and retrieves it.
This fascinating play-by-play brought to you by Pepsi(R) - And now from a word from our sponsors!
> When I unsubscribed (the ones which didn't bounce back, etc...), the amount of spam I started to receive grew expotentionally.
You know, it might have just grown anyway, as the email address was copied from list to list...
It might have been a good idea to do a control study, where you set up two emails, equally obscure and subscribe to the same sites. On one email unsub., and see what happens.
Not to nit-pick, but many more people are still dying from starvation, bad water, cancer from spent uranium shells, etc. The numbers you are quoting are for declared civillians casualties, I think.
I have family there, and I can tell you that the situation is significantly worse than when Saddam was in power. At least then, they had water, electricity, and could drive around without getting shot at. From what I'm told, many parents have stopped sending their kids to school out of fear. Saddam would slaughter anyone who wanted to overthrow him, but most people just wanted to live their lives, and he let them.
Ofcourse, people opposed to the government being set up in Iraq now also sometimes end up dead...
Anyway, I think that the objection most people have to the war (for those that do object), is that is seems to have been on Bush's agenda way before he even got into office, and the whole pretext that he gate to the American people seems to be fabricated.
I remember reading somewhere that the difference in efficiency and productivity over the life cycle of a software product is quite dramatic between good software developers and poor developers. The report I read applied specifically to embedded firmware developers, but it probably applies to some degree to software development in general:
The difference between the top 25% of productive development teams and the bottom 25% is a factor of 5. i.e. productive development groups are 5 times more productive. For individuals, it's even more dramatic; productive individuals are up to 10 times more productive than their less talented compatriots.
This counts time spent redesigning, and the amount of effort that must be spent debugging bad code, etc., and not just lines of code.
One of the first authoritative book on the special nature of software development management is called "The Mythical Man-month", and has just been reissued in a new edition. You might want to stop by your local bookstore and see what it has to say.
I wonder how much closer this brings us to Cyberspace in Niel Stephenson's Snowcrash, where peoples lives are almost as important to them in the online world as in 'meatspace'
> more people have been killed in the cause of > religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)
More people have been killed in the cause of *xenophobia* than have been killed in the 'cause' of religion.
Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.
Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War', but there are several rules of engagement for combat in Islam:
- Treaties must be upheld. - Cannot kill innocents/non-combatants. - If the enemy seeks quarter, give it to them. - Prisoners are never tortured, and fed well. - Declaration of war unless you are occupied. - Cannot destroy churches, synagogues, etc. - Cannot destroy property, trees, animals, etc. - Should try to reach an agreement first. - No religious compulsion or coercion should ensue. - Give prisoners of war a chance for freedom. - Bury the dead with dignity.
The Qur'an describes those people who are permitted to fight:
[Quran 8:61]"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."
[Quran 4:90]"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."
However frustration and the feeling of impotence makes people willing to believe anything. I don't think that religion is the cause of all evil - I think it's evil people that are the cause of all evil.
There's a nice 23-page pdf of an (iterative fractal) procedural textures examples at:
http://www.uno.edu/~SAGES/presentations/Riddleof th eSphinx.PDF (warning: huge 1.9MB pdf file).
There's also an example in the file of fractal compression of topographic maps. Something like this could be used to provide any level of datail to a surface, as long as you knew the statistics of the texture, and defined some 'binding points'. So you just need to fill in the rough details of the mountain, not the actual matrix defining it:
E.g. 1000m high at [55,-92], 0m at [444,17], 0m at [-90,200], Hausdorff dimension 2.3 (Alps), or 2.15 (Rockies).
The file also list some example uses for the fractal texturing methods, such as background noise generation for missile tracking, stock market fluctuation simulations, expected word frequency in written text, lung destruction patterns from smoking, percolation, etc.
By the way, a firewall is not 100% effective against very skilled attackers, even if it has not been compromised.
A couple of years ago, I had to write a TCP/IP stack from the ground up for an embedded platform. This included the Ethernet stack, ARP, ICMP, IP, UDP, and TCP. I developed on the PC and then transfered the code to our embedded 386EX. To do this, I put an Ethernet card in my machine (Win98) that had the same chip we were using on the embedded platform and talked directly to the chip on the ISA bus (without going through any device drivers) by writing to low areas of memory that were mapped to the chip.
Once the code was written, the firewall never picked up any Internet activity at all if initiated directly to the chip.
While the code did take months to write, it struck me that nothing else on my machine could pick up the activity on the ISA bus - no program could block off ports or stop Internet activity. Anyone with sufficient expertise (governments or real hackers, for example) could make a 'stealth' worm.
Granted, this was on a Win98 machine that didn't have protection against talking directly to hardware, but it was still a learning experience. Ofcourse, it wouldn't work the same way on a 2000 or XP machine (or any form of Linux), since the hardware is no longer accessible.
> And if for some reason, I wanted to store them with a third party, I wouldn't want the storage to be a single sourced service.
There is a technique called secret sharing where you can split information so it's impossible to regenerate it unless you have every piece (impossible like a one-time pad):
Generate a perfectly random number, N, and XOR the data, M, with it:
X1 = M XOR N X2 = N
X1 and X2 can now be combined to recreate the secret:
X1 XOR X2 = (M XOR N) XOR N = M XOR N XOR N = M
Similarly, you can split X1 or X2 into as many peices as you want.
Something like this would give you some sense of security for storing secrets. Obviously, there are now more points of failure.
> If you notice, on Star Trek: TNG the people spend a lot of time ignoring people who are politely quiet while the person uses the computer. That may work on a TV set, but no chance in real life, real people see a silent moment as a chance to get THEIR word into the conversation.
Good point, but how about directional microphones along with voice "fingerprinting" technology to keep track of who's saying what. Also, with the automatic grammer inference rules (the Chomsky stuff in my original post), the computer generates a probability map of what word is likely to follow, and should be able to aid in reassembling a sentence in the presence of background noise.
I haven't worked out all the kinks yet, but would be happy to get right on it when the venture capitalists call;)
> I suppose someday it'll be theoretically possible to put that monster gamer machine in a thinline dress watch, but as they found with the "databank" watches the limitations are the input/output devices average people can comfortably work with, not electronic capabilities.
In reality, this memory probably won't be available for another 10 years (maybe in 5 years, the research will start having impact elsewhere in the industry). If you assume that computer speeds continue to increase, then you should have computers 50 times faster than today's. At these speeds (and even at speeds of 10 times today's), voice recognition can operate effectively.
Keyboard input may not be necessary for a large number of devices. I remember a (several hundred thousand dollar) system called something like FoxFire. It was an automated operator/secretary that sat on your phone conversation and responded to voice commands:
"FoxFire, schedule a meeting with Bob for Tuesday at one, and call us both half an hour before to confirm"
I fully expect to have this capability in my cell-phone ten years from now. The only problem is that natural language processing is not bound by processor speed, but rather theoretical advances (remember in the early 80's, scientist expected to have a computer as smart as a human within ten years...)
Interesting work has been done in automatical language grammer aquisition* (http://www.google.com/search?q=Chomsky+decomposit ion), but we are still far from having 'smart' machines. StarTrek-like computers might just be around the corner, though.
Anyway, to get back to the topic, the increase in memory is likely to be used in new and unexpected ways.
*: Chomskian Decomposition, or Chomsky's Transformational Grammar
Slashdot Mirror
> What I don't know is how muslims manage to live in this country given the climate of hysteria
:) - just in case someone suggests that they had reason to be suspicious.
Well, what I did when the FBI called me and asked me to come in for questioning is call a lawyer.
They called me in the middle of the day at my office, knew everything about me and started asking questions about my brother, family, etc.
They then told me that I could come into their office for questioning... or if more convenient, they would come to my office and question me there.
After asking them what they wanted, they finally told me that with the upcoming war in Iraq (this was about a year ago), they wanted to know if I had any knowledge about weapons of mass destruction (really, I'm not joking). I told them that I was 3 at the time I had left, but they wanted me to come in anyway.
Apparantly, they were just on a fishing trip. So I got a lawyer to find out what this all meant. She called and they immediately said there was no need for me to come in anymore, and they didn't have any specific questions but they would contact me if they could think of any.
Anyway, I've been in the US a while and know my rights as a citizen, but I know it would have terrified some others to be taken in for questioning - they have this way to make you feel that something ominous is about to happen.
P.S. I'm a computer geek, and don't show any terrorist tendencies
> On the one hand, we have people who don't like Moore and his films, and they cry "YOU'RE ALL WACKO LEFTIES!", and on the other hand, we have people who do like Moore and his films, crying "YOU"RE ALL WACKO RIGHT-WINGERS!".
I can see how you disagree with this name calling, YOU WACKO MODERATE!
Why not use this insginia instead?
Then again, I suppose the majority of Congress are not quite the type...
Quick Summary: New York times reporter overdoses on caffine; writes an article.
> I could see that; Ahhnold is about to make a speech, and right before he takes the podium he disposes of the coughdrop, which he had been using to soothe a throat sore from too many campaign speeches. Someone (with too much free time) sees this and retrieves it.
This fascinating play-by-play brought to you by Pepsi(R) - And now from a word from our sponsors!
(R) Pepsi is a registered trademark of Pepsi Co.
> When I unsubscribed (the ones which didn't bounce back, etc...), the amount of spam I started to receive grew expotentionally.
You know, it might have just grown anyway, as the email address was copied from list to list...
It might have been a good idea to do a control study, where you set up two emails, equally obscure and subscribe to the same sites. On one email unsub., and see what happens.
I vote we all go out and try this on a large scale to see if it works. I will be glad to compile the results when we're done.
Sincerely,
Alan Ralsky
CEO, Email Clearing House
Not to nit-pick, but many more people are still dying from starvation, bad water, cancer from spent uranium shells, etc. The numbers you are quoting are for declared civillians casualties, I think.
I have family there, and I can tell you that the situation is significantly worse than when Saddam was in power. At least then, they had water, electricity, and could drive around without getting shot at. From what I'm told, many parents have stopped sending their kids to school out of fear. Saddam would slaughter anyone who wanted to overthrow him, but most people just wanted to live their lives, and he let them.
Ofcourse, people opposed to the government being set up in Iraq now also sometimes end up dead...
Anyway, I think that the objection most people have to the war (for those that do object), is that is seems to have been on Bush's agenda way before he even got into office, and the whole pretext that he gate to the American people seems to be fabricated.
I remember reading somewhere that the difference in efficiency and productivity over the life cycle of a software product is quite dramatic between good software developers and poor developers. The report I read applied specifically to embedded firmware developers, but it probably applies to some degree to software development in general:
The difference between the top 25% of productive development teams and the bottom 25% is a factor of 5. i.e. productive development groups are 5 times more productive. For individuals, it's even more dramatic; productive individuals are up to 10 times more productive than their less talented compatriots.
This counts time spent redesigning, and the amount of effort that must be spent debugging bad code, etc., and not just lines of code.
One of the first authoritative book on the special nature of software development management is called "The Mythical Man-month", and has just been reissued in a new edition. You might want to stop by your local bookstore and see what it has to say.
I wonder how much closer this brings us to Cyberspace in Niel Stephenson's Snowcrash, where peoples lives are almost as important to them in the online world as in 'meatspace'
> Well it seems it would be a lot like a job, especially if you have to play from 10 to 17 hours in it.
Sure, at least until you come up with a good AI for it and run it on 10 accounts at once...
> more people have been killed in the cause of
> religion (crusades, inquisitions etc)
More people have been killed in the cause of *xenophobia* than have been killed in the 'cause' of religion.
Christianity didn't tell the crusaders to slaughter all the men, women, and children in Jerusalem when they surrendered. It didn't tell them to rape the nuns when they took Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Islam didn't tell the terrorists to fly a plane into a building.
Don't know enough about the Christian concept of a 'Just War', but there are several rules of engagement for combat in Islam:
- Treaties must be upheld.
- Cannot kill innocents/non-combatants.
- If the enemy seeks quarter, give it to them.
- Prisoners are never tortured, and fed well.
- Declaration of war unless you are occupied.
- Cannot destroy churches, synagogues, etc.
- Cannot destroy property, trees, animals, etc.
- Should try to reach an agreement first.
- No religious compulsion or coercion should ensue.
- Give prisoners of war a chance for freedom.
- Bury the dead with dignity.
The Qur'an describes those people who are permitted to fight:
[Quran 8:61]"If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient."
[Quran 4:90]"...... Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them."
However frustration and the feeling of impotence makes people willing to believe anything. I don't think that religion is the cause of all evil - I think it's evil people that are the cause of all evil.
There's a nice 23-page pdf of an (iterative fractal) procedural textures examples at:
f th eSphinx.PDF (warning: huge 1.9MB pdf file).
http://www.uno.edu/~SAGES/presentations/Riddleo
There's also an example in the file of fractal compression of topographic maps. Something like this could be used to provide any level of datail to a surface, as long as you knew the statistics of the texture, and defined some 'binding points'. So you just need to fill in the rough details of the mountain, not the actual matrix defining it:
E.g. 1000m high at [55,-92], 0m at [444,17], 0m at [-90,200], Hausdorff dimension 2.3 (Alps), or 2.15 (Rockies).
The file also list some example uses for the fractal texturing methods, such as background noise generation for missile tracking, stock market fluctuation simulations, expected word frequency in written text, lung destruction patterns from smoking, percolation, etc.
By the way, a firewall is not 100% effective against very skilled attackers, even if it has not been compromised.
A couple of years ago, I had to write a TCP/IP stack from the ground up for an embedded platform. This included the Ethernet stack, ARP, ICMP, IP, UDP, and TCP. I developed on the PC and then transfered the code to our embedded 386EX. To do this, I put an Ethernet card in my machine (Win98) that had the same chip we were using on the embedded platform and talked directly to the chip on the ISA bus (without going through any device drivers) by writing to low areas of memory that were mapped to the chip.
Once the code was written, the firewall never picked up any Internet activity at all if initiated directly to the chip.
While the code did take months to write, it struck me that nothing else on my machine could pick up the activity on the ISA bus - no program could block off ports or stop Internet activity. Anyone with sufficient expertise (governments or real hackers, for example) could make a 'stealth' worm.
Granted, this was on a Win98 machine that didn't have protection against talking directly to hardware, but it was still a learning experience. Ofcourse, it wouldn't work the same way on a 2000 or XP machine (or any form of Linux), since the hardware is no longer accessible.
I think someone may have already posted this, but here it is again:
p pe r.html
http://cockeyed.com/pranks/safeway/ultimate_sho
> And if for some reason, I wanted to store them with a third party, I wouldn't want the storage to be a single sourced service.
There is a technique called secret sharing where you can split information so it's impossible to regenerate it unless you have every piece (impossible like a one-time pad):
Generate a perfectly random number, N, and XOR the data, M, with it:
X1 = M XOR N
X2 = N
X1 and X2 can now be combined to recreate the secret:
X1 XOR X2 = (M XOR N) XOR N = M XOR N XOR N = M
Similarly, you can split X1 or X2 into as many peices as you want.
Something like this would give you some sense of security for storing secrets. Obviously, there are now more points of failure.
> If you notice, on Star Trek: TNG the people spend a lot of time ignoring people who are politely quiet while the person uses the computer. That may work on a TV set, but no chance in real life, real people see a silent moment as a chance to get THEIR word into the conversation.
;)
Good point, but how about directional microphones along with voice "fingerprinting" technology to keep track of who's saying what. Also, with the automatic grammer inference rules (the Chomsky stuff in my original post), the computer generates a probability map of what word is likely to follow, and should be able to aid in reassembling a sentence in the presence of background noise.
I haven't worked out all the kinks yet, but would be happy to get right on it when the venture capitalists call
> I suppose someday it'll be theoretically possible to put that monster gamer machine in a thinline dress watch, but as they found with the "databank" watches the limitations are the input/output devices average people can comfortably work with, not electronic capabilities.
t ion), but we are still far from having 'smart' machines. StarTrek-like computers might just be around the corner, though.
In reality, this memory probably won't be available for another 10 years (maybe in 5 years, the research will start having impact elsewhere in the industry). If you assume that computer speeds continue to increase, then you should have computers 50 times faster than today's. At these speeds (and even at speeds of 10 times today's), voice recognition can operate effectively.
Keyboard input may not be necessary for a large number of devices. I remember a (several hundred thousand dollar) system called something like FoxFire. It was an automated operator/secretary that sat on your phone conversation and responded to voice commands:
"FoxFire, schedule a meeting with Bob for Tuesday at one, and call us both half an hour before to confirm"
I fully expect to have this capability in my cell-phone ten years from now. The only problem is that natural language processing is not bound by processor speed, but rather theoretical advances (remember in the early 80's, scientist expected to have a computer as smart as a human within ten years...)
Interesting work has been done in automatical language grammer aquisition* (http://www.google.com/search?q=Chomsky+decomposi
Anyway, to get back to the topic, the increase in memory is likely to be used in new and unexpected ways.
*: Chomskian Decomposition, or Chomsky's Transformational Grammar