That's because for that type of search you're supposed to use "astalavista." Really. Google's great, but the real hax0rZ know how to filter their own...
Actually, Oracle *is* fully ACID compliant, *if* you choose to turn on that level of integrity checking. "Out of the box," a default Oracle installation chooses a much lower conflict level for performance reasons, yes. However, you can crank Oracle up (or down) from there. This flexibility of Oracle is part of what gives it such broad market appeal... it takes a Jack-of-all-Trades approach to integrity checking.
No problem... Yes, the disk wouldn't move as far along the x-axis during the "second 45 degrees" of her motion. However, from a single point of observatio, all sorts of other things appear change, with respect to the silver dot. It's refraction changes, for starters. Light is no longer directly reflected to the observer. Also, the disk will appear to deform, as well. Take a quarter and stand it on a table... rotate it slowly and you'll see what I mean... it goes from a disk to a line and back again.
Any of these phenomena can be used by a trained observer. However, the simplest explanation is usually the best: a small move is more important the farther it gets from the starting position. So, as long as we know where the dot started, and where it's going, we can adjust our calculations to take care of the edges.
As I mentioned before, that takes care of the speed + range of motion issues, but you'll still have less resolution at the edges as a consequence.
A little lesson in geometry might answer your question...
You're right about there being less motion in the head near the edges, however, less motion is required to describe the movements near the edge. A user's head tilting 45 degrees from orthogonal to the center of the screen describes a circle of radius 5", if her face is 5" from the screen. (Too close, I know, but just for sake of easy math.) Add another 45 degrees to that, and she's 90 degrees from the screen, defining an infinite plane, parallel to the plane of the monitor. Infinity is what we like to call "far," Russ.
Now, those are just two points, but I think you can get it from there... very small changes at the edges translate into large motions over the plane (in this case, the monitor).
This may mean that there's a potential problem with resolution at the edges, but not with motion or speed.
I currently run two monitors, side by side, in a similar configuatrion. I bought a PCI Voodoo3 at a local Fry's for abour $25, and a second monitor. Beats the heck out of spending $2k for a new box with features I don't want. But, I'll gladly sell it to you for $2k.
So, seriously, tell me again why a computer with two monitors is worthy of being a/. story?
Moxi is a realworld example of the fears evoked by a Slashdot story a few days back. You're not allowed to play DVDs over Moxi's wireless network because of licensing restrictions, not because of the technology. (There is such great fear that you're going to start your own drive-in movie theatre, that DVDs can only be broacast over wires.)
Due to licensing restrictions, remote DVD playback is not available in homes using wireless networking. link
There was a mention of it here, but also a better story that I can't seem to track down. If anyone remembers it would be much appreciated.
Regardless of your views on "net-widening" and "freedom" and "tracking" and the like, this is the next logical step for genuine security.
Good security should consists of three parts:
Something you have
Something you know
Something you are
Now it seems the German government has two out of the three (know+have), which is one (or two!) better than most of the world. Now all they need are retinal scanners, and they're set!
Like I said, it may not be a Good Thing® they end up with, but whatever it is... it's a lot closer to "secure" than anything else.
Same thing, other side of the border
on
Is Hyperchip Hype?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The same thing is happening on this side of the border. LaurelNetworks is another super-startup company, with a lot of capital, with their guns aimed at the "big boys" of network hardware (Cisco, Juniper, etc.). I did some work with Laurel, and even some work with a micro-startup networking company, BlueWave Networks.
I don't think that there's any hoaxing at all going on here. They're legitimate players with some heavy capital backing them. They also have great engineers and some good technology. It may not be enough, however. What it's going to come down to (IMHO) is the willingness of big ISPs and carriers to adopt technology from a new vendor.
Cisco may not have the best equipment, but everyone and their dog worth their salt in this game knows IOS and how to admin it. You can't say the same of any of the new vendor's products.
We've moved beyond the days of "great ideas" and "great products." Internet routing is a mature market in which the biggest obstacle is now overcome the inertia of the entrenched players.
The anology reminds me of Linux vs. MS, but then again, what doesn't?:)
I was given the idea by looking at the original Google server in the basement of the Stanford CS department. Its case is built from Legos (or, maybe Duplos in reality... they're pretty big).
But why not start with a small form factor for the mobo+busses+limited drivespace. Then, anything you want to add on gets clicked together with another piece. Need two external 5 1/4 bays? Use a 2H piece. Build it as you see fit.
The real issue at that point is a standard bus architecture to bridge the components, but I think the flexibility potential is immense. Got too many devices? Click in an additional 1H powersupply. Need to move your CDRW between boxes? It's a "snap" (insert "hardy-har-har" here).
The drawbacks are of course heat and redundancy. Each module whould have to be self contained at the start, but I can even envision a series of holes bridging components as well... like those old hamster tubes worked. Need more flow because you've got a stack of 43 devices? Add an extra fan module somewhere along the path.
Anyway, it's not here yet, nor will it likely ever be, since it's not mass-marketable (I think). But, it would allow flexibility to grow, a small footprint and size for home users, and massive physical component compatability.
Legos were always the answer when I was 12, too. Some things never change.
Verisign is making money off an option that it may not even be possible to exercise! In their proposal, they plan to take the $40 to waitlist a.com regardless of whether or not the name becomes free. So, for instance, they'll happily sell you on to the waitlist for "ibm.com", even though you have no expectation of the name ever lapsing.
It's something that would make stock brokers proud. It's an option that can never be exercised in many cases, yet Verisign would collect full face value. And that face value of $40 is way more than the $6 they get for actually registering a new name.
I guess the theory is that "someone else bought it before, so you should pay us a lot for it this time around." Are there no limits to the intenet-ridiculous?
This makes me feel REALLY old, but the EML technology research has been going on for over 20 years. I recall the 1990 High School CX debate topic very well and spent most of the year debating EML launchers (prototyped on Sandia National Labs railgun). We spent the summer in the library in New Mexico visiting Sandia and UNM to research our cases. They were already launching coffee can-sized payloads at that time.
Some of the EML experiments from the late 80s and early 90s were visited at a 95 IEEE pulsed power conference: here. Of course, it's been a HOT topic since pre-85, when the first IEEE pulsed power conference was held.
We've been at the brink of maglev space launches for the alst 20 decades. Maybe it'll happen tomorrow. Probably not. There's basically no money in this sort of solution for defense contractors, so it generally languishes in congressional committees when it comes time to fund...
Oh well. It would be cheaper, cleaner, safer, and a whole helluva lot more fun at parties... but the same issues applied 20 years ago as today: it doesn't get funded b/c it's a public works-type solution to space. There's no money for Lockheed in something like that.
Okay, kay, I'll concede the possibility that P=NP, because I'm bored. And just maybe quantum computers will allow us to bend the Von Neumann/Turing rules that we've been saddled with these o'-so-many years...
To answer the question about crypto then, will it break? Yes, definitely, crypto as we know it will break. Public Key Crypto is effective because the time to generate a private key from and unknown bit of salt and a private key is NP. That's why people don't brute force PGP... the naive brute solution is exponential in n, where n is the length of the key (2^n, where |n| is in bits).
But here's the rub: If you reduce such a problem to linearity (O(n)), then the only protection you have is increasing the length of n. But, to encrypt a message is still in O(n)*.
It would take only as long to crack a private key as it takes to encrypt a message.
So, protect yourself with larger values of n all you like, but it takes exactly as long to crack a message as it does to encrypt one.
* the oddity is that it takes more time than O(n) to encrypt a message. But, it is in P. and if P=NP, the all polynomial time algorithms are O(n). Kinda sounds silly at the end of the day...
If you're having trouble forcing the Babelfish to catch the pop-up window, you're missing a real classic! For some reason, the Babelfish doesn't parse and catch the popup.
I think there's a lot of truth to this, but not just with linux. It seems to be a phenomenon at all increasing levels of sophistication, in many different fields.
In my own example, I taught an advanced database course at Stanford, and how no trouble connecting with upper division CS majors and industry professionals in the course. Two quarters later, I taught "CS01i: Introduction to the Internet." I found myself at a loss sometimes trying to relate to the uninitiated Internet user. I had become detached.
It seems that the same thing is true of linux. We get ingrained in an OS/culture that requires a certain level of sophistication to succeed. Then (for better or for worse) we often become trapped in that paradigm.
I've found that with Linux education (and CS01i), that an old maxim holds true: "If I can tell my mom how to do it, and she can then successfully explain it to my dad, my job is done."
It may sound like an elementary test of fitness, but it works as a good filter for teaching the uninitiated.
(please note, this only works if your mom isn't a kernel contributor...):)
I had the pleasure of visiting EA/Origin's Austin facility before the Garriott + team exodus. It was a neat place to be, but there was a real feeling that people were being stifled, not getting to do what they wanted creatively, and being slaves to the visions of other...
And I saw Richard's car in the parking lot. Hella cool. =)
Anyway, now they're off on their own, striking out! With a new company and new ideas... "destination games." They were going to lead us back to their roots (which are our roots), back to greatness...
But now, even their email addresses are at NC... the makers of Bloodpledge. The reason is, for apparently financial reasons, they're porting games. Hardly a creative process. I can only hope they pick it up and get back on track after they're done with Bloodpledge. Otherwise, they changed the name of the masters from "EA" to "NC" and the game from "Ultima Online" to "Bloodpledge."
Someone else's ideas and blood, sweat and tears. We hope to see yours again, Garriot! All your fans are hoping you find the path again.
I'm looking to get a copy of the hot new Sim "Virtual Sociologist". In it you post messages on a simulated message board, and attempt to garner "karma" in attempt to rule the world.
The ultimate irony is that "human powered devices" are often at a complete loss when there's no human present to power them. Some uber-entrepeneurs have actually come up with devices that provide power to human-powered devices that don't have their humans attached.
Yes, in the Napster case "control" of the network was a critical issue. Specifically, though, it's a two-tiered test in order to have "vicarious liability" like the courts found Napster did... e.g., who is liable for what in terms of a P2P network's content. Remember, you need two things: the ability to supervise, and the making of profit.
Vicarious liability arises when the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022.
Also, there's still the good competitive analysis of kazaa, etc. from the RIAA (where we also find the codification of liability):
Slashdot Mirror
That's because for that type of search you're supposed to use "astalavista." Really. Google's great, but the real hax0rZ know how to filter their own...
Actually, Oracle *is* fully ACID compliant, *if* you choose to turn on that level of integrity checking. "Out of the box," a default Oracle installation chooses a much lower conflict level for performance reasons, yes. However, you can crank Oracle up (or down) from there. This flexibility of Oracle is part of what gives it such broad market appeal... it takes a Jack-of-all-Trades approach to integrity checking.
...but I will. This guy is just looking for trouble!
It'll be funny to see who contacts him first... the terrorists or the FBI...
No problem... Yes, the disk wouldn't move as far along the x-axis during the "second 45 degrees" of her motion. However, from a single point of observatio, all sorts of other things appear change, with respect to the silver dot. It's refraction changes, for starters. Light is no longer directly reflected to the observer. Also, the disk will appear to deform, as well. Take a quarter and stand it on a table... rotate it slowly and you'll see what I mean... it goes from a disk to a line and back again.
Any of these phenomena can be used by a trained observer. However, the simplest explanation is usually the best: a small move is more important the farther it gets from the starting position. So, as long as we know where the dot started, and where it's going, we can adjust our calculations to take care of the edges.
As I mentioned before, that takes care of the speed + range of motion issues, but you'll still have less resolution at the edges as a consequence.
cheers!
You're right about there being less motion in the head near the edges, however, less motion is required to describe the movements near the edge. A user's head tilting 45 degrees from orthogonal to the center of the screen describes a circle of radius 5", if her face is 5" from the screen. (Too close, I know, but just for sake of easy math.) Add another 45 degrees to that, and she's 90 degrees from the screen, defining an infinite plane, parallel to the plane of the monitor. Infinity is what we like to call "far," Russ.
Now, those are just two points, but I think you can get it from there... very small changes at the edges translate into large motions over the plane (in this case, the monitor).
This may mean that there's a potential problem with resolution at the edges, but not with motion or speed.
I will use the secret powers of generating reproducable one-time pads to solve the equally overstated Bodacian challenge!
The world will be all mine, Pinky!
I think that it's neat that you do all your Springer-Verlag manuscripts in TeX. Kudos to you.
I have prepared half a dozen SV manuscripts, in various venues, including Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). some are here
I've NEVER used TeX or LaTeX in those preparations.
Just another prespective...
I currently run two monitors, side by side, in a similar configuatrion. I bought a PCI Voodoo3 at a local Fry's for abour $25, and a second monitor. Beats the heck out of spending $2k for a new box with features I don't want. But, I'll gladly sell it to you for $2k.
/. story?
So, seriously, tell me again why a computer with two monitors is worthy of being a
There was a mention of it here, but also a better story that I can't seem to track down. If anyone remembers it would be much appreciated.
Good security should consists of three parts:
Now it seems the German government has two out of the three (know+have), which is one (or two!) better than most of the world. Now all they need are retinal scanners, and they're set!
Like I said, it may not be a Good Thing® they end up with, but whatever it is... it's a lot closer to "secure" than anything else.
The same thing is happening on this side of the border. LaurelNetworks is another super-startup company, with a lot of capital, with their guns aimed at the "big boys" of network hardware (Cisco, Juniper, etc.). I did some work with Laurel, and even some work with a micro-startup networking company, BlueWave Networks.
:)
I don't think that there's any hoaxing at all going on here. They're legitimate players with some heavy capital backing them. They also have great engineers and some good technology. It may not be enough, however. What it's going to come down to (IMHO) is the willingness of big ISPs and carriers to adopt technology from a new vendor.
Cisco may not have the best equipment, but everyone and their dog worth their salt in this game knows IOS and how to admin it. You can't say the same of any of the new vendor's products.
We've moved beyond the days of "great ideas" and "great products." Internet routing is a mature market in which the biggest obstacle is now overcome the inertia of the entrenched players.
The anology reminds me of Linux vs. MS, but then again, what doesn't?
Really. Legos.
I was given the idea by looking at the original Google server in the basement of the Stanford CS department. Its case is built from Legos (or, maybe Duplos in reality... they're pretty big).
But why not start with a small form factor for the mobo+busses+limited drivespace. Then, anything you want to add on gets clicked together with another piece. Need two external 5 1/4 bays? Use a 2H piece. Build it as you see fit.
The real issue at that point is a standard bus architecture to bridge the components, but I think the flexibility potential is immense. Got too many devices? Click in an additional 1H powersupply. Need to move your CDRW between boxes? It's a "snap" (insert "hardy-har-har" here).
The drawbacks are of course heat and redundancy. Each module whould have to be self contained at the start, but I can even envision a series of holes bridging components as well... like those old hamster tubes worked. Need more flow because you've got a stack of 43 devices? Add an extra fan module somewhere along the path.
Anyway, it's not here yet, nor will it likely ever be, since it's not mass-marketable (I think). But, it would allow flexibility to grow, a small footprint and size for home users, and massive physical component compatability.
Legos were always the answer when I was 12, too. Some things never change.
Verisign is making money off an option that it may not even be possible to exercise! In their proposal, they plan to take the $40 to waitlist a .com regardless of whether or not the name becomes free. So, for instance, they'll happily sell you on to the waitlist for "ibm.com", even though you have no expectation of the name ever lapsing.
It's something that would make stock brokers proud. It's an option that can never be exercised in many cases, yet Verisign would collect full face value. And that face value of $40 is way more than the $6 they get for actually registering a new name.
I guess the theory is that "someone else bought it before, so you should pay us a lot for it this time around." Are there no limits to the intenet-ridiculous?
er, "last 20 years", not "alst 20 decades"
This makes me feel REALLY old, but the EML technology research has been going on for over 20 years. I recall the 1990 High School CX debate topic very well and spent most of the year debating EML launchers (prototyped on Sandia National Labs railgun). We spent the summer in the library in New Mexico visiting Sandia and UNM to research our cases. They were already launching coffee can-sized payloads at that time.
Some of the EML experiments from the late 80s and early 90s were visited at a 95 IEEE pulsed power conference: here. Of course, it's been a HOT topic since pre-85, when the first IEEE pulsed power conference was held.
We've been at the brink of maglev space launches for the alst 20 decades. Maybe it'll happen tomorrow. Probably not. There's basically no money in this sort of solution for defense contractors, so it generally languishes in congressional committees when it comes time to fund...
Oh well. It would be cheaper, cleaner, safer, and a whole helluva lot more fun at parties... but the same issues applied 20 years ago as today: it doesn't get funded b/c it's a public works-type solution to space. There's no money for Lockheed in something like that.
To answer the question about crypto then, will it break? Yes, definitely, crypto as we know it will break. Public Key Crypto is effective because the time to generate a private key from and unknown bit of salt and a private key is NP. That's why people don't brute force PGP... the naive brute solution is exponential in n, where n is the length of the key (2^n, where |n| is in bits).
But here's the rub: If you reduce such a problem to linearity (O(n)), then the only protection you have is increasing the length of n. But, to encrypt a message is still in O(n)*.
So, protect yourself with larger values of n all you like, but it takes exactly as long to crack a message as it does to encrypt one.
* the oddity is that it takes more time than O(n) to encrypt a message. But, it is in P. and if P=NP, the all polynomial time algorithms are O(n). Kinda sounds silly at the end of the day...
Actually, this is the first post. It's *9* days older! =)
If you're having trouble forcing the Babelfish to catch the pop-up window, you're missing a real classic! For some reason, the Babelfish doesn't parse and catch the popup.
It's cached here: translation
It starts with
Respect husband / woman:
Hello!
If only it ended with "all your base are belong to us". =)
You can get ahold of Red Flag Linux, no problemo. You should be able to read chinese, however.
http://www.redflag-linux.com/
I think there's a lot of truth to this, but not just with linux. It seems to be a phenomenon at all increasing levels of sophistication, in many different fields.
In my own example, I taught an advanced database course at Stanford, and how no trouble connecting with upper division CS majors and industry professionals in the course. Two quarters later, I taught "CS01i: Introduction to the Internet." I found myself at a loss sometimes trying to relate to the uninitiated Internet user. I had become detached.
It seems that the same thing is true of linux. We get ingrained in an OS/culture that requires a certain level of sophistication to succeed. Then (for better or for worse) we often become trapped in that paradigm.
I've found that with Linux education (and CS01i), that an old maxim holds true: "If I can tell my mom how to do it, and she can then successfully explain it to my dad, my job is done."
It may sound like an elementary test of fitness, but it works as a good filter for teaching the uninitiated.
(please note, this only works if your mom isn't a kernel contributor...):)
Crazy Soccer © Adam Soft
Total Players : 2
Participating Countries : 2
Purse : Gold US$ 5,000
Silver US$ 3,000
Bronze US$ 2,000
I've never even HEARD of "Crazy Soccer" before, but if I could figure out just how to enter it'd be worth $2000! =)
I had the pleasure of visiting EA/Origin's Austin facility before the Garriott + team exodus. It was a neat place to be, but there was a real feeling that people were being stifled, not getting to do what they wanted creatively, and being slaves to the visions of other...
And I saw Richard's car in the parking lot. Hella cool. =)
Anyway, now they're off on their own, striking out! With a new company and new ideas... "destination games." They were going to lead us back to their roots (which are our roots), back to greatness...
But now, even their email addresses are at NC... the makers of Bloodpledge. The reason is, for apparently financial reasons, they're porting games. Hardly a creative process. I can only hope they pick it up and get back on track after they're done with Bloodpledge. Otherwise, they changed the name of the masters from "EA" to "NC" and the game from "Ultima Online" to "Bloodpledge."
Someone else's ideas and blood, sweat and tears. We hope to see yours again, Garriot! All your fans are hoping you find the path again.
I'm looking to get a copy of the hot new Sim "Virtual Sociologist". In it you post messages on a simulated message board, and attempt to garner "karma" in attempt to rule the world.
http://chronocentric.com/watches/winders.shtml
All the irony involved there makes me think I should just go with a battery in the first place. =)
Vicarious liability arises when the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022.
Also, there's still the good competitive analysis of kazaa, etc. from the RIAA (where we also find the codification of liability):
http://www.dotcomscoop.com/riaamemo.html