Infinite places does not mean everywhere. This is a common misconception when dealing with infinite sets.
Suppose you have infinite many places, as many as the natural numbers. You may have infinitely many places numbered by even numbers, while still not have the other, infinitely many, places with odd numbers.
So a more correct translation would be "in many places". But then again, if you are talking about infinite sets, the concept of "many" is also tricky, and leads into questions of set cardinality, aleph numbers, etc. which fortunately is a lot more interesting than the usual Netflix soap operas.
Uh, thanks Lars. Where would we be without iconoclastic pedantry on Slashdot?
Since we're being pedantic, you may wish to learn how to parse the phrase "loosely meaning".
The Korean "man", which incidentally is actually pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", is the same as 1,000 but can be translated as "infinite" in many situations. For example, a fountain pen is translated into Korean as a "1,000 year pen" or "man-youn-pil" (see here).
The "bang", which is also pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", means a "place" or a "room", as others here have noticed.
Thus this word (as with many Korean words) is a portmanteau, in this case loosely meaning "infinite places", which makes the translation to the English word "everywhere" fairly reasonable.
All that said, like most of the posters here, I think this choice of branding is truly hilarious.
I have considered keeping a "Ransomware canary" around. I'm thinking of, say, a Word.doc file on a network drive. A process on some separate computer then checks its entropy on a regular basis, or on file change notification if available, to make sure file entropy has not grown huge.
The idea fails for local files because (as I recall) the more sophisticated ransomware inserts itself as a filesystem driver. That's a likely problem for some of these researchers' heuristics as well.
IRKernel is quite tricky to get working if Anaconda is not how you want to get your Python (and some associated stuff). Your list probably works just fine for users without special requirements like mine, and I would recommend anyone reading this to follow it.
Publicly held companies are one of the main ways the "little guy" can save for retirement or his kids' college. They help ordinary people to participate in the capital side of the economy. One of Thomas Piketty's points (whether you agree or not) was that great amounts of income are accruing to capital these days. The situation would be far worse if regular folks could invest only in government bonds.
On the general topic of regulation for publicly traded US companies, I will further add that there is strong evidence it should be reduced. If you look at the growth in the overall market valuation over the last few decades, you will see that much of that growth has come from new entries into the market, like Facebook, and relatively little has come from subsequent value increases (though Facebook itself has increased). That is to say, it shows large segments of privately-held capital are responsible for most of the growth in valuation during the time these firms are held by VCs and pre-IPO (or pre-private equity).
We need MORE ways for the general public to participate in economic growth, not fewer. A scandalous Enron here or there is not worth making IPOs so onerous that everyone avoids them as much as possible, which is kind of the current situation.
Here's an analogy: if you have worked for a giant firm or big university you have probably found many of its procedures or business process sclerotic. How did it get that way? Well, every time something went wrong, somebody asked the question "How can we prevent this problem from ever occurring again?" They then went ahead with the prevention methods without regard to the corresponding cost in organizational flexibility.
What I want is not a computer player that never wins, nor one that wins all the times. Those are EASY to program in comparison to one that CONVINCINGLY challenges you enough that you have to play slightly better each time in order to win, without trouncing you or letting you walk all over it.
Amen. I happened to be trying to tune the Pachi Go AI to something slightly better than my current level just last night. It's very frustrating -- one can control the number of cores and calculation time, and attempt to zero in from there, but each game takes long enough that (even on reduced-size boards) it's a slow process.
I wonder how useful it would be to keep a "Ransomware canary" around. I'm thinking of, say, a Word.doc file on a network drive. A process on some separate computer then checks its entropy every few minutes to make sure it has not grown huge.
The idea fails for local files because (as I recall) the more sophisticated ransomware inserts itself as a filesystem driver.
In addition to this behavior, it seems like KeRanger is still under development. There are some apparent functions named “_create_tcp_socket”, “_execute_cmd” and “_encrypt_timemachine”. Some of them have been finished but are not used in current samples. Our analysis suggests the attacker may be trying to develop backdoor functionality and encrypt Time Machine backup files as well. If these backup files are encrypted, victims would not be able to recover their damaged files using Time Machine.
So it would appear that Time Machine's current design keeps it's data safe -- for now -- from having one's online backups encrypted. As others have pointed out, that's not likely to last and offline backups are a *very* good idea.
Fair point. As a mathematician it pains me to say this but I would suggest replacing requirements for trig and geometry with requirements for statistics and computer science. So, of course, as the trig and geometry classes remain available for STEM-loving students to add back in.
Many posters here are asking what "use" the curriculum could reasonably be expected to have for the students. They are taking the wrong perspective.
As with math classes, chemistry classes, and even literature classes, the point of this would be to have students graduate with a general awareness of how the world works. Those who need a professional level of understanding will almost all enjoy deeper subject material in college.
Here on Slashdot, we often bemoan how the average citizen is uninformed about security, how business managers don't understand why some problems are hard (http://xkcd.com/1425/), and what sorts of things coders need to think about. A class like this is aimed at mitigating those problems.
I feel that one of the weakest points of R is the error handling, reporting, and debugging available. Do you have advice on tools or techniques for people coding in R (aside from using RStudio? Are there plans for improvements in this area? The current facilities are reminiscent, at least to me, of using gdb back in the 1990s.
I have in mind cases like the following, in which a confusion about list access using the [ operator (when the [[ should have been used) provides a cryptic error message with no traceback available.
Looking into the paper, we see that with L(2,2)=81-16-8=57 various positions that are symmetric transforms of each other are considered distinct. For example, on sees this in the upper right and lower left corners of Figure 1.
Now, it's true that superko will break some of that symmetry, but not all of it. How much complexity disappears with more accounting for symmetry?
To quantify the degree of obfuscation, they have precise computational metrics based on their stylometric algorithms. But to judge the quality of the obfuscation, there is no objective metrics. Instead
To measure soundness and properness, obfuscations will be sampled and handed out to participants for peer-review.
which seems to me to make the contest rather less meaningful. Why not just peer review the quality of all obfuscations exceeding some minimum standard?
That's from 2002 and I wonder if that's even true of Cisco anymore. I have watched Cisco firewalls hard crash with too many connections on 256 mb ram.
This site seems to indicate 16 KB per connection, which doesn't leave much once you've subtracted the memory needed for OS/daemons etc..
That would be bad. However, I see that later in that document there's a section entitled Ideal case: firewalling-only machine where it says:
sizeof(struct ip_conntrack) is around 300 bytes on i386 for 2.6.5, but heavy development around 2.6.10 make it vary between 352 and 192 bytes!
For safety we might want to assume recent kernels have doubled that again, perhaps to 800 bytes. That still puts us under 2MB of RAM for 2000 connections. For greater certainty, I tried to check the kernel v4.3 source and sizeof(), but NAT has changed drastically in the 4.x series kernels.
This is not as good as it appears. Their "Enterprise router" has 128 mb ram and there is no way that's going to hold up to a significant amount of simultaneous (connections let alone the 64 mb ram that most of the devices have,
Is that really an issue? According to this, each NAT entry needs <200Bytes, in which case 2000 simultaneous connections (plenty for most any single dwelling) require less than 1MB RAM.
It wasn't that long ago that even enterprise-class routers got by on 32MB or less of RAM.
These guys sell a tiny "travel router" (or just the board if you like) that goes for $25 on Amazon. Crucially it has 2 ethernet ports (albeit only 100Mbits), along with Wifi. It ships with their modified version of OpenWRT but takes only a couple minutes to flash to the latest fully open-source version.
From there, going further into homebrew is trivially easy. I find it a better starting point than a raw Linux distro, and the low power consumption just cannot be beat. If you want to go Linux and don't have a fat pipe, I recommend it.
I find that Python is attractive, and works extremely well, for people well-suited to information-dense representation of ideas. This includes physicists, mathematicians and other folks who are used to that property of the hard sciences literature.
For software architects and developers, its attractiveness is more if a mixed bag, where many of those folks are more comfortable and productive with a greater amount of structure.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you did there.
Infinite places does not mean everywhere. This is a common misconception when dealing with infinite sets.
Suppose you have infinite many places, as many as the natural numbers.
You may have infinitely many places numbered by even numbers, while still not have the other, infinitely many, places with odd numbers.
So a more correct translation would be "in many places". But then again, if you are talking about infinite sets, the concept of "many" is also tricky, and leads into questions of set cardinality, aleph numbers, etc. which fortunately is a lot more interesting than the usual Netflix soap operas.
Uh, thanks Lars. Where would we be without iconoclastic pedantry on Slashdot?
Since we're being pedantic, you may wish to learn how to parse the phrase "loosely meaning".
This is an excellent explanation, but I have a very minor correction. Man means 10,000 and not 1,000.
Gah. I worked so hard to make a good post and overlooked that! I keep getting fooled by the Asian grouping-by-four!
Thanks for the correction.
The Korean "man", which incidentally is actually pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", is the same as 1,000 but can be translated as "infinite" in many situations. For example, a fountain pen is translated into Korean as a "1,000 year pen" or "man-youn-pil" (see here).
The "bang", which is also pronounced with a long "a" to rhyme with the English word "on", means a "place" or a "room", as others here have noticed.
Thus this word (as with many Korean words) is a portmanteau, in this case loosely meaning "infinite places", which makes the translation to the English word "everywhere" fairly reasonable.
All that said, like most of the posters here, I think this choice of branding is truly hilarious.
Here's a genuinely useful and scientific post. Mods, please do your thing!
I have considered keeping a "Ransomware canary" around. I'm thinking of, say, a Word .doc file on a network drive. A process on some separate computer then checks its entropy on a regular basis, or on file change notification if available, to make sure file entropy has not grown huge.
The idea fails for local files because (as I recall) the more sophisticated ransomware inserts itself as a filesystem driver. That's a likely problem for some of these researchers' heuristics as well.
(Expanding on something I wrote a while ago)
IRKernel is quite tricky to get working if Anaconda is not how you want to get your Python (and some associated stuff). Your list probably works just fine for users without special requirements like mine, and I would recommend anyone reading this to follow it.
-- The GP poster
Publicly held companies are one of the main ways the "little guy" can save for retirement or his kids' college. They help ordinary people to participate in the capital side of the economy. One of Thomas Piketty's points (whether you agree or not) was that great amounts of income are accruing to capital these days. The situation would be far worse if regular folks could invest only in government bonds.
On the general topic of regulation for publicly traded US companies, I will further add that there is strong evidence it should be reduced. If you look at the growth in the overall market valuation over the last few decades, you will see that much of that growth has come from new entries into the market, like Facebook, and relatively little has come from subsequent value increases (though Facebook itself has increased). That is to say, it shows large segments of privately-held capital are responsible for most of the growth in valuation during the time these firms are held by VCs and pre-IPO (or pre-private equity).
We need MORE ways for the general public to participate in economic growth, not fewer. A scandalous Enron here or there is not worth making IPOs so onerous that everyone avoids them as much as possible, which is kind of the current situation.
Here's an analogy: if you have worked for a giant firm or big university you have probably found many of its procedures or business process sclerotic. How did it get that way? Well, every time something went wrong, somebody asked the question "How can we prevent this problem from ever occurring again?" They then went ahead with the prevention methods without regard to the corresponding cost in organizational flexibility.
>
What I want is not a computer player that never wins, nor one that wins all the times. Those are EASY to program in comparison to one that CONVINCINGLY challenges you enough that you have to play slightly better each time in order to win, without trouncing you or letting you walk all over it.
Amen. I happened to be trying to tune the Pachi Go AI to something slightly better than my current level just last night. It's very frustrating -- one can control the number of cores and calculation time, and attempt to zero in from there, but each game takes long enough that (even on reduced-size boards) it's a slow process.
I wonder how useful it would be to keep a "Ransomware canary" around. I'm thinking of, say, a Word .doc file on a network drive. A process on some separate computer then checks its entropy every few minutes to make sure it has not grown huge.
The idea fails for local files because (as I recall) the more sophisticated ransomware inserts itself as a filesystem driver.
From the technical analysis section of the research document
In addition to this behavior, it seems like KeRanger is still under development. There are some apparent functions named “_create_tcp_socket”, “_execute_cmd” and “_encrypt_timemachine”. Some of them have been finished but are not used in current samples. Our analysis suggests the attacker may be trying to develop backdoor functionality and encrypt Time Machine backup files as well. If these backup files are encrypted, victims would not be able to recover their damaged files using Time Machine.
So it would appear that Time Machine's current design keeps it's data safe -- for now -- from having one's online backups encrypted. As others have pointed out, that's not likely to last and offline backups are a *very* good idea.
** So *long* , of course, as
(gah.)
Fair point. As a mathematician it pains me to say this but I would suggest replacing requirements for trig and geometry with requirements for statistics and computer science. So, of course, as the trig and geometry classes remain available for STEM-loving students to add back in.
I was wondering about this...thank you for posting.
Many posters here are asking what "use" the curriculum could reasonably be expected to have for the students. They are taking the wrong perspective.
As with math classes, chemistry classes, and even literature classes, the point of this would be to have students graduate with a general awareness of how the world works. Those who need a professional level of understanding will almost all enjoy deeper subject material in college.
Here on Slashdot, we often bemoan how the average citizen is uninformed about security, how business managers don't understand why some problems are hard (http://xkcd.com/1425/), and what sorts of things coders need to think about. A class like this is aimed at mitigating those problems.
That only applies after the November election. The OP was presumably asking about the time period between the Democratic convention and the election.
(I don't know the answer but I too am curious)
I feel that one of the weakest points of R is the error handling, reporting, and debugging available. Do you have advice on tools or techniques for people coding in R (aside from using RStudio? Are there plans for improvements in this area? The current facilities are reminiscent, at least to me, of using gdb back in the 1990s.
I have in mind cases like the following, in which a confusion about list access using the [ operator (when the [[ should have been used) provides a cryptic error message with no traceback available.
> symlog_scaler <- list(linear_to=2.5, abscissa=2.0,
+ scaling_function=function(x,linear_to=2.5,abscissa=2.0){
+ y <- x; linear_to = abs(linear_to); big_ix = (linear_to<x)
+ y[big_ix] = linear_to + log(1+(x[big_ix] - linear_to), base=abscissa)
+ small_ix = (-linear_to>x)
+ y[small_ix] = -(linear_to + log(1+(-x[small_ix] - linear_to),base=abscissa))
+ y})
> symlog_scaler$scaling_function(-5:5)
[1] -4.307355 -3.821928 -3.084963 -2.000000 -1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 2.000000 3.084963
[10] 3.821928 4.307355
> symlog_scaler['scaling_function'](-5:5)
Error: attempt to apply non-function
> traceback()
No traceback available
>
For those OSX users who have MacPorts, the new htop is already available.
Looking into the paper, we see that with L(2,2)=81-16-8=57 various positions that are symmetric transforms of each other are considered distinct. For example, on sees this in the upper right and lower left corners of Figure 1. Now, it's true that superko will break some of that symmetry, but not all of it. How much complexity disappears with more accounting for symmetry?
To quantify the degree of obfuscation, they have precise computational metrics based on their stylometric algorithms. But to judge the quality of the obfuscation, there is no objective metrics. Instead
To measure soundness and properness, obfuscations will be sampled and handed out to participants for peer-review.
which seems to me to make the contest rather less meaningful. Why not just peer review the quality of all obfuscations exceeding some minimum standard?
That's from 2002 and I wonder if that's even true of Cisco anymore. I have watched Cisco firewalls hard crash with too many connections on 256 mb ram.
This site seems to indicate 16 KB per connection, which doesn't leave much once you've subtracted the memory needed for OS/daemons etc..
That would be bad. However, I see that later in that document there's a section entitled Ideal case: firewalling-only machine where it says:
sizeof(struct ip_conntrack) is around 300 bytes on i386 for 2.6.5, but heavy development around 2.6.10 make it vary between 352 and 192 bytes!
For safety we might want to assume recent kernels have doubled that again, perhaps to 800 bytes. That still puts us under 2MB of RAM for 2000 connections. For greater certainty, I tried to check the kernel v4.3 source and sizeof(), but NAT has changed drastically in the 4.x series kernels.
This is not as good as it appears. Their "Enterprise router" has 128 mb ram and there is no way that's going to hold up to a significant amount of simultaneous (connections let alone the 64 mb ram that most of the devices have,
Is that really an issue? According to this, each NAT entry needs <200Bytes, in which case 2000 simultaneous connections (plenty for most any single dwelling) require less than 1MB RAM.
It wasn't that long ago that even enterprise-class routers got by on 32MB or less of RAM.
These guys sell a tiny "travel router" (or just the board if you like) that goes for $25 on Amazon. Crucially it has 2 ethernet ports (albeit only 100Mbits), along with Wifi. It ships with their modified version of OpenWRT but takes only a couple minutes to flash to the latest fully open-source version. From there, going further into homebrew is trivially easy. I find it a better starting point than a raw Linux distro, and the low power consumption just cannot be beat. If you want to go Linux and don't have a fat pipe, I recommend it.
I find that Python is attractive, and works extremely well, for people well-suited to information-dense representation of ideas. This includes physicists, mathematicians and other folks who are used to that property of the hard sciences literature. For software architects and developers, its attractiveness is more if a mixed bag, where many of those folks are more comfortable and productive with a greater amount of structure.
I feel for these people. Not only are they HIV positive, but they are also infected with MongoDB.