So you don't believe that the rehabilitation system works then.
To be clear, there are a number of social reasons for prison, each reason distinct, and rehabilitation being just one of them. Prisons (in no particular order)
Discourage crime (by setting an example)
Protect society from criminals
Punish (retribution, restitution, etc)
Rehabiltitate
Neither "discourage" nor "protect" necessarily imply that criminals be restored their full citizenship upon completion of their sentence.
... the principle is that if ISPs know that this kind of overreaction will occur... What's the alternative?
When innocent mail is blocked by a blacklist, the innocents have two options:
Apply pressure to remove the spammers (by analogy "regime change")
Apply pressure to remove the blacklists (by analogy "kill the terrorists")
By intentionally blocking more than spam, they are just as likely diminishing their overall influence, which helps nobody while inflicting suffering the innocents.
Dude! I did exactly the same thing and exactly the same thing happened. I did it like 6 years ago, and I think I telnetted in to start the ssh daemon:).
Just because technology can enable something doesn't mean it should be allowed to enable something. This is the single biggest misunderstanding of computational technology as our society acclimates to its pervasiveness. Technology should not be used to arbitrarily create new laws.
But how would hidden talent and creativity be found?
It's a first year introductory course, which is teaching logic structure, vocabulary, and just plain good paper writing (which the student definitely need). They'll have three more years to express their hidden talent, but they first need the basics hammered into them.
Ohh, he saved some time.
My lord, this is Slashdot of all places. What happened to "working smarter not harder". Or the three great virtues of computer programming: Laziness Impatience Hubris?
Re:So what's the big deal for the rest of us?
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
For long messages, there may be thousands or millions of messages out of a filed of 10**50 (or better) that have the same hash
Hehe, that's cute, "thousands or millions". I'm no cryptographer, either (so maybe one can chime in), but, err, there's a whole lot more than a million messages that have the same hash.
For the sake of argument, assume the hash function uniformly distributes messages over the hash space. (Because, hell, each message has to map to something.)
For all 138-bit (17 byte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**8 == 256 messages.
For all 512-bit (64 byte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**384 > 10**115 messages. Note that 10**115 is a smidge bigger than thousands (10**6) or millions (10**9) of messages, and a 64-byte message isn't particularly long.
For all 8192-bit (1kbyte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**8064 > 10**2427 messages.... ad nauseum...
I think there's a few hash collisions out there. A secure hash makes it hard to create a message that produces a particular hash. Even going the other direction -- producing/analyzing all messages that generate certain hash -- is a wee bit insane. Like I said, I don't know anything about security, I just think it's fun to think about the scale of the numbers.
Sorry for the typos: s/Keys/Kay/g. But in that interview, like the offhand assertion he made about poorly designed modern architectures, he refuses to accept many of the things he dogs in context.
Alan Keys: Just as an aside, to give you an interesting benchmark--on roughly the same system, roughly optimized the same way, a benchmark from 1979 at Xerox PARC runs only 50 times faster today. Moore's law has given us somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 times improvement in that time. So there's approximately a factor of 1,000 in efficiency that has been lost by bad CPU architectures.
That's like saying the modern interstate highway system is poor because it provides little speed improvement for a horse and buggy.
More likely answer: the benchmark is old and invalid on modern architectures (highways not cobblestone) designed for modern applications (cars not buggies).
There's always co-design between architecture and applications. Over the past quarter-century, that benchmark was either insignificant or holding back optimizations for contemporary problems and applications.
A very long list of credentials and achievements, but I didn't have an overall good impression of Alan Keys.
There are plenty of other rocks ("virgin soil") to study in the solar system. This is a unique opportunity to advance science by actively terraforming Mars. We might also learn techniques to keep Earth habitable as it inevitably moves to a period with significantly less climate stablility -- it's done it before and it's about to (geologically speaking) do it again.
When Mankind can prove it can live in equilibrium oni Earth, then it can spread elsewhere.
Huh? That's suicidal. How about: until we prove we can live in equilibrium on a planet, we must spread elsewhere.
By the way, living on a planet for geolocially long periods of time will require geologic action, not misguided, pristine inaction.
The reason talking on cellphones is dangerous is that part of the act of communication involves visualizing the other person's body language, facial expressions, and surroundings.
Counter arguments: Police and truck drivers using their radios while driving. You can't honestly assert that talking on the radio is fundamentally different than talking on the phone. Do those groups have disproportionately high accidents? If not, your argument, the study, and crusade against cell phones in cars is (somehow) fundamentally flawed.
... Every once in a while we see some bozo who wants to ignore 30 years of sysadmin experience and give his regular account root permissions....
I pray for the day that every computer user neither needs to be a sysasmin with 30 years of experience nor needs the perpetual support of sysadmins (IT departments, sysadmin friends, etc).
Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
For example, if you are gaming and burning a DVD at the same time, dual core chips will come in handy and will definitely give a smooth computing experience.
Burning a DVD is IO-bound given all the traffic on the PCI bus from the harddrive and to the DVD. Burning a DVD is not CPU-bound, so it doesn't seem like a dual core CPU would actually help that situation.
Please, there's more uncertaintly than from distortions of cheap cameras.
1) Uncertainty in positions and orientations of cameras. With 50-odd cameras interlaced in space and time, those uncertainties combine per frame, and per scanline when using cheap cameras. With single camera, that uncertaintly is limited to one camera, and is uniform across all images.
2) Uncertainty in frame synchronization. The article discussed a calibration technique to adjust for individual snapshot latencies of each camera. When using a single camera, the snapshot latency would apply uniformly across all images.
Each time you see "calibration", you should understand that introduces "uncertainty". These uncertainties are compounded when you have inter-relationships between multiple cameras, because you get non-uniformity per image (or scanline).
I'm not saying it's not cool as hell, it is. It's just when using it for science, there's definitely some pain-in-the-ass caveats.
Don't discount that it's going to be more frustating to use an array of cameras in a scientific sense, because you've introduced a whole slew of new spatial and temporal calibration issues. You can see their uncorrected videos are really messed up, like the balloon apparently popping from the wrong side, or the fan looks all wiggy. The corrected videos appear better, but if you need honest to god measurements based on those images, there's still significant remaining uncertainty.
Bottom line: an array of cameras is going to produce inherently more noisy video (for a broad definition of noisy) than a single high quality high speed camera.
Because our law enforcement is acting on the behalf of private companies... this just seems like wasted resources to me.
Versus what? Vigilante law? Or perhaps you mean allowing organizations like the RIAA or MPAA to fast track lawsuits... because nothing could go wrong with that.
I prefer law enforcement to enforces the laws, not private organizations with a single mind for profits.
Or, buy plain old / regular CDR's, DVR's, etc, some adhesive labels and a stomper to apply them. Why do I need a special drive and special disks, again?
the occasional good documentary or high quality series
That's a good point. PBS seems like an ideal service to start officially releasing their shows via bittorrent. Maybe a new distribution model and inherently more traffic to their site means more donations. We'd all win:).
I expect at least the level of Far Cry. At the highest level, yes, Far Cry is a linear story. But, between points A and B there were significant choices in path -- for instance: hike over mountains, humvee on the road, or boat around on the ocean. Even these "minimal" choices significantly surpass that of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. In those two games, there's always exactly one turn to make, one door to open, etc. Even some choices in that regard make the game deeply more interesting, engaging, and fun.
I enjoyed Doom 3. I enjoyed Half-Life 2. But they are precisely, exactly a movie disguised as a game. I had overall a lot more fun playing Far Cry because it at least has the semblance of an adventure with choice.
It's also funny all the complaints about half-life 2 have to do with the steam system. Nobody seems to be making comments about the actual game itself. Oh, could that be because the game itself is an indisputably amazing work of art?
RTFA, and stop raging.
... they are working on a fix to this stuttering problem in Half Life 2. Usually, a game bug isn't news-worthy, but the sporadic nature of this bug makes me wonder - who else has problems with HL2 pausing/skipping?
I've played the game. I've have the "stuttering" problem (I'd personally call it the freezing problem).
I prefer IRV/STV voting over Condercet voting, especially in multi-seat elections.
Reading the article, I was appalled that IRV failed the monotonicity criteria -- that under IRV it is possible that increasing preference for a candidate can cause him/her to lose, and decreasing preference for a candidate can cause her/him to win.
This is nonsense. It means that it's impossible to understand the true implications of your vote, and expressing your true preferences can produce a contrary outcome.
Just for that, IRV is grotesque and an unacceptable voting system.
Read The Fine Article. Even though the site is (somewhat) biased toward Condorcet voting, they do clearly and mathematically describe a set of otherwise common sense criteria to judge voting systems. I suggest you read the article, it's nice to have a formal structure by which to judge voting methods. One criteria establishes that there should be no incentive by the majority to falisy their preferences -- the grandparent's case of voting Chicago over the true second favorite. Clearly the Borda system does not satisfy this since the band is going to Chicago given the incentive for falsifying true preferences.
Well, I checked with my girldfriend. Apparently, I'm an insentive clod.:)
You're still reaching when it comes to a direct insult. Half the people that call me "funny" don't mean it precisely as a compliment, and definitely don't imply superiority. And, I'm sure plenty of the women that are excellent cooks are perfectly proud of their abilities, so I don't see why it's presumed to be odd and ineffective to refer to them as "funny" in the same manner.
The biggest generalization of the statement is the implied "women cook, men don't". That I'll agree is sexist and warrants issue.
Most recipes are designed for women, and their funny way of looking at the world.
Is completely uncalled for.... Way to be sexist, Slashdot.
What makes it sexist? Did he say the recipes were bad? That women were bad? That the recipes were dumb? That women were dumb? Anything at all that implies anything bad?... or are you just inferring something bad, which is more a reflection of you than the original comment?
As an engineer, I'm proud of my funny way of looking at the world. Most engineers are. So, I don't see how it'd be an insult to describe someone else in the same manner.
Slashdot Mirror
16210.5 Snickers
Whoah, that's kind of weird. If the Google search is accurate then the dimensions of one Snickers candybar is
11cm x 2.5cm x 2cm == 5.5e-5 m^3
Say a washing mashine is one cubic meter
1 m^3 / 5.5e-5 m^3 == 18 kSnickers
That is to say, the impact is equivalent in not only food energy and physical volume as about 16k to 18k Snickers.
Which USB stick do you have? The Lexar JumpDrive Lightning reads at 22 MB/s. ArsTechnica review.
- Discourage crime (by setting an example)
- Protect society from criminals
- Punish (retribution, restitution, etc)
- Rehabiltitate
Neither "discourage" nor "protect" necessarily imply that criminals be restored their full citizenship upon completion of their sentence.When innocent mail is blocked by a blacklist, the innocents have two options:
- Apply pressure to remove the spammers (by analogy "regime change")
- Apply pressure to remove the blacklists (by analogy "kill the terrorists")
By intentionally blocking more than spam, they are just as likely diminishing their overall influence, which helps nobody while inflicting suffering the innocents.Dude! I did exactly the same thing and exactly the same thing happened. I did it like 6 years ago, and I think I telnetted in to start the ssh daemon :).
Just because technology can enable something doesn't mean it should be allowed to enable something. This is the single biggest misunderstanding of computational technology as our society acclimates to its pervasiveness. Technology should not be used to arbitrarily create new laws.
It's a first year introductory course, which is teaching logic structure, vocabulary, and just plain good paper writing (which the student definitely need). They'll have three more years to express their hidden talent, but they first need the basics hammered into them.
Ohh, he saved some time.
My lord, this is Slashdot of all places. What happened to "working smarter not harder". Or the three great virtues of computer programming: Laziness Impatience Hubris?
Hehe, that's cute, "thousands or millions". I'm no cryptographer, either (so maybe one can chime in), but, err, there's a whole lot more than a million messages that have the same hash.
For the sake of argument, assume the hash function uniformly distributes messages over the hash space. (Because, hell, each message has to map to something.)
For all 138-bit (17 byte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**8 == 256 messages.
For all 512-bit (64 byte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**384 > 10**115 messages. Note that 10**115 is a smidge bigger than thousands (10**6) or millions (10**9) of messages, and a 64-byte message isn't particularly long.
For all 8192-bit (1kbyte) messages, each 128-bit hash corresponds to 2**8064 > 10**2427 messages. ... ad nauseum ...
I think there's a few hash collisions out there. A secure hash makes it hard to create a message that produces a particular hash. Even going the other direction -- producing/analyzing all messages that generate certain hash -- is a wee bit insane. Like I said, I don't know anything about security, I just think it's fun to think about the scale of the numbers.
Sorry for the typos: s/Keys/Kay/g. But in that interview, like the offhand assertion he made about poorly designed modern architectures, he refuses to accept many of the things he dogs in context.
That's like saying the modern interstate highway system is poor because it provides little speed improvement for a horse and buggy.
More likely answer: the benchmark is old and invalid on modern architectures (highways not cobblestone) designed for modern applications (cars not buggies).
There's always co-design between architecture and applications. Over the past quarter-century, that benchmark was either insignificant or holding back optimizations for contemporary problems and applications.
A very long list of credentials and achievements, but I didn't have an overall good impression of Alan Keys.
When Mankind can prove it can live in equilibrium oni Earth, then it can spread elsewhere.
Huh? That's suicidal. How about: until we prove we can live in equilibrium on a planet, we must spread elsewhere.
By the way, living on a planet for geolocially long periods of time will require geologic action, not misguided, pristine inaction.
Counter arguments: Police and truck drivers using their radios while driving. You can't honestly assert that talking on the radio is fundamentally different than talking on the phone. Do those groups have disproportionately high accidents? If not, your argument, the study, and crusade against cell phones in cars is (somehow) fundamentally flawed.
I pray for the day that every computer user neither needs to be a sysasmin with 30 years of experience nor needs the perpetual support of sysadmins (IT departments, sysadmin friends, etc).
Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean it's the way it should be.
Burning a DVD is IO-bound given all the traffic on the PCI bus from the harddrive and to the DVD. Burning a DVD is not CPU-bound, so it doesn't seem like a dual core CPU would actually help that situation.
1) Uncertainty in positions and orientations of cameras. With 50-odd cameras interlaced in space and time, those uncertainties combine per frame, and per scanline when using cheap cameras. With single camera, that uncertaintly is limited to one camera, and is uniform across all images.
2) Uncertainty in frame synchronization. The article discussed a calibration technique to adjust for individual snapshot latencies of each camera. When using a single camera, the snapshot latency would apply uniformly across all images.
Each time you see "calibration", you should understand that introduces "uncertainty". These uncertainties are compounded when you have inter-relationships between multiple cameras, because you get non-uniformity per image (or scanline).
I'm not saying it's not cool as hell, it is. It's just when using it for science, there's definitely some pain-in-the-ass caveats.
Bottom line: an array of cameras is going to produce inherently more noisy video (for a broad definition of noisy) than a single high quality high speed camera.
Versus what? Vigilante law? Or perhaps you mean allowing organizations like the RIAA or MPAA to fast track lawsuits ... because nothing could go wrong with that.
I prefer law enforcement to enforces the laws, not private organizations with a single mind for profits.
Or, buy plain old / regular CDR's, DVR's, etc, some adhesive labels and a stomper to apply them. Why do I need a special drive and special disks, again?
That's a good point. PBS seems like an ideal service to start officially releasing their shows via bittorrent. Maybe a new distribution model and inherently more traffic to their site means more donations. We'd all win :).
I expect at least the level of Far Cry. At the highest level, yes, Far Cry is a linear story. But, between points A and B there were significant choices in path -- for instance: hike over mountains, humvee on the road, or boat around on the ocean. Even these "minimal" choices significantly surpass that of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. In those two games, there's always exactly one turn to make, one door to open, etc. Even some choices in that regard make the game deeply more interesting, engaging, and fun.
I enjoyed Doom 3. I enjoyed Half-Life 2. But they are precisely, exactly a movie disguised as a game. I had overall a lot more fun playing Far Cry because it at least has the semblance of an adventure with choice.
RTFA, and stop raging.
I've played the game. I've have the "stuttering" problem (I'd personally call it the freezing problem).
Other complaints? The game is totally linear.
Reading the article, I was appalled that IRV failed the monotonicity criteria -- that under IRV it is possible that increasing preference for a candidate can cause him/her to lose, and decreasing preference for a candidate can cause her/him to win.
This is nonsense. It means that it's impossible to understand the true implications of your vote, and expressing your true preferences can produce a contrary outcome.
Just for that, IRV is grotesque and an unacceptable voting system.
Read The Fine Article. Even though the site is (somewhat) biased toward Condorcet voting, they do clearly and mathematically describe a set of otherwise common sense criteria to judge voting systems. I suggest you read the article, it's nice to have a formal structure by which to judge voting methods. One criteria establishes that there should be no incentive by the majority to falisy their preferences -- the grandparent's case of voting Chicago over the true second favorite. Clearly the Borda system does not satisfy this since the band is going to Chicago given the incentive for falsifying true preferences.
You're still reaching when it comes to a direct insult. Half the people that call me "funny" don't mean it precisely as a compliment, and definitely don't imply superiority. And, I'm sure plenty of the women that are excellent cooks are perfectly proud of their abilities, so I don't see why it's presumed to be odd and ineffective to refer to them as "funny" in the same manner.
The biggest generalization of the statement is the implied "women cook, men don't". That I'll agree is sexist and warrants issue.
What makes it sexist? Did he say the recipes were bad? That women were bad? That the recipes were dumb? That women were dumb? Anything at all that implies anything bad? ... or are you just inferring something bad, which is more a reflection of you than the original comment?
As an engineer, I'm proud of my funny way of looking at the world. Most engineers are. So, I don't see how it'd be an insult to describe someone else in the same manner.