Depending on where you work, bringing media to and from work might be a problem. Even if you work someplace where this is not an issue, you might have problems getting access to your media if you are laid off or fired. Not to mention potential legal issues with ownership of your personal data if it's physically located at work. [Might want to make sure the media is clearly labelled "personal property of YOURNAME".]
Also, if you live close enough to work, a natural disaster (hurricane or earthquake) could cause problems at both places.
What about parody? There have been some classic impersonating websites such as the fake Steve Jobs site. These are legal because it's parody.
What about multiple people with the same name? There is more than one person on the net with the name "Cecilia Barnes". What if one "Cecilia Barnes" calls up yahoo to complain about a website that is about a different one? Each can produce government ID. [I know, in this case, there was a phone number, but a law or new rule needs to be general.]
This sort of issue is a hard problem. It's hard to develop general guidelines that work in all cases. While it would be nice if yahoo would be more flexible in a case like this one, it's understandable why they have their policies. That's why we have the court system.
We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Are you actually familiar with Spector's voting record? Even when he was a Republican, and the Republicans were the majority, Spector had a long history of voting against the Republican party line. He's been in the Senate for a long time. His constituents are under no illusions. Check his record. So in his case, he really is elected far more as an individual than as a party member.
Note, also, that our government was specifically designed to limit the influence of political parties. See Federalish paper #10. In parliamentary systems, one tends to have single-interest political parties. The US system was specifically designed to avoid this, as Madison wrote.
Personally, I can't see how strict adherence to party policy is a good thing. Each party has a tiny leadership, usually unelected -- Michael Steele for the Republicans, Howard Dean for the Democrats. Are you really telling me that all the nation's elected officials should subjugate their consciences to a small number of their party's elite? That isn't a democracy or a republic, that is a dictatorship. In a very real sense, the existence of party "whips" on both sides is a violation of the principles that underly this nation.
RTFA. The author of the theory has a PhD in Physics, studied at Oxford, and did postdoc work together with Stephen Hawking. More importantly, his article has actually been peer reviewed by Physicists who think his ideas may have merit. And most importantly, no one is saying "right" or "wrong" at this stage; his ideas are under consideration, but his ideas are currently considered incomplete, and he is not yet saying that he has proven current quantum theory is wrong.
OK, if you modify the kernel architecture enough, yes, you can move more of the loading burden into the boot manager, just list HURD. So how about support for software RAID, logical volume management, encrypted FSs, and the like? grub can't do all that stuff today. And it shouldn't. At some point, you are moving so much complexity into the boot manager that you are defeating the design purpose of simplifying the kernel.
While the kernel and initrd are *loaded* by the bootloader, the kernel then needs to *understand* the initrd FS format. So at the very least, you need support for the initrd FS to be compiled into the kernel.
You could add another layer of indirection to initrd, but you would just be moving the problem. initrd is itself really a way to let you avoid compiling everything into the kernel needed to load the root FS. You move most of the device and FS drivers into initrd, get the boot loader to load initrd, and make the kernel only have to understand the initrd FS.
And once the initrd is loaded, the kernel still needs to understand the root FS. In theory, initrd could have FUSE support. But for now, FUSE gets loaded from the root FS or a user FS. So the initrd needs kernel modules for the root FS, too.
Without initrd, the kernel definitely needs to support the root FS natively.
Even more importantly, adaptive optics is a relatively young technology that is getting better. As the GP said, JWST is really expensive. JWST also won't be ready for launch for years yet. It doesn't make sense to pour massive money into a space telescope for visible light when we can already beat Hubble from the ground under some conditions, and we're getting better.
Note that, thanks to New Horizons, Pluto itself will soon be getting a better closeup than anything we can do from the ground or from Earth orbit, at least in the forseeable future.
Some percentage of people "surf" CPU-intensive websites, such as hulu, while others read news. Some save their work frequently, requiring the drive to spin up, while others save less often. Some like to watch DVDs in background, requiring a spinning optical drive and CPU- or GPU-intensive decoding, while others don't. Even naive users will have different power utilization profiles. There is no "average joe".
Sending an astronaut is many times as expensive, since we need more safety, need to keep the astronaut alive during the long trip over, and need to bring the astronaut back. After all, we have already sent the lander, but are not scheduled to send people for many years. So it's probably better to send the machine and wait a month than to wait the many years before we can send a person.
It also helps to know a lot about the environment before we risk sending an astronaut.
If the law passes, it would be easy for "consumer" and SOHO router vendors to start adding large flash storage devices and automated logging with compression. They can advertise such routers appropriately: "compliant with Internet SAFETY Act". To non-technical people, this might even sound like a positive. So on a going-forward basis, I don't think this law would really be that hard to comply with.
Problems with that law:
* unfunded mandate. This puts a burden on people with existing equipment that otherwise works, and raises prices on new purchases.
* unnecessarily intrusive. The government is regulating equipment and actions on equipment in all homes, for the rare chance that someone is doing something wrong? Do we really want our government doing this?
* counter-productive. What happens the first time that a child being abused by their parents researches options online, and gets caught by the abuser because of government-mandating logs? Logging cuts both ways.
The last item could really help kill this bill. Use "protect the children" to our advantage.
Down this road lies madness. It's an arms race. We had caller ID. Then we got caller ID blocking to workaround caller ID. The guys from TFA are providing a workaround for caller ID blocking, which is itself a workaround for caller ID. OK, so you will create a workaround for the workaround for the workaround. Are you sure someone won't come along and create a workaround for that?
The system is broken. The solution is not endless technical workarounds, the solution is to fix the holes in the system.
To make a black hole out of a mass the size of the Earth, you need to pack it into a radius of about 9mm. That's incredibly dense, even compared to all known metals. And for less massive blackholes, the required density increases; at the masses we're talking, the radius is miniscule. Black holes also tend to evaporate, with smaller black holes evaporating faster. So whether we are looking at the upper atmosphere or at the LHC, any blackholes created cannot swallow matter fast enough to survive, let alone grow.
Black holes do not require lots of mass, they require lots of density. If matter is packed into an area less than that matter's Schwarzschild radius, you have a black hole. There is a real theory that this experiment will create a black hole. However, the same theory that says that a black hole could be created also says that black holes should be created all the time in Earth's upper atmosphere. Small black holes are harmless because they rapidly evaporate. Regardless of what will be created, the LHC is just recreating events that occur all the time in our upper atmosphere, so saying that it could be harmful is kinda stupid -- if there were a significant risk, we would already be dead.
Do some cost/risk/benefit analysis. There is a relatively low probability that your kid will actually need stem cells from the umbilical cord. For this to be useful, (1) your kid would need to have a relatively narrow range of sicknesses, (2) medical science would need to have a mechanism that can utilize umbilical cord stem cells without being able to utilize other cell types; and (3) you would need to be able to afford the gene therapy. If you RTFA, you will see that various organizations recommend not doing this unless there is a history of certain diseases in the family. So is such a relatively low probability worth the expense? Obviously, you know your family history and financial situation better than someone else does.
Meanwhile, college is a very likely expense. So consider setting aside the money into a college fund.
It is also possible to donate the placenta. I hear that some of the donation sites try to do a best-of-both-worlds deal, where the placenta is put on hold for some time (for free) in case the child needs it. If the child doesn't need it by a certain time, the facility can then use it.
They're not claiming that they invented it, they're just trying to help it along. While DNSSEC has been around a while, the overwhelming majority of zones, including the root zone and.com, are not signed yet. It may look like the US government is late to the party, they're actually ahead of most of the US commercial sector on this one.
So how does this "bolster" DNSSEC? Answer: the government is hoping that a large-scale implementation by a major buyer will push vendors to properly support DNSSEC. Many vendors don't support DNSSEC at all, or only support part of it; Microsoft, for example, only has minimal DNSSEC support. How do you think vendors will respond when.gov customers start telling them "we can't buy your product because it doesn't support DNSSEC. We'll have to go with one of your competitors."
They're talking about funding research, not deployment. RTFA. The dollar amounts in question sound about right.
Note also that this goes way beyond SSL. This is not about identifying your BGP peers -- that's a relatively simple problem that can easily be solved with MD5 [or one of the hash algorithms that is replacing MD5, since MD5 is problematic.] This is about validating that your BGP peers have the right to announce what they are announcing. This is a much harder problem than SSL.
That is, let's say you have a router that peers with $someco's router. It's easy to use MD5 [or replace it with something better] so you are sure that you are talking to $someco's router. It might also be possible to set up SSL instead, so you are even more sure you are talking to $someco. But even if you know you are talking to $someco, how do you know you can trust what $someco is telling you? What if $someco's router says it's a good path to get to a chunk of address space that belongs to $otherco -- should you believe it? BGP is full of settings that let you limit how much you trust your peers, but how do you know what you should set them to? Note that this is not a simple question of "is address space X associated with the $someco that is announcing it" -- even if address space X belongs to $otherco, it's possible that $someco is a legitimate transit network rather than a malicious third party.
Sounds like DHS is funding research to try to solve this.
This is somewhat different than the DNSSEC push. The DNSSEC effort is looking to deploy an existing but unpopular technology across the US federal government. The BGPSEC effort seems to be about creating a new technology for possible future deployment.
It doesn't make sense to drop BIND in favor of djbdns just because of this. djbdns doesn't even try to do DNSSEC. The bug in BIND is not a direct attack on the DNS server, it just means that DNSSEC validation doesn't always work right. By switching from BIND to djbdns, you are completely breaking DNSSEC validation. In different terms, the worst consequence of this bug was that it sometimes made BIND act like djbdns.
I suspect that many people will react to this problem by either disabling support for the affected CAs or by disabling support for MD5 certs. In either case, people who have innocent MD5 certs will be collateral damage. So best to get off MD5 certs now.
# the below are bash functions for checking cert files # and web servers cert signature algorithms. # note: they are non-recursive, i.e. you see the algorithm # used to sign the cert, not the algorithm that was used # to sign the cert that signed the cert.
# morty: call like openssl_cert_signature_algorithm CERT_FILE openssl_cert_signature_algorithm(){ local file local algorithms status for file in "$@"; do algorithms=$( openssl x509 -in "$file" -text -noout | grep -i "Signature Algorithm"| sed 's,^ *Signature Algorithm: *,,'| sort -u) case "$algorithms" in *md5*) status=BAD;; *sha1*|*sha2*) status=GOOD;; *) status=unknown;; esac echo "file: $file status: $status algorithms: $algorithms" done }
The following can be used to test a server:
# morty: call like: openssl_server_md5_signature www.google.com:443 www.amazon.com:443 openssl_server_md5_signature(){ local server local algorithms status for server in "$@"; do algorithms=$( openssl s_client -connect "$server" </dev/null 2>/dev/null | \ openssl x509 -in/dev/fd/0 -text -noout | grep -i "Signature Algorithm"| sed 's,^ *Signature Algorithm: *,,'| sort -u) case "$algorithms" in *md5*) status=BAD;; *sha1*|*sha2*) status=GOOD;; *) status=unknown;; esac echo "server: $server status: $status algorithms: $algorithms" done }
Asimov has had problems with Hollywood, both during his life and since. His intro to "Waterclap" describes how he rebelled against the Hollywood formula. He once wrote a long rant about Nightfall's adaptation for the silver screen. The movie "Bicentennial Man" wasn't all that great. And we've all seen the nightmare that resulted from "I, Robot" -- not just a rewrite, but a fundamental violation of Asimov's own Laws of Robotics. So it's hard to be excited about more Asimov movies.
OSS aside, shareware, adware, bundling, and "free for personal use" push the software market to $0 or very close thereto. Think of the Windows anti-virus market -- there were a number of entrants who gave away a version of their product even before any open-source AV was available: anti-vir, AVG. Same for desktop firewalls: zonealarm, kerio/tiny/sunbelt. Same for virtualization: vmware server is a free download. Same for web browsers: IE and Netscape went free even before mozilla went open source. Same for Windows media player software: remember Real vs. Windows Media player? Same for disk compression software: remember the Stacker/Doublespace controversy back in the early 90s? Same for backup software: Microsoft has bundled a basic backup app in Windows for a while.
So even in a "pure" commercial software world, you sometimes have to compete with free.
The same effect can even happen in the COTS hardware market. If you released a 1GB hard drive in the early 1990s, you were sitting pretty. If you sat back and didn't innovate, though, your product's value would quickly erode over the next few years as competitors released larger and larger drivers. Today, your product's value would be effectively $0, with vendors giving out free 1GB USB keys at tradeshows. Similar for video cards: a video card that could command $100 10 years ago is nearly worthless now, with much faster devices available, and equivalent functionality integrated into cheap motherboards.
Progress is a bitch. Evolve or die.
Re:I really want a copy of this...
on
Clean Code
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Er./. killed my less-than. That should say:
sub sum() {
my $n=shift;
return 0 if $n<=0;
return ($n**2+$n)/2; }
Re:I really want a copy of this...
on
Clean Code
·
· Score: 1
Y'all do realize that sum(n)==(n^2+n)/2, right? A solution that contains either recursion or a loop is inherently bad, with or without memoization. This is a O(1) problem. In Perl:
sub sum() {
my $n=shift;
return 0 if $n=0;
return ($n**2+$n)/2; }
NASA's research is available to the public, both in scientific publications and via NASA FOIA. NASA is helping SpaceX specifically -- NASA granted them an IDIQ contract worth up to US$1 billion. What more did you have in mind?
[Disclosure: I do IT at NASA as a contractor. However, the above is based on publicly available information. I speak for myself, not for NASA.]
You can buy an MVP and run mvpmc on it. MVPs have no fans and are very small, so they're more convenient than PCs. I have three of them. They were about $88 each on amazon for the wired edition (which I have) and somewhat more for the wireless. That said, mvpmc isn't as featureful as a full mythtv front end, and is a pain to get working initially.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on where you work, bringing media to and from work might be a problem. Even if you work someplace where this is not an issue, you might have problems getting access to your media if you are laid off or fired. Not to mention potential legal issues with ownership of your personal data if it's physically located at work. [Might want to make sure the media is clearly labelled "personal property of YOURNAME".]
Also, if you live close enough to work, a natural disaster (hurricane or earthquake) could cause problems at both places.
What about parody? There have been some classic impersonating websites such as the fake Steve Jobs site. These are legal because it's parody.
What about multiple people with the same name? There is more than one person on the net with the name "Cecilia Barnes". What if one "Cecilia Barnes" calls up yahoo to complain about a website that is about a different one? Each can produce government ID. [I know, in this case, there was a phone number, but a law or new rule needs to be general.]
This sort of issue is a hard problem. It's hard to develop general guidelines that work in all cases. While it would be nice if yahoo would be more flexible in a case like this one, it's understandable why they have their policies. That's why we have the court system.
We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Are you actually familiar with Spector's voting record? Even when he was a Republican, and the Republicans were the majority, Spector had a long history of voting against the Republican party line. He's been in the Senate for a long time. His constituents are under no illusions. Check his record. So in his case, he really is elected far more as an individual than as a party member.
Note, also, that our government was specifically designed to limit the influence of political parties. See Federalish paper #10. In parliamentary systems, one tends to have single-interest political parties. The US system was specifically designed to avoid this, as Madison wrote.
Personally, I can't see how strict adherence to party policy is a good thing. Each party has a tiny leadership, usually unelected -- Michael Steele for the Republicans, Howard Dean for the Democrats. Are you really telling me that all the nation's elected officials should subjugate their consciences to a small number of their party's elite? That isn't a democracy or a republic, that is a dictatorship. In a very real sense, the existence of party "whips" on both sides is a violation of the principles that underly this nation.
RTFA. The author of the theory has a PhD in Physics, studied at Oxford, and did postdoc work together with Stephen Hawking. More importantly, his article has actually been peer reviewed by Physicists who think his ideas may have merit. And most importantly, no one is saying "right" or "wrong" at this stage; his ideas are under consideration, but his ideas are currently considered incomplete, and he is not yet saying that he has proven current quantum theory is wrong.
OK, if you modify the kernel architecture enough, yes, you can move more of the loading burden into the boot manager, just list HURD. So how about support for software RAID, logical volume management, encrypted FSs, and the like? grub can't do all that stuff today. And it shouldn't. At some point, you are moving so much complexity into the boot manager that you are defeating the design purpose of simplifying the kernel.
While the kernel and initrd are *loaded* by the bootloader, the kernel then needs to *understand* the initrd FS format. So at the very least, you need support for the initrd FS to be compiled into the kernel.
You could add another layer of indirection to initrd, but you would just be moving the problem. initrd is itself really a way to let you avoid compiling everything into the kernel needed to load the root FS. You move most of the device and FS drivers into initrd, get the boot loader to load initrd, and make the kernel only have to understand the initrd FS.
And once the initrd is loaded, the kernel still needs to understand the root FS. In theory, initrd could have FUSE support. But for now, FUSE gets loaded from the root FS or a user FS. So the initrd needs kernel modules for the root FS, too.
Without initrd, the kernel definitely needs to support the root FS natively.
We have already seen Pluto from the ground. Adaptive optics rock that way. Here is an article with pictures.
Even more importantly, adaptive optics is a relatively young technology that is getting better. As the GP said, JWST is really expensive. JWST also won't be ready for launch for years yet. It doesn't make sense to pour massive money into a space telescope for visible light when we can already beat Hubble from the ground under some conditions, and we're getting better.
Note that, thanks to New Horizons, Pluto itself will soon be getting a better closeup than anything we can do from the ground or from Earth orbit, at least in the forseeable future.
Some percentage of people "surf" CPU-intensive websites, such as hulu, while others read news. Some save their work frequently, requiring the drive to spin up, while others save less often. Some like to watch DVDs in background, requiring a spinning optical drive and CPU- or GPU-intensive decoding, while others don't. Even naive users will have different power utilization profiles. There is no "average joe".
Sending an astronaut is many times as expensive, since we need more safety, need to keep the astronaut alive during the long trip over, and need to bring the astronaut back. After all, we have already sent the lander, but are not scheduled to send people for many years. So it's probably better to send the machine and wait a month than to wait the many years before we can send a person.
It also helps to know a lot about the environment before we risk sending an astronaut.
If the law passes, it would be easy for "consumer" and SOHO router vendors to start adding large flash storage devices and automated logging with compression. They can advertise such routers appropriately: "compliant with Internet SAFETY Act". To non-technical people, this might even sound like a positive. So on a going-forward basis, I don't think this law would really be that hard to comply with.
Problems with that law:
* unfunded mandate. This puts a burden on people with existing equipment that otherwise works, and raises prices on new purchases.
* unnecessarily intrusive. The government is regulating equipment and actions on equipment in all homes, for the rare chance that someone is doing something wrong? Do we really want our government doing this?
* counter-productive. What happens the first time that a child being abused by their parents researches options online, and gets caught by the abuser because of government-mandating logs? Logging cuts both ways.
The last item could really help kill this bill. Use "protect the children" to our advantage.
Down this road lies madness. It's an arms race. We had caller ID. Then we got caller ID blocking to workaround caller ID. The guys from TFA are providing a workaround for caller ID blocking, which is itself a workaround for caller ID. OK, so you will create a workaround for the workaround for the workaround. Are you sure someone won't come along and create a workaround for that?
The system is broken. The solution is not endless technical workarounds, the solution is to fix the holes in the system.
To make a black hole out of a mass the size of the Earth, you need to pack it into a radius of about 9mm. That's incredibly dense, even compared to all known metals. And for less massive blackholes, the required density increases; at the masses we're talking, the radius is miniscule. Black holes also tend to evaporate, with smaller black holes evaporating faster. So whether we are looking at the upper atmosphere or at the LHC, any blackholes created cannot swallow matter fast enough to survive, let alone grow.
Black holes do not require lots of mass, they require lots of density. If matter is packed into an area less than that matter's Schwarzschild radius, you have a black hole. There is a real theory that this experiment will create a black hole. However, the same theory that says that a black hole could be created also says that black holes should be created all the time in Earth's upper atmosphere. Small black holes are harmless because they rapidly evaporate. Regardless of what will be created, the LHC is just recreating events that occur all the time in our upper atmosphere, so saying that it could be harmful is kinda stupid -- if there were a significant risk, we would already be dead.
Do some cost/risk/benefit analysis. There is a relatively low probability that your kid will actually need stem cells from the umbilical cord. For this to be useful, (1) your kid would need to have a relatively narrow range of sicknesses, (2) medical science would need to have a mechanism that can utilize umbilical cord stem cells without being able to utilize other cell types; and (3) you would need to be able to afford the gene therapy. If you RTFA, you will see that various organizations recommend not doing this unless there is a history of certain diseases in the family. So is such a relatively low probability worth the expense? Obviously, you know your family history and financial situation better than someone else does.
Meanwhile, college is a very likely expense. So consider setting aside the money into a college fund.
It is also possible to donate the placenta. I hear that some of the donation sites try to do a best-of-both-worlds deal, where the placenta is put on hold for some time (for free) in case the child needs it. If the child doesn't need it by a certain time, the facility can then use it.
They're not claiming that they invented it, they're just trying to help it along. While DNSSEC has been around a while, the overwhelming majority of zones, including the root zone and .com, are not signed yet. It may look like the US government is late to the party, they're actually ahead of most of the US commercial sector on this one.
So how does this "bolster" DNSSEC? Answer: the government is hoping that a large-scale implementation by a major buyer will push vendors to properly support DNSSEC. Many vendors don't support DNSSEC at all, or only support part of it; Microsoft, for example, only has minimal DNSSEC support. How do you think vendors will respond when .gov customers start telling them "we can't buy your product because it doesn't support DNSSEC. We'll have to go with one of your competitors."
RTFA.
They're talking about funding research, not deployment. RTFA. The dollar amounts in question sound about right.
Note also that this goes way beyond SSL. This is not about identifying your BGP peers -- that's a relatively simple problem that can easily be solved with MD5 [or one of the hash algorithms that is replacing MD5, since MD5 is problematic.] This is about validating that your BGP peers have the right to announce what they are announcing. This is a much harder problem than SSL.
That is, let's say you have a router that peers with $someco's router. It's easy to use MD5 [or replace it with something better] so you are sure that you are talking to $someco's router. It might also be possible to set up SSL instead, so you are even more sure you are talking to $someco. But even if you know you are talking to $someco, how do you know you can trust what $someco is telling you? What if $someco's router says it's a good path to get to a chunk of address space that belongs to $otherco -- should you believe it? BGP is full of settings that let you limit how much you trust your peers, but how do you know what you should set them to? Note that this is not a simple question of "is address space X associated with the $someco that is announcing it" -- even if address space X belongs to $otherco, it's possible that $someco is a legitimate transit network rather than a malicious third party.
Sounds like DHS is funding research to try to solve this.
This is somewhat different than the DNSSEC push. The DNSSEC effort is looking to deploy an existing but unpopular technology across the US federal government. The BGPSEC effort seems to be about creating a new technology for possible future deployment.
It doesn't make sense to drop BIND in favor of djbdns just because of this. djbdns doesn't even try to do DNSSEC. The bug in BIND is not a direct attack on the DNS server, it just means that DNSSEC validation doesn't always work right. By switching from BIND to djbdns, you are completely breaking DNSSEC validation. In different terms, the worst consequence of this bug was that it sometimes made BIND act like djbdns.
I suspect that many people will react to this problem by either disabling support for the affected CAs or by disabling support for MD5 certs. In either case, people who have innocent MD5 certs will be collateral damage. So best to get off MD5 certs now.
# the below are bash functions for checking cert files
/dev/fd/0 -text -noout |
# and web servers cert signature algorithms.
# note: they are non-recursive, i.e. you see the algorithm
# used to sign the cert, not the algorithm that was used
# to sign the cert that signed the cert.
# morty: call like openssl_cert_signature_algorithm CERT_FILE
openssl_cert_signature_algorithm(){
local file
local algorithms status
for file in "$@"; do
algorithms=$(
openssl x509 -in "$file" -text -noout |
grep -i "Signature Algorithm"|
sed 's,^ *Signature Algorithm: *,,'|
sort -u)
case "$algorithms" in
*md5*) status=BAD;;
*sha1*|*sha2*) status=GOOD;;
*) status=unknown;;
esac
echo "file: $file status: $status algorithms: $algorithms"
done
}
The following can be used to test a server:
# morty: call like: openssl_server_md5_signature www.google.com:443 www.amazon.com:443
openssl_server_md5_signature(){
local server
local algorithms status
for server in "$@"; do
algorithms=$(
openssl s_client -connect "$server" </dev/null 2>/dev/null | \
openssl x509 -in
grep -i "Signature Algorithm"|
sed 's,^ *Signature Algorithm: *,,'|
sort -u)
case "$algorithms" in
*md5*) status=BAD;;
*sha1*|*sha2*) status=GOOD;;
*) status=unknown;;
esac
echo "server: $server status: $status algorithms: $algorithms"
done
}
Asimov has had problems with Hollywood, both during his life and since. His intro to "Waterclap" describes how he rebelled against the Hollywood formula. He once wrote a long rant about Nightfall's adaptation for the silver screen. The movie "Bicentennial Man" wasn't all that great. And we've all seen the nightmare that resulted from "I, Robot" -- not just a rewrite, but a fundamental violation of Asimov's own Laws of Robotics. So it's hard to be excited about more Asimov movies.
OSS aside, shareware, adware, bundling, and "free for personal use" push the software market to $0 or very close thereto. Think of the Windows anti-virus market -- there were a number of entrants who gave away a version of their product even before any open-source AV was available: anti-vir, AVG. Same for desktop firewalls: zonealarm, kerio/tiny/sunbelt. Same for virtualization: vmware server is a free download. Same for web browsers: IE and Netscape went free even before mozilla went open source. Same for Windows media player software: remember Real vs. Windows Media player? Same for disk compression software: remember the Stacker/Doublespace controversy back in the early 90s? Same for backup software: Microsoft has bundled a basic backup app in Windows for a while.
So even in a "pure" commercial software world, you sometimes have to compete with free.
The same effect can even happen in the COTS hardware market. If you released a 1GB hard drive in the early 1990s, you were sitting pretty. If you sat back and didn't innovate, though, your product's value would quickly erode over the next few years as competitors released larger and larger drivers. Today, your product's value would be effectively $0, with vendors giving out free 1GB USB keys at tradeshows. Similar for video cards: a video card that could command $100 10 years ago is nearly worthless now, with much faster devices available, and equivalent functionality integrated into cheap motherboards.
Progress is a bitch. Evolve or die.
Er. /. killed my less-than. That should say:
sub sum() {
my $n=shift;
return 0 if $n<=0;
return ($n**2+$n)/2;
}
Y'all do realize that sum(n)==(n^2+n)/2, right? A solution that contains either recursion or a loop is inherently bad, with or without memoization. This is a O(1) problem. In Perl:
sub sum() {
my $n=shift;
return 0 if $n=0;
return ($n**2+$n)/2;
}
NASA's research is available to the public, both in scientific publications and via NASA FOIA. NASA is helping SpaceX specifically -- NASA granted them an IDIQ contract worth up to US$1 billion. What more did you have in mind?
[Disclosure: I do IT at NASA as a contractor. However, the above is based on publicly available information. I speak for myself, not for NASA.]
You can buy an MVP and run mvpmc on it. MVPs have no fans and are very small, so they're more convenient than PCs. I have three of them. They were about $88 each on amazon for the wired edition (which I have) and somewhat more for the wireless. That said, mvpmc isn't as featureful as a full mythtv front end, and is a pain to get working initially.