The points you raise are absolutely correct. When I first read about it [wish I could remember where], it was very much a Gedankenexperiment and was quoted in the form of a very long metal bar in deep space (so no oxidation, constant temperature...) with the sum of human knowledge in one scratch
Even so, as X becomes larger, the scratch gets closer and closer to the end, so that the loss or movement of individual atoms would significantly alter the value.
Actually measuring it, without introducing energy (and thus heat, and thus expansion and/or evaporation effects) is left as an exercise for the reader.
Knowing how to decode the bit string is yet another puzzle.
The transposition to rocks (and consequent introduction of further real-life error sources) was entirely my own fault;-)
I cannot recall where I read about this approach so apologies to the originator for not granting credit where it is due.
A long piece of rock (or other material) can be used to encode a huge amount of data with just one mark.
You need a long flat rock and the means of measuring length very accurately. **
First, encode data as a string of bits. Then take that enormous binary string and treat it as a really big number X and put the mark to divide the length of the rock into the ratio 1:X
The accuracy limits will be governed by the size of the rock, thermal and other causes for expansion/contraction and deformation and (depending on how accurately you make the cut / how much compression you want to achieve) quantum effects on the fine grained positioning.
Multiple marks on the same rock provide extra "layers" of recording.
Just imagine - the whole of Slashdot's debates reduced to a single scratch;-)
** Actually you need a means of defining what you mean by length first - take into account surface irregularities... [cf lengths of coastlines - thanks Mandelbrot!!]
That only works if you have people who care about living. Some of these attacks are by those who seek to become 'martyrs'. Indeed reports stated that the attackers ran to the police armed response unit brandishing weapons alnd almost wanting to be shot.
I'm glad to live in a civilised society without guns and the risk of injuries from crossfire. At least here we don't have over 80 deaths per day from guns -- even scaling for relative population size the death toll is a high price to pay for "freedom" to carry devices with no use other than to inflict suffering and death.
The annoying entitled freeloaders are simply asking for what they are entitled to under local laws.
If Google (or anyone else) doesn't like it they're free to stop doing business in that locality; it is their choice to weigh up the benefits and costs of operating there but if they do choose to do so then they must abide by local laws.
Are you saying to take into account the costs is not a valid thought process?
I suspect that a company as big and successful as Google is well aware of the costs of doing business and, as they are continuing to operate there, have assessed them as being worth bearing.
In a nutshell, if you work in country X you must obey the laws there - no matter how big or self important you see yourself; the cultural imperialism of your home country's attitudes to laws and business are quite frankly irrelevant. If I set up a business in the US deliberately flouting the laws (e.g. selling Cuban cigars) I'd expect to get some trouble from the law, even if my main offices were located in a separate country.
There was a version of Dirk Gently made for BBC quite recently - followed up by a series 'inspired by' the books. As stand alone items they were (in my view) pretty good and worth watching, but not at all faithful to the original text. The radio drama series (on BBC Radio 4) was much closer to the originals.
As for Stainless Steel Rat -- totally agree and way overdue !! (Bill the Galactic Hero would be good as well)
I recall a story going round my employer in the early 90s that someone had turned up for an interview claiming all sorts of expertise and detailed knowledge of UN-Nine.
The HR interviewer was clearly intending to hire - fortunately the technical interview came afterwards.
It all sounded impressive until the penny dropped and it was clear they thought UNIX came after UNVIII
this baby boomer asks why do so few gen X and Ys show any interest in history?
...probably because there are few jobs where history is of direct relevance and practical usage.
If you're investing a considerable sum in money and precious years of your youth then getting a real payback is a valid target; not everyone is rich enough to be able to dedicate resources to indulge in "intellectual masturbation".
This isn't to decry history, or to deny that many find it interesting - just one potential explanation on the basis of pragmatic rationalism / utilitarianism.
Reminds me of a comment I heard a few years back to the effect that the "millennium bug" [remember that?] would make things MORE reliable as the calculation to find the end of warranty period would roll over and thus the device/package/unit wouldn't know when to start failing.
Back to the original topic, remote destruction isn't new - dissolving may be a new twist though.
Are Internet-users in the UK actually limited to one ISP per area?
I'm not sure, but if the UK is anything like the US, I wouldn't be surprised if customers had no choice in the end.
Actually the UK is very lucky in this regard. I use the word lucky as I seriously doubt it was ever planned this way - that would be too much to expect.
We are generally fortunate in having multiple ISPs all across the country. Apart from the 'big boys' (BT, Virgin, Sky, Talk Talk) there are a number of smaller ones - both independents and virtual ISPs reselling services provided by others [actually Virgin is Talk Talk underneath].
The big companies grab the lions share - mainly catering to the fit and forget "I don't want to understand the technology" user base.
I personally use a smaller supplier which gives me fast and reliable connections, a static IP (v4, v6 planned for this year), genuinely unlimited downloads at a price comparable with the big companies [once their headline grabbing first x months special deals wear off].
Facebook is not a required service. Nobody has to use it. Users are not paying for it.
I do not understand why Facebook should have to do anything. I think Germany telling a web site owner/developer that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Germans do not like sharing their real name online, then Germans should not join Facebook. Simple! How is it Facebook's problem that Germans want a feature that Facebook does not support?
Germany is not a required market for Facebook. Nobodyis forcing Facebook to operate there.
I do not understand why Germany should have to do anything. I think a web site owner/developer telling a country that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Facebook do not like the rules, then Facebook should not operate there. Simple! How is it Germany's problem that Germans have laws that Facebook does not support?
Fixed that for you
just wish my own country's cabinet ministers were as protective of its citizens and less easily bought off by big business buddies.
I wish someone would kill this meme once and for all.
The source for the "Government CCTV everywhere" myth was a reporter looking at a sample street and extrapolating. A bit like taking the population density of downtown LA, Chicago or New York and applying it to the whole US land area and saying the US population was tens of billions [I'm too lazy to work out the figures but I hope you get the idea].
The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.
If anything you have more anonymity nowadays than a generation or two ago when a whole army of little "old ladies sitting behind net curtains" and gossiping about the goings on of people in the street was the norm -- still probably the case in smaller communities everywhere.
If you're really concerned, you have a right under current data protection laws to see/be given a copy of recordings where you are identifiable; not sure if anyone has ever bothered with this.
Now this proposed bill, on the other hand, is a completely different matter; the level of outrage is a feature of people faced with a first past the post electoral system that favours two parties who are more similar than different -- should be familiar to you too;-)
Please don't equate British people with our MPs
*There's a programme on BBC every month or so where they appeal for help in solving some cases and show CCTV footage and re-enactments.
I've seen the alternative approach - back in the days of dumb terminals (remember them?) patched through to a VAX cluster. The solution the support team [not me!] adopted was to pull out a patch cable - wait for the help call - be very polite and say "I'll try to fix it for you - whereabouts are you?" , label the cable and then plug it back in -- often with a pathetically grateful user at the other end phoning back their thanks. Simple, but effective (yet not terribly professional).
As for labelling power plugs... I once unplugged our freezer at home thinking it was my laser printer [they're both in the box room]. You can imagine what it was like when I got back from holiday. An expensive mistake which taught me the value of a self adhesive label and marker pen !!
Back from the past...
Your bundle of bundles approach sounds good if you have the luxury of choice of cable colours. Usually different coloured cables are used to signify different networks.
Cannot recommend this highly enough. Label both ends of every cable and the back of every power plug -- then you'll know what to expect when you pull it out.
Second only to this - two ring bound folders and a hole punch. Seriously.
Then you document cable layouts, server details (serial numbers, IP/MAC addresses, configuration details, software licences....) in your favourite tool and take a print out. File the printouts - one in the server room and one elsewhere. It may seem old tech but it will save your skin when you lose connectivity/database/application... -- by all means keep a copy on your own PC/Tablet and or a DVD backup but do keep paper copies -- spoken from experience
Of course this requires discipline to track changes and keep the records up to date but it will save you much more time in the long run than the occasional trip to the shops to buy a specific screwdriver bit.
Finally, I agree with a lockable cabinet -- tools can evaporate faster than a puddle on a hot summers day;-)
NBC and NBColympics.com costs me $0.00 (as do all the other FreeToAir channels)
Fallacy.
True they don't cost you directly but you still pay indirectly.
NBC (and other commercial broadcasters) aren't charities - they need paying to make a profit
NBC charges advertisers
Advertisers also want paying and charge their customers -- companies
The companies don't give money to advertises for nothing - it's a business cost so they charge their customers
The end customer pays for everything -- so a portion of the purchase price you pay for goods pays for adverts and a portion of that pays for the TV channel
You do pay - just not visibly. The budgets for most commercial stations are similar (and in some cases more than) the BBC and similar broadcasters.
I know people who say "I don't watch BBC so why should I pay a licence?" -- the counter argument is "I don't watch [much] commercial TV yet still pay an advertising premium when buying my shopping".
Personally speaking, I'm happy to pay for BBC to have a broadcaster who can afford to be impartial and unafraid of repercussions if it criticises a company or organisation. Not having adverts every few minutes and being treated as an adult with a real attention span is a real bonus.
BTW I am not associated with the BBC in any way other than as a licence fee payer
I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.
Pram is a common shortening of "perambulator" ** -- a baby carriage on wheels. These days they're not so common as baby buggies (smaller lightweight versions) have taken their place as 'traditional' prams were bigger, heavier coachbuilt affairs - more room for the baby and with bigger wheels/better suspension but not very practical for transporting in cars.
Throwing ones toys out of the pram is a common expression in the UK. It's roughly equivalent to "throwing a hissy fit" / "having a tantrum" -- ie exhibiting impotent rage and/or childish behaviour, making a lot of noise and fuss yet gaining nothing but causing inconvenience to others as they have to retrieve them [or not]
** Perambulator - in the sense it let the baby and carer go for a walk (perambulate) -- Old fashioned and I don't know anyone who still says perambulator these days [or even said it in my childhood many years ago]
The insurance company charges the merchant a premium to cover this. The merchant is not a charity and often works on small margins so, guess what, the premium is passed off in higher prices to the customer - so because of the fraudsters everybody loses a little (it's just spread out thinly).
First off - this is a report by MPs - not even on the first step of becoming law - despite somewhat hyperbolic reporting.
Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount
Third - the only "Censoring" of Google etc. is a requirement to follow the terms of a court order - in the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.
Exec summary pasted below [from a PDF document - hence some formatting funnies]
A strong, free and vibrant press is essential to the good operation of democracy. Over the past 12 months, the culture and activities of the UK media have become the focus of widespread public concern, particularly in light of the phone hacking scandal. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression is at the heart of these debates about the role of the media. We have considered how this balance should be struck, who should determine where the balance lies and how decisions, once taken, can be enforced. In making recommendations, we have been guided by the followingâ" â The fundamental right to freedom of expression lies at the heart of this debate. â The right to privacy is equally important. It is universal and can only be breached if there is a public interest in doing so. â Although definitions of public interest change from time to time, an over-arching definition of public interest is the peopleâ(TM)s general welfare and well being; something in which the populace as a whole has a stake. It is not the same as that which is of interest to the public. â We support the freedom of the press. The vitality of national and local media, in all its forms, is essential to the good operation of democracy. â The rule of law in protecting the right to privacy should be upheld by all. If a judge has made a decision, based on hearing the full evidence in a case, that decision should be respected by those who have not heard all the evidence. â Justice should be accessible to all. Protection of the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few. â The Press Complaints Commission was not equipped to deal with systemic and illegal invasions of privacy. A strong, independent media regulator is essential to balance the competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression. â The law must apply equally to all forms of media: print, broadcast and online. It is important that privacy injunctions are obtained in circumstances which justify the intervention of the law; injunctions should not be too freely or easily obtainable. Departures from the principle of open justice should be exceptional. We believe that courts are now striking a better balance when dealing with applications for privacy injunctions. We conclude that a privacy statute would not clarify the law. The concepts of privacy and the public interest are not set in stone, and evolve over time. We conclude that the current approach, where judges balance the evidence and make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, provides the best mechanism for balancing article 8 and article 10 rights. Interim injunctions granted in one of the legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom should be enforceable in the other two UK jurisdictions in the same way as final injunctions are. It is important that court orders apply to all forms of media equally. The growth of the internet and social networking platforms is a positive development for freedom of of expression, but new media cannot be seen to be outside the reach of the law. We recommend that the courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on social networking platforms and major web publishers when granting injunctions. We also recommend that major corporations, such as Google, take practical steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. An effective deterrent against future breaches of injunctions onli
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs Murdoch
One of those court cases you'd like both to lose - and one where you don't mind the lawyers leeching off their funds.
Now if only it had dragged on longer we may have seen both sides suffering from, and distracted by, the case.
The points you raise are absolutely correct. When I first read about it [wish I could remember where], it was very much a Gedankenexperiment and was quoted in the form of a very long metal bar in deep space (so no oxidation, constant temperature...) with the sum of human knowledge in one scratch
Even so, as X becomes larger, the scratch gets closer and closer to the end, so that the loss or movement of individual atoms would significantly alter the value.
Actually measuring it, without introducing energy (and thus heat, and thus expansion and/or evaporation effects) is left as an exercise for the reader.
Knowing how to decode the bit string is yet another puzzle.
The transposition to rocks (and consequent introduction of further real-life error sources) was entirely my own fault ;-)
I cannot recall where I read about this approach so apologies to the originator for not granting credit where it is due.
A long piece of rock (or other material) can be used to encode a huge amount of data with just one mark.
You need a long flat rock and the means of measuring length very accurately. **
First, encode data as a string of bits.
Then take that enormous binary string and treat it as a really big number X and put the mark to divide the length of the rock into the ratio 1:X
The accuracy limits will be governed by the size of the rock, thermal and other causes for expansion/contraction and deformation and (depending on how accurately you make the cut / how much compression you want to achieve) quantum effects on the fine grained positioning.
Multiple marks on the same rock provide extra "layers" of recording.
Just imagine - the whole of Slashdot's debates reduced to a single scratch ;-)
** Actually you need a means of defining what you mean by length first - take into account surface irregularities... [cf lengths of coastlines - thanks Mandelbrot!!]
That only works if you have people who care about living. Some of these attacks are by those who seek to become 'martyrs'. Indeed reports stated that the attackers ran to the police armed response unit brandishing weapons alnd almost wanting to be shot.
I'm glad to live in a civilised society without guns and the risk of injuries from crossfire. At least here we don't have over 80 deaths per day from guns -- even scaling for relative population size the death toll is a high price to pay for "freedom" to carry devices with no use other than to inflict suffering and death.
The annoying entitled freeloaders are simply asking for what they are entitled to under local laws.
If Google (or anyone else) doesn't like it they're free to stop doing business in that locality; it is their choice to weigh up the benefits and costs of operating there but if they do choose to do so then they must abide by local laws.
Are you saying to take into account the costs is not a valid thought process?
I suspect that a company as big and successful as Google is well aware of the costs of doing business and, as they are continuing to operate there, have assessed them as being worth bearing.
In a nutshell, if you work in country X you must obey the laws there - no matter how big or self important you see yourself; the cultural imperialism of your home country's attitudes to laws and business are quite frankly irrelevant. If I set up a business in the US deliberately flouting the laws (e.g. selling Cuban cigars) I'd expect to get some trouble from the law, even if my main offices were located in a separate country.
perfect!
... keeps your system safe from managers :-)
There was a version of Dirk Gently made for BBC quite recently - followed up by a series 'inspired by' the books. As stand alone items they were (in my view) pretty good and worth watching, but not at all faithful to the original text. The radio drama series (on BBC Radio 4) was much closer to the originals.
As for Stainless Steel Rat -- totally agree and way overdue !! (Bill the Galactic Hero would be good as well)
I recall a story going round my employer in the early 90s that someone had turned up for an interview claiming all sorts of expertise and detailed knowledge of UN-Nine.
The HR interviewer was clearly intending to hire - fortunately the technical interview came afterwards.
It all sounded impressive until the penny dropped and it was clear they thought UNIX came after UNVIII
If you're investing a considerable sum in money and precious years of your youth then getting a real payback is a valid target; not everyone is rich enough to be able to dedicate resources to indulge in "intellectual masturbation".
This isn't to decry history, or to deny that many find it interesting - just one potential explanation on the basis of pragmatic rationalism / utilitarianism.
Reminds me of a comment I heard a few years back to the effect that the "millennium bug" [remember that?] would make things MORE reliable as the calculation to find the end of warranty period would roll over and thus the device/package/unit wouldn't know when to start failing.
Back to the original topic, remote destruction isn't new - dissolving may be a new twist though.
recalls my Dad's advice to me...
You'll die if you worry but you'll die if you don't - so why worry? enjoy yourself while you can
Actually the UK is very lucky in this regard. I use the word lucky as I seriously doubt it was ever planned this way - that would be too much to expect.
We are generally fortunate in having multiple ISPs all across the country. Apart from the 'big boys' (BT, Virgin, Sky, Talk Talk) there are a number of smaller ones - both independents and virtual ISPs reselling services provided by others [actually Virgin is Talk Talk underneath].
The big companies grab the lions share - mainly catering to the fit and forget "I don't want to understand the technology" user base.
I personally use a smaller supplier which gives me fast and reliable connections, a static IP (v4, v6 planned for this year), genuinely unlimited downloads at a price comparable with the big companies [once their headline grabbing first x months special deals wear off].
"What do you put on your burger?" -- "A fiver each way at Aintree!"
Why do they use horse meat? to save mon-neigh!
So you got a burger - why the long face?
I opened the fridge to check the burgers -- and they're off ! (said in the voice of a racing commentator)
"These must be Viking burgers" -- "why?" --"because they look like a Norse" ...
What I found amazing is how quickly these spread after the news broke -- I'd heard the first two within 45 minutes of the radio news.
But you could make a Kurt Vonnegut one :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirens_of_titan
Well worth a read by the way
So, if corporations didn't have to pay taxes. They would hire more people or pay them more.
Nice to see the season of goodwill trumping realism.
It's more likely (though less desirable) that the fat cats would just award themselves bigger bonuses.
Germany is not a required market for Facebook. Nobodyis forcing Facebook to operate there.
I do not understand why Germany should have to do anything. I think a web site owner/developer telling a country that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Facebook do not like the rules, then Facebook should not operate there. Simple! How is it Germany's problem that Germans have laws that Facebook does not support?
Fixed that for you
just wish my own country's cabinet ministers were as protective of its citizens and less easily bought off by big business buddies.
Why not indeed?
The emergency number in the UK is 999 but all systems are configured to route 112 and 999 to the same place.
I wish someone would kill this meme once and for all.
The source for the "Government CCTV everywhere" myth was a reporter looking at a sample street and extrapolating. A bit like taking the population density of downtown LA, Chicago or New York and applying it to the whole US land area and saying the US population was tens of billions [I'm too lazy to work out the figures but I hope you get the idea].
The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.
If anything you have more anonymity nowadays than a generation or two ago when a whole army of little "old ladies sitting behind net curtains" and gossiping about the goings on of people in the street was the norm -- still probably the case in smaller communities everywhere.
If you're really concerned, you have a right under current data protection laws to see/be given a copy of recordings where you are identifiable; not sure if anyone has ever bothered with this.
Now this proposed bill, on the other hand, is a completely different matter; the level of outrage is a feature of people faced with a first past the post electoral system that favours two parties who are more similar than different -- should be familiar to you too ;-)
Please don't equate British people with our MPs
*There's a programme on BBC every month or so where they appeal for help in solving some cases and show CCTV footage and re-enactments.
To each his own....
I've seen the alternative approach - back in the days of dumb terminals (remember them?) patched through to a VAX cluster.
The solution the support team [not me!] adopted was to pull out a patch cable - wait for the help call - be very polite and say "I'll try to fix it for you - whereabouts are you?" , label the cable and then plug it back in -- often with a pathetically grateful user at the other end phoning back their thanks. Simple, but effective (yet not terribly professional).
As for labelling power plugs... I once unplugged our freezer at home thinking it was my laser printer [they're both in the box room]. You can imagine what it was like when I got back from holiday. An expensive mistake which taught me the value of a self adhesive label and marker pen !!
Back from the past...
Your bundle of bundles approach sounds good if you have the luxury of choice of cable colours. Usually different coloured cables are used to signify different networks.
Cannot recommend this highly enough. Label both ends of every cable and the back of every power plug -- then you'll know what to expect when you pull it out.
Second only to this - two ring bound folders and a hole punch. Seriously.
Then you document cable layouts, server details (serial numbers, IP/MAC addresses, configuration details, software licences....) in your favourite tool and take a print out. File the printouts - one in the server room and one elsewhere. It may seem old tech but it will save your skin when you lose connectivity/database/application... -- by all means keep a copy on your own PC/Tablet and or a DVD backup but do keep paper copies -- spoken from experience
Of course this requires discipline to track changes and keep the records up to date but it will save you much more time in the long run than the occasional trip to the shops to buy a specific screwdriver bit.
Finally, I agree with a lockable cabinet -- tools can evaporate faster than a puddle on a hot summers day ;-)
NBC and NBColympics.com costs me $0.00 (as do all the other FreeToAir channels)
Fallacy.
True they don't cost you directly but you still pay indirectly.
You do pay - just not visibly. The budgets for most commercial stations are similar (and in some cases more than) the BBC and similar broadcasters.
I know people who say "I don't watch BBC so why should I pay a licence?" -- the counter argument is "I don't watch [much] commercial TV yet still pay an advertising premium when buying my shopping".
Personally speaking, I'm happy to pay for BBC to have a broadcaster who can afford to be impartial and unafraid of repercussions if it criticises a company or organisation. Not having adverts every few minutes and being treated as an adult with a real attention span is a real bonus.
BTW I am not associated with the BBC in any way other than as a licence fee payer
I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.
Pram is a common shortening of "perambulator" ** -- a baby carriage on wheels. These days they're not so common as baby buggies (smaller lightweight versions) have taken their place as 'traditional' prams were bigger, heavier coachbuilt affairs - more room for the baby and with bigger wheels/better suspension but not very practical for transporting in cars.
Throwing ones toys out of the pram is a common expression in the UK. It's roughly equivalent to "throwing a hissy fit" / "having a tantrum" -- ie exhibiting impotent rage and/or childish behaviour, making a lot of noise and fuss yet gaining nothing but causing inconvenience to others as they have to retrieve them [or not]
** Perambulator - in the sense it let the baby and carer go for a walk (perambulate) -- Old fashioned and I don't know anyone who still says perambulator these days [or even said it in my childhood many years ago]
Or the chemist [pharmacist] who said
"We dispense with accuracy"
I know this is a matter of semantics rather than grammar.
So nobody loses at all.
au contraire ...
The insurance company charges the merchant a premium to cover this. The merchant is not a charity and often works on small margins so, guess what, the premium is passed off in higher prices to the customer - so because of the fraudsters everybody loses a little (it's just spread out thinly).
First off - this is a report by MPs - not even on the first step of becoming law - despite somewhat hyperbolic reporting.
Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount
Third - the only "Censoring" of Google etc. is a requirement to follow the terms of a court order - in the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.
Exec summary pasted below [from a PDF document - hence some formatting funnies]