But Les Perelman, a writing teacher at MIT, has shown the limits of algorithms used for grading with an essay that got a top score from an automated system but contained no relevant information and many inaccuracies.
Considering the fake generated paper that was published in a peer reviewed journal, I'd say that means the robo-graders are on par with human proof readers.
The practical considerations for applications it ends up in depend tremendously on how much it costs. If this room temperature supercondictor costs more than the current cryogenic cooling of a conventional superconductor, because it's made from a super exotic material or requires a prohibitively expensive process to manufacture, it's not likely to displace it from most current applications, let alone get into many new ones. Of course that still depends on the price difference; If they're comparable you'll see some change over. Power companies would love it, but if the conductor costs significantly more than the percentage of power they are losing to resistive heating in a given section, it won't get changed. Chip applications may be a notable exception if it's not terribly expensive, but they have the additional consideration of manufacturing: if it can't be laid down on silicon in a process that is compatible with the current lithography, they are almost certainly going to stay in a niche market for a long time even if the bulk material is dirt cheap.
So folks can do the Glass half full thing and figure out places where it can be used, but without an answer to "How much does it cost" there is no way to predict the paramount information of where it *will* be used.
They're not going after home users yet but they never will. They may try to make it sound like there is a persuasive reason for end users to buy a license or something but taking a non-commercial entity to court over using an unlicensed or infringing device is asking for it to be thrown out with prejudice. End users are not selling equipment or services. Anyone could build, from scratch, a device that infringes on every patent every filed and, unless they tried to sell it, no one can say a damned thing about it. Do your best to get this slapped down now, but don't fret about millions of home router users getting named in an RIAA/MPAA style lawsuit.
It's important to note that a large amount of power in a portable computer is being expended outside performing calculations. Your LCD probably consumes more energy than your processor - heck, if I leave wifi off on my cell phone, more than 90% of my battery consumption is from the OLED screen. Add in a portable's spinning disks, wifi radio and other various bits and you have a system that, even if the processor was 2x as energy efficient, you'll barely be into a double digit percentage savings in overall energy. Granted, battery tech is getting better and other components are getting more efficient as well, but not anywhere near an 18 month exponential rate.
If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.
of course it should be said that this effort is largely to blame for california bearing the greatest number of hate groups in the united states according to the SPLC
Sounds like something some silly little teenager would say. And has nothing to do with TFA.
Yeah, except for current events relating to vigilante action against corporations that harass people and draw the ire of a large group of reasonably tech savvy people with something to prove. Other than that, totally unrelated.
The first 2 sentences of your reply needn't even be there, they simply cloud the issue. As for the uranium fraction being similar to clay soil, one typically doesn't breathe in dirt to a significant degree though not breathing in fine ash in the air near a coal plant is much less likely. And how the fuck is coal ash not airborne and spreading around the world?
Re:Scientists will win, lose, lose, and lose
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 2
Just goes to show how unpredictable the future is... You forecast three possible outcomes and there were actually five.
Human Compassion, with a price-tag that carries the weight of law is Socialism. One can be an advocate of compassion for others without advocating that compassion be mandated by the government. I see it as a significant distinction.
Remind me since when do we trust big companies to set anything right to protect their customers from outside threats.
The change that they made in this case is provably more secure than leaving it as it was. Default router passwords have allowed for at least one *large* scale phishing incident of a major bank in the last few years. All it took to accomplish was an emailed link and default router passwords. I wouldn't trust them to babysit my kids, but it's pretty hard to fuck up the implementation of TR-69.
Also I wouldn't leave out the possibility that they're getting all sorts of data concerning their customers' LAN, to target them for advertising for, say, faster networks, or TV set-top boxes like the Roku player if they notice a lot of video streaming
You can look up a list of the data types monitored by the TR-69 system. I've seen a dump of the standard data fields and most are benign and frankly only useful for network management. That does not preclude them from implementing their own variables to send back but most of the data you've described is pretty easily captured off the wire from the WAN of their router or any other you use.
What are you all on about? He said [slashdot.org] he disabled administrative access from outside. No matter the password, there's intrusion going on here, so there is something to talk about.
Administrative access was not used for this. His actiontec, along with most other telco distributed CPEs use the TR-69 remote administration spec to allow for reconfiguration of services, firmware updates and other crap that used to require a technician to be sent out.
If a password was all there is to protect your router from outside, all hell would break loose for simple brute forcing. You also can't expect Aunt Irma to change her password first thing when she gets net access.
Which is why they changed his password from the default to a unique one. Even with remote access disabled, a default password on your router is a risk. see Pharming
Finally, even disregarding all that, even if he was stupid and careless, they can't just access the router if he didn't explicitly give them the right in a contract somewhere. I get you're all supercomputerexperts, but maybe we could talk about what he's asking?
Telcos are typically behind IBM and God on how many lawyers they have on staff. I'll eat my fucking shoe if it's not explicitly laid out in the TOS for FIOS that they can and will access the router for remote configuration changes, particularly for security reasons.
Why is there an open forced access port/back door?
There is a backdoor to allow changes in configuration that are usually, but not always, related to connectivity and function of the actual connection to the provider - the minutiae that even a field tech doesn't want to have to waste time with.
Is that ok without telling the owner?
Are we that sure it wasn't in that contract he signed?
What security is in place that entities besides Verizon can't access it?
A properly implemented TR-69 system is going to be more secure than any machine this guy is running on his network, guaranteed. The administration server address cannot be changed from the user accessible interfaces, the connection is initiated from the CPE to that server instead of the reverse and there are multiple layers of verification and encryption in use before anything is actually allowed to be updated or changed.
I looked in the router's settings and I see port 4567 goes to the router and is labeled 'Verizon FIOS Service.' Is this port for anything useful other than Verizon changing settings on my router? What security measures does Verizon have to protect that port from unauthorized access?
That would be the security used by the TR-069 spec for CPE remote management. If implemented correctly by hardware manufacturer and service provider, it's almost certainly more secure than any of the computers you have connected to the internet, even if you're not the kind of person that leaves a default password set on their router...
Seriously, having the default admin password set has been a bad idea with routers for a very long time. Think along the lines of a webpage doing a redirect attempt to the local gateway address with different providers default router passwords and then changing a setting like your DNS server...
Sound unrealistic? Already happened on a large scale years ago. Didn't work if you had changed your password or at least had a unique one in place like the device serial number.
So rest assured that what they did has actually increased the security of your network and has left no gaping hole in it's place.
So... pretty much any router sold by a telco is set up for remote management via the TR-069 spec. Even if you had already changed the password, they can still get in; it's something far different that accessing the admin interface through the WAN and almost certainly buried in their TOS.
I worked on a Qwest DSL connection for a friend and replaced their POS Actiontec with something more functional. When it came time to switch packages to a higher speed, the connection simply stopped working. Apparently Qwest changes the routers PPPoE information remotely when you upgrade to a higher speed and not having their equipment in place caused that to fail.
So, if you don't want them to screw with your settings, don't buy their crappy hardware and acknowledge that it may break as a result.
Go to hyperlinktech.com and get 2 antennas that match to the frequency used by your type of cell phone. One should be highly directional, preferably parabolic and the other should be omnidirectional or, preferably, something with sector coverage.
Mount the highly directional antenna so it is pointed at the strongest source of signal for your phone, preferably with line of sight to the tower. Mount the sector coverage antenna so it is centered on the area you will be using your handset. I've heard having the antennas mounted apart from each other is preferable. You then want to wire them directly together. If you can get complementary connectors on each (one N-Male, one N-Female) you can just screw them together or wire them with an extension.
The directional antenna will act like a large collector and funnel that radio energy across the line and into your sector antenna, boosting the effective power by the sum of the antenna gains minus ~3dB. The energy output from your handset will be picked up by the sector antenna and sent back through that directional antenna toward the tower and see the same overall gain.
I've done something similar before with wifi using parabolic antennas to shoot it around an obstacle - no additional power required.
Fingerprints are no different that the outside of your clothes or the shape of your face -- they are freely observable to anyone that wants to know them.
I would contend they are not freely observable to anyone that *wants* to know them. It's an important distinction that one is not otherwise compelled to show their face in public, wear otherwise identifiable clothes in public (they'll look at you funny for being wrapped in a garbage bag) or leave your fingerprints anywhere in public. People choose to do so of their own free will or ignorance.
That the kind of freedom (choice) people are talking about when they talk about freedoms being eroded. And the choice to hand over fingerprints or give up a job is not on the same scale as the choice to hand over your fingerprints or not.
Certainly not a black and white scenario, but not a foregone conclusion like you seem to suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
You got me - I generated this post algorithmically... Guess I need to work on it.
Considering the fake generated paper that was published in a peer reviewed journal, I'd say that means the robo-graders are on par with human proof readers.
The practical considerations for applications it ends up in depend tremendously on how much it costs. If this room temperature supercondictor costs more than the current cryogenic cooling of a conventional superconductor, because it's made from a super exotic material or requires a prohibitively expensive process to manufacture, it's not likely to displace it from most current applications, let alone get into many new ones. Of course that still depends on the price difference; If they're comparable you'll see some change over. Power companies would love it, but if the conductor costs significantly more than the percentage of power they are losing to resistive heating in a given section, it won't get changed. Chip applications may be a notable exception if it's not terribly expensive, but they have the additional consideration of manufacturing: if it can't be laid down on silicon in a process that is compatible with the current lithography, they are almost certainly going to stay in a niche market for a long time even if the bulk material is dirt cheap.
So folks can do the Glass half full thing and figure out places where it can be used, but without an answer to "How much does it cost" there is no way to predict the paramount information of where it *will* be used.
They're not going after home users yet but they never will. They may try to make it sound like there is a persuasive reason for end users to buy a license or something but taking a non-commercial entity to court over using an unlicensed or infringing device is asking for it to be thrown out with prejudice. End users are not selling equipment or services. Anyone could build, from scratch, a device that infringes on every patent every filed and, unless they tried to sell it, no one can say a damned thing about it. Do your best to get this slapped down now, but don't fret about millions of home router users getting named in an RIAA/MPAA style lawsuit.
It's important to note that a large amount of power in a portable computer is being expended outside performing calculations. Your LCD probably consumes more energy than your processor - heck, if I leave wifi off on my cell phone, more than 90% of my battery consumption is from the OLED screen. Add in a portable's spinning disks, wifi radio and other various bits and you have a system that, even if the processor was 2x as energy efficient, you'll barely be into a double digit percentage savings in overall energy. Granted, battery tech is getting better and other components are getting more efficient as well, but not anywhere near an 18 month exponential rate.
If they get enough evidence to justify questioning someone as a suspect or person if interest and that person isn't smart enough to shut the fuck up until they have a lawyer to do the talking for them, the authorities will probably get all they need to continue prosecution from there. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is not a concept unique to the United States.
Total, or per capita?
Yeah, except for current events relating to vigilante action against corporations that harass people and draw the ire of a large group of reasonably tech savvy people with something to prove. Other than that, totally unrelated.
I'll just leave this right here...
Project Orion
If "that's what she said" doesn't work, "giggidy" probably does.
I knew this username was bound to pay off some day.
They do?
;)
The first 2 sentences of your reply needn't even be there, they simply cloud the issue. As for the uranium fraction being similar to clay soil, one typically doesn't breathe in dirt to a significant degree though not breathing in fine ash in the air near a coal plant is much less likely. And how the fuck is coal ash not airborne and spreading around the world?
Just goes to show how unpredictable the future is... You forecast three possible outcomes and there were actually five.
Human Compassion, with a price-tag that carries the weight of law is Socialism. One can be an advocate of compassion for others without advocating that compassion be mandated by the government. I see it as a significant distinction.
Just SMS the name of the business to 46645 (googl) with your non-smart phone and get similar results messaged back
So, is it still between 3.14 and 3.15?
The change that they made in this case is provably more secure than leaving it as it was. Default router passwords have allowed for at least one *large* scale phishing incident of a major bank in the last few years. All it took to accomplish was an emailed link and default router passwords. I wouldn't trust them to babysit my kids, but it's pretty hard to fuck up the implementation of TR-69.
You can look up a list of the data types monitored by the TR-69 system. I've seen a dump of the standard data fields and most are benign and frankly only useful for network management.
That does not preclude them from implementing their own variables to send back but most of the data you've described is pretty easily captured off the wire from the WAN of their router or any other you use.
Administrative access was not used for this. His actiontec, along with most other telco distributed CPEs use the TR-69 remote administration spec to allow for reconfiguration of services, firmware updates and other crap that used to require a technician to be sent out.
Which is why they changed his password from the default to a unique one. Even with remote access disabled, a default password on your router is a risk. see Pharming
Telcos are typically behind IBM and God on how many lawyers they have on staff. I'll eat my fucking shoe if it's not explicitly laid out in the TOS for FIOS that they can and will access the router for remote configuration changes, particularly for security reasons.
There is a backdoor to allow changes in configuration that are usually, but not always, related to connectivity and function of the actual connection to the provider - the minutiae that even a field tech doesn't want to have to waste time with.
Are we that sure it wasn't in that contract he signed?
A properly implemented TR-69 system is going to be more secure than any machine this guy is running on his network, guaranteed. The administration server address cannot be changed from the user accessible interfaces, the connection is initiated from the CPE to that server instead of the reverse and there are multiple layers of verification and encryption in use before anything is actually allowed to be updated or changed.
That would be the security used by the TR-069 spec for CPE remote management. If implemented correctly by hardware manufacturer and service provider, it's almost certainly more secure than any of the computers you have connected to the internet, even if you're not the kind of person that leaves a default password set on their router...
Seriously, having the default admin password set has been a bad idea with routers for a very long time. Think along the lines of a webpage doing a redirect attempt to the local gateway address with different providers default router passwords and then changing a setting like your DNS server...
Sound unrealistic? Already happened on a large scale years ago. Didn't work if you had changed your password or at least had a unique one in place like the device serial number.
So rest assured that what they did has actually increased the security of your network and has left no gaping hole in it's place.
So... pretty much any router sold by a telco is set up for remote management via the TR-069 spec. Even if you had already changed the password, they can still get in; it's something far different that accessing the admin interface through the WAN and almost certainly buried in their TOS.
I worked on a Qwest DSL connection for a friend and replaced their POS Actiontec with something more functional. When it came time to switch packages to a higher speed, the connection simply stopped working. Apparently Qwest changes the routers PPPoE information remotely when you upgrade to a higher speed and not having their equipment in place caused that to fail.
So, if you don't want them to screw with your settings, don't buy their crappy hardware and acknowledge that it may break as a result.
That whoosh you heard was Zapp Brannigan flying over your head in an out-of-control orbital restaurant.
After "Hot Electron Injection", Electrowetting has to be one of the sexiest technology terms I've heard in recent years...
Go to hyperlinktech.com and get 2 antennas that match to the frequency used by your type of cell phone. One should be highly directional, preferably parabolic and the other should be omnidirectional or, preferably, something with sector coverage.
Mount the highly directional antenna so it is pointed at the strongest source of signal for your phone, preferably with line of sight to the tower. Mount the sector coverage antenna so it is centered on the area you will be using your handset. I've heard having the antennas mounted apart from each other is preferable. You then want to wire them directly together. If you can get complementary connectors on each (one N-Male, one N-Female) you can just screw them together or wire them with an extension.
The directional antenna will act like a large collector and funnel that radio energy across the line and into your sector antenna, boosting the effective power by the sum of the antenna gains minus ~3dB. The energy output from your handset will be picked up by the sector antenna and sent back through that directional antenna toward the tower and see the same overall gain.
I've done something similar before with wifi using parabolic antennas to shoot it around an obstacle - no additional power required.
I would contend they are not freely observable to anyone that *wants* to know them. It's an important distinction that one is not otherwise compelled to show their face in public, wear otherwise identifiable clothes in public (they'll look at you funny for being wrapped in a garbage bag) or leave your fingerprints anywhere in public. People choose to do so of their own free will or ignorance.
That the kind of freedom (choice) people are talking about when they talk about freedoms being eroded. And the choice to hand over fingerprints or give up a job is not on the same scale as the choice to hand over your fingerprints or not.
Certainly not a black and white scenario, but not a foregone conclusion like you seem to suggest.