The problem is not that people aren't predictable - the problem is that you cannot predict what a person might do if you do not know that person. Cultures mold this to some degree so you can safely say that in the US a person might reasonably be predicted to answer a phone with 'hello', but beyond cultural norms you cannot predict human action for an unknown human.
Further, when two humans who do not know each other interact (of whom you know neither) then the possible interactions multiply due to their two seperate unpredictable courses.
Do you know many computer gamers that like to experience new, unfamiliar situations and people on a daily basis? No? It's because they like the familiar, and predictable routines they've developed. Of course you're going to find a few, but my experience has been that most people, in general, dislike frequent unpredictable events.
The GDP figure I gave for the EU was actually the monetary GDP for the EU, so it doesn't include the UK, which would make your figure more valid - unfortunately I don't think the pound is tied to the euro so it's not one self contained economy.
Not that it matters, they certianly have much buying power. I wonder what the GDP per capita is...
First - yes, the US must change to meet the new global economy. I support outsourcing, at the expense of my own salary and living conditions. I imagine my stance will change over time. Disclaimer - I'm not an economist, I'm current taking a macroeconomics class but it's really just a skim overview of economics.
And GDP numbers I bring up below are from the world bank Total GDP 2002 report.
The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall.
6,648,492 million. About 1/5 of the world economy. Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.
China's GDP was around 6 trillion...it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.
To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million. I agree that it eventually must pass the US GDP if 1) China remains one cohesive state and 2) Any societal/cultural/governing revolution is started, mediated, and controlled by the gov't. I don't think China can withstand any of those revolutions economically, despite state efforts to do so. Further the gov't must spend so much money training and keeping their citizens in line it may be difficult to sustain any temporary growth.
Its true the U.S. GDP is growing again but that is almost entirely due to very low interest rates and the massive fiscal stimulus the Federal government is injecting in to the economy...This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk.
Well, at least you agree that the current administration's plan is working, albiet extremely risky. When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes
wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up. It is his model of the economy which we use. Therefore, when the economy is bad the gov't must increase its spending, and encourage private and business spending. Further, deficit is a tool to be used to increase spending. Whether the rich or poor should be the ones receiving the encouragement is up for debate.
Personally, I hope to see more foreign investment and outsourcing. I hope that I can personally stay ahead of the curve and make myself valuable as an employee, but in the end the relationship I have with an employer is a business relationship. If he can get a better deal on milk at KMart, then he might stop shopping at Kroger. If I don't step up to the challenge and make a better offer then I can't reasonably force them to choose me over a better/cheaper product. I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.
Besides, as companies get burned by outsourcing, and others have great success many jobs will move back here and other jobs will leave. This cycle will find another equilibrium just as past outsourcing 'emergencies' (cloth mills, steel, cars, etc) did. It's just another decade in the global economy - nothing to see here, move along. If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.
Our economy already depends too much on outsourcing of goods and services. The real shock will be when we're forced t
One of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and brought the US into the war was because they were running low on oil. If they had access to more oil they would have been a much greater threat, though I suspect the atomic bomb would have been dropped in much greater numbers if they had a greater showing of force that what they could muster with their resources.
Ha, ha, ha. It's very funny for many people to respond to this post and ask, "Are you talking about America?"
The reality, though, is that if you think we have it bad in America, you should really read up on what it's like elsewhere in the world.
Think of it as competition, in the same vein as Linux vs Windows.
Right now America is the undisputed 'king of the hill' or monopoly in world economics and most other areas you'd care to graph. Many other nations work just as well, but they simply don't have teh incredible wealth that the USA has.
Were you aware that the USA spends 1/3 of the money spent around the globe? The GDP of the US is over 11 trillion [US Dollars]. The GDP of the entire global economy is merely 32 Trillion.
The global economy is changing that - we see it as outsourcing, other countries see it as getting US dollars so they can increase their GDP.
If you want to change the monopoly status of the US then you agree to outsourcing, and you should seek to bring other nations to the level the US has rather than bringing the US down.
It really is striking to see the level of elitism among americans. I include myself when I say that many in america get a paper cut and don't think about the mere availability of the bandaid as a striking contrast to life elswhere.
So yeah, I laugh when I see the posts asking me if I'm talking about needed gov't change in America vs China. It's really funny to me.
And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".
It means 'International' not 'inclusive' which is what I think you're trying to get at. A contract between any two nations is international, regardless of how many other nations sign on, don't sign on, disagree, or are disallowed from participating.
There are varied reasons for not accepting the Chinese into the ISS as an equal. Arguing whether they are good reasons or not is probably pointless - there are doubtless people on many sides of this issue. It could be something as simple as they are unwilling to design their rockets/parts in a way that matches our safety standards. It could be something as complex as a long ago treaty on rocket usage they broke which 'we' are going to hang over their head until they give an apology. We, the public, will never know all the reasons, reasonable or not, because not only do our leaders not want them to be known, but the chinese gov't really doesn't want people to know.
I agree with you, and add that games are mere simulations. Any simulation of a 'real' activity is, by definition, simplified.
You can't account for all the random acts that may occur in any simulation. You can try to program in as many as you can think of, but how many game designers want to add the "Stupid soldier smokes while filling vehicle and blows up fuel depot" option? Now imagine that there are thousands of people, each with their own misadventures. Then you get to account for random environmental factors (more predictable than humans, I bet) and only then can you start looking at random enemy actions.
Even if you could program a large portion of these things in, gamers don't want them. Gamers like predicatability. You've seen, I imagine, all those "Perfect run" videos where a gamer practices a game until they can run through it in a short period of time, gaining maximum points? They don't want to fail a level because of something they can't control such as the aforementioned chainsmoking fuel depot lackey. Further, once they remember that the lackey blows up the depot they want to assume that it'll happen the same way every time they go through that level - that way they know they should frag him first.
Even RTSs with 'random' events (such as sim city) are extremely predictable. You just have to have a set of rules you follow, and 'stay ahead of the game.'
Of course the real issue with the article is not how real the scenario is, but how the public, at a distance, interacts with the war. This is something gamers don't want - to be judged and scored according to a set of rules that they not only don't know, but that are dynamic.
Then again, I live in NYC and I've seen two starbucks on opposite corners staring at each other, and they're both busy.
Their business plan consists mainly of:
* Pay city of New York to change pedestrian crossing times and patterns such that it takes 20 minutes to travel kitty corner.
A von Neumann architecture keeps code and data in the same memory space. This means that the CPU can treat anything in memory as code or data - it doesn't care. Further, the software stack which stores temporary variables and return addresses (where to return when a function is complete) is also stored in this same memory area which can be executed. These two decisions provide great flexibility and power in memory management, but with great power comes great responsability.
So a buffer exploit happens like this:
A function is called.
The current address of program execution is stored on the stack.
Any variables the function uses are also stored on the stack after the return address.
Typically stacks grow down from the top of memory and code is stored at the bottom of the memory space.
Then function execution begins.
However, arrays stored in the stack grow upward.
If you store a return address, then put an array right after it of, say, 32 integers, then the 33rd integer is the return address of the code that should be executed when the function completes.
If you store code in the array, then change the return address (at location 33 in the array) to point to the bottom of the array you have your own little function running instead of what the program author intended. Obviously a program that prevents itself from writing outside its own array bounds does not suffer from this particular problem.
The CPU already has an MMU which tracks memory reads and writes into sections of memory called pages. The idea is that the OS can be called if the program accesses memory that is stored on disk, the OS can restore the memory, then it can return to the program. However the OS cannot tell whether the CPU is asking for paged memory because it wants to execute it or merely store/read data in it. Further, the OS may not called at all if the page is in memory since most page faults occur only when memory is on the disk.
The no execute bit is added to each page that the MMU manages. When a program needs more stack space it asks the OS for another page of memory, and the OS, knowing that it's data and not code, sets the NX bit. Then the CPU can report to the OS whenever the program jumps to an address inside the data area, trying to execute that memory as code.
This does NOT eliminate buffer overflows, but it can prevent code execution via overflows. Further, since the OS manages the program stack (for the most part, sometimes through libraries so a recompile may be necessary) then programmer interaction or changes are not needed to make individual programs work under this new system.
Lastly, most OSs prevent writing to code locations (ie, you have to jump through hoops as a programmer if you want your program to self modify its own code as in genetic programming) so by preventing writes to code locations, and preventing execution from data locations then you've eliminated every method that a person could cause the computer to run code that the programmer did not intend to run. This means that further exploits are due directly to the programmer adding code which, for instance, provides an interpreter in their own program (such as with VBScript, Perl, any interpreted language by itself or inside a program) or explicitly sets up an insecure area where code and data can mix and be executed.
One small step for OEMs, one giant leap for consumer choice.
-Adam
Re:Isn't the point of velcro
on
Metal Velcro
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Then imagine how much easier it would be to just velcro it all together.
Then imagine how quickly the average two-year-old could disassemble it.
In flight.
-Adam
Gobsmacking?
on
Metal Velcro
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"When we first realised we could do this we were absolutely gobsmacked," Dance says.
Brilliant! Those boffins have really done it now. Just a quick electron scan and Bob's your uncle!
gobsmackedadj. Nothing to do with punching people in the face (although I'm sure that's where it derives from originally), to describe someone as being gobsmacked means they're very surprised or taken aback. From here.
Although I didn't realize that boffin was somewhat of an insult. That would have been embarrassing, interviewing for a position and referring to your interviewer as a boffin...
The reason you can't make head nor tail of this is because you must first perform a paradigm shift of your perception.
Just a word of warning - whenever you suggest to someone that they shift their paradigm, keep in mind that they may not have a clutch! This will explain the awful grinding noise and possible brain stalling that follows.
I hope you understand that getting a very small, very lightweight object up to 330 thousand feet and the reusing it is vastly different than getting a very large, extremely heavy object up to 1 million feet.
There are a ton of other differences (purpose, flexibility, etc) but the main problem I suspect is that the shuttles are essentially 1970's technology. Now we can do so much more with so much less (replace much of the mechanical stuff with electronic systems, etc). There is a tradeoff between reliability and simplicity, though, that can swing both ways.
I'm sure NASA is keeping a keen eye on these ventures, and I'm sure these ventures are keepign a keen eye on keeping everything closed and proprietary.
Can't wait to see the first patent battles where one company prevents another from launching because they use the same design for single click launch cycle (Amazon's gonna go for the money in this!)
That is soooo American, laying total blame on people for their unemployment...
Perhaps there's a bit of a communication barrier here, but I did not (and do not) lay total blame on people for their unemployment. I do, however, possess some of the 'american spirit' that says 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'. Anyone can succeed in America.
Be a little more civilized, stop kicking people already on the ground.
If offering a suggestion on how to improve your chances of finding a job is 'kicking people already on the ground' then I say more people need more kicking. Although I admit that doing so sarcastically as I did is in poor taste, it only hurts when it's true.
My father was out of work for nearly two years as well, and had to start dipping into his retirement. I was laid off just before the dot-com bust, and it took me two months to find a consulting position. After another month I had to choose between high pay, high risk, and low pay low risk. I still have a job, and you can probably tell what I chose. I still don't have a degree, and I suspect that if I lost my job now I'd have a terrible time finding work in my field at a salary which would support my family because the field is full of geeks like me who do have degrees and companies can simply cut out those that don't.
I'm attending school intent on fixing that issue.
In short, I'm aware of the issues of joblessness in my field. I do wish them luck. I'm very keenly aware of the simple fact that decisions made in the past and at this time sharply affect the future. I guess my problem is that I've simply never been in a situation where I was doing absolutely everything I could and yet could not accomplish what I was attempting to do. Therefore I assume that when someone is not succeeding then either they've poorly defined 'success' or they are not doing their best. This is a failing on my part, one which I'm trying to change.
It's something to really consider, because I can see how an open algorithm would be beneficial, but it's very easy to see how it can be spammed into uselessness.
I think of the Dow and other financial indices and believe that the proprietary model may be the only successful way to provide useful, reliable information.
Then I look at encryption, and I see how the algorithms, being public, can be vetted without compromising the security of the communication through a proprietary, secret key.
I suspect that a succesful search engine, at this juncture in time, cannot have an open 'key' due to processing power limitations. Given infinite processing power and a reasonable language-understanding algorithm it could be possible to make the spammers work so hard at getting into the listings that they would actually have to provide useful information about a given subject just to show up in the listings.
However, a search engine cannot make enough money off of ads to even approach that power. We first have to create better natural language algorithms, because the web will grow as fast or faster than processing power.
At this time a good compromise would be to follow the encryption route. You use publicly vetted methods of rating pages and indexing pages, but you keep the key, the actual calculation that relates those ratings to a particular search, a secret and modify it to keep up with spammers who will brute force the key into the public.
Again, I disagree with the theory that it is possible to design
1) A fully public algorithm for page ranking and relating them to search queries
2) Keep spammers and keyword hijackers from ruining the index
3) Without infinite computer power and/or a very advanced natural language indexing system.
Don't let this dissuade you from trying. Search is not a solved problem, and there are many opportunities for small (and large) successes before we even come close to a complete solution. You may well find another important piece of the puzzle.
When it gets to the point where you have a "call box" every quarter mile along the trail that will instantly summon a helicopter full of paramedics bearing bandages and hot chocolate, there's no sense of accomplishment.
This is where you and I disagree, then. This is similar to saying that a linux newbie gets no sense of accomplishment out of getting their system to do something esoteric unless they have no access to the 'safety net' of usenet, google, IRC, etc.
I, for one, can still get a sense of accomplishment hiking into a wilderness with only a backpack, and hiking back out a week later even though the 'wilderness' is only a few hundred square miles bounded by roads and freeways.
The Race Across America (RAAM) is a 12 day bicycle race across the US (3000 miles). Each rider is required to have a crew and vehicle tail them the entire way, with a second backup vehicle and crew running errands, preparing stops ahead, etc. Just because they have a safety net does not lessen the degree of accomplishment they feel from doing this.
Of course this completely overlooks the fact that this utility is meant to help S&R find people faster with fewer resources in larger areas. If you don't like this equipment, then don't get lost.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not that people aren't predictable - the problem is that you cannot predict what a person might do if you do not know that person. Cultures mold this to some degree so you can safely say that in the US a person might reasonably be predicted to answer a phone with 'hello', but beyond cultural norms you cannot predict human action for an unknown human.
Further, when two humans who do not know each other interact (of whom you know neither) then the possible interactions multiply due to their two seperate unpredictable courses.
Do you know many computer gamers that like to experience new, unfamiliar situations and people on a daily basis? No? It's because they like the familiar, and predictable routines they've developed. Of course you're going to find a few, but my experience has been that most people, in general, dislike frequent unpredictable events.
-Adam
The GDP figure I gave for the EU was actually the monetary GDP for the EU, so it doesn't include the UK, which would make your figure more valid - unfortunately I don't think the pound is tied to the euro so it's not one self contained economy.
Not that it matters, they certianly have much buying power. I wonder what the GDP per capita is...
-Adam
First - yes, the US must change to meet the new global economy. I support outsourcing, at the expense of my own salary and living conditions. I imagine my stance will change over time. Disclaimer - I'm not an economist, I'm current taking a macroeconomics class but it's really just a skim overview of economics.
And GDP numbers I bring up below are from the world bank Total GDP 2002 report.
The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall.
6,648,492 million. About 1/5 of the world economy. Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.
China's GDP was around 6 trillion...it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.
To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million. I agree that it eventually must pass the US GDP if 1) China remains one cohesive state and 2) Any societal/cultural/governing revolution is started, mediated, and controlled by the gov't. I don't think China can withstand any of those revolutions economically, despite state efforts to do so. Further the gov't must spend so much money training and keeping their citizens in line it may be difficult to sustain any temporary growth.
Its true the U.S. GDP is growing again but that is almost entirely due to very low interest rates and the massive fiscal stimulus the Federal government is injecting in to the economy...This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk.
Well, at least you agree that the current administration's plan is working, albiet extremely risky. When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up. It is his model of the economy which we use. Therefore, when the economy is bad the gov't must increase its spending, and encourage private and business spending. Further, deficit is a tool to be used to increase spending. Whether the rich or poor should be the ones receiving the encouragement is up for debate.
Personally, I hope to see more foreign investment and outsourcing. I hope that I can personally stay ahead of the curve and make myself valuable as an employee, but in the end the relationship I have with an employer is a business relationship. If he can get a better deal on milk at KMart, then he might stop shopping at Kroger. If I don't step up to the challenge and make a better offer then I can't reasonably force them to choose me over a better/cheaper product. I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.
Besides, as companies get burned by outsourcing, and others have great success many jobs will move back here and other jobs will leave. This cycle will find another equilibrium just as past outsourcing 'emergencies' (cloth mills, steel, cars, etc) did. It's just another decade in the global economy - nothing to see here, move along. If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.
Our economy already depends too much on outsourcing of goods and services. The real shock will be when we're forced t
One of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and brought the US into the war was because they were running low on oil. If they had access to more oil they would have been a much greater threat, though I suspect the atomic bomb would have been dropped in much greater numbers if they had a greater showing of force that what they could muster with their resources.
-Adam
Ha, ha, ha. It's very funny for many people to respond to this post and ask, "Are you talking about America?"
The reality, though, is that if you think we have it bad in America, you should really read up on what it's like elsewhere in the world.
Think of it as competition, in the same vein as Linux vs Windows.
Right now America is the undisputed 'king of the hill' or monopoly in world economics and most other areas you'd care to graph. Many other nations work just as well, but they simply don't have teh incredible wealth that the USA has.
Were you aware that the USA spends 1/3 of the money spent around the globe? The GDP of the US is over 11 trillion [US Dollars]. The GDP of the entire global economy is merely 32 Trillion.
The global economy is changing that - we see it as outsourcing, other countries see it as getting US dollars so they can increase their GDP.
If you want to change the monopoly status of the US then you agree to outsourcing, and you should seek to bring other nations to the level the US has rather than bringing the US down.
This, of course, covers nothing about the humanitarian crisis in china
It really is striking to see the level of elitism among americans. I include myself when I say that many in america get a paper cut and don't think about the mere availability of the bandaid as a striking contrast to life elswhere.
So yeah, I laugh when I see the posts asking me if I'm talking about needed gov't change in America vs China. It's really funny to me.
-Adam
And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".
It means 'International' not 'inclusive' which is what I think you're trying to get at. A contract between any two nations is international, regardless of how many other nations sign on, don't sign on, disagree, or are disallowed from participating.
There are varied reasons for not accepting the Chinese into the ISS as an equal. Arguing whether they are good reasons or not is probably pointless - there are doubtless people on many sides of this issue. It could be something as simple as they are unwilling to design their rockets/parts in a way that matches our safety standards. It could be something as complex as a long ago treaty on rocket usage they broke which 'we' are going to hang over their head until they give an apology. We, the public, will never know all the reasons, reasonable or not, because not only do our leaders not want them to be known, but the chinese gov't really doesn't want people to know.
-Adam
I think they should spend their money on their own people before spending it on the moon.
Spending money on the 'people' will not lead to useful change, even if it's spent on the 'right' things (food, housing, education, etc).
They can't feed their own people without educating them.
They can't educate their people and expect to remain in power.
So they spend it in PR stunts so the uneducated can, if they want, take national pride in a nation which does not treat them well.
And they spend it in military/police funding to keep the powerful in power.
And they limit the flow of information, again, to limit education and to keep the powerful in power.
Until there is a radical change in societal structure/governmental structure, nothing is going to change, regardless of where they put their money.
IMO.
-Adam
I agree with you, and add that games are mere simulations. Any simulation of a 'real' activity is, by definition, simplified.
You can't account for all the random acts that may occur in any simulation. You can try to program in as many as you can think of, but how many game designers want to add the "Stupid soldier smokes while filling vehicle and blows up fuel depot" option? Now imagine that there are thousands of people, each with their own misadventures. Then you get to account for random environmental factors (more predictable than humans, I bet) and only then can you start looking at random enemy actions.
Even if you could program a large portion of these things in, gamers don't want them. Gamers like predicatability. You've seen, I imagine, all those "Perfect run" videos where a gamer practices a game until they can run through it in a short period of time, gaining maximum points? They don't want to fail a level because of something they can't control such as the aforementioned chainsmoking fuel depot lackey. Further, once they remember that the lackey blows up the depot they want to assume that it'll happen the same way every time they go through that level - that way they know they should frag him first.
Even RTSs with 'random' events (such as sim city) are extremely predictable. You just have to have a set of rules you follow, and 'stay ahead of the game.' Of course the real issue with the article is not how real the scenario is, but how the public, at a distance, interacts with the war. This is something gamers don't want - to be judged and scored according to a set of rules that they not only don't know, but that are dynamic.
-Adam
Why not use lawyers instead. They aren't as cute and no-one gets attached to them.
The article points out that you have to be at least as smart as a gambian rat to do this kind of work.
-Adam
Then again, I live in NYC and I've seen two starbucks on opposite corners staring at each other, and they're both busy.
Their business plan consists mainly of:
* Pay city of New York to change pedestrian crossing times and patterns such that it takes 20 minutes to travel kitty corner.
-Adam
Ok, the whole problem started with two decisions.
* Usage of a von Neumann architecture
* Storing call stack in buffer space
And it blossomed from there.
A von Neumann architecture keeps code and data in the same memory space. This means that the CPU can treat anything in memory as code or data - it doesn't care. Further, the software stack which stores temporary variables and return addresses (where to return when a function is complete) is also stored in this same memory area which can be executed. These two decisions provide great flexibility and power in memory management, but with great power comes great responsability.
So a buffer exploit happens like this:
A function is called.
The current address of program execution is stored on the stack.
Any variables the function uses are also stored on the stack after the return address.
Typically stacks grow down from the top of memory and code is stored at the bottom of the memory space.
Then function execution begins.
However, arrays stored in the stack grow upward.
If you store a return address, then put an array right after it of, say, 32 integers, then the 33rd integer is the return address of the code that should be executed when the function completes.
If you store code in the array, then change the return address (at location 33 in the array) to point to the bottom of the array you have your own little function running instead of what the program author intended. Obviously a program that prevents itself from writing outside its own array bounds does not suffer from this particular problem.
The CPU already has an MMU which tracks memory reads and writes into sections of memory called pages. The idea is that the OS can be called if the program accesses memory that is stored on disk, the OS can restore the memory, then it can return to the program. However the OS cannot tell whether the CPU is asking for paged memory because it wants to execute it or merely store/read data in it. Further, the OS may not called at all if the page is in memory since most page faults occur only when memory is on the disk.
The no execute bit is added to each page that the MMU manages. When a program needs more stack space it asks the OS for another page of memory, and the OS, knowing that it's data and not code, sets the NX bit. Then the CPU can report to the OS whenever the program jumps to an address inside the data area, trying to execute that memory as code.
This does NOT eliminate buffer overflows, but it can prevent code execution via overflows. Further, since the OS manages the program stack (for the most part, sometimes through libraries so a recompile may be necessary) then programmer interaction or changes are not needed to make individual programs work under this new system.
Lastly, most OSs prevent writing to code locations (ie, you have to jump through hoops as a programmer if you want your program to self modify its own code as in genetic programming) so by preventing writes to code locations, and preventing execution from data locations then you've eliminated every method that a person could cause the computer to run code that the programmer did not intend to run. This means that further exploits are due directly to the programmer adding code which, for instance, provides an interpreter in their own program (such as with VBScript, Perl, any interpreted language by itself or inside a program) or explicitly sets up an insecure area where code and data can mix and be executed.
-Adam
I suppose by 'exactly' you mean 'completely different'.
Apparantly it's "EASIER TO INSERT THAN AN ALIEN PROBE" though, according to the article.
I wonder if MXM comes with that feature? I'd hate to be part of Alienware's demographic.
-Adam
One small step for OEMs, one giant leap for consumer choice.
-Adam
Then imagine how much easier it would be to just velcro it all together.
Then imagine how quickly the average two-year-old could disassemble it.
In flight.
-Adam
"When we first realised we could do this we were absolutely gobsmacked," Dance says.
Brilliant! Those boffins have really done it now. Just a quick electron scan and Bob's your uncle!
gobsmacked adj. Nothing to do with punching people in the face (although I'm sure that's where it derives from originally), to describe someone as being gobsmacked means they're very surprised or taken aback.
From here.
Although I didn't realize that boffin was somewhat of an insult. That would have been embarrassing, interviewing for a position and referring to your interviewer as a boffin...
-Adam
The reason you can't make head nor tail of this is because you must first perform a paradigm shift of your perception.
Just a word of warning - whenever you suggest to someone that they shift their paradigm, keep in mind that they may not have a clutch! This will explain the awful grinding noise and possible brain stalling that follows.
You've been warned.
-Adam
Perhaps you accidently bid on imaginaryconman, instead of imaginarygirlfriend.
But the reality is that you did get your imaginary girlfriend. You just have a very poor imagination.
-Adam
By the summer of 2005, the United States will have an underwater network of robots monitoring the nations fresh water supply
Hah, they have robots in there now.
I've been slowly leeching arsenic into my pipes trying to lure it to my workshop.
-Adam
it looks less clunky than its fatter and shorter American cousin
Hey, don't you talk about us Americans that way!
-Adam
I hope you understand that getting a very small, very lightweight object up to 330 thousand feet and the reusing it is vastly different than getting a very large, extremely heavy object up to 1 million feet.
There are a ton of other differences (purpose, flexibility, etc) but the main problem I suspect is that the shuttles are essentially 1970's technology. Now we can do so much more with so much less (replace much of the mechanical stuff with electronic systems, etc). There is a tradeoff between reliability and simplicity, though, that can swing both ways.
I'm sure NASA is keeping a keen eye on these ventures, and I'm sure these ventures are keepign a keen eye on keeping everything closed and proprietary.
Can't wait to see the first patent battles where one company prevents another from launching because they use the same design for single click launch cycle (Amazon's gonna go for the money in this!)
-Adam
That is soooo American, laying total blame on people for their unemployment...
Perhaps there's a bit of a communication barrier here, but I did not (and do not) lay total blame on people for their unemployment. I do, however, possess some of the 'american spirit' that says 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps'. Anyone can succeed in America.
Be a little more civilized, stop kicking people already on the ground.
If offering a suggestion on how to improve your chances of finding a job is 'kicking people already on the ground' then I say more people need more kicking. Although I admit that doing so sarcastically as I did is in poor taste, it only hurts when it's true.
My father was out of work for nearly two years as well, and had to start dipping into his retirement. I was laid off just before the dot-com bust, and it took me two months to find a consulting position. After another month I had to choose between high pay, high risk, and low pay low risk. I still have a job, and you can probably tell what I chose. I still don't have a degree, and I suspect that if I lost my job now I'd have a terrible time finding work in my field at a salary which would support my family because the field is full of geeks like me who do have degrees and companies can simply cut out those that don't.
I'm attending school intent on fixing that issue.
In short, I'm aware of the issues of joblessness in my field. I do wish them luck. I'm very keenly aware of the simple fact that decisions made in the past and at this time sharply affect the future. I guess my problem is that I've simply never been in a situation where I was doing absolutely everything I could and yet could not accomplish what I was attempting to do. Therefore I assume that when someone is not succeeding then either they've poorly defined 'success' or they are not doing their best. This is a failing on my part, one which I'm trying to change.
-Adam
It's something to really consider, because I can see how an open algorithm would be beneficial, but it's very easy to see how it can be spammed into uselessness.
I think of the Dow and other financial indices and believe that the proprietary model may be the only successful way to provide useful, reliable information.
Then I look at encryption, and I see how the algorithms, being public, can be vetted without compromising the security of the communication through a proprietary, secret key.
I suspect that a succesful search engine, at this juncture in time, cannot have an open 'key' due to processing power limitations. Given infinite processing power and a reasonable language-understanding algorithm it could be possible to make the spammers work so hard at getting into the listings that they would actually have to provide useful information about a given subject just to show up in the listings.
However, a search engine cannot make enough money off of ads to even approach that power. We first have to create better natural language algorithms, because the web will grow as fast or faster than processing power.
At this time a good compromise would be to follow the encryption route. You use publicly vetted methods of rating pages and indexing pages, but you keep the key, the actual calculation that relates those ratings to a particular search, a secret and modify it to keep up with spammers who will brute force the key into the public.
Again, I disagree with the theory that it is possible to design
1) A fully public algorithm for page ranking and relating them to search queries
2) Keep spammers and keyword hijackers from ruining the index
3) Without infinite computer power and/or a very advanced natural language indexing system.
Don't let this dissuade you from trying. Search is not a solved problem, and there are many opportunities for small (and large) successes before we even come close to a complete solution. You may well find another important piece of the puzzle.
-Adam
I have friends in Seattle (very smart, determined people) who have been without a job for over 2 years.
Add "and unwilling/unable to move and accept a significant pay cut" to "smart, determined".
-Adam
When it gets to the point where you have a "call box" every quarter mile along the trail that will instantly summon a helicopter full of paramedics bearing bandages and hot chocolate, there's no sense of accomplishment.
This is where you and I disagree, then. This is similar to saying that a linux newbie gets no sense of accomplishment out of getting their system to do something esoteric unless they have no access to the 'safety net' of usenet, google, IRC, etc.
I, for one, can still get a sense of accomplishment hiking into a wilderness with only a backpack, and hiking back out a week later even though the 'wilderness' is only a few hundred square miles bounded by roads and freeways.
The Race Across America (RAAM) is a 12 day bicycle race across the US (3000 miles). Each rider is required to have a crew and vehicle tail them the entire way, with a second backup vehicle and crew running errands, preparing stops ahead, etc. Just because they have a safety net does not lessen the degree of accomplishment they feel from doing this.
Of course this completely overlooks the fact that this utility is meant to help S&R find people faster with fewer resources in larger areas. If you don't like this equipment, then don't get lost.
-Adam
Office manager: "Hey, Adam, do you know why our power usage might have gone up this last month?"
I surreptitiously conceal the firewire cable going out the side door.
Adam: "No, John, I haven't the foggiest."
OM: "Ok, well I'll ask Kim when I talk to her about the strange shipping container outside. Thanks."
-Adam