I attended a presentation once where one of the admins (Bob Beck) at UAlberta showed off his pf-based system to yank DHCP leases from machines that met their criteria for zombie traffic (typically a sudden blast of SMTP traffic). Actually, I think it was a little more complicated than that, but the end result is that desktops are redirected to a "You are zombied, contact the IT department" webpage. Pretty cool.
Hrm-- do you have a reference for the discrete math book? I have two (just completed a discrete math course), and IIRC neither talk much about encryption beyond simple XOR ciphers.
But the fact is that we do it naturally. I don't think those articles show that we are bad at it, just that we're slow at it. In computer-time, computers are really slow at it, too, but they do it just fine, and modern operating systems absolutely rely on this behavior to function. BTW, joelonsoftware and codinghorror barely qualify as "research" beyond the fact that they often have very insightful and yet anecdotal evidence.
Actually, I met a software developer for this device at a dinner recently. I, too was skeptical. He said that learning how to use the device takes quite a bit of practice-- because this is like an appendage you never knew you had-- but mainly because controlling things on-screen requires concentration. Basically the problem is this: we deal with distractions all the time; the human brain is really good at doing context switches. But when you wear this interface, those context switches (someone comes up behind you and says "Hi!") change the input to the device. You need to learn to control those state changes-- you can do it, but it takes practice. He assured me that after some practice, this becomes much easier.
As a side note-- this would be a great tool for learning how to beat polygraph exams! "Escape from Gitmo" for PS3 coming soon!;^)
Standardized tests are a terrible idea. You contradict yourself when you mention differing abilities of students and then commend standardized testing. Teachers must teach to the development level of the class-- when standardized tests become the sole measure of the performance of a school, teachers really do "teach to the test". It's not a cliche. Teachers are under enormous pressure, and when that pressure is overwhelmingly in the form of "your students must succeed on this test", that's how they define their curricula.
It's been clear for at least 80 years now (read Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, Leontiev) that learning must happen within a zone of proximal development, that is, the area which the student can be reasonably expected to move to the next area of cognitive development with some assistance of an adult. Standardized testing forces teachers to ignore this customization of the curricula so that the material may be covered, regardless of whether the student has actually achieved mastery of the subject or not. As a result, classrooms where students are lagging behind the ZPD for a curriculum for a standardized test may do worse on the test than had they otherwise spent the time on developing the preliminary ideas. Classrooms that are "behind" tend to be in areas where school funding is poor, where students are not motivated due to personal, family, and financial problems, where schools are in poor repair and serve as distractions, and where teachers are simply not good at their jobs. You typically find these problems in poorer neighborhoods. Standardized testing, in essence, makes bad schools worse, and does nothing to help the good schools.
There are plenty of criticisms of standardized tests. You should read about them before you dismiss the critics outright.
It is likely that they've already had contact with a number of pathogens brought over by the Old Worlders. While they do not have contact directly with "modern" people, they do have contact with other tribes who do. For instance, smallpox beat Cortes to the Yucatan because it had been introduced by Europeans elsewhere in the Americas prior to the Cortes' arrival. This was partially because of the virulence of the disease, but also because the Aztecs had quite a sophisticated transportation and communications network, even by European standards at the time.
In fact, Europeans had great difficulty using these roads, as not only were they paved, and thus hard on the hooves of their horses, but the Aztecs also utilized staircases. Instead of going around or through hills, the Aztecs went over them. Horses had difficulty with the stairs, but the beast of burden in the Americas, the llama, did not, and the Aztecs used this to their advantage militarily. Without European disease essentially wiping the indigenous people out there, it is unlikely that Cortes would have had such an impressive military victory with such a paltry force. For anyone whose interested, this is all discussed in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.
Interesting how the woman in the photo is painted entirely in black More interesting is that fact that there are boobies in the picture. How did that get past-- oh, wait,.ca, carry on.
It's only not a "logic response" if you don't think about the subtext of my question: how much of a world market should a computer company dominate? My opinion is that the world is big, and while 3% may be a small part of it, 3% is a lot of computers. There are plenty of profitable companies that don't own an entire market-- I think Apple has successfully demonstrated that it is one of them.
I am currently typing this on a Model M. Besides the Apple Extended II keyboard, this is the best keyboard out there. I'd gladly use my Apple keyboard, but the ADB-to-USB adapter does not allow the keyboard to work in pre-boot environments (BIOS), which is somewhat important to me. But I basically only prefer the Apple keyboard over the IBM due to the fact that the IBM is surprisingly loud.
I am somewhat of a forceful typist, and for me, the Model M is perfect. Each keypress is satisfying, and-- I think this part about the Model M is underrated-- the keyboard has a straightforward layout with full-sized keys, center detents, and the little nubs to help you find the home row. Maybe the difference between me and others (who hate the Model M) is that I learned how to touch-type on a Model M in my high-school keyboarding class in the early 90's. I find most modern keyboards to be pathetically mushy, and their mushiness gets worse over time. I've been typing on this particular Model M for several years, and it still feels great. My Apple Extended II keyboard is about 15 years old, and that one still feels great too (although it doesn't look so hot anymore due to the discoloration of the plastic).
Anyhow, this is not fanboism. Some people like different keyboards. I spend my whole day at a keyboard, I touch type, and the keyfeel is important to me. Maybe those things don't matter to you, or maybe keyboard preference is just one of those subjective things like your favorite color or favorite meal. Or are you one of those guys who rails against the "hamburger fanbois"?
The funny thing is that if he hadn't used fake names, would this still have been illegal? Considering the shit that big corporations pull with hidden fees and questionable tax practices on a regular basis, I feel like this hack is funny and clever, and somewhat warranted. Why is the little guy's clever use of loopholes "illegal" when a big corporation's is "in the interest of the shareholder"?
In case you're wondering, I did have a conversation with Sprint yesterday.
When I used to bitch and moan as a child about having to accompany my parents on grocery shopping trips, they would relieve me of my pain by telling me I could go sit on the bench by the front of the store (conveniently next to the toy and candy machines), which they affectionately termed the "Group W bench". It wasn't until I was in high school and they played the record for me (apparently I was old enough to understand the humor in "father rapers") that I finally got the reference;^)
10.5.2 made my machine unbootable. Fortunately, I got in the habit of making backups before applying updates when the same thing happened to me sometime in the 10.4 era (10.4.8? I can't remember).
I think desktops will remain the same, at least for the time being. But multitouch will completely change how we use portable machines. For instance, what's currently stopping people from having portrait-layout laptops? The keyboard. Get rid of the keyboard, and the only difference between portrait screens and landscape screens is orientation. This paves the way toward making eBooks more practical, because you don't need a separate eBook reader and laptop. Obviously, there are issues of machine speed, battery life, and heat dissipation that currently make such a machine practical, but I'm sure those things will be worked out in time.
BTW, I am in no way a Windows or GUI fan. I pretty much work in a terminal all day. But touch interfaces have so much potential, I'd have to be an idiot not to see them.
700 threads in C++? Why not use assembler, actually optimize the hell out of the code, and get it down considerably. Or get a lot more done per thread. Good idea, but-- assembly language is way too high-level. Why not take it a step further and just give programmers front panel switches? Bonus: you save money on keyboards!
The problem is trust. This is essentially what routers with blacklisting/whitelisting features do: they designate certain sites trusted or not.
But simple blackholing doesn't solve many other problems-- issues you can't solve at the router level. What if someone you trust gives you a virus? You solution may work at home, because you have a small network, and people you trust. But in a corporate environment, you have lots of contact with people you trust at varying levels. What if a presenter comes in with an infected laptop? Happens all the time. What if there's a XSS script on the website of one of your corporate partners? What if their web services are compromised? What about SQL injection attacks? See where I'm going with this?
There are lots of pieces of software that are vulnerable to these problems. Windows is vulnerable in so many ways that unless your business is already dependent on it, it would be insane at this point to deploy it. Trust me, I admin a 250-member piece of a several thousand node Windows network. Protecting and containing this beast is a real challenge.
And, as for the "hardware prevention is greater than AV detection" stuff-- there's no difference. Hardware runs software. I think what you mean is: preventative measure are worth the effort, and I would agree with that. But don't be fooled into thinking that there's much of a difference between the computer that defends your network and the computer that sits on your network. They both have attack vectors.
Slashdot Mirror
I attended a presentation once where one of the admins (Bob Beck) at UAlberta showed off his pf-based system to yank DHCP leases from machines that met their criteria for zombie traffic (typically a sudden blast of SMTP traffic). Actually, I think it was a little more complicated than that, but the end result is that desktops are redirected to a "You are zombied, contact the IT department" webpage. Pretty cool.
Hrm-- do you have a reference for the discrete math book? I have two (just completed a discrete math course), and IIRC neither talk much about encryption beyond simple XOR ciphers.
But the fact is that we do it naturally. I don't think those articles show that we are bad at it, just that we're slow at it. In computer-time, computers are really slow at it, too, but they do it just fine, and modern operating systems absolutely rely on this behavior to function. BTW, joelonsoftware and codinghorror barely qualify as "research" beyond the fact that they often have very insightful and yet anecdotal evidence.
Only problem with that first link. If you're male, there's only one thought on your mind in the presence of that, *ahem*, demonstration person.
Demo person: "Hrm... this is odd. All you seem to be able to do is make your character stand up."
You're right-- "attention" is probably a better word.
Actually, I met a software developer for this device at a dinner recently. I, too was skeptical. He said that learning how to use the device takes quite a bit of practice-- because this is like an appendage you never knew you had-- but mainly because controlling things on-screen requires concentration. Basically the problem is this: we deal with distractions all the time; the human brain is really good at doing context switches. But when you wear this interface, those context switches (someone comes up behind you and says "Hi!") change the input to the device. You need to learn to control those state changes-- you can do it, but it takes practice. He assured me that after some practice, this becomes much easier.
;^)
As a side note-- this would be a great tool for learning how to beat polygraph exams! "Escape from Gitmo" for PS3 coming soon!
Standardized tests are a terrible idea. You contradict yourself when you mention differing abilities of students and then commend standardized testing. Teachers must teach to the development level of the class-- when standardized tests become the sole measure of the performance of a school, teachers really do "teach to the test". It's not a cliche. Teachers are under enormous pressure, and when that pressure is overwhelmingly in the form of "your students must succeed on this test", that's how they define their curricula.
It's been clear for at least 80 years now (read Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, Leontiev) that learning must happen within a zone of proximal development, that is, the area which the student can be reasonably expected to move to the next area of cognitive development with some assistance of an adult. Standardized testing forces teachers to ignore this customization of the curricula so that the material may be covered, regardless of whether the student has actually achieved mastery of the subject or not. As a result, classrooms where students are lagging behind the ZPD for a curriculum for a standardized test may do worse on the test than had they otherwise spent the time on developing the preliminary ideas. Classrooms that are "behind" tend to be in areas where school funding is poor, where students are not motivated due to personal, family, and financial problems, where schools are in poor repair and serve as distractions, and where teachers are simply not good at their jobs. You typically find these problems in poorer neighborhoods. Standardized testing, in essence, makes bad schools worse, and does nothing to help the good schools.
There are plenty of criticisms of standardized tests. You should read about them before you dismiss the critics outright.
Actually, there are no Rs at all!
It is likely that they've already had contact with a number of pathogens brought over by the Old Worlders. While they do not have contact directly with "modern" people, they do have contact with other tribes who do. For instance, smallpox beat Cortes to the Yucatan because it had been introduced by Europeans elsewhere in the Americas prior to the Cortes' arrival. This was partially because of the virulence of the disease, but also because the Aztecs had quite a sophisticated transportation and communications network, even by European standards at the time.
In fact, Europeans had great difficulty using these roads, as not only were they paved, and thus hard on the hooves of their horses, but the Aztecs also utilized staircases. Instead of going around or through hills, the Aztecs went over them. Horses had difficulty with the stairs, but the beast of burden in the Americas, the llama, did not, and the Aztecs used this to their advantage militarily. Without European disease essentially wiping the indigenous people out there, it is unlikely that Cortes would have had such an impressive military victory with such a paltry force. For anyone whose interested, this is all discussed in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.
It's only not a "logic response" if you don't think about the subtext of my question: how much of a world market should a computer company dominate? My opinion is that the world is big, and while 3% may be a small part of it, 3% is a lot of computers. There are plenty of profitable companies that don't own an entire market-- I think Apple has successfully demonstrated that it is one of them.
How much of the computer market do you dominate?
Which reminds me: hack XP's start button. I think "stop" is appropriate here.
The "turbo" button on my 286 functioned something like a "crash now" button would.
I am currently typing this on a Model M. Besides the Apple Extended II keyboard, this is the best keyboard out there. I'd gladly use my Apple keyboard, but the ADB-to-USB adapter does not allow the keyboard to work in pre-boot environments (BIOS), which is somewhat important to me. But I basically only prefer the Apple keyboard over the IBM due to the fact that the IBM is surprisingly loud.
I am somewhat of a forceful typist, and for me, the Model M is perfect. Each keypress is satisfying, and-- I think this part about the Model M is underrated-- the keyboard has a straightforward layout with full-sized keys, center detents, and the little nubs to help you find the home row. Maybe the difference between me and others (who hate the Model M) is that I learned how to touch-type on a Model M in my high-school keyboarding class in the early 90's. I find most modern keyboards to be pathetically mushy, and their mushiness gets worse over time. I've been typing on this particular Model M for several years, and it still feels great. My Apple Extended II keyboard is about 15 years old, and that one still feels great too (although it doesn't look so hot anymore due to the discoloration of the plastic).
Anyhow, this is not fanboism. Some people like different keyboards. I spend my whole day at a keyboard, I touch type, and the keyfeel is important to me. Maybe those things don't matter to you, or maybe keyboard preference is just one of those subjective things like your favorite color or favorite meal. Or are you one of those guys who rails against the "hamburger fanbois"?
The funny thing is that if he hadn't used fake names, would this still have been illegal? Considering the shit that big corporations pull with hidden fees and questionable tax practices on a regular basis, I feel like this hack is funny and clever, and somewhat warranted. Why is the little guy's clever use of loopholes "illegal" when a big corporation's is "in the interest of the shareholder"?
In case you're wondering, I did have a conversation with Sprint yesterday.
Actually, in your case, the ??? may be "Federal PMITA Prison".
When I used to bitch and moan as a child about having to accompany my parents on grocery shopping trips, they would relieve me of my pain by telling me I could go sit on the bench by the front of the store (conveniently next to the toy and candy machines), which they affectionately termed the "Group W bench". It wasn't until I was in high school and they played the record for me (apparently I was old enough to understand the humor in "father rapers") that I finally got the reference ;^)
10.5.2 made my machine unbootable. Fortunately, I got in the habit of making backups before applying updates when the same thing happened to me sometime in the 10.4 era (10.4.8? I can't remember).
Just use SuperDuper!. Their Smart Update feature is fast enough that taking the 15 minutes out of your day to do a backup is relatively painless.
I think desktops will remain the same, at least for the time being. But multitouch will completely change how we use portable machines. For instance, what's currently stopping people from having portrait-layout laptops? The keyboard. Get rid of the keyboard, and the only difference between portrait screens and landscape screens is orientation. This paves the way toward making eBooks more practical, because you don't need a separate eBook reader and laptop. Obviously, there are issues of machine speed, battery life, and heat dissipation that currently make such a machine practical, but I'm sure those things will be worked out in time.
BTW, I am in no way a Windows or GUI fan. I pretty much work in a terminal all day. But touch interfaces have so much potential, I'd have to be an idiot not to see them.
The problem is trust. This is essentially what routers with blacklisting/whitelisting features do: they designate certain sites trusted or not.
But simple blackholing doesn't solve many other problems-- issues you can't solve at the router level. What if someone you trust gives you a virus? You solution may work at home, because you have a small network, and people you trust. But in a corporate environment, you have lots of contact with people you trust at varying levels. What if a presenter comes in with an infected laptop? Happens all the time. What if there's a XSS script on the website of one of your corporate partners? What if their web services are compromised? What about SQL injection attacks? See where I'm going with this?
There are lots of pieces of software that are vulnerable to these problems. Windows is vulnerable in so many ways that unless your business is already dependent on it, it would be insane at this point to deploy it. Trust me, I admin a 250-member piece of a several thousand node Windows network. Protecting and containing this beast is a real challenge.
And, as for the "hardware prevention is greater than AV detection" stuff-- there's no difference. Hardware runs software. I think what you mean is: preventative measure are worth the effort, and I would agree with that. But don't be fooled into thinking that there's much of a difference between the computer that defends your network and the computer that sits on your network. They both have attack vectors.