my parent post contains a quote from the article
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 1
For the record, the 1st sentence in my post above is a quote from the article:
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
I made a mistake in the HTML tag spelling and it got stripped. (slapping self...) Will use preview next time:^)
Re:What a stupid question....
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
Nobody would prevent you to carry your older digital camera, or an an analog one, which can then completely ignore the request for cooperation in the other person's face blurring.
this is being typed at an IBM desktop, bought circa a year ago. Debian Linux runs here, no other OS. Alternatives were Dell, which were disregarded due to Dell's poorer support and esp. due to the bold IBM's backup of Linux. Also, similar concerns have been warmly communicated to all friends and colleagues, some of which have followed suit.
In case you haven't seen the flightgear flight simulator project, now's the time. In addition to being more accurate in a lot of aspects than any other PC-based flight simulation programs available to the general public, as well as being a popular research platform for aviation-related folks, it features a lot of exotic aircraft, including the model of the ornithopter. The ornithopter team folks, featured in TFA, collaborate with the flightgear project, and AFAIU the computer simulations mentioned in the TFA were in fact partly done with the help of the flighgear.
Great idea, the more folks in space, the better. Mod all the stupid anti-indian-outsourcing jokers as flamebait and redundant, BTW.
I wonder what will the Indian space mission participants be called? Cosmonauts, astronauts, taikonauts, now what?
this time it's a different category, and more info. Also, with this one CmdrTaco has/.-ed his own wife!:-) (I'm unable to get through to sacasta.net at just 10 comments)...
What an amazing coincidence. Having researched the matter last week when writing about the "3D Monster Maze" on the Wikipedia, I was now just about to bitch in about giving credit to "Spasim" first, when I saw this message from you.
I am tempted to try to join the cyber1.org system, but not now when it is obviously slashdotted or will soon be:)
The first versions of locate(1) had the same problem - the cronjob was indexing all the files and reporting on all the files even if the user running locate would not be able to learn of the file name. This was used as an way to circumvent the systems with the "security by obscurity" way of collaboration via random directory names. Today's slocate doesn't have this fallacy.
I wonder if any legal action from R. is possible now that the car has been tampered with by them, the interested party. How does the court know they didn't remove some evidence during their initial testing, by accident or deliberately?
will you kindly cite from the 2nd article where you've read this? I would appreciate a reference to the French original, in which I have found no such thing.
Not if he did this on the t/o roll with the gear unloaded... (I earned the complex rating in a C172RG, where the squat switch is on the nose gear, once you unload the nose, you can have it raised) OTOH I wouldn't try to risk that myself even under assurance that the plane is idiot-proof:)
I've just re-RTFA, and saw no new refs to anything from 2004 (care to quote what you're talking about?). Looks like a duplicate to me, although I am only for this kind of publicity for the proof - maybe another person would venture into verifying the proof based on this posting. Judging by the comments on this/. article, a lot of folks have seen the mention of Grisha's proof for the first time.
I am reading your comment with the following random (?!) quote inserted by the slashcode right beneath:
"Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.
Once I have posted the above, I went to the wikipedia and see what I have found there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.Sc.
So it looks that both of us are correct:)
Re:He was a philosopher, not a physicist.
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
D.Sc. is a thing that exists in Germany and in Russia and other countries that imported the German educational system. It is actually a higher degree than Ph.D., and in fact requires more significant advances (deemed by peers as true discoveries) to be achieved in the field.
Re:split in the computers just like that...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't speaking about languages split, more like embedded/realtime/comiler/vision/biological/databa se/etc. niches.
split in the computers just like that...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
P.S. We are now witnessing a similar split in the computer programming. The field has widened tremendously, and nowadays people transcending the various areas of programming are becoming more and more rare...
He was a philosopher, not a physicist.
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Back in Newton's times, scientists like himself were considering themselves and were considered by the others as philosophers, rather than specialized physicists/mathematicians/etc. (This is where the Ph. as in "Ph.D." comes from!)
This had interesting implications to the way scientific papers were written. Rather than the modern form (just about 300 old) going like "Theorem-proof-example etc.",
it was all heavily interwened with theology, intents of the creator, fabric of the world, etc., whatever the domain of the research in the natural sciences was!
With longer password, it's more likely than people will use less dense information packing (e.g., if they used mnemonics putting a letter in the passwd for a word they memorized in a mnemonic phrase, they might now go for the whole word). This will reduce the entropy further.
Free as in beer. That's not the free we're talking about here.
"OS/2 runs Windows apps better than Windows"
on
Unix To Beef Up Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sorry folks, hit submit instead of the preview on one of my revisions. Here's the other part, about OS/2.
Even before the events I have described in the parent post, when MS pulled out abruptly out of the OS/2 deals, the OS/2 developers realized the tremendous potential of the Windows marketing and upcoming installed base, as well as the multitude of applications gearing up for Windows (it was Windows 2 then! I believe Windows 3.0 was the 1st revision MS put out after they dumped the OS/2 partnership).
So the OS/2 team tried their own version of "embrace and extend". They put up a slogan that (sorry for not remembering the exact wording) said that OS/2 runs Windows applications better than Windows (and this was true in a lot of ways, but we won't digress). Their hope was that a lot of developers would thus switch to OS/2, and for those who had some legacy Windows products to use, or Windows-based product lines to continue shipping, the Windows API support from OS/2 would suffice. Eventually, developers would prefer the richer OS/2 API and Windows would become a gone thing.
Reality, as we know, was a bit different. OS/2 lost, and Windows won. The prevalent attitude among the developers and the management back then was "if OS/2 supports alias emulates Windows (architectural issues of the real thing aside), and Windows is just that - native Windows, why don't we develop only for Windows - instead of doing cross-platform design, or supporting two product lines, we'll reduce the costs this way. We'll also reduce the costs by never buying OS/2 at all - whoever wants to run it, can buy it and it will run our apps anyhow."
So with the Longhorn/UNIX compatibility it can swing both ways towards Windows. One way (the way MS prefers it to go) would be mass switching into Windows from Unix. Just like the OS/2 folks dreamt of the future swinging towards them. The other way would be for Windows to be on the receiving end of the killing machine that killed OS/2 back then.
Windows, of course, has *much* better chances now than OS/2 then. Larger codebase written over Windows - centuries and millenia of man-hours. Orders of magnitude more users. Yet this alone won't help IMHO unless Windows rides the open source wave the way Mac OS X does. But in that case, they will have to contribute back to the open source. The ugly future would be MS succeeding into convincing people that open source is bad, by FUD or litigation or whatever else, and/or luring people into seemingly open source development on Longhorn with hidden strings attached.
Slashdot Mirror
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical. Nobody would prevent you to carry your older digital camera, or an an analog one, which can then completely ignore the request for cooperation in the other person's face blurring.
this is being typed at an IBM desktop, bought circa a year ago. Debian Linux runs here, no other OS. Alternatives were Dell, which were disregarded due to Dell's poorer support and esp. due to the bold IBM's backup of Linux. Also, similar concerns have been warmly communicated to all friends and colleagues, some of which have followed suit.
In case you haven't seen the flightgear flight simulator project, now's the time. In addition to being more accurate in a lot of aspects than any other PC-based flight simulation programs available to the general public, as well as being a popular research platform for aviation-related folks, it features a lot of exotic aircraft, including the model of the ornithopter. The ornithopter team folks, featured in TFA, collaborate with the flightgear project, and AFAIU the computer simulations mentioned in the TFA were in fact partly done with the help of the flighgear.
Great idea, the more folks in space, the better. Mod all the stupid anti-indian-outsourcing jokers as flamebait and redundant, BTW. I wonder what will the Indian space mission participants be called? Cosmonauts, astronauts, taikonauts, now what?
this time it's a different category, and more info. Also, with this one CmdrTaco has /.-ed his own wife! :-) (I'm unable to get through to sacasta.net at just 10 comments)...
I am tempted to try to join the cyber1.org system, but not now when it is obviously slashdotted or will soon be :)
The first versions of locate(1) had the same problem - the cronjob was indexing all the files and reporting on all the files even if the user running locate would not be able to learn of the file name. This was used as an way to circumvent the systems with the "security by obscurity" way of collaboration via random directory names. Today's slocate doesn't have this fallacy.
I wonder if any legal action from R. is possible now that the car has been tampered with by them, the interested party. How does the court know they didn't remove some evidence during their initial testing, by accident or deliberately?
will you kindly cite from the 2nd article where you've read this? I would appreciate a reference to the French original, in which I have found no such thing.
Not if he did this on the t/o roll with the gear unloaded... (I earned the complex rating in a C172RG, where the squat switch is on the nose gear, once you unload the nose, you can have it raised) OTOH I wouldn't try to risk that myself even under assurance that the plane is idiot-proof :)
I've just re-RTFA, and saw no new refs to anything from 2004 (care to quote what you're talking about?). Looks like a duplicate to me, although I am only for this kind of publicity for the proof - maybe another person would venture into verifying the proof based on this posting. Judging by the comments on this /. article, a lot of folks have seen the mention of Grisha's proof for the first time.
I am reading your comment with the following random (?!) quote inserted by the slashcode right beneath: "Virtual" means never knowing where your next byte is coming from.
Once I have posted the above, I went to the wikipedia and see what I have found there:
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.Sc.
So it looks that both of us are correct
D.Sc. is a thing that exists in Germany and in Russia and other countries that imported the German educational system. It is actually a higher degree than Ph.D., and in fact requires more significant advances (deemed by peers as true discoveries) to be achieved in the field.
I wasn't speaking about languages split, more like embedded/realtime/comiler/vision/biological/databa se/etc. niches.
P.S. We are now witnessing a similar split in the computer programming. The field has widened tremendously, and nowadays people transcending the various areas of programming are becoming more and more rare...
This had interesting implications to the way scientific papers were written. Rather than the modern form (just about 300 old) going like "Theorem-proof-example etc.", it was all heavily interwened with theology, intents of the creator, fabric of the world, etc., whatever the domain of the research in the natural sciences was!
With longer password, it's more likely than people will use less dense information packing (e.g., if they used mnemonics putting a letter in the passwd for a word they memorized in a mnemonic phrase, they might now go for the whole word). This will reduce the entropy further.
...after a Microsoft banner ad was displayed in the face of an unsuspected director that decided to read the daily news :)
Is it patentable once they put the know-how into the public domain by publishing on the website (prior art aside)?
of course not. That would be addressed by IIALPALP (abuse logging proto of the abuse logging proto.) It is in the drafts. :)
...in this previous thread?
Free as in beer. That's not the free we're talking about here.
Sorry folks, hit submit instead of the preview on one of my revisions. Here's the other part, about OS/2.
Even before the events I have described in the parent post, when MS pulled out abruptly out of the OS/2 deals, the OS/2 developers realized the tremendous potential of the Windows marketing and upcoming installed base, as well as the multitude of applications gearing up for Windows (it was Windows 2 then! I believe Windows 3.0 was the 1st revision MS put out after they dumped the OS/2 partnership).
So the OS/2 team tried their own version of "embrace and extend". They put up a slogan that (sorry for not remembering the exact wording) said that OS/2 runs Windows applications better than Windows (and this was true in a lot of ways, but we won't digress). Their hope was that a lot of developers would thus switch to OS/2, and for those who had some legacy Windows products to use, or Windows-based product lines to continue shipping, the Windows API support from OS/2 would suffice. Eventually, developers would prefer the richer OS/2 API and Windows would become a gone thing.
Reality, as we know, was a bit different. OS/2 lost, and Windows won. The prevalent attitude among the developers and the management back then was "if OS/2 supports alias emulates Windows (architectural issues of the real thing aside), and Windows is just that - native Windows, why don't we develop only for Windows - instead of doing cross-platform design, or supporting two product lines, we'll reduce the costs this way. We'll also reduce the costs by never buying OS/2 at all - whoever wants to run it, can buy it and it will run our apps anyhow."
So with the Longhorn/UNIX compatibility it can swing both ways towards Windows. One way (the way MS prefers it to go) would be mass switching into Windows from Unix. Just like the OS/2 folks dreamt of the future swinging towards them. The other way would be for Windows to be on the receiving end of the killing machine that killed OS/2 back then.
Windows, of course, has *much* better chances now than OS/2 then. Larger codebase written over Windows - centuries and millenia of man-hours. Orders of magnitude more users. Yet this alone won't help IMHO unless Windows rides the open source wave the way Mac OS X does. But in that case, they will have to contribute back to the open source. The ugly future would be MS succeeding into convincing people that open source is bad, by FUD or litigation or whatever else, and/or luring people into seemingly open source development on Longhorn with hidden strings attached.
Time will tell.