The exact same way you make any transmitted information (such as a text password) secure. There is exactly zero fundamental difference between the problem sets. You still have to prevent eavesdropping at all the various levels at which it occurs, and you still have to choose the information in such a way that it is not easily guessable or deducible (don't choose a family member's birthday or anywhere around your house).
By degree I am a Computer Scientist, and I also emphatically agree with everything you have said, particularly your handyman analogy.
Part of the problem, which causes me no end of grief, is that when most people go to school to become "Computer Scientists", they are really trying to become handymen. Most universities do not do a particularly good job of discouraging this notion, partially due to economics, and partially due to the fact that there is no distinct classification for "code handyman".
I recently interviewed someone with a Computer Science degree from a very respectable private university who could not even attempt an explanation of what NP-Complete meant. Because of the university in question I feel sure beyond doubt that he must have been exposed to and tested on this information, yet it was blatantly obvious that this person was more concerned with whether or not he could say he "knew Java", or some such. When this person went on to say that he felt that the university had not adequately prepared him for the job market, my head nearly exploded! (and not just because this is a stupid thing to say in an interview). Admittedly, this is an extreme case of this sort of mentality, but I have observed that milder cases seem to predominate the industry known as "Software Engineering".
To make matters worse, the majority of programmers I know are not even familiar with the idea that something can be formally verified as correct, and they will even go so far as to reject the notion that there is such a thing as "correct"!! They will say something to the effect of, "how can you tell if something is correct when there are a thousand different ways to accomplish the goal", as if a plurality of solutions implies that there are no wrong ones.
It is as if all of the mathematics generally required for such a degree mean nothing.
My job title is Senior Software Engineer.
However, when people ask what I do I try to give them an accurate descriptive answer of what I actually spend my day doing that I think is most meaningful to them. Depending on the audience, this usually turns out to be "Computer Scientist", or sometimes even "Mathematician" (especially if I think they are going to ask me to fix their computer).
Yes. Actual Information Technology. It has been my experience that the projects that have been successfully outsourced are projects that involve zero new technology and have traditionally been implemented by considerably overpaid "engineers" who can't tell the difference between a Turing Machine and a vending machine.
In my opinion, 2/3'rds of the software engineers I have ever met deserve to loose their jobs for the simple reason that the resources they consume are more valuable than their net production, usually by a staggering margin. It is as simple as that.
Yes, my job title is "Sr. Software Engineer". No, I will not tow the union line.
If the WEF can afford professional translators and costly computers, in Porto Alegre, translators are volunteers, and the software to distribute the translations is open-source.
Can anyone tell me what, exactly, this sentence is trying to express?
If this happens, how do black holes grow or ever consume anything?
Or, for that matter, how do they exist at all?
If all black holes evaporate when left to their own devices, and any particle takes an infinate amount of time to pass the event horizon (and/or the black hole always evaporates before the particle gets there), then Black Holes are impossible, because they could never actually consume anything and they would always evaporate.
There is something wrong with your argument, and I think it has to do with your understanding of how extreme relativity works.
Or, maybe your argument is correct and black holes don't exists. No black hole has ever walked up to me and asked the time of day.:)
Consider that the time dilation at the event horizon is "infinite" according to relativity, thus an infalling particle would require infinite time to cross this boundary.
Actually, this is not entirely correct. Remember that time warp effect is just a relationship between two space-time frameworks. From the particle's perspective, it would not take infinite time and would be just like crossing any other arbitrary point in space. It's just in our perception, being in a different framework than the particle, that time for the particle seems to move infinatly slower as it approaches the horizon.
This is more a measurment of how different our framework is from that at the location of the event horizon than it is a description of the actual behavior of the particle within it's own framework.
Good lord. How is this comment "Flamebait"??? It has a quote from the article accompanied by a cynical and disparaging remarks about a proven enemy of Linux. I vote for +5, Insightful.
The men and women who play the stock market on a regular basis are no fools...
Umm, shows what you know. The key phrase here is "regular basis". If you play the stock market on a regular basis, you are either a stock market professional or, by definition, a so-called day trader. I would venture to guess that foolish day traders outnumber wise day traders (if there is such a thing) and non-foolish stock market professionals about 100:1
Additionally, stock market professionals that are focused on short term gains do not care at all about a companies potental long term profits (duhh..). Rather, they make their money anticipating changes in perception. Despite what anyone tells you, perception is not reality. Generally, the reality of a company does not actually change as fast as this type of stock flux (read "perception") would indicate. This means that usually in this sort of stock flux situation, many people (enough to drive the stock up, or sometimes down that far) have a perception that does not jive with reality. As far as I'm concerned, this is the definition of "fool". QED.
It seems to me that the sheer volume of individual stock flux in todays market indicates that there are indeed a vast number fools that play the stock market on a regular basis.
hmm... I hope they have an good explanation for how the blood stays in a supercooled state.
My understanding is that liquid is a supercooled state is very unstable. I saw a small mud puddle (in Canada) that had gotten into a supercooled state because the temperature was dropping very slowly and the puddle was not disturbed at all. But if you disturb it even a little, the whole thing would freeze solid. Does this happen to the squirls? What happens if you kick a hibernating squirel?
Right. And "corporations" (or whoever) would have less control over what we did with "their" information. That's the way we wan't it. This is not an "expantion" of any "right". This is only a limitation applied to everyone.
In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it.
I think you are confused here. This bill is formalizing this concept. According to this bill, if I were to collect a bunch of information, you could be liable if you in any way used all or part of that information. This bill does not limit the "colector's" use of the information, it only limits the rest of us. This is despite the fact that the supreme court has already stated that this is wrong.
The police help to maintin order, to protect, to serve, etc.
HAH!.. it is clear from this statement that you know nothing whatsoever about police..:)
But really, despite their slogan, police are not leagaly obligated to protect or to serve anyone. In many places (like where I live) they are specifically discuraged from this sort of behavior. And dig this, they actually state the reason as: "our time is too valuable to deal with individuals, we need to be out catching criminals." Well, that's fine, but a) they generally do it with typical civil-servant effectiveness, and b) the "criminals" are then released. Sherifs and (to some extent) State Troopers are generally a lot better about this sort of thing.
I don't know about their initial hiring practices, but Southwest Airlies does NOT care about your degree for promotions. If you prove yourself, you got it.
According to statistics from 1997 to 1999, Canadian women have a life expectancy of 81.4 years compared with 75.9 years for men.
But when deaths from preventable causes are excluded, life expectancy for women is 73.5 years, slightly less than the average of 73.9 for men.
Let me get this straight... eliminating deaths from preventable causes actually decreases the average woman's life expectancy...?? I don't get it.
Or better yet, we could build a computer that based on base 10..
(before you say I'm crazy, remember that I'm just talking about building a machine, whereas you're talking about altering millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of a particular though pattern..:)
On a related note: in approximately that same time frame the amount of income the average person spends on taxes (hidden and otherwise, state, federal, fees for car registration, building permits, etc., etc.) has risen from about 8% to just over 50% (remember, in addition your 25% paycheck witholding, your employer pays the government almost that much on your behalf, plus whatever crappy taxes they pay on their own behalf). They have to have something to spend all that money on.
Slashdot Mirror
The exact same way you make any transmitted information (such as a text password) secure. There is exactly zero fundamental difference between the problem sets. You still have to prevent eavesdropping at all the various levels at which it occurs, and you still have to choose the information in such a way that it is not easily guessable or deducible (don't choose a family member's birthday or anywhere around your house).
The headline for this article is not clever. It is unclear. Unclear is not the same as clever.
I can not, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would have "Thought that 2009 was the year botnets died". Really?
Thought that 2009 was the year cancer was cured? Well think again! .. wtf?
By degree I am a Computer Scientist, and I also emphatically agree with everything you have said, particularly your handyman analogy.
Part of the problem, which causes me no end of grief, is that when most people go to school to become "Computer Scientists", they are really trying to become handymen. Most universities do not do a particularly good job of discouraging this notion, partially due to economics, and partially due to the fact that there is no distinct classification for "code handyman".
I recently interviewed someone with a Computer Science degree from a very respectable private university who could not even attempt an explanation of what NP-Complete meant. Because of the university in question I feel sure beyond doubt that he must have been exposed to and tested on this information, yet it was blatantly obvious that this person was more concerned with whether or not he could say he "knew Java", or some such. When this person went on to say that he felt that the university had not adequately prepared him for the job market, my head nearly exploded! (and not just because this is a stupid thing to say in an interview). Admittedly, this is an extreme case of this sort of mentality, but I have observed that milder cases seem to predominate the industry known as "Software Engineering".
To make matters worse, the majority of programmers I know are not even familiar with the idea that something can be formally verified as correct, and they will even go so far as to reject the notion that there is such a thing as "correct"!! They will say something to the effect of, "how can you tell if something is correct when there are a thousand different ways to accomplish the goal", as if a plurality of solutions implies that there are no wrong ones.
It is as if all of the mathematics generally required for such a degree mean nothing.
My job title is Senior Software Engineer. However, when people ask what I do I try to give them an accurate descriptive answer of what I actually spend my day doing that I think is most meaningful to them. Depending on the audience, this usually turns out to be "Computer Scientist", or sometimes even "Mathematician" (especially if I think they are going to ask me to fix their computer).
Anything else?
Yes. Actual Information Technology. It has been my experience that the projects that have been successfully outsourced are projects that involve zero new technology and have traditionally been implemented by considerably overpaid "engineers" who can't tell the difference between a Turing Machine and a vending machine.
In my opinion, 2/3'rds of the software engineers I have ever met deserve to loose their jobs for the simple reason that the resources they consume are more valuable than their net production, usually by a staggering margin. It is as simple as that.
Yes, my job title is "Sr. Software Engineer". No, I will not tow the union line.
AH HA!, One step closer to the flying cars we were promised.
Congradulations. You win.
You are exactly correct.
Canadians have a serious problem: corruption in government, with money being funneled in illegal ways.
Oh My Fucking God.
Go to Nigerea, or Egypt, or Thiland, or etc..
The only difference is those countries don't even bother to use the term "illegal".
The Nigerian government will "funnel" funds from your wallet using a legal mechanism called '24 inch machete'.
If the WEF can afford professional translators and costly computers, in Porto Alegre, translators are volunteers, and the software to distribute the translations is open-source.
Can anyone tell me what, exactly, this sentence is trying to express?
Thanks...
Pot/Kettle black?
Just because we do it doesn't make it right.
If this happens, how do black holes grow or ever consume anything?
:)
Or, for that matter, how do they exist at all?
If all black holes evaporate when left to their own devices, and any particle takes an infinate amount of time to pass the event horizon (and/or the black hole always evaporates before the particle gets there), then Black Holes are impossible, because they could never actually consume anything and they would always evaporate.
There is something wrong with your argument, and I think it has to do with your understanding of how extreme relativity works.
Or, maybe your argument is correct and black holes don't exists. No black hole has ever walked up to me and asked the time of day.
Consider that the time dilation at the event horizon is "infinite" according to relativity, thus an infalling particle would require infinite time to cross this boundary.
Actually, this is not entirely correct. Remember that time warp effect is just a relationship between two space-time frameworks. From the particle's perspective, it would not take infinite time and would be just like crossing any other arbitrary point in space. It's just in our perception, being in a different framework than the particle, that time for the particle seems to move infinatly slower as it approaches the horizon.
This is more a measurment of how different our framework is from that at the location of the event horizon than it is a description of the actual behavior of the particle within it's own framework.
If something is advertised as "Under $50!!!" you can bet it's not $19.95.
Good lord. How is this comment "Flamebait"??? It has a quote from the article accompanied by a cynical and disparaging remarks about a proven enemy of Linux. I vote for +5, Insightful.
The men and women who play the stock market on a regular basis are no fools ...
Umm, shows what you know. The key phrase here is "regular basis". If you play the stock market on a regular basis, you are either a stock market professional or, by definition, a so-called day trader. I would venture to guess that foolish day traders outnumber wise day traders (if there is such a thing) and non-foolish stock market professionals about 100:1
Additionally, stock market professionals that are focused on short term gains do not care at all about a companies potental long term profits (duhh..). Rather, they make their money anticipating changes in perception. Despite what anyone tells you, perception is not reality. Generally, the reality of a company does not actually change as fast as this type of stock flux (read "perception") would indicate. This means that usually in this sort of stock flux situation, many people (enough to drive the stock up, or sometimes down that far) have a perception that does not jive with reality. As far as I'm concerned, this is the definition of "fool". QED.
It seems to me that the sheer volume of individual stock flux in todays market indicates that there are indeed a vast number fools that play the stock market on a regular basis.
hmm... I hope they have an good explanation for how the blood stays in a supercooled state.
My understanding is that liquid is a supercooled state is very unstable. I saw a small mud puddle (in Canada) that had gotten into a supercooled state because the temperature was dropping very slowly and the puddle was not disturbed at all. But if you disturb it even a little, the whole thing would freeze solid. Does this happen to the squirls? What happens if you kick a hibernating squirel?
Right. And "corporations" (or whoever) would have less control over what we did with "their" information. That's the way we wan't it. This is not an "expantion" of any "right". This is only a limitation applied to everyone.
In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it.
I think you are confused here. This bill is formalizing this concept. According to this bill, if I were to collect a bunch of information, you could be liable if you in any way used all or part of that information. This bill does not limit the "colector's" use of the information, it only limits the rest of us. This is despite the fact that the supreme court has already stated that this is wrong.
The police help to maintin order, to protect, to serve, etc.
:)
HAH!.. it is clear from this statement that you know nothing whatsoever about police..
But really, despite their slogan, police are not leagaly obligated to protect or to serve anyone. In many places (like where I live) they are specifically discuraged from this sort of behavior. And dig this, they actually state the reason as: "our time is too valuable to deal with individuals, we need to be out catching criminals." Well, that's fine, but a) they generally do it with typical civil-servant effectiveness, and b) the "criminals" are then released. Sherifs and (to some extent) State Troopers are generally a lot better about this sort of thing.
I don't know about their initial hiring practices, but Southwest Airlies does NOT care about your degree for promotions. If you prove yourself, you got it.
According to statistics from 1997 to 1999, Canadian women have a life expectancy of 81.4 years compared with 75.9 years for men. But when deaths from preventable causes are excluded, life expectancy for women is 73.5 years, slightly less than the average of 73.9 for men.
Let me get this straight... eliminating deaths from preventable causes actually decreases the average woman's life expectancy...?? I don't get it.
Hmm... I guess that means it was some sort of signal designed to let people know that the transformer shut down..
It's a smoke signal. Remember, there is no power so sending a failure alert via the internet isn't really feasable.. really.
Or better yet, we could build a computer that based on base 10..
:)
(before you say I'm crazy, remember that I'm just talking about building a machine, whereas you're talking about altering millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of a particular though pattern..
On a related note: in approximately that same time frame the amount of income the average person spends on taxes (hidden and otherwise, state, federal, fees for car registration, building permits, etc., etc.) has risen from about 8% to just over 50% (remember, in addition your 25% paycheck witholding, your employer pays the government almost that much on your behalf, plus whatever crappy taxes they pay on their own behalf). They have to have something to spend all that money on.