They'll never put one in an aquarium. It's just impossible in any current or near-future tech. You'd need a pressurized, chilled, darkened tank capable of simulating huge range by moving the water. And then, nobody could look in, because human light levels would blind this beastie like you or I standing right next to a stadium-sized floodlamp.
A better solution by far would be to build some sort of long-running underwater cam with the speed and agility to keep pace with a sprinting squid, and a satellite radio link to relay back live video. The "zoo" can display this footage in lieu of a tank. Not that this wouldn't be a daunting technical task in itself, but to me it would seem to make more sense. The sea's there already, why bother to simulate it up on land? That's just redundant.
In fact, the whole "aquarium" could be that way. What's more interesting - a couple hundred tons of water full of bored fish out of their ecological context, or a bunch of live screens following real sea-creatures going about their natural daily lives?
There's never an excuse for password juggling
on
Too Many Passwords
·
· Score: 1
Changing passwords and entropy-enforcing rules seem to me like putting your cash on the table-top, then building a barb-wire fence around the table. Putting cash on the table is something you do when threats are small. If threats become larger, you put the cash in a safe, not try to secure the table.
An IT department that's worried enough it wants to juggle passwords, should instead hire a security expert. Then they can look at ideas such as requiring logins to be from a physically secured console, biometrics, challenge-response tokens, etc.
A fifth of a mile may be a tiny fraction of the distance needed to climb a real space elevator, but that's almost beside the point. If this doohickey can climb 1000 feet it can climb a hundred million, assuming the battery holds out. It just has to keep trundling upward.
The cable is the scientifically hard part, not the climber.
Why don't you consider an analogous scenario where a city decides to force all taxi drivers to give free rides in return for a fixed wage? Consider all the implications. First, mass tax-farming and fraud. Then minimum quotas, leading to stagnation of incumbents. Then quota-cheating. Then inspectors. Then bribery. Consider the result: a city paying through the nose for myriads of taxi drivers, who consider customers a meaningless checklist item while taking every opportunity to kiss up to a corrupt bureaucracy. Consider all the added intrusion, snooping, and extra anti-cheating laws, and the huge potential for organized crime.
This is what "money=speech" means. Whoever pays politicians will to a large extent determine what they care about. Private money forces them to care about what their public wants.
It must be a scary experience to be in commercial competition with Google. Not only do they know literally everything about you, right down to where you grandmother buys porn, but they can predict you before you move. It must be rather like fighting the Kwisatz Haderach.
Google is the singularity. You will want to be be assimilated.
OpenDoc wasn't confusing because it was new, it was confusing because it was a bad idea. Multiple app-private binary encodings mixed up inside a container document that only supported inclusion, not interpretation. No one app able to see or manipulate the page as a whole. No standardized data representation for any particular purpose, so you needed the exact same part binary to even view the document.
The users rejected it because it was ill concieved, unnecessary and made no sense. Being stuck in a rut had nothing to do with it.
Now, if you want to see the same idea done right, how about... Open Document, the native file format of OOo version 2. Edit your words in KOffice, your sheets in OOo Calc, and your drawings in something else entirely, then mix them all up in one common file format, which is built on XML so that all data is readable and accessible even if no app exists to manipulate it.
Also, it's untrue that people only interact with those they agree with. There are always points of contact - example: libertarians and lefties beating each other up on/.
Plus, there are major advantages to hanging out with those who share most of your views. Such as: you get to talk about expert level stuff. I'm sure that, for example, evolutionary biologists would prefer to chat about the genetic implications of the latest dinosaur find in China, than be continually swatting down ill-argued crap from god-botherers.
Suppose you want to build a space elevator. A way to do this, is to launch a spool of "starter" cable into geosynchronous orbit, and wind the cable down until it reaches earth. So then, how to launch it? How about: with their new heavy lift rocket?
We the people do hereby decree: "Hold a tournament, appoint the victor king, and switch off this nuisance of a democracy mechanism." [yes] [no] [abstain]
No, because it can ship up a deorbiter
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
I'm guessing here, but surely the "heavy lift vehicle" can ship a deorbiter of some sort - not needing to be man-rated, it could be quite crude, little more than a flat packed box for in orbit assembly, containing a chute, a heat shield, and a lot of cargo space.
1) A laptop with admin rights, that has no direct access to our LAN, but only a connection to a special quarantine server, which we will use to check everything you upload before letting it out onto our LAN, or...
2) A laptop with no admin rights, locked down so tight you can't even change your own wallpaper, but which is a full peer on the LAN.
You get to pick whichever suits your working style best."
Perfect grammar checkers are impossible with less-than-human AI and good ones are extremely difficult. But I posit, even adequate ones are useful!
The function of a grammar checker, to me at least, is to catch common stylistic faux pas, and to backstop a spell checker with some intelligence about what word belongs where. It can't do your thinking for you, true. But it can catch when you've goofed egregiously - which everyone does sometimes.
Clustering exposes complications regarding: shared data, latency, concurrency, transactions, central control, security, failovers, and so forth. It's hard because it's hard.
Hire a competent, certified linux admin. Demote yourself to changeover manager (windows side). Study as an apprentice under the trained Linux admin. Expect to take at least 2 years to become competent to "fly solo".
BTW, since you know Apple, why the hell are you planning on Linux? Apple kit may cost, but not as much as doubling the staff for a couple years, and the modern stuff has all the Unix advantages.
The trouble with making the filesystem too fancified, is that you end up with 2 namespaces of tool programs - the stuff in/bin and the stuff in filesystem plugins. And, there's not necessarily any sensible dividing line as to what belongs where. He talks about a "childcat" plugin that would merge the contents of a diretory into a single virtual file. But why seperate this from the existing cat command?
You can see the confusingness in the command line he gives, "cat/home/reiser/mp3s/..../childcat >/dev/dsp". Two totally different ways of performing two very similar tasks, strung together in a single command line. You'd need to understand both to begin making sense of it - how to call them, how to pass options. You'd need to understand that "cat" was available to the whole system but "childcat" only on disks formatted reiser4. You'd need to learn which tasks were divvied up into what sphere. Can you imagine the difficulties in explaining this all to a Unix beginner?
Reiser4 looks nice in many ways, but it does seem to suffer from "if all you've got is a hammer..."
MAD referred to the Soviet-USA standoff. They both had enough nukes to kill everyone repeatedly. Their power was equal, hence the "mutual". This preemptive thing by contrast is intended to be very asymmetric - less MAD, more like a license to swat flies with a sledgehammer.
Have you ever used Zone Alarm firewall? Nifty little tool. Basically does exactly what this guy suggests: ask "may this access the internet [Y/N]" for each program that tries. Simple, yet really effective in catching malware.
Steps of dynamic routing: 1. discover an efficient route 2. detect loss of connectivity 3. goto 1
This is only step 2 and only for a finite, non-expanding, known set of nodes whose relative topological positions are pre-arranged for convenience. Ie in terms of relative complexity this is to Tic-tac-toe as dynamic routing is Go.
...in particular, they are very useful for a process that programmatically transforms many input records into few output, that can't be done in declarative SQL. Otherwise, you'd have to pipe those many input over whatever network to the handler program. A database procedural language can operate on them in-line and without ever constructing or transporting huge data structures - then merely send you the results.
"all data will have to pass over multiple peers to reach anonimity" is AFAIK not how Freenet does it. Freenet's anonymity comes from never knowing who fed data into the mutual cache, not from Tor style multiple-hop routing.
IIRC it's slow now because of old design decisions that have been changed for the upcoming version. In principle, since Freenet is a cacheing system, there's no reason why it can't be equally fast as a torrent download.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll never put one in an aquarium. It's just impossible in any current or near-future tech. You'd need a pressurized, chilled, darkened tank capable of simulating huge range by moving the water. And then, nobody could look in, because human light levels would blind this beastie like you or I standing right next to a stadium-sized floodlamp.
A better solution by far would be to build some sort of long-running underwater cam with the speed and agility to keep pace with a sprinting squid, and a satellite radio link to relay back live video. The "zoo" can display this footage in lieu of a tank. Not that this wouldn't be a daunting technical task in itself, but to me it would seem to make more sense. The sea's there already, why bother to simulate it up on land? That's just redundant.
In fact, the whole "aquarium" could be that way. What's more interesting - a couple hundred tons of water full of bored fish out of their ecological context, or a bunch of live screens following real sea-creatures going about their natural daily lives?
Changing passwords and entropy-enforcing rules seem to me like putting your cash on the table-top, then building a barb-wire fence around the table. Putting cash on the table is something you do when threats are small. If threats become larger, you put the cash in a safe, not try to secure the table.
An IT department that's worried enough it wants to juggle passwords, should instead hire a security expert. Then they can look at ideas such as requiring logins to be from a physically secured console, biometrics, challenge-response tokens, etc.
...it would make more sense to just make the bag out of transparent plastic?
A fifth of a mile may be a tiny fraction of the distance needed to climb a real space elevator, but that's almost beside the point. If this doohickey can climb 1000 feet it can climb a hundred million, assuming the battery holds out. It just has to keep trundling upward.
The cable is the scientifically hard part, not the climber.
It does sound as though "planet" is a bit of arbitrary distinction. Does science need it, or is is really only useful as a layman's word?
Still, if I had to, the one I'd choose is: "non-fusioning sun-orbiting object made spherical by the force of its own gravity".
...how these people use "employees and children" in one sentence. It's as if they think the two are nearly synonymous.
Why don't you consider an analogous scenario where a city decides to force all taxi drivers to give free rides in return for a fixed wage? Consider all the implications. First, mass tax-farming and fraud. Then minimum quotas, leading to stagnation of incumbents. Then quota-cheating. Then inspectors. Then bribery. Consider the result: a city paying through the nose for myriads of taxi drivers, who consider customers a meaningless checklist item while taking every opportunity to kiss up to a corrupt bureaucracy. Consider all the added intrusion, snooping, and extra anti-cheating laws, and the huge potential for organized crime.
This is what "money=speech" means. Whoever pays politicians will to a large extent determine what they care about. Private money forces them to care about what their public wants.
It must be a scary experience to be in commercial competition with Google. Not only do they know literally everything about you, right down to where you grandmother buys porn, but they can predict you before you move. It must be rather like fighting the Kwisatz Haderach.
Google is the singularity. You will want to be be assimilated.
OpenDoc wasn't confusing because it was new, it was confusing because it was a bad idea. Multiple app-private binary encodings mixed up inside a container document that only supported inclusion, not interpretation. No one app able to see or manipulate the page as a whole. No standardized data representation for any particular purpose, so you needed the exact same part binary to even view the document.
The users rejected it because it was ill concieved, unnecessary and made no sense. Being stuck in a rut had nothing to do with it.
Now, if you want to see the same idea done right, how about... Open Document, the native file format of OOo version 2. Edit your words in KOffice, your sheets in OOo Calc, and your drawings in something else entirely, then mix them all up in one common file format, which is built on XML so that all data is readable and accessible even if no app exists to manipulate it.
Also, it's untrue that people only interact with those they agree with. There are always points of contact - example: libertarians and lefties beating each other up on /.
Plus, there are major advantages to hanging out with those who share most of your views. Such as: you get to talk about expert level stuff. I'm sure that, for example, evolutionary biologists would prefer to chat about the genetic implications of the latest dinosaur find in China, than be continually swatting down ill-argued crap from god-botherers.
Suppose you want to build a space elevator. A way to do this, is to launch a spool of "starter" cable into geosynchronous orbit, and wind the cable down until it reaches earth. So then, how to launch it? How about: with their new heavy lift rocket?
We the people do hereby decree:
"Hold a tournament, appoint the victor king, and switch off this nuisance of a democracy mechanism."
[yes] [no] [abstain]
I'm guessing here, but surely the "heavy lift vehicle" can ship a deorbiter of some sort - not needing to be man-rated, it could be quite crude, little more than a flat packed box for in orbit assembly, containing a chute, a heat shield, and a lot of cargo space.
IT boss to employee: "you have two choices:
1) A laptop with admin rights, that has no direct access to our LAN, but only a connection to a special quarantine server, which we will use to check everything you upload before letting it out onto our LAN, or...
2) A laptop with no admin rights, locked down so tight you can't even change your own wallpaper, but which is a full peer on the LAN.
You get to pick whichever suits your working style best."
Perfect grammar checkers are impossible with less-than-human AI and good ones are extremely difficult. But I posit, even adequate ones are useful!
The function of a grammar checker, to me at least, is to catch common stylistic faux pas, and to backstop a spell checker with some intelligence about what word belongs where. It can't do your thinking for you, true. But it can catch when you've goofed egregiously - which everyone does sometimes.
Clustering exposes complications regarding: shared data, latency, concurrency, transactions, central control, security, failovers, and so forth. It's hard because it's hard.
Hire a competent, certified linux admin. Demote yourself to changeover manager (windows side). Study as an apprentice under the trained Linux admin. Expect to take at least 2 years to become competent to "fly solo".
BTW, since you know Apple, why the hell are you planning on Linux? Apple kit may cost, but not as much as doubling the staff for a couple years, and the modern stuff has all the Unix advantages.
The trouble with making the filesystem too fancified, is that you end up with 2 namespaces of tool programs - the stuff in /bin and the stuff in filesystem plugins. And, there's not necessarily any sensible dividing line as to what belongs where. He talks about a "childcat" plugin that would merge the contents of a diretory into a single virtual file. But why seperate this from the existing cat command?
/home/reiser/mp3s/..../childcat > /dev/dsp". Two totally different ways of performing two very similar tasks, strung together in a single command line. You'd need to understand both to begin making sense of it - how to call them, how to pass options. You'd need to understand that "cat" was available to the whole system but "childcat" only on disks formatted reiser4. You'd need to learn which tasks were divvied up into what sphere. Can you imagine the difficulties in explaining this all to a Unix beginner?
You can see the confusingness in the command line he gives, "cat
Reiser4 looks nice in many ways, but it does seem to suffer from "if all you've got is a hammer..."
MAD referred to the Soviet-USA standoff. They both had enough nukes to kill everyone repeatedly. Their power was equal, hence the "mutual". This preemptive thing by contrast is intended to be very asymmetric - less MAD, more like a license to swat flies with a sledgehammer.
Have you ever used Zone Alarm firewall? Nifty little tool. Basically does exactly what this guy suggests: ask "may this access the internet [Y/N]" for each program that tries. Simple, yet really effective in catching malware.
Steps of dynamic routing:
1. discover an efficient route
2. detect loss of connectivity
3. goto 1
This is only step 2 and only for a finite, non-expanding, known set of nodes whose relative topological positions are pre-arranged for convenience. Ie in terms of relative complexity this is to Tic-tac-toe as dynamic routing is Go.
...in particular, they are very useful for a process that programmatically transforms many input records into few output, that can't be done in declarative SQL. Otherwise, you'd have to pipe those many input over whatever network to the handler program. A database procedural language can operate on them in-line and without ever constructing or transporting huge data structures - then merely send you the results.
"all data will have to pass over multiple peers to reach anonimity" is AFAIK not how Freenet does it. Freenet's anonymity comes from never knowing who fed data into the mutual cache, not from Tor style multiple-hop routing.
IIRC it's slow now because of old design decisions that have been changed for the upcoming version. In principle, since Freenet is a cacheing system, there's no reason why it can't be equally fast as a torrent download.