Sorry to FU to self, but my calls for Puthoff, Targ and Swann seem to be answered...
The innerx bozos have the following: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/ QuanConReson ance.html#PSIres
Which contains these 5 words, quite near the top: "As Jack Sarfatti points out...".
For those that don't know, Jack Sarfatti is a kook who ranks _right up there_ with the gods of kookdom. Shoulder to shoulder with Puthoff, certainly. Google groups for more info, as he spews his nonsense over sci.math and sci.physics.* . Remember to have a cold compress though, as he'll make your brain want to self-destruct.
Bleh, them Arizona guys be kooks: http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hamer off/New/ Time_Flies/Time_Flies.htm
I could pull down their experiment in a fraction of a second. But heck, I'd have 4 seconds to pull it down, by the looks of it. (Hint - when a stimulus is detected in advance of the emotive image being shown, _change_ the image to a random one. (Changing to a non-emotive one would give the kooks ammo for a new claim that you predict the opposite, so keeping it random guarantees no bias either way))
More evidence of US universities going to pot. Roll out Puthoff, Targ, Swann, and the SRI, that's what I say.
I thin kyou've missed his point. He says "we shouldn't need anti-virus software, the system should be more solid". And you reply "but you'd complain if they added anti-virus software to the OS".
Darn right he'd complain - as would I. You've (MS) not solved the problem of insecurity, you've elastoplasted the system with post-facto (the virus must be known about to be detected, in general) kludges.
YAW.
Re:DVD-A and SACD aren't much better anyway
on
The Future of the CD
·
· Score: 1
Good post.
If you ever do listening tests yourself you will see that the quality of a CD is more limited by the production than the medium itself. 99% of CDs are badly produced.
I remember when I thought I'd damaged my speakers I did some listening tests, and CD after CD sounded imperfect, and I was sure there was permanent damage! However, I finally found one CD (The Cure) which was so perfectly produced that it became clear that there was nothing wrong with the speakers at all.
Oh, regarding limits of audibility, the 18kHz limit is where the sensitivity has dropped to pretty much nothing - most people won't actaully hear much above 14-15kHz, or detect sound at that frequency, unless it's in isolation.
You're not suggesting that the same guy who pushed factor-hard PK algorithms (which he had a patent on) rather than dlog-hard PK algorithms which are at least as strong as factor-hard algorithms might not be a 100%-straight-up for-the-benefit-of-the-masses kind of person, are you?
If someone discovers a revolutionary factoring algorithm asymptotically, (and linear term) faster than what we have today (which are suspected to exist by most mathematicians), then RSA is kaput, but the dlog-based ones will remain unaffected.
I too think the proposed scheme seems to have some flaws, as described in that article anyway.
If the vendor can know the value of your token, then he can refuse to take ones with no value. What do you do when the vendor says "I'm sorry sir, but there seems to be a problem with your token, are you sure it's not a forged one?". Do you give him a different one?
Also, how are we supposed to know that the ratio of tokens with values is exactly 1/20. It's in peppercoin's favour if only 1/25 have a value. Surely we (or merchants) have to trust them, yet they're financially involved. Why should we trust them to not rip us off? $0.50 for every token would mean no possibility to rip anyone off.
Introducing a third party that someone has to trust means that there are now _6_ trust relations rather than _2_. That's _worse_ than the status quo, IMHO.
Won't catch on. I bet you $10 on that (or maybe $0, you'll find out later).
""" Back to the article, since number 8 is practically word for word pulled from that loser who's suing them for decreasing his page rank, """
I just assumed this _was_ the guy who was trying to sue them! Either way, he's a paranoid kook.
He's not just a kook, he's provably an idiot too. Just look at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/urldemo.htm a nd see how many paragraphs you need to read before you find something that's/just plain incorrect/. I only cite that page as it's the only one I could pull, his server seems to be under some load.
Do you think he knows he's been slash-dotted? Do you think he keeps referer logs? Hehehhe, take that line of thought whereever you like...
Never been used? What a waste - it needs to be turned into an outdoor karting circuit. That was the best use of an old landing strip I've ever seen (and made use of). (Though in Michigan, probably not an all-year circuit!)
What happended to the reseachers in Oxford (not pure departmental research, they'd spun out an independent company with university backing) who had something along the lines of "dynamically compiled C onto FPGAs" about 4 years ago?
(It was probably more like Occam than C, to be honest, as parallelism was a given. However, Car Hoarne was not involved in this spin-off.)
Note, I did not mean toimply that the topology they use is a tree, but that a tree could also be called a fractal too.
I was just overly annoyed at them as they told me that I'd "Loaded page in 0.012 seconds", when it took about 2 fucking seconds. That means: a) they're liars b) they're tossers for making such a fucking stupid statement.
Have you tried 'w3m'? It's far prettier (and I mean lays stuff out better, not eye-candy) than lynx. In fact I prefer 'links' to lynx too. (I've used lynx for many years, so I'm not dissing it, it's just that I think I've moved onwards and upwards by switching to w3m.)
BZZZT! You invoked Mallory as soon as you said "It's not hard to construct two blocks..." That's a _malicious_ _sentient_ attack.
So your error model is that there's an intelligent being deliberately intercepting blocks and trying to modify them?
And your comment about the probability of a collision for a CRC is just plain wrong. There was a thread about this on sci.crypt about 2 weeks ago. Go read at google. ('checksum' probably being a useful search term.)
Opera just grabbed 750KB of data, and then seemed to only display about 10KB worth of images. What were the other 740KB I wonder? It looked attrocious, for reference. Designed by fuckwits.
You can break out using/proc/ so you don't want a/proc/ filesystem accessible to a chrooted program. That means that you can't use any program that relies on/proc/. That's not a big hindrance most of the time.
Pretty nifty. It also gets round the silly firewall at work. They block all ftp access, but I can still move files between home and work machines using HTTP.
So for uploading thru' firewalls, it just can't be beat.
It's not just the name, but what about the logo? """ The logo, featuring a striking magenta color and a completely new shape, suggests flight, mobility, and forward movement. """
Yeah, and you end up with O(n^2) algorithms instead of O(1) ones, because there's already a algorithm that does the job in O(n) time that you call O(n) times.
In the last project I worked for I binned (and replaced) about 4 times as many worker-hours of code than I was at the company, as it was inane "hell, it seems to work" sloppines. Telling my boss' boss' boss that 6 of the coders weren't worth shit left me leading a team of 3 rather than 9, and we ended up being _more_ productive because of it. The coders whose code I binned were all primarily Java coders, the coders I retained were originally C++ coders. They had a far better idea of how to "do it right" rather than "do it quick". (Which wasn't quick, as I said before, as my productivity was 6 times theirs. Then again I had more experience than all of them put together.)
I got 2/3 of my team "moved to other projects", and the morale of the remaining 3 skyrocketed!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to FU to self, but my calls for Puthoff, Targ and Swann seem to be answered...
/ QuanConReson ance.html#PSIres
The innerx bozos have the following:
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith
Which contains these 5 words, quite near the top:
"As Jack Sarfatti points out...".
For those that don't know, Jack Sarfatti is a kook who ranks _right up there_ with the gods of kookdom. Shoulder to shoulder with Puthoff, certainly. Google groups for more info, as he spews his nonsense over sci.math and sci.physics.* . Remember to have a cold compress though, as he'll make your brain want to self-destruct.
YAW.
Bleh, them Arizona guys be kooks:r off/New/ Time_Flies/Time_Flies.htm
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hame
I could pull down their experiment in a fraction of a second. But heck, I'd have 4 seconds to pull it down, by the looks of it.
(Hint - when a stimulus is detected in advance of the emotive image being shown, _change_ the image to a random one. (Changing to a non-emotive one would give the kooks ammo for a new claim that you predict the opposite, so keeping it random guarantees no bias either way))
More evidence of US universities going to pot.
Roll out Puthoff, Targ, Swann, and the SRI, that's what I say.
YAW.
I'm glad NASA research has finally reached the level of what I used to muck around with then I was 7 years old.
What's next? Pee-pee research?
YAW.
"""
What's to stop a shell script from reading your Pine addressbook and using 'mailx' to send e-mails out all over the place? Nothing.
"""
Straw man.
A human needs to run a shell script.
The concept of *automatically* executing anything not in a sandbox is _broken_, and that makes Outlook broken, and Pine not broken.
YAW
I thin kyou've missed his point.
He says "we shouldn't need anti-virus software, the system should be more solid".
And you reply "but you'd complain if they added anti-virus software to the OS".
Darn right he'd complain - as would I. You've (MS) not solved the problem of insecurity, you've elastoplasted the system with post-facto (the virus must be known about to be detected, in general) kludges.
YAW.
Good post.
If you ever do listening tests yourself you will see that the quality of a CD is more limited by the production than the medium itself. 99% of CDs are badly produced.
I remember when I thought I'd damaged my speakers I did some listening tests, and CD after CD sounded imperfect, and I was sure there was permanent damage! However, I finally found one CD (The Cure) which was so perfectly produced that it became clear that there was nothing wrong with the speakers at all.
Oh, regarding limits of audibility, the 18kHz limit is where the sensitivity has dropped to pretty much nothing - most people won't actaully hear much above 14-15kHz, or detect sound at that frequency, unless it's in isolation.
YAW.
"""
a seekable audio medium you don't have to turn over to finish listening to.
"""
I believe those cunning Japanese are working on an auto-reverse tape player as we speak!
YAW.
You're not suggesting that the same guy who pushed factor-hard PK algorithms (which he had a patent on) rather than dlog-hard PK algorithms which are at least as strong as factor-hard algorithms might not be a 100%-straight-up for-the-benefit-of-the-masses kind of person, are you?
If someone discovers a revolutionary factoring algorithm asymptotically, (and linear term) faster than what we have today (which are suspected to exist by most mathematicians), then RSA is kaput, but the dlog-based ones will remain unaffected.
Academic? He's in it for the money.
YAW.
I too think the proposed scheme seems to have some flaws, as described in that article anyway.
If the vendor can know the value of your token, then he can refuse to take ones with no value.
What do you do when the vendor says "I'm sorry sir, but there seems to be a problem with your token, are you sure it's not a forged one?". Do you give him a different one?
Also, how are we supposed to know that the ratio of tokens with values is exactly 1/20. It's in peppercoin's favour if only 1/25 have a value. Surely we (or merchants) have to trust them, yet they're financially involved. Why should we trust them to not rip us off?
$0.50 for every token would mean no possibility to rip anyone off.
Introducing a third party that someone has to trust means that there are now _6_ trust relations rather than _2_. That's _worse_ than the status quo, IMHO.
Won't catch on. I bet you $10 on that (or maybe $0, you'll find out later).
YAW.
"""
a nd see how many paragraphs you need to read before you find something that's /just plain incorrect/. I only cite that page as it's the only one I could pull, his server seems to be under some load.
Back to the article, since number 8 is practically word for word pulled from that loser who's suing them for decreasing his page rank,
"""
I just assumed this _was_ the guy who was trying to sue them! Either way, he's a paranoid kook.
He's not just a kook, he's provably an idiot too. Just look at http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/urldemo.htm
Do you think he knows he's been slash-dotted?
Do you think he keeps referer logs?
Hehehhe, take that line of thought whereever you like...
YAW.
Never been used? What a waste - it needs to be turned into an outdoor karting circuit. That was the best use of an old landing strip I've ever seen (and made use of).
(Though in Michigan, probably not an all-year circuit!)
YAW.
""" ... want their work to spread quickly and reliably, and that means targeting the most popular platform: Windows
"""
So not only is Windows the most popular, but it's the quickest and the most reliable!?!?!
Yeah, yeah, just pulling your leg.
YAW.
What happended to the reseachers in Oxford (not pure departmental research, they'd spun out an independent company with university backing) who had something along the lines of "dynamically compiled C onto FPGAs" about 4 years ago?
(It was probably more like Occam than C, to be honest, as parallelism was a given. However, Car Hoarne was not involved in this spin-off.)
YAW.
Note, I did not mean toimply that the topology they use is a tree, but that a tree could also be called a fractal too.
I was just overly annoyed at them as they told me that I'd "Loaded page in 0.012 seconds", when it took about 2 fucking seconds. That means:
a) they're liars
b) they're tossers for making such a fucking stupid statement.
Anger now vented. Back as you were.
YAW.
Too bloody right!
"""
It is called a fractal architecture, where the structure of the lower level is repeated at the higher level.
"""
Wow - they've reinvented the binary tree. But given it a new modern name. I'm _sooooo_ happy for them.
YAW.
Have you tried 'w3m'? It's far prettier (and I mean lays stuff out better, not eye-candy) than lynx. In fact I prefer 'links' to lynx too.
(I've used lynx for many years, so I'm not dissing it, it's just that I think I've moved onwards and upwards by switching to w3m.)
YAW.
BZZZT! You invoked Mallory as soon as you said
"It's not hard to construct two blocks..." That's a _malicious_ _sentient_ attack.
So your error model is that there's an intelligent being deliberately intercepting blocks and trying to modify them?
And your comment about the probability of a collision for a CRC is just plain wrong.
There was a thread about this on sci.crypt about 2 weeks ago. Go read at google.
('checksum' probably being a useful search term.)
YAW.
Change the question.
Not "what can I do to make it work with the others?", but "what did I do that made it break with the others?".
Don't include "features" that aren't necessary or that break compliant browsers.
YAW
Opera just grabbed 750KB of data, and then seemed to only display about 10KB worth of images. What were the other 740KB I wonder?
It looked attrocious, for reference. Designed by fuckwits.
YAW.
Bollocks.
What's your error model? It must be pretty wacky, and therefore unbelievable.
A 128-bit CRC will be exactly as reliable as an MD5 checksum under all common error models.
Or is 2^-128 different in value from 2^-128 in the maths that you learnt at school?
Remember, there is no Mallory in this scenario, so don't go running off and invoking Mallory.
YAW.
You can break out using /proc/ so you don't want a /proc/ filesystem accessible to a chrooted program. That means that you can't use any program that relies on /proc/. That's not a big hindrance most of the time.
YAW.
Pretty nifty. It also gets round the silly firewall at work. They block all ftp access, but I can still move files between home and work machines using HTTP.
So for uploading thru' firewalls, it just can't be beat.
YAW.
Correct - you don't end up with smashed fingers, you end up with a burnt cock.2 45.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/28
YAW.
It's not just the name, but what about the logo?
"""
The logo, featuring a striking magenta color and a completely new shape, suggests flight, mobility, and forward movement.
"""
Bollocks!
Turn your head sideways, and what do you see?
Bollocks!
YAW.
Yeah, and you end up with O(n^2) algorithms instead of O(1) ones, because there's already a algorithm that does the job in O(n) time that you call O(n) times.
In the last project I worked for I binned (and replaced) about 4 times as many worker-hours of code than I was at the company, as it was inane "hell, it seems to work" sloppines. Telling my boss' boss' boss that 6 of the coders weren't worth shit left me leading a team of 3 rather than 9, and we ended up being _more_ productive because of it. The coders whose code I binned were all primarily Java coders, the coders I retained were originally C++ coders. They had a far better idea of how to "do it right" rather than "do it quick". (Which wasn't quick, as I said before, as my productivity was 6 times theirs. Then again I had more experience than all of them put together.)
I got 2/3 of my team "moved to other projects", and the morale of the remaining 3 skyrocketed!
YAW.