Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said: 'By increasing the adoption of standards and best practices, we are working with the private sector to promote innovation and business growth, while at the same time better protecting companies and consumers from [INSERT SUBJECT HERE]'."
Same as in the UK, which is part of the problem in this case; truth isn't an absolute defense under English libel law. However, in this particular suit in California court, they would have to follow California libel standards. A problem is that they may be able to siphon off evidence this way: sue in U.S. court, lose, but get some evidence through discovery, then introduce that evidence in UK court. A US court would not generally agree to do discovery for a UK libel suit, but it's not clear they would try to stop discovery for a US libel suit being used in a UK libel suit.
The fact that you become one of 20 people introduced to Peter Thiel's network, and get his support/promotion, is probably more valuable than the cash. Which is also why this isn't really a scalable replacement for college: he can do this for 20 people, maybe 50, but not thousands or millions.
I'm not sure malware is a unique problem for this age group. If anything, a typical kid probably is more savvy than a typical parent of that kid, so greater parental supervision isn't necessaril.
Hmm, interesting. It's been about a year since I've done any benchmarking of JS stuff, but at the time my attempts at some numerical algorithms in javascript were on the order of 10x-1000x slower than the unoptimized C equivalent. Have JS JITs really improved to the point where a typical double-nested loop over a 2d array doing some standard image-processing kernel will now run at the same speed as gcc -O0? That certainly wasn't the performance I was getting!
I was under the impression that the IR optimizations are mostly what makes the difference between gcc -O0 and gcc -O2, and isn't that a minor speed gap compared to the still-existing gap between JS and C that doesn't have all these IR optimizations enabled? I think most people would be overjoyed if JS had performance like C code compiled with gcc -O0, so doesn't that point to different kind of optimizations to target? Or is the argument that bridging the remaining performance gap with unoptimized C is no longer the low-hanging fruit, and adding in these -O2 kinds of optimizations is where the immediate performance speedups are likely to come, despite the remaining peformance gap with -O0?
I guess to me the -O0/O2 gap seems like a minor speed gap compared to the JS/C gap, so it seems counterintuitive that adding in -O2-style optimizations is where the big wins lie for JS.
Do textbook IR optimizations make a big different with JS code, though? My impression is that the big gains in JS performance don't have much to do with traditional C-compiler optimizations like loop optimization, and have a lot more to do with optimizations derived from the compiling-dynamic-languages literature, like type specialization and class inference.
V8 also goes pretty directly to asm, for example, and gets some big wins from techniques developed in Smalltalk compilers, like compiling code that assumes a static class in the common case, and patches the asm if it finds that the class has changed dynamically. Those kinds of things can get you orders of magnitude wins, while a typical C-compiler pass is in the noise by comparison.
The paywall system wouldn't actually work without copyright. They could still manage to get anyone who signed a contract to agree not to republish it, but that would only bind the author. Other third parties might be bound by EULAs not to republish the version they accessed via a library, if the EULAs are enforceable contracts. But even in that case, if even one such third party leaked a bunch of PDFs onto the internet (violating their EULA), there would be nothing illegal about other people hosting it and republishing the articles, if they hadn't signed a contract (or agreed to an EULA). It's only copyright law that allows the publisher to demand takedowns of copies hosted by people with whom the publisher has no contractual relationship.
It's not like using linear discriminant analysis is some crazy or countercultural thing. It's a common simple technique. On some data it works well, and on such data, it's not uncommon to use it. It's particularly common in image-identification type tasks, and is one of the classic approaches to face recognition.
This might be a new advance, but it's hard to tell. Here is a Slashdot story from 2001 with basically the same "researchers find a way to make shoes generate power" line.
I do find their articles higher quality on average than the sources you listed, though for basic news reporting the difference isn't large, and for in-depth analysis there are alternatives that seem like they won't be paywalled (at least for now), like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Their strength imo is fairly timely, news-ish analysis (versus long-form essay), but with at least a medium amount of context/analysis and independent reporting that isn't purely cribbed from Reuters or the Associated Press.
Now whether that's interesting enough for anyone to pay for, I don't know. I won't be paying for it myself.
In 2007, the researchers, along with Vanderbilt graduate fellow James Dent, posted a paper titled "Neutrino time travel" on the preprint server that generated a considerable amount of buzz.
They did indeed post it in 2007. But where was the buzz generated? As far as I can tell, that paper has never been cited, not even in another arXiv preprint. I can't even find evidence of it being discussed on mailing lists or blogs, at least anything Google knows about, prior to the current bit of publicity due to this article. Did it generate a bunch of hallway buzz that never made it onto the internet in any form?
Even this particular proposal isn't new. A half-dozen archaeologists have been studying this national park in southern Spain as a possible site for the past 15 years or so, and this is just the latest round of press releases.
CS has a dual heritage; some current CS programs emerged from mathematics departments, while others emerged from engineering departments. You can sometimes still tell which one a modern department originated from by looking at its specialty areas and research culture.
This is about interpreting the FOIA, not Constitutional rights, so the "rights" involved are whatever Congress wanted to specify in the law, which could have included things relating to corporations if Congress chose to.
Congress wrote in the FOIA that people can generally request government records, and the government must respond to such requests, except in a list of specific exceptions where the agency is allowed to withhold them. If Congress had wanted to, they could have included "the request would reveal sensitive information about a corporation" in the list. This case just holds that Congress did not in fact include such an exception, implicitly or otherwise.
Doing it optimally probably isn't possible, but you can statically transform code so it's guaranteed safe by doing somewhat pessimistic transformations, things like replacing every store instruction with a sequence of "safely store" instructions. As long as the analysis and transformations are at the assembly level and don't require recognizing higher-level patterns, obfuscated code isn't really an issue; the main issue is making sure you correctly analyze what safe and unsafe asm instructions are, and what transformations are guaranteed to result in safe code.
There's a nice writeup here of how they do the transformations on ARM.
Governments have somewhat more constraints on treating political viewpoints equally than private employers would, though. So the network admins can probably block all political sites, but if they go out of their way to only block sites of the opposing political party, that might not be permitted. They also can't discipline employees in a viewpoint-discriminatory way, e.g. firing employees who surf to wisdems.org but not wisgop.org, or vice versa.
The Westboro Baptist Church fills an odd role where they're so extreme and, possibly more problematically, rude, that they have very little support. Will damaging them in some way actually change anything? Even people way on the right already dissociate themselves from them, and they have basically no actual influence on anything.
It's sort of the same with Actual Nazis imo. I'm worried about a certain kind of intolerant right-wing strain in the U.S., but I think Westboro types and swastika-flag-waving types are mostly distractions and not where the real problems lie; the right-wingers who aren't actively shooting themselves in the foot like those two groups do are bigger problems.
It'd go the other way too. Say you were a conservative worried about leftism in the U.S. You could attack the Communist Party USA, but would that be a good use of your time? They're a sideshow.
It's not even uncommon language in science, though maybe you'd be more precise when writing a paper. In this context, "times" is understood as colloquial shorthand for "by a factor of", and factors can be either multiplied or divided, depending on whether it's "greater" or "less" by that factor.
The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
Slashdot Mirror
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said: 'By increasing the adoption of standards and best practices, we are working with the private sector to promote innovation and business growth, while at the same time better protecting companies and consumers from [INSERT SUBJECT HERE]'."
Ted Nelson was even complaining about its overuse in the late 1960s. Seems not to have really stopped.
Same as in the UK, which is part of the problem in this case; truth isn't an absolute defense under English libel law. However, in this particular suit in California court, they would have to follow California libel standards. A problem is that they may be able to siphon off evidence this way: sue in U.S. court, lose, but get some evidence through discovery, then introduce that evidence in UK court. A US court would not generally agree to do discovery for a UK libel suit, but it's not clear they would try to stop discovery for a US libel suit being used in a UK libel suit.
The fact that you become one of 20 people introduced to Peter Thiel's network, and get his support/promotion, is probably more valuable than the cash. Which is also why this isn't really a scalable replacement for college: he can do this for 20 people, maybe 50, but not thousands or millions.
Yes, in particular due to COPPA.
I'm not sure malware is a unique problem for this age group. If anything, a typical kid probably is more savvy than a typical parent of that kid, so greater parental supervision isn't necessaril.
Hmm, interesting. It's been about a year since I've done any benchmarking of JS stuff, but at the time my attempts at some numerical algorithms in javascript were on the order of 10x-1000x slower than the unoptimized C equivalent. Have JS JITs really improved to the point where a typical double-nested loop over a 2d array doing some standard image-processing kernel will now run at the same speed as gcc -O0? That certainly wasn't the performance I was getting!
I was under the impression that the IR optimizations are mostly what makes the difference between gcc -O0 and gcc -O2, and isn't that a minor speed gap compared to the still-existing gap between JS and C that doesn't have all these IR optimizations enabled? I think most people would be overjoyed if JS had performance like C code compiled with gcc -O0, so doesn't that point to different kind of optimizations to target? Or is the argument that bridging the remaining performance gap with unoptimized C is no longer the low-hanging fruit, and adding in these -O2 kinds of optimizations is where the immediate performance speedups are likely to come, despite the remaining peformance gap with -O0?
I guess to me the -O0/O2 gap seems like a minor speed gap compared to the JS/C gap, so it seems counterintuitive that adding in -O2-style optimizations is where the big wins lie for JS.
Do textbook IR optimizations make a big different with JS code, though? My impression is that the big gains in JS performance don't have much to do with traditional C-compiler optimizations like loop optimization, and have a lot more to do with optimizations derived from the compiling-dynamic-languages literature, like type specialization and class inference.
V8 also goes pretty directly to asm, for example, and gets some big wins from techniques developed in Smalltalk compilers, like compiling code that assumes a static class in the common case, and patches the asm if it finds that the class has changed dynamically. Those kinds of things can get you orders of magnitude wins, while a typical C-compiler pass is in the noise by comparison.
The paywall system wouldn't actually work without copyright. They could still manage to get anyone who signed a contract to agree not to republish it, but that would only bind the author. Other third parties might be bound by EULAs not to republish the version they accessed via a library, if the EULAs are enforceable contracts. But even in that case, if even one such third party leaked a bunch of PDFs onto the internet (violating their EULA), there would be nothing illegal about other people hosting it and republishing the articles, if they hadn't signed a contract (or agreed to an EULA). It's only copyright law that allows the publisher to demand takedowns of copies hosted by people with whom the publisher has no contractual relationship.
And in its predecessor, Wolfenstein 3d, your enemies were Nazis.
It's not like using linear discriminant analysis is some crazy or countercultural thing. It's a common simple technique. On some data it works well, and on such data, it's not uncommon to use it. It's particularly common in image-identification type tasks, and is one of the classic approaches to face recognition.
And they did it pretty well considering they didn't even have photoshop!
This might be a new advance, but it's hard to tell. Here is a Slashdot story from 2001 with basically the same "researchers find a way to make shoes generate power" line.
I do find their articles higher quality on average than the sources you listed, though for basic news reporting the difference isn't large, and for in-depth analysis there are alternatives that seem like they won't be paywalled (at least for now), like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Their strength imo is fairly timely, news-ish analysis (versus long-form essay), but with at least a medium amount of context/analysis and independent reporting that isn't purely cribbed from Reuters or the Associated Press.
Now whether that's interesting enough for anyone to pay for, I don't know. I won't be paying for it myself.
The article says:
They did indeed post it in 2007. But where was the buzz generated? As far as I can tell, that paper has never been cited, not even in another arXiv preprint. I can't even find evidence of it being discussed on mailing lists or blogs, at least anything Google knows about, prior to the current bit of publicity due to this article. Did it generate a bunch of hallway buzz that never made it onto the internet in any form?
Even this particular proposal isn't new. A half-dozen archaeologists have been studying this national park in southern Spain as a possible site for the past 15 years or so, and this is just the latest round of press releases.
CS has a dual heritage; some current CS programs emerged from mathematics departments, while others emerged from engineering departments. You can sometimes still tell which one a modern department originated from by looking at its specialty areas and research culture.
That's also the modern use of the term "democracy", which in the 20th/21st centuries is basically synonymous with liberal democracy / constitutional democracy.
This is about interpreting the FOIA, not Constitutional rights, so the "rights" involved are whatever Congress wanted to specify in the law, which could have included things relating to corporations if Congress chose to.
Congress wrote in the FOIA that people can generally request government records, and the government must respond to such requests, except in a list of specific exceptions where the agency is allowed to withhold them. If Congress had wanted to, they could have included "the request would reveal sensitive information about a corporation" in the list. This case just holds that Congress did not in fact include such an exception, implicitly or otherwise.
Doing it optimally probably isn't possible, but you can statically transform code so it's guaranteed safe by doing somewhat pessimistic transformations, things like replacing every store instruction with a sequence of "safely store" instructions. As long as the analysis and transformations are at the assembly level and don't require recognizing higher-level patterns, obfuscated code isn't really an issue; the main issue is making sure you correctly analyze what safe and unsafe asm instructions are, and what transformations are guaranteed to result in safe code.
There's a nice writeup here of how they do the transformations on ARM.
Governments have somewhat more constraints on treating political viewpoints equally than private employers would, though. So the network admins can probably block all political sites, but if they go out of their way to only block sites of the opposing political party, that might not be permitted. They also can't discipline employees in a viewpoint-discriminatory way, e.g. firing employees who surf to wisdems.org but not wisgop.org, or vice versa.
The Westboro Baptist Church fills an odd role where they're so extreme and, possibly more problematically, rude, that they have very little support. Will damaging them in some way actually change anything? Even people way on the right already dissociate themselves from them, and they have basically no actual influence on anything.
It's sort of the same with Actual Nazis imo. I'm worried about a certain kind of intolerant right-wing strain in the U.S., but I think Westboro types and swastika-flag-waving types are mostly distractions and not where the real problems lie; the right-wingers who aren't actively shooting themselves in the foot like those two groups do are bigger problems.
It'd go the other way too. Say you were a conservative worried about leftism in the U.S. You could attack the Communist Party USA, but would that be a good use of your time? They're a sideshow.
It's not even uncommon language in science, though maybe you'd be more precise when writing a paper. In this context, "times" is understood as colloquial shorthand for "by a factor of", and factors can be either multiplied or divided, depending on whether it's "greater" or "less" by that factor.
The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
Raising a temporary army for a year or two for a war, sure. But we've had a standing army for decades now, which they were clearly against.