This sort of thing really should be a basic OS function, it should be easy to setup a machine to boot into any application as the 'shell' not just the default catch all UI or one blessed web browser, but if I wanted to setup a machine to boot into Photoshop or my own app it should be just as easy.
Don't you have to do this in a prescribed fashion involving two teams, one to write a formal spec (with access to the original) and then hand that spec off to a second group that must work entirely off the spec? If this procedure was not followed the results would be tainted.
hardcover books should be subject to the same regulations, I'd be willing to chance being whacked with a paperback though, trade paperbacks are a nebulous gray area.
You neglected to mention the most important 'government secret' that henceforth should not be allowed to be discussed in the open...
A list of 'government secrets' that shouldn't be discussed in public.
It is vital that we discourage people from mentioning these items, primarily so that we can attack anyone for anything at all.
No, I am not being serious. This is a bad idea and should be fought against, fortunately it violates the first amendment, lets hope that means something still. Yeah Obama and transparent government!
We have a very precise mathematical way of framing this question. BPP is the class (like P but with probabilistic correctness) of problems solvable in polynomial time with a bounded probability of error (like probabilistic prime number tests) on a Turing machine. BQP is the analogous class on a quantum computer. Supposedly this mathematical model of a quantum computer has unbounded size so is potentially more powerful than a classical computer with an n-qbit quantum register (for any fixed n). I'm not sure if a bounded qbit quantum machine can effectively approximate an ideal machine since adding more qbits is not as simple as giving a computer more storage half way through (due to entanglement issues). Regardless it is an open question as to the speration of BQP from BPP but both are in NP and both are bigger than P so if P were equal to NP all these classes would be identical.
I have a launch xbox 360 (yes, it never RRODed) so they don't get any older and my system appears to be fine. I don't believe we have the accurate story on what is causing Microsoft to replace some systems. I have two theories...
1) They briefly put out a bad firmware that only a small number of users got and then pulled it, some of those users may be the ones effected. 2) The upgrades explicitly invalidate or blacklist a very small number of xbox 360s (by their unique IDs) that Microsoft believes were tampered with in some way (in order to assist cracking the DRM) and so they are just willing to replace those machines, just in case innocent users are affected.
That is the whole point isn't it? The bad guys stole all the info Sony knew about you so there is no reasonable way of Sony differentiating the correct user 'X' from the bad guys. What are you people really expecting? magic security fairy dust?
Its the same as people complaining about the lack of encryption on Apple's iPhone location cache, come on now, the phone needs to read and write that data, guess what that means? Even if it were encrypted the keys would need to be on the device too and the 'attack' already relies on access to the device so any 'encryption' added would be DRM style obfuscation not secure encryption. The same type of encryption the same people complain about when it is used.
Wouldn't each camera have its own signing key so all they could do is forge pictures from a single camera? They couldn't forge pictures from another camera without its key. Is there evidence of the key extraction left on the camera?
I wish they would only use stereoscopic 3D to simulate depth inside the frame not jump out so that the perceived depth of things further away was presented (depth > 0) but it didn't create the illusion of things (usually annoying things) jumping out of the screen (depth 0). Then the screen would be more like a window pane which is the right way to present 3d. This is what a real 'vector' display would be as opposed to a raster display (analogous to a vector field instead of a scalar field) in which each quantized pixel location determined not just a single color emitted in all directions but a quantized set of directions, each of which could be assigned an independent color. Of course the level of quantization necessary to achieve a realistic effect would probably make such a display impossible to build and the data stream necessary to feed that display would be immense (not to mention the technology needed to capture that data.)
Suppose that Amazon is computing checksums to determine if two users are storing the same file and if so only storing a single copy with a pointer. This could potentially save them storage especially if they do it at smaller granularity than the whole file (to ignore differences in headers etc). Would this implementation detail, invisible to the end user change the legality of the system as a whole?
The proper course of action would be to pass a law making these apps illegal and only then would they need to be removed, but of course such a law would be held to be unconstitutional so law makers are trying to bully these companies into enforcing a would be illegal law.
For private employment I would agree but for a public government job, you aren't just badmouthing your employee but your government and I don't think you should be forced to choose between your rights as an employee or as a citizen. Furthermore I want people critical of government in the government.
DNS names are hierarchical. Each TLD is granted authority to manage its subsequent names as it sees fit and so on. Any attempt to secure this system should mirror the authority of the names themselves. Each country can control the distribution and authentication of names within their own TLD and DNSSEC just provides the appropriate level of cooperation for any client to read and validate those signatures.
Decoupling the hierarchical nature of DNS from a separate authentication mechanism that didn't follow this grain would be needlessly complex and could result in ambiguous or inconsistent results.
For free ad supported content I'll put up with the process of plugging in the laptop to the TV but if they want money they better open it up to set top boxes like Roku, PS3, X360 etc.
Once I was talking to someone on the phone that was so bad that I thought it was an automated voice recognition prompt program. To this day I am not 100% sure that it was a stupid person and not a fairly sophisticated program. So my question is did they fail the Turing test or did I?
On the flip side I have three saved answering messages of unknown people talking to my machine as if it were a real person answering the phone, despite the announcement message saying "we are not available to take your call".
Yeah, if you wanted to formalize something like this why not add a system call that accepts a GUID and a void* and then if the GUID is a 'special' one then it forwards to the internal code to interpret the void* argument and do random stuff? Why tie it in with the filesystem and string parsing at all?
This wouldn't be so bad if I could pay for a bucket of data (x GB per month) and use it over several devices (provided they aren't subsidized devices) between me and my wife and other family members and roll over unused data into future months. There is no reason why having my laptop, phone, car, and numerous other devices should cost more than using all the data through the same device. But of course then my bills would go down instead of up so that will never happen.
You don't think that modern industrialized commercialism is that far removed from technology? I suggest taking a look into the industrial chemical process advances that have fueled agricultural and consumer goods excess.
I don't understand why this is groundbreaking, from looking at the paper it seems that the key result is that the energy cost of a computational step is linearly proportional to the rate of computation, but this result is clearly derived in Feynman's lectures on computation. So they just have different constants that arise due to their considerations of error correction and the like, the essential result isn't new at all.
Can you imagine the amount of positive spin Obama would have gotten if he had simply and humbly declined the prize on the grounds that he had not yet done his work and suggested they reconsider him after his term?
Give them a CD, let them worry about archiving it since they are the owners. If you aren't happy with this arrangment (you don't trust them to archive it to your satisfaction), then don't sell it to them. Keep it and archive it yourself (suggestions to store multiple copies at seperate locations and periodically copy it to new media and attempt to update it to current versions are good).
If you sell it you don't own it anymore and they can do whatever they want. If they want to hire you as an archive consultant then handle that transaction separately from the art sale.
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of thing really should be a basic OS function, it should be easy to setup a machine to boot into any application as the 'shell' not just the default catch all UI or one blessed web browser, but if I wanted to setup a machine to boot into Photoshop or my own app it should be just as easy.
Don't you have to do this in a prescribed fashion involving two teams, one to write a formal spec (with access to the original) and then hand that spec off to a second group that must work entirely off the spec? If this procedure was not followed the results would be tainted.
hardcover books should be subject to the same regulations, I'd be willing to chance being whacked with a paperback though, trade paperbacks are a nebulous gray area.
You neglected to mention the most important 'government secret' that henceforth should not be allowed to be discussed in the open...
A list of 'government secrets' that shouldn't be discussed in public.
It is vital that we discourage people from mentioning these items, primarily so that we can attack anyone for anything at all.
No, I am not being serious. This is a bad idea and should be fought against, fortunately it violates the first amendment, lets hope that means something still. Yeah Obama and transparent government!
We have a very precise mathematical way of framing this question. BPP is the class (like P but with probabilistic correctness) of problems solvable in polynomial time with a bounded probability of error (like probabilistic prime number tests) on a Turing machine. BQP is the analogous class on a quantum computer. Supposedly this mathematical model of a quantum computer has unbounded size so is potentially more powerful than a classical computer with an n-qbit quantum register (for any fixed n). I'm not sure if a bounded qbit quantum machine can effectively approximate an ideal machine since adding more qbits is not as simple as giving a computer more storage half way through (due to entanglement issues). Regardless it is an open question as to the speration of BQP from BPP but both are in NP and both are bigger than P so if P were equal to NP all these classes would be identical.
I have a launch xbox 360 (yes, it never RRODed) so they don't get any older and my system appears to be fine. I don't believe we have the accurate story on what is causing Microsoft to replace some systems. I have two theories...
1) They briefly put out a bad firmware that only a small number of users got and then pulled it, some of those users may be the ones effected.
2) The upgrades explicitly invalidate or blacklist a very small number of xbox 360s (by their unique IDs) that Microsoft believes were tampered with in some way (in order to assist cracking the DRM) and so they are just willing to replace those machines, just in case innocent users are affected.
That is the whole point isn't it? The bad guys stole all the info Sony knew about you so there is no reasonable way of Sony differentiating the correct user 'X' from the bad guys. What are you people really expecting? magic security fairy dust?
Its the same as people complaining about the lack of encryption on Apple's iPhone location cache, come on now, the phone needs to read and write that data, guess what that means? Even if it were encrypted the keys would need to be on the device too and the 'attack' already relies on access to the device so any 'encryption' added would be DRM style obfuscation not secure encryption. The same type of encryption the same people complain about when it is used.
And public domain code is most free.
Disclaimer, I didn't RTFA.
Wouldn't each camera have its own signing key so all they could do is forge pictures from a single camera? They couldn't forge pictures from another camera without its key. Is there evidence of the key extraction left on the camera?
I wish they would only use stereoscopic 3D to simulate depth inside the frame not jump out so that the perceived depth of things further away was presented (depth > 0) but it didn't create the illusion of things (usually annoying things) jumping out of the screen (depth 0). Then the screen would be more like a window pane which is the right way to present 3d. This is what a real 'vector' display would be as opposed to a raster display (analogous to a vector field instead of a scalar field) in which each quantized pixel location determined not just a single color emitted in all directions but a quantized set of directions, each of which could be assigned an independent color. Of course the level of quantization necessary to achieve a realistic effect would probably make such a display impossible to build and the data stream necessary to feed that display would be immense (not to mention the technology needed to capture that data.)
Suppose that Amazon is computing checksums to determine if two users are storing the same file and if so only storing a single copy with a pointer. This could potentially save them storage especially if they do it at smaller granularity than the whole file (to ignore differences in headers etc). Would this implementation detail, invisible to the end user change the legality of the system as a whole?
The proper course of action would be to pass a law making these apps illegal and only then would they need to be removed, but of course such a law would be held to be unconstitutional so law makers are trying to bully these companies into enforcing a would be illegal law.
Seems like a contest to improve conversion of electric energy to a viable aircraft bio-fuel would be a more worthy effort than this.
For private employment I would agree but for a public government job, you aren't just badmouthing your employee but your government and I don't think you should be forced to choose between your rights as an employee or as a citizen. Furthermore I want people critical of government in the government.
Don't you think it is a strong indication that the website is www.ncdot.org rather than something like dot.nc.gov?
Oh oh, I'm not a licensed DNS specialist, I have said too much.
Can they sell them at a 43% price premium so they break even after Apple takes their 30% cut?
DNS names are hierarchical. Each TLD is granted authority to manage its subsequent names as it sees fit and so on. Any attempt to secure this system should mirror the authority of the names themselves. Each country can control the distribution and authentication of names within their own TLD and DNSSEC just provides the appropriate level of cooperation for any client to read and validate those signatures.
Decoupling the hierarchical nature of DNS from a separate authentication mechanism that didn't follow this grain would be needlessly complex and could result in ambiguous or inconsistent results.
For free ad supported content I'll put up with the process of plugging in the laptop to the TV but if they want money they better open it up to set top boxes like Roku, PS3, X360 etc.
Once I was talking to someone on the phone that was so bad that I thought it was an automated voice recognition prompt program. To this day I am not 100% sure that it was a stupid person and not a fairly sophisticated program. So my question is did they fail the Turing test or did I?
On the flip side I have three saved answering messages of unknown people talking to my machine as if it were a real person answering the phone, despite the announcement message saying "we are not available to take your call".
Yeah, if you wanted to formalize something like this why not add a system call that accepts a GUID and a void* and then if the GUID is a 'special' one then it forwards to the internal code to interpret the void* argument and do random stuff? Why tie it in with the filesystem and string parsing at all?
This wouldn't be so bad if I could pay for a bucket of data (x GB per month) and use it over several devices (provided they aren't subsidized devices) between me and my wife and other family members and roll over unused data into future months. There is no reason why having my laptop, phone, car, and numerous other devices should cost more than using all the data through the same device. But of course then my bills would go down instead of up so that will never happen.
You don't think that modern industrialized commercialism is that far removed from technology? I suggest taking a look into the industrial chemical process advances that have fueled agricultural and consumer goods excess.
I don't understand why this is groundbreaking, from looking at the paper it seems that the key result is that the energy cost of a computational step is linearly proportional to the rate of computation, but this result is clearly derived in Feynman's lectures on computation. So they just have different constants that arise due to their considerations of error correction and the like, the essential result isn't new at all.
Can you imagine the amount of positive spin Obama would have gotten if he had simply and humbly declined the prize on the grounds that he had not yet done his work and suggested they reconsider him after his term?
Give them a CD, let them worry about archiving it since they are the owners. If you aren't happy with this arrangment (you don't trust them to archive it to your satisfaction), then don't sell it to them. Keep it and archive it yourself (suggestions to store multiple copies at seperate locations and periodically copy it to new media and attempt to update it to current versions are good).
If you sell it you don't own it anymore and they can do whatever they want. If they want to hire you as an archive consultant then handle that transaction separately from the art sale.