It would be interesting if they put the monitoring equipment in a cell phone, then even though the device has a short range it could be continuously monitored from anywhere not just the house, as long as the lady had her phone with her.
The client can't trust the server any more than the server can trust the client. Powerful tools and healthy suspicion is needed on both ends, always has.
You really want just enough to not get too stuck on one language, get good at learning new languages, and understanding different classes of languages. Beyond that is counter productive. Ideally learning C++ (and C), a garbage collected / reference semantics language (like Java or C#), a modern scripting language (Python, Ruby, or Perl), some exposure to an assembly language (doesn't need to be x86 although mine was) and some exposure to functional languages (ML, Haskell, LISP). This would be a good start, knowing one of these languages really well is a definite plus. At this point you should be able to pick up and adapt to whatever is needed for a project.
TCP's congestion control backs off exponentially because it has to. There is a stability property that if the network is undergoing increased congestion (this is how TCP learns the available throughput and utilizes it) and the senders do not back off exponentially then their backing off will not be fast enough to relieve congestion and therefore stabilize the system. If this router is selectively stalling individual flows I do not believe that will be fast enough to deal with growing congestion from many greedy clients.
Basically, eventually the buffer space of the router will become exhausted and it will be forced to drop packets non-selectively hence initiating TCP backoffs from randomly selected flows, resulting in current behavior. So, of course in that gray area between the first dropped flow and when we need to revert back to normal behavior we may see improved network performance for some flows but they will just take advantage of this by opening up their TCP windows more until the inevitable collapse comes.
The end result will be delaying backing off many TCP flows (which will speed them up creating more congestion) at the expense of completely trashing a few flows (which will stall anyways for packet reordering). and so the resulting system will be less stable.
Especially if farmer A is selling 10 cows to 10 different sellers, one of which is farmer B who is buying 9 additional cows from 9 other sellers as well. Auctions scale, 3D cow models don't scale. QED
The problem from Stallman's point of view is that by using these services you are making yourself reliant on these services which you do not have sufficient knowledge to reproduce, should the provider stop providing. This situation (being dependent on a vendor) is exactly the rationale behind free software (as described by Stallman). He would argue that you are much better off only using systems that you can continue to use & modify perpetually, no matter what. Having compilable source used to be good enough, since you could re-target the compiler to new hardware thus breaking reliance on a hardware vendor, but for web services essentially anything short of the provider supplying the means to set up a mirror site and interfaces for transferring data between the original and a local mirror (running on your own hardware) would be insufficient.
Okay, so if I write a fairly configurable plugin that takes a configuration file (that just happens to be compiled machine code) and at run time (compile time that is) my plugin calls into this configuration file (read non-GPL library) to do its work well then I'll just make my plugin available under the terms of the GPL license. Of course it won't work to well without the configuration file but that is just data, obviously I don't need to redistribute my data under the GPL. Well sure my plugin isn't very useful without a configuration file, go ahead and write your own, from the source of the plugin its easy to see what the syntax is. Or you could buy mine, of course all the interesting logic of my new optimization happens to be contained within the configuration file not the plugin.
That is essentially why I think using the GPL in this fashion to limit the licenses of plugins is bunk. There isn't a problem that can't be solved by yet another level of indirection.
Okay I am not a physicist, but am interested in understanding a bit more about what is going on here.
Is the following description (model) a reaonably accurate portrayal of what is happening here?
We have two atoms (A1 & A2) that are in two different (non-entangled) quantum states (Q1 & Q2), at two locations (L1 & L2) separated by 1 m, at which point we allow A1 to interact (quantum mechanically) with a photon which then is 'transmitted' along the vector (L2-L1) and is then 'received' at L2 and allowed to interact with A2 to evolve its quantum state. The process is repeated a finite number of times, after which A2 is left in a quantum state Q1 (the initial state of A1). Or does A2's state simply approach Q1 with some non-zero but bounded error?
If so, can you answer these questions and if not, how does the difference between my model of what is happening and what is actually happening effect the validity of the question and its answer (to the extent that it is still valid)...
Throughout these interactions is the state evolution of A1 minimal so that the state is still near or identical to Q1 and these two atoms are now entangled or is the initial atom A1 left in a vastly different quantum state Q3? Or perhaps we can exchange the two quantum states (obviously this would require bi-directional photon communication).
If the final state of A1 is different then its initial state, can we modify the procedure to allow A1 & A2 to converge on a common state Q3?
Is the 4-momentum part of this quantum state (obviously the position is not)?
If you are cloning a state Q1 which has a corresponding energy E1 how does that energy relate to the cumulative energy of the transmitted photons (I assume the process isn't reasonably efficient), and is that difference dependent on the initial energy of the A2 atom?
Making the IP stack smaller will not allow low power devices to harness the power of the Internet because while it lowers the bar for technically interacting on the Internet we can't do so safely with a device that can't also implement sane security.
If a light fixture can't execute a secure authentication mechanism to determine whether it really should be turned off/on then it really shouldn't be taking those controls (or reporting its status) to IP queries. These requirements are already beyond the resources needed for less optimized IPv6 implementations this brings us back to Amdahl's law doesn't it... Don't optimize blindly.
While doctors may not need most of what is covered in O.Chem they do have a necessary requirement for Biochemistry (usually a 1 year series following O.Chem as a 1 year series) and that one Biochemistry class usually needs to support the needs of both Medicine and Biochemistry undergraduates. While the medicine folk could probably get away with an abbreviated O.Chem and a Biochemistry series that doesn't directly use that O.Chem knowledge, Biochemistry undergrads can NOT. So, if you remove that restriction for Medicine students then you need to separate the Medicine students from Biochemistry students and that will cost $$$. This type of problem where students with different majors need to share classes that could better be focused for their needs, if there was sufficient demand, is not unique to doctors sitting through O.Chem. Sharing of Electromagnetics between Physicists and Elec. Engineers and Discrete Mathematics between Mathemeticians and Computer Scientists (as well as Linear Algebra) are all similar examples.
I took my graduate level architecture class from Dean Tullsen at UCSD, who invented 'hyperthreading' although it was called Symmetrical MultiThreading (SMT) back then. As I recall the entire greatness of the architecture was recognizing that all the fancy hardware introduced to allow out-of-order speculative execution could actually be leveraged to allow the processor to drive multiple independent threads at the same time, without much additional overhead. So if intel's atom (haven't been following it) uses an in-order core and hyperthreading that just don't make much sense. Anyone care to provide an explanation?
The future isn't one size fits all, we need to diversify, for some the plug-in vehicle helps, for others it indirectly helps by shifting demand curves. Same with solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and biofuels. This diversification is good. Urban residents have mass transit possibilities that don't scale to rural areas, we need all these varying solutions to solve this problem.
Very interesting, I think the right thing to do would to run two independent circuits throughout new house construction, standard AC for legacy appliances and DC for a new 'smart' home standard, then add the transformers that inter-convert AC & DC on the centralized power input which takes in both grid power (AC) and solar power (DC) and feeds both circuits (as well as converting DC-solar-out to grid compatible AC), minimizing conversion and centralizing it.
We can even standardize the plugs like this || (AC) vs. |- (DC)
Can organizations such as Mozilla not move towards a model that helps break this monopoly, helping establish a CA root authority that's cheap (free?) and only links the certificate to the domain, not actual verification of who owns the domain?
How can anyone possibly establish that a given certificate is associated with a given domain without first proving that they do indeed have the (ownership) rights to establish said association?
What you are asking for can be accomplished via SecureDNS, you can enter the hash of the certificate in the DNS entry and Secure DNS ensures that only the authorized party can enter that association and verifies that it was not changed. SecureDNS facilitates a lot of these kinds of authentication issues by extending the rooted hierarchy of DNS names to securely dissiminate information, whether it be IP addresses of servers or public key commitments. See my paper "Layering Public Key Distribution Over Secure DNS using Authenticated Delegation" (ACSAC 2005).
I don't know whether to blame them for attending an interview for a job they had no interest in doing or you for not specifying that you needed a PHP developer (or trainee).
The problem is that if you say you need a PHP programmer, HR will only match you with people who list PHP on the resume, and they will only list it on their resume if they know it. But if you don't then HR will not know to include that PHP on the job ad so people who don't know PHP can apply (you want this) but so will people who don't want to learn (you don't want this). What is needed is to list both a summary of what the job entails and what your requirements are of applicants. These are two different things. One is selling your job the other is listing the cost. Ideally these would be the same but it is seldom the case.
A perspective applicant needs to know both whether they meet the requirements and whether they are interested in the work before applying. Otherwise you will miss just as many good applicants as you get bad ones.
But if Microsoft breaks backward compatibility they can support it (probably as well as they do now) using virtualization for essentially free, as opposed to Linux or OS X, which can do the same but not for free.
The current standard kilogram is a cylinder with equal height and diameter, this minimizes the surface area / volume ratio (within the world of cylinders). The new standard takes this one step further by venturing outside of the universe of cylinders.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary itself makes it clear they are in a 3x2 configuration so there is no bezel in the center.
It would be interesting if they put the monitoring equipment in a cell phone, then even though the device has a short range it could be continuously monitored from anywhere not just the house, as long as the lady had her phone with her.
The client can't trust the server any more than the server can trust the client. Powerful tools and healthy suspicion is needed on both ends, always has.
That's the beauty of it when winter comes the gorillas freeze!
You really want just enough to not get too stuck on one language, get good at learning new languages, and understanding different classes of languages. Beyond that is counter productive.
Ideally learning C++ (and C), a garbage collected / reference semantics language (like Java or C#), a modern scripting language (Python, Ruby, or Perl), some exposure to an assembly language (doesn't need to be x86 although mine was) and some exposure to functional languages (ML, Haskell, LISP). This would be a good start, knowing one of these languages really well is a definite plus. At this point you should be able to pick up and adapt to whatever is needed for a project.
TCP's congestion control backs off exponentially because it has to. There is a stability property that if the network is undergoing increased congestion (this is how TCP learns the available throughput and utilizes it) and the senders do not back off exponentially then their backing off will not be fast enough to relieve congestion and therefore stabilize the system. If this router is selectively stalling individual flows I do not believe that will be fast enough to deal with growing congestion from many greedy clients.
Basically, eventually the buffer space of the router will become exhausted and it will be forced to drop packets non-selectively hence initiating TCP backoffs from randomly selected flows, resulting in current behavior. So, of course in that gray area between the first dropped flow and when we need to revert back to normal behavior we may see improved network performance for some flows but they will just take advantage of this by opening up their TCP windows more until the inevitable collapse comes.
The end result will be delaying backing off many TCP flows (which will speed them up creating more congestion) at the expense of completely trashing a few flows (which will stall anyways for packet reordering). and so the resulting system will be less stable.
Especially if farmer A is selling 10 cows to 10 different sellers, one of which is farmer B who is buying 9 additional cows from 9 other sellers as well. Auctions scale, 3D cow models don't scale. QED
Okay that convinces me, I've changed my mind, just let GM die okay?
The problem from Stallman's point of view is that by using these services you are making yourself reliant on these services which you do not have sufficient knowledge to reproduce, should the provider stop providing. This situation (being dependent on a vendor) is exactly the rationale behind free software (as described by Stallman). He would argue that you are much better off only using systems that you can continue to use & modify perpetually, no matter what. Having compilable source used to be good enough, since you could re-target the compiler to new hardware thus breaking reliance on a hardware vendor, but for web services essentially anything short of the provider supplying the means to set up a mirror site and interfaces for transferring data between the original and a local mirror (running on your own hardware) would be insufficient.
Hah! 5,140... That is nothing.
Try 1,180,000 hits on Google with my first middle & last name in quotes.
So the time is 123456789? That's the stupidest time I've ever heard in my life... It sounds like something an idiot would have on his luggage.
All my machines are Turing award winners. I'm typing this on Backus.
Okay, so if I write a fairly configurable plugin that takes a configuration file (that just happens to be compiled machine code) and at run time (compile time that is) my plugin calls into this configuration file (read non-GPL library) to do its work well then I'll just make my plugin available under the terms of the GPL license. Of course it won't work to well without the configuration file but that is just data, obviously I don't need to redistribute my data under the GPL. Well sure my plugin isn't very useful without a configuration file, go ahead and write your own, from the source of the plugin its easy to see what the syntax is. Or you could buy mine, of course all the interesting logic of my new optimization happens to be contained within the configuration file not the plugin.
That is essentially why I think using the GPL in this fashion to limit the licenses of plugins is bunk. There isn't a problem that can't be solved by yet another level of indirection.
Okay I am not a physicist, but am interested in understanding a bit more about what is going on here.
Is the following description (model) a reaonably accurate portrayal of what is happening here?
We have two atoms (A1 & A2) that are in two different (non-entangled) quantum states (Q1 & Q2), at two locations (L1 & L2) separated by 1 m, at which point we allow A1 to interact (quantum mechanically) with a photon which then is 'transmitted' along the vector (L2-L1) and is then 'received' at L2 and allowed to interact with A2 to evolve its quantum state. The process is repeated a finite number of times, after which A2 is left in a quantum state Q1 (the initial state of A1). Or does A2's state simply approach Q1 with some non-zero but bounded error?
If so, can you answer these questions and if not, how does the difference between my model of what is happening and what is actually happening effect the validity of the question and its answer (to the extent that it is still valid)...
Throughout these interactions is the state evolution of A1 minimal so that the state is still near or identical to Q1 and these two atoms are now entangled or is the initial atom A1 left in a vastly different quantum state Q3? Or perhaps we can exchange the two quantum states (obviously this would require bi-directional photon communication).
If the final state of A1 is different then its initial state, can we modify the procedure to allow A1 & A2 to converge on a common state Q3?
Is the 4-momentum part of this quantum state (obviously the position is not)?
If you are cloning a state Q1 which has a corresponding energy E1 how does that energy relate to the cumulative energy of the transmitted photons (I assume the process isn't reasonably efficient), and is that difference dependent on the initial energy of the A2 atom?
Making the IP stack smaller will not allow low power devices to harness the power of the Internet because while it lowers the bar for technically interacting on the Internet we can't do so safely with a device that can't also implement sane security.
If a light fixture can't execute a secure authentication mechanism to determine whether it really should be turned off/on then it really shouldn't be taking those controls (or reporting its status) to IP queries. These requirements are already beyond the resources needed for less optimized IPv6 implementations this brings us back to Amdahl's law doesn't it... Don't optimize blindly.
Static electricity generally has very high voteage, but not much power, due to a small current.
While doctors may not need most of what is covered in O.Chem they do have a necessary requirement for Biochemistry (usually a 1 year series following O.Chem as a 1 year series) and that one Biochemistry class usually needs to support the needs of both Medicine and Biochemistry undergraduates. While the medicine folk could probably get away with an abbreviated O.Chem and a Biochemistry series that doesn't directly use that O.Chem knowledge, Biochemistry undergrads can NOT. So, if you remove that restriction for Medicine students then you need to separate the Medicine students from Biochemistry students and that will cost $$$. This type of problem where students with different majors need to share classes that could better be focused for their needs, if there was sufficient demand, is not unique to doctors sitting through O.Chem. Sharing of Electromagnetics between Physicists and Elec. Engineers and Discrete Mathematics between Mathemeticians and Computer Scientists (as well as Linear Algebra) are all similar examples.
I took my graduate level architecture class from Dean Tullsen at UCSD, who invented 'hyperthreading' although it was called Symmetrical MultiThreading (SMT) back then. As I recall the entire greatness of the architecture was recognizing that all the fancy hardware introduced to allow out-of-order speculative execution could actually be leveraged to allow the processor to drive multiple independent threads at the same time, without much additional overhead. So if intel's atom (haven't been following it) uses an in-order core and hyperthreading that just don't make much sense. Anyone care to provide an explanation?
The future isn't one size fits all, we need to diversify, for some the plug-in vehicle helps, for others it indirectly helps by shifting demand curves. Same with solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and biofuels. This diversification is good. Urban residents have mass transit possibilities that don't scale to rural areas, we need all these varying solutions to solve this problem.
Very interesting, I think the right thing to do would to run two independent circuits throughout new house construction, standard AC for legacy appliances and DC for a new 'smart' home standard, then add the transformers that inter-convert AC & DC on the centralized power input which takes in both grid power (AC) and solar power (DC) and feeds both circuits (as well as converting DC-solar-out to grid compatible AC), minimizing conversion and centralizing it.
We can even standardize the plugs like this || (AC) vs. |- (DC)
Can organizations such as Mozilla not move towards a model that helps break this monopoly, helping establish a CA root authority that's cheap (free?) and only links the certificate to the domain, not actual verification of who owns the domain?
How can anyone possibly establish that a given certificate is associated with a given domain without first proving that they do indeed have the (ownership) rights to establish said association?
What you are asking for can be accomplished via SecureDNS, you can enter the hash of the certificate in the DNS entry and Secure DNS ensures that only the authorized party can enter that association and verifies that it was not changed. SecureDNS facilitates a lot of these kinds of authentication issues by extending the rooted hierarchy of DNS names to securely dissiminate information, whether it be IP addresses of servers or public key commitments. See my paper "Layering Public Key Distribution Over Secure DNS using Authenticated Delegation" (ACSAC 2005).
Just contract it out to the Long Now foundation. Maybe, some sort of large clock...
I don't know whether to blame them for attending an interview for a job they had no interest in doing or you for not specifying that you needed a PHP developer (or trainee).
The problem is that if you say you need a PHP programmer, HR will only match you with people who list PHP on the resume, and they will only list it on their resume if they know it. But if you don't then HR will not know to include that PHP on the job ad so people who don't know PHP can apply (you want this) but so will people who don't want to learn (you don't want this). What is needed is to list both a summary of what the job entails and what your requirements are of applicants. These are two different things. One is selling your job the other is listing the cost. Ideally these would be the same but it is seldom the case.
A perspective applicant needs to know both whether they meet the requirements and whether they are interested in the work before applying. Otherwise you will miss just as many good applicants as you get bad ones.
But if Microsoft breaks backward compatibility they can support it (probably as well as they do now) using virtualization for essentially free, as opposed to Linux or OS X, which can do the same but not for free.
The current standard kilogram is a cylinder with equal height and diameter, this minimizes the surface area / volume ratio (within the world of cylinders). The new standard takes this one step further by venturing outside of the universe of cylinders.