However, I hope they maintain links between the main search and the blog search. Finding primary sources, then a button linking to all blog comments on theis topic would be a great research tool.
With all the cross referenced porn links floating to the top of PageRank now "accounted for", it looks like they're filtering out what might well be the next largest group of cross-referenced material: the blogger. With blogs filtered into a side channel, one wonders what will be identified as "polluting" PageRank next?
By the time they've finished Google will look like... um.... Yahoo!
Ok, there's a 5000 e-mail limit. Amazon.com is now a spammer if all they ever send out is order confirmation and tracking e-mails.
I think that misses the point, doesn't it? A 5000 e-mail limit isn't the definition of a spammer, just the exemption point so that there's no need to charge the majority of single users of e-mail. Large business should have the customer base to be able to afford to pay the excess charge (it becomes a business cost that they have to factor in).
Personal taxation works in a similar fashion: a cut off point at which it isn't worth chasing after the small fry (even though their contribution would still be significant when added together).
It's not as simple to use "quantity" of e-mails as a spam/no spam test.
I agree with this point about quantity of e-mail alone not being a measure of the spamminess... some of it is actually requested or expected by the user. It's just so damn hard in the e-mail protocol to distinguish between what the user asked for and what a spammer says the user asked for. It just highlights how difficult it is to define and fix the problem this way.
Yep... that certainly makes it more manageable. Of course we're entering into the territory that was covered by the many ways in which DeCSS was published.
Now all we need to do is find an image of a circle encoded in pi in base 11... any takers?
NERSC has some information about pi and you can search through the first 4 billion digits. The server serial number doesn't code into their input form (numeric or letters only, not a combination), and it's restricted to a 10 character input anyway. The encoding could be converted to hex, but the odds of finding it in the first 4 billion digits are very slim indeed.
It makes brute forcing valid serial numbers almost look attractive.
Babies you expect to interfere, but by the time they're 3 you have this (ill-conceived) notion they should be structured enough to get to bed on time.
One trick that you might find useful: set bedtime to be about half an hour earlier than you would like. When the "just 5 more minutes" arguments start up you can give them a bit more time (don't give in too easily!). With a bit of luck you'll get them to bed at or near the time you want, and they think they're staying up a bit later. Everyone's happy.
My parents used this on me, and thought it was quite successful. YMMV.
The VCR game is a variation on a tribesman method of catching a monkey: drill a narrow hole in a tree and open it out to make a cavity, then put some food in the cavity and leave a few hints that there's food available. The monkey can reach in and grab the food, but the closed fist is too large to come back out. A greedy dilemma that allows the monkey to be caught.
On another note: good luck with the lifetime of the VCR. Things other than video tapes are put in there by curious children:)
Although it doesn't seem to mention what I consider to be the idea solution -- merging the files so you don't loose anything from either machine.
Merging two or more files that have a common ancestor isn't a trivial thing to do: a simple text document is the most straight forward. Format dependent text files (e.g. program source, XML) need knowledge of the file format and may require testing for correctness after the merge. Binary file formats require intimate knowledge of the file format and (most likely) re-interpretation in a user friendly way during the merge process.
A great deal of user intervention is required for what is supposed to be a largely automated process.
"we can communicate our definition of length and time to aliens 1000 light years away (if they are listening us), but we can't tell them what we mean by 1 kilo"
And then:
what matters is some reference atomic mass and then pick up Avogadro number (based on existing 1 kilo mass) and then get rid of the existing standard.
Doesn't the use of an Avagadro number of atoms, of specified number of protons and neutrons, exactly solve the weight description problem? You've got a point about ensuring that the ensemble of atoms doesn't interract with anything chemically, spontaneously decay, or be affected by a cosmic radiation event. However the existing platinum/iridium standard weight is subject to those same effects, and is (very) slowly evaporating away anyway!
The issue you're probably thinking of is transmitting the identification of left and right to aliens, consistant with our own usage. Martin Gardner has a very accessible discussion of this in his book "The New Ambidextrous Universe", and it has deeper implications from CPT (Charge, Parity, Time) symmetry in physics. The problem wasn't found to have a solution until C.S. Wu found a violation in CPT symmetry in 1957, allowing left and right to be uniquely identified.
I should have qualified my question: how does doing arithmetic by hand in high school, after you already know (presumably) how to do all the usual arithmetic, make people smarter?
I'm all for thinking and understanding. I just think that once you have thinking and understanding of arithmetic you can use a calculator to get the arithmetic out of the way and let you think and understand what you're doing now.
It's differentiating between doing what you can do now (understanding a problem, formulating a solution, punching the numbers into an equation), and further development of analysis and abstract manipulation and understanding derived from that manipulation.
Basic arithmetic skills in themselves become "saturated", there is after all only so much you can do with basic numbers and equations. As you move up through greater degrees of abstract symbolic analysis and interpretation of those results then the ability to "punch numbers" becomes less and less important. It is the ability to interpret those symbolic results that is the key skill that needs to be developed here.
The basic problem that I have with calculators (and I guess the parent poster as well), is that the reliance on something that crunches numbers can occur before the "saturated" understanding of the arithmetic manipulation occurs. The use of a calculator then becomes a hindrance to taking the next step into more abstract symbolic manipulation, which is what makes people "smarter".
As you've described it, doing arithmetic by hand is a hindrance simply because of the extra time involved. I agree with this and have no problem with calculators being used as a tool. What I don't like is the use of calculators as a substitute for that thinking... something I think we agree on. It sounds to me like you're already doing this in your school(?) work. We're tackling slightly different problems here: the use of a tool, and the reliance on that tool as a block to further development.
When it comes to the point where you're doing research in a mathematical discipline, you start with a blank piece of paper, work through your problem, and end up with an equation that no-one else on this planet might have seen. You then have to relate that result back to the original problem and interpret the array of symbols on the page. You can trace this ability (through quite a few steps) back to basic understanding of arithmetic procedures and manipulation.
How does having to do arithmetic by hand make people smarter?
Mathematical and scientific skills usually use earlier, simpler, skills as a foundation for development. For arithmetic by hand you are developing experience and confidence in symbolic manipulation. In the beginning it will be numbers: addition, multiplication, long division. Later you replace numbers with symbols and move further along with ever greater abstract symbolic manipulation. Each step along this path requires the foundation skills are sufficiently practiced and understood.
Just punching numbers into a calculator gets you the result. There are two problems however. Firstly, if you you don't have number confidence (loosly described as a good estimate/expectation of what the result will be) then you don't have a feel for when an answer comes out wrong or very wrong. Just saying "the calculator is always right" isn't enough. Secondly, using a calculator doesn't teach the skills needed to set up a problem so it can be solved. Understanding and formulating a problem is also related to the well practiced skill of symbolic manipulation.
The calculator gets you the result, but teaches nothing about how to get there or think outside the keypad. It is a tool, not a substitute for thinking and understanding (which is tied into your physics example).
A barcode just might not be enough for the level of automation that would make it cost effective in product warehousing.
RFID works by placing sensors around loading bays, key transfer points within the warehouse, and also having portable handheld inventory management devices. A garment could be identified even through packaging sealed for transport - no visual line of sight required.
That sounds right in principle, but ID proponents do also like to make arguments on the basis of scientific hypotheses.
Philip Henry Gosse was a geologist who tried to reconcile creationism with the age of the geological record, publishing a book called Omphalos in the 1850's (IIRC).
He was a deeply devout Christian and argued that the act of creating the world would have to include the creation of creatures, plants, and geological features that shows a history earlier than the moment at which they were created. A creature like a rabbit whose incisors continually grow and need to be maintained by erosion, would be created with that erosion already in place. This argument was presented as two mutally exclusive views of the world (creationism vs evolution) that were indistinguishable by any test, and therefore the two groups did not need to fight each other.
It was panned by both scientific and religious sides. The theory wasn't scientific (proposed that there couldn't be a test to distinguish mutually exclusive ideas), and presumably the creationists didn't want to admit any other theory had any possibility of being right.
Back in the days when the UK energy market was nationalized, one provider took out a full page advert describing how they were going to solve the energy problem with solar power. The Earth's axis of rotation would be moved so that Britain was in the tropics, thus making solar power efficient. The ad went on to explain the effects on some other countries of the world, and how this was an entirely desirable and justifiable state of affairs: it was our turn to have some nice warm weather for a change.
Considering the published date, it's no surprise that the final line of the ad was "April Fuel!"
IIRC they were slapped on the wrist for wasting 50k of taxpayers money.
The Wired article quotes sounded like a bunch of script kiddies, probably with their own AOL accounts, were making things up to sound important.
A large army of script kiddies shouting "me too!"
*shudder*
Ian.
Re:Personality is highly complex, Taste is Simple
on
The Taste of Pain
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A taste bud is simply a receptor, waiting to bind to a molecule in solution in your mouth. Once the receptor binds to the molecule, it generates a signal that says, "bitter!" or "sweet!".
The bitter taste of food has a fairly strong association with alkaloid based compounds (usually poisons of varying strengths). At an early stage in life when you're putting most things in you mouth to explore their taste and texture, having a reflexive dislike of bitter food is a good thing that helps keep you alive.
A taste/reflex like this is going to act as a positive selection method in evolution, so a genetic representation isn't too surprising.
The message would be encrypted with Bruce Schneier's private key, and anyone with access to his public key would then be able to decrypt it and read it. There are three basic modes of operation here, relying on the fact that the private key is very difficult to obtain and the public key is well known:
1) Identifying the sender of the message and controlling the recipient Both the public key of the recipient and the private key of the sender are used to encrypt the message. This message can only be decrypted by someone possessing both the recipients private key and the public key of the sender. This limits availability of the content of the message to the recipient, and at the same time ensures that the recipient can confirm who sent the message.
2) Control recipient of message only Encrypt the message with the public key of the recipient. Only the recipient has the private key that can access the message, but there is no means of identifying who sent the message in the first place (this is what you suggested).
3) Identify the sender of the message Encrypt the message with the private key of the sender. Anyone with access to the public key can obtain the message, and confirm who sent it. The sender doesn't know who reads the message, and doesn't care, it just establishes the identity of author of the message (this is how the message should be encrypted for the mailing list).
Hopefully I didn't miss anything important, I'm not a crypto expert.
It was intended to be a humourous take off on 2001 (the black monolith, aspect ratio 1:4:9) and the original name given to the COBE microwave map (the Face of God).
Apparently it really offended someone and my karma is now bad because of it... oh well.
Scientists are struggling to explain why a large portion of the field of view from COBE shows a microwave cosmic background temperature of absolute zero. There is considerable speculation arising from the nature of the black spot, most notably the aspect ratio of 4 by 9.
Dubbed 'The Mouth of God' by popular media, it has excited religious groups across the globe to claim that this discovery has long been predicted by lesser known prophets of their faith. At least seventeen new cults have also sprung into existence each claiming to have insight into the origin of the 'mouth', with convictions varying wildly from the doom of our planet through to criticisim of government spending plans.
News update:
Scientists have lost contact with the COBE satellite. Rumours persist that a cryptic and unexpected message was received from the satellite before its disappearance, further fuelling speculation in the media and proclaimations from interested religious denominations.
One well known breakfast cereal has incorporated this into their advertising campaign: a large cereal bowl circles an un identified dark object before disappearing inside. The final product jingle, also identifiable as a premium rate telephone number, carries the voiceover: "My god, it's full of wheeto's!"
But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I hope they maintain links between the main search and the blog search. Finding primary sources, then a button linking to all blog comments on theis topic would be a great research tool.
With all the cross referenced porn links floating to the top of PageRank now "accounted for", it looks like they're filtering out what might well be the next largest group of cross-referenced material: the blogger. With blogs filtered into a side channel, one wonders what will be identified as "polluting" PageRank next?
By the time they've finished Google will look like... um.... Yahoo!
Ian.
Ok, there's a 5000 e-mail limit. Amazon.com is now a spammer if all they ever send out is order confirmation and tracking e-mails.
I think that misses the point, doesn't it? A 5000 e-mail limit isn't the definition of a spammer, just the exemption point so that there's no need to charge the majority of single users of e-mail. Large business should have the customer base to be able to afford to pay the excess charge (it becomes a business cost that they have to factor in).
Personal taxation works in a similar fashion: a cut off point at which it isn't worth chasing after the small fry (even though their contribution would still be significant when added together).
It's not as simple to use "quantity" of e-mails as a spam/no spam test.
I agree with this point about quantity of e-mail alone not being a measure of the spamminess... some of it is actually requested or expected by the user. It's just so damn hard in the e-mail protocol to distinguish between what the user asked for and what a spammer says the user asked for. It just highlights how difficult it is to define and fix the problem this way.
Each one got a thorough googling I'm sure :)
...should be Yahoogle!
And then I did a Google search for the name and found it had already been taken... doh!
I refer you to the complete answer that I gave in the split universe you haven't seen yet.
Yep... that certainly makes it more manageable. Of course we're entering into the territory that was covered by the many ways in which DeCSS was published.
Now all we need to do is find an image of a circle encoded in pi in base 11... any takers?
Ian.
Perhaps they'll just settle for getting Microsoft Windows File Sharing shut down...
NERSC has some information about pi and you can search through the first 4 billion digits. The server serial number doesn't code into their input form (numeric or letters only, not a combination), and it's restricted to a 10 character input anyway. The encoding could be converted to hex, but the odds of finding it in the first 4 billion digits are very slim indeed.
It makes brute forcing valid serial numbers almost look attractive.
Ian.
Babies you expect to interfere, but by the time they're 3 you have this (ill-conceived) notion they should be structured enough to get to bed on time.
:)
One trick that you might find useful: set bedtime to be about half an hour earlier than you would like. When the "just 5 more minutes" arguments start up you can give them a bit more time (don't give in too easily!). With a bit of luck you'll get them to bed at or near the time you want, and they think they're staying up a bit later. Everyone's happy.
My parents used this on me, and thought it was quite successful. YMMV.
The VCR game is a variation on a tribesman method of catching a monkey: drill a narrow hole in a tree and open it out to make a cavity, then put some food in the cavity and leave a few hints that there's food available. The monkey can reach in and grab the food, but the closed fist is too large to come back out. A greedy dilemma that allows the monkey to be caught.
On another note: good luck with the lifetime of the VCR. Things other than video tapes are put in there by curious children
Ian.
Although it doesn't seem to mention what I consider to be the idea solution -- merging the files so you don't loose anything from either machine.
Merging two or more files that have a common ancestor isn't a trivial thing to do: a simple text document is the most straight forward. Format dependent text files (e.g. program source, XML) need knowledge of the file format and may require testing for correctness after the merge. Binary file formats require intimate knowledge of the file format and (most likely) re-interpretation in a user friendly way during the merge process.
A great deal of user intervention is required for what is supposed to be a largely automated process.
Ian.
OK, thanks for the nitpick :) It's been a while since I looked at a physics book.
Ian.
"we can communicate our definition of length and time to aliens 1000 light years away (if they are listening us), but we can't tell them what we mean by 1 kilo"
And then:
what matters is some reference atomic mass and then pick up Avogadro number (based on existing 1 kilo mass) and then get rid of the existing standard.
Doesn't the use of an Avagadro number of atoms, of specified number of protons and neutrons, exactly solve the weight description problem? You've got a point about ensuring that the ensemble of atoms doesn't interract with anything chemically, spontaneously decay, or be affected by a cosmic radiation event. However the existing platinum/iridium standard weight is subject to those same effects, and is (very) slowly evaporating away anyway!
The issue you're probably thinking of is transmitting the identification of left and right to aliens, consistant with our own usage. Martin Gardner has a very accessible discussion of this in his book "The New Ambidextrous Universe", and it has deeper implications from CPT (Charge, Parity, Time) symmetry in physics. The problem wasn't found to have a solution until C.S. Wu found a violation in CPT symmetry in 1957, allowing left and right to be uniquely identified.
Ian.
I should have qualified my question: how does doing arithmetic by hand in high school, after you already know (presumably) how to do all the usual arithmetic, make people smarter?
I'm all for thinking and understanding. I just think that once you have thinking and understanding of arithmetic you can use a calculator to get the arithmetic out of the way and let you think and understand what you're doing now.
It's differentiating between doing what you can do now (understanding a problem, formulating a solution, punching the numbers into an equation), and further development of analysis and abstract manipulation and understanding derived from that manipulation.
Basic arithmetic skills in themselves become "saturated", there is after all only so much you can do with basic numbers and equations. As you move up through greater degrees of abstract symbolic analysis and interpretation of those results then the ability to "punch numbers" becomes less and less important. It is the ability to interpret those symbolic results that is the key skill that needs to be developed here.
The basic problem that I have with calculators (and I guess the parent poster as well), is that the reliance on something that crunches numbers can occur before the "saturated" understanding of the arithmetic manipulation occurs. The use of a calculator then becomes a hindrance to taking the next step into more abstract symbolic manipulation, which is what makes people "smarter".
As you've described it, doing arithmetic by hand is a hindrance simply because of the extra time involved. I agree with this and have no problem with calculators being used as a tool. What I don't like is the use of calculators as a substitute for that thinking... something I think we agree on. It sounds to me like you're already doing this in your school(?) work. We're tackling slightly different problems here: the use of a tool, and the reliance on that tool as a block to further development.
When it comes to the point where you're doing research in a mathematical discipline, you start with a blank piece of paper, work through your problem, and end up with an equation that no-one else on this planet might have seen. You then have to relate that result back to the original problem and interpret the array of symbols on the page. You can trace this ability (through quite a few steps) back to basic understanding of arithmetic procedures and manipulation.
Cheers,
Ian.
How does having to do arithmetic by hand make people smarter?
Mathematical and scientific skills usually use earlier, simpler, skills as a foundation for development. For arithmetic by hand you are developing experience and confidence in symbolic manipulation. In the beginning it will be numbers: addition, multiplication, long division. Later you replace numbers with symbols and move further along with ever greater abstract symbolic manipulation. Each step along this path requires the foundation skills are sufficiently practiced and understood.
Just punching numbers into a calculator gets you the result. There are two problems however. Firstly, if you you don't have number confidence (loosly described as a good estimate/expectation of what the result will be) then you don't have a feel for when an answer comes out wrong or very wrong. Just saying "the calculator is always right" isn't enough. Secondly, using a calculator doesn't teach the skills needed to set up a problem so it can be solved. Understanding and formulating a problem is also related to the well practiced skill of symbolic manipulation.
The calculator gets you the result, but teaches nothing about how to get there or think outside the keypad. It is a tool, not a substitute for thinking and understanding (which is tied into your physics example).
Ian.
A barcode just might not be enough for the level of automation that would make it cost effective in product warehousing.
RFID works by placing sensors around loading bays, key transfer points within the warehouse, and also having portable handheld inventory management devices. A garment could be identified even through packaging sealed for transport - no visual line of sight required.
Ian.
That sounds right in principle, but ID proponents do also like to make arguments on the basis of scientific hypotheses.
Philip Henry Gosse was a geologist who tried to reconcile creationism with the age of the geological record, publishing a book called Omphalos in the 1850's (IIRC).
He was a deeply devout Christian and argued that the act of creating the world would have to include the creation of creatures, plants, and geological features that shows a history earlier than the moment at which they were created. A creature like a rabbit whose incisors continually grow and need to be maintained by erosion, would be created with that erosion already in place. This argument was presented as two mutally exclusive views of the world (creationism vs evolution) that were indistinguishable by any test, and therefore the two groups did not need to fight each other.
It was panned by both scientific and religious sides. The theory wasn't scientific (proposed that there couldn't be a test to distinguish mutually exclusive ideas), and presumably the creationists didn't want to admit any other theory had any possibility of being right.
Ian.
Back in the days when the UK energy market was nationalized, one provider took out a full page advert describing how they were going to solve the energy problem with solar power. The Earth's axis of rotation would be moved so that Britain was in the tropics, thus making solar power efficient. The ad went on to explain the effects on some other countries of the world, and how this was an entirely desirable and justifiable state of affairs: it was our turn to have some nice warm weather for a change.
Considering the published date, it's no surprise that the final line of the ad was "April Fuel!"
IIRC they were slapped on the wrist for wasting 50k of taxpayers money.
Ian.
The Wired article quotes sounded like a bunch of script kiddies, probably with their own AOL accounts, were making things up to sound important.
A large army of script kiddies shouting "me too!"
*shudder*
Ian.
A taste bud is simply a receptor, waiting to bind to a molecule in solution in your mouth. Once the receptor binds to the molecule, it generates a signal that says, "bitter!" or "sweet!".
The bitter taste of food has a fairly strong association with alkaloid based compounds (usually poisons of varying strengths). At an early stage in life when you're putting most things in you mouth to explore their taste and texture, having a reflexive dislike of bitter food is a good thing that helps keep you alive.
A taste/reflex like this is going to act as a positive selection method in evolution, so a genetic representation isn't too surprising.
Ian.
The message would be encrypted with Bruce Schneier's private key, and anyone with access to his public key would then be able to decrypt it and read it. There are three basic modes of operation here, relying on the fact that the private key is very difficult to obtain and the public key is well known:
1) Identifying the sender of the message and controlling the recipient
Both the public key of the recipient and the private key of the sender are used to encrypt the message. This message can only be decrypted by someone possessing both the recipients private key and the public key of the sender. This limits availability of the content of the message to the recipient, and at the same time ensures that the recipient can confirm who sent the message.
2) Control recipient of message only
Encrypt the message with the public key of the recipient. Only the recipient has the private key that can access the message, but there is no means of identifying who sent the message in the first place (this is what you suggested).
3) Identify the sender of the message
Encrypt the message with the private key of the sender. Anyone with access to the public key can obtain the message, and confirm who sent it. The sender doesn't know who reads the message, and doesn't care, it just establishes the identity of author of the message (this is how the message should be encrypted for the mailing list).
Hopefully I didn't miss anything important, I'm not a crypto expert.
Ian.
No.
It was intended to be a humourous take off on 2001 (the black monolith, aspect ratio 1:4:9) and the original name given to the COBE microwave map (the Face of God).
Apparently it really offended someone and my karma is now bad because of it... oh well.
*Ack* Change COBE to MAP. Then wash and rinse.
In related news:
Scientists are struggling to explain why a large portion of the field of view from COBE shows a microwave cosmic background temperature of absolute zero. There is considerable speculation arising from the nature of the black spot, most notably the aspect ratio of 4 by 9.
Dubbed 'The Mouth of God' by popular media, it has excited religious groups across the globe to claim that this discovery has long been predicted by lesser known prophets of their faith. At least seventeen new cults have also sprung into existence each claiming to have insight into the origin of the 'mouth', with convictions varying wildly from the doom of our planet through to criticisim of government spending plans.
News update:
Scientists have lost contact with the COBE satellite. Rumours persist that a cryptic and unexpected message was received from the satellite before its disappearance, further fuelling speculation in the media and proclaimations from interested religious denominations.
One well known breakfast cereal has incorporated this into their advertising campaign: a large cereal bowl circles an un identified dark object before disappearing inside. The final product jingle, also identifiable as a premium rate telephone number, carries the voiceover: "My god, it's full of wheeto's!"
But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.
/. article Remotely Counting Machines Behind A NAT Box
This recent
shows how how it can be done (assuming a badly configured NAT).
Ian.
1) Divide the group into two, sending one group into an empty room.
2) Visit each room in turn, repeat step one until division is no longer possible (no axes, please!).
3) Recombine in such a way that the entire group now understands recursion.
Problem sorted.
Ian.