The chosen language is one of the things that the Consumer (maybe they not think the same, but, whatever) is most aware of. Let's see... The Consumer wants programs that are:
1 - Efficient (memory, processor, net, and disk usage,...)
2 - Bug-free
3 - Cheap
A low level language leads to 1, but not to 2 and 3. A good hight level language leads to 2 and 3, but not to 1. How well received your programs is depends only on how well it fits the Consumer's expectations (and how fat is your marketing bill), so the language matters.
Also, Ruby + Java doesn't lead to a nice combo. The ideal combinations are with languages of different abstraction levels, like Ruby + C, or Ruby + some excelent hight level framework for web pages, aka Rails. So bad Java doesn't combine well with low level languages.
" I'm not worried at all about getting the bird flu and dying, or losing a family member or friend to it."
I am! Even more with people around me who can just think about the economical consequences of something like that.
Guess what, the chance of you or I diyng is hightly increased by a flu pandemic. That number, 0.7% (that is the lower guestimate I alread read about it), means that near 1 person on each 100 on the world will die from the disiase. What else cause so many deaths? Are you comparing it with all other disiases, trafic accidents and violence added? And are not concerned because it is not worst!?
It is that kind of thinking that leads to the situation we have now. That there is a very expected (and avoidable) catastrofe comming, andthat may be too late to do anything to avoid it.
INAImunology Expert, but from the few stuff I've alread read, you got it right. Vaccinating people against the H5N1 would probably make its mutations as lethal as an ordinary flu.
But the amount of flu vaccines that are created nowadays is very small. There are very few factories, and almost all their production is already spent dealing with ordinary flu on hightly sucseptible people. And the factories of flu vaccines would generate even less vaccines against the H5N1 than against our ordinary flu. That happens because people had never bein infected by the virus, so they need more doses and a different amount of antibodies on each dose.
All this could be solved if most governments did realy want to avoid the flu pandemics. The reason that we have so few vaccine factories is because it is not lucrative to have more (they are usefull just near a pandemics). If people did realy want to avoid the pandemics, we would be already vaccinating birds and people.
I was going to reply the parent, but, then, I saw your poster...
That is exactly what I find so anoying at all this AJAX stuff: the designers think that because they write more powerfull programs, they can give less power to the users. It happens even at an irrational level, because more powerfull programs need a lot more work to enpower the users than the old simple ones (see GUI x CLI).
I almost stopped using gmail when I first got an account because of this tab problem. The dumb interface of yahoo was so much more usefull that I would keep myself using just 5MB of space just to use it. I now use gmail, but only because of the POP interface (well, now they also have a dumb interface).
I've seen this happens on so many places at the internet, I miss the old days of dumb pages. Those that didn't care about the client window sizes, didn't need to use javascript to go to links, didn't have bugs...
I've already read more than 20 posters (treshold 3) and nobody seems to get what is wrong here: This company is suing people that it doesn't even know the names.
This is not about libel, it is about due process! Juniper is suing two people that are anonymised by the internet. And, as anonymous, they have no chance of defending themsemves. They wheren't even informed of the process!
My take here is that they should discover who are those guys first, then sue. It is a shame for the court they are going into to even accept such case!
Well, the submarine cabs that link the South America to the USA will have to be 1/3 bigger to reach Europe. Central America (at least most of it) will have problems to get their traffic out of US, but could go through SA. All the rest of the world will be ok.
And I'll not be able to reach./, but I can live without it (I guess).
Groupthink is not a problem if you have several groups to listen to. It is true that people seems to want to make wikipedia the ultimate repository of humanity's knowledge, and to do that, groupthinking must be avoided.
But it is also true that all the projected ultimate repositories of knowledge tried up to now have failed. A few have turned into great sources of information, but still limited, like the current encyclopedias.
So, there is nothing wrong with groupthinkig if you want to build just an extremely usefull source of knowledge.
It is not an absurd situation to get bad code from people that where hired because they ask for a low salary. In fact, it would be surprising if you get some competent people this way. That should happen independently of this people being from US, India or Moldova.
His PhD on solid state physics makes him an as good criptography expert as my current grad on computer vision (at most). Want a proof? Read my post, his proposal is at least as flawed as quantum criptography.
A classical counterpart of quantum criptography... How could anyone imagine researching such a thing?
Of course, the process is so weak that I can alread imagine a way of breaking it: One could insert low intensity pseudo-random noise (that mixes with the termal noise) and measure the current. He'll be able to get near half the bits this way.
The author is also a bit naive, assuming that the resistence changes will be imediate. Since that is impossible, one can insert some current into the system during the change time and whatch it, "reading" the resistances.
Also, there is no way to transfer information in a safe way with that process. If both sides change their resistance at the same time, the sender should already know what resistance the receiver will use, otherwise, no information could pass through the channel. But if this happens, they'll be constrained by the algorith they use to calculate the resistance value, breaking it will be just like breaking some logicaly criptographed message. If the changes are not simultaneous, one can read each change and discover the message.
Of course, as this is "based" on quantum criptography, it is subject to the same attacks that the quantum processes are: If you can intercept the public channel, you can tell the other side whatever you want. There is not much sense in using a safe channel to create a safe channel.
Good luck trying to break one time pad. Even 300 years from now. You'll also need god luck while trying to break RSA with a big enogh key if we don't make a quantum computer. Oh, I almost forgot, good luck trying to break the current used symetric criptography systems, even 30 yeas from now.
The brest seurity is not the one done with the newest technology. The best security is the one with the toghest weak link. But if you are only taking the technology into account, the best security is the one done with the technology that best survived the people trying to break it. That last definition simply exclude any new stuf, at least until it becomes old.
"answers yes to every question the computer recommends he answer yes to"
How funny, I do that when compiling Linux kernels too. I guess almost every non-geek out there does it. Not a good metric, but I agree with the overall.
I can see where you are going into. A virus swarm, capable of communiocating within itself and evolving. For that to become the nightmare of any security person we need the virus to not be a monoculture and be capable of recombination.
Add some random mutations (without excluding the not random upgrades) and we have a swarm of evolved creatures that want just to infect computers. The virus writter will need a way to force them to actualy attack anything, I guess it could be a social way.
There is nothing preventing a population of small viruses from developping a very complex social behaviour. If they are not equal, we can see several complex social behaviours. That would be unstopable.
"BTW I'm not a virus writter."
If you where, you wouldn't be writting about it on./:)
Re:At least Viruses dont spontaneously mutate
on
Sober Code Cracked
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"A virus can't just start rewriting itself with whacky random code because programs have to conform to very strict rules to still work, whereas biological mutations..."
That statment is naive. Biological organisms also have very strict rules that they need to conform, even stricter than computer programs. That is why most mutations are lethal.
Biological virus don't have anything like junk-DNA to mutate into something usefull. This happens because bilogical virus are also constrained into a small size, just like the computer's ones.
The biological virus can spread while mutating because each virus creates milions of descendents with hundreds of different mutations. Just out of luck, some are can spread well. We can do this with computer virus too.
ELIZA seems to be overkill. Also, your on the fly optimiziation. Virus could do a lot of tings to hide thenselves and spread faster, but they are even more dumb today then they used to be at DOS times. People used to discover several polimorphic virus by then, but we have just a few new ones.
So, forget about IA on virus optimizing the spread, or discovering new holes. Forget also about beter criptography usage. The virus writter can (and do) nowadays 0wn the entire net with just a simple VB script.
Microsoft have being on Brazil for a long time. They even helped government corruption throug all the 90's (their representatives here got a lot of money this way). Nowadays, we have a very adversarial attitude toward them (not a bad thing), and they stoped investing big here.
Yes, I think you got something right here: IT has a lot to gain on the fast growing markets. And as US shows signs of weakening, this becomes more true. But you also got something wrong, it does not depend of how sparse the population is. And this also contradicts what you said, because South America's population is much more sparse than Nort America's ou Europe's (not even talking about Japan).
You can also increse the energy neded to transpass the insulator. that will reduce the leakage current maintaining its thickness. Of course, you need a better insulator for that. And discovering what is this "better insulator" is a huge problem, and buiding it on a chip, another problem as big as the first one.
Slashdot Mirror
The chosen language is one of the things that the Consumer (maybe they not think the same, but, whatever) is most aware of. Let's see... The Consumer wants programs that are:
1 - Efficient (memory, processor, net, and disk usage,...)
2 - Bug-free
3 - Cheap
A low level language leads to 1, but not to 2 and 3. A good hight level language leads to 2 and 3, but not to 1. How well received your programs is depends only on how well it fits the Consumer's expectations (and how fat is your marketing bill), so the language matters.
Also, Ruby + Java doesn't lead to a nice combo. The ideal combinations are with languages of different abstraction levels, like Ruby + C, or Ruby + some excelent hight level framework for web pages, aka Rails. So bad Java doesn't combine well with low level languages.
I am! Even more with people around me who can just think about the economical consequences of something like that.
Guess what, the chance of you or I diyng is hightly increased by a flu pandemic. That number, 0.7% (that is the lower guestimate I alread read about it), means that near 1 person on each 100 on the world will die from the disiase. What else cause so many deaths? Are you comparing it with all other disiases, trafic accidents and violence added? And are not concerned because it is not worst!?
It is that kind of thinking that leads to the situation we have now. That there is a very expected (and avoidable) catastrofe comming, andthat may be too late to do anything to avoid it.
INAImunology Expert, but from the few stuff I've alread read, you got it right. Vaccinating people against the H5N1 would probably make its mutations as lethal as an ordinary flu.
But the amount of flu vaccines that are created nowadays is very small. There are very few factories, and almost all their production is already spent dealing with ordinary flu on hightly sucseptible people. And the factories of flu vaccines would generate even less vaccines against the H5N1 than against our ordinary flu. That happens because people had never bein infected by the virus, so they need more doses and a different amount of antibodies on each dose.
All this could be solved if most governments did realy want to avoid the flu pandemics. The reason that we have so few vaccine factories is because it is not lucrative to have more (they are usefull just near a pandemics). If people did realy want to avoid the pandemics, we would be already vaccinating birds and people.
But it is very easy to me to belive that inteligency and conservadorism are correlated, as those studies show.
I was going to reply the parent, but, then, I saw your poster...
That is exactly what I find so anoying at all this AJAX stuff: the designers think that because they write more powerfull programs, they can give less power to the users. It happens even at an irrational level, because more powerfull programs need a lot more work to enpower the users than the old simple ones (see GUI x CLI).
I almost stopped using gmail when I first got an account because of this tab problem. The dumb interface of yahoo was so much more usefull that I would keep myself using just 5MB of space just to use it. I now use gmail, but only because of the POP interface (well, now they also have a dumb interface).
I've seen this happens on so many places at the internet, I miss the old days of dumb pages. Those that didn't care about the client window sizes, didn't need to use javascript to go to links, didn't have bugs...
I've already read more than 20 posters (treshold 3) and nobody seems to get what is wrong here: This company is suing people that it doesn't even know the names.
This is not about libel, it is about due process! Juniper is suing two people that are anonymised by the internet. And, as anonymous, they have no chance of defending themsemves. They wheren't even informed of the process!
My take here is that they should discover who are those guys first, then sue. It is a shame for the court they are going into to even accept such case!
Well, the submarine cabs that link the South America to the USA will have to be 1/3 bigger to reach Europe. Central America (at least most of it) will have problems to get their traffic out of US, but could go through SA. All the rest of the world will be ok.
And I'll not be able to reach ./, but I can live without it (I guess).
Groupthink is not a problem if you have several groups to listen to. It is true that people seems to want to make wikipedia the ultimate repository of humanity's knowledge, and to do that, groupthinking must be avoided.
But it is also true that all the projected ultimate repositories of knowledge tried up to now have failed. A few have turned into great sources of information, but still limited, like the current encyclopedias.
So, there is nothing wrong with groupthinkig if you want to build just an extremely usefull source of knowledge.
Well, I won't read the appluications, but those titles seem to be kind of hard distributed systems inventions. Don't put they away so fast.
Well, don't forguet that MS has its own RSS standard.
On that sense, VI is clearly better!
"I can do that!? Cool!"
The answer that I recived (lossly translated) from the last person that I set the browser to start at a blank page.
It is not an absurd situation to get bad code from people that where hired because they ask for a low salary. In fact, it would be surprising if you get some competent people this way. That should happen independently of this people being from US, India or Moldova.
And no, I am not saying that from India.
His PhD on solid state physics makes him an as good criptography expert as my current grad on computer vision (at most). Want a proof? Read my post, his proposal is at least as flawed as quantum criptography.
A classical counterpart of quantum criptography... How could anyone imagine researching such a thing?
Of course, the process is so weak that I can alread imagine a way of breaking it: One could insert low intensity pseudo-random noise (that mixes with the termal noise) and measure the current. He'll be able to get near half the bits this way.
The author is also a bit naive, assuming that the resistence changes will be imediate. Since that is impossible, one can insert some current into the system during the change time and whatch it, "reading" the resistances.
Also, there is no way to transfer information in a safe way with that process. If both sides change their resistance at the same time, the sender should already know what resistance the receiver will use, otherwise, no information could pass through the channel. But if this happens, they'll be constrained by the algorith they use to calculate the resistance value, breaking it will be just like breaking some logicaly criptographed message. If the changes are not simultaneous, one can read each change and discover the message.
Of course, as this is "based" on quantum criptography, it is subject to the same attacks that the quantum processes are: If you can intercept the public channel, you can tell the other side whatever you want. There is not much sense in using a safe channel to create a safe channel.
Good luck trying to break one time pad. Even 300 years from now. You'll also need god luck while trying to break RSA with a big enogh key if we don't make a quantum computer. Oh, I almost forgot, good luck trying to break the current used symetric criptography systems, even 30 yeas from now.
The brest seurity is not the one done with the newest technology. The best security is the one with the toghest weak link. But if you are only taking the technology into account, the best security is the one done with the technology that best survived the people trying to break it. That last definition simply exclude any new stuf, at least until it becomes old.
How funny, I do that when compiling Linux kernels too. I guess almost every non-geek out there does it. Not a good metric, but I agree with the overall.
Or because bittorent checks the md5 sum of the files after downloading them.
I can see where you are going into. A virus swarm, capable of communiocating within itself and evolving. For that to become the nightmare of any security person we need the virus to not be a monoculture and be capable of recombination.
Add some random mutations (without excluding the not random upgrades) and we have a swarm of evolved creatures that want just to infect computers. The virus writter will need a way to force them to actualy attack anything, I guess it could be a social way.
There is nothing preventing a population of small viruses from developping a very complex social behaviour. If they are not equal, we can see several complex social behaviours. That would be unstopable.
If you where, you wouldn't be writting about it on ./ :)
That statment is naive. Biological organisms also have very strict rules that they need to conform, even stricter than computer programs. That is why most mutations are lethal.
Biological virus don't have anything like junk-DNA to mutate into something usefull. This happens because bilogical virus are also constrained into a small size, just like the computer's ones.
The biological virus can spread while mutating because each virus creates milions of descendents with hundreds of different mutations. Just out of luck, some are can spread well. We can do this with computer virus too.
AVG and ClamAV are two excelent and free (AVG: beer, ClamAV: beer + speech) antivirus tools that you can put at the computers of your clients.
ELIZA seems to be overkill. Also, your on the fly optimiziation. Virus could do a lot of tings to hide thenselves and spread faster, but they are even more dumb today then they used to be at DOS times. People used to discover several polimorphic virus by then, but we have just a few new ones.
So, forget about IA on virus optimizing the spread, or discovering new holes. Forget also about beter criptography usage. The virus writter can (and do) nowadays 0wn the entire net with just a simple VB script.
Microsoft have being on Brazil for a long time. They even helped government corruption throug all the 90's (their representatives here got a lot of money this way). Nowadays, we have a very adversarial attitude toward them (not a bad thing), and they stoped investing big here.
Yes, I think you got something right here: IT has a lot to gain on the fast growing markets. And as US shows signs of weakening, this becomes more true. But you also got something wrong, it does not depend of how sparse the population is. And this also contradicts what you said, because South America's population is much more sparse than Nort America's ou Europe's (not even talking about Japan).
All hype sucks must of the time. We have just to wait until the hype goes away and the bad projects die. So, we'll have only lots of useful stuf.
You can also increse the energy neded to transpass the insulator. that will reduce the leakage current maintaining its thickness. Of course, you need a better insulator for that. And discovering what is this "better insulator" is a huge problem, and buiding it on a chip, another problem as big as the first one.