How about clocking the keys out of the keyboard in a regular manner (even if they are typed irregularly) and then adding the delay for the information? There are some ways one can think of which would allow data transmission.
And AFAIK the keyboard controller in a typical PC keyboard only scans the keyboard 15 times per second which means that there is a natural regularity in the data already.
I would not be so quick to say this. A sophisticated parasitic channel would be not constrained to only a single bit delay (no delay/unit delay). Finer-grained timing information could be used.
A thorough analysis of the SnR of such a time channel in a typical-internet-usage setting would be interesting.
And, if the controller in the kbd is only slightly intelligent (which should be no problem to mass-produce cheaply nowadays), it could repeat the transmission of data deemed to be interesting (user/pass combinations for example) several times to increase the chance of getting it through.
Well, there are multi-line lasers with several wavelengths at once. It still isn't black body radiation, but that a laser has to be monochromatic is simply wrong.
no. the size of the sensor has nothing to do with noise. the grandparent poster was correct -- it's the DENSITY of the sensor that affects the amount noise you get.
DSLRs have the advantage, not because their sensors are necessarily larger, but because the pixels aren't packed so tightly together.
Well, 'size of the sensor' is misleading. Size of a single sensor element (pixel) would be better.
But still, he is right. At least for the fundamental limit of CCDs, the photon shot noise. This quantity is inversely proportional to the diameter of a pixel.
In Europe, the Internet will be a place (more like what we in the US have today) where ideas are exchanged freely.
Haha. Two words: data retention
One of these idiotic, invasive things which got first thought out here in good old europe and then exported to the US (we have to 'catch up with the rest of the world' or what are they always telling you?)
...why not make it into a GCC frontend so Python can be compiled directly? Probably because it is fairly hard to translate a dynamically typed language into the RTL GCC uses for its backends.
I think they had a lot of problems even 'only' with C++ and all its powerful constructs like templates etc.
Heh, I'm currently doing exactly this with glue and a 4x4x4mm magnet and I can feel the current in the wires of lamps and similar higher-current devices - the magnet vibrates very slightly if the lamp is switched on. It is just an biutj harrd to tpyopre with theh,magnet on then fingewrh...:-)
The problem being that Jupiter does not have a constellation of satellites collecting data 24/7 and a huge number of ground-stations recording weather conditions at regular intervals all round its surface.
Surface? I think this is defined as the depth in the jovian atmosphere where the pressure is @ 1 bar...
Jupiter is a gas giant and therefore the atmospheric conditions probably (Discl.: I am not an planetary atmospheres scientist...!) need to be known to a depth which is obscured from the view of the usual optical instruments. And as Galileo is now part of this atmosphere, only Hubble and earth-based observations are possible at the moment.
Some flash is up to about 3 million writes already. At 10 million writes the problem is effectively solved, they'll be able to warranty their flash for continuous writes for about 5 years at that point, matching the warranty on your hard drive.
And you can wear it out evenly with specially designed file systems and/or storage patterns - which gives you 250MB*a million cycles sum data transfer to the flash and not only a million cycles for each single location.
Yeah, some might consider this a possible life site. But how can we know the planets are indeed distributed as they are in our Solar System, with a rocky planet with the right elements located in zone around the star that can support liquid water for billions of years?
AFAIK, the formation of planets is not understood very well yet. So I think it is not a bad way to assume that, if many parameters for a star system match, that they may also be similar in many other regards.
This is what one would do to model some experimental data. The best models are of course based on well-tested first principles. But if you have nothing better, you take your set of samples and assume that new species are like the known ones which they match best.
Arguably it's not really relevant either. "proving" a software program only proves that the programs conforms to the spec. Now who proves the spec? And who proves the proof?
Mod parent up. You're friggin' correct. Going even further, you would have to prove the correct functioning of a circuit at the individual transistor level. An what if a cosmic ray hits?
Sure, proofs may help to investigate code more thoroughly. But so do unit tests and other measures.
I think the whole 'proof your code' issue comes from those computer scientists which take the way math -> CS and not physics -> CS. No question, the former group of people is important for theoretic computer science. But some of them forget that a computer is a real, physical device. And most of the pen-and-paper mathematical work in CS someday lands on real physical devices.
I see great possibilities in RSS and XML as a platform for long term collaboration, and the Wiki idea is a step in the right direction.
What does XML have to do with collaboration at all? I had the impression that XML is outdated as a buzzword now.
XML is at most a standarddized markup for tree-like data structures. But there is nothing really new in XML. The LISP world has s-expressions, even the IFF file format on the good old amiga had hierachical chunks - and this in the 80s.
I don't think so. If I understand the article correctly, the evaporation/steam from the water drops causes the uphill motion. So it is some kind of a steam engine with the drop being the cold reservoir in a setup which can surely be approximated by a carnot-cycle.
Well, I think you made an important point: That something which 'clearly shows' that you're just a highly complex, nonlinear system responding your stimuli depends on a lot of 'so-called objective' measurements and the method of science - made and though out by human beings. And as popper rightfully said, science is falsifiable, never provable.
It depends on whether one rejects or accepts certain premises that you have a free will or not. It depends on whether you believe in such things as nature as an external entity independent of yourself or, even if you accept that, whether scientific descriptions are successfully approximating this reality.
Welcome to the field philosophy, which includes the natural sciences and not the other way around.
Disclaimer: I'm a physicist and therefore work daily with this 'reality',:-) But I think it would not hurt if more people would see the ideas above scientific process and progress.
I can only second this statement. Contrary to what is sometimes said on slashdot, asterisk's dialplan and other configuration is rather easy and straightforward to set up, yet totally flexible....And it is fun to have an exchange under your desk!
The source code itself is a bit messy for an open source project (IMHO), but it works and this is the important thing.
With moderation, I find/. bearable, but it does suffer from that "attention curve" -- comments posted after attention has decayed from the story will probably never be moderated up. If you want moderation attention, you have to post very early.
I see this curve, too. But I think this is a problem which can be solved technically.
Dear editors, what about moderation points per user and per story instead of mod points only per user? If users would get mod points which are only applicable to some older stories, the attention curve may get levelled out a bit?
Slashdot is like a pub where everyone knows you, so you find more meaningful conversation.
As I see some people here again and again (the most obvious seems to be TripMasterMonkey with his _slightly_ annoying sig. in the last time:), I wonder how many of the ~1E6 slashdot accounts are still active. Does anyone have any information/stats about that?
Even the well known people here seem to have at max. a few thousand posts overall. IMO, this indicates that quality counts still a bit on/.
Are you sure that the first versions of UNIX were designed with security in mind? Do you have references that support your claim?
Anyway, I think Windows someday can and will get more secure, it just needs time... The path microsoft seems to go is to shift the problem into hardware by endorsing TCPA. This way, it would also be possible to get rid of a few annoying competitors...
Slashdot Mirror
The existence of slashbots has been confirmed!
Well, it goes into firmware then, which can also be closed or open source!
How about clocking the keys out of the keyboard in a regular manner (even if they are typed irregularly) and then adding the delay for the information?
There are some ways one can think of which would allow data transmission.
And AFAIK the keyboard controller in a typical PC keyboard only scans the keyboard 15 times per second which means that there is a natural regularity in the data already.
I would not be so quick to say this. A sophisticated parasitic channel would be not constrained to only a single bit delay (no delay/unit delay). Finer-grained timing information could be used.
A thorough analysis of the SnR of such a time channel in a typical-internet-usage setting would be interesting.
And, if the controller in the kbd is only slightly intelligent (which should be no problem to mass-produce cheaply nowadays), it could repeat the transmission of data deemed to be interesting (user/pass combinations for example) several times to increase the chance of getting it through.
Maybe this is obvious, but anyway:
This is also another reason for 100% open source code for any important part (which you use to transfer confidential information) of your computer.
Especially for low-level parts like device drivers. Stallman wanted to have a free printer driver. Remember the yellow dots??
I hope this is something which makes the closed source WLAN (it's working, it's ok) fans
a bit quieter.
Laser light is monochromatic. White light isn't.
Well, there are multi-line lasers with several wavelengths at once. It still isn't black body radiation, but that a laser has to be monochromatic is simply wrong.
no. the size of the sensor has nothing to do with noise. the grandparent poster was correct -- it's the DENSITY of the sensor that affects the amount noise you get.
DSLRs have the advantage, not because their sensors are necessarily larger, but because the pixels aren't packed so tightly together.
Well, 'size of the sensor' is misleading. Size of a single sensor element (pixel) would be better.
But still, he is right. At least for the fundamental limit of CCDs, the photon shot noise. This quantity is inversely proportional to the diameter of a pixel.
In Europe, the Internet will be a place (more like what we in the US have today) where ideas are exchanged freely.
Haha. Two words: data retention
One of these idiotic, invasive things which got first thought out here in good old europe and then exported to the US (we have to 'catch up with the rest of the world' or what are they always telling you?)
...why not make it into a GCC frontend so Python can be compiled directly?
Probably because it is fairly hard to translate a dynamically typed language into the RTL GCC uses for its backends.
I think they had a lot of problems even 'only' with C++ and all its powerful constructs like templates etc.
Heh, I'm currently doing exactly this with glue and a 4x4x4mm magnet and I can feel the current in the wires of lamps and similar higher-current devices - the magnet vibrates very slightly if the lamp is switched on. It is just an biutj harrd to tpyopre with theh ,magnet on then fingewrh... :-)
The problem being that Jupiter does not have a constellation of satellites collecting data 24/7 and a huge number of ground-stations recording weather conditions at regular intervals all round its surface.
Surface? I think this is defined as the depth in the jovian atmosphere where the pressure is @ 1 bar...
Jupiter is a gas giant and therefore the atmospheric conditions probably (Discl.: I am not an planetary atmospheres scientist...!) need to be known to a depth which is obscured from the view of the usual optical instruments.
And as Galileo is now part of this atmosphere, only Hubble and earth-based observations are possible at the moment.
Some flash is up to about 3 million writes already. At 10 million writes the problem is effectively solved, they'll be able to warranty their flash for continuous writes for about 5 years at that point, matching the warranty on your hard drive.
And you can wear it out evenly with specially designed file systems and/or storage patterns - which gives you 250MB*a million cycles sum data transfer to the flash and not only a million cycles for each single location.
- hook up a laptop with a cellmodem to the unit (expensive, power hungry)
Why are the current options (especially this one) more expensive than a cellphone web server?
What about sending the original real-time data per GPRS to a real apache where it is served for the rest of the world?
Yeah, some might consider this a possible life site. But how can we know the planets are indeed distributed as they are in our Solar System, with a rocky planet with the right elements located in zone around the star that can support liquid water for billions of years?
AFAIK, the formation of planets is not understood very well yet. So I think it is not a bad way to assume that, if many parameters for a star system match, that they may also be similar in many other regards.
This is what one would do to model some experimental data. The best models are of course based on well-tested first principles.
But if you have nothing better, you take your set of samples and assume that new species are like the known ones which they match best.
You know, I've seen EMI-certified screws.
Arguably it's not really relevant either. "proving" a software program only proves that the programs conforms to the spec. Now who proves the spec? And who proves the proof?
Mod parent up.
You're friggin' correct. Going even further, you would have to prove the correct functioning of a circuit at the individual transistor level. An what if a cosmic ray hits?
Sure, proofs may help to investigate code more thoroughly. But so do unit tests and other measures.
I think the whole 'proof your code' issue comes from those computer scientists which take the way math -> CS and not physics -> CS. No question, the former group of people is important for theoretic computer science. But some of them forget that a computer is a real, physical device. And most of the pen-and-paper mathematical work in CS someday lands on real physical devices.
I see great possibilities in RSS and XML as a platform for long term collaboration, and the Wiki idea is a step in the right direction.
What does XML have to do with collaboration at all? I had the impression that XML is outdated as a buzzword now.
XML is at most a standarddized markup for tree-like data structures. But there is nothing really new in XML. The LISP world has s-expressions, even the IFF file format on the good old amiga had hierachical chunks - and this in the 80s.
I don't think so. If I understand the article correctly, the evaporation/steam from the water drops causes the uphill motion. So it is some kind of a steam engine with the drop being the cold reservoir in a setup which can surely be approximated by a carnot-cycle.
Well, I think you made an important point: That something which 'clearly shows' that you're just a highly complex, nonlinear system responding your stimuli depends on a lot of 'so-called objective' measurements and the method of science - made and though out by human beings. And as popper rightfully said, science is falsifiable, never provable.
:-) But I think it would not hurt if more people would see the ideas above scientific process and progress.
It depends on whether one rejects or accepts certain premises that you have a free will or not. It depends on whether you believe in such things as nature as an external entity independent of yourself or, even if you accept that, whether scientific descriptions are successfully approximating this reality.
Welcome to the field philosophy, which includes the natural sciences and not the other way around.
Disclaimer: I'm a physicist and therefore work daily with this 'reality',
I can only second this statement. Contrary to what is sometimes said on slashdot, asterisk's dialplan and other configuration is rather easy and straightforward to set up, yet totally flexible. ...And it is fun to have an exchange under your desk!
The source code itself is a bit messy for an open source project (IMHO), but it works and this is the important thing.
With moderation, I find /. bearable, but it does suffer from that "attention curve" -- comments posted after attention has decayed from the story will probably never be moderated up. If you want moderation attention, you have to post very early.
I see this curve, too. But I think this is a problem which can be solved technically.
Dear editors, what about moderation points per user and per story instead of mod points only per user? If users would get mod points which are only applicable to some older stories, the attention curve may get levelled out a bit?
Slashdot is like a pub where everyone knows you, so you find more meaningful conversation.
:), I wonder how many of the ~1E6 slashdot accounts are still active. Does anyone have any information/stats about that?
/.
As I see some people here again and again (the most obvious seems to be TripMasterMonkey with his _slightly_ annoying sig. in the last time
Even the well known people here seem to have at max. a few thousand posts overall. IMO, this indicates that quality counts still a bit on
Why people such as Lester Brown and Paul Erlich are given any credibility is beyond logic.
:)
I, too, don't understand this in the case of Paul Erlich. Honestly
Are you sure that the first versions of UNIX were designed with security in mind? Do you have references that support your claim?
Anyway, I think Windows someday can and will get more secure, it just needs time... The path microsoft seems to go is to shift the problem into hardware by endorsing TCPA. This way, it would also be possible to get rid of a few annoying competitors...
What about self-destructing chips when you open the chassis of your speaker?
Maybe this is far-fetched, but I'm not so sure anymore...