It would be beneficial if people started getting random spammings. Hopefully it will reach the mainstream press and people would get taught how to disable the promiscuous phone settings.
I just recently picked up a bluetooth adapter for this computer and I am getting quite good at recognising people who arrive at the house (before they even knock on the door!).
Your Bluetooth personal area network should not operate like RFID, at the moment, businesses can see who comes and goes.
I've heard about a couple of them now, it increases public awareness of google and their maps in general. I quite like the idea of the maps cataloguing large events as they occur rather than just getting a blank field or empty stadium.
Incase you don't know what it is (like I didn't, here is the wikipedia definition:
Metabolome[1] refers to the complete set of small-molecule metabolites (such as metabolic intermediates, hormones and other signalling molecules, and secondary metabolites) to be found within a biological sample, such as a single organism. The word was coined in analogy with transcriptomics and proteomics; like the transcriptome and the proteome, the metabolome is dynamic, changing from second to second. Although the metabolome can be defined readily enough, it is not currently possible to analyse the entire range of metabolites by a single analytical method (see metabolomics). In January 2007 scientists at the University of Alberta finished a draft of the human metabolome. They have catalogued and characterized 2,500 metabolites, 1,200 drugs and 3,500 food components that can be found in the human body.
However, I am still in the dark about why this is required.
I suppose its like organising your stamp collection by number of nobbles around the edge.
Actually, knowing some of the laws of this country, its probably legal to kill a russian, however he didn't fill in all the correct forms or even apply for a license.
If google is now discounting the wording other people use to link to a page, then isn't google themselves becoming like old fashioned engine, ie only specifically accounting for information on the actual page and not based on what other people who link to this page thinK?
By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead.
reworded becomes:
By ignoring the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return only results which are from the actual page itself rather than looking at how other people link to each other.
A googlebomb is not a bad thing, its making use of the algorithm to expand the keywords which a page is associated with.
Sidenote:
I did a search for google, and the snippet that comes up under each google entry does not exist on the page itself, where does it actually come from?
for example: Google The local version of this pre-eminent search engine, offering UK-specific pages as well as world results. www.google.co.uk/ - 4k - 24 Jan 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
I thought google weren't meant to display a different page to bots as to users? (didn't they get in trouble for something similar not so long ago?)
With most operating systems I Work on I try to make use of what is available. That way I won't be caught in a location wishing I had my thumbdrive or internet access.
Within Windows, the most efficient way to get a command line up *without a mouse* is to simply press [Winkey] + R. The run box comes up offering full access to everything nice and quickly. Alt tab gets you around stuff, leaving only a quirky spell checker.
I would steer against this idea. Your new users need something quick simple and effective. They have office, so could create an effective powerpoint (or equiv) presentation going over the basic requirements.
I would be against giving them access to the intranet before they know whats expected of them.
A web browser is not the right tool for training (easy to browse elsewhere...)
Maybe you are swaming them with stuff they don't need. Large numbers of new users every week can mean immense expansion or they are really put of by your new user orientation meetings.
If its turnover, perhaps it would be easier to skip the email/office stuff until they need it.
Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.
On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied. Its no wonder he is keeping a tight grip.
Its really sad it died just a few hours after capture, though it would be expected if its usual surroundings are at immense pressure (600 metres down).
Additionally, the researchers couldn't get the frikkin laser beam head unit to fit snugly without drilling.
The whole point of the fucking article is that some researcher found a method that was 2000 times less work to find a collision in SHA-1, hence making it feasible to do. If that had not been done then I would agree with you and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Recent years have seen a stream of ever-more-refined attacks on MD5 and SHA-1--including, notably, Wang's team's results on SHA-1, which permit finding collisions in SHA-1 about 2,000 times more quickly than brute-force guessing. Wang's technique makes attacking SHA-1 efficient enough to be feasible.
I was simply considering an alternative method which was content specific hence making it impractical to extend a document to insert extra data and get a match.
If I take a HTML document and produce a hash for it, I can very easily modify that file and then reproduce the same hash by simply extending that document with an offscreen DIV with white text until I find a match. Sure, it might take a while, but it would be possible.
If I store information specific to that type of document (node count, word count or something) then the job becomes MUCH more involved.
When you digest a message and obtain a hash it is obvious that there will be collisions. Unless the hash key length is equal to the data you are hashing there will be problems.
Whenever you are throwing data away you must decide which is important, do you remove the grand overall detail of the data or the fine grain details?
As an equivilent, your ID card will hold a hash of you.
If I show you some pictures of people can you tell which one is me? Would you let me on a plane with just a grainy picture?
Maybe secure hashing needs to store a mixture of the low level and the high level details but in a context specific way - the face picture example should also store the detailed iris pattern as well as an overall face picture, both should match to allow this person through. It might be easy to find someone who looks like me, but the specific portion cannot be modified without surgery.
A hash of a zip file may contain the overall hash plus a specific portion of the zip root structure (its virtual FAT table), something like a word doc would need its document information, an executable would need a breakdown of its segments, other formats would require other extensions.
You keep the details specific to the format instead of trying to generalise everything (unsupported formats would of course just use the general algorithm.
Re:Switching XP - Amiga
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The thing is, its NOT wrong to optimise a word processor using assembly (or any other process). If an efficient algorithm is found to handle one atom of the text then that benefit only grows as you write more text.
You have to weigh up time versus benefit though, a person won't normally notice something running slowly in a WP because it has to respond at the speed of the typist.
I think.net has taken this too far, and now EVERY application written in it feels sluggish, you can do lots more easily by simply linking elements, but each addition takes more CPU time.
The underlying.net code needs some very specific object lookup and handling routines hard coded in assembler to make full use of the cache and pipelining available on specific processors (it might even be beneficial for AMD/intel to start looking at custom object routines hard coded into silicon - like the java chip from back in the day)
Digg? You mean Duck! That place has comment moderation down to an art! One person spams, he gets modded down, but them the 400 replies all telling him he is being blocked are left modded up (because users would see it as a slight and have an argument about why they got downmodded and that will get upmodded and eventually you get to the next actual reply of something and some other fucker jumps in the way and it all starts again.
Wikipedia does a VERY good job at keeping hold of user input. It does not throw it away.
Currently there is a whole goldmine of good information buried inside the wikipedia history files. It has been edited out of view because somebody did not agree with the content.
Why not just moderate these phrases instead of hiding them?
Sure, theres lots of drivel and spammy vandalism, but that might actually be of interest to someone.
We write a hell of a lot into our keyboards, we are infinite monkeys at our keyboards and I sense there is another work of shakespeare hiding away within our collective edits.
Everything must be in neutral POV for it to be acceptable, however sometimes an objective POV is better. I would like to see a wikipedia branch which offered different perspectives upon an article.
It would be good to see the Microsoft POV on themselves and how the public perceives them. It would be good to know the facts about Manchester United football club, but since I support them I also don't mind reading about extra detail, where the best pubs are, bitching about the opposition and all other stuff someone who doesn't follow won't be interested in.
With microsoft I might want to see the party line on events actions and (for instance) the reasons behind those, I might want to be an investor who is looking more closely about the accounting details or a ravid linux fanboy wanting the conspiracy theories.
I would want to set my preferences like slashdot moderation groups and see the wiki-content I want.
All of this is available and is constantly created and destroyed in daily edit wars about POV.
Without knowing their composition, we could do as you suggest and send a massive probe up there and have it try to land and end up sinking thraight through with no purchase hold.
Most things you buy from the shops have been tested to destruction, this mission sounds like the toffee hammer approach, we can move onto bigger things when it fails to crack.
Not really, its called marketing. They grab the only figure that gives them a reasonable percentage (everything else will have been drowned out to nothingness)
It got to the frontpage because its an interesting idea. The firehose will help with things like this.
I agree it was empty and its implimentation feels flawed, but it gives a baseline for thoughts other people may be having. I know *I* have been thinking about this since I saw it and how it should/could be once filled.
They have a single sensor and mega-mirrors which all flutter about. At any one point in time, only a minimal number of mirrors will actually send a reflection onto the sensor.
they use a mathematical algorithm to process these and reconstruct the multi mega pixel image back from the positions on the multi mega mirror array.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be beneficial if people started getting random spammings.
Hopefully it will reach the mainstream press and people would get taught how to disable the promiscuous phone settings.
I just recently picked up a bluetooth adapter for this computer and I am getting quite good at recognising people who arrive at the house (before they even knock on the door!).
Your Bluetooth personal area network should not operate like RFID, at the moment, businesses can see who comes and goes.
I've heard about a couple of them now, it increases public awareness of google and their maps in general.
I quite like the idea of the maps cataloguing large events as they occur rather than just getting a blank field or empty stadium.
This is easily solved by putting in place a corporate policy to include roof decoration for all franchises.
Much like all police cars now having a decal highlighting the car number (for identification by the helicopter).
Incase you don't know what it is (like I didn't, here is the wikipedia definition:
Metabolome[1] refers to the complete set of small-molecule metabolites (such as metabolic intermediates, hormones and other signalling molecules, and secondary metabolites) to be found within a biological sample, such as a single organism. The word was coined in analogy with transcriptomics and proteomics; like the transcriptome and the proteome, the metabolome is dynamic, changing from second to second. Although the metabolome can be defined readily enough, it is not currently possible to analyse the entire range of metabolites by a single analytical method (see metabolomics). In January 2007 scientists at the University of Alberta finished a draft of the human metabolome. They have catalogued and characterized 2,500 metabolites, 1,200 drugs and 3,500 food components that can be found in the human body.
However, I am still in the dark about why this is required.
I suppose its like organising your stamp collection by number of nobbles around the edge.
What I want to know is why this guy isn't already dead?
If he carried this polonium round for so long and was effectively oozing with the stuff, why isn't he in the same place as his victim?
Actually, knowing some of the laws of this country, its probably legal to kill a russian, however he didn't fill in all the correct forms or even apply for a license.
Surely this changes lots of things.
If google is now discounting the wording other people use to link to a page, then isn't google themselves becoming like old fashioned engine, ie only specifically accounting for information on the actual page and not based on what other people who link to this page thinK?
By improving our analysis of the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead.
reworded becomes:
By ignoring the link structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will typically return only results which are from the actual page itself rather than looking at how other people link to each other.
A googlebomb is not a bad thing, its making use of the algorithm to expand the keywords which a page is associated with.
Sidenote:
I did a search for google, and the snippet that comes up under each google entry does not exist on the page itself, where does it actually come from?
for example:
Google
The local version of this pre-eminent search engine, offering UK-specific pages as well as world results.
www.google.co.uk/ - 4k - 24 Jan 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
I thought google weren't meant to display a different page to bots as to users? (didn't they get in trouble for something similar not so long ago?)
With most operating systems I Work on I try to make use of what is available.
That way I won't be caught in a location wishing I had my thumbdrive or internet access.
Within Windows, the most efficient way to get a command line up *without a mouse* is to simply press [Winkey] + R.
The run box comes up offering full access to everything nice and quickly.
Alt tab gets you around stuff, leaving only a quirky spell checker.
I would steer against this idea.
Your new users need something quick simple and effective.
They have office, so could create an effective powerpoint (or equiv) presentation going over the basic requirements.
I would be against giving them access to the intranet before they know whats expected of them.
A web browser is not the right tool for training (easy to browse elsewhere...)
Maybe you are swaming them with stuff they don't need.
Large numbers of new users every week can mean immense expansion or they are really put of by your new user orientation meetings.
If its turnover, perhaps it would be easier to skip the email/office stuff until they need it.
Hu Jintao is a very talented man.
from the article:
Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.
On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied. Its no wonder he is keeping a tight grip.
Its really sad it died just a few hours after capture, though it would be expected if its usual surroundings are at immense pressure (600 metres down).
Additionally, the researchers couldn't get the frikkin laser beam head unit to fit snugly without drilling.
The whole point of the fucking article is that some researcher found a method that was 2000 times less work to find a collision in SHA-1, hence making it feasible to do.
If that had not been done then I would agree with you and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Recent years have seen a stream of ever-more-refined attacks on MD5 and SHA-1--including, notably, Wang's team's results on SHA-1, which permit finding collisions in SHA-1 about 2,000 times more quickly than brute-force guessing. Wang's technique makes attacking SHA-1 efficient enough to be feasible.
I was simply considering an alternative method which was content specific hence making it impractical to extend a document to insert extra data and get a match.
If I take a HTML document and produce a hash for it, I can very easily modify that file and then reproduce the same hash by simply extending that document with an offscreen DIV with white text until I find a match.
Sure, it might take a while, but it would be possible.
If I store information specific to that type of document (node count, word count or something) then the job becomes MUCH more involved.
When you digest a message and obtain a hash it is obvious that there will be collisions.
Unless the hash key length is equal to the data you are hashing there will be problems.
Whenever you are throwing data away you must decide which is important, do you remove the grand overall detail of the data or the fine grain details?
As an equivilent, your ID card will hold a hash of you.
If I show you some pictures of people can you tell which one is me? Would you let me on a plane with just a grainy picture?
Maybe secure hashing needs to store a mixture of the low level and the high level details but in a context specific way - the face picture example should also store the detailed iris pattern as well as an overall face picture, both should match to allow this person through. It might be easy to find someone who looks like me, but the specific portion cannot be modified without surgery.
A hash of a zip file may contain the overall hash plus a specific portion of the zip root structure (its virtual FAT table), something like a word doc would need its document information, an executable would need a breakdown of its segments, other formats would require other extensions.
You keep the details specific to the format instead of trying to generalise everything (unsupported formats would of course just use the general algorithm.
The thing is, its NOT wrong to optimise a word processor using assembly (or any other process).
.net has taken this too far, and now EVERY application written in it feels sluggish, you can do lots more easily by simply linking elements, but each addition takes more CPU time.
.net code needs some very specific object lookup and handling routines hard coded in assembler to make full use of the cache and pipelining available on specific processors (it might even be beneficial for AMD/intel to start looking at custom object routines hard coded into silicon - like the java chip from back in the day)
If an efficient algorithm is found to handle one atom of the text then that benefit only grows as you write more text.
You have to weigh up time versus benefit though, a person won't normally notice something running slowly in a WP because it has to respond at the speed of the typist.
I think
The underlying
Digg?
You mean Duck!
That place has comment moderation down to an art!
One person spams, he gets modded down, but them the 400 replies all telling him he is being blocked are left modded up (because users would see it as a slight and have an argument about why they got downmodded and that will get upmodded and eventually you get to the next actual reply of something and some other fucker jumps in the way and it all starts again.
Wikipedia does a VERY good job at keeping hold of user input.
It does not throw it away.
Currently there is a whole goldmine of good information buried inside the wikipedia history files.
It has been edited out of view because somebody did not agree with the content.
Why not just moderate these phrases instead of hiding them?
Sure, theres lots of drivel and spammy vandalism, but that might actually be of interest to someone.
We write a hell of a lot into our keyboards, we are infinite monkeys at our keyboards and I sense there is another work of shakespeare hiding away within our collective edits.
Thats just in time!
Vista is released in a couple of days, we need at least one machine up to spec.
I have a problem with Wikipedia.
Everything must be in neutral POV for it to be acceptable, however sometimes an objective POV is better.
I would like to see a wikipedia branch which offered different perspectives upon an article.
It would be good to see the Microsoft POV on themselves and how the public perceives them.
It would be good to know the facts about Manchester United football club, but since I support them I also don't mind reading about extra detail, where the best pubs are, bitching about the opposition and all other stuff someone who doesn't follow won't be interested in.
With microsoft I might want to see the party line on events actions and (for instance) the reasons behind those, I might want to be an investor who is looking more closely about the accounting details or a ravid linux fanboy wanting the conspiracy theories.
I would want to set my preferences like slashdot moderation groups and see the wiki-content I want.
All of this is available and is constantly created and destroyed in daily edit wars about POV.
Step one: How (un)stable are these things?
Without knowing their composition, we could do as you suggest and send a massive probe up there and have it try to land and end up sinking thraight through with no purchase hold.
Most things you buy from the shops have been tested to destruction, this mission sounds like the toffee hammer approach, we can move onto bigger things when it fails to crack.
Not really, its called marketing.
They grab the only figure that gives them a reasonable percentage (everything else will have been drowned out to nothingness)
It got to the frontpage because its an interesting idea.
The firehose will help with things like this.
I agree it was empty and its implimentation feels flawed, but it gives a baseline for thoughts other people may be having.
I know *I* have been thinking about this since I saw it and how it should/could be once filled.
It gets a thumbs up from me.
They have a single sensor and mega-mirrors which all flutter about.
At any one point in time, only a minimal number of mirrors will actually send a reflection onto the sensor.
they use a mathematical algorithm to process these and reconstruct the multi mega pixel image back from the positions on the multi mega mirror array.
Its another case of smoke and mirrors.