I don't share their enthusiasm - why is self-teaching so amazing? Am I really that cool for doing the simplest thing ever - teaching myself. Or are the other people I'm being judged against too fucking retarded to teach themselves?
So, I have a pretty sweet job, working with very, very talented people to solve meaningful/challenging software problems.
Sometimes I get to go recruiting for interns on college campuses. Every kid hands me the same resume. They've taken the same classes and maybe have a tiny bit of "professional experience" (eg nothing akin to a substantial contribution to a large scale, commercial software project). That's not surprising; they're in the same school, following the same curriculum.
The first thing I ask a potential recruit? "What types of programming or techy/geeky things do you do in your free time?" It doesn't matter if what you do is even remotely related to our sub-field (although, of course, it helps). The fact that you're one of the 5% or less that are genuinely interested enough to experiment on your own sets you apart.
And that's not just some random question to separate out a random group of people. When it comes time to work on some serious coding/software architecture tasks full time, you'd better really enjoy it or your life and the work you produce is going to suck.
more relevant wikipedia article about the implications for observers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Only minds that exist can observe; only minds that have not been destroyed by the LHC can exist. So, if the LHC really destroys the earth we'll keep observing it not functioning correctly.
Some cosmological models posit that every possible quantum state simultaneously exists, but that we can only observe one particular collapsed wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)#Many_worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_physics).
So, maybe the LHC *does* in fact destroy the world when it is turned on, and we always find ourselves in a world that has not been destroyed (ie, one where the LHC is not functioning properly).
Think about going in the other direction. They may have four just as compelling (to them) reasons that you should leave your life that you understand, and be fully integrated into *their* society. Of course, that would be extremely painful and confusing for you since you don't understand their culture or how to survive within their system.
In the same way, they are living a life that they understand and very likely find fulfilling/comfortable. There's no reason to assume they would like to change it to be more like ours.
Further, right now they have everything they need (their numbers are growing) and they certainly see themselves as 'doing well materially.' However, once they begin to participate in our society, they have nothing; people whose only possessions are primitive tools and huts have nothing by our standards.
Finally, our civilization (ie everyone other than these uncontacted tribes) is so integrated and all-encompassing, that explaining it to them effectively makes them a part of it. One minute they are a tribe that is successful by their own standards, the next they are poor brazillians with nothing but some primitive technology and no real-world skills.
He predicted that the time will eventually come when the average machine will have a wireless gigabit connection directly to the Internet. "The LAN will fade away and everyone will be on the same WAN," he said.
It doesn't make any sense to be 'connected directly to the Internet' without being on a LAN. What is this the future computer's local routing domain? Can it only communicate with one router, and nothing else (essentially a wireless point-to-point link)? That would seem pretty inefficient when there are lots of computers/printers/etc within the organization that would like to communicate. Any other configuration, and you have a LAN again.
That analyst seems to be taking the 'internet cloud' metaphor far too literally. The internet is a network made up of smaller networks; wherever you attach to it, you're on a smaller, local network. There isn't some magical boundary that you can pass and just be 'directly connected to the internet' without being on a local net of some sort.
The recurring story is that 'Millennials' have all these outrageous, inflated expectations and their 'reasonable' employers just don't know what to do about it. If their expectations are really so out of proportion, then eventually they will have to settle for what they're actually worth and employers have nothing to complain about. On the other hand, if that potential employee can find what he or she actually wants somewhere else, well then that employer is just going to have to compete for them! It's all supply and demand just like any other transaction.
If comcast detects google being DDoSed with a TCP SYN flood, one way to squash the attack is to turn on SYN authentication. When they do this, the TCP three-way-handshaking is completed by comcast's equipment before those packets are allowed to be delivered to google. it could actually be seen as a service for google from comcast (but from comcast's pov, it's just protecting their own network and google sees this as a pleasant side effect).
After the SYN packets are authenticated, comcast's equipment will put the sender on a whitelist, but since google wasn't a party to the handshaking, all that can be done by comcast's equipment is to send an RST and expect the connection initiator to try again (this time he's on the whitelist, so everything just gets through).
The radio producers, knowing their legal liability regarding contest participants, who didn't even think to ask a doctor "might this kill somebody?" Or the woman, knowing the the radio producers' legal liability, who didn't imagine that they would be so stupid as to hold the contest without knowing that it was safe?
I like slashdot a lot, but I like it less every time I see a backslash article. Even the name sounds like an unimaginative rehash of "slashback".
I HATE IT I HAT?E IIT I HATE IT.
I'm not being a troll, I'm voicing my heartfelt opinion that this feature/section is an abomination and it makes my blood boil. AAHHH.
It must take less time to just pull another story out of the mail bag than to compile this bullshit, so why bother?
Honestly, ENOUGH!
Also, I know "If I don't like it, I don't have to read it", but I don't even notice which section a story is in half the time. I just read the summary. Reading the section name first for each one just to avoid this section is a big waste of my time that I should be doing something productive at work. After two sentences I'm like "Hmm... why am I reading a poorly written, poorly analyzed summary of some obviously inconsequential, illinformed discussion? AH! BACKSLASH!" It's the Goatse of slashdot.org, really.
Yes, everyone bitches about high gas prices, health costs, etc (which all seem tend to be trumpeted by politicians with alterior motives), but these won't bankrupt you. Housing can destroy you financially if you aren't careful.
You've obviously never had a major / ongoing health issue that started during a "gap" in insurance. When that happens, people can literally lose everything. That is one of the top reasons people go bankrupt in the US, and can happen no matter how "careful" you are.
Health insurance itself is a major issue affecting the cost of labor in the United States. It's hard to compete with other countries that have health care systems that insure everybody (because that drives the individual cost waaaaay down). Just ask any middle/upper level manager in the automotive industry.
This debate has put the general public's ignorance of the scientific method on display. It shows that, at the highschool level, there is a need for a general "introduction to science" requirement. ID would fit perfectly into the section on the differences between pseudo sciences and real science. This would serve our students far better than sort of sweeping it under the rug in biology class, and equip the next generation of decision makers to quickly recognize future attacks on science.
The real problem now is that ID proponents can spew "scientific" sounding ridiculousness and the majority of people do not immediately recognize it as such. All it takes is the most basic understanding of the scientific method.
Google cannot vote, but as a corporation it is an "individual" by law, just like you or I. Banning corporations from being involved with politics denies them (the corporations themselves, not the people who run them) their right to free speech as citizens.
For instance, imagine that we could build huminoid robots that would be powerful and cheap enough to provide for all human needs (by farming, distributing food, manufacturing, etc) while maintaining their own self sufficiency . If this were the case, society could be organized such that everyone's needs would be met with little work required of actual humans. We could spend our time doing exactly what we found interesting or exciting instead of being wage slaves.
The question is, "if technology progesses to this point, would we actually have that kind of society?" and the answer is "Not if current trends continue". Each new type of automation almost always results in lost jobs. Each step towards the completely robotic work force will most likely continue in this trend, until society has been completely divided into two groups of people; a tiny group that owns everything, and everyone else. It's hard to imagine any other transition under the current system.
The technology might be available in the next 50 to 100 years. We should be planning for it right now.
Nothing exemplifies our late-capitalist / post-modern era like the Fakesters on Friendster. People, concepts, objects and everything reduced to images placed side-by-side. The images mean nothing in the larger context in relation to eachother, but Friendster automatically "transcodes" them for you, in a way, by showing how they are connected in their "personal networks".
Friendster may be the emancipative look-in-the-mirror we need to function as the seeds of the next stage in the dialectic.
I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this before.
It's a well known attack with a well known solution. You just have to make it so that a message can only be used once. In this particular setup they use a nonce for each packet which makes every packet unique and un-replayable. Look at section 2.4 of the PDF.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't share their enthusiasm - why is self-teaching so amazing? Am I really that cool for doing the simplest thing ever - teaching myself. Or are the other people I'm being judged against too fucking retarded to teach themselves?
So, I have a pretty sweet job, working with very, very talented people to solve meaningful/challenging software problems.
Sometimes I get to go recruiting for interns on college campuses. Every kid hands me the same resume. They've taken the same classes and maybe have a tiny bit of "professional experience" (eg nothing akin to a substantial contribution to a large scale, commercial software project). That's not surprising; they're in the same school, following the same curriculum.
The first thing I ask a potential recruit? "What types of programming or techy/geeky things do you do in your free time?" It doesn't matter if what you do is even remotely related to our sub-field (although, of course, it helps). The fact that you're one of the 5% or less that are genuinely interested enough to experiment on your own sets you apart.
And that's not just some random question to separate out a random group of people. When it comes time to work on some serious coding/software architecture tasks full time, you'd better really enjoy it or your life and the work you produce is going to suck.
more relevant wikipedia article about the implications for observers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
Only minds that exist can observe; only minds that have not been destroyed by the LHC can exist. So, if the LHC really destroys the earth we'll keep observing it not functioning correctly.
Some cosmological models posit that every possible quantum state simultaneously exists, but that we can only observe one particular collapsed wave function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)#Many_worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_physics). So, maybe the LHC *does* in fact destroy the world when it is turned on, and we always find ourselves in a world that has not been destroyed (ie, one where the LHC is not functioning properly).
Think about going in the other direction. They may have four just as compelling (to them) reasons that you should leave your life that you understand, and be fully integrated into *their* society. Of course, that would be extremely painful and confusing for you since you don't understand their culture or how to survive within their system.
In the same way, they are living a life that they understand and very likely find fulfilling/comfortable. There's no reason to assume they would like to change it to be more like ours.
Further, right now they have everything they need (their numbers are growing) and they certainly see themselves as 'doing well materially.' However, once they begin to participate in our society, they have nothing; people whose only possessions are primitive tools and huts have nothing by our standards.
Finally, our civilization (ie everyone other than these uncontacted tribes) is so integrated and all-encompassing, that explaining it to them effectively makes them a part of it. One minute they are a tribe that is successful by their own standards, the next they are poor brazillians with nothing but some primitive technology and no real-world skills.
It doesn't make any sense to be 'connected directly to the Internet' without being on a LAN. What is this the future computer's local routing domain? Can it only communicate with one router, and nothing else (essentially a wireless point-to-point link)? That would seem pretty inefficient when there are lots of computers/printers/etc within the organization that would like to communicate. Any other configuration, and you have a LAN again.
That analyst seems to be taking the 'internet cloud' metaphor far too literally. The internet is a network made up of smaller networks; wherever you attach to it, you're on a smaller, local network. There isn't some magical boundary that you can pass and just be 'directly connected to the internet' without being on a local net of some sort.
The recurring story is that 'Millennials' have all these outrageous, inflated expectations and their 'reasonable' employers just don't know what to do about it. If their expectations are really so out of proportion, then eventually they will have to settle for what they're actually worth and employers have nothing to complain about. On the other hand, if that potential employee can find what he or she actually wants somewhere else, well then that employer is just going to have to compete for them! It's all supply and demand just like any other transaction.
If comcast detects google being DDoSed with a TCP SYN flood, one way to squash the attack is to turn on SYN authentication. When they do this, the TCP three-way-handshaking is completed by comcast's equipment before those packets are allowed to be delivered to google. it could actually be seen as a service for google from comcast (but from comcast's pov, it's just protecting their own network and google sees this as a pleasant side effect).
After the SYN packets are authenticated, comcast's equipment will put the sender on a whitelist, but since google wasn't a party to the handshaking, all that can be done by comcast's equipment is to send an RST and expect the connection initiator to try again (this time he's on the whitelist, so everything just gets through).
The radio producers, knowing their legal liability regarding contest participants, who didn't even think to ask a doctor "might this kill somebody?" Or the woman, knowing the the radio producers' legal liability, who didn't imagine that they would be so stupid as to hold the contest without knowing that it was safe?
I like slashdot a lot, but I like it less every time I see a backslash article. Even the name sounds like an unimaginative rehash of "slashback".
I HATE IT
I HAT?E IIT I HATE IT.
I'm not being a troll, I'm voicing my heartfelt opinion that this feature/section is an abomination and it makes my blood boil. AAHHH.
It must take less time to just pull another story out of the mail bag than to compile this bullshit, so why bother?
Honestly, ENOUGH!
Also, I know "If I don't like it, I don't have to read it", but I don't even notice which section a story is in half the time. I just read
the summary. Reading the section name first for each one just to avoid this section is a big waste of my time that I should be
doing something productive at work. After two sentences I'm like "Hmm... why am I reading a poorly written, poorly analyzed
summary of some obviously inconsequential, illinformed discussion? AH! BACKSLASH!" It's the Goatse of slashdot.org, really.
<strike></rant></strike> I'M STILL MAD.
Recent research has shown that the most advantageous traits evolving in our time are latex alergies and a tendency to binge drink.
Who makes the most copies of themselves in modern society? Mainly people who can't figure out how not to.
The future looks bright.
Yes, everyone bitches about high gas prices, health costs, etc (which all seem tend to be trumpeted by politicians with alterior motives), but these won't bankrupt you. Housing can destroy you financially if you aren't careful.
You've obviously never had a major / ongoing health issue that started during a "gap" in insurance. When that happens, people can literally lose everything. That is one of the top reasons people go bankrupt in the US, and can happen no matter how "careful" you are.
Health insurance itself is a major issue affecting the cost of labor in the United States. It's hard to compete with other countries that have health care systems that insure everybody (because that drives the individual cost waaaaay down). Just ask any middle/upper level manager in the automotive industry.
This debate has put the general public's ignorance of the scientific method on display. It shows that, at the highschool level, there is a need for a general "introduction to science" requirement. ID would fit perfectly into the section on the differences between pseudo sciences and real science. This would serve our students far better than sort of sweeping it under the rug in biology class, and equip the next generation of decision makers to quickly recognize future attacks on science.
The real problem now is that ID proponents can spew "scientific" sounding ridiculousness and the majority of people do not immediately recognize it as such. All it takes is the most basic understanding of the scientific method.
However, are these internet degrees even worth the paper their (sic) printed on?
Are these internet degrees even printed on paper?
Google cannot vote, but as a corporation it is an "individual" by law, just like you or I. Banning corporations from being involved with politics denies them (the corporations themselves, not the people who run them) their right to free speech as citizens.
For instance, imagine that we could build huminoid robots that would be powerful and cheap enough to provide for all human needs (by farming, distributing food, manufacturing, etc) while maintaining their own self sufficiency . If this were the case, society could be organized such that everyone's needs would be met with little work required of actual humans. We could spend our time doing exactly what we found interesting or exciting instead of being wage slaves. The question is, "if technology progesses to this point, would we actually have that kind of society?" and the answer is "Not if current trends continue". Each new type of automation almost always results in lost jobs. Each step towards the completely robotic work force will most likely continue in this trend, until society has been completely divided into two groups of people; a tiny group that owns everything, and everyone else. It's hard to imagine any other transition under the current system. The technology might be available in the next 50 to 100 years. We should be planning for it right now.
Nothing exemplifies our late-capitalist / post-modern era like the Fakesters on Friendster. People, concepts, objects and everything reduced to images placed side-by-side. The images mean nothing in the larger context in relation to eachother, but Friendster automatically "transcodes" them for you, in a way, by showing how they are connected in their "personal networks".
Friendster may be the emancipative look-in-the-mirror we need to function as the seeds of the next stage in the dialectic.
I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this before.
It's a well known attack with a well known solution. You just have to make it so that a message can only be used once. In this particular setup they use a nonce for each packet which makes every packet unique and un-replayable. Look at section 2.4 of the PDF.