I do believe that Reston was proven to be airborne by USAMRIID.
Somebody's playing with with the wikipedia ebola Reston page. The page now says that the site of the oubreak was demolished, but has since been rebuilt as a Kindercare. I really seriously doubt this is possible. I would really need video leading from the street signs to the building for this one.
It says a lot that this is an upbeat article about Ebola that delivers the wonderful news: of the immunized monkeys, only three of eight died! This is one nastly little bug. The fatality rate of Ebola Zaire in humans is up to 90%, with an average fatality rate in humans of 83% over 27 years of experience. Nine of ten dead little humans, in three weeks from infection on the outside or two days if you're lucky. Generally speaking that surviving tenth human isn't well off either as the course of infection normally involves a great deal of organ damage. In the case of a group of people who are all infected the likelihood that the one human of ten would receive the care necessary to survive the fever is remote.
If just one person with an Ebola that's as fatal as Ebola Zaire and also airborne gets on a commercial jet flight anywhere in the world - ever - it's pretty much game over for civilization in about a month. 200 passengers and 14 crew infected, connecting flights, layovers, every person in every boarding area for each flight, then home to the family and not feeling well. I don't feel well but I've must-do's so off to work the next day on the train (sniff, sneeze) but I'm not feeling well (hack, cough) so early home, stopping at Safeway for some Theraflu, then Wal-Mart because Safeway was out. Oh, my that's a scary summer flu story on the news but I'm too tired to listen (hack, cough blood, seize, hemmorage out of every orifice, die). By the time the alert is raised the bus drivers on some route near one of those places have outplaced the virus so thoroughly that it's too late to do anything about it. Your only hope is that you're in Madagascar and they have Shut Down Everything. The only good news about Ebola Zaire is that it kills so many hosts so quickly that outbreaks tend to be self-limiting. In several cases so many died so quickly that the disease had no time to spread.
The most recent new variant of Ebola virus, Bundibugyo is named after a district in Uganda where it was discovered in 2007. This one is less virulent, only killing 34% of the people infected or probably infected. It scares me more than a little that new variants are being discovered this frequently.
Yeah, as this was November I was thinking an HP C3000 blade chassis, eight 2x220c blades with L5640 CPUs, low power 8GB DIMMs, integrated Infiniband. Those will probably be out by then. Maybe boot from SD card with some of those sweet I/O Accelerators for storage. That gives you 192 2.26GHz Xeon cores, low-latency storage and networking and meets the power requirement with room to spare. Might add a super-low power rack server on top to handle the dynamic power capping and other management tasks.
Hopefully these kids will be more clever than that. Of course, that's also a good deal of cash to be laying out for a school project. That's a lot of bake sales and car washing.
I'm in favor of this, so let's give AMD some proper recognition. I deal a lot with AMD servers and bladeservers as well as the Intel ones. The memory architecture of recent AMD servers is four channels rather than Intel's three. This allows for configurations of memory that are in the more familiar powers of two, as well as providing 1/3 more memory bandwidth. In some cases the AMD servers offer more net memory. In addition it allows more special things, like 256GB on a two processor server, which Intel currently can't do in a retail server.
The AMD twelve-core servers open the possibility of a terabyte of RAM if you're looking for that. They considerably alter the cost-benefit analysis of Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI).
AMD has done away with the multi CPU premium, so as your real world problem scales the cost of servers scales linearly rather than logarithmically - up to the point that your problem can be solved with 96 x64 cores.
The cost point now isn't about the CPU, it's about the RAM.
Ok, you invited the question. This is a dead thread so I can ask: What's your issue? You're welcome to continue in this dead thread, or we can take it to email. My email is <symbolset@gmail.com>, as should be obvious. I'm sort of intrigued by your four word post.
I'm going to ask who you are in order to deliver answers in your context. If you need confidential communications you need to explicity request them, but I'm not opposed to that. If you need truly anonymous communications get a throwaway email address first and reply from that.
I'm more interested in your position than your identity. I'm curious how you could come to this position independently.
Does it still hurt that the G1 moved more units in its first minute in the market than the Microsoft Kin did in whole lifespan? That would be nice if it bothered you. I subsist from your pain. I'm a pain vampire that way.
The Google phone is still available through other vendors though not from Google, but it did what it was intended to do: convince vendors that there was a market for the Android candybar phone. It's proved and there's no more need for the proof because the idea has taken off. Google doesn't have to sell that idea any more, and the G1 is still well supported. Now that Android is proven on the candybar, new models with more advanced processors are available that exploit the available app market for that form factor - a market that would not exist if Google had not broken the ice. Google told the market: if you won't make it, we will! And it was popular so the market made it and now they don't need to beat them to death about how it was a good idea. They hoped also to prove the direct market for phones to defeat the subsidized model and that didn't work out so they failed there - but WE still won.
Google isn't and doesn't want to be a phone vendor. Their interest is ensuring that if people search they use Google search. Their interest is in maximizing your bandwidth so you can search more times per day. They would prefer it if your mobile phone defaulted to Google search, because mobile clients yield more cents per ad exposure than desktop clients. But as a fallback position if your browser can render their simple home page and you can set it as your home page they're ok with that because you chose it. That's their whole business model in a nutshell.
Google isn't and doesn't want to be a wired internet provider. But if you had gigabit broadband you would see their ads more, so faster internet benefits them in a way that doesn't hurt them. They're working their gigabit broadband initiative. Same with wireless spectrum, or any of the many other things they do. Sometimes they buy us freedom (with broadband spectrum for example) without committing a cost to themselves or spending any money. Some of this is quite awesome - the sale of spectrum used to be a quiet thing but now that Google's engaged we're aware of how our government is doling out our communal spectrum property, and how we suffer when it's sold to the wrong people.
I'm not saying that Google is angelic here, except in comparison to the incumbent providers of bandwidth. It goes to motivation: Comcast (or whatever provider) is motivated to deliver the least bandwidth for the dollars paid because to Comcast bandwidth costs money and the money you pay is where Comcast's money comes from. Google is motivated to deliver the most bandwidth per dollar paid because to Google more bandwidth equals more ads per minute, because people who hope to sell you stuff is where Google's money comes from. To truly understand this difference you have to understand that you personally are the object that is bought and sold here. Your interests, your motivations, your desires, and most especially your disposable income are the object of this engineering. Properly speaking you should be in favor of the Internet building a path you your wallet unless it's done in a way that's dishonest or unfair. It allows you to buy any object for sale anywhere, when once you had to go to South Africa to buy tribal masks as a travelling trophy. For me personally there are some aspects that make me uncomfortable enough that I look carefully at the terms of the deal.
As a subscriber you can choose to subscribe with a vendor whose interests are apposite of yours, or one whose interests are aligned. It's your choice, and Google doesn't want to limit your choice here but you can be sure Comcast does. Comcast has an established market to protect, much like MaBell did back when we still had landlines (remember those?)
Ultimately people will choose and I respect that. The purpose of my post isn't to run down those who've c
Well they're still interesting for some things. Some people like lighter gear, some heavier. I think for many of the uses this is put Android phones are more interesting these days.
In the early days of the internet, the freenet (yes, it has been around that long) was almost as valuable as the non-free one.
I was there. In the early days the freenet was more valuable than the Internet simply because the Internet was not to be had by common people. Expectations are indeed now different, and that's curious. These expectations are built of nothing but advertising. They have no substance.
I could - hell, I might - connect an aggregate 5,000 homes to a localnet. Between us we earn $300M a year and typically spend it all. It's a market. What idiot wouldn't pay to connect to it? With that I'm not going a half mile from my house. Stretch it out to a mile and you can triple those figures. I don't live in a rich area - I'm in the burbs of a secondary market. In Manhattan that much income is not even one apartment building. In LA one property development might be 10 Billion dollars a year market or more. To ask those people to pay for a fast Internet connection is just ridiculous. We have been sold a bill of goods.
The Internet desires us more than we desire it. We are the engine of economic growth. It should come to us, not the other way around.
Against a background of billions of rooted Windows boxen it would be such a faint sound that it would be lost in the din. At last count just one Windows botnet - Conficker - was probing the Internet from 630 million unique IPv4 addresses, or more than one seventh the theoretical total possible number of IP addresses - down from 700 million. Conficker is just one of dozens of botnets.
I guess the lesson here is that if your network is accepting communications from the public Internet, if your server is accepting communications from your intranet and not assuming that every address it's responding to is compromised, you're doing it wrong. The network is an untrusted space - always.
Well with the right mesh software and some cheap high-gain antennas, yes. We can circumvent the power of incumbent networks in urban and suburban areas by building our own Othernet - where everyone can be anonymous and the limit of bandwidth is the contributed aggregate. Latency would be too high for gaming and VOIP outside the local area - but local sharing, VOIP and gaming would be fine. Encrypted offsite backups on a cooperative basis could be arranged. We could help each other in our mutual best interest. We could even build neighborhood clouds if we wanted to. In LA, in New York, in all of the major markets it's absurd that people pay for Internet links when all of the value is flowing the other way across the link. Building our own networks would shift the balance of power. IPv6 could be helpful here.
We need a WAP wizard to set us free, someone to market the guerilla wireless Othernet and related devices. A few brave souls to get it started. That's all. Some people are already doing this with fiber or copper gigabit fenceline networks, using wireless bridges to cross rights-of-way (roads and so on). Most of us posting here have more advanced networking in our homes (gigabit), more powerful PC's, more storage left unused (many terabytes) than the core Internet had in 1995. That should be sufficient for our towns or cities now. Wireless bandwidth is up to a limit of 600mbps, which will do for crossing a highway.
We've been conditioned by our consumer societies to accept that the wire that connects us to The Internet is based on a bill from a company. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the value in the Internet - consumers with desires to be fed. Network enough of us together and the wider Internet will build a bridge to us. Ultimately the idea of paying for Internet could and should go away for most of us. Let the vendors build the road if they want our consumers in their markets. This is entirely what Google's high-speed broadband initiative is about. The people are the money, and the links are currently too slow to capture all but a small fraction of it.
And it's only marginally about Android. It's not about any intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun.
It's about the launch of Windows Phone 7 coming up in a few weeks. Bill and Larry are co-billionaires for charity now. They're playing on the same team - for the children, for their legacy. That doesn't mean they've given up playing dirty. Far from it: it gives them a moral certitude that they're working toward a worthy end that justifies almost any means. Bill may not be CEO of Microsoft any more, but that's where the bulk of the billions he's giving to charity come from so that's the lever he's got to work.
Microsoft needs to sow some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the mobile and tablet markets so that they can market their products as being free of that taint and so gain an opening that frankly isn't there otherwise. If they can't get a leg up here they're facing barriers to entry that are insurmountable. People Luurve their iPhones and iPads - 95% of owners would recommend the product and they sell them as fast as they can make them. Android is swinging up with a market share growth that defies gravity and owner satisfaction ratings that are nearly as high. Android is utterly crushing everything that isn't an iPhone - partly because it's got a diverse manufacturer base that's spread out so people have choices and it's harder to block the supply chain for diverse hardware platforms. Without a rash of IP suits against iOS and Android, some legitimate security disasters there, a puppet press that takes minor antenna issues hyperbolic and so on, Microsoft has just got almost nothing going for it with WP7. It's just a product that on its face would have been really cool four years ago, that doesn't have any apps or developers, that lacks features that are not optional on a modern device.
The Virtnet lawsuits are about the same thing, by a different route. Given a near certain loss in the lawsuit but the potential for a long delay, it's easy to see the negotiating team work out a settlement that goes something like "Look, we could tie this up in the courts with appeals and whatnot for another decade or so... or we could settle for a decent figure NOW as long as you agree to go after our preferred target next." The settlement was probably cheaper than their ad budget for Windows Phone 7, and Microsoft is not one to shy away from pouring money on the bonfire in the name of strategy. So now we have Virtnet suing block Apple and Android from using VPN over wireless - and so preventing them from being enterprise worthy.
There will be more of these suits filed from every angle. And the puppet press will cover each one from the same "Evil Google, Evil Apple" point of view. They're all bunk. Larry will of course get some reciprocal backscratching in return, though of course it will likely be indirect. An Oracle optimized Windows Server cluster with special flex licensing? Who knows. At least Virtnet is already paid in full.
Windows Phone 7 is still crap. None of these lawsuits change that. Most everybody who buys it will regret it. But because of these suits more people will buy it than would have otherwise.
A Turing machine has a state (from a finite list of possible states), a table of operations to be performed based on input and state, and an input - nominally considered an infinite tape preloaded with an input string (a series of symbols from a finite set) with the remainder blank. Input symbols can be data or action symbols (data or program). The machine proceeds from its initial state processing operations from its table based upon its state and input until it finds a state that's "Accepting", and halts. A problem is considered soluble by a TM if any potential input, operated upon by the machine in exact accordance with the table can move the state to an "Accepting" state. For the purposes of Turing Machines, operations take 0 time and the machine is immortal. From the beginning these are not presumed to be mechanical or electronic machines, but rather a theoretical human who executes the instructions without any bias or thought to the outcome. Turing Machines are a thought experiment, not physical machines. They are hypothetical. They are, however, widely used in information theory as well as other fields including physics.
/Non Sequitur: Alan Turing was a Brit who confessed to being queer, was chemically castrated and deprived of his security clearance as punishment, and is supposed to have killed himself at 42 with an apple laced with arsenic, a-la Snow White. We'll never know what more he might have given us. Homophobia cost us one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. His work is now considered fundamental to our understanding not only of what computers can do, but of the nature of the universe.
A Deterministic Turing Machine (DTM) is one that has at most one action for a specified state, action symbol and input. A Non-Deterministic Turing Machine (NDTM) may have more than one.
To say that P!=NP is to say that the Non-Deterministic Turing Machine can find an Accepting state that the Deterministic Turing Machine can not.
In the case of a NDTM with more than one potential action to be performed for a specific state and action the Turing Machine (TM) can be considered to clone itself, which each clone performing one of the indicated actions - in essence creating a tree of potential Turing Machines. Alternately the Turing Machine can be assumed to select the action that results in the Accepting state if there is any. AFAICT the potential for input strings to come to the Accepting state on divergent paths is moot as any Accepting state will do, and in the case where divergent "leaf" TMs Accept the input or enter infinite loops, an Accepting TM wins. This isn't an input validation routine: the determination that the input is invalid is an Accepting state.
I haven't read TFA, but I would imagine that the proof for P=NP would involve finding one problem where the non-deterministic machine found a solution that a deterministic machine couldn't. Presumably this involves solutions hidden by infinite loops.
Really, the idea is silly though. It's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your Turing Machine needs non-determinism it's because it's potentially operating on unknown data or processes and so its state/action table is inadequately defined. This is an abuse of the machine. It results in solutions for problems that are NP, but the only rational course is then to dissect the tape, find the successful branches of potential choices, find the unknowns and rebuild the machine's state/action table to include these potentials. We call this process "the scientific method". To fail at this, the unknown thing that caused the effect must be unknowable. In fact, any such Turing Machine can be redefined to permute across potential state/action/input triplets, or to include the reconciliation of the result to the process, and the question devolves into the halting problem, so the problem becomes the impossibility of iteration against possible out
You've got this one nailed. The arrays of SSDs like whiptail aren't for regular servers. They're for high I/O tasks like virtual machine hosts that consolidate the workloads of dozens of servers or scores of desktops.
But when you use them for their proper purpose they can be more economical than providing physical disk for all the consolidated machines.
Buying a couple to throw at a storage bottleneck in a pinch can be handy too.
I wasn't assuming the big bang or its rapid expansion phase. Read this. I wasn't assuming that one either. The ideas work either way, and in many others.
Not that part. The part about Time being bi-curious (an allusion to variability/multidimsionality of time), the part about spacetime being potentially non-contiguous (unprovable at best), the part about stuff outside our light cone being outside our universe rather than just out of reach (the crux of a long-running religious flamewar). When I wrote that I knew I was trollin', and throwing all three into one post was unsubtle. I was just hoping to catch a moderator who thought it was funny, or a fellow slashdotter to play with the ideas since they can be interesting.
Maybe astrophysicists have a difference sense of netiquette than the rest of us..
It does seem so, and a different sense of humor too.
I'll say it's a fair mod, and it was me that was modded troll. It's my bad luck to get a moderator who's got a poor sense of humor and also knows his stuff. I was going for funny, but the line between funny and troll is rather thin. Those darned astrophysicists are so darned literal, I should have expected it being as how this is slashdot and all.
I've complained about the moderation here before and there's a time for that, but this isn't one of those times.
Moderators: think a few times about the context before you call this post off topic, because it provides new information and does go to the point of this particular article, even if it appears on its face to be a side discussion. It's just subtle. We like subtlety, right?
There's no need to get testy. You're working with some pretty fungible terms here. First of all, the sum of mass and energy in our universe is finite - but it is not constant - at least with some definitions of the term "universe". By isolating the question to matter you miss the question just by phrasing it this way.
Now consider our light cone. From our present position there are some masses that early on passed beyond the distance where the light from there could ever arrive here no matter how redshifted, and every day more masses fall over that line. Even travelling at the speed of light you could not go there, because the distance between is expanding faster than the speed of light. Those masses are lost to us. This is also true of some of the furthest points we can see, as they cast that light before they fell so far from us and went outside our light cone. From one point of view these masses and energies are outside our universe now - and there's some doubt that they still exist. Then there are all the energies radiated outward away from us since the formation of those masses. Those are also lost, and in the terms you're talking about energy is equivalent to mass.
Tracing a line.. I must suppose you're not talking about a straight line, since in the context of a line that spans the universe the "straight line" concept is meaningless. Space itself is not straight, and I'm starting to think even Time is at least bi-curious.
Still, there is an implied assumption in your post I'm curious about. Are you holding the impression that the universe is contiguous? Have you got a citation on that?
Start with the obvious assumption that the certificate was stored on a Windows computer. Now assume that most of the rest of them are too. Calculate the likelihood that a particular Windows computer will be rooted.
Slashdot Mirror
I do believe that Reston was proven to be airborne by USAMRIID.
Somebody's playing with with the wikipedia ebola Reston page. The page now says that the site of the oubreak was demolished, but has since been rebuilt as a Kindercare. I really seriously doubt this is possible. I would really need video leading from the street signs to the building for this one.
It says a lot that this is an upbeat article about Ebola that delivers the wonderful news: of the immunized monkeys, only three of eight died! This is one nastly little bug. The fatality rate of Ebola Zaire in humans is up to 90%, with an average fatality rate in humans of 83% over 27 years of experience. Nine of ten dead little humans, in three weeks from infection on the outside or two days if you're lucky. Generally speaking that surviving tenth human isn't well off either as the course of infection normally involves a great deal of organ damage. In the case of a group of people who are all infected the likelihood that the one human of ten would receive the care necessary to survive the fever is remote.
If just one person with an Ebola that's as fatal as Ebola Zaire and also airborne gets on a commercial jet flight anywhere in the world - ever - it's pretty much game over for civilization in about a month. 200 passengers and 14 crew infected, connecting flights, layovers, every person in every boarding area for each flight, then home to the family and not feeling well. I don't feel well but I've must-do's so off to work the next day on the train (sniff, sneeze) but I'm not feeling well (hack, cough) so early home, stopping at Safeway for some Theraflu, then Wal-Mart because Safeway was out. Oh, my that's a scary summer flu story on the news but I'm too tired to listen (hack, cough blood, seize, hemmorage out of every orifice, die). By the time the alert is raised the bus drivers on some route near one of those places have outplaced the virus so thoroughly that it's too late to do anything about it. Your only hope is that you're in Madagascar and they have Shut Down Everything. The only good news about Ebola Zaire is that it kills so many hosts so quickly that outbreaks tend to be self-limiting. In several cases so many died so quickly that the disease had no time to spread.
The most recent new variant of Ebola virus, Bundibugyo is named after a district in Uganda where it was discovered in 2007. This one is less virulent, only killing 34% of the people infected or probably infected. It scares me more than a little that new variants are being discovered this frequently.
Not that I want anybody to panic or anything...
Yeah, as this was November I was thinking an HP C3000 blade chassis, eight 2x220c blades with L5640 CPUs, low power 8GB DIMMs, integrated Infiniband. Those will probably be out by then. Maybe boot from SD card with some of those sweet I/O Accelerators for storage. That gives you 192 2.26GHz Xeon cores, low-latency storage and networking and meets the power requirement with room to spare. Might add a super-low power rack server on top to handle the dynamic power capping and other management tasks.
Hopefully these kids will be more clever than that. Of course, that's also a good deal of cash to be laying out for a school project. That's a lot of bake sales and car washing.
I'm in favor of this, so let's give AMD some proper recognition. I deal a lot with AMD servers and bladeservers as well as the Intel ones. The memory architecture of recent AMD servers is four channels rather than Intel's three. This allows for configurations of memory that are in the more familiar powers of two, as well as providing 1/3 more memory bandwidth. In some cases the AMD servers offer more net memory. In addition it allows more special things, like 256GB on a two processor server, which Intel currently can't do in a retail server.
The AMD twelve-core servers open the possibility of a terabyte of RAM if you're looking for that. They considerably alter the cost-benefit analysis of Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDI).
AMD has done away with the multi CPU premium, so as your real world problem scales the cost of servers scales linearly rather than logarithmically - up to the point that your problem can be solved with 96 x64 cores.
The cost point now isn't about the CPU, it's about the RAM.
Ok, you invited the question. This is a dead thread so I can ask: What's your issue? You're welcome to continue in this dead thread, or we can take it to email. My email is <symbolset@gmail.com>, as should be obvious. I'm sort of intrigued by your four word post.
I'm going to ask who you are in order to deliver answers in your context. If you need confidential communications you need to explicity request them, but I'm not opposed to that. If you need truly anonymous communications get a throwaway email address first and reply from that.
I'm more interested in your position than your identity. I'm curious how you could come to this position independently.
Does it still hurt that the G1 moved more units in its first minute in the market than the Microsoft Kin did in whole lifespan? That would be nice if it bothered you. I subsist from your pain. I'm a pain vampire that way.
The Google phone is still available through other vendors though not from Google, but it did what it was intended to do: convince vendors that there was a market for the Android candybar phone. It's proved and there's no more need for the proof because the idea has taken off. Google doesn't have to sell that idea any more, and the G1 is still well supported. Now that Android is proven on the candybar, new models with more advanced processors are available that exploit the available app market for that form factor - a market that would not exist if Google had not broken the ice. Google told the market: if you won't make it, we will! And it was popular so the market made it and now they don't need to beat them to death about how it was a good idea. They hoped also to prove the direct market for phones to defeat the subsidized model and that didn't work out so they failed there - but WE still won.
Google isn't and doesn't want to be a phone vendor. Their interest is ensuring that if people search they use Google search. Their interest is in maximizing your bandwidth so you can search more times per day. They would prefer it if your mobile phone defaulted to Google search, because mobile clients yield more cents per ad exposure than desktop clients. But as a fallback position if your browser can render their simple home page and you can set it as your home page they're ok with that because you chose it. That's their whole business model in a nutshell.
Google isn't and doesn't want to be a wired internet provider. But if you had gigabit broadband you would see their ads more, so faster internet benefits them in a way that doesn't hurt them. They're working their gigabit broadband initiative. Same with wireless spectrum, or any of the many other things they do. Sometimes they buy us freedom (with broadband spectrum for example) without committing a cost to themselves or spending any money. Some of this is quite awesome - the sale of spectrum used to be a quiet thing but now that Google's engaged we're aware of how our government is doling out our communal spectrum property, and how we suffer when it's sold to the wrong people.
I'm not saying that Google is angelic here, except in comparison to the incumbent providers of bandwidth. It goes to motivation: Comcast (or whatever provider) is motivated to deliver the least bandwidth for the dollars paid because to Comcast bandwidth costs money and the money you pay is where Comcast's money comes from. Google is motivated to deliver the most bandwidth per dollar paid because to Google more bandwidth equals more ads per minute, because people who hope to sell you stuff is where Google's money comes from. To truly understand this difference you have to understand that you personally are the object that is bought and sold here. Your interests, your motivations, your desires, and most especially your disposable income are the object of this engineering. Properly speaking you should be in favor of the Internet building a path you your wallet unless it's done in a way that's dishonest or unfair. It allows you to buy any object for sale anywhere, when once you had to go to South Africa to buy tribal masks as a travelling trophy. For me personally there are some aspects that make me uncomfortable enough that I look carefully at the terms of the deal.
As a subscriber you can choose to subscribe with a vendor whose interests are apposite of yours, or one whose interests are aligned. It's your choice, and Google doesn't want to limit your choice here but you can be sure Comcast does. Comcast has an established market to protect, much like MaBell did back when we still had landlines (remember those?)
Ultimately people will choose and I respect that. The purpose of my post isn't to run down those who've c
Well they're still interesting for some things. Some people like lighter gear, some heavier. I think for many of the uses this is put Android phones are more interesting these days.
ARM as a controller for a UAV anybody?
In the early days of the internet, the freenet (yes, it has been around that long) was almost as valuable as the non-free one.
I was there. In the early days the freenet was more valuable than the Internet simply because the Internet was not to be had by common people. Expectations are indeed now different, and that's curious. These expectations are built of nothing but advertising. They have no substance.
I could - hell, I might - connect an aggregate 5,000 homes to a localnet. Between us we earn $300M a year and typically spend it all. It's a market. What idiot wouldn't pay to connect to it? With that I'm not going a half mile from my house. Stretch it out to a mile and you can triple those figures. I don't live in a rich area - I'm in the burbs of a secondary market. In Manhattan that much income is not even one apartment building. In LA one property development might be 10 Billion dollars a year market or more. To ask those people to pay for a fast Internet connection is just ridiculous. We have been sold a bill of goods.
The Internet desires us more than we desire it. We are the engine of economic growth. It should come to us, not the other way around.
Against a background of billions of rooted Windows boxen it would be such a faint sound that it would be lost in the din. At last count just one Windows botnet - Conficker - was probing the Internet from 630 million unique IPv4 addresses, or more than one seventh the theoretical total possible number of IP addresses - down from 700 million. Conficker is just one of dozens of botnets.
I guess the lesson here is that if your network is accepting communications from the public Internet, if your server is accepting communications from your intranet and not assuming that every address it's responding to is compromised, you're doing it wrong. The network is an untrusted space - always.
Well with the right mesh software and some cheap high-gain antennas, yes. We can circumvent the power of incumbent networks in urban and suburban areas by building our own Othernet - where everyone can be anonymous and the limit of bandwidth is the contributed aggregate. Latency would be too high for gaming and VOIP outside the local area - but local sharing, VOIP and gaming would be fine. Encrypted offsite backups on a cooperative basis could be arranged. We could help each other in our mutual best interest. We could even build neighborhood clouds if we wanted to. In LA, in New York, in all of the major markets it's absurd that people pay for Internet links when all of the value is flowing the other way across the link. Building our own networks would shift the balance of power. IPv6 could be helpful here.
We need a WAP wizard to set us free, someone to market the guerilla wireless Othernet and related devices. A few brave souls to get it started. That's all. Some people are already doing this with fiber or copper gigabit fenceline networks, using wireless bridges to cross rights-of-way (roads and so on). Most of us posting here have more advanced networking in our homes (gigabit), more powerful PC's, more storage left unused (many terabytes) than the core Internet had in 1995. That should be sufficient for our towns or cities now. Wireless bandwidth is up to a limit of 600mbps, which will do for crossing a highway.
We've been conditioned by our consumer societies to accept that the wire that connects us to The Internet is based on a bill from a company. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the value in the Internet - consumers with desires to be fed. Network enough of us together and the wider Internet will build a bridge to us . Ultimately the idea of paying for Internet could and should go away for most of us. Let the vendors build the road if they want our consumers in their markets. This is entirely what Google's high-speed broadband initiative is about. The people are the money, and the links are currently too slow to capture all but a small fraction of it.
And it's only marginally about Android. It's not about any intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun.
It's about the launch of Windows Phone 7 coming up in a few weeks. Bill and Larry are co-billionaires for charity now. They're playing on the same team - for the children, for their legacy. That doesn't mean they've given up playing dirty. Far from it: it gives them a moral certitude that they're working toward a worthy end that justifies almost any means. Bill may not be CEO of Microsoft any more, but that's where the bulk of the billions he's giving to charity come from so that's the lever he's got to work.
Microsoft needs to sow some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the mobile and tablet markets so that they can market their products as being free of that taint and so gain an opening that frankly isn't there otherwise. If they can't get a leg up here they're facing barriers to entry that are insurmountable. People Luurve their iPhones and iPads - 95% of owners would recommend the product and they sell them as fast as they can make them. Android is swinging up with a market share growth that defies gravity and owner satisfaction ratings that are nearly as high. Android is utterly crushing everything that isn't an iPhone - partly because it's got a diverse manufacturer base that's spread out so people have choices and it's harder to block the supply chain for diverse hardware platforms. Without a rash of IP suits against iOS and Android, some legitimate security disasters there, a puppet press that takes minor antenna issues hyperbolic and so on, Microsoft has just got almost nothing going for it with WP7. It's just a product that on its face would have been really cool four years ago, that doesn't have any apps or developers, that lacks features that are not optional on a modern device.
The Virtnet lawsuits are about the same thing, by a different route. Given a near certain loss in the lawsuit but the potential for a long delay, it's easy to see the negotiating team work out a settlement that goes something like "Look, we could tie this up in the courts with appeals and whatnot for another decade or so... or we could settle for a decent figure NOW as long as you agree to go after our preferred target next." The settlement was probably cheaper than their ad budget for Windows Phone 7, and Microsoft is not one to shy away from pouring money on the bonfire in the name of strategy. So now we have Virtnet suing block Apple and Android from using VPN over wireless - and so preventing them from being enterprise worthy.
There will be more of these suits filed from every angle. And the puppet press will cover each one from the same "Evil Google, Evil Apple" point of view. They're all bunk. Larry will of course get some reciprocal backscratching in return, though of course it will likely be indirect. An Oracle optimized Windows Server cluster with special flex licensing? Who knows. At least Virtnet is already paid in full.
Windows Phone 7 is still crap. None of these lawsuits change that. Most everybody who buys it will regret it. But because of these suits more people will buy it than would have otherwise.
In paragraph 7 eplace "that are NP" with "That are NP and not P"
Dammit! Slashdot disappeared some bang symbols. In the sixth paragraph it's P (is not equal to) NP, not P (is equal to NP). This interface sucks.
A Turing machine has a state (from a finite list of possible states), a table of operations to be performed based on input and state, and an input - nominally considered an infinite tape preloaded with an input string (a series of symbols from a finite set) with the remainder blank. Input symbols can be data or action symbols (data or program). The machine proceeds from its initial state processing operations from its table based upon its state and input until it finds a state that's "Accepting", and halts. A problem is considered soluble by a TM if any potential input, operated upon by the machine in exact accordance with the table can move the state to an "Accepting" state. For the purposes of Turing Machines, operations take 0 time and the machine is immortal. From the beginning these are not presumed to be mechanical or electronic machines, but rather a theoretical human who executes the instructions without any bias or thought to the outcome. Turing Machines are a thought experiment, not physical machines. They are hypothetical. They are, however, widely used in information theory as well as other fields including physics.
/Non Sequitur: Alan Turing was a Brit who confessed to being queer, was chemically castrated and deprived of his security clearance as punishment, and is supposed to have killed himself at 42 with an apple laced with arsenic, a-la Snow White. We'll never know what more he might have given us. Homophobia cost us one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. His work is now considered fundamental to our understanding not only of what computers can do, but of the nature of the universe.
A Deterministic Turing Machine (DTM) is one that has at most one action for a specified state, action symbol and input. A Non-Deterministic Turing Machine (NDTM) may have more than one.
To say that P!=NP is to say that the Non-Deterministic Turing Machine can find an Accepting state that the Deterministic Turing Machine can not.
In the case of a NDTM with more than one potential action to be performed for a specific state and action the Turing Machine (TM) can be considered to clone itself, which each clone performing one of the indicated actions - in essence creating a tree of potential Turing Machines. Alternately the Turing Machine can be assumed to select the action that results in the Accepting state if there is any. AFAICT the potential for input strings to come to the Accepting state on divergent paths is moot as any Accepting state will do, and in the case where divergent "leaf" TMs Accept the input or enter infinite loops, an Accepting TM wins. This isn't an input validation routine: the determination that the input is invalid is an Accepting state.
I haven't read TFA, but I would imagine that the proof for P=NP would involve finding one problem where the non-deterministic machine found a solution that a deterministic machine couldn't. Presumably this involves solutions hidden by infinite loops.
Really, the idea is silly though. It's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your Turing Machine needs non-determinism it's because it's potentially operating on unknown data or processes and so its state/action table is inadequately defined. This is an abuse of the machine. It results in solutions for problems that are NP, but the only rational course is then to dissect the tape, find the successful branches of potential choices, find the unknowns and rebuild the machine's state/action table to include these potentials. We call this process "the scientific method". To fail at this, the unknown thing that caused the effect must be unknowable. In fact, any such Turing Machine can be redefined to permute across potential state/action/input triplets, or to include the reconciliation of the result to the process, and the question devolves into the halting problem, so the problem becomes the impossibility of iteration against possible out
Many outstanding Supreme Court justices were not lawyers. John Marshall, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist - not a judge among them.
You've got this one nailed. The arrays of SSDs like whiptail aren't for regular servers. They're for high I/O tasks like virtual machine hosts that consolidate the workloads of dozens of servers or scores of desktops.
But when you use them for their proper purpose they can be more economical than providing physical disk for all the consolidated machines.
Buying a couple to throw at a storage bottleneck in a pinch can be handy too.
/In Seattle we have aurora now.
Well then here's hoping you and Daetrin are well acquainted. Otherwise that would be awkward.
I wasn't assuming the big bang or its rapid expansion phase. Read this. I wasn't assuming that one either. The ideas work either way, and in many others.
Not that part. The part about Time being bi-curious (an allusion to variability/multidimsionality of time), the part about spacetime being potentially non-contiguous (unprovable at best), the part about stuff outside our light cone being outside our universe rather than just out of reach (the crux of a long-running religious flamewar). When I wrote that I knew I was trollin', and throwing all three into one post was unsubtle. I was just hoping to catch a moderator who thought it was funny, or a fellow slashdotter to play with the ideas since they can be interesting.
Maybe astrophysicists have a difference sense of netiquette than the rest of us..
It does seem so, and a different sense of humor too.
I'll say it's a fair mod, and it was me that was modded troll. It's my bad luck to get a moderator who's got a poor sense of humor and also knows his stuff. I was going for funny, but the line between funny and troll is rather thin. Those darned astrophysicists are so darned literal, I should have expected it being as how this is slashdot and all.
I've complained about the moderation here before and there's a time for that, but this isn't one of those times.
Moderators: think a few times about the context before you call this post off topic, because it provides new information and does go to the point of this particular article, even if it appears on its face to be a side discussion. It's just subtle. We like subtlety, right?
Um, I don't recall "just dive in" being how such things were handled "back in the day". At least not in the say the submitter is talking about.
I seem to remember a great deal of prerequisite instruction before you were presumed ready to write any code at all.
There's no need to get testy. You're working with some pretty fungible terms here. First of all, the sum of mass and energy in our universe is finite - but it is not constant - at least with some definitions of the term "universe". By isolating the question to matter you miss the question just by phrasing it this way.
Now consider our light cone. From our present position there are some masses that early on passed beyond the distance where the light from there could ever arrive here no matter how redshifted, and every day more masses fall over that line. Even travelling at the speed of light you could not go there, because the distance between is expanding faster than the speed of light. Those masses are lost to us. This is also true of some of the furthest points we can see, as they cast that light before they fell so far from us and went outside our light cone. From one point of view these masses and energies are outside our universe now - and there's some doubt that they still exist. Then there are all the energies radiated outward away from us since the formation of those masses. Those are also lost, and in the terms you're talking about energy is equivalent to mass.
Tracing a line.. I must suppose you're not talking about a straight line, since in the context of a line that spans the universe the "straight line" concept is meaningless. Space itself is not straight, and I'm starting to think even Time is at least bi-curious.
Still, there is an implied assumption in your post I'm curious about. Are you holding the impression that the universe is contiguous? Have you got a citation on that?
Start with the obvious assumption that the certificate was stored on a Windows computer. Now assume that most of the rest of them are too. Calculate the likelihood that a particular Windows computer will be rooted.
Are you scared yet?
Ah. *nix had, and fixed, network vulnerabilities long before there even was a Windows. Definitely before Windows even had networking.
We know this. What's confusing is how pointing this out serves your desire for advocacy.
Also curious is how this is an emergency. The patch blocks one hole in a colander. Couldn't that wait a week?
The center of the universe is about 3cm behind the bridge of your nose.
Five of seven required to recover means three of seven to block recovery of the key.