I read the article and read the wiki, again I ask: "how is this junk different from encryption or plausible deniability file systems - distributed or localized?"
As long as the equations are not determined from outliers then an overdetermined system can be made accurate - though one must take into account numerical instabilities. At the end of the day, such systems can easily be deemed empirically more accurate than human-reckoning, for this set of very narrowly defined requirements.
Interesting, so it take someone of nominal competence 5 seconds to deduce the difference between nuclear and nukular, so how long has dub'lya been president again?
First of all lets get one thing straight, all forms of radioactive material can be used for the generation of energy, be it for a weapon or for civilian use. The yields over a period of time are the only differing factor which make some forms of nuclear material more economically viable over others for civilian energy production.
Now lets consider your other argument about Iran breaking the NPT. Here is a little question, is there any signatory to the NPT that has access to nuclear technology be it either military or civilian use that has not broken the NPT?
Would you like me to list every single time the US has broken the NPT? over 400 known recorded instances that have been verified by the IAEA and that is not even including the fact that it continually assists rogue nations not signatories to the NPT such as India and Israel - why rogue? because that is what a country that is not signatory to the NPT that develops nuclear technologies is labeled.
I'm not sure if you understand the dynamics of oil in Iran, but Iran has to EXPORT oil in order to purchase use its more user-friendly variant petrol. The reason being it does not have its own refineries. That said Iran does not have to rely on only oil. It is allowed to pursue other energy alternatives which include energy production based solely on the nuclear process.
I'm not the one confused here, it seems if anyone is confused it is you.
Iran like any other signatory of the NPT has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also have a right to develop, purchase and sell said technology freely and without any hindrance as long as they abide by the NPT. Iran unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel (which are not signatories of the NPT) intends to use its nuclear technology for generating energy as a way to decrease dependence on oil exports (as any sane country should be doing now).
When other nuclear powers (lead by a country where its own president can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly) get in the way of this process it sends a clear message to other countries that are signatories of the NPT they it may not be as easy as they think to develop peaceful nuclear technologies within their own countries. As a result black-markets start popping up making ratifying the NPT all that more difficult.
If the US and UK just abide by the terms of the NPT then the majority of problems they are now seeing will all but disappear.
No where in the paragraph that starts off with c and c++ is loosing ground does he mention why, then he goes off and talks about automated GC, come on if any language were NOT to have GC it would be the likes of c or c++. I don't believe he has much clue as to what is going on, and the way his org collects and interprets data is flawed to say the least.
>>engineers who are well-versed in their respective fields have trouble breaking down concepts
If you understand something very well, you should not have any problems explaining it to anyone at any level of understanding, be it an elementary school student or a professor.
The problem of professors not being able to explain subjects well comes from:
1. Either being preoccupied with other things 2. Does not know the subject well yet is required to teach it
wrt point 2, it is hard for any academic to know all things well enough in their field to be able to explain them adequately, and when (rarely) a person that does (eg: Fermi, Feynman) they are almost always too busy or above the cut to be teaching 101 classes - which in my opinion are the fundamental classes to get right, because if a student properly/completely understands the 101 concepts then the rest they can grasp/handle themselves.
Blue-ray and HD are all just fades, wait for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc this will blow everything out of the water. I can't imagine why anyone would spend money on h/w and content in these new formats when something like HVD is about to hit the markets.
Adobe has one, Its called GIL, its in BOOST and if all goes will might even make it into a TR sometime into the future. GLEG, why do OSS people think that reinventing the wheel is progress....
I can only comment on pure C++ (not the.NET/cli) development with IDEs, where I've used KDevelop, Eclipse Emacs and Visual Studio extensively.
All I can say without any hesitation or doubt, that for pure C++ development VS2005/2008 make KDevelop, Eclipse(cdt) and Emacs (cscope) look like Notepad. Add the Visual Assist plugin, the fact that the debugger is TREULY integrated with the IDE and the fact that the IDE has access to the AST, then using KDevelop, Eclipse(cdt) and Emacs(cscope) seems like your programming with punch-cards.
The MS C++ compiler is actually quite good and conforming as well, and has nearly shed its VC++6 lineage. Its not the best C++ compiler on the market but it is definitely in the top 3.
I'm not an MS fanboy and don't use any other MS product other than their OS and even that is for the purpose of using VS. In the area of C++ development there is nothing in the open source space that can come close, I would very much like to know if anyone can prove me wrong.
I can't speak generally for the CS industry but, if say you have the following skills:
1. Excellent math background (note not CS but rather math) 2. Able to read a practical CS paper and implement in favorite language without help 3. Understand processor architectures generically (meaning not only x86 but PPC, ARM,SPARC etc) 4. Know C++ and a dynamic language like Python very well 5. Have excellent written and verbal capabilities 6. Are generally curious about all things not just tech.
Then finding a good/rewarding job will not be hard, that said not having the above doesn't mean you can't find a good/rewarding job, it just means you'll just have to search a bit harder/longer.
There are 3 phases to flight, ascent cruise and descent, from what I understand most of the silent events occur during the take-off and landing stages in both cases the secondary systems have to kick-in because either the pilot was pulling up too fast and as a result would have hit the tail on runway for take-off, or they were landing with an awkward angle.
In both cases the system automatically kicks in and "attempts" to rectify the situation. The trouble is there is a calculation it does relating to a "projected" state of the aircraft and what kind of counter maneuvers have to be executed in order to get out of that state.
If it decides the number or the sensitivity of the maneuvers is beyond what a human can do within the necessary time span it kicks-in and helps out - that fact is recorded on the CMU and on the blackbox most often than not its ignored by the FAA and the airlines. for the most part the bells and whistles occur when there is a possibility of a mid-air collision or if the aircraft is descending at a rate that not considered safe.
As for cruise, when considering a 747 traveling in bad weather with flaky radar at about 850km/hr the distance traveled in 10secs is roughly 2.3km, in that 10seconds the pilots may be required to execute a series of very complex maneuvers, the unfortunate situation is when someone with years of experience freezes or makes the wrong decisions under pressure/stress, such human weaknesses make these systems a necessity.
The point I wanted to make was that the TCAS data collected both in the US and Europe are not being used to better train/filter-out pilots.
Data relating to pilot competency is one thing, but if they were to reveal the statistics relating to near misses that were averted by the TCAS system (in some cases unbeknownst to the pilots themselves until they had landed) many more people would think twice or perhaps even thrice before boarding an aircraft.
Actually a hidden archive isn't as easy to hide as you think, for example the police could be monitoring your HDD use, ie: every time you leave the house they break in and image your disk, in the event that supposed empty areas of your disk are seen to be changing that will be enough evidence to obtain a search warrant.
This is a known fact and is clearly stated on the TrueCrypt site. I believe the only way around this is for the software to always in the background be writing over empty areas of the volume with random data regardless of weather or not there is a hidden volume. At the end of the day the whole thing comes down to "Plausible Deniability". In fact there is a lot out there on plausible deniability file systems.
Actually if you look at the problem from a energy consumption (Von Neumann-Landauer Limit) POV brute force attacks on a search space of 2^128 is boarding on consuming all of approximated energy of all the stars in the Milky-way galaxy (imagine Dyson shells around all the stars in our galaxy)
So in reality if a greatly less than brute force method is not found for such search spaces then there is no real way of practically applying brute-force methods.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The GPL is indeed viral and does require the full release of any source dependent or otherwise that is coupled with GPL code.
That said finding the definition of derivative and derivative works on the FSF's GPL FAQ page is quiet interesting - they've gone to a lot of trouble hiding it towards the end, one would think such an important FAQ would be say the 1st or 2nd listing.
Slashdot Mirror
Now where is that angel that kept on appearing?
I read the article and read the wiki, again I ask: "how is this junk different from encryption or plausible deniability file systems - distributed or localized?"
how is this junk different from encryption or plausible deniability file systems - distributed or localized?
As long as the equations are not determined from outliers then an overdetermined system can be made accurate - though one must take into account numerical instabilities. At the end of the day, such systems can easily be deemed empirically more accurate than human-reckoning, for this set of very narrowly defined requirements.
It is this mind set that runs deep in government that makes people look elsewhere.
(btw its a quote from Ashton)
Interesting, so it take someone of nominal competence 5 seconds to deduce the difference between nuclear and nukular, so how long has dub'lya been president again?
First of all lets get one thing straight, all forms of radioactive material can be used for the generation of energy, be it for a weapon or for civilian use. The yields over a period of time are the only differing factor which make some forms of nuclear material more economically viable over others for civilian energy production.
Now lets consider your other argument about Iran breaking the NPT. Here is a little question, is there any signatory to the NPT that has access to nuclear technology be it either military or civilian use that has not broken the NPT?
Would you like me to list every single time the US has broken the NPT? over 400 known recorded instances that have been verified by the IAEA and that is not even including the fact that it continually assists rogue nations not signatories to the NPT such as India and Israel - why rogue? because that is what a country that is not signatory to the NPT that develops nuclear technologies is labeled.
I'm not sure if you understand the dynamics of oil in Iran, but Iran has to EXPORT oil in order to purchase use its more user-friendly variant petrol. The reason being it does not have its own refineries. That said Iran does not have to rely on only oil. It is allowed to pursue other energy alternatives which include energy production based solely on the nuclear process.
I'm not the one confused here, it seems if anyone is confused it is you.
Iran like any other signatory of the NPT has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also have a right to develop, purchase and sell said technology freely and without any hindrance as long as they abide by the NPT. Iran unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel (which are not signatories of the NPT) intends to use its nuclear technology for generating energy as a way to decrease dependence on oil exports (as any sane country should be doing now).
When other nuclear powers (lead by a country where its own president can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly) get in the way of this process it sends a clear message to other countries that are signatories of the NPT they it may not be as easy as they think to develop peaceful nuclear technologies within their own countries. As a result black-markets start popping up making ratifying the NPT all that more difficult.
If the US and UK just abide by the terms of the NPT then the majority of problems they are now seeing will all but disappear.
Some of the best languages ever conceived came from that guy and his beard, lame article at best!
No where in the paragraph that starts off with c and c++ is loosing ground does he mention why, then he goes off and talks about automated GC, come on if any language were NOT to have GC it would be the likes of c or c++. I don't believe he has much clue as to what is going on, and the way his org collects and interprets data is flawed to say the least.
Talk about greeting our new robotic-killing-machine overlords...
>>engineers who are well-versed in their respective fields have trouble breaking down concepts
If you understand something very well, you should not have any problems explaining it to anyone at any level of understanding, be it an elementary school student or a professor.
The problem of professors not being able to explain subjects well comes from:
1. Either being preoccupied with other things
2. Does not know the subject well yet is required to teach it
wrt point 2, it is hard for any academic to know all things well enough in their field to be able to explain them adequately, and when (rarely) a person that does (eg: Fermi, Feynman) they are almost always too busy or above the cut to be teaching 101 classes - which in my opinion are the fundamental classes to get right, because if a student properly/completely understands the 101 concepts then the rest they can grasp/handle themselves.
If they can automate the detection then they can as easily automate the circumvention.
Blue-ray and HD are all just fades, wait for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc this will blow
everything out of the water. I can't imagine why anyone would spend money on h/w and content in these new formats when something like HVD is about to hit the markets.
It used to because at some point a sugar water salesman was running the place :)
Adobe has one, Its called GIL, its in BOOST and if all goes will might even make it into a TR sometime into the future. GLEG, why do OSS people think that reinventing the wheel is progress....
I can only comment on pure C++ (not the .NET/cli) development with IDEs, where I've used KDevelop,
Eclipse Emacs and Visual Studio extensively.
All I can say without any hesitation or doubt, that for pure C++ development VS2005/2008 make KDevelop,
Eclipse(cdt) and Emacs (cscope) look like Notepad. Add the Visual Assist plugin, the fact that the
debugger is TREULY integrated with the IDE and the fact that the IDE has access to the AST, then using
KDevelop, Eclipse(cdt) and Emacs(cscope) seems like your programming with punch-cards.
The MS C++ compiler is actually quite good and conforming as well, and has nearly shed its VC++6 lineage.
Its not the best C++ compiler on the market but it is definitely in the top 3.
I'm not an MS fanboy and don't use any other MS product other than their OS and even that is for the purpose
of using VS. In the area of C++ development there is nothing in the open source space that can come close,
I would very much like to know if anyone can prove me wrong.
I can't speak generally for the CS industry but, if say you have
the following skills:
1. Excellent math background (note not CS but rather math)
2. Able to read a practical CS paper and implement in favorite language without help
3. Understand processor architectures generically (meaning not only x86 but PPC, ARM,SPARC etc)
4. Know C++ and a dynamic language like Python very well
5. Have excellent written and verbal capabilities
6. Are generally curious about all things not just tech.
Then finding a good/rewarding job will not be hard, that said not
having the above doesn't mean you can't find a good/rewarding job,
it just means you'll just have to search a bit harder/longer.
There are 3 phases to flight, ascent cruise and descent, from what I understand most of the silent events occur
during the take-off and landing stages in both cases the secondary systems have to kick-in because either the
pilot was pulling up too fast and as a result would have hit the tail on runway for take-off, or they were landing
with an awkward angle.
In both cases the system automatically kicks in and "attempts" to rectify the situation. The trouble is there is a
calculation it does relating to a "projected" state of the aircraft and what kind of counter maneuvers have to be
executed in order to get out of that state.
If it decides the number or the sensitivity of the maneuvers is beyond what a human can do within the necessary
time span it kicks-in and helps out - that fact is recorded on the CMU and on the blackbox most often than not its
ignored by the FAA and the airlines. for the most part the bells and whistles occur when there is a possibility of
a mid-air collision or if the aircraft is descending at a rate that not considered safe.
As for cruise, when considering a 747 traveling in bad weather with flaky radar at about 850km/hr the distance traveled
in 10secs is roughly 2.3km, in that 10seconds the pilots may be required to execute a series of very complex maneuvers,
the unfortunate situation is when someone with years of experience freezes or makes the wrong decisions under pressure/stress,
such human weaknesses make these systems a necessity.
The point I wanted to make was that the TCAS data collected both in the US and Europe are not being used to better
train/filter-out pilots.
Data relating to pilot competency is one thing, but if they were to reveal
the statistics relating to near misses that were averted by the TCAS system
(in some cases unbeknownst to the pilots themselves until they had landed)
many more people would think twice or perhaps even thrice before boarding
an aircraft.
Actually a hidden archive isn't as easy to hide as you think, for example the police could be monitoring your
HDD use, ie: every time you leave the house they break in and image your disk, in the event that supposed
empty areas of your disk are seen to be changing that will be enough evidence to obtain a search warrant.
This is a known fact and is clearly stated on the TrueCrypt site. I believe the only way around this is for
the software to always in the background be writing over empty areas of the volume with random data regardless
of weather or not there is a hidden volume. At the end of the day the whole thing comes down to "Plausible
Deniability". In fact there is a lot out there on plausible deniability file systems.
Actually if you look at the problem from a energy consumption (Von Neumann-Landauer Limit) POV
brute force attacks on a search space of 2^128 is boarding on consuming all of approximated
energy of all the stars in the Milky-way galaxy (imagine Dyson shells around all the stars
in our galaxy)
So in reality if a greatly less than brute force method is not found for such search spaces
then there is no real way of practically applying brute-force methods.
eh excuse me? plagiarist?! its Plagiarist.NET to you sir!
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The GPL is indeed viral and does require the full release
of any source dependent or otherwise that is coupled with GPL code.
That said finding the definition of derivative and derivative works on the FSF's GPL FAQ page is quiet
interesting - they've gone to a lot of trouble hiding it towards the end, one would think such an
important FAQ would be say the 1st or 2nd listing.