Luckily for you, you haven't the foggiest idea how mathematics is developed.
Good to know the slashdot privacy is still guaranteed. I am a mathematician. So I have some "foggiest" idea how it works. You should see how big a chuckle I have on my face right now.
Firms like Renaissance hire a bunch of PhDs who then apply their years of research in academia to generate the returns they do. Derivatives pricing in particular is so complex that it's not that the math isn't freely available for anyone to peruse, it's that it takes years of study to properly understand how it even works. So when a firm hires one of these guys, they aren't hiring them hoping that they'll come up with the next Black-Scholes-Merton pricing theory on company time. They're hoping that they understand the theory that already exists well enough to be able to apply it to real-world data and tweak it as necessary.
Well, thanks for advertising what I am sure is a firm that you are directly affiliated with. But that aside, RiskMetrics was not math to you? Or not original? Not that it means much, but they did get a patent on it. You don't think private pricing models are developed and kept in house because they expose hedging opportunities? You do know the history of Student's distribution, right? It was published under a pseudonym because his employer insisted on keeping statistical discoveries secret. The statistical inference methods that insurance companies use are trade secrets. If you think NSA is the only intelligence agency involved in doing math, you haven't read the story of Australia's intelligence agency cracking the codes of American-made fighter planes a few month ago... Math is done in secret all the time.
I suppose you can argue that most pure math is done in the light of day, but I am really not sure that is true of all the number theorists in the NSA and such. But anyway, if you read carefully what I said you'll see that what it meant was that the only time people put their work in papers is when they dedicate their lives to writing papers. When people dedicate their lives to making money, breaking secrets, oh... designing antennas (this one I am actually just guessing) they come up with math constructs that are not available for public to see... not until it's been thoroughly exploited for competitive advantage of the organization paying for the design.
Universities, many of the best of which are private, depend on their professors publishing new and innovative stuff nearly non-stop. It's not altruistic; hey make their money on tuition and they can justify charging 40k a year for an education only if they employ the best and the brightest.
If you paid for your graduate schooling in mathematics, you probably aren't good enough to call yourself a mathematician. Most PhD students get free education and a stipend from fellowships, teaching, etc. If you couldn't get funding and paid 40k a year to be in a PhD program, your probably should have just gotten that MBA your mother told you to get. Oh, and mathematicians outside of the IAS often make more money at state universities then they do at Ivy's.
Reputation is what makes or breaks a school; without it, they have no income, because the best students want to study at a university with pedigree.
So by a practicing mathematician you mean another dude with a bachelor? Because that's what you sound like. Most professional mathematician care much more about who and what they study than which stamp their PhD ends up with. Certainly that's what will determine quality of the work you end up doing and your future publications.
So while your (cynical) view of the world may "feel" right if you don't know what you're talking about, thankfully for all of us, open mathematical and scientific development will always trump private proprietary systems.
It's not a competition. They serve different needs.
There is no "we". Sorry. If someone finds a unique conclusion based on current mathematical results that will help him gain a competitive edge in some real-world situation, he won't share it. I already gave the example of investment bankers. The same is probably true of the research that NSA conducts and the research that nuclear labs conduct. People only share something when they can gain more advantage from personal recognition than they can from putting the results of their research to use. I am not arguing against collaboration. Just trying to get people to recognize that there is a time for every season. And lamenting it won't help it. That's life.
Quite a while back there was a big stink about kids hurting each other in the name of the Power Rangers. I think that's what pushed them back into some subtle obscurity, unlike what they were when they first came out.
Is that why pork has also been pushed into obscurity? Because some kids were found hurting each other in the name of worshiping a pig head... and creating some weird cult of the lord of the flies?
I'm skeptical that this is a left-right issue.Parents on the right are just as restrictive as the parents on the left. My friend was raised conservative Christian
What makes you think that Christianity is a conservative religion? Because it's labeled so? I am not trolling. I am serious. Christianity was an attempt to liberalize the conservative newish, roman, etc. societies which ran on a rule of law. Mercy and forgiveness are not conservative ideals, but they are Christian ideals.
What am I saying? Well, that those "conservative" friends of yours were so in name only. Self-reliance and risk-taking are conservative ideals. But both right and left are constantly trying to spare you the bother (on the left) or the opportunity (on the right) to think take chances and think outside the proverbial box. Both are looking for excuses to increase influence of the tyrannical state. Which of the excuses your prefer is up to you. Or you can choose to be free. I'll let you discover on your own who your favorite candidate should be in this case...
Mathematics goes in an out of the phases of being secretive and open.
Pythagoreans were very secretive. So were statisticians in the 19th century. I am pretty sure investment bankers do a great deal of math that they don't want anyone to ever see because it gives them an edge in the market.
It's sort of like gun powder. When first discovered, the secret is tightly controlled because it would gives advantage over the competition. Then the competition realizes that it is being consistently beaten and tries to emulate/steal the results. After a while, everyone knows what the results are.
And then the "philosophers" come in. That is the people who ponder the implications of the results discovered out of necessity. Since these people are not interested in any immediate payback, they insist that everyone shares the results so that more can be discovered by all. They try to convince everyone that this is the "natural" way of things.
But what is "natural"? Without the push of necessity the original results would have never been found. And without the contemplative phase of shared discovery, progress would not have been made to the point when the new era of rapid discovery done to assist in competition would come about. These phases of going in and out of secret (of math, science, heck of all knowledge that is used to maintain society) drive each other. So arguing for one or another is just another flame war.
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just ask a person? He is incapable of speech. But that could mean he can still move his eyes... So it would be possible to device a communication system based on that.
this "everything" really is. How is he planning to explain quantization in this continuous model? Well, only matter of time before Adele's will be the physicist's numbers. Then I'll believe it when they talk about theory of "everything" -- quantum mechanics and gen relativity tied in one.
So it detects glider (while glider is not running) without looking at glider files? How? And if it only exists to do things like detect glider, it still has to examine files in (let's say) your quicken directory before it can determine that it doesn't contain glider files.
I am pretty sure that the mathematician at NSA leave the questions of constitutionality of their actions to the lawyers. So it's apathy that you are talking about rather than incompetence.
You misunderstand the nature of the backdoor. Yes, discrete logarithm is very hard, but the inverse problem (exponentiation) is very easy. The NSA could have very easily produced the point via exponentiation, in which case they know the backdoor. For anyone else other than the NSA, accessing the backdoor requires computing a discrete logarithm. Have you read my entire post? I actually said as much.
It's a bit like factoring integers vs. multiplying integers Which would be the discrete log problem in Z/pZ. Again, have you read the entire post?
From what I got from this post http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=361891&cid=21367697, it would seem that having one particular solution would make it easier to get all of them. I don't think anyone made a statement as to whether or not anyone has a particular solution.
Read the post above. Getting the key involves solving a discrete log problem for one instance of an elliptic curve. Discrete log problem is an unsolved mathematical problem. So its solution essentially (you mileage may vary slightly) requires brute force. Either NSA has a solution and was hoping the weakness would go unnoticed, or they don't have it. If they don't have it, no one will have it for a long time. These are more difficult to compute (and therefore more time consuming) than the traditional encryption schema (discrete log problems for Z/pZ). Now the question of whether you believe malice or incompetence is at play here is essentially up to you.
And any software that DOES do that gets a spanking via a slashdot article. So you are right, nothing new here. But I think you were trying to imply that it's inconsistent. Well, it is very consistent. I think the bigger complaint was not that the Warden can do that. It is that it does do that. It examines files that Blizzard software neither installed nor created on the system.
Well, having the ability to send any file (even the ones they didn't install or create) back to Blizzard certainly qualifies as
a program designed to take control of a system remotely or offer access to that system because it certainly offers a great deal of access to the system.
what, what, what, whaaat???? The country that started the US-Japan theater was responsible for the deaths' of Japanese civilians. That would be Japan. I can't believe I have to put it this way, but remember Pearl Harbor?
Who are they getting ready to fight? China? Whose military could be sophisticated enough that the would conceive of remotely taking control of tanks and having them shoot at each other?
However if it had been another Next Generation movie, well, then there would be something to see indeed;-) If only you managed to turn this into vi vs emacs discussion.... ahh... to dream.
Maybe pre-quels are a throwback to the time we liked. The time when we thought of ourselves as the rebels and not the Empire, the time when our system of government made us identify with the Federation rather than a weird mix of Klingons and Ferengis. The time we are all nostalgic for even though we don't want to say so. Isn't that the best fantasy? The one based on nostalgia for what never was?
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily for you, you haven't the foggiest idea how mathematics is developed.
Good to know the slashdot privacy is still guaranteed. I am a mathematician. So I have some "foggiest" idea how it works. You should see how big a chuckle I have on my face right now.
Firms like Renaissance hire a bunch of PhDs who then apply their years of research in academia to generate the returns they do. Derivatives pricing in particular is so complex that it's not that the math isn't freely available for anyone to peruse, it's that it takes years of study to properly understand how it even works. So when a firm hires one of these guys, they aren't hiring them hoping that they'll come up with the next Black-Scholes-Merton pricing theory on company time. They're hoping that they understand the theory that already exists well enough to be able to apply it to real-world data and tweak it as necessary.
Well, thanks for advertising what I am sure is a firm that you are directly affiliated with. But that aside, RiskMetrics was not math to you? Or not original? Not that it means much, but they did get a patent on it. You don't think private pricing models are developed and kept in house because they expose hedging opportunities? You do know the history of Student's distribution, right? It was published under a pseudonym because his employer insisted on keeping statistical discoveries secret. The statistical inference methods that insurance companies use are trade secrets. If you think NSA is the only intelligence agency involved in doing math, you haven't read the story of Australia's intelligence agency cracking the codes of American-made fighter planes a few month ago... Math is done in secret all the time.
I suppose you can argue that most pure math is done in the light of day, but I am really not sure that is true of all the number theorists in the NSA and such. But anyway, if you read carefully what I said you'll see that what it meant was that the only time people put their work in papers is when they dedicate their lives to writing papers. When people dedicate their lives to making money, breaking secrets, oh... designing antennas (this one I am actually just guessing) they come up with math constructs that are not available for public to see... not until it's been thoroughly exploited for competitive advantage of the organization paying for the design.
Universities, many of the best of which are private, depend on their professors publishing new and innovative stuff nearly non-stop. It's not altruistic; hey make their money on tuition and they can justify charging 40k a year for an education only if they employ the best and the brightest.
If you paid for your graduate schooling in mathematics, you probably aren't good enough to call yourself a mathematician. Most PhD students get free education and a stipend from fellowships, teaching, etc. If you couldn't get funding and paid 40k a year to be in a PhD program, your probably should have just gotten that MBA your mother told you to get. Oh, and mathematicians outside of the IAS often make more money at state universities then they do at Ivy's.
Reputation is what makes or breaks a school; without it, they have no income, because the best students want to study at a university with pedigree.
So by a practicing mathematician you mean another dude with a bachelor? Because that's what you sound like. Most professional mathematician care much more about who and what they study than which stamp their PhD ends up with. Certainly that's what will determine quality of the work you end up doing and your future publications.
So while your (cynical) view of the world may "feel" right if you don't know what you're talking about, thankfully for all of us, open mathematical and scientific development will always trump private proprietary systems.
It's not a competition. They serve different needs.
Don't assume that we liv
There is no "we". Sorry. If someone finds a unique conclusion based on current mathematical results that will help him gain a competitive edge in some real-world situation, he won't share it. I already gave the example of investment bankers. The same is probably true of the research that NSA conducts and the research that nuclear labs conduct. People only share something when they can gain more advantage from personal recognition than they can from putting the results of their research to use. I am not arguing against collaboration. Just trying to get people to recognize that there is a time for every season. And lamenting it won't help it. That's life.
Is that why pork has also been pushed into obscurity? Because some kids were found hurting each other in the name of worshiping a pig head... and creating some weird cult of the lord of the flies?
What makes you think that Christianity is a conservative religion? Because it's labeled so? I am not trolling. I am serious. Christianity was an attempt to liberalize the conservative newish, roman, etc. societies which ran on a rule of law. Mercy and forgiveness are not conservative ideals, but they are Christian ideals.
What am I saying? Well, that those "conservative" friends of yours were so in name only. Self-reliance and risk-taking are conservative ideals. But both right and left are constantly trying to spare you the bother (on the left) or the opportunity (on the right) to think take chances and think outside the proverbial box. Both are looking for excuses to increase influence of the tyrannical state. Which of the excuses your prefer is up to you. Or you can choose to be free. I'll let you discover on your own who your favorite candidate should be in this case...
In short... like tag of the article said: nannystate
Mathematics goes in an out of the phases of being secretive and open.
Pythagoreans were very secretive. So were statisticians in the 19th century. I am pretty sure investment bankers do a great deal of math that they don't want anyone to ever see because it gives them an edge in the market.
It's sort of like gun powder. When first discovered, the secret is tightly controlled because it would gives advantage over the competition. Then the competition realizes that it is being consistently beaten and tries to emulate/steal the results. After a while, everyone knows what the results are.
And then the "philosophers" come in. That is the people who ponder the implications of the results discovered out of necessity. Since these people are not interested in any immediate payback, they insist that everyone shares the results so that more can be discovered by all. They try to convince everyone that this is the "natural" way of things.
But what is "natural"? Without the push of necessity the original results would have never been found. And without the contemplative phase of shared discovery, progress would not have been made to the point when the new era of rapid discovery done to assist in competition would come about. These phases of going in and out of secret (of math, science, heck of all knowledge that is used to maintain society) drive each other. So arguing for one or another is just another flame war.
But does it have to be an income tax?
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just ask a person? He is incapable of speech. But that could mean he can still move his eyes... So it would be possible to device a communication system based on that.
this "everything" really is. How is he planning to explain quantization in this continuous model? Well, only matter of time before Adele's will be the physicist's numbers. Then I'll believe it when they talk about theory of "everything" -- quantum mechanics and gen relativity tied in one.
So it detects glider (while glider is not running) without looking at glider files? How? And if it only exists to do things like detect glider, it still has to examine files in (let's say) your quicken directory before it can determine that it doesn't contain glider files.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleonbo384775.html Napoleon predated Robert A. Heinlein. 'nough said.
I am pretty sure that the mathematician at NSA leave the questions of constitutionality of their actions to the lawyers. So it's apathy that you are talking about rather than incompetence.
From what I got from this post http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=361891&cid=21367697, it would seem that having one particular solution would make it easier to get all of them. I don't think anyone made a statement as to whether or not anyone has a particular solution.
Read the post above. Getting the key involves solving a discrete log problem for one instance of an elliptic curve. Discrete log problem is an unsolved mathematical problem. So its solution essentially (you mileage may vary slightly) requires brute force. Either NSA has a solution and was hoping the weakness would go unnoticed, or they don't have it. If they don't have it, no one will have it for a long time. These are more difficult to compute (and therefore more time consuming) than the traditional encryption schema (discrete log problems for Z/pZ). Now the question of whether you believe malice or incompetence is at play here is essentially up to you.
And any software that DOES do that gets a spanking via a slashdot article. So you are right, nothing new here. But I think you were trying to imply that it's inconsistent. Well, it is very consistent. I think the bigger complaint was not that the Warden can do that. It is that it does do that. It examines files that Blizzard software neither installed nor created on the system.
Don't look for malice where incompetence will do.
-- NapoleonWhat makes you think they were not using Linux? In a totalitarian state you are guilty because you were accused.
what, what, what, whaaat???? The country that started the US-Japan theater was responsible for the deaths' of Japanese civilians. That would be Japan. I can't believe I have to put it this way, but remember Pearl Harbor?
Who are they getting ready to fight? China? Whose military could be sophisticated enough that the would conceive of remotely taking control of tanks and having them shoot at each other?
This was nothing short of magnificent. Thank you.
Maybe pre-quels are a throwback to the time we liked. The time when we thought of ourselves as the rebels and not the Empire, the time when our system of government made us identify with the Federation rather than a weird mix of Klingons and Ferengis. The time we are all nostalgic for even though we don't want to say so. Isn't that the best fantasy? The one based on nostalgia for what never was?