When buying an Android phone: Measure how many days it takes from the vulnerability report (at least publicly) until it's patched in phones already used by customers. Focus on phones more than 2 years old, since your phone will be that age someday. Then: Don't buy from unresponsive makers. I suspect that if a few buying guides included those numbers, some manufacturers and service providers would start paying attention.
It would be very helpful if there were a website that tracked cellphone support information, such as outstanding defects, and average defect correction time. I don't know of any such existing site, but suspect it would be a splendid opportunity to attract a large number of clicks.
The perpetually want a set of requirements. And they get upset if a new requirement is added later.
I agree that this is a good, if terse, summation of the basic conflict.
Poorly named, most "Computer Scientists" are NOT scientists. There is no application of the Scientific Method to solve unknown problems.
Instead, they are Software Engineers trying to adapt known problems to solution by a versatile tool (the computer). No Science. Just Engineering.
I see software as a way to explore a space. Model it. Determine what more modeling is needed. You are constantly trying to do something that usually is beyond what is computationally possible so you have to figure out what approximation is going to work. What has to be done at full scale and what can be done at lower resolution. Mock up stuff.
This sounds like Science. Very indeterminate. And, not easily estimated. Business managers that employ Software Engineers demand estimates.
And schedules. And progress reports.
Also, users of developed software often have - shall we say - hazy views of what is really needed. This can lead to disappointment when the software does not meet expectations.
Thus, to avoid being placed in a bad position, Software Engineers demand detailed requirements, so that they can make accurate estimates and avoid end user disappointment.
You live in a different world, pal... Not necessarily better or worse, but different.
Lots of people do comp sci and mathematics for the sake of themselves. There generally is a practical application, but it only tends to get discovered many years later. Can you tell me a practical application of the four color theorem?
I understand that. I did say "most", not "all". I am a big proponent of research into purely theoretical topics because they tend to pay big dividends in the future.
However, there are many more people applying mathematics and computer science to practical problems than doing theoretical work - as it should be.
I still maintain that the name of the game is solving practical problems, and a good computer science practitioner should be adept at applying his knowledge to different domains. That is what makes Computer Science important and relevant.
It seems to me that by moving knowledge of flows into the routers, you make it easier to tap into these flows from a centralized place - i.e., the router.
Not that tapping connections can't be done now by spying on packets, of course, but it would make it much cheaper to implement. High-overhead packet matching, reassembly, and interpretation is replaced by a simple table lookup in the router.
Donning my tinfoil hat, I can foresee a time when all routers 'must' implement this as a backdoor...
Pardon me, I'd like to make a correction. Good 2D contour plotting from scattered point data is not easy. For contour plotting from a regular grid, the marching squares algorithm is simple, easy to implement, and works pretty well. Run it several times with different reference values to get all the contours you want.
Uhhh... I said good 2D contouring is hard. Marching squares is by NO stretch of the imagination good, even with regular data.
Easy, yes. Good, no.
It has discontinuities. Good contouring will have smoothness at least to the 2nd derivative. TRICP uses fifth order equations to fit the
derivatives on all sides of the triangulation so that the resulting curves are smooth at all points. As I pointed out, triangulation is trivial
with regular gridded data.
And subsampling using cubic interpolation will not help the discontinuities that appear with marching squares.
Unless you use an algorithm that fits the derivatives at the region boundaries, you will get noticable jagged lines.
If you are not afraid of coding, then the best reference that I know of is:
Computing Contours by Successive Solution of Quintic Polynomial Equations
by Albrecht Preusser, ACM TOMS V10#4
The code (in FORTRAN, unfortunately) is also in TOMS as:
Algorithm 626 TRICP: A Contour Plot Program Triangular Meshes
You can get ACM TOMS (Transaction on Mathematical Software) from any
reasonable college library.
This might be a bit of overkill, as it is designed for irregular data sets
(versus regular datasets - grids). However, the code can be separated into a
separate Delaunay Triangulation step. If you have a grid (or in your case, a
function f(x,y)), it is easy to generate fixed triangles.
If anybody knows of a better algorithm, I'm all ears!!!
Depending how you look at it, Computer Science has very little "Science" in it.
Many definitions of "science" (At least, the ones I feel are most relevant here:-)) can be paraphrased as using the "Scientific Method" to gain knowledge.
The "Scientific method," in turn, requires you to observe, hypothesize, and experiment.
Hmmm... very little of that going around in modern C.S. curriculums - undergraduate or graduate.
Instead, I liken modern programming to the field of applied mathematics (which I also do not classify as a "science"). They both are all about applying tools (very similar tools, I might add) to problem domains.
Except for geeks who love the tech for its own sake, computers are all about solving other peoples' problems.
Not that I mind - I just think that "Computer Science" is a misnomer.
On the other hand, I have run across some journal articles that published actual computer-related scientific results. But only a few.
I see programming as trade art. Some can be very good art, and a joy to see.
Some can be bad art, and make my head ache.
My experience as a professional employee has shown me that my employer (and the customers that we contract with) deeply wish that this were not true. They wish for a software "Assembly Line" that is predictable and repeatable.
They have spent enormous amounts of money in pursuit of this mythical Assembly Line.
In my view, it is not going to happen. Art is art is programming, and good art requires insight and inspiration, which is not a commodity that can be bottled and preserved, and used at will.
It does not keep them from trying, however. As a result, I am stuck with the latest "software engineering methodologies" that bring my job down to the level of assembly line drudgery.
My job has become a "day job," and I live for the art that I can code at home, like artists throughout history.
... the primary purpose of the bandwidth to a university is academic and business related.
Over and above the implication that P2P networks cannot have academic and/or business purposes (which I am sure that others will address), I think you are overlooking a very significant factor.
Most universities have students living there in dorms. Schools are not sweat shops. Healthy students will have a social life in varying ways and degrees - and this can include music and blogging. I would argue that these are legitimate non-academic and non-business uses of the school's resources.
That being said, I think that it is reasonable to throttle the bandwidth devoted to P2P traffic. In fact, it is reasonable to enforce sharing for all limited resources.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM 026 and 029 Drum cards and.....
Tape write rings!!!
When buying an Android phone: Measure how many days it takes from the vulnerability report (at least publicly) until it's patched in phones already used by customers. Focus on phones more than 2 years old, since your phone will be that age someday. Then: Don't buy from unresponsive makers. I suspect that if a few buying guides included those numbers, some manufacturers and service providers would start paying attention.
It would be very helpful if there were a website that tracked cellphone support information, such as outstanding defects, and average defect correction time. I don't know of any such existing site, but suspect it would be a splendid opportunity to attract a large number of clicks.
While the turn-around time is impressive, it could not possibly have undergone extensive QA testing...
I understand that some bugs can have such OBVIOUS solutions - what could POSSIBLY go wrong with the fix???
And the list goes on....
The perpetually want a set of requirements. And they get upset if a new requirement is added later.
I agree that this is a good, if terse, summation of the basic conflict.
Poorly named, most "Computer Scientists" are NOT scientists. There is no application of the Scientific Method to solve unknown problems. Instead, they are Software Engineers trying to adapt known problems to solution by a versatile tool (the computer). No Science. Just Engineering.
I see software as a way to explore a space. Model it. Determine what more modeling is needed. You are constantly trying to do something that usually is beyond what is computationally possible so you have to figure out what approximation is going to work. What has to be done at full scale and what can be done at lower resolution. Mock up stuff.
This sounds like Science. Very indeterminate. And, not easily estimated. Business managers that employ Software Engineers demand estimates. And schedules. And progress reports.
Also, users of developed software often have - shall we say - hazy views of what is really needed. This can lead to disappointment when the software does not meet expectations.
Thus, to avoid being placed in a bad position, Software Engineers demand detailed requirements, so that they can make accurate estimates and avoid end user disappointment.
You live in a different world, pal... Not necessarily better or worse, but different.
Two problems solved.
(Three if the sharks have lasers.)
What could possibly go wrong?
Lots of people do comp sci and mathematics for the sake of themselves. There generally is a practical application, but it only tends to get discovered many years later. Can you tell me a practical application of the four color theorem?
I understand that. I did say "most", not "all". I am a big proponent of research into purely theoretical topics because they tend to pay big dividends in the future.
However, there are many more people applying mathematics and computer science to practical problems than doing theoretical work - as it should be.
I still maintain that the name of the game is solving practical problems, and a good computer science practitioner should be adept at applying his knowledge to different domains. That is what makes Computer Science important and relevant.
... just like Mathematics.
It means nothing by itself, except as a means to an end of solving practical problems.
That said, it makes all the sense in the world for most Computer Scientists to learn other domains of knowledge to apply to.
The more disciplines you are familiar with, the more adept you will be at applying your programming skills to solving real-world problems.
According to the article, the web hosting outfit "proactively" took it upon itself - with no complaints - to take down the site.
IANAL, but.... (take the rest with a grain of salt)
Since it did not follow DMCA provisions, I would presume that it left behind the DMCA safe-harbor provisions, and is open to a lawsuit...
It seems to me that by moving knowledge of flows into the routers, you make it easier to tap into these flows from a centralized place - i.e., the router.
Not that tapping connections can't be done now by spying on packets, of course, but it would make it much cheaper to implement. High-overhead packet matching, reassembly, and interpretation is replaced by a simple table lookup in the router.
Donning my tinfoil hat, I can foresee a time when all routers 'must' implement this as a backdoor...
Instead, we should lobby for a bill to declare New Mexico a Planet!
I believe that even RPM on linux runs the install scripts with admin access...
Pardon me, I'd like to make a correction. Good 2D contour plotting from scattered point data is not easy. For contour plotting from a regular grid, the marching squares algorithm is simple, easy to implement, and works pretty well. Run it several times with different reference values to get all the contours you want.
Uhhh... I said good 2D contouring is hard. Marching squares is by NO stretch of the imagination good, even with regular data. Easy, yes. Good, no.
It has discontinuities. Good contouring will have smoothness at least to the 2nd derivative. TRICP uses fifth order equations to fit the derivatives on all sides of the triangulation so that the resulting curves are smooth at all points. As I pointed out, triangulation is trivial with regular gridded data.
And subsampling using cubic interpolation will not help the discontinuities that appear with marching squares. Unless you use an algorithm that fits the derivatives at the region boundaries, you will get noticable jagged lines.
Good 2D contour plotting is not easy (I know!!!).
If you are not afraid of coding, then the best reference that I know of is:
by Albrecht Preusser, ACM TOMS V10#4
The code (in FORTRAN, unfortunately) is also in TOMS as:
Algorithm 626 TRICP: A Contour Plot Program Triangular Meshes
You can get ACM TOMS (Transaction on Mathematical Software) from any reasonable college library.
This might be a bit of overkill, as it is designed for irregular data sets (versus regular datasets - grids). However, the code can be separated into a separate Delaunay Triangulation step. If you have a grid (or in your case, a function f(x,y)), it is easy to generate fixed triangles.
If anybody knows of a better algorithm, I'm all ears!!!
Hmmm... The day they push this through is the day I go buy a router that *I* compile the firmware for.
If they make THAT illegal?... I am not sure... I might just become a criminal...
If a fence test was implemented, all investment into non-physical research would be discouraged.
Wrong!
I seem to recall a lot of non-physical research in computers before software patents were allowed.
Just look up any conference proceedings that dates back a while, and enjoy! Look ma, no patents!!!
TCL/TK is small, easy-to-use, and portable over many systems.
In addition, your entire program tree plus interpreter can be encapsulated using a starpack.
Now PJ is a security expert?
No. But she has access to a lot of people who are very informed.
It's amazing what the community can do when organized by a good leader.
This is old news. PJ has done a pretty thorough job debunking this one on Groklaw.
Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?
Not only is it not theft, but copyright infringement is not even a crime. It is a civil wrong - a tort.
Depending how you look at it, Computer Science has very little "Science" in it.
Many definitions of "science" (At least, the ones I feel are most relevant here :-)) can be paraphrased as using the "Scientific Method" to gain knowledge.
The "Scientific method," in turn, requires you to observe, hypothesize, and experiment.
Hmmm... very little of that going around in modern C.S. curriculums - undergraduate or graduate.
Instead, I liken modern programming to the field of applied mathematics (which I also do not classify as a "science"). They both are all about applying tools (very similar tools, I might add) to problem domains.
Except for geeks who love the tech for its own sake, computers are all about solving other peoples' problems.
Not that I mind - I just think that "Computer Science" is a misnomer.
On the other hand, I have run across some journal articles that published actual computer-related scientific results. But only a few.
I see programming as trade art. Some can be very good art, and a joy to see.
Some can be bad art, and make my head ache.
My experience as a professional employee has shown me that my employer (and the customers that we contract with) deeply wish that this were not true. They wish for a software "Assembly Line" that is predictable and repeatable.
They have spent enormous amounts of money in pursuit of this mythical Assembly Line.
In my view, it is not going to happen. Art is art is programming, and good art requires insight and inspiration, which is not a commodity that can be bottled and preserved, and used at will.
It does not keep them from trying, however. As a result, I am stuck with the latest "software engineering methodologies" that bring my job down to the level of assembly line drudgery.
My job has become a "day job," and I live for the art that I can code at home, like artists throughout history.
Sigh...
Online Books Page From UPenn.
THE most complete listing I have seen.
Over and above the implication that P2P networks cannot have academic and/or business purposes (which I am sure that others will address), I think you are overlooking a very significant factor.
Most universities have students living there in dorms. Schools are not sweat shops. Healthy students will have a social life in varying ways and degrees - and this can include music and blogging. I would argue that these are legitimate non-academic and non-business uses of the school's resources.
That being said, I think that it is reasonable to throttle the bandwidth devoted to P2P traffic. In fact, it is reasonable to enforce sharing for all limited resources.
In addition to pricewatch, I usually use Froogle for pricing searches.