Is it just me, or were none of the quotes in that article in quotation marks? This is the NY times for pete's sake. Have quotation marks gone out of style or something?
Of course, that was not at issue. The question was when should those responsible for securing something be held responsible if their negligence allows someone else to breach that security.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a bank. A bank holds money and valuables for its depositors. If the owner of a bank set the safe combination to 0-0-0 and walked out the fron door on Friday afternoon leaving the alarm off and front door unlocked, they would probably be held responsible for whatever happened due to their negligence. If someone did the same with their own safe in their own house, not much would happen to them as they were not entrusted with other people's things.
So people are still reading these threads:)
>>and I don't think it deserves the same >>fundemental treatment that should be given to >>algorithms.
>Oh, I do. I think OO programming is essential. >If you're not using an OO language, then it's >even more essential, because the language >doesn't impose any OO discipline on you.
I guess I meant this more as a matter of relative importance. Without knowing understanding algorithms, programing methodologies such as OO, procedutal programming, etc. don't do you a lot of good. I fear that students are to eager and teachers may be too willing to leap right in to "This is how you write a program in XXX" rather than "These are the kinds of things a computer can do..."
I remember taking summer courses in elementary school on the apple II. One was in basic, one was in logo. I haven't used an apple II for probably 12 years, and haven't programmed much in basic or logo. But there are things I learned in those classes that are still as valid and helpful in my everyday programming as they were then. The hardware and software platforms are no longer relevant to me, but the little I learned about how to debug a program, organize code in a structured format, etc. formed the foundation for everything I have done since.
>>The idea that if only you lay out your data in >>a OO manner, the algorithms will be readily >>apparent is utter rubish.
>Well that's an obvious straw man. I don't know >who'd be so silly to say something this absurd
>though.
I don't remember, but I seem to remember something along these lines in a C++ book. Sorry I can't cite it.
>OO addresses issues orthogonal to algorithm >choices. The main point of OO is to express >commonality through inheritence, which results >in consistent API designs, reusable code and >reusable interfaces. The fact that algorithms >are essential does not in any way make software >design principles any less essential. Both are >essential topics.
I still think being able to design and analyze algorithms is more important than OO. People programmed for years without OO, but they didn't program without understanding algorithms.
In highschool geometry class, we did proofs, we didn't learn how to use the latest straightedges and protractors. There is certainly a place for learning tools and becoming proficient with them, but I don't think this place is in an AP class.
And since I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever read this, let me say that OO is not a magic bullet, and I don't think it deserves the same fundemental treatment that should be given to algorithms. The idea that if only you lay out your data in a OO manner, the algorithms will be readily apparent is utter rubish.
That's a bit harder to quantify. There is an unambiguous maximum number of points you can earn in pitfall and many other games of this era. SMB, on the other hand, can be played indefinately if one is allowed the trick of obtaining extra lives by bouncing turtles on the stairs. Even if this sort of thing is not allowed for a perfect game, I don't think there is an unambiguous maximum score.
I would take a different approach. I think CS curricula should be able to employ whichever language or languages the instructor sees fit to teach concepts. Shall this be a computer language grammar test? Or should we instead present algorithms in pseudocode that is less ambiguous to the reader and less likely to go out of style in a few years.
Languages come and languages go, but the algorithms they represent are like math proofs -- They aren't going to change over time.
My thought was that this might have something to do with moving and resizing layers. If you put 5 different images together and put them under one branch of the tree, then you could translate these layers and the registration between them would remain the same.
The fact that they are using NT, or the fact that we (US taxpayers) will have to pay for it. This is just like the government, giving subsidies to tobacco growers while trying to convince people not to smoke.
Consumer reports, the insurance institute for highway safety, the ntsb? (U.S. govt safety group) are all able to crash cars, rip them open and compare them for safety, quality of construction, etc. As vehicles become more computerized, the role of software in vehicle safety increases, as does the amount of the car that ties into them.
Measures intended to protect the auto makers' software might some day be so closely coupled with the rest of the systems in the car, that failure analysis, crash investigation, etc. might all be hampered by the DMCA.
Yes, exactly. The impact may be small indeed, but it is folly to assume that changing the amount of energy available to an environment will have _no_ effect (change => no change?). For example, the weathering of shorelines may provide minerals that are consumed by the plants and animals in the area. The wave action also helps distribute nutrients, and makes sites more or less habitable by different organisims.
I think it may even be more simple than this. I think the turbine blades are simply attached to tortional springs. When the air blows one way, the trailing edge is pushed away while the leading edge is pushed towards the flow of air. Imagine a strip of paper where you have cut outs like so:
-------
[   [   [   [
-------
With this setup, whichever way the air comes from, the strip will want to move to the right.
P.S. I think slashdot needs some sort of way for people to attach sketches to their posts.
I disagree. Since energy can neither be created or destroyed, the energy collected from the waves is energy that is no longer in the environment. This amount of energy may or may not have a profound efect on the ecosystems, and regardless, it seems to be a much more beneign way to collect energy than some of our current schemes. However, the fact remains, it would still be removing the energy from the beach and moving it somewhere else.
I just found a flaw in my own plan. The location is based on the difference between the arrival times of the signals, not the contents of the signals per-se. It would still be possible for someone to record the encrypted messages from the satellites and misrepresent when these were received by the GPS, thus misrepresenting their location.
I still like having the encryption in the satellites because it is very hard to tamper with. A scheme where the encryption is done in the receiver seems easier to break. There's a better solution but I can't quite think of it right now.
As for the usefulness of this, I hope this can be a tool for people to prove their whereabouts, but that it never becomes a requirement for anything.
You don't have to have it embedded in your skin - you simply have to provide a piece of information only you would know, such as your
PGP/GPG private key
And what if I log in over a secure connection during the bank robery to prove that I was at home then? I could even use the X10 connection to flip the lights on and off so my neighbors could vouch for me.
A simple solution might be the following. The GPS satellites each send out their own version of the time, and the GPS receiver compares this to its time to determine its position relative to the satellites. What you could do is have each satellite periodically (once a minute?) send their time with a digital signature. You can then use the GPS company's public key to demonstrate that you have data from a GPS unit that was at a given location at a given time. Of course as the previous poster pointed out, you still have to prove that you were also at the same location as the GPS unit.
Look at it this way. Suppose this guy ran for student body president, then won and declined to accept in order to protest the student government. The school might have to do a runoff election, which would be disruptive. Now, is homecoming king the same as president? They are both popularity contests at some level, and a highschool student body president doesn't have any real power, so they aren't as different after all. Its not as if the school grabbed him as he was walking down the hall and thrust the crown on him. He knew what he was getting into and probably worked hard at it in order to win. The time to decline a position is when you are nominated.
Why not incorporate a memory tester into the kernel? It could pick a page, swap out whatever user-space data that was there, and run a few read/write tests on it. If it passed, just free up the page and go on. If it failed, retry to make sure, then mark it as bad and contact a user-space daemon to append this address to the list of bad memory pages. When the kernel boots up the next time, it reads in this file and the newly detected bad pages are never used again.
This might add too much to the cost, but you could put a non-volatile chip on each simm that spells out where the bad memory is. Then when a compliant OS boots up it reads this information out of the sims and uses it to block out those pages marked as bad by the manufacturer. But who knows if they would go to all this trouble for memory that can only be used by one OS.
Also have to come up with a good euphemistic buzzword for this memory so that it can be sold. "Near compliant" was a good one I heard a while back.
Also, gameboys tent to have a very easy to use UI. Anyone who can figure out how to thread one of these things should easily be able to figure out the gameboy. And when's the last time you say a gameboy crash?
"a sub-linear time algorithm". It sounds funny... an algorithm which would NOT take longer as the size
of the problem increased. In fact, it's really just a joke, because "obviously" no such thing could exist.
Just because it is faster than linear time does not mean that it doesn't increase with size. EX for an O(log(n)) algorithm would take twice as much time to do 100 items than to do 10 (log(100)=2,log(10)=1).
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or were none of the quotes in that article in quotation marks? This is the NY times for pete's sake. Have quotation marks gone out of style or something?
Of course, that was not at issue. The question was when should those responsible for securing something be held responsible if their negligence allows someone else to breach that security.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a bank. A bank holds money and valuables for its depositors. If the owner of a bank set the safe combination to 0-0-0 and walked out the fron door on Friday afternoon leaving the alarm off and front door unlocked, they would probably be held responsible for whatever happened due to their negligence. If someone did the same with their own safe in their own house, not much would happen to them as they were not entrusted with other people's things.
So people are still reading these threads :)
>>and I don't think it deserves the same >>fundemental treatment that should be given to >>algorithms.
>Oh, I do. I think OO programming is essential. >If you're not using an OO language, then it's >even more essential, because the language >doesn't impose any OO discipline on you.
I guess I meant this more as a matter of relative importance. Without knowing understanding algorithms, programing methodologies such as OO, procedutal programming, etc. don't do you a lot of good. I fear that students are to eager and teachers may be too willing to leap right in to "This is how you write a program in XXX" rather than "These are the kinds of things a computer can do..."
I remember taking summer courses in elementary school on the apple II. One was in basic, one was in logo. I haven't used an apple II for probably 12 years, and haven't programmed much in basic or logo. But there are things I learned in those classes that are still as valid and helpful in my everyday programming as they were then. The hardware and software platforms are no longer relevant to me, but the little I learned about how to debug a program, organize code in a structured format, etc. formed the foundation for everything I have done since.
>>The idea that if only you lay out your data in >>a OO manner, the algorithms will be readily >>apparent is utter rubish.
>Well that's an obvious straw man. I don't know >who'd be so silly to say something this absurd
>though.
I don't remember, but I seem to remember something along these lines in a C++ book. Sorry I can't cite it.
>OO addresses issues orthogonal to algorithm >choices. The main point of OO is to express >commonality through inheritence, which results >in consistent API designs, reusable code and >reusable interfaces. The fact that algorithms >are essential does not in any way make software >design principles any less essential. Both are >essential topics.
I still think being able to design and analyze algorithms is more important than OO. People programmed for years without OO, but they didn't program without understanding algorithms.
In highschool geometry class, we did proofs, we didn't learn how to use the latest straightedges and protractors. There is certainly a place for learning tools and becoming proficient with them, but I don't think this place is in an AP class.
And since I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever read this, let me say that OO is not a magic bullet, and I don't think it deserves the same fundemental treatment that should be given to algorithms. The idea that if only you lay out your data in a OO manner, the algorithms will be readily apparent is utter rubish.
That's a bit harder to quantify. There is an unambiguous maximum number of points you can earn in pitfall and many other games of this era. SMB, on the other hand, can be played indefinately if one is allowed the trick of obtaining extra lives by bouncing turtles on the stairs. Even if this sort of thing is not allowed for a perfect game, I don't think there is an unambiguous maximum score.
I would take a different approach. I think CS curricula should be able to employ whichever language or languages the instructor sees fit to teach concepts. Shall this be a computer language grammar test? Or should we instead present algorithms in pseudocode that is less ambiguous to the reader and less likely to go out of style in a few years.
Languages come and languages go, but the algorithms they represent are like math proofs -- They aren't going to change over time.
My thought was that this might have something to do with moving and resizing layers. If you put 5 different images together and put them under one branch of the tree, then you could translate these layers and the registration between them would remain the same.
If you could run MAME on this.
Yeah, and though the lamp may look cool, making a working clock with AOL CD gears is quite a bit cooler IMHO.
The fact that they are using NT, or the fact that we (US taxpayers) will have to pay for it. This is just like the government, giving subsidies to tobacco growers while trying to convince people not to smoke.
Yeah, I for instance have brown hair and blue eyes, something which neither of my parents has. This does not make me a mutant.
Consumer reports, the insurance institute for highway safety, the ntsb? (U.S. govt safety group) are all able to crash cars, rip them open and compare them for safety, quality of construction, etc. As vehicles become more computerized, the role of software in vehicle safety increases, as does the amount of the car that ties into them.
Measures intended to protect the auto makers' software might some day be so closely coupled with the rest of the systems in the car, that failure analysis, crash investigation, etc. might all be hampered by the DMCA.
Yes, exactly. The impact may be small indeed, but it is folly to assume that changing the amount of energy available to an environment will have _no_ effect (change => no change?). For example, the weathering of shorelines may provide minerals that are consumed by the plants and animals in the area. The wave action also helps distribute nutrients, and makes sites more or less habitable by different organisims.
I think it may even be more simple than this. I think the turbine blades are simply attached to tortional springs. When the air blows one way, the trailing edge is pushed away while the leading edge is pushed towards the flow of air. Imagine a strip of paper where you have cut outs like so:
-------
[   [   [   [
-------
With this setup, whichever way the air comes from, the strip will want to move to the right.
P.S. I think slashdot needs some sort of way for people to attach sketches to their posts.
I disagree. Since energy can neither be created or destroyed, the energy collected from the waves is energy that is no longer in the environment. This amount of energy may or may not have a profound efect on the ecosystems, and regardless, it seems to be a much more beneign way to collect energy than some of our current schemes. However, the fact remains, it would still be removing the energy from the beach and moving it somewhere else.
I just found a flaw in my own plan. The location is based on the difference between the arrival times of the signals, not the contents of the signals per-se. It would still be possible for someone to record the encrypted messages from the satellites and misrepresent when these were received by the GPS, thus misrepresenting their location.
I still like having the encryption in the satellites because it is very hard to tamper with. A scheme where the encryption is done in the receiver seems easier to break. There's a better solution but I can't quite think of it right now.
As for the usefulness of this, I hope this can be a tool for people to prove their whereabouts, but that it never becomes a requirement for anything.
You don't have to have it embedded in your skin - you simply have to provide a piece of information only you would know, such as your PGP/GPG private key
And what if I log in over a secure connection during the bank robery to prove that I was at home then? I could even use the X10 connection to flip the lights on and off so my neighbors could vouch for me.
A simple solution might be the following. The GPS satellites each send out their own version of the time, and the GPS receiver compares this to its time to determine its position relative to the satellites. What you could do is have each satellite periodically (once a minute?) send their time with a digital signature. You can then use the GPS company's public key to demonstrate that you have data from a GPS unit that was at a given location at a given time. Of course as the previous poster pointed out, you still have to prove that you were also at the same location as the GPS unit.
How come this was filled under games, and not lego or Star Wars. Not to pick a nit or anything.
Look at it this way. Suppose this guy ran for student body president, then won and declined to accept in order to protest the student government. The school might have to do a runoff election, which would be disruptive. Now, is homecoming king the same as president? They are both popularity contests at some level, and a highschool student body president doesn't have any real power, so they aren't as different after all. Its not as if the school grabbed him as he was walking down the hall and thrust the crown on him. He knew what he was getting into and probably worked hard at it in order to win. The time to decline a position is when you are nominated.
Why not incorporate a memory tester into the kernel? It could pick a page, swap out whatever user-space data that was there, and run a few read/write tests on it. If it passed, just free up the page and go on. If it failed, retry to make sure, then mark it as bad and contact a user-space daemon to append this address to the list of bad memory pages. When the kernel boots up the next time, it reads in this file and the newly detected bad pages are never used again.
This might add too much to the cost, but you could put a non-volatile chip on each simm that spells out where the bad memory is. Then when a compliant OS boots up it reads this information out of the sims and uses it to block out those pages marked as bad by the manufacturer. But who knows if they would go to all this trouble for memory that can only be used by one OS.
Also have to come up with a good euphemistic buzzword for this memory so that it can be sold. "Near compliant" was a good one I heard a while back.
Also, gameboys tent to have a very easy to use UI. Anyone who can figure out how to thread one of these things should easily be able to figure out the gameboy. And when's the last time you say a gameboy crash?
"a sub-linear time algorithm". It sounds funny... an algorithm which would NOT take longer as the size of the problem increased. In fact, it's really just a joke, because "obviously" no such thing could exist.
Just because it is faster than linear time does not mean that it doesn't increase with size. EX for an O(log(n)) algorithm would take twice as much time to do 100 items than to do 10 (log(100)=2,log(10)=1).