Which in turn shows a measure of my own stupidity. There. I've said it. The rest of y'all can sit it out while I eat the crow. (Mm.. tastes like chicken.) I saw a headline, and thought the article reflected it. Pass the ketchup.
The reason I'm stepping forward is to start this discussion: how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue? It's frightening to see how the media mislead the general populace so damn stupidly and see the techie sector utterly unable to do anything about it.
We've just made it out of the Y2K scare, and we're moving on the the usual fare (internet porn, et cetera, et cetera).
It's also sad to see how many scientists and engineers agree with the phrase "I'm not superstitious in general, but I believe reporters are bad luck."
Phillip Island's penguin colony is a great place to visit (I was there many years ago). The penguins all come from the sea to feed their chicks at roughly the same time in the evening. You can watch this from bleachers at the beach.
Whoever dumped the slick off Phillip Island should be fed to sharks.
Search engine admins are constantly in a cat and mouse game with the Web. It's not just cat and mousing with word spammers (first rank down pages with words in alphabetical order... word spammers strike back... then try to parse pages a bit.. word spammers strike back... et cetera...). Styles of web page writing alter over time, and there are issues over the mutability of pages and the such. (Frames fall into fashion.. frames fall out of fashion..)
Search engine admins should have the freedom to tinker with their ranking algorithms without getting nailed by patent sharks. Besides, copying a search algorithm is a bit difficult if the algorithm isn't published. Search enginges don't have to publish their methods to build a user base. They just have to do a good job.
So, Google is probably justified in seeking a patent. One can't be too carefull. But if Google starts pulling an Amazon, it's time to boycott them.
If you're a large corporation faced with a frivolous lawsuit, offer the settle for a large sum, with the caveat that the plaintiff consents to a vasectomy or tubal ligation. After a few decades the problem will abate!
1. At your gig, distribute leaflets with your website's URL.
2. If the folks leaving the gig liked you, they'll spread the word a bit. You'll start selling.
3. If you're really good, you'll start wave of emails (think hamsterdance). Otherwise, you'll still be stuck with a small niche of a fan base, but hey, at least you're not getting ripped off by a record company.
No, it's perfectly sensible.
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 2
In a bombing-prone country, if you leave your luggage unattended you create noise for the bomb squad, which needless to say would rather get busy on the signal.
Newsweek said China's new Passive Coherent Location (PCL) system tracked the signals of civilian radio and television broadcasts and picked up aircraft by analysing the minute turbulence their flight caused in the commercial wavelengths.
Okay, so you broadcast noise at those wavelenghs in the region in question. If that doesn't drown out the effect of the planes flying around, then I'm an emu.
This is of course, assuming that Newsweek did their homework , which may likely be an incorrect assumption. (Newsweek fscking up a tech story? Nah...)
1. PBS (portable batch system): pbs.mrj.com (It's just a job queueing program, no need to slashdot these guys, but it does everything I saw in that patent minus the not-quite-so-willing participant bit.) 2. NQS/DQS/... (similar programs). 3. GNU Queue
So, let's see (it takes a while before we even need the queue programs):
(a) receiving a start message at the remote computer from the central computer at a time that the central computer has predetermined the remote computer will be available for processing one of said first set of processing tasks;
crond plus rsh
(b) processing raw data related to said first set of processing tasks to generate processed data;
(c) storing the processed data; and
(d) sending a complete message to the central computer.
covered by rsh.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the remote computer communicates with the central computer over a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol based network.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the remote computer communicates with the central computer over a local area network.
Still rsh territory.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the start message comprises a task and a storage location of the raw data, further comprising the step of retrieving the raw data.
An rsh command with an argument referring to a file served over NFS/AFS?
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the start message comprises a task and the raw data, and the raw data is processed in accordance with the task.
An rsh command where the data are in ARGV? (data isn't dammit, data are)
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the complete message comprises a storage location of the processed data.
So the program spits an output filename to STDOUT.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the complete message comprises the processed data.
So the program spits its output to STDOUT, which is linked over rsh to the server.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of server computers communicate with the remote computer and the central computer, further comprising the step of retrieving the raw data from one of the plurality of server computers.
Oooh, now we need rsh and rcp (or NFS. Where I work we use a queue that calls ssh together with NFS all the time, using several servers).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of server computers communicate with the remote computer and the central computer, step (c) comprising the step of: (c-1) storing the processed data on one of the plurality of server computers.
And we write to those NFS servers.
10. [snipped for brevity]
Putting it all together is easy with PBS. So finally we come to need it.
1. a boss at a company I know likes naming them after Islands and Island groups. I guess he hates Yankee weather. 2. Bloom County characters. 3. Norse Gods. 4. Sci-Fi authors. 5. Some mail servers I know of are named after nearby train stations.
the government can regulate e-commerce by ignoring it. Cheat somebody on Ebay? Get arrested for wire-fraud.
Gain gambling debts? Yawn. We Feds can't be bothered. Tough luck for the online casino owner. Gambling's sleazy anbyway. Win some money gambling and then see the online casino refuse to pay? Tough luck, dummy. Gambling's sleazy anyway.
Getting Dolly to be born took 300 failed attempts, each time producing deformed embryos. That was easy: at least you don't have the public ready to jail you if you produce deformed lambs.
No extrapolate that to babies: in order to produce genemod humans you need empirical data which you can't obtain without (for now) ghastly research. In order to break this cycle, first you have to watch Dolly (her telomeres are out of whack), then get a reliable method for making Dolly's (without the telomere problem), then move up to primates, and only when you can reliably produce genemod apes, can you even think about working on humans.
I doubt I'll live to see this. Even if I do, by the time anyone's ready to try it we'll have a good enough understanding of the genome that it won't be done for frivolous reasons. (crosses fingers)
it is good to hear that New Mexico has a clue. Now, as for schools that don't, there is something I should point out:
Why just the Christian creation story?
If schools still continue with the Colorado or Kansas paradigm, then they must not only give equal time for creationism to join to evolution, but also the following theory, which I believe deserves equal time:
The universe came into being when I thought it up, back in 1975.
All of it, including the memories and history of people of days prior to 1975, were things I contrived in order to give the world context.
It is not enough to teach creationism. Solipsism is a valid theory that deserves equal time.
Slashdot Mirror
Which in turn shows a measure of my own stupidity. There. I've said it. The rest of y'all can sit it out while I eat the crow. (Mm.. tastes like chicken.) I saw a headline, and thought the article reflected it. Pass the ketchup.
The reason I'm stepping forward is to start this discussion: how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue? It's frightening to see how the media mislead the general populace so damn stupidly and see the techie sector utterly unable to do anything about it.
We've just made it out of the Y2K scare, and we're moving on the the usual fare (internet porn, et cetera, et cetera).
It's also sad to see how many scientists and engineers agree with the phrase "I'm not superstitious in general, but I believe reporters are bad luck."
*sigh*
Recall, as you might, that a few months ago the NSA reported being unable to engage in large scale monitoring of telecommunications because of the sheer number of bits travelling all over the place?
Could it be that the US government has decided to just fscking deal with the situation and not try to rebag unbagged cats?
Maybe.
That's only in places like the Gulf of Mexico
where there are such deposits.
Phillip Island's penguin colony is a great place to visit (I was there many years ago). The penguins all come from the sea to feed their chicks at roughly the same time in the evening. You can watch this from bleachers at the beach.
Whoever dumped the slick off Phillip Island should be fed to sharks.
Okay, time for a Jewish joke:
Q: Why is this year better for Jews than for Gentiles?
A: Because Gentiles have been bunkering off for Y2K while the Jews just entered the 60's. (*)
(*) the 5760's, that is.
> Google might be justified in seeking that > patent, but it won't help them,
It helps them in that they won't be beaten to the punch by some other patent and then sued into non-existence.
Search engine admins are constantly in a cat and mouse game with the Web. It's not just cat and mousing with word spammers (first rank down pages with words in alphabetical order... word spammers strike back... then try to parse pages a bit.. word spammers strike back... et cetera...). Styles of web page writing alter over time, and there are issues over the mutability of pages and the such. (Frames fall into fashion.. frames fall out of fashion..)
Search engine admins should have the freedom to tinker with their ranking algorithms without getting nailed by patent sharks. Besides, copying a search algorithm is a bit difficult if the algorithm isn't published. Search enginges don't have to publish their methods to build a user base. They just have to do a good job.
So, Google is probably justified in seeking a patent. One can't be too carefull. But if Google starts pulling an Amazon, it's time to boycott them.
.. before they arrest Leonardo DiCaprio?
If you're a large corporation faced with a frivolous lawsuit, offer the settle for a large sum, with the caveat that the plaintiff consents to a vasectomy or tubal ligation. After a few decades the problem will abate!
1. At your gig, distribute leaflets with your website's URL.
2. If the folks leaving the gig liked you, they'll spread the word a bit. You'll start selling.
3. If you're really good, you'll start wave of emails (think hamsterdance). Otherwise, you'll still be stuck with a small niche of a fan base, but hey, at least you're not getting ripped off by a record company.
In a bombing-prone country, if you leave your luggage unattended you create noise for the bomb squad, which needless to say would rather get busy on the signal.
The new pejorative.
It'll catch on before "Windows Powered" ever does.
1. the obligatory comment:
u zos.htm
This would be bitchin' in a Beowulf cluster.
2. Why you should not get an implant
for elective reasons:
http://www.techreview.com/articles/july99/derto
Okay, so you broadcast noise at those
wavelenghs in the region in question.
If that doesn't drown out the effect of
the planes flying around, then I'm an emu.
This is of course, assuming that Newsweek did their homework , which may likely be an incorrect assumption. (Newsweek fscking up a tech story? Nah...)
1. PBS (portable batch system): pbs.mrj.com
(It's just a job queueing program, no need to slashdot these guys, but it does everything I saw in that patent minus the not-quite-so-willing participant bit.)
2. NQS/DQS/... (similar programs).
3. GNU Queue
So, let's see (it takes a while before we
even need the queue programs):
(a) receiving a start message at the remote computer from the central computer at a time that the central computer has predetermined the remote computer will be available for processing one of said first set of processing tasks;
crond plus rsh
(b) processing raw data related to said first set of processing tasks to generate processed data;
(c) storing the processed data; and
(d) sending a complete message to the central computer.
covered by rsh.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the remote computer communicates with the central computer over a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol based network.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the remote computer communicates with the central computer over a local area network.
Still rsh territory.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the start message comprises a task and a storage location of the raw data, further comprising the step of retrieving the raw data.
An rsh command with an argument referring
to a file served over NFS/AFS?
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the start message comprises a task and the raw data, and the raw data is processed in accordance with the task.
An rsh command where the data are in ARGV?
(data isn't dammit, data are)
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the complete message comprises a storage location of the processed data.
So the program spits an output filename to STDOUT.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the complete message comprises the processed data.
So the program spits its output to STDOUT,
which is linked over rsh to the server.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of server computers communicate with the remote computer and the central computer, further comprising the step of retrieving the raw data from one of the plurality of server computers.
Oooh, now we need rsh and rcp (or NFS. Where I work we use a queue that calls ssh together with NFS all the time, using several servers).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of server computers communicate with the remote computer and the central computer, step (c) comprising the step of: (c-1) storing the processed data on one of the plurality of server computers.
And we write to those NFS servers.
10. [snipped for brevity]
Putting it all together is easy with PBS.
So finally we come to need it.
1. a boss at a company I know likes naming them after Islands and Island groups. I guess he hates Yankee weather.
2. Bloom County characters.
3. Norse Gods.
4. Sci-Fi authors.
5. Some mail servers I know of are named after
nearby train stations.
In Thailand there's a species of fireflies
that flashes in sync. It's really amazing to see these bugs at night.
How about engineering those babies to take the cold?
the government can regulate e-commerce by ignoring it. Cheat somebody on Ebay? Get arrested for wire-fraud.
Gain gambling debts? Yawn. We Feds can't be bothered. Tough luck for the online casino owner. Gambling's sleazy anbyway. Win some money gambling and then see the online casino refuse to pay? Tough luck, dummy. Gambling's sleazy anyway.
You think they'd reserve a word like "Cybersipracy" to something a little less trivial...
Every time your monitor screen goes tie-dye-t-shirt you know it's a launch time.
Getting Dolly to be born took 300 failed attempts, each time producing deformed embryos. That was easy: at least you don't have the public ready to jail you if you produce deformed lambs.
No extrapolate that to babies: in order to produce genemod humans you need empirical data which you can't obtain without (for now) ghastly research. In order to break this cycle, first you have to watch Dolly (her telomeres are out of whack), then get a reliable method for making Dolly's (without the telomere problem), then move up to primates, and only when you can reliably produce genemod apes, can you even think about working on humans.
I doubt I'll live to see this. Even if I do, by the time anyone's ready to try it we'll have a good enough understanding of the genome that it won't be done for frivolous reasons. (crosses fingers)
Anyone from the Lopht, or Counterpane care to comment?
I found no matches searching in SecurityPortal
or SecurityFocus, so far. Nor in Google.
nor Altavista.
Is this the sort of thing I have to forbid
my mother from trying?
it is good to hear that New Mexico has a clue.
Now, as for schools that don't, there is something I should point out:
Why just the Christian creation story?
If schools still continue with the Colorado or Kansas paradigm, then they must not only give equal time for creationism to join to evolution, but also the following theory, which I believe deserves equal time:
The universe came into being when I thought it up,
back in 1975.
All of it, including the memories and history of people of days prior to 1975, were things I contrived in order to give the world context.
It is not enough to teach creationism. Solipsism is a valid theory that deserves equal time.
I see. Thank you for the clue-in.
Command is staffed by officers who are trained to handle that risk. The average hacker, on the other hand, is not.