John Walker called such a device a vacuum propeller. He didn't have any particular ideas about how the device would work, but he does have a nice analogy involving propellers.
The article Red Jesus linked is critical. It helped me understand the whole point of this Story. I know I shouldn't RTFA, but I couldn't help it this time.
Given how it blanketed the sky, I'd expect it is some sort of anti-missile/anti-aircraft defense component. Possibly related to stealth technology detection. Keep in mind the Russians have been making a nice chunk of change from helping Iran build nuclear plants and defend them. This would be the ideal time for the Russians to point out to the West, through a highly visible demonstration like this, that there may be some surprises in store for an attack on Iran.
Thank you. When I posted it I took a leap of faith that my fellow Slashdotters likely would get the reference. I wasn't let down. I think that is half the fun of this site: knowing that many of us share a lot of collective experiences.
We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.
... wherein the Supreme Court (including Scalia, amazingly) held that peering into homes using equipment that was not available in common use by the layperson was within the bounds of the 4th amendment, and therefore requires a search warrant.
... shouldn't we assume the CIA and Mossad already know how to evade this detection?
Folks, the real news here isn't that DNA evidence could be forged. That was sort of a no-brainer to anyone who understands the parallels with digital evidence.
The real news is that the ability to DETECT the forgery is now being sold by a company in a nation with arguably the best intelligence service in the world.
This isn't "space alien with mind control ray" tinfoil hat stuff. It's basic extrapolation and logic.
cases should be built on a preponderance of the evidence
Actually, and I'm sure you meant to say it, that's "Beyond a reasonable doubt"... a much higher standard than the preponderance of evidence standard. (Criminal vs. civil.)
The main problem here is that juries are being asked to make findings of fact for which they arguably have no qualifications to make. Questions of science belong with scientists, not laypeople, and so juries are forced to rely on a battle of expert witnesses. As you point out, the 3 piece suit, authority, and style of an expert can be decisive, even when the evidence itself is hardly "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I feel he has done a great disservice to the field of artificial intelligence by promising unrealistic things in interviews to the lay person. Disappointment is a sure fire way to get yourself branded as a snake oil salesman religious nut.
A disappointed public threatens research funding, but an unprepared public threatens chaos.
I'm more concerned with making sure we're thinking ahead to the radical change that is likely to come, be it in 10 years or 40, than to be concerned that lay people will distrust AI researchers.
Let's assume GS's trading system uses learning algorithms to generate new rules. This is a very logical assumption unless you want developers tweaking the code year after year, day after day.
In that case, it's not the code that generates the rules, nor the data it uses to generate the rules, nor the engine that runs the rules and interfaces the markets that is valuable: its the current state of the optimized rules themselves that has immediate exploitability by criminals.
If you know GS's system is going to react to market behavior that does X by doing Y, then you can exploit that to make money off it to GS's detriment.
And an interesting twist. The accused referred to the code as "open source." That might indicate that he thinks it isn't copyrighted. If the rules [code] were generated by software itself, such as a learning system, there is a colorable argument that there isn't the necessary quantum of authorship for copyright under U.S. law. Naturally this wouldn't encompass other claims, like those based in trade secrets, employment Ks, etc.
To recap, the state of rules generated by the learning system would be far more valuable [and dangerous in enemy hands] than the underlying engine and database of historical data. In fact, those rules would be the crown jewels.
I'd add the above is 100% pure speculation based on inferences and some expertise in the area. (No inside knowledge of GS.)
Found a post on ACM by someone with same name as the accused. Looked like a person with research background in Neural Networks. No idea if it is the same person, but it would be intriguing to me if Goldman Sachs was using neural networks for trading.
One interesting facet: if two or more counterparties in a market had neural networks that were trained to coordinate and cooperate in ways that would violate trading rules (e.g. like bridge players sharing info through actions), would the company be liable if the neural networks had developed these exchanges by themselves? In other words, would it be an instrumentality for violating the law if it learned, on its own, to violate the law, and the programmers / administrators "had no idea" it was doing that?
I live in the midwest. I have a lot of family over the range of this vehicle. However, for day to day operation, I wouldn't need more than 100 miles in range. A vehicle like this would be my car for driving to work and driving home.
For driving long distances, I'd just use a gas-based vehicle. I'd keep my old car around for that. Probably would need it half a dozen times during the year at most.
There will be some folks who will find the range of this car to be limiting. But how many compared to those who won't?
I think the real issue here is the calendar life of the battery. How long until I have to replace the batteries? That's what makes it easier for me to compare, apples to apples, the cost of the car vs. using gas.
Based on the info I read here: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=39.... I'm not too impressed with the thought of 50,000 life on the batteries. Of course, hopefully whatever the battery replacement would be in 5 years of advancing battery technology would make the replacement battery a smart replacement for other reasons...
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20070322/1157960476967.jpg
After Lethal Weapon 2, the words "Diplomatic Immunity" will always sound a certain way when I read them in my mind's eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXNUaSjXRY
Sound is more important than graphics! Amigas can't run GS/OS! //gs+ is coming out any day now !!1!11!!
Apple
(If you don't understand this, please don't rate it.)
... if you use them to identify "goatse" !!!
John Walker called such a device a vacuum propeller. He didn't have any particular ideas about how the device would work, but he does have a nice analogy involving propellers.
The article Red Jesus linked is critical. It helped me understand the whole point of this Story. I know I shouldn't RTFA, but I couldn't help it this time.
Given how it blanketed the sky, I'd expect it is some sort of anti-missile/anti-aircraft defense component. Possibly related to stealth technology detection. Keep in mind the Russians have been making a nice chunk of change from helping Iran build nuclear plants and defend them. This would be the ideal time for the Russians to point out to the West, through a highly visible demonstration like this, that there may be some surprises in store for an attack on Iran.
My 2 cents.
Thank you. When I posted it I took a leap of faith that my fellow Slashdotters likely would get the reference. I wasn't let down. I think that is half the fun of this site: knowing that many of us share a lot of collective experiences.
Actually, since it was a DJ Shadow sample, it would be the RIAA that would block it.
Actually, as a few others have pointed out, it was originally from the classic sci/horror movie, John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness." Good stuff.
DJ Shadow must have got his hands on the vinyl of that movie's soundtrack. ("Endtroducing" was a great album.)
We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year two zero one seven.
Turning off your enemies defenses is one thing, but what about when stuff like this is used to make the enemy seem to be on the offensive?
... wherein the Supreme Court (including Scalia, amazingly) held that peering into homes using equipment that was not available in common use by the layperson was within the bounds of the 4th amendment, and therefore requires a search warrant.
... shouldn't we assume the CIA and Mossad already know how to evade this detection?
Folks, the real news here isn't that DNA evidence could be forged. That was sort of a no-brainer to anyone who understands the parallels with digital evidence.
The real news is that the ability to DETECT the forgery is now being sold by a company in a nation with arguably the best intelligence service in the world.
This isn't "space alien with mind control ray" tinfoil hat stuff. It's basic extrapolation and logic.
cases should be built on a preponderance of the evidence
Actually, and I'm sure you meant to say it, that's "Beyond a reasonable doubt" ... a much higher standard than the preponderance of evidence standard. (Criminal vs. civil.)
The main problem here is that juries are being asked to make findings of fact for which they arguably have no qualifications to make. Questions of science belong with scientists, not laypeople, and so juries are forced to rely on a battle of expert witnesses. As you point out, the 3 piece suit, authority, and style of an expert can be decisive, even when the evidence itself is hardly "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I feel he has done a great disservice to the field of artificial intelligence by promising unrealistic things in interviews to the lay person. Disappointment is a sure fire way to get yourself branded as a snake oil salesman religious nut.
A disappointed public threatens research funding, but an unprepared public threatens chaos.
I'm more concerned with making sure we're thinking ahead to the radical change that is likely to come, be it in 10 years or 40, than to be concerned that lay people will distrust AI researchers.
A debate older than time_t ?
That was "Pascal greater than C" using the greater than sign, but apparently slashdot can't escape that properly....
If you don't understand, I won't String you along, but give you 256 good reasons ...
you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.
You win the Internets!
Sorry to respond to myself, but to add ...
32 MB seems like a nice sized "chunk" to be an image of an on-die cache.
The size of the file is so conveniently close to a power of 2 to suggest to me that this is an image of RAM. (L2 cache?)
Again, I'm suggesting that a snapshot of the core rules generated by a learning system would be more useful than the framework it would run on.
Do you have any case/statute cites for that?
(Not asking to be a dink, but out of curiosity.)
Let's assume GS's trading system uses learning algorithms to generate new rules. This is a very logical assumption unless you want developers tweaking the code year after year, day after day.
In that case, it's not the code that generates the rules, nor the data it uses to generate the rules, nor the engine that runs the rules and interfaces the markets that is valuable: its the current state of the optimized rules themselves that has immediate exploitability by criminals.
If you know GS's system is going to react to market behavior that does X by doing Y, then you can exploit that to make money off it to GS's detriment.
And an interesting twist. The accused referred to the code as "open source." That might indicate that he thinks it isn't copyrighted. If the rules [code] were generated by software itself, such as a learning system, there is a colorable argument that there isn't the necessary quantum of authorship for copyright under U.S. law. Naturally this wouldn't encompass other claims, like those based in trade secrets, employment Ks, etc.
To recap, the state of rules generated by the learning system would be far more valuable [and dangerous in enemy hands] than the underlying engine and database of historical data. In fact, those rules would be the crown jewels.
I'd add the above is 100% pure speculation based on inferences and some expertise in the area. (No inside knowledge of GS.)
Found a post on ACM by someone with same name as the accused. Looked like a person with research background in Neural Networks. No idea if it is the same person, but it would be intriguing to me if Goldman Sachs was using neural networks for trading.
One interesting facet: if two or more counterparties in a market had neural networks that were trained to coordinate and cooperate in ways that would violate trading rules (e.g. like bridge players sharing info through actions), would the company be liable if the neural networks had developed these exchanges by themselves? In other words, would it be an instrumentality for violating the law if it learned, on its own, to violate the law, and the programmers / administrators "had no idea" it was doing that?
I live in the midwest. I have a lot of family over the range of this vehicle. However, for day to day operation, I wouldn't need more than 100 miles in range. A vehicle like this would be my car for driving to work and driving home.
For driving long distances, I'd just use a gas-based vehicle. I'd keep my old car around for that. Probably would need it half a dozen times during the year at most.
There will be some folks who will find the range of this car to be limiting. But how many compared to those who won't?
I think the real issue here is the calendar life of the battery. How long until I have to replace the batteries? That's what makes it easier for me to compare, apples to apples, the cost of the car vs. using gas.
Based on the info I read here: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=39 .... I'm not too impressed with the thought of 50,000 life on the batteries. ...
Of course, hopefully whatever the battery replacement would be in 5 years of advancing battery technology would make the replacement battery a smart replacement for other reasons
Pardon me, but isn't the article about AES-256? So this is a much more significant drop in the number of bits.
Of course, I've only read the summary. This is slashdot, natch.