Why do you think the Merced/IA-64 would be worse to code for? Unless you're doing hand-rolled assembly, the burden is pushed onto the COMPILER, not the programmer.
So yer C will work just like normal C, eh? You don't have to know about predication, VLIW, load speculation or so forth anymore than you have to obsess about how many bits are used by a branch predictor's history today.
On the other hand, if you, for some godawful reason, need to use 32-bit instructions on a Merced, then yes -- from what we know, you'll take a hit. But otherwise it's the compiler's problem.
But of course! If your software contained massive singing elephants and talking paperclips, you'd NEED to be able to swear in as many different languages as possible.:)
If pressurized methane results in diamonds, then cows should be rich. {j/k}
But more seriously, folks... this goes hand-in-hand with the possible commercialization of space (G2S Corporation, anyone?). If they could be extracted inexpensively (as if...), imagine what it'd do to the DeBeers cartel.
Well, more seriously... ok. Maybe I'm just in a silly mood today. {shrug}
That's not a reasonable comparison unless you count attempts, as well.
While I kept a box on the local Ethernet for four years, there were no successful breakins. On the other hand, considering that almost all the "attempts" were simple probes (as in: "let's portscan 128.2.*.*" etc), it wouldn't be fair to say that my box was more secure than, oh, one with a full-time sysadmin auditing the code. It simply wasn't targetted as much as a.mil box would be, for instance.
And it's nothin' new, either. I remember "issues" in _Archon_, _The Ancient Art of War_, and so forth... and those fit on (single) 360k floppies.
That said, it's not unusual for games nowadays to ship with perversely obvious bugs. CC2:ABTF's super-accurate AI mortars (that regularly nailed individual soldiers running across, say, grassy fields...), Dark Reign's mixed-up difficulty ratings, SMAC's *numerous* issues that blatantly contradict the manual and rules... and so forth.
In some cases, I'm slightly suspicious that some of these may have been deliberate (at least the ones that boost the AIs).
Great way to anger Russia. Their current (public) doctrine is that they do not renounce the first use of nuclear weapons. This largely compensates for the deterioration of their conventional forces...
US policy also, methinks, *might* be to respond in kind to WMD. Thing is, we officially don't have any WMD of our own, except nukes.
Who? Somebody who didn't care. Given that suicide bombers exist, obviously there are those that don't. The big question is how they get ahold of an ICBM.
Either a rail car or a missile boat would do; both are mobile, and the rail cars *might* be vulnerable to ambush.
Huh? There's a large difference between bug-free and perfect.
A simple program with few features may be bug-free in that it behaves completely according to reasonable, comprehensive specs (such as not falling over if you give it unexpected input, etc). That doesn't mean it's perfect, however; it doesn't even mean it's useful.
On (most versions, methinks; I don't remember 3.1, for instance) Windows, the three-finger salute is supposed to bring up a Windows dialog which will allow you to close an arbitrary program, or reboot the entire machine.
There was, actually, a significant amount of Soviet-sponsored infiltration into US and British networks and populations. For instance, the KGB subverted intelligence officers (Kim Philby, Aldrich Ames, etc) who attained *high* ranks (Russia Desk, anyone? And Philby, at one time, looked to be the next *head* of British Intel. -- practically the greatest coup a TLA can achieve); scientists (many who sympathized, and deliberately leaked classified nuclear secrets); office staff (such as secretaries to, say, heads of state); activists (the Black Panthers and the Weathermen were, indirectly and covertly, supported by the KGB and friends. Ditto the anti-'Nam movement.); conspiracy theorists (with the KGB attempting to turn them against the CIA); and so forth. And, generally, we did the same, albeit to a usually much less-successful degree. They still do, and so do we.
Incidentally, based on the best estimates at the time regarding conventional and nuclear assets, there were some periods during which our calculations suggested that a Soviet first strike could actually *work*.
As for vandalism, it's a crime. Period. You know the saying that the right to swing a punch stops at the other person's nose? That holds for corporate property, as well. Activists like Nader, who speak and provoke debate, are being a lot more principled than wannabe "protesters" who defile a page, think they're all that, and probably could not even articulate a remotely intelligent argument about why they claim the "right" to do so.
Does somebody who wants to disagree with you have the right to blast your house with a paint-filled water cannon? No? Didn't think so.
You're already making judgement calls there, and crucial assumptions. Both of those statements are, quite frequently, utterly wrong.
What *could* be taught, perhaps, is not to take everything at face value, and that in order to live in a society it's typically better to follow at least some basic principles, such as not going mucker and randomly offing people. If they attack society, then they need to realize that it often *will* fight back: the right of choice is paired with responsibility for one's actions.
...has anybody designed a machine that's *completely* black? Not only black paint everywhere, but...
* black keycaps with ridges instead of paint * almost-black LEDs (or, perhaps, a sufficiently evil-looking red glow might be permissible) * the big thing, and perhaps impossible: a monitor that looks completely jet black (even when on) unless one uses, say, a special pair of goggles.
Might make for a fun showpiece; best placed in a completely black work station, for maximum omninousness.
{shrug} It's largely cultural, rather than biological methinks. After all, there have been matriarchal societies that were just as vicious as the more belligerent patriarchal ones...
Bah. There was a student in my high school, slightly older than me, who completed, with flying colors, the full high school mathematics curriculum (i.e. including calc, at the BC level) before most students finish pre-algebra. Her parents contributed a LOT to her motivation, methinks, and presumably did not raise her to think math was hard...
There's a big difference between *can* not and *will* not. Clearly, *can not* is bogus, and Patriot isn't really saying that. What they are betting is that some (parents, presumably -- hopefully *not*, say, day-care operators) people will buy these in the bizarre hopes of enticing kids.
Targetting clearly often *does* work. IIRC, a CBS report lately focused on a schmuck who deliberately constructs bands specifically targetted at female [pre-]teeny-boppers, the sort that tends to coalesce in front rows at concerts and shriek their heads off, and (far more importantly) spend money to do so. That's capitalism.
If their bet is right, they profit; otherwise, they lose. {shrug}
I can think of a few reasons why the Gov't might want to restrict crypto exports.
By criminalizing the exporting of crypto, or providing it to foreign nationals, the Gov't gets authority to open investigations that it might not be able to touch otherwise. That is, if a Mr. X is intriguing some Three Letter Agencies (TLAs), but is being slick about it, crypto might be the only legal just cause for investigation. Remember that a certain Mr. Capone was jailed for tax evasion, and that numerous drug busts have come about because of traffic violations incurred when a courier panics upon seeing a cop. If most traffic becomes (legally) encrypted, then there's a lot less to even invite suspicion, let alone justify, say, a search warrant.
It can also serve as an opening for retribution via selective prosecution. Those who openly thumb their noses at the Gov't and, say, deliberately defy the law are thus exposing themselves to be squished.
Lastly, it increases public suspicion of crypto itself and those who uses it, thus discouraging its adoption en masse. Crypto is arguably inconvenient for, say, counterintelligence; the TLAs already threw fits about optical cabling in the telecommunications networks, at one point going as far as to request that the networks switch back to copper -- should tapping and data interception become impractical, then one of the best tools versus RICO offenders, phreakers, and so forth is lost.
It doesn't necessarily *all* have to do with the reasons they claim, but to a degree some of their reasons aren't completely bogus.
Might have been more interesting if it were the actual detail announcement. Things like number of simultaneous real-world instructions per clock, support for predicated instructions, register counts and windows, demands upon compilers...
Pure clock speed ain't enough, folks. Judging from (dated) info about the IA-64 architecture, there's a lot of nifty stuff that AMD has to at least match if they want to claim any sort of lasting advantage.
Hrrrm, only if you use what Intel's patented. My impression from that CNET article is that anybody can build a chip that supports the x86 instruction set, but if you want to perform certain checks (the bounds/limit checking) in hardware just as x86 does, you're looking at needing licensing.
VLIW, eh? Wonder if they're looking at IA-64 as well.
I'm not a physicist, but for no particular reason I have been on a tour of a reactor, and still seem to remember some related elementary foo...
How much do you remember about nuclear fission (which, presumably is what happened in this incident, since the conditions would seem completely inadequate for fusion)?
The splitting of an atom can free neutrons, sending them in various directions. Depending upon various conditions (such as the amount of fissionable material, the presence or absence of materials that either absorb or reflect the neutrons, and so forth), these neutrons may or may not collide with other atoms. These collisions can induce more splitting, leading to the possibility of a self-sustaining chain-reaction.
Incidentally, the NY Times/Associated Press article mentions that the workers thought they saw a blue glow. Dunno about you folks, but this reminded me of Cerenkov radiation. For more info on that, see this page.
Keep in mind that the nicest folks probably ain't gonna be checking IDs. Nice, trusting people have been manipulated time after time...
The other thing is that there are an awful lot of people who turn out to be more evil older than younger, and vice versa. People change, ergo one-time psych evaluation isn't exactly going to be that reliable.
Basically, if you let the info out of The Company's hands (pun intended...) -- hell, probably even if they DO try to keep it secret; anybody seriously think that the KGB/FSB, PRC mil. int, etc aren't spying on us now? Yeah, whatever. -- it's probably going to get to all sides, including the less benevolent among us. Crypto, anyone?
The Federal Government has been subsidizing tech for many, many years; for instance, (D)ARPA funds vast amounts of research at universities and other institutions, and a lot of that is for developing technology that is useful for both civillian and military usage. Mobile computing, overhead imagery databases, autonomous highway-capable cars...
There are just two twists here. One is that it's the CIA (and behaving unusually openly for them, but perhaps there are regulations about companies revealing investors?). The other is that they've picked up on venture capital as a method of funding, in constrast to the old ways of research subsidies, specific contracts and so forth. This means that they can indirectly fund different companies, but not lock either themselves or their beneficiaries into a specific system.
This means that Joe, Angie and Fred, Inc., a hypothetical new startup, could -- even before having a clear application that's ready to ship and fulfills a specific niche -- be eligible to receive seed money, presumably in exchange for a stake in the company. Then, this stake can be later sold and re-invested elsewhere, if they (the CIA's VC firm) hold to the idea of their being non-profit and self-sustaining. That's the theory, anyway.
In that regards, the CIA's interests are multiple. One, it gets an idea of who's around. No doubt they're always interested in getting people who can help them analyze the information they bring in, and they get enough that they need automation. Two, it lets them boost domestic tech, which is a Good Thing to stay competitive with other nations that do the same, only often moreso. The CIA would rather not depend upon the graces of foreign governments to import superior tech. Three, it's cleaner-looking than direct contracts and subsidies, and lets people realize that not everybody at the CIA is a spook trying to latch on to informed Muscovites or find-and-forward Saddam's current whereabouts to the Mossad.
The obvious downsides? One is that they might, if they find particularly nifty tech, try to appropriate it or at least make it non-exportable. It also does raise conflicts of interest questions, but these could be resolved if the VC firm is set up intelligently (read: if it's managed anything like a blind trust. Difficult, 'tho.).
(side note: my suspicion is, given the drawing, that many are using the wrong pronoun... but anyways...)
* Anybody else notice that the "Related Sites", which include sites that mirror various HOWTO docs, and so forth? I wonder whether they were used.
* It might be nice if the installation, in one of the very first screens, describes what information will be asked (like network foo, video stuff, etc).
I'm reading something along the lines of, "Ok, it's supposedly installed. Now what?"
Perhaps there needs to be a tutorial of sorts, to point out what tools are available? (Problem: they may or may not have been installed...). A novice, after all, isn't necessarily going to have a clue what he or she has just installed, how to start it, or so forth, and handing 'em a pointer to the HOWTOs and LDP guides may be just a tad too overwhelming in terms of reading material.
So, what do y'all think? Is it better that they be encouraged (just) to read, possibly driving people away; or should they instead be shown a demo, featuring the various apps and so forth?
Among other things, the GPL specificially prohibits placing additional limitations via sublicenses, so requiring, say, quotes from Scripture is all out. At least that's from a quickie reading (IANAL...).
If anything, it might be a parody put forth -- a crude dual joke on both those who actually care about or respect religion, and reporters who don't check out the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think the Merced/IA-64 would be worse to code for? Unless you're doing hand-rolled assembly, the burden is pushed onto the COMPILER, not the programmer.
So yer C will work just like normal C, eh? You don't have to know about predication, VLIW, load speculation or so forth anymore than you have to obsess about how many bits are used by a branch predictor's history today.
On the other hand, if you, for some godawful reason, need to use 32-bit instructions on a Merced, then yes -- from what we know, you'll take a hit. But otherwise it's the compiler's problem.
But of course! If your software contained massive singing elephants and talking paperclips, you'd NEED to be able to swear in as many different languages as possible. :)
If pressurized methane results in diamonds, then cows should be rich. {j/k}
But more seriously, folks... this goes hand-in-hand with the possible commercialization of space (G2S Corporation, anyone?). If they could be extracted inexpensively (as if...), imagine what it'd do to the DeBeers cartel.
Well, more seriously... ok. Maybe I'm just in a silly mood today. {shrug}
...ah, but those particular ones tended to be fixed in patches. Kinda like...
user feedback: "Btw, your AI players get
infinite-range missiles."
Firaxis: 'k, we'll fix that in a patch.
{ patch fixes range for planet-bustin' missiles,
but *not* for conventional missiles -- which
nominally should have the exact same range }
user feedback: Huh?
Firaxis: 'k, that'll be fixed in the next
patch.
Strange. {shrug}
That's not a reasonable comparison unless you count attempts, as well.
.mil box would be, for instance.
While I kept a box on the local Ethernet for four years, there were no successful breakins. On the other hand, considering that almost all the "attempts" were simple probes (as in: "let's portscan 128.2.*.*" etc), it wouldn't be fair to say that my box was more secure than, oh, one with a full-time sysadmin auditing the code. It simply wasn't targetted as much as a
And it's nothin' new, either. I remember "issues" in _Archon_, _The Ancient Art of War_, and so forth... and those fit on (single) 360k floppies.
That said, it's not unusual for games nowadays to ship with perversely obvious bugs. CC2:ABTF's super-accurate AI mortars (that regularly nailed individual soldiers running across, say, grassy fields...), Dark Reign's mixed-up difficulty ratings, SMAC's *numerous* issues that blatantly contradict the manual and rules... and so forth.
In some cases, I'm slightly suspicious that some of these may have been deliberate (at least the ones that boost the AIs).
Great way to anger Russia. Their current (public) doctrine is that they do not renounce the first use of nuclear weapons. This largely compensates for the deterioration of their conventional forces...
US policy also, methinks, *might* be to respond in kind to WMD. Thing is, we officially don't have any WMD of our own, except nukes.
Who? Somebody who didn't care. Given that suicide bombers exist, obviously there are those that don't. The big question is how they get ahold of an ICBM.
Either a rail car or a missile boat would do; both are mobile, and the rail cars *might* be vulnerable to ambush.
Huh? There's a large difference between bug-free and perfect.
A simple program with few features may be bug-free in that it behaves completely according to reasonable, comprehensive specs (such as not falling over if you give it unexpected input, etc). That doesn't mean it's perfect, however; it doesn't even mean it's useful.
On (most versions, methinks; I don't remember 3.1, for instance) Windows, the three-finger salute is supposed to bring up a Windows dialog which will allow you to close an arbitrary program, or reboot the entire machine.
Bah.
There was, actually, a significant amount of Soviet-sponsored infiltration into US and British networks and populations. For instance, the KGB subverted intelligence officers (Kim Philby, Aldrich Ames, etc) who attained *high* ranks (Russia Desk, anyone? And Philby, at one time, looked to be the next *head* of British Intel. -- practically the greatest coup a TLA can achieve); scientists (many who sympathized, and deliberately leaked classified nuclear secrets); office staff (such as secretaries to, say, heads of state); activists (the Black Panthers and the Weathermen were, indirectly and covertly, supported by the KGB and friends. Ditto the anti-'Nam movement.); conspiracy theorists (with the KGB attempting to turn them against the CIA); and so forth. And, generally, we did the same, albeit to a usually much less-successful degree. They still do, and so do we.
Incidentally, based on the best estimates at the time regarding conventional and nuclear assets, there were some periods during which our calculations suggested that a Soviet first strike could actually *work*.
As for vandalism, it's a crime. Period. You know the saying that the right to swing a punch stops at the other person's nose? That holds for corporate property, as well. Activists like Nader, who speak and provoke debate, are being a lot more principled than wannabe "protesters" who defile a page, think they're all that, and probably could not even articulate a remotely intelligent argument about why they claim the "right" to do so.
Does somebody who wants to disagree with you have the right to blast your house with a paint-filled water cannon? No? Didn't think so.
You're already making judgement calls there, and crucial assumptions. Both of those statements are, quite frequently, utterly wrong.
What *could* be taught, perhaps, is not to take everything at face value, and that in order to live in a society it's typically better to follow at least some basic principles, such as not going mucker and randomly offing people. If they attack society, then they need to realize that it often *will* fight back: the right of choice is paired with responsibility for one's actions.
...has anybody designed a machine that's *completely* black? Not only black paint everywhere, but...
* black keycaps with ridges instead of paint
* almost-black LEDs (or, perhaps, a sufficiently evil-looking red glow might be permissible)
* the big thing, and perhaps impossible:
a monitor that looks completely jet black (even when on) unless one uses, say, a special pair of goggles.
Might make for a fun showpiece; best placed in a completely black work station, for maximum omninousness.
:)
{shrug} It's largely cultural, rather than biological methinks. After all, there have been matriarchal societies that were just as vicious as the more belligerent patriarchal ones...
Bah. There was a student in my high school, slightly older than me, who completed, with flying colors, the full high school mathematics curriculum (i.e. including calc, at the BC level) before most students finish pre-algebra. Her parents contributed a LOT to her motivation, methinks, and presumably did not raise her to think math was hard...
There's a big difference between *can* not and *will* not. Clearly, *can not* is bogus, and Patriot isn't really saying that. What they are betting is that some (parents, presumably -- hopefully *not*, say, day-care operators) people will buy these in the bizarre hopes of enticing kids.
Targetting clearly often *does* work. IIRC, a CBS report lately focused on a schmuck who deliberately constructs bands specifically targetted at female [pre-]teeny-boppers, the sort that tends to coalesce in front rows at concerts and shriek their heads off, and (far more importantly) spend money to do so. That's capitalism.
If their bet is right, they profit; otherwise, they lose. {shrug}
I can think of a few reasons why the Gov't might want to restrict crypto exports.
By criminalizing the exporting of crypto, or providing it to foreign nationals, the Gov't gets authority to open investigations that it might not be able to touch otherwise. That is, if a Mr. X is intriguing some Three Letter Agencies (TLAs), but is being slick about it, crypto might be the only legal just cause for investigation. Remember that a certain Mr. Capone was jailed for tax evasion, and that numerous drug busts have come about because of traffic violations incurred when a courier panics upon seeing a cop. If most traffic becomes (legally) encrypted, then there's a lot less to even invite suspicion, let alone justify, say, a search warrant.
It can also serve as an opening for retribution via selective prosecution. Those who openly thumb their noses at the Gov't and, say, deliberately defy the law are thus exposing themselves to be squished.
Lastly, it increases public suspicion of crypto itself and those who uses it, thus discouraging its adoption en masse. Crypto is arguably inconvenient for, say, counterintelligence; the TLAs already threw fits about optical cabling in the telecommunications networks, at one point going as far as to request that the networks switch back to copper -- should tapping and data interception become impractical, then one of the best tools versus RICO offenders, phreakers, and so forth is lost.
It doesn't necessarily *all* have to do with the reasons they claim, but to a degree some of their reasons aren't completely bogus.
Might have been more interesting if it were the actual detail announcement. Things like number of simultaneous real-world instructions per clock, support for predicated instructions, register counts and windows, demands upon compilers...
Pure clock speed ain't enough, folks. Judging from (dated) info about the IA-64 architecture, there's a lot of nifty stuff that AMD has to at least match if they want to claim any sort of lasting advantage.
Hrrrm, only if you use what Intel's patented. My impression from that CNET article is that anybody can build a chip that supports the x86 instruction set, but if you want to perform certain checks (the bounds/limit checking) in hardware just as x86 does, you're looking at needing licensing.
VLIW, eh? Wonder if they're looking at IA-64 as well.
I'm not a physicist, but for no particular reason I have been on a tour of a reactor, and still seem to remember some related elementary foo...
How much do you remember about nuclear fission (which, presumably is what happened in this incident, since the conditions would seem completely inadequate for fusion)?
The splitting of an atom can free neutrons, sending them in various directions. Depending upon various conditions (such as the amount of fissionable material, the presence or absence of materials that either absorb or reflect the neutrons, and so forth), these neutrons may or may not collide with other atoms. These collisions can induce more splitting, leading to the possibility of a self-sustaining chain-reaction.
Incidentally, the NY Times/Associated Press article mentions that the workers thought they saw a blue glow. Dunno about you folks, but this reminded me of Cerenkov radiation. For more info on that, see this page.
Keep in mind that the nicest folks probably ain't gonna be checking IDs. Nice, trusting people have been manipulated time after time...
The other thing is that there are an awful lot of people who turn out to be more evil older than younger, and vice versa. People change, ergo one-time psych evaluation isn't exactly going to be that reliable.
Basically, if you let the info out of The Company's hands (pun intended...) -- hell, probably even if they DO try to keep it secret; anybody seriously think that the KGB/FSB, PRC mil. int, etc aren't spying on us now? Yeah, whatever. -- it's probably going to get to all sides, including the less benevolent among us. Crypto, anyone?
The Federal Government has been subsidizing tech for many, many years; for instance, (D)ARPA funds vast amounts of research at universities and other institutions, and a lot of that is for developing technology that is useful for both civillian and military usage. Mobile computing, overhead imagery databases, autonomous highway-capable cars...
There are just two twists here. One is that it's the CIA (and behaving unusually openly for them, but perhaps there are regulations about companies revealing investors?). The other is that they've picked up on venture capital as a method of funding, in constrast to the old ways of research subsidies, specific contracts and so forth. This means that they can indirectly fund different companies, but not lock either themselves or their beneficiaries into a specific system.
This means that Joe, Angie and Fred, Inc., a hypothetical new startup, could -- even before having a clear application that's ready to ship and fulfills a specific niche -- be eligible to receive seed money, presumably in exchange for a stake in the company. Then, this stake can be later sold and re-invested elsewhere, if they (the CIA's VC firm) hold to the idea of their being non-profit and self-sustaining. That's the theory, anyway.
In that regards, the CIA's interests are multiple. One, it gets an idea of who's around. No doubt they're always interested in getting people who can help them analyze the information they bring in, and they get enough that they need automation. Two, it lets them boost domestic tech, which is a Good Thing to stay competitive with other nations that do the same, only often moreso. The CIA would rather not depend upon the graces of foreign governments to import superior tech. Three, it's cleaner-looking than direct contracts and subsidies, and lets people realize that not everybody at the CIA is a spook trying to latch on to informed Muscovites or find-and-forward Saddam's current whereabouts to the Mossad.
The obvious downsides? One is that they might, if they find particularly nifty tech, try to appropriate it or at least make it non-exportable. It also does raise conflicts of interest questions, but these could be resolved if the VC firm is set up intelligently (read: if it's managed anything like a blind trust. Difficult, 'tho.).
(side note: my suspicion is, given the drawing, that many are using the wrong pronoun... but anyways...)
* Anybody else notice that the "Related Sites", which include sites that mirror various HOWTO docs, and so forth? I wonder whether they were used.
* It might be nice if the installation, in one of the very first screens, describes what information will be asked (like network foo, video stuff, etc).
I'm reading something along the lines of, "Ok, it's supposedly installed. Now what?"
Perhaps there needs to be a tutorial of sorts, to point out what tools are available? (Problem: they may or may not have been installed...). A novice, after all, isn't necessarily going to have a clue what he or she has just installed, how to start it, or so forth, and handing 'em a pointer to the HOWTOs and LDP guides may be just a tad too overwhelming in terms of reading material.
So, what do y'all think? Is it better that they be encouraged (just) to read, possibly driving people away; or should they instead be shown a demo, featuring the various apps and so forth?
Oh, I meant no disrespect to religion. {shrug} Not sure where it was implied, but eh.
Among other things, the GPL specificially prohibits placing additional limitations via sublicenses, so requiring, say, quotes from Scripture is all out. At least that's from a quickie reading (IANAL...).
If anything, it might be a parody put forth -- a crude dual joke on both those who actually care about or respect religion, and reporters who don't check out the facts.