(3) On early core RAM modules, the modules were interleaved 8-wise, so each module only got accessed every 8-th word fetch.. But if you knew this, and wrote a program that jumped forward 8 words several dozen times, then jumped back to the start, one module would get accessed at the maximum possible rate and within a minute the module would melt down. I did not try this ( the 4K modules must have cost $100 or so ), but I heard of someone that did.
Purdue's CDC 6000 series machines had a similar bug that would destroy modules. (I still have a pair) AFAIK, they cost much, much more than $100 each. They were core modules that had 48k by 1 bit and had been assembled by hand.
The CDC was retired with a major security bug. The system "root" password was stored in a protected place in memory, but the core dump routine didn't honor the memory protection. You would load an address register with the location of the root password, then trigger a core dump. The corresponding data register would get loaded with the password, then the dump routine would print it out. Since much of that was programmed into the hardware, it was never fixed.
Re:How Marketable Will That Skill Be?
on
The Art of Scalability
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Intel et. al. are achieving Moore's law by adding more cores to existing chips, not making them much faster for single threaded processes. In ten years, if you really want your code to run fast, it may have to scale across 10s of processors just to run on any given machine.
... 68K transistors was a LOT in 1980 and made for a fantastic 32bit architecture....
I'm guessing you're still caffeine deprived, and meant 8 bit architecture.
Anyway, what I want to know is where are the 3.2GHz 6502 and Z80's? You'd think making an existing architecture run like a bat out of hell would be far easier than a new Pentium chip. With less than 1.17 billion transistors, you could put an entire C64 or Apple II on one chip and run all the old software.
Tivo keeps track of this information, and they sell it directly. There's no percentage for Neilsen. Tivo will even tell advertisers how many people watched vs. skipped their ads.
It's possible that Hulu et. al. want to keep their data to sell themselves, so they don't give it to Nielsen.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
This can be answered by creating a "Newton's Second Law of Lawsuits", where one legal maneuver can only be countered by a reasonably equal and opposite reaction.
i.e. If you as an independent musician, use your own time and stationary to send a letter, the defendant should do the same, thus can only recover what your time and materials are worth. If you hire a $400,000 legal team to send the letters, it's reasonable to counter that with a $400,000 team, thus you could recover your expenses.
If you really want to go out on a limb, the system could measure the amount of frivolous lawsuits were filed last year and introduce a multiplier in the equation. Thus if there were twice as many bogus lawsuits filed last year as there should be, the plaitifs could recover 2x legal fees, if there half as many, then they can only recover 1/2 of their legal fees. (Leave it up to the law school debate teams to determine how many bogus suits the system should allow.)
Mostly. There's not one magic demand for everyone.
Look at how airlines price seats. Some people pay less than $200 for the same seat a business traveler will pay $600 for.
If you want to maximize your profits, you have to find out how much each person will pay for the book, and charge separate amounts. One way to do this is to offer the book in different forms, gold bound, hardback, paperback & book club editions. That's very inefficient.
If you are a big seller like amazon, you look at a customer's past buying habits, and categorize that person. Then you offer trial discounts and see how much you have to discount a specific book to get a specific category of buyer to buy, right now. Then, you have determined what the price of that book is today for that type of buyer.
Note. Always start at a price and offer discounts. People like that. Never start at a price and charge categories of buyers more. People hate that, even when the math works in their favor.
Ken Thompson of Unix fame, went to the former Soviet Union to fly a MIG-29. It cost him $12,000 and included 3 flights in a L39.
http://funpeople.org/1995/1995ACZ.html
He said it was worth it.
That's only 22 5 character words (plus 1 character spaces). the Extra class amateur ham license requires 25 wpm, and some military Morse operators could do 60 wpm.
My dad knew an operator that could buffer an entire line of text in his head before he started typing on a manual typewriter.
No, it's quite well established that the plot for Terminator was ripped off some old "Outer Limits" episodes. Harlan Ellison even got into the credits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison (Although, there's at least one other "Outer Limits" episode that was ripped off)
Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy. It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips...(
While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar.
This was a small bomb, and it disabled several satellites. A larger bomb, placed right, could do real damage.
Because Nintendo invented the tech *before* installing it in the Wii? For example: US Patent 6213872 - Pedometer with game mode, filed in '98
Anyway, looks like these guys might have the scoop on using a camera to do what other people are using accelerometers to do.
However, optical mice do the same thing in 2D. 3D is a neat trick if it really works on affordable hardware.
In fact, there are predators that kill even after they are full, just to kill. I remember watching a documentary about sea turtles and watching them hatch and try to make their way to the sea, and predatory birds were attacking them, first to eat them, but even after that they just kept killing and leaving the dead baby turtles there to rot.
A pure animal whose actions are controlled by evolution of instinct, would stop killing to preserve the food supply. People killed the plains buffaloes just because they liked killing them, and to deny resources for the native Americans.
Of course, there may be a evolutionary advantage for the birds to kill the baby turtles. They might be a common food, and killing extra turtles might reduce competition for that food supply. Alternately, killing the extra baby turtles might actually increase the supply of adult turtles by weeding out the weak. Killing certain baby turtles might actually increase the bird's food supply in the long run.
Apple was originally a trademark in the music business. (Record company of the Beatles)
Apple (the computer company) agreed with Apple Records that they would stay out of the music business. Then they made computers that could produce fairly good sounds. (The startup sound of a Macintosh is called Sosuemi, i.e. So Sue Me.) Then they produced the iPod and started iTunes, which arguably competes directly with Apple Records.
If you want to call your new phone, Apple, then lawyer up, it's long odds, but you might win.
B.t.w. Disney regularly trademark's its fictional characters, and Donald Trump once sued a restaurant for calling itself, "The Trump Card" (A term from the card game Bridge, and others)
The point was more like: If your neighbors can see into you house using a simple, easy to get, gadget, should the police be able to do the same.
Cadillac has a car with IR cameras and a heads-up display that allows you to see about 150ft further on dark nights. This is a safety device. Imagine the future when better devices become commonplace. People will get fuzzy looks into their neighbor's houses by accident. Will the future police be able to use that as evidence?
Most large corporations have trouble dealing with single person shops. It's difficult to get added to the "Approved Vendors List", so managers tend to hire contractors from that list, which tends to be the larger contracting shops.
Absolutely. It's all about arbitrage. In a large corporation you have resources that come from your budget, and resources that come from someone else's budget or a common pool.
The corporate game is trading resources with other managers so that you come out on top. Spend other people's resources freely, and your own resources sparingly to get your goals met. Your VP is doing the same thing with the other VPs.
The guy at the top is the only one looking out for the interests of the corporation as a whole, but in most publicly traded companies, he's appointed by a board of people that have interests in other corporations. Your top guy probably has interests in other companies as well.
Most (if not all) business decisions are made based on the ego of the decision maker, rather than the elusive goal of maximizing profits.
Most people forget that the Corporation only exists because the government allows it to exist. The government ultimately derives it's power from the people. Some of those people are employees, some are shareholders, some are both and most are neither.
If the government tells a corporation that it has to treat it's employee's a certain way, then it's the People telling people to treat people well.
Re:And this is a nearly unsolveable problem.
on
GSM Decryption Published
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Main Entry: obscure
Pronunciation: \äb-skyur, b-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French oscur, obscur, from Latin obscurus
Date: 15th century
1 a : dark, dim b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>
2 : not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious
3 : relatively unknown: as a : remote, secluded <an obscure village> b : not prominent or famous
4 : constituting the unstressed vowel \\ or having unstressed \\ as its value
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Eschew Obfuscation.
Re:And this is a nearly unsolveable problem.
on
GSM Decryption Published
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Eschew Obfuscation.
Re:And this is a nearly unsolveable problem.
on
GSM Decryption Published
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
The bad news is the decision makers for things like GSM are not the sort of people who would use an obscure definition of "Obscurity". When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Slashdot Mirror
(3) On early core RAM modules, the modules were interleaved 8-wise, so each module only got accessed every 8-th word fetch.. But if you knew this, and wrote a program that jumped forward 8 words several dozen times, then jumped back to the start, one module would get accessed at the maximum possible rate and within a minute the module would melt down. I did not try this ( the 4K modules must have cost $100 or so ), but I heard of someone that did.
Purdue's CDC 6000 series machines had a similar bug that would destroy modules. (I still have a pair) AFAIK, they cost much, much more than $100 each. They were core modules that had 48k by 1 bit and had been assembled by hand.
The CDC was retired with a major security bug. The system "root" password was stored in a protected place in memory, but the core dump routine didn't honor the memory protection. You would load an address register with the location of the root password, then trigger a core dump. The corresponding data register would get loaded with the password, then the dump routine would print it out. Since much of that was programmed into the hardware, it was never fixed.
Intel et. al. are achieving Moore's law by adding more cores to existing chips, not making them much faster for single threaded processes. In ten years, if you really want your code to run fast, it may have to scale across 10s of processors just to run on any given machine.
... 68K transistors was a LOT in 1980 and made for a fantastic 32bit architecture....
I'm guessing you're still caffeine deprived, and meant 8 bit architecture.
Anyway, what I want to know is where are the 3.2GHz 6502 and Z80's? You'd think making an existing architecture run like a bat out of hell would be far easier than a new Pentium chip. With less than 1.17 billion transistors, you could put an entire C64 or Apple II on one chip and run all the old software.
Tivo keeps track of this information, and they sell it directly. There's no percentage for Neilsen. Tivo will even tell advertisers how many people watched vs. skipped their ads.
It's possible that Hulu et. al. want to keep their data to sell themselves, so they don't give it to Nielsen.
Nobody in advertising cares if 500,000,000 people watch a show if no ads were seen.
Wrong. They care because that's where the next opportunities to sell ads are.
I don't understand Neilsen's plan. How will advertisers know where their ads *should* go, if they don't have all the numbers.
Suppose you were an indie musician who sold your songs online, and you found a number of YouTube videos that used your song without permission, so you sent a long list of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. Included in that list was one video that used only a brief portion of your song, short enough to count as fair use. Is $400,000 a fair punishment for accidentally including one video in your list that wasn't a bona fide copyright infringement?
This can be answered by creating a "Newton's Second Law of Lawsuits", where one legal maneuver can only be countered by a reasonably equal and opposite reaction.
i.e. If you as an independent musician, use your own time and stationary to send a letter, the defendant should do the same, thus can only recover what your time and materials are worth. If you hire a $400,000 legal team to send the letters, it's reasonable to counter that with a $400,000 team, thus you could recover your expenses.
If you really want to go out on a limb, the system could measure the amount of frivolous lawsuits were filed last year and introduce a multiplier in the equation. Thus if there were twice as many bogus lawsuits filed last year as there should be, the plaitifs could recover 2x legal fees, if there half as many, then they can only recover 1/2 of their legal fees. (Leave it up to the law school debate teams to determine how many bogus suits the system should allow.)
Mostly. There's not one magic demand for everyone.
Look at how airlines price seats. Some people pay less than $200 for the same seat a business traveler will pay $600 for.
If you want to maximize your profits, you have to find out how much each person will pay for the book, and charge separate amounts. One way to do this is to offer the book in different forms, gold bound, hardback, paperback & book club editions. That's very inefficient.
If you are a big seller like amazon, you look at a customer's past buying habits, and categorize that person. Then you offer trial discounts and see how much you have to discount a specific book to get a specific category of buyer to buy, right now. Then, you have determined what the price of that book is today for that type of buyer.
Note. Always start at a price and offer discounts. People like that. Never start at a price and charge categories of buyers more. People hate that, even when the math works in their favor.
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules.
How does that punish the FBI? We the People, then have to deal with the criminals.
Instead, punish the FBI, by punishing the FBI. Fire their asses.
Ken Thompson of Unix fame, went to the former Soviet Union to fly a MIG-29. It cost him $12,000 and included 3 flights in a L39. http://funpeople.org/1995/1995ACZ.html He said it was worth it.
That's only 22 5 character words (plus 1 character spaces). the Extra class amateur ham license requires 25 wpm, and some military Morse operators could do 60 wpm.
My dad knew an operator that could buffer an entire line of text in his head before he started typing on a manual typewriter.
And an original plot.
No, it's quite well established that the plot for Terminator was ripped off some old "Outer Limits" episodes. Harlan Ellison even got into the credits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison (Although, there's at least one other "Outer Limits" episode that was ripped off)
Detonating a nuke in space to disrupt communication is a video game plot device, not an actual strategy. It could theoretically disrupt or destroy nearby earthbound electronic chips...(
Checkout Starfish Prime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
From the article:
While some of the energetic beta particles followed the Earth's magnetic field and illuminated the sky, other high-energy electrons became trapped and formed radiation belts around the earth. There was much uncertainty and debate about the composition, magnitude and potential adverse effects from this trapped radiation after the detonation. The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in low earth orbit were disabled. These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar.
This was a small bomb, and it disabled several satellites. A larger bomb, placed right, could do real damage.
Because Nintendo invented the tech *before* installing it in the Wii? For example: US Patent 6213872 - Pedometer with game mode, filed in '98
Anyway, looks like these guys might have the scoop on using a camera to do what other people are using accelerometers to do. However, optical mice do the same thing in 2D. 3D is a neat trick if it really works on affordable hardware.
Doesn't Nintendo have prior art in the Wiimote?
In fact, there are predators that kill even after they are full, just to kill. I remember watching a documentary about sea turtles and watching them hatch and try to make their way to the sea, and predatory birds were attacking them, first to eat them, but even after that they just kept killing and leaving the dead baby turtles there to rot.
A pure animal whose actions are controlled by evolution of instinct, would stop killing to preserve the food supply. People killed the plains buffaloes just because they liked killing them, and to deny resources for the native Americans.
Of course, there may be a evolutionary advantage for the birds to kill the baby turtles. They might be a common food, and killing extra turtles might reduce competition for that food supply. Alternately, killing the extra baby turtles might actually increase the supply of adult turtles by weeding out the weak. Killing certain baby turtles might actually increase the bird's food supply in the long run.
Apple was originally a trademark in the music business. (Record company of the Beatles)
Apple (the computer company) agreed with Apple Records that they would stay out of the music business. Then they made computers that could produce fairly good sounds. (The startup sound of a Macintosh is called Sosuemi, i.e. So Sue Me.) Then they produced the iPod and started iTunes, which arguably competes directly with Apple Records.
If you want to call your new phone, Apple, then lawyer up, it's long odds, but you might win.
B.t.w. Disney regularly trademark's its fictional characters, and Donald Trump once sued a restaurant for calling itself, "The Trump Card" (A term from the card game Bridge, and others)
The point was more like: If your neighbors can see into you house using a simple, easy to get, gadget, should the police be able to do the same.
Cadillac has a car with IR cameras and a heads-up display that allows you to see about 150ft further on dark nights. This is a safety device. Imagine the future when better devices become commonplace. People will get fuzzy looks into their neighbor's houses by accident. Will the future police be able to use that as evidence?
Most large corporations have trouble dealing with single person shops. It's difficult to get added to the "Approved Vendors List", so managers tend to hire contractors from that list, which tends to be the larger contracting shops.
Absolutely. It's all about arbitrage. In a large corporation you have resources that come from your budget, and resources that come from someone else's budget or a common pool.
The corporate game is trading resources with other managers so that you come out on top. Spend other people's resources freely, and your own resources sparingly to get your goals met. Your VP is doing the same thing with the other VPs.
The guy at the top is the only one looking out for the interests of the corporation as a whole, but in most publicly traded companies, he's appointed by a board of people that have interests in other corporations. Your top guy probably has interests in other companies as well.
Most (if not all) business decisions are made based on the ego of the decision maker, rather than the elusive goal of maximizing profits.
Most people forget that the Corporation only exists because the government allows it to exist. The government ultimately derives it's power from the people. Some of those people are employees, some are shareholders, some are both and most are neither.
If the government tells a corporation that it has to treat it's employee's a certain way, then it's the People telling people to treat people well.
Main Entry: obscure
Pronunciation: \äb-skyur, b-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French oscur, obscur, from Latin obscurus
Date: 15th century
1 a : dark, dim b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>
2 : not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious
3 : relatively unknown: as a : remote, secluded <an obscure village> b : not prominent or famous
4 : constituting the unstressed vowel \\ or having unstressed \\ as its value
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Eschew Obfuscation.
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Eschew Obfuscation.
The bad news is the decision makers for things like GSM are not the sort of people who would use an obscure definition of "Obscurity". When a PHB hears that his crypto system is just "security through obscurity", he's fine with that, because all encryption is obscure to him.
The phrase, "Security, through hidden algorithm, isn't secure", isn't as catchy as "security through obscurity is bad", but it *is* more accurate, and less likely to confuse management.
Eschew Obfuscation.
See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_boyscout, the "Radioactive Boyscout", about a kid that came close to building his own breeder reactor.