With the economies of many industrialised nations shifting towards service focused industry, I seriously hope the whole telecommuting thing actually happens. And I'm not talking about ssh'ing into a server somewhere, I'm mean the yes-you-can-see-the-body-language telepresence sort. What is the point carting people over ever more glogged transport systems, beltching out tonnes of CO2 as you drag a 1 tonne (or 2 tonne in the US) car with you if you really only need their ears, eyeballs and brains there.
Car makers are trying to transform their industry as the engergy crunch approaches, while I'd like to see most of that industry go away.
> so i think we need to retire the 1984 references, and lose the obsession with an intrusive government... because we can intrude right back
Umm... You've read 1984, right? Recently? The entire punch line is that the surveylance structure exists purely based upon a power lust and NOTHING more. Each entity within the structure is either perpetrating the opression, or tacitly supporting it due to the apparent "protection" it provides from "X" (e.g. terrorism, or...oh, look: the Russians are back).
That "we" can "intrude right back" is completely, completely missing the point.
The top 1% pay 60%? You must be joking. By the time they're that rich, they'll be squirreling their money away in trust, funds, off-shore bank accounts and generally pretending they're 90% poorer than they actually are. And then they only pay tax on income, not on the heaping armfuls of assets they already have.
[...]In fact, any time a company is seen as having protections that supersede any individuals, something is very wrong. [...] Too bad, they actually have the best offerings in my area, thought they're a bit on the costly side.
Or, restated: "I can tell right from wrong, but being a capitalist dictates my actions".
"We at Verizon thank you and the rest of our customers for your moral flexibility".
Am I the only person whom finds 'Quirks and Quarks - The flagship science programme of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" really... dumb?
As a long time (well, 18 months) listener to the programme, I find it terrible the lengths to which the host goes to ask the most inane, obvious and useless questions. Great selection of stories, access to key researchers, high production standards, but really, really dumb interviews.
Smart Researcher: 'So, we managed to slow down light, transform it into a meta state, then re-animate it.'
Bob McDonald: 'Gee, wow. So, you slowed light down? Then got it to move again later?'
SCR: 'Umm... yes. [thinks: Isn't that exactly what I just said]?'
BM: 'Gee. Golly! [giggles]. Gee!'
I'm Australian, and I'm probably spoilt by The Science Show. To anyone whom listens to Quirks and Quarks on their commute, do youself a favour and download a dozen episodes of The Science Show aswell.
Want a firewall? www.jetico.com - "Jetico Personal Firewall" *freeware*. Don't be put off by the "personal" bit. It's actually rather close to iptabls et al in the Windows world--rulesets, various logging levels, lots of different protocols, etc. It *will* confuse you initially (UI in particular), but then again, I did say it was like iptables... Both are rather unpatronising.
Want a cheap (not free, but try it--I paid for it), fast, small anti-virus? www.nod32.com. Works, no fluff or animated 3D logos, un-installs without ripping out your computers nervous system. Very small memory foot-print.
Not-a-metal "silver" is not a color, or even a colour, but a reflective property. No tint, no tone, no absorption of any part of the spectrum (if truly silver, ie. something like mercury, that is). Hence gold is silver (not a colour), and yellow (a colour).
Further, you can't use both definitions of the word silver in the same context: eg. "contains 70% blue by weight." In that context, "blue" must be something other that a colour.
Then again, this post contains only 10% truth by volume.
Why not just get a digital SLR? Digital has so many advantages over film, and especially going into the future...I could be naive in saying that "film is dead", but I believe that's pretty much the truth. Especially for someone like yourself.
Unlike the LP vs. Compact Disc war (ducks), modern digital cameras simply do not have the dynamic range of the chemical process. Look at a sensitivity graph: chemical has it in spades, whereas digital is a mere slice with noise at either end. And you can see the difference: Americans would spit chips if their TV shows started being recorded onto digital instead of 35mm film as (almost all) of it is now. Film (still) kicks digital's arse. (And I'm not counting pixels here).
Buying a digital camera now (says he, about to buy a new one this very weekend) is not forward looking: it's simply saying that current digital technology is okay for some of the thing film was good for. Sure, I think Polaroid is dead, but then again, how many Super-8 film clips do you see on MTV (or Rage here in Oz)?
Stop your bitching. Not *everyone* polls/. 4 times a day. Weeks old, common knowledge news is bad, but disregarding news worthy news because its not z3r0-D^y is stupid.
Obvious: The unit of functionality here is to be able to understand an arbitrarily complex phone number. Not validate all phone numbers, which is very fuzzy and probably impossible (since it is a function of where the number is expressed such that the same number tested in to different locations will be evaluated different).
Write some tests for a phone number specification language, make your code pass the tests and your done. Now what you expess in the phone number specification language is.. the customer's problem^H^H^H^H^Hchoice.
1992 or so. I have a vague recollection of an assembler demo that *appeared* to be doing some form to real-time ray-casting (on my 486-33DX). It had a sort of writhing, spotty look to it as the course dots were drawn. Different parts of the scene were re-drawn at random so it had a strange full-colour-phosphor-memory effect.
I remember a floating light-source going behind columns in such a way that you could still see the light - volumnetric lighting too? I get the feeling the programmer was probably abducted by aliens at some point (before or since).
My understanding is that the 'protection' is from creditors. The company obviously has assets and revenue streams, the question is who should get the funds first (or at all). When insolvent (ie you don't have the cash or equivalent to meet your current debts) you are given the 'protection' from the wolves at the door if you can show that there is a good chance that you can recover from the current short-fall without digging a deeper whole for yourself and your creditors. Resturcturings, lay-offs, liquidation, etc.
Have you seen the HTML produced by the current "Save as webpage.." options in Word? shudder. The vast majority of semantics are actually embedded in XML islands hidden inside HTML comments. I see no reason why Microsoft would change their tune now (they'll simply change the DTD from one inappropriate document model to another one IMHO).
<wordDocument>
<!-- (document content here) -->
<nonMicrosoftElement>I'm sorry, you don't
appear to have a StandardsEnhanced(tm)
word processor.</nonMicrosoftElement>
</wordDocument>
--
Whether hidden information is detectable is a rather useful property of steganographic encoding. You could, for example, use a PRNG to generate a sequence of candidate pixels to 'taget' for LSB theft such that without the PRNG seed, you don't know where to start and hence can't decode the message.
I haven't read the proposal but it doesn't sound too dissimilar to the above, but with the restriction that (a) the data encoded is actually a signed hash of the original message and additionally (b) an entropy encoded bit-steam that can be used to restore the LSBs that were stolen.
As long as you can squeeze the sequence of 'restoration' bits, you can make room for the signature. There is probably a lot of scope for searching for an optimal choice of images bits to steal such that the error magnitude is mininal (ie. finding the seed such that a minimal sequence of bits are used that can still encoded to make room for the signature).
Slashdot Mirror
With the economies of many industrialised nations shifting towards service focused industry, I seriously hope the whole telecommuting thing actually happens. And I'm not talking about ssh'ing into a server somewhere, I'm mean the yes-you-can-see-the-body-language telepresence sort. What is the point carting people over ever more glogged transport systems, beltching out tonnes of CO2 as you drag a 1 tonne (or 2 tonne in the US) car with you if you really only need their ears, eyeballs and brains there.
Car makers are trying to transform their industry as the engergy crunch approaches, while I'd like to see most of that industry go away.
> so i think we need to retire the 1984 references, and lose the obsession with an intrusive government... because we can intrude right back
... You've read 1984, right? Recently? The entire punch line is that the surveylance structure exists purely based upon a power lust and NOTHING more. Each entity within the structure is either perpetrating the opression, or tacitly supporting it due to the apparent "protection" it provides from "X" (e.g. terrorism, or ...oh, look: the Russians are back).
Umm
That "we" can "intrude right back" is completely, completely missing the point.
The top 1% pay 60%? You must be joking. By the time they're that rich, they'll be squirreling their money away in trust, funds, off-shore bank accounts and generally pretending they're 90% poorer than they actually are. And then they only pay tax on income, not on the heaping armfuls of assets they already have.
... and have always been at war with DCE. Long live our DRM allies.
"We at Verizon thank you and the rest of our customers for your moral flexibility".
Am I the only person whom finds 'Quirks and Quarks - The flagship science programme of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" really ... dumb?
As a long time (well, 18 months) listener to the programme, I find it terrible the lengths to which the host goes to ask the most inane, obvious and useless questions. Great selection of stories, access to key researchers, high production standards, but really, really dumb interviews.
I'm Australian, and I'm probably spoilt by The Science Show. To anyone whom listens to Quirks and Quarks on their commute, do youself a favour and download a dozen episodes of The Science Show aswell.
That's why it's called e*MAIL*. You've been doing the equivalent of FedEx'ing elephants to each other. Don't be surprised if you end up with a zoo ...
Want a firewall? www.jetico.com - "Jetico Personal Firewall" *freeware*.
Don't be put off by the "personal" bit. It's actually rather close to iptabls et al in the Windows world--rulesets, various logging levels, lots of different protocols, etc. It *will* confuse you initially (UI in particular), but then again, I did say it was like iptables... Both are rather unpatronising.
Want a cheap (not free, but try it--I paid for it), fast, small anti-virus? www.nod32.com. Works, no fluff or animated 3D logos, un-installs without ripping out your computers nervous system. Very small memory foot-print.
That is all.
I can understand the confusion, but the full rule is: Don't use root for normal use drunk.
Not-a-metal "silver" is not a color, or even a colour, but a reflective property. No tint, no tone, no absorption of any part of the spectrum (if truly silver, ie. something like mercury, that is). Hence gold is silver (not a colour), and yellow (a colour).
Further, you can't use both definitions of the word silver in the same context: eg. "contains 70% blue by weight." In that context, "blue" must be something other that a colour.
Then again, this post contains only 10% truth by volume.
Unlike the LP vs. Compact Disc war (ducks), modern digital cameras simply do not have the dynamic range of the chemical process. Look at a sensitivity graph: chemical has it in spades, whereas digital is a mere slice with noise at either end. And you can see the difference: Americans would spit chips if their TV shows started being recorded onto digital instead of 35mm film as (almost all) of it is now. Film (still) kicks digital's arse. (And I'm not counting pixels here).
Buying a digital camera now (says he, about to buy a new one this very weekend) is not forward looking: it's simply saying that current digital technology is okay for some of the thing film was good for. Sure, I think Polaroid is dead, but then again, how many Super-8 film clips do you see on MTV (or Rage here in Oz)?
Stop your bitching. Not *everyone* polls /. 4 times a day. Weeks old, common knowledge news is bad, but disregarding news worthy news because its not z3r0-D^y is stupid.
... rod, and copy of Angler's Times.
Obvious: The unit of functionality here is to be able to understand an arbitrarily complex phone number. Not validate all phone numbers, which is very fuzzy and probably impossible (since it is a function of where the number is expressed such that the same number tested in to different locations will be evaluated different).
.. the customer's problem^H^H^H^H^Hchoice.
Write some tests for a phone number specification language, make your code pass the tests and your done. Now what you expess in the phone number specification language is
A child is ignorant if they don't know something you want them to know; and innocent if they know something you don't want them to know.
--
1992 or so. I have a vague recollection of an assembler demo that *appeared* to be doing some form to real-time ray-casting (on my 486-33DX). It had a sort of writhing, spotty look to it as the course dots were drawn. Different parts of the scene were re-drawn at random so it had a strange full-colour-phosphor-memory effect.
I remember a floating light-source going behind columns in such a way that you could still see the light - volumnetric lighting too? I get the feeling the programmer was probably abducted by aliens at some point (before or since).
And, no, I don't take acid.
--
"can't wait to get his hands on the next generation of spamming software" ... I wonder
if that too is funding this tool.
Umm .. [nervous laugh] ... No it's not. Why says such silly, silly things?!
Err .. nothing to see here. OpenGL is just a toy! All the way with DirectX!! Hang on ... What's THAT OVER THERE!!!
My understanding is that the 'protection' is from creditors. The company obviously has assets and revenue streams, the question is who should get the funds first (or at all).
When insolvent (ie you don't have the cash or equivalent to meet your current debts) you are given the 'protection' from the wolves at the door if you can show that there is a good chance that you can recover from the current short-fall without digging a deeper whole for yourself and your creditors. Resturcturings, lay-offs, liquidation, etc.
Around here that are stored in a very robust firesafe within the machine room.
Have you seen the HTML produced by the current "Save as webpage .." options in Word? shudder. The vast majority of semantics are actually embedded in XML islands hidden inside HTML comments. I see no reason why Microsoft would change their tune now (they'll simply change the DTD from one inappropriate document model to another one IMHO).
<wordDocument><!-- (document content here) -->
<nonMicrosoftElement>I'm sorry, you don't appear to have a StandardsEnhanced(tm) word processor.</nonMicrosoftElement>
</wordDocument> --
'target'
Whether hidden information is detectable is a rather useful property of steganographic encoding. You could, for example, use a PRNG to generate a sequence of candidate pixels to 'taget' for LSB theft such that without the PRNG seed, you don't know where to start and hence can't decode the message.
I haven't read the proposal but it doesn't sound too dissimilar to the above, but with the restriction that (a) the data encoded is actually a signed hash of the original message and additionally (b) an entropy encoded bit-steam that can be used to restore the LSBs that were stolen.
As long as you can squeeze the sequence of 'restoration' bits, you can make room for the signature. There is probably a lot of scope for searching for an optimal choice of images bits to steal such that the error magnitude is mininal (ie. finding the seed such that a minimal sequence of bits are used that can still encoded to make room for the signature).
Or something like that.
Employment History:
1998-2002: NewTech IC Pty. Ltd.
Project Leader. Oversaw various tasks related
to process optimisation and new technology
integration.
2002-2004: CIA Spook.
XXXXXXXX. XXXxxx xxxxx, xxx. Xxxxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx.
Well, I'm impressed.
That's one clique'y, American in-joke too many for my taste. Goodbye /.
Sincerely,
James