1 kilogram of matter confined to 1 liter of space can perform at most 1051 operations per second on at most 1031 bits of information
It's an interesting subject you bring up. (Not being up to speed with it yet, but the knowledge maniac within will make me at some point.) It seems to me like very few operations and very few bits, doesn't it? Would energy supply have to be included? (Like you can lower the entropy of a system if you add external energy.) Even with that, couldn't a battery powered computer within those constraints beat that, or am I totally of scale here?
I'm currently about to start fiddling with gnuplot to create graphs for inclusion in LaTeX with the packages "epic" and "eepic". The nice thing with that is that text isn't converted to graphics (not even vector graphics) but retains it's notions of being characters that should be drawn with a font. Can R do the same for me?
I was just going to preview, I really was! Then.. then they came, and I had to fight for my life and.. and.. you know, submit buttons were involved and one thing led to another. Someone probably just happened to push it while tumbling around.
You have a good point in that the data transfer may become to much for it (if not handled by a separate computer), I didn't think of that. However, I'm not sure that "exponentially" is the right growth rate. Read on.
In effect, that would turn into a DDOS quite quickly once the logs grow and site traffic increases exponentially.
I'm not sure how you got to that growth rate. Let's suppose there are a fixed number of log readers accessing a log with a fixed frequency. Let's also for the moment suppose that the accessing of the log isn't logged.
If challengers' activities are resulting in a constant flow of events to log, then the size of log file will be proportinal to time. The log readers will then generate a data speed (information per time unit (bits per second, for example)) that is also proportional to time. I.e. it's linear, not exponential. The total amount of transferred data is the time integral of the data speed, and will thus grow quadratically with time.
Now, suppose that each time someone downloads the log, a log entry is inserted in the log. The additional information in the log, compared to the former case, will also grow linearly with time, since there are a fixed rate of log accesses (number of readers (fixed) times their accessing frequency (fixed)). That means that the log size and data speed will still grow linearly with time, and the total amount of transferred data will still grow quadratically.
Finally, suppose that each packet (or something equivalent) is logged in the file, so that its contribution to the log size is proportional to the data speed. Now the challengers will still generate log entries that will contribute to the log size in a time-proportional manner. The log readers, however, will make a contribution that is proportional to the log size. Write down the simple first order linear differential equation if you want, or just realise that the time derivative of the log size is proportional to the log size itself, and that this behaviour will actually produce an exponentially growing log file. Remembering that the log readers' data speed was indeed proportional to the log size, we arrive at a data speed that grows exponentially.
Mabye this was what you thought about? In that case I have nothing to add, exept that when setting up this kind of real-time logs, one might want to avoid the latter case.
So, test.doit.wisc.edu is some guy you're having a war against, and now you want him to have an.. umm... unfortunate accident with his computer, right? With our help, sneaky.;-) Mabye by the slashdotting alone. Welcome to the wild web.
The movie is apparently showing at a Museum, which has a page about it with a trailer. It's in WMV format:-( and I haven't been able to view it so I don't know if it's anything to see.
Call me blind, but I can't seem to put my virtual hands on a copy of that movie.
I haven't been able to find it either, unfortunately. In the mean time, you might wanna have a look at the guy's webpage which has interesting info on general relativity. There is for example a guide to what a trip (fall) down into a black hole would look like with explaining text along with images and animations.
What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.
no physical phenomenon can operate only for masses travelling above a fixed speed like that because such a phenomenon would violate Lorentz invariance. Therefore he's not actually using Einstein's equations which are fully Lorentz invariant.
This is really interesting, what you say. Would you honour us with an explanation of why this is impossible? I for one would appreciate some guidance to how to think of it. Since the Lorentz-transformation aren't overly complicated, I suspect a proof of your statement wouldn't be either.
Slashdot Mirror
1 kilogram of matter confined to 1 liter of space can perform at most 1051 operations per second on at most 1031 bits of information
It's an interesting subject you bring up. (Not being up to speed with it yet, but the knowledge maniac within will make me at some point.) It seems to me like very few operations and very few bits, doesn't it? Would energy supply have to be included? (Like you can lower the entropy of a system if you add external energy.) Even with that, couldn't a battery powered computer within those constraints beat that, or am I totally of scale here?
You know, the very first time I went to www.google.com, I knew exactly what to do. The very first time I do _anything_ with M$, I haven't got a clue.
If you have nothing to do, you might wanna head over to http://www.live.com/> where Micro-Soft has just lauched a new search page.
How about "Coffee May Not Be a Health Drink". "Coffee Maybe Not a Health Drink!" sounds like Ebonics.
Coffee health drink mabye not, hmm?
"Coffee Maybe Not a Health Drink!" Gasp! :-)
You *must* try R if you think gnuplot is good.
I'm currently about to start fiddling with gnuplot to create graphs for inclusion in LaTeX with the packages "epic" and "eepic". The nice thing with that is that text isn't converted to graphics (not even vector graphics) but retains it's notions of being characters that should be drawn with a font. Can R do the same for me?
Um, now _this_ is a working link.
I was just going to preview, I really was! Then.. then they came, and I had to fight for my life and.. and.. you know, submit buttons were involved and one thing led to another. Someone probably just happened to push it while tumbling around.
...you have to use the original/a. What is this world coming to?
You have a good point in that the data transfer may become to much for it (if not handled by a separate computer), I didn't think of that. However, I'm not sure that "exponentially" is the right growth rate. Read on.
In effect, that would turn into a DDOS quite quickly once the logs grow and site traffic increases exponentially.
I'm not sure how you got to that growth rate. Let's suppose there are a fixed number of log readers accessing a log with a fixed frequency. Let's also for the moment suppose that the accessing of the log isn't logged.
If challengers' activities are resulting in a constant flow of events to log, then the size of log file will be proportinal to time. The log readers will then generate a data speed (information per time unit (bits per second, for example)) that is also proportional to time. I.e. it's linear, not exponential. The total amount of transferred data is the time integral of the data speed, and will thus grow quadratically with time.
Now, suppose that each time someone downloads the log, a log entry is inserted in the log. The additional information in the log, compared to the former case, will also grow linearly with time, since there are a fixed rate of log accesses (number of readers (fixed) times their accessing frequency (fixed)). That means that the log size and data speed will still grow linearly with time, and the total amount of transferred data will still grow quadratically.
Finally, suppose that each packet (or something equivalent) is logged in the file, so that its contribution to the log size is proportional to the data speed. Now the challengers will still generate log entries that will contribute to the log size in a time-proportional manner. The log readers, however, will make a contribution that is proportional to the log size. Write down the simple first order linear differential equation if you want, or just realise that the time derivative of the log size is proportional to the log size itself, and that this behaviour will actually produce an exponentially growing log file. Remembering that the log readers' data speed was indeed proportional to the log size, we arrive at a data speed that grows exponentially.
Mabye this was what you thought about? In that case I have nothing to add, exept that when setting up this kind of real-time logs, one might want to avoid the latter case.
Mabye logs could be published (in real-time) so that we all can see some of what possible challengers are up to. That would be interesting.
Can you prove ZDNet wrong, or can you show that Mac OS X can really be hacked in less then 30 minutes?
So guys, what do you say? Should we all mabye prove ZDNet wrong by not breaking into that computer?
New here, huh?
Dave works and is a rather high profile Mac admin at UWisc.
That's what _you_ think!
So, test.doit.wisc.edu is some guy you're having a war against, and now you want him to have an.. umm... unfortunate accident with his computer, right? With our help, sneaky. ;-) Mabye by the slashdotting alone. Welcome to the wild web.
wait, what does america produce these days, other than malls and walmarts?
A recent Slashdot article tells us:
The U.S. is still the number one producer/distributor of spam in the world.
What we need is a storage solution, similar to HD-DVD/BlueRay etc, that has DRM and is open source.
I guess you will say it's inevitable, or something, but...
It would be like having a diamond, covered in poop. And the open source is the diamond, in case you wondered.
Don't poop on your diamond.
Time to quickly put on our fancy suits and power up our rockets. We have a mission to complete! We have a world to save!
doesn't it?
The movie is apparently showing at a Museum, which has a page about it with a trailer. It's in WMV format :-( and I haven't been able to view it so I don't know if it's anything to see.
Call me blind, but I can't seem to put my virtual hands on a copy of that movie.
I haven't been able to find it either, unfortunately. In the mean time, you might wanna have a look at the guy's webpage which has interesting info on general relativity. There is for example a guide to what a trip (fall) down into a black hole would look like with explaining text along with images and animations.
I cannot wait until we can directly photograph extra-solar planets.
P G
I have pictures too! Head over to: http://www.ussamazon.com/live/hawaii/telescopes.J
I think I just might have spotted no less than three small planets in your picture. Isn't astronomy fantastic!?
What about Man-in-the-Middle attacks? That is, MonopolySoft builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by Red Hat. Red Hat is not required under GPLv3 to give its signature key, but the machine maker is, except, he's decided to verify only against Red Hat's key and he doesn't have Red Hat's private key (just the public key, which is used to validate that the binary came from Red Hat, which is all he needs). So I can still be prevented from modifying my GPL software and running it on my box, right? And no one's violated GPLv3, right? GPLv3 doesn't cover this type of attack at all.
Come again please?
Bill, is that you?
no physical phenomenon can operate only for masses travelling above a fixed speed like that because such a phenomenon would violate Lorentz invariance. Therefore he's not actually using Einstein's equations which are fully Lorentz invariant.
This is really interesting, what you say. Would you honour us with an explanation of why this is impossible? I for one would appreciate some guidance to how to think of it. Since the Lorentz-transformation aren't overly complicated, I suspect a proof of your statement wouldn't be either.
*Waiting in exitement to learn more physics!*
You say "rover"? That orbiter must have a _really_ low orbit!
Googles actions were the same as his own, weren't they? So he defended himself aswell.