The CLI may be faster than a GUI based OS for file manipulation once you're used to it. But using a metadata/tag based filesystem would be a quantum leap above both.
I suppose from that we can then say that a coward is better than they think they are for any particular situation, and a rash person isn't as good as they think they are.
Right, but the free market will soon sort that out... er... surely? It's tempting to belive in these kind of stories along with oil companies burying ideas like free energy, or cars that go 4 times further on the same amount of petrol.
(and if you read carefully, you'll note the metaphor I used never implied theft... you keep injecting that thanks to your own personal bias)
Even though you didn't imply theft, that very action would be thought by society that theft is the motive, and more so than hacking into a system then giving the papers on how they did it.
What the hell difference does it make? It's still wrong, whether or not it's fun.
Wrong? Let's do a quick lowdown:
This story results in:
1: No harm done to the target.
2: Target has a chance to improve their security as a result.
Breaking into a car:
1: Breaking lock - costing target money.
2: Causing panic if spotted. Loss of target's potential well-being, and peace of mind.
If there's a 100% guarantee the person breaking into the car won't be spotted AND also he doesn't break the lock AND he hypothetically knows BOTH of those things (which is impossible in practise), AND the motive is not to steal anything but just do it for the challenge, they as you might guess, I would say that morally, this is actually okay. That's a lot of Ifs I know.
Technically, either would be illegal, but I'm talking about motive and morality here.
Hmm.. okay. It depends on the motive since by breaking into a house, the assumption is you're going to steal something. Breaking into a house is not actually that much of a challenge, and you'll scare the living daylights out of people who might live there. Also, something will get broke (the lock, or window).
But breaking into a computer system - well I don't do any kind of hacking (I know zilch about security), but I can at least imagine the challenge to be rewarding in a geeky way. Others, maybe even yourself could imagine that too. A bit like a puzzle game maybe. If no harm is done, then the motive will be entirely different to the house breakin, where the motive is clearer.
Except, *he* was the one who opened himself to the others. He gave them the paper, he needn't have. He could have just stolen and/or caused lots of damage, and leave no trace of who had been. That shows his intent was not to steal etc.
Have you ever considered he was just naive? And that he was bored, and wanted the challenge, and it grew from something very small, and grew into determination to break the system (not for any malicious intent but just for the challenge sake, and to help them in the end)?
Erm, assume yes, otherwise they'd get just a slightly bad image from the public maybe? (ignoring they'd do the moral thing anyway).
Have to remember also, it's just as boring to write these things as it is to read them. Apparently they did a copy/paste of the old ones, hence the initial blunder.
When SLC SSDs become the norm and random read/write speeds are as fast as sequential, how would that effect database design or the preference of particular database types for many large web sites?
Shouldn't it be also counted as news if a record-breaking product (in some way) has just been made available to the public too? I hardly ever see those kind of stories on slashdot.
Whatever we do is pointless and useless and everything will be destroyed eventually through the heat death of the universe.
If we use the measure of 'fun'/happiness/contentment, then certain things will ultimately be more likely to increase the value of those attributes. E.g. finding the 3D mandelbrot as is mentioned in my sig would be better than YAPN (yet another prime number) I reckon;)
To be in a buisness like that which actually makes the world a worse place most be pretty depressing. Any idea what his lines of reasoning are to convince people?
Yep, as you say, there are lots of different ways to get variations along the new Z axis. However, they each tend to resemble the 'whipped cream' objects as mentioned in the article, rather than having true 3D detail along all three axis.
A question to ask would be, does the same kind of pattern that appears along the x and y axis of the standard mandelbrot also appear along the Z of the 3D version? In all examples I've seen so far, the answer is no.
Speaking as the previous commenter, the extra information (such as stereo depth perception or blurring of non-focused areas), helps to get a good idea of the real 3D object.
However, the jump from 2D to actual 3D where you're experiencing all widths, depths and heights at once is far greater in terms of raw information than the jump from 2D to our 'pseudo'-3D vision. Needless to say, the qualitative experience of actual 3D vision would also be vastly different (as would being able to see in 1D), and probably unimaginable to us.
We cope in our world most of the time however, because most objects and surroundings are hollow or nearly empty, or we only need to see the surface of them.
Of course, we can't really see in 3 dimensions, otherwise, we'd be able to see through stuff. The image projected onto our eyes is a 2D image, and we have 2 eyes, so it's (x*y)+(x*y), not (x*y*z). The third dimension is a cheat and is represented as 'stuff getting smaller'.
If we really could see in 3D, we can use the 'getting smaller' trick to visualize 4 dimensions much more easily.
Anyone know of some images or videos on the net using reverse perspective, where things behind get bigger instead of smaller?
Yay, someone else who mentioned the 29x29 thing apart from me. You're probably right of course - I wonder how much more computing power would be needed for such a board to play as well (bet more than 2.3:).
Slashdot Mirror
Why the heck don't the big companies use 3D captchas? Each letter could have a thickness and be rotated at a random angle.
Ignore the story, there's very little chance that a single virus can take down all systems, especially if the user is not running Windows.
I for instance have multiple rock solid software and hardware firewalls, and most ports blocked - I'd like to see it try taking dow
Heh, I suppose the word in that context stresses the 'discreteness' of the jump rather than small size :)
The CLI may be faster than a GUI based OS for file manipulation once you're used to it. But using a metadata/tag based filesystem would be a quantum leap above both.
I suppose from that we can then say that a coward is better than they think they are for any particular situation, and a rash person isn't as good as they think they are.
A "rashard" heh :)
Right, but the free market will soon sort that out... er... surely? It's tempting to belive in these kind of stories along with oil companies burying ideas like free energy, or cars that go 4 times further on the same amount of petrol.
But in the end, it's not true.... ...Is it?
(please don't make me paranoid ;)
Speaking of which, why can' they use diamond coatings for razor blades to keep them forever sharp?
(and if you read carefully, you'll note the metaphor I used never implied theft... you keep injecting that thanks to your own personal bias)
Even though you didn't imply theft, that very action would be thought by society that theft is the motive, and more so than hacking into a system then giving the papers on how they did it.
What the hell difference does it make? It's still wrong, whether or not it's fun.
Wrong? Let's do a quick lowdown:
This story results in:
1: No harm done to the target.
2: Target has a chance to improve their security as a result.
Breaking into a car:
1: Breaking lock - costing target money.
2: Causing panic if spotted. Loss of target's potential well-being, and peace of mind.
If there's a 100% guarantee the person breaking into the car won't be spotted AND also he doesn't break the lock AND he hypothetically knows BOTH of those things (which is impossible in practise), AND the motive is not to steal anything but just do it for the challenge, they as you might guess, I would say that morally, this is actually okay. That's a lot of Ifs I know.
Technically, either would be illegal, but I'm talking about motive and morality here.
Hmm.. okay. It depends on the motive since by breaking into a house, the assumption is you're going to steal something. Breaking into a house is not actually that much of a challenge, and you'll scare the living daylights out of people who might live there. Also, something will get broke (the lock, or window).
But breaking into a computer system - well I don't do any kind of hacking (I know zilch about security), but I can at least imagine the challenge to be rewarding in a geeky way. Others, maybe even yourself could imagine that too. A bit like a puzzle game maybe. If no harm is done, then the motive will be entirely different to the house breakin, where the motive is clearer.
Except, *he* was the one who opened himself to the others. He gave them the paper, he needn't have. He could have just stolen and/or caused lots of damage, and leave no trace of who had been. That shows his intent was not to steal etc.
Have you ever considered he was just naive? And that he was bored, and wanted the challenge, and it grew from something very small, and grew into determination to break the system (not for any malicious intent but just for the challenge sake, and to help them in the end)?
Erm, assume yes, otherwise they'd get just a slightly bad image from the public maybe? (ignoring they'd do the moral thing anyway).
Have to remember also, it's just as boring to write these things as it is to read them. Apparently they did a copy/paste of the old ones, hence the initial blunder.
How important is this? How does it change our understanding of physics? Did we previously imagine that this other type of particle could exist?
When SLC SSDs become the norm and random read/write speeds are as fast as sequential, how would that effect database design or the preference of particular database types for many large web sites?
Shouldn't it be also counted as news if a record-breaking product (in some way) has just been made available to the public too? I hardly ever see those kind of stories on slashdot.
Whatever we do is pointless and useless and everything will be destroyed eventually through the heat death of the universe.
;)
If we use the measure of 'fun'/happiness/contentment, then certain things will ultimately be more likely to increase the value of those attributes. E.g. finding the 3D mandelbrot as is mentioned in my sig would be better than YAPN (yet another prime number) I reckon
To be in a buisness like that which actually makes the world a worse place most be pretty depressing. Any idea what his lines of reasoning are to convince people?
Yep, as you say, there are lots of different ways to get variations along the new Z axis. However, they each tend to resemble the 'whipped cream' objects as mentioned in the article, rather than having true 3D detail along all three axis.
A question to ask would be, does the same kind of pattern that appears along the x and y axis of the standard mandelbrot also appear along the Z of the 3D version? In all examples I've seen so far, the answer is no.
Not bad, but not a thousandth as good as what the real 3D mandelbrot would look like. I have this link as my sig which is just a happy coincidence :)
Speaking as the previous commenter, the extra information (such as stereo depth perception or blurring of non-focused areas), helps to get a good idea of the real 3D object.
However, the jump from 2D to actual 3D where you're experiencing all widths, depths and heights at once is far greater in terms of raw information than the jump from 2D to our 'pseudo'-3D vision. Needless to say, the qualitative experience of actual 3D vision would also be vastly different (as would being able to see in 1D), and probably unimaginable to us.
We cope in our world most of the time however, because most objects and surroundings are hollow or nearly empty, or we only need to see the surface of them.
Of course, we can't really see in 3 dimensions, otherwise, we'd be able to see through stuff. The image projected onto our eyes is a 2D image, and we have 2 eyes, so it's (x*y)+(x*y), not (x*y*z). The third dimension is a cheat and is represented as 'stuff getting smaller'.
If we really could see in 3D, we can use the 'getting smaller' trick to visualize 4 dimensions much more easily.
Anyone know of some images or videos on the net using reverse perspective, where things behind get bigger instead of smaller?
Being solid-state, one can hope this tech is silent. The buzz of our fridge-freezer is a pain.
I'm guessing he meant practically reducible at the moment.
Yay, someone else who mentioned the 29x29 thing apart from me. You're probably right of course - I wonder how much more computing power would be needed for such a board to play as well (bet more than 2.3 :).
Once computers start to beat humans on 19x19 boards, all we need to do maintain our advantage over computers is up the level to 23x23 or even 29x29 :)
Or 3-dimensional Go.