"If Larry Wall comes up to me and tells me that Perl is better than Python, or Chuck Moore tells me how great FORTH is, I'm not going to put much weight into those opinions."
He is a former editor of another encyclopedia. Larry Wall is a bit more than a former editor of Perl.
He is not saying that "his" encyclodpedia is better than the Wikipedia, he is pointing out a fundemental flaw in the Wikipedia. If Larry wrote an article showing some fundemental flaw in Python, I would take is seriously as Wall is somewhat of an expert in scripting languages.
The Chuck Moore comment is even more off base. He is not advocating his own product at all, just critizing another one.
"
Just as importantly, did you read the article?"
Yep.
"There's really no chance that someone who writes those sentences is going to find that Wikipedia is a good or useful thing."
Thats called being critical of something. Not having an obvious bias. My review of the Dan Brown book I just read would be a lot worse than what he wrote about the Wikipedia and I started that book thinking I would like it.
"And note that he looked at one article. "
Had he described every entry in the Wikipedia that would be one long ass article. Instead he chose one that illustrated his points effectively.
"If we look at one article of Britannica, we can find "Francis" Zappa (wrong)..."
I think you missed the point completely. I have to ask you, did you read the article, or just scan for quotes to prove your own bias? He was not criticizing the content of the Wikipedia but the system behind it. Do you understand the difference between the two?
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of a/. article mentioning bias, how does having actual real world experience in the field count as bias? Or are you just saying he has an "obvious bias" because he is pointing out a problem with something that is popular on/.?
If a creator of the Wikipedia were to write something about glowing about it, would the/. story on it mention his "obvious bias"? Or would it praise his "expert opinion"?
"I cite it often in research papers, by linking to timestamped articles to prevent accidentally linking to a vandalized article."
I think you are missing the point. Its not just that an article may once in a while be temporary inaccurate because of vandalism, but rather it is very easy for an article to contain inaccuracies that are taken as truth. While the Wikipedia certainly is an effective tool to search for basic information on a topic (and I personally use it for such purposes all the time), it is not credible enough to use as an expert source.
Besides, most of its information is very introductory. Again, thats fine if you just want a brief introduction to a particular subject, but if you are writing a research paper you are generally going to want more information. It is simply not an adequate source for a high school level research paper, let alone a college level paper.
"
I study computer science at the university level, by the by."
As do I, along with half of/. (the other half have already graduated with degrees in CS/Engineering). Whats your point?
A coupleofguys already beat you to it (look at their initials if you don't know who they are).
The reason the symmetric key is added is because raw RSA is just plain too slow with long messages. As long as the symmetric key is secure enough, it makes up for the insignificant loss of security. The biggest hole is probably the potential for finding an easy way to factor those numbers you are using.
Re:I realized something while reading the article.
on
Intro to Encryption
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"...but that is very unlikely to happen."
Actually its not. There is an efficient algorithm out there for factoring numbers into primes. The only problem is that it requires technology (quantum computers) which doesn't exist yet, but which is on the horizon.
"And why is my article modded flamebait?!"
Because mods are jackasses.
Re:I realized something while reading the article.
on
Intro to Encryption
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How do OTPs work? Each side has an identical stack of pads which are used to encrypt and decrypt codes. Each time one pad is used, it is destroyed. This is mathematically unbreakable, though there are methods of cracking the code that do not involve mathematics (such as stealing a copy of the pad).
This may not be too big of a problem if we just have two people who need to send a few messages to each other as long as both can keep the pad safe, but it fails horribly in other situations. For instance lets say I want to send my credit card number to some online store, but I want to make sure it is encrypted first. Lets say the store writes a random pad for us to use. How do we share it? Somehow they have to get it to me without anyone else seeing it. But if we had a known secure method of communication, we wouldn't need the pad in the first place, now would we?
Public Key encryption solves this problem by allowing the store to develop the code and send me a key that only allows me to encrypt it (it can't decrypt anything). Thus it doesn't matter if the whole world intercepts the key, all that would allow them to do is encrypt more messages. It doesn't help them decrypt anything. Of course all these codes are usually based on problems that are mathematically hard to solve. If an easy solution is found (as with knapsack cryptosystems like Merkle-Hellman), then it becomes easy to crack the codes, and thus we need to have other codes available. In addition, many decryption algorithms are very slow and thus work is done on more efficient algorithms (though slow ones like RSA actually can be sped up by only encrypting a private key with the public key scheme and using the private key to encrypt the actual message).
Thats life. If you are so much of a spoiled brat to think otherwise, sorry.
"Uh, it saves the employer about a third off the top since they don't have to pay taxes, Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, insurance or workman's comp."
I meant how is that relevant to the unemployment rate genius.
Yeah, how dare they find out how many pairs of socks I've bought in the past year.
Listen, if you really are that paranoid, pay in cash. Then there is no way for the evil Wal-mart overlords to find you and force you to buy more pop tarts.
Like it or not, for many people having those things integrated into the operating system makes it much easier to use. If you don't like it I'll burn a copy of Slackware for you.
And thats nothing compared to what Apple does. Not only do they have applications tied into their operating system, but the operating system is tied to the hardware.
I took a number of logic classes along with plenty of mathematics classes (as one would expect from a math major with a minor in philosophy) and unlike you I actually paid attention in those classes. Your inability to identify logical arguments and fallacies makes your claims at the top of that post laughable.
"but i'd certainly ask for $50k to do that on a regular basis."
That means you are spoiled, not that you are underpaid. People do much harder work for much less money in this world.
"this may be the lowesty unemployment rate of all time"
Actually my phrase was "one of", not "the".
"what i do know, however is that it's fucking hard to get a job right now"
Should have tried it back when around 1/10th of those in the workforce.
"how many people have said "fuck it" and are living on social security?"
That generally requires someone to be eligible for ss first.
Also factor in how many more people are eligible to compete in the workforce now. It used to be women couldn't work, distance was a huge barrier, and those old people you mentioned would be lucky to live long enough and be healthy enough to still be working.
"the unemployment rate also does not reflect those people who work "under the table"."
How is that even remotely relevant?
Yes, the job market is competitive, but saying it is shitty is just plain ignorant.
Don't believe everything you read. I once saw something saying Bush caused the Cubs to lose to the Marlins last year so that the oil companies could invade France (here is the source if you don't believe me).
I would argue most of the arts contributes more than most games. But those are other industries in which it is difficult to get a good job.
But hey, you are free to have motivating factors other than money. Thats the beauty of capitalism, you can choose to place other factors at a higher priority. But then don't whine when you realize the tradeoffs.
I know what both phrases mean, do you? Considering you seem to think "reductio ad absurdum" (also known as a "proof by contradictio"n) is a fallacy of some sort, it seems you don't.
Well golly gee, you may actually have to move to a different industry that can support more diverse opportunities for employment.
If you really want to spend your life writing computer games that contribute virtually nothing to society, you are going to have to put up with the fact that you may not get as many benefits as you would get if you were more flexible with your demands.
" are you implying that coding is an underpaid job?"
Nearly 50 grand right out of college to sit at a computer typing code? Actually I was saying (as opposed to implying) it is overpaid, not underpaid.
"there is, however, something keeping you from getting a new job and thus being able to pay your bills - this something is called a shitty economy. maybe you've heard of it?"
Are you saying that one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time (the fact that it is higher than during the.com boom means nothing) is a shitty economy?
Yeah, the paper is more or less positive, but the/. summary still finds a way to bash them. Thats what most of the "/. has something against EA" comments are concerned with.
"You say if the company is treating their employees poorly that their employees should act."
And no one is stopping them. But why should that effect anyone's buying habits (other than the fact that if they cannot keep quality employees, the quality of their products will fall)? Why should the/. community (most of whom are not current, past, or future employees of EA) obsess about it?
In short, why should I as a consumer care whether or not the guy who made my product likes all aspects of his job?
Slashdot Mirror
" Just as importantly, did you read the article?"
Yep.
"There's really no chance that someone who writes those sentences is going to find that Wikipedia is a good or useful thing."
Thats called being critical of something. Not having an obvious bias. My review of the Dan Brown book I just read would be a lot worse than what he wrote about the Wikipedia and I started that book thinking I would like it.
"And note that he looked at one article. "
Had he described every entry in the Wikipedia that would be one long ass article. Instead he chose one that illustrated his points effectively.
"If we look at one article of Britannica, we can find "Francis" Zappa (wrong)..."
I think you missed the point completely. I have to ask you, did you read the article, or just scan for quotes to prove your own bias? He was not criticizing the content of the Wikipedia but the system behind it. Do you understand the difference between the two?
As a potential introductory article for a class, fine. But it is simply not adequate for research papers as you implied in your post.
Should be modded +5 Funny.
If a creator of the Wikipedia were to write something about glowing about it, would the /. story on it mention his "obvious bias"? Or would it praise his "expert opinion"?
I think you are missing the point. Its not just that an article may once in a while be temporary inaccurate because of vandalism, but rather it is very easy for an article to contain inaccuracies that are taken as truth. While the Wikipedia certainly is an effective tool to search for basic information on a topic (and I personally use it for such purposes all the time), it is not credible enough to use as an expert source.
Besides, most of its information is very introductory. Again, thats fine if you just want a brief introduction to a particular subject, but if you are writing a research paper you are generally going to want more information. It is simply not an adequate source for a high school level research paper, let alone a college level paper.
" I study computer science at the university level, by the by."
As do I, along with half of /. (the other half have already graduated with degrees in CS/Engineering). Whats your point?
Wake me up if this request is actually granted, then I'll start to worry. Until then, I'll let the courts do their job.
The reason the symmetric key is added is because raw RSA is just plain too slow with long messages. As long as the symmetric key is secure enough, it makes up for the insignificant loss of security. The biggest hole is probably the potential for finding an easy way to factor those numbers you are using.
Actually its not. There is an efficient algorithm out there for factoring numbers into primes. The only problem is that it requires technology (quantum computers) which doesn't exist yet, but which is on the horizon.
"And why is my article modded flamebait?!"
Because mods are jackasses.
This may not be too big of a problem if we just have two people who need to send a few messages to each other as long as both can keep the pad safe, but it fails horribly in other situations. For instance lets say I want to send my credit card number to some online store, but I want to make sure it is encrypted first. Lets say the store writes a random pad for us to use. How do we share it? Somehow they have to get it to me without anyone else seeing it. But if we had a known secure method of communication, we wouldn't need the pad in the first place, now would we?
Public Key encryption solves this problem by allowing the store to develop the code and send me a key that only allows me to encrypt it (it can't decrypt anything). Thus it doesn't matter if the whole world intercepts the key, all that would allow them to do is encrypt more messages. It doesn't help them decrypt anything. Of course all these codes are usually based on problems that are mathematically hard to solve. If an easy solution is found (as with knapsack cryptosystems like Merkle-Hellman), then it becomes easy to crack the codes, and thus we need to have other codes available. In addition, many decryption algorithms are very slow and thus work is done on more efficient algorithms (though slow ones like RSA actually can be sped up by only encrypting a private key with the public key scheme and using the private key to encrypt the actual message).
Hope that helps.
Thats life. If you are so much of a spoiled brat to think otherwise, sorry.
"Uh, it saves the employer about a third off the top since they don't have to pay taxes, Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, insurance or workman's comp."
I meant how is that relevant to the unemployment rate genius.
Have you even read 1984 or are you just throwing around the title and applying to conspiracy theories completely unrelated to his dystopia?
BTW, it should also be mentioned that 1984 was about a government having too much power. Last I checked, Wal-Mart is not a sovereign state.
Listen, if you really are that paranoid, pay in cash. Then there is no way for the evil Wal-mart overlords to find you and force you to buy more pop tarts.
Yeah, all that evil marketing data is really oppressing the masses and restricting the free flow of ideas.
And thats nothing compared to what Apple does. Not only do they have applications tied into their operating system, but the operating system is tied to the hardware.
I took a number of logic classes along with plenty of mathematics classes (as one would expect from a math major with a minor in philosophy) and unlike you I actually paid attention in those classes. Your inability to identify logical arguments and fallacies makes your claims at the top of that post laughable.
That means you are spoiled, not that you are underpaid. People do much harder work for much less money in this world.
"this may be the lowesty unemployment rate of all time"
Actually my phrase was "one of", not "the".
"what i do know, however is that it's fucking hard to get a job right now"
Should have tried it back when around 1/10th of those in the workforce.
"how many people have said "fuck it" and are living on social security?"
That generally requires someone to be eligible for ss first.
Also factor in how many more people are eligible to compete in the workforce now. It used to be women couldn't work, distance was a huge barrier, and those old people you mentioned would be lucky to live long enough and be healthy enough to still be working.
"the unemployment rate also does not reflect those people who work "under the table"."
How is that even remotely relevant?
Yes, the job market is competitive, but saying it is shitty is just plain ignorant.
Don't believe everything you read. I once saw something saying Bush caused the Cubs to lose to the Marlins last year so that the oil companies could invade France (here is the source if you don't believe me).
But hey, you are free to have motivating factors other than money. Thats the beauty of capitalism, you can choose to place other factors at a higher priority. But then don't whine when you realize the tradeoffs.
I know what both phrases mean, do you? Considering you seem to think "reductio ad absurdum" (also known as a "proof by contradictio"n) is a fallacy of some sort, it seems you don't.
If you really want to spend your life writing computer games that contribute virtually nothing to society, you are going to have to put up with the fact that you may not get as many benefits as you would get if you were more flexible with your demands.
Nearly 50 grand right out of college to sit at a computer typing code? Actually I was saying (as opposed to implying) it is overpaid, not underpaid.
"there is, however, something keeping you from getting a new job and thus being able to pay your bills - this something is called a shitty economy. maybe you've heard of it?"
Are you saying that one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time (the fact that it is higher than during the .com boom means nothing) is a shitty economy?
Yeah, the paper is more or less positive, but the /. summary still finds a way to bash them. Thats what most of the "/. has something against EA" comments are concerned with.
And no one is stopping them. But why should that effect anyone's buying habits (other than the fact that if they cannot keep quality employees, the quality of their products will fall)? Why should the /. community (most of whom are not current, past, or future employees of EA) obsess about it?
In short, why should I as a consumer care whether or not the guy who made my product likes all aspects of his job?
Or are you one of those people who feels the fact that you were born to a middle class American family gives you a right to a 6 digit salary?