"
Many years ago I was acting as the system administrator for a test system in a large publicly held company. Periodically I would receive a call from someone who had not accessed the system recently, forgot their password and locked themselves out trying to logon. I would look up their password and unlock the system for them and they would go on their merry way.
One day I received a call from a young lady who was in just such a predicament. I looked up her password and informed her that it was 'DOME' and, just to be playful, told her the price for me being gracious enough to unlock her sign-on was an explanation of the meaning of her password. She became very embarrassed over the phone and pleaded that she could never reveal her secret. I of course replied that I would not give her system access until she did. After negotiating for several minutes she finally acquiesced but made me promise to never reveal her password meaning to any of her colleagues to which I gladly agreed.
"Well, what does it mean?", I asked.
She hesitated and then replied, "It's two words."
There was pregnant pause. I unlocked her system and simply said, "Have a nice day".
It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard - hand the boss the letter and tell him/her what the situation is. Make sure that they know that you need access to the computers over the next few weeks if they want you to do your job over that period.
On the other hand - What poster 1 said. You got paid for not working. How bad can that be?
Considering that, as of now, we can just pull money out of nowhere and just increment our debt up, it looks like that'll be the case for a looong time.
Yea, money's the real issue. With enough money, they can buy out enough hardware, encourage enough research, hire enough programmers, etc, to do almost anything. On the other hand, I'm sure that no matter what they do, their system will still have critical vulnerablilities, but that's just a fact of life.
Anyway, when we spend a quarter of the money on cyber-counter-terrorism that we do on physical defense, then people can think about beginning to complain about costs. OTOH, it's not like we really know where that money's going anyway...
Hm, yea. The actual neural net might not be fragile, but I'd assume that in addition to the fragility of the neural net, you've also got to deal with the fragility of the life support system, which would be much more of an issue.
That whole training bit - Just makes me think that a strict software approach will do the job better. Unless you can get neural nets doing calculations or work fast enough that they can check themselves to an acceptable degree of certainty, there's no reason to do it in the first place. It's not good enough to be able to say "Our neural net calculated a value three times as fast as our standard processor, but it's ten times more uncertain."
Well, two things here -
First of all, I'd be willing to stake my bet on our standard silicon in terms of total size required today. As for tomorrow - can either of us really say what'll happen in either of these fields?
Second, the neurons have been around for much longer, but they haven't been under our control as a viable calculating tool, which is what matters. Someone's probably said this before, but at least with the software we know exactly what happens with it. I mean, I know I don't want to be getting "Chromasome divide error" instead of a divide by zero error.
Yea, it's true that neurons are redundant, but computer systems can be made to be redundant too. As for size, again, see the first bit.
I'd think that they just "program" them. Just because it's made up of organic matter doesn't mean it's capable of that level of environmental response.
So this is how they're working around G-Force limitations in human F-22 pilots?
Somehow I think I like the AI option better.
On the other hand, whoah, ok, so we've got an organic way that MAY make a plane fly level, but seriously, can't we already do this with much less fragile computers? Until this technology can compete, why's it such a big deal?
"European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content."
Ok, what do they plan to do about it... I don't quite understand the legal implications of this, but it doesn't exactly seem like a standard case of copyright infringement to me.
Even assuming that they could get anything on Google for this, that just means Google will drop them from everything in the future. Speaking as someone who gets a lot of their news off of the internet, I know that publishers demanding for their content to be hidden from search engines probably won't help them. If they just want it removed from the ads, I bet google can just say that the truely practicable way to have their content have nothing to do with the ads is to tell them that their content can have nothing to do with anything from the standard search engine to gmail to adsense.
I think that the publishers who don't embrace the internet as a new medium for communication and find ways to work against it, not with it (for working against google isn't a very productive way to facilitate communication over the internet) are doomed to failure as we use the internet for more and more tasks. Heck, these companies measure things in terms of readers, you'd think they'd want as much coverage as they can get.
The more I look like this it looks like a few whiny companies looking to make a few bucks.
I'd agree with this - despite the home page or default search site, google is now a household brand (if you could call it a brand) that's got a pretty permanent hold on what MS and other companies discounted as something useless. As google expands to the email and IM (I know, that's a stretch) areas, google is used for more and more things. I doubt it'll lose much from just having the default engine switched.
Then again, as MS is well aware, half of any "prediction" is just going to be guesswork.
You're assuming it MUST be complex, which isn't true at all. I mean sure, it's hard to beat.99$ a song, but it could be tiered to make things more convenient. That is, with 1$ songs, 1.25$ songs... I can see a nice little graphic based on quarters in my head indicating price...
Sure, they're slow, but at least they do try to serve up justice. It comes back to that old Franklin quote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," except with convenience. Our judiciary system may take a while, but can you suggest an alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
Lets fix it with a rootkit!
"
Many years ago I was acting as the system administrator for a test system in a large publicly held company. Periodically I would receive a call from someone who had not accessed the system recently, forgot their password and locked themselves out trying to logon. I would look up their password and unlock the system for them and they would go on their merry way.
One day I received a call from a young lady who was in just such a predicament. I looked up her password and informed her that it was 'DOME' and, just to be playful, told her the price for me being gracious enough to unlock her sign-on was an explanation of the meaning of her password. She became very embarrassed over the phone and pleaded that she could never reveal her secret. I of course replied that I would not give her system access until she did. After negotiating for several minutes she finally acquiesced but made me promise to never reveal her password meaning to any of her colleagues to which I gladly agreed.
"Well, what does it mean?", I asked.
She hesitated and then replied, "It's two words."
There was pregnant pause. I unlocked her system and simply said, "Have a nice day".
"
Don't even TELL me what you've got to do to dial one of those things.
It's Japan. Nothing above the poverty line runs on anything less than a p4 - electronic doors, for example.
No, I posted that message after I rooted YOUR box. I want my +2 funny back.
Well I guess this makes incessant reposts good for SOMETHING - I mean, I need to use SOMETHING to wipe my bum with, no?
It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard - hand the boss the letter and tell him/her what the situation is. Make sure that they know that you need access to the computers over the next few weeks if they want you to do your job over that period. On the other hand - What poster 1 said. You got paid for not working. How bad can that be?
Gone? Hahahaha.
That's just what they WANT you to think.
Me neither. Hey, look, we've got two people. That's statistically significant, right?
Hopefully NOT when they're flying our planes.
I'm talking about the government, not the cyberterrorists, but what you said still applies.
Wasn't the internet (supposedly) designed to be a huge redundant communications system?
I wonder if this is still the idea deep within the government.
As for putting critical systems online... sure, they become more vulnerable, but they're SO much more convenient that way.
Considering that, as of now, we can just pull money out of nowhere and just increment our debt up, it looks like that'll be the case for a looong time.
Yea, money's the real issue. With enough money, they can buy out enough hardware, encourage enough research, hire enough programmers, etc, to do almost anything. On the other hand, I'm sure that no matter what they do, their system will still have critical vulnerablilities, but that's just a fact of life.
Anyway, when we spend a quarter of the money on cyber-counter-terrorism that we do on physical defense, then people can think about beginning to complain about costs. OTOH, it's not like we really know where that money's going anyway...
Homo sapiens cannaboid receptor...
;)
Can't get our mind out of the gutter now, can we
Funny, that lyses my compiler and gives me a "Chromosome not found" error.
But are they open source?
Hm, yea. The actual neural net might not be fragile, but I'd assume that in addition to the fragility of the neural net, you've also got to deal with the fragility of the life support system, which would be much more of an issue.
That whole training bit - Just makes me think that a strict software approach will do the job better. Unless you can get neural nets doing calculations or work fast enough that they can check themselves to an acceptable degree of certainty, there's no reason to do it in the first place. It's not good enough to be able to say "Our neural net calculated a value three times as fast as our standard processor, but it's ten times more uncertain."
Well, two things here - First of all, I'd be willing to stake my bet on our standard silicon in terms of total size required today. As for tomorrow - can either of us really say what'll happen in either of these fields? Second, the neurons have been around for much longer, but they haven't been under our control as a viable calculating tool, which is what matters. Someone's probably said this before, but at least with the software we know exactly what happens with it. I mean, I know I don't want to be getting "Chromasome divide error" instead of a divide by zero error. Yea, it's true that neurons are redundant, but computer systems can be made to be redundant too. As for size, again, see the first bit.
I'd think that they just "program" them. Just because it's made up of organic matter doesn't mean it's capable of that level of environmental response.
Maybe the editors are running on LAST year's rat brains.
Time for an upgrade?
So this is how they're working around G-Force limitations in human F-22 pilots?
Somehow I think I like the AI option better.
On the other hand, whoah, ok, so we've got an organic way that MAY make a plane fly level, but seriously, can't we already do this with much less fragile computers? Until this technology can compete, why's it such a big deal?
"European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content." Ok, what do they plan to do about it... I don't quite understand the legal implications of this, but it doesn't exactly seem like a standard case of copyright infringement to me. Even assuming that they could get anything on Google for this, that just means Google will drop them from everything in the future. Speaking as someone who gets a lot of their news off of the internet, I know that publishers demanding for their content to be hidden from search engines probably won't help them. If they just want it removed from the ads, I bet google can just say that the truely practicable way to have their content have nothing to do with the ads is to tell them that their content can have nothing to do with anything from the standard search engine to gmail to adsense. I think that the publishers who don't embrace the internet as a new medium for communication and find ways to work against it, not with it (for working against google isn't a very productive way to facilitate communication over the internet) are doomed to failure as we use the internet for more and more tasks. Heck, these companies measure things in terms of readers, you'd think they'd want as much coverage as they can get. The more I look like this it looks like a few whiny companies looking to make a few bucks.
I'd agree with this - despite the home page or default search site, google is now a household brand (if you could call it a brand) that's got a pretty permanent hold on what MS and other companies discounted as something useless. As google expands to the email and IM (I know, that's a stretch) areas, google is used for more and more things. I doubt it'll lose much from just having the default engine switched.
Then again, as MS is well aware, half of any "prediction" is just going to be guesswork.
You're assuming it MUST be complex, which isn't true at all. I mean sure, it's hard to beat .99$ a song, but it could be tiered to make things more convenient. That is, with 1$ songs, 1.25$ songs... I can see a nice little graphic based on quarters in my head indicating price...
Sure, they're slow, but at least they do try to serve up justice. It comes back to that old Franklin quote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," except with convenience. Our judiciary system may take a while, but can you suggest an alternative?