Sigh, here are some problems I have with these kind of hacks:
1. If it really becomes a problem for steve, he will block it at the hardware level in the next major version, or even in the next minor version. 2. I cannot rely on the fact that there will always be a jailbreak available if I lose my phone, due to 1. 3. It is only semi-legal. Apple will not like me. 4. I loose support. 5. Companies cannot be based on these kind of hacks due to 1,2,3,4, so there will never be a large user-base (or it will grow very slowly) 6.... 7. No profit! Due to 5.:)
what wikileaks would become like without Julian Assange? Without him, much less controlled and hence more dangerous variants of whistleblower sites may emerge. We can all just wait for the first anonymized peer-to-peer whistleblower programs to appear.
Bonus points for spotting the fact they just re-invented Java Applets, only slimmer.
Yes, but the fact that it is slimmer is a big advantage. The fact that java virtual machines are such resource hogs is the reason why so many people dislike it. Why are big applications like Photoshop and Office not written in java? If developers need a garbage collector, they can write it themselves. Heck, it might even be possible to efficiently run a java VM inside NaCl.
It can be applied easily. Just make some script that posts random stuff with your name in it to thousands of forums. Then, when people search for your name, there will be so much noise that the results are useless. Noise is google's enemy.
I am just not so much interested in reading a hundred pages when I am not sure if the end-result is correct. Even if there are numerous other valuable theoretical points made in this article. I'd rather run a automatic verification tool, and then decide if I'd read the article. I have faith in peer-review up to a certain point; it is not something which is infallible. I can easily imagine some future slashdot article with a headline "P != NP proof found to be incorrect", or even "P == NP after all". Also, imagine the waste of brain-power if researchers wrongly assume "P != NP", and start developing new theories from thereon.
Also, given this 100 page document, I'm totally in the dark about what other pieces of literature are necessary to grasp the proof. With such a large proof, it is easy to end up in a "dependency nightmare". With a formal proof, at least I can get a quick overview of dependencies.
Again, no offense to the author of the proof. This has in fact little to do with this particular case, just with the way in which science works in general.
What would be the use of a proof that no human can understand?
Well, you can break the proof down into lemmas (think of them as "modules"). And you can relate those formally proved lemmas to your natural language version of the proof. You might even be able to re-use those lemmas in other proofs.
Peer review is nice. But we can make an analogy with software: open-source code is also "peer-reviewed" in a certain way, and we know for certain that open-source code is not error-free, even after many years of "reviewing".
There's a reason noone uses formal proofs in mathematics. They're dull. They're slow.
This is personal. Proofs in natural language can also be dull and slow, especially if they take up a hundred pages. So why not make it a little more dull. At least verification will be a lot faster, and a lot more certain.
Can we please have a formal proof. A proof written in natural language and with a length of a hundred pages almost certainly contains some flaw. Just like a program of more than a few thousand lines of code is certain to contain at least one bug.
Ok, there is a flaw here, which is that Verizon is serving thousands of customers, while there is potentially only one connection between Google and Verizon. Hence, it might help to put servers at Verizon, akin to what content distribution networks do, as posted elsewhere.
So this does not affect net-neutrality. But it does put the smaller website owner at a disadvantage.
The largest bottleneck is from Verizon to the customer. This means that putting google's servers at Verizon will not increase speed so much. It may reduce latency a little, but that is not so important.
Without affecting net-neutrality, Google could easily put bigger cables towards Verizon centers and accomplish exactly the same thing, namely, not so much.
Yes, totally true. But it would still have been better to have authentication enabled by default. The user who actually knows what he is doing can then disable it.
The internet-subscriber is already paying for his/her content delivery. And web-site owners are paying as well for the upload of data. We are already paying twice. And now this...
Slashdot Mirror
they should do just the opposite...
then watch how fast people will switch to privacy-secure technology
Sigh, here are some problems I have with these kind of hacks:
1. If it really becomes a problem for steve, he will block it at the hardware level in the next major version, or even in the next minor version. ... :)
2. I cannot rely on the fact that there will always be a jailbreak available if I lose my phone, due to 1.
3. It is only semi-legal. Apple will not like me.
4. I loose support.
5. Companies cannot be based on these kind of hacks due to 1,2,3,4, so there will never be a large user-base (or it will grow very slowly)
6.
7. No profit! Due to 5.
There's something rotten in the state of Virginia?
The amount of thought you have put into that is a little unnerving.
Well, he probably didn't use these techniques to hide money, but merely to hide pron for his mom.
what wikileaks would become like without Julian Assange? Without him, much less controlled and hence more dangerous variants of whistleblower sites may emerge. We can all just wait for the first anonymized peer-to-peer whistleblower programs to appear.
Imagine that the sponges that were here first filed for patent.
10x smaller means: one tenth of the original size.
Hence, 50% smaller means: double the size.
Simple, eh?
why? can you elaborate?
Bonus points for spotting the fact they just re-invented Java Applets, only slimmer.
Yes, but the fact that it is slimmer is a big advantage. The fact that java virtual machines are such resource hogs is the reason why so many people dislike it. Why are big applications like Photoshop and Office not written in java? If developers need a garbage collector, they can write it themselves. Heck, it might even be possible to efficiently run a java VM inside NaCl.
These PADDS also don't run Flash.
I knew it! Jobs just tried to literally copy this whole PADD concept.
It can be applied easily. Just make some script that posts random stuff with your name in it to thousands of forums. Then, when people search for your name, there will be so much noise that the results are useless. Noise is google's enemy.
It is not my intention to humiliate anybody.
I am just not so much interested in reading a hundred pages when I am not sure if the end-result is correct. Even if there are numerous other valuable theoretical points made in this article. I'd rather run a automatic verification tool, and then decide if I'd read the article. I have faith in peer-review up to a certain point; it is not something which is infallible. I can easily imagine some future slashdot article with a headline "P != NP proof found to be incorrect", or even "P == NP after all". Also, imagine the waste of brain-power if researchers wrongly assume "P != NP", and start developing new theories from thereon.
Also, given this 100 page document, I'm totally in the dark about what other pieces of literature are necessary to grasp the proof. With such a large proof, it is easy to end up in a "dependency nightmare". With a formal proof, at least I can get a quick overview of dependencies.
Again, no offense to the author of the proof. This has in fact little to do with this particular case, just with the way in which science works in general.
Sooner or later we're gonna have to get out of here, or go extinct.
Or... we could use Earth as our spaceship :)
What would be the use of a proof that no human can understand?
Well, you can break the proof down into lemmas (think of them as "modules"). And you can relate those formally proved lemmas to your natural language version of the proof. You might even be able to re-use those lemmas in other proofs.
Peer review is nice. But we can make an analogy with software: open-source code is also "peer-reviewed" in a certain way, and we know for certain that open-source code is not error-free, even after many years of "reviewing".
There's a reason noone uses formal proofs in mathematics. They're dull. They're slow.
This is personal. Proofs in natural language can also be dull and slow, especially if they take up a hundred pages. So why not make it a little more dull. At least verification will be a lot faster, and a lot more certain.
Can we please have a formal proof. A proof written in natural language and with a length of a hundred pages almost certainly contains some flaw. Just like a program of more than a few thousand lines of code is certain to contain at least one bug.
Ok, there is a flaw here, which is that Verizon is serving thousands of customers, while there is potentially only one connection between Google and Verizon. Hence, it might help to put servers at Verizon, akin to what content distribution networks do, as posted elsewhere.
So this does not affect net-neutrality. But it does put the smaller website owner at a disadvantage.
The largest bottleneck is from Verizon to the customer. This means that putting google's servers at Verizon will not increase speed so much. It may reduce latency a little, but that is not so important.
Without affecting net-neutrality, Google could easily put bigger cables towards Verizon centers and accomplish exactly the same thing, namely, not so much.
This is the wrong way of holding people responsible. People learn from their mistakes, and now the competition may hire this guy.
what if he just forgot the passwords?
Yes, totally true. But it would still have been better to have authentication enabled by default. The user who actually knows what he is doing can then disable it.
Hell, we can even send somebody up in one to probe the innards of the Sun.
So how about the pedestrians?
Then that premise will be simply part of "gaming the system".
But remember, don't play it backwards!
The internet-subscriber is already paying for his/her content delivery. And web-site owners are paying as well for the upload of data. We are already paying twice. And now this...