Not that this is really relevant, but if the margin of error was about 5 million years, how are they confident to say that it was 1 million year older?
I think the point about the number of screens is valid, but not the point about lack of compatibility. This is concept design. Obviously nothing supports it yet. Why would anything support it if it's in existence?
I'm also willing to bet that at the show they demonstrated other UI abilities that the article didn't talk about
It is technically possible to save information sent with Vanish. A recipient could print e-mail and save it, or cut and paste unencrypted text into a word-processing document, or photograph an unscrambled message. Vanish is meant to protect communication between two trusted parties, researchers say.
The stated goal doesn't mesh well with what Vanish actually does. If the communication is happening between two trusted parties, each party can trust the other to delete the information within a given time-frame.
It sounds more like distributing trust among multiple nodes, so that any of the nodes can destroy the information at will. I believe this has idea has been done before, and this sounds like a variation on a theme. Or perhaps this is not exploiting any new property of math, but rather drafting a protocol upon it for a given purpose (destroying information after time)
Well math is usually all for fun anyway. And it seems like they're having fun. But here's where someone found an application:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruent_number[/url]. Please don't ask us to explain why elliptic curves are useful.
I think the point you both want to get at is that you shouldn't judge other people by your standards of ethics and morals. As long as they conform to their own standards of ethics or morals, it wouldn't be right to call them unethical, no matter the differences between your standards and their standards.
To me the interesting piece of information was that 200,000 years in this new ecosystem causes such big changes. I'm not familiar with how well we know the timescales of other types of adaptation changes but now we know rats can become huge and beetles iridescent in less then 200k years.
Computer Science is about "adding layers of abstraction". Perhaps nobody has proved the prover, but we only have to put our confidence in one central place now.
Just because the specifications could be bugged does not mean this is not useful. Going from a low level implementation to a higher level abstraction or design is always useful. This is partly why we have comments, assertions, and specifications in the first place. At the higher levels, it's easier to check for intentional behavior (the bugs in the spec is easier to find than the bugs in the code). It is also easier to add new constraints.
Some people have mentioned that this is just a verification of the Haskell to C layer. I might be mistaken, but their site shows that they have multiple layers and most of them are formally verified. As well, this does a bit better than just a Haskell to C translator because this allows for hand optimized code (site mentions that their process accounts for things like pointer arithmetic). In addition, even if you used a Haskell implementation, you still have to verify that.
But GP makes a good point that hell is not as fire and brimstone as popular culture would like us to believe. Every time I hear the phrase "when hell freezes over", it strikes a chord because the original "hell" has always been frozen.
Neither. This isn't the right problem to be solved. We're not going to ban dictionaries in schools, so why ban it on what should be a less restrictive environment?
I don't know if what you are envisioning works as well as you envisioned. Just because Blizzard has bad sales on one game doesn't necessarily change their business decision to remove LAN functionality on other games. They have no indication that you didn't buy the game because of the lack of functionality. What you should do is actually complain about it directly to Blizzard, and see if they'll respond.
Can humans even do this reasonably? By that what I mean is, when we play, we don't play based off what we see on the current screen. I doubt many people have beaten the game on their first play through. Most of us had multiple tries, seen more of the level and honed our timing in tricky spots.
This is not about a willingness to do anything. Microsoft's goal, like that of all corporations is to make profit for its shareholders. It's not about good or bad intentions, so please stop trying to interpret it in that context. The general public should be pretty pissed if corporations like Microsoft decided to have a "change of heart" and focused on making things open instead of making money, because each member of the general public could very well be partial owners of those corporations.
The thing we actually should want to see is a situation where it makes more sense for Microsoft to promote open source. An example of such a situation is if the rate and state of development for Linux demonstrate how well open source models can work. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to see Microsoft promote open source out of a sense of nobility.
That's a good point. And I don't have a solution to that. I imagine it'd be possible to get a big enough pool going that this shouldn't be a big problem.
In the end, I don't think this is anything sustainable. I believe it is more like a weapon against the RIAA in a war of attrition. The purpose of the war, of course, is to get them to stop shotgunning cases based on the idea that defendants can only afford to settle.
What if we created a union of RIAA suit defendants? So we'd all pre-emptively buy in to a reasonable number - say enough money to go to court against RIAA if they sued 5% of everyone in the union. So say there's 1000 members, they'd contribute enough to the pool so that if 50 of the members get sued, they should have enough resources to go to court. Every time a case is lost against the RIAA the defendant will have to reimburse the pool.
I think this would level the playing field too. The idea is that everyone who is sued and is in this union is able to defend, instead of succumbing to debt. And the pool is only losing money proportional to how much the RIAA is losing. And if the RIAA legitimately have a case, the pool doesn't get diminished.
One more scenario I'd like to add to that. If we are to remove the concept of moral correctness from the court-ruled judgment, we are in effect arguing just in the realm of law. What if the Pirate Bay guys are legally "weaseling" their way out of paying for something that RIAA legally "won"? Would you still have sympathy for the RIAA?
In your appeal for sympathy, you mentioned the scenario of the grandmother vs. the supermarket. The case you are obviously going for is that the grandmother is in the moral "right". Morality and Legality are separate and distinct concepts. Arguments should be made and sympathies awarded while keeping in clear view these distinctions.
Re:Question for the OP
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the response. I'd like to add that I'm not of a strong opinion in any way. I was just interested in hearing more about your observations - since you have taken the time to write up a post already, you're clearly very perceptive and receptive to your child's development.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that this is really relevant, but if the margin of error was about 5 million years, how are they confident to say that it was 1 million year older?
I think the point about the number of screens is valid, but not the point about lack of compatibility. This is concept design. Obviously nothing supports it yet. Why would anything support it if it's in existence?
I'm also willing to bet that at the show they demonstrated other UI abilities that the article didn't talk about
From original article:
It is technically possible to save information sent with Vanish. A recipient could print e-mail and save it, or cut and paste unencrypted text into a word-processing document, or photograph an unscrambled message. Vanish is meant to protect communication between two trusted parties, researchers say.
The stated goal doesn't mesh well with what Vanish actually does. If the communication is happening between two trusted parties, each party can trust the other to delete the information within a given time-frame.
It sounds more like distributing trust among multiple nodes, so that any of the nodes can destroy the information at will. I believe this has idea has been done before, and this sounds like a variation on a theme. Or perhaps this is not exploiting any new property of math, but rather drafting a protocol upon it for a given purpose (destroying information after time)
Eh I thought this was a forum. Sorry it's this
Well math is usually all for fun anyway. And it seems like they're having fun. But here's where someone found an application: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congruent_number[/url]. Please don't ask us to explain why elliptic curves are useful.
I think the point you both want to get at is that you shouldn't judge other people by your standards of ethics and morals. As long as they conform to their own standards of ethics or morals, it wouldn't be right to call them unethical, no matter the differences between your standards and their standards.
Hmm... I don't know... DX11...
Kernel Mode Setting. You could care if you have a radeon, I guess.
The SMS mechanism doesn't work well with that. It's not an artificial limit on their part.
To me the interesting piece of information was that 200,000 years in this new ecosystem causes such big changes. I'm not familiar with how well we know the timescales of other types of adaptation changes but now we know rats can become huge and beetles iridescent in less then 200k years.
Computer Science is about "adding layers of abstraction". Perhaps nobody has proved the prover, but we only have to put our confidence in one central place now.
He is not correct to say "manual". Those are generated by the machine provers.
Just because the specifications could be bugged does not mean this is not useful. Going from a low level implementation to a higher level abstraction or design is always useful. This is partly why we have comments, assertions, and specifications in the first place. At the higher levels, it's easier to check for intentional behavior (the bugs in the spec is easier to find than the bugs in the code). It is also easier to add new constraints.
Some people have mentioned that this is just a verification of the Haskell to C layer. I might be mistaken, but their site shows that they have multiple layers and most of them are formally verified. As well, this does a bit better than just a Haskell to C translator because this allows for hand optimized code (site mentions that their process accounts for things like pointer arithmetic). In addition, even if you used a Haskell implementation, you still have to verify that.
But GP makes a good point that hell is not as fire and brimstone as popular culture would like us to believe. Every time I hear the phrase "when hell freezes over", it strikes a chord because the original "hell" has always been frozen.
Neither. This isn't the right problem to be solved. We're not going to ban dictionaries in schools, so why ban it on what should be a less restrictive environment?
I don't know if what you are envisioning works as well as you envisioned. Just because Blizzard has bad sales on one game doesn't necessarily change their business decision to remove LAN functionality on other games. They have no indication that you didn't buy the game because of the lack of functionality. What you should do is actually complain about it directly to Blizzard, and see if they'll respond.
Can humans even do this reasonably? By that what I mean is, when we play, we don't play based off what we see on the current screen. I doubt many people have beaten the game on their first play through. Most of us had multiple tries, seen more of the level and honed our timing in tricky spots.
Looks like you have to find someone to support your habit (bet on the other end). Plus the net would be negative as there's the service fee.
This is not about a willingness to do anything. Microsoft's goal, like that of all corporations is to make profit for its shareholders. It's not about good or bad intentions, so please stop trying to interpret it in that context. The general public should be pretty pissed if corporations like Microsoft decided to have a "change of heart" and focused on making things open instead of making money, because each member of the general public could very well be partial owners of those corporations.
The thing we actually should want to see is a situation where it makes more sense for Microsoft to promote open source. An example of such a situation is if the rate and state of development for Linux demonstrate how well open source models can work. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect to see Microsoft promote open source out of a sense of nobility.
The executable is 4KB
And if he loses, he will have to reimburse. So his incentive for joining is low to negative if he believes he's going to lose anyway.
That's a good point. And I don't have a solution to that. I imagine it'd be possible to get a big enough pool going that this shouldn't be a big problem.
In the end, I don't think this is anything sustainable. I believe it is more like a weapon against the RIAA in a war of attrition. The purpose of the war, of course, is to get them to stop shotgunning cases based on the idea that defendants can only afford to settle.
What if we created a union of RIAA suit defendants? So we'd all pre-emptively buy in to a reasonable number - say enough money to go to court against RIAA if they sued 5% of everyone in the union. So say there's 1000 members, they'd contribute enough to the pool so that if 50 of the members get sued, they should have enough resources to go to court. Every time a case is lost against the RIAA the defendant will have to reimburse the pool.
I think this would level the playing field too. The idea is that everyone who is sued and is in this union is able to defend, instead of succumbing to debt. And the pool is only losing money proportional to how much the RIAA is losing. And if the RIAA legitimately have a case, the pool doesn't get diminished.
One more scenario I'd like to add to that. If we are to remove the concept of moral correctness from the court-ruled judgment, we are in effect arguing just in the realm of law. What if the Pirate Bay guys are legally "weaseling" their way out of paying for something that RIAA legally "won"? Would you still have sympathy for the RIAA?
In your appeal for sympathy, you mentioned the scenario of the grandmother vs. the supermarket. The case you are obviously going for is that the grandmother is in the moral "right". Morality and Legality are separate and distinct concepts. Arguments should be made and sympathies awarded while keeping in clear view these distinctions.
Thanks for the response. I'd like to add that I'm not of a strong opinion in any way. I was just interested in hearing more about your observations - since you have taken the time to write up a post already, you're clearly very perceptive and receptive to your child's development.