They are accused of this: -Selling millions of cars that are not certified. VW does have some certificates, but they are valid only for (non-existing) cars without the defeat devices. Devices that work like this have to be declared. There are acceptable uses for example when handling emergencies or when starting the car, but cheating on emissions testing would presumably not have been an acceptable use. So VW didn't mention them in the application and thus the certficiates they do own are not valid for the cars they sold. -Having installed defeat devices, which is illegal.
This means for example picking a up a few books and selecting pages and words at random. I picked a poetry book and used only words starting with an "o". Not optimal, but nice.
Password managers are better, definitely. So sure, mention the password manager first. But nine out of ten of your readers will not install them. What will you tell them? Nothing?
To some commenters: - This is not a product. This is a reference design which other companies will build smart glasses from. Some of the dozen or so manufacturers of prisma smart glasses out there, besides Google, might well have used this design. - The specs top Googles Glass, but the manufacturer can of course choose to not utilize them fully, to make for example price more reasonable. Look upon this specification as the limit of what you can to today in this form factor – maybe carrying an external battery in your breast pocket? - Google put a lot of effort in the software ("OK glass!", et cetera). Chipsip has a much simpler idea in the link above – to use the smart glasses basically as an extra screen to a standard Android smartphone.
- Jan Tångring, reporter, Elektroniktidningen (etn.se).
When I read your first comment, I re-read it twice to make sure I understood you correctly. Then I copied it to some fellow scam spotters.
In your mailing you set something of an inofficial world record in self delusion -- you are fully aware D-Wave is full of lies. But you manage to twist it into being part of a strategy that actually proves they are for real.
Wishful thinking is the con man's greatest accomplice.
You say don't know if it is a scam. I can tell you right now that you never will. The Google-D-Wave thing will go quiet and die, and you will always be wondering if perhaps they were cut off on the verge of a great discovery.
Big Companies have been scammed. According to my experience big companies are a primary target for scammers, because sucess gives the scammer credit. And you will always find someone making your kind of comment, that it can't be a scam because big company C could not be fooled. This means that the scammer is motivated to invest hevily in the scam of a big company. By going public on its involvement in Google, D-Wave has now secured it will be able to find a new victim after Google. D-Wave will never deliver to Google. But D-Wave will use its involvement with Google as a merit when catching its next victim.
Of course, a much cheaper strategy that would work equally well in getting your hands on investment money, would be to skip the quantum research stuff, and jump directly to the sensationalistic lies.
The researcher is telling George to "go hide", although there already is a "go lose yourself" in the canonical robot instruction set. This is an implementation of Nestor of the Asimov short story "Little Lost Robot". Modern robotics now shows the hiding functionality to be a feature and not a bug.
Well, the whole IE vs Netscape thing didn't really get them any profit did it.
We do not live in the universe where Microsoft allowed Netscape to roam. So we do not know what MS would have lost. We cannot compare the MS saldo in that universe to the MS saldo in this.
Microsoft feared, irrational or not, that Netscape had the potentional of making the underlying platform irrelevant, "to commoditize the underlying operating system", as Bill Gates put it:
"A new competitor "born" on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with a 70% usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API [applications programming interface] into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system." (Bill Gates)
Thats why Microsoft decided to kill off Netscape.
Imagine, as Netscape did, a further developed Navigator, starting with the ability to navigate the local disks. A "file browser" of sorts.
Imagine running java apps in there. What do you have? An operating system on top of Windows, turning windows into a "a poorly debugged set of device drivers" (Marc Andreessen)
There are a number of problems which bitrate peeling address, not the least of which are [...] 2) dynamic bandwidth regulation of audio streams for streaming radio, future cellular phones,
Switching station listening to a streamed radio station takes some time buffering. Is it possible to use bitrate peeling to reduce that time? To make the sound start quicker, but at a lower quality level, and then graually rise in quality?
>>> FORTRAN should just be left to die peacefully.
>> I strongly believe this is the guy who is right
> I'd advise against that; he's wrong. He's probably just > transferring his desire to avoid using Fortran into an > unsupported belief that it will go away.
I dont see much much I disagree with in what you write. Note that you misrepresent the first quote. It says "should" not "will".
And in the second quote you seem to overlook the word "inherently". Fortran is not inherently good for optimization, that's what I say.
I am aware of the extreme efforts being put into Fortran compilers. This is the reason Fortran compilers are good at optimizing, I think.
Also, the PHD students doing the work gets to be pretty good at their craft, and they can bring over some of their optimization tricks to new architectures.
Also, the experts in constructing the numerical algorithms come from the same team as the experts on optimizing the compilers. They are all monks in the same Bacchi temple. They share their traditional wisdom with each other.
So. Fortran would be an extremely optimization hostile language if its compilers were not the most efficient ones for number crunching. Because these compilers are where 99 percent of the optimization energy is put today when it comes to scientific number crunching.
But its not in the languages itself. To suck out the last performance you will be resorting to assembly language optimization, or at least using non-standard, ie non-Fortran, compiler directives inside your Fortran code.
Strong religious tradition is the governing factor here. The tradition makes these guys stick to Fortran. They are pretty much immune to any arguments, like any other gang of zealots.
The computer FX games guys don't program in Fortran. They program in C. And they need performance just as bad as the number crunching guys.
> All that the world needs is a good way to call FORTRAN > functions from within C++ - and we already have that. > FORTRAN should just be left to die peacefully.
I strongly believe this is the guy who is right. Maybe I would add that I would like to be able to call Fortran from any language, not just C++.
Tradition.This is the primary reason people write Fortran programs. That goes for other languages too, tradition is what mainly governs the choice of language.
Fortran is still a primary language taught to science students learning numerical analysis. Though the rational choice has been Matlab for at least a decade.
I question the claim that Fortran compilers are somehow inherently good at optimizing code.
There are new processors coming out all the time, so the compilers need to be reoptimized. The parameters for that optimization, like cache sizes and pipeline design, etc, are changing the rules for what code is efficient.
We had the exact same scam running around in Sweden at the same years. Same box, same claims, same demo. Different people though. And since this is a small country you have to scale down all the dollar amounts passing hands a magnitude or two.
There must be a connection, but I don't know who franshised who on the idea.
I got a little involved in the swedish mirror case since the university I worked on was one of the victims of the scam.
It's funny to see how not only the scam is the same, but also the reactions. You have the pointy haired bosses who are the main target for the deception, you have the golden rolodexes who get the deceptors into contact with more money. And you have the techies who say "sounds nice but the demo is not proof".
I am curious to if there are more occurrences of this magic box scam? I would like for anyone who knows of this to contact me, If you don't publish on Slashdot.
To my knowledge the men behind the swedish mirror case never made it to court. The story abruptly ended when the telecom company Ericsson bought it all up and put a lid on everything, bringing it out of the media range.
1999 one of the guys appeared again in a similar scam, this time the technology was updated to wireless broadband. An LMDS lookalike this time. The magic box is DSL lookalike.
> is Microsoft trying to wrap some of the more popular
> languages in it's.NET initiative? If so, how effective
> can it be if Microsoft is leaving out features like
> multiple inheritance and the ability to redefine
> features in descendant classes?
We are going to see #-versions of many languages: APL, CAML, Cobol, Eiffel, Haskell, Java, Mercury, ML, Oberon, Oz, Pascal, Perl, Python, Scheme and Smalltalk.
Dotnet framework (the next runtime of Windows) wants to be a platform for alla languages (as oppposed to Java who wants to be a language for all platforms). All these languages are supposed to be integrated all the way down to the runtime level, meaning that GC will be handled collectively and exceptions will be thrown across languages. Of course, all the languages also can call all Windows libraries with no plumming.
It works like this: Dotnet framework actually only speaks one language MSIL (M$ intermediary language) and all languages who wants to join the platform need their own MSIL-compiler. MSIL would correspond to java bytecode, the idea is that any language, not just java, could be translated to bytecode.
Of course you need to hack the language a little, creating these "#" and ".net" suffixed versions of old languages, more or less related to the old language.
Eiffel# does not only loose Eiffel stuff, like multiple inheritance. It also needs to deal with non-Eiffel stuff in MSIL, like overloading, for example, which Eiffel doesn't have. Eiffel# hacks that problem with a tool that adds hungarian notation to the real MSIL names (ie "wite_int" and "write_float" for "write").
Eiffel# does not loose design-by-contract, though -- it won't bother other languages on Dotnet framework that Eiffel# does a little extra runtime validation.
I know the Eiffel guys are somehow trying to "insert" design-by-contract into Dotnet framework. So that other languages will be able to use it. Still haven't figured out how they plan to do it though.
The Eiffel inventor Bertrand Meyer is involved himself in creating Eiffel#. So there must be SOMETHING good coming from it...
These are set operations you are suggesting for group membership. While you're at it, add the other set operations too.
A group is a set, and users are members. Let's see, the only built-in is a constructor, using users as operands.
<I>d: user3, user4, user5</I>
You already added union, using both groups and single members as operands.
d: @b, @c
You want to combine, adding up users and groups to define a new group.:
d: @b, @c, user9
Comma is overloaded, used both as a union-operator, and an insert-member" operator. I don't see a problem with that, you use @ to tell it's a group-name, so we won't be able to use @ as first char in a group name, without an escaping notation (maye @ isn't allowed in group names already).
You have a delete-member operation:
e: !user1, @a, @b
the problem is the exclamation leads my mind to the complement operation, meaning you add all members except user1 to the group. I think we would want the complement operation, ie to make a group for all users who are not members of group a:
e: ! @a
So, for delete-member (and the set-level equivalent difference operation= lets use a minus. To define as group e, all members of a and b, except user1 and members of c:
e: @a, @b - user1 - @c
Finally, we want intersection. To define e as all users who are members of both a and b:
e: @a * @b
Maybe, beeing so close to standard set notation now, we should loose the comma, and use plus as the union-operator
Whats the difference between the new (ERS-111) and the old Aibo (ERS-110)? Did ERS-110 have the thermal sensor? A least I don't remember it being mentioned before? -- Jan Tångring (jan.tangring@et.se) Datateknik 3.0, 106 12 Stockholm, www.datateknik.se +46 8 796 6445, +46 70 399 3859, +46 8 613 3038 (fax)
Slashdot Mirror
They are implausible because you are getting numbers wrong. I suspect you have not read the study.
Only former Uber and/or Lyft users were in the study.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
These were super cool references, and you are obviously very knowledgeble.
”Weapon” is just a metaphor.
Stuxnet/Olympic Games caused physical damage, that was a first (counting only well documented cases).
They are accused of this:
-Selling millions of cars that are not certified. VW does have some certificates, but they are valid only for (non-existing) cars without the defeat devices. Devices that work like this have to be declared. There are acceptable uses for example when handling emergencies or when starting the car, but cheating on emissions testing would presumably not have been an acceptable use. So VW didn't mention them in the application and thus the certficiates they do own are not valid for the cars they sold.
-Having installed defeat devices, which is illegal.
There is also the possibility that the closest civilization to earth, or even the closest planet harboring life, is in a parallel universe.
”What is there to prevent “letmeinfacebook” from being the new most common four word password for Facebook accounts”
Chance. XKCD 936 says to choose the words at random.
Diogomonica is wrong. And so was Bruce Schneier, and for the same reason – he missed that the words are to be chosen at random.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
This means for example picking a up a few books and selecting pages and words at random. I picked a poetry book and used only words starting with an "o". Not optimal, but nice.
Password managers are better, definitely. So sure, mention the password manager first. But nine out of ten of your readers will not install them. What will you tell them? Nothing?
Thanks for linking to us! I think that's a first!
Credit goes to Armdevices for finding the story: http://armdevices.net/2014/01/...
Chipsip also of course publishes its own press releases: http://www.chipsip.com/news/in...
This is Chipsips own comparison between their design and Google Glass (pdf) http://www.chipsip.com/archive...
To some commenters:
- This is not a product. This is a reference design which other companies will build smart glasses from. Some of the dozen or so manufacturers of prisma smart glasses out there, besides Google, might well have used this design.
- The specs top Googles Glass, but the manufacturer can of course choose to not utilize them fully, to make for example price more reasonable. Look upon this specification as the limit of what you can to today in this form factor – maybe carrying an external battery in your breast pocket?
- Google put a lot of effort in the software ("OK glass!", et cetera). Chipsip has a much simpler idea in the link above – to use the smart glasses basically as an extra screen to a standard Android smartphone.
- Jan Tångring, reporter, Elektroniktidningen (etn.se).
What about the Sony Vaio Z docking station Power Media Dock? It was advertised June 28 to be using ”an optical cable” and ‘Light Peak’.
http://presscentre.sony.eu/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=6836&NewsAreaId=2
It is available now, at $499.99,
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=VGPPRZ20A/B#features
No, I don't agree.
When I read your first comment, I re-read it twice to make sure I understood you correctly. Then I copied it to some fellow scam spotters.
In your mailing you set something of an inofficial world record in self delusion -- you are fully aware D-Wave is full of lies. But you manage to twist it into being part of a strategy that actually proves they are for real.
Wishful thinking is the con man's greatest accomplice.
You say don't know if it is a scam. I can tell you right now that you never will. The Google-D-Wave thing will go quiet and die, and you will always be wondering if perhaps they were cut off on the verge of a great discovery.
Big Companies have been scammed. According to my experience big companies are a primary target for scammers, because sucess gives the scammer credit. And you will always find someone making your kind of comment, that it can't be a scam because big company C could not be fooled. This means that the scammer is motivated to invest hevily in the scam of a big company.
By going public on its involvement in Google, D-Wave has now secured it will be able to find a new victim after Google. D-Wave will never deliver to Google. But D-Wave will use its involvement with Google as a merit when catching its next victim.
Of course, a much cheaper strategy that would work equally well in getting your hands on investment money, would be to skip the quantum research stuff, and jump directly to the sensationalistic lies.
The researcher is telling George to "go hide", although there already is a "go lose yourself" in the canonical robot instruction set. This is an implementation of Nestor of the Asimov short story "Little Lost Robot". Modern robotics now shows the hiding functionality to be a feature and not a bug.
D'oh! Slaps forehead. Head flies off.
Seriously, what real problem for users is this technology solving? Real as opposed to imaginary?
Microsoft feared, irrational or not, that Netscape had the potentional of making the underlying platform irrelevant, "to commoditize the underlying operating system", as Bill Gates put it:
"A new competitor "born" on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with a 70% usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API [applications programming interface] into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system." (Bill Gates)
Thats why Microsoft decided to kill off Netscape.
Imagine, as Netscape did, a further developed Navigator, starting with the ability to navigate the local disks. A "file browser" of sorts.
Imagine running java apps in there. What do you have? An operating system on top of Windows, turning windows into a "a poorly debugged set of device drivers" (Marc Andreessen)
>>> FORTRAN should just be left to die peacefully.
>> I strongly believe this is the guy who is right
> I'd advise against that; he's wrong. He's probably just
> transferring his desire to avoid using Fortran into an
> unsupported belief that it will go away.
I dont see much much I disagree with in what you write. Note that you misrepresent the first quote. It says "should" not "will".
And in the second quote you seem to overlook the word "inherently". Fortran is not inherently good for optimization, that's what I say.
I am aware of the extreme efforts being put into Fortran compilers. This is the reason Fortran compilers are good at optimizing, I think.
Also, the PHD students doing the work gets to be pretty good at their craft, and they can bring over some of their optimization tricks to new architectures.
Also, the experts in constructing the numerical algorithms come from the same team as the experts on optimizing the compilers. They are all monks in the same Bacchi temple. They share their traditional wisdom with each other.
So. Fortran would be an extremely optimization hostile language if its compilers were not the most efficient ones for number crunching. Because these compilers are where 99 percent of the optimization energy is put today when it comes to scientific number crunching.
But its not in the languages itself. To suck out the last performance you will be resorting to assembly language optimization, or at least using non-standard, ie non-Fortran, compiler directives inside your Fortran code.
Strong religious tradition is the governing factor here. The tradition makes these guys stick to Fortran. They are pretty much immune to any arguments, like any other gang of zealots.
The computer FX games guys don't program in Fortran. They program in C. And they need performance just as bad as the number crunching guys.
> All that the world needs is a good way to call FORTRAN
> functions from within C++ - and we already have that.
> FORTRAN should just be left to die peacefully.
I strongly believe this is the guy who is right. Maybe I would add that I would like to be able to call Fortran from any language, not just C++.
Tradition.This is the primary reason people write Fortran programs. That goes for other languages too, tradition is what mainly governs the choice of language.
Fortran is still a primary language taught to science students learning numerical analysis. Though the rational choice has been Matlab for at least a decade.
I question the claim that Fortran compilers are somehow inherently good at optimizing code.
There are new processors coming out all the time, so the compilers need to be reoptimized. The parameters for that optimization, like cache sizes and pipeline design, etc, are changing the rules for what code is efficient.
> I thought one of the benefits to the GPL was code Darwinism?
But this is darwinism! Traits don't jump around between species. Eyes have evolved independently several times.
What you are asking for is genetic manipulation, overriding evolutionary mechanisms, moving genes from one species to another.
So its rule 30 is it?
In order to get 42 to be the meaning of life, universe and everything, we'd have to switch to base seven?
Seven? Is this reasonable? Could someone please check these calculations!
We had the exact same scam running around in Sweden at the same years. Same box, same claims, same demo. Different people though. And since this is a small country you have to scale down all the dollar amounts passing hands a magnitude or two.
There must be a connection, but I don't know who franshised who on the idea.
I got a little involved in the swedish mirror case since the university I worked on was one of the victims of the scam.
It's funny to see how not only the scam is the same, but also the reactions. You have the pointy haired bosses who are the main target for the deception, you have the golden rolodexes who get the deceptors into contact with more money. And you have the techies who say "sounds nice but the demo is not proof".
I am curious to if there are more occurrences of this magic box scam? I would like for anyone who knows of this to contact me, If you don't publish on Slashdot.
To my knowledge the men behind the swedish mirror case never made it to court. The story abruptly ended when the telecom company Ericsson bought it all up and put a lid on everything, bringing it out of the media range.
1999 one of the guys appeared again in a similar scam, this time the technology was updated to wireless broadband. An LMDS lookalike this time. The magic box is DSL lookalike.
Neither do I need intersection,
...
d: @students * @faculty
is expressible with union and complement:
d: !(!@students + !@faculty)
This is the question of whether you want to go for expressiveness, or if you should only implement a minimal core of operations
> is Microsoft trying to wrap some of the more popular .NET initiative? If so, how effective
...
> languages in it's
> can it be if Microsoft is leaving out features like
> multiple inheritance and the ability to redefine
> features in descendant classes?
We are going to see #-versions of many languages: APL, CAML, Cobol, Eiffel, Haskell, Java, Mercury, ML, Oberon, Oz, Pascal, Perl, Python, Scheme and Smalltalk.
Dotnet framework (the next runtime of Windows) wants to be a platform for alla languages (as oppposed to Java who wants to be a language for all platforms). All these languages are supposed to be integrated all the way down to the runtime level, meaning that GC will be handled collectively and exceptions will be thrown across languages. Of course, all the languages also can call all Windows libraries with no plumming.
It works like this: Dotnet framework actually only speaks one language MSIL (M$ intermediary language) and all languages who wants to join the platform need their own MSIL-compiler. MSIL would correspond to java bytecode, the idea is that any language, not just java, could be translated to bytecode.
Of course you need to hack the language a little, creating these "#" and ".net" suffixed versions of old languages, more or less related to the old language.
Eiffel# does not only loose Eiffel stuff, like multiple inheritance. It also needs to deal with non-Eiffel stuff in MSIL, like overloading, for example, which Eiffel doesn't have. Eiffel# hacks that problem with a tool that adds hungarian notation to the real MSIL names (ie "wite_int" and "write_float" for "write").
Eiffel# does not loose design-by-contract, though -- it won't bother other languages on Dotnet framework that Eiffel# does a little extra runtime validation.
I know the Eiffel guys are somehow trying to "insert" design-by-contract into Dotnet framework. So that other languages will be able to use it. Still haven't figured out how they plan to do it though.
The Eiffel inventor Bertrand Meyer is involved himself in creating Eiffel#. So there must be SOMETHING good coming from it
These are set operations you are suggesting for group membership. While you're at it, add the other set operations too.
A group is a set, and users are members. Let's see, the only built-in is a constructor, using users as operands.
<I>d: user3, user4, user5</I>
You already added union, using both groups and single members as operands.
d: @b, @c
You want to combine, adding up users and groups to define a new group.:
d: @b, @c, user9
Comma is overloaded, used both as a union-operator, and an insert-member" operator. I don't see a problem with that, you use @ to tell it's a group-name, so we won't be able to use @ as first char in a group name, without an escaping notation (maye @ isn't allowed in group names already).
You have a delete-member operation:
e: !user1, @a, @b
the problem is the exclamation leads my mind to the complement operation, meaning you add all members except user1 to the group. I think we would want the complement operation, ie to make a group for all users who are not members of group a:
e: ! @a
So, for delete-member (and the set-level equivalent difference operation= lets use a minus. To define as group e, all members of a and b, except user1 and members of c:
e: @a, @b - user1 - @c
Finally, we want intersection. To define e as all users who are members of both a and b:
e: @a * @b
Maybe, beeing so close to standard set notation now, we should loose the comma, and use plus as the union-operator
<tt>d: @b + @c + user9</tt>
We also need parenthesise for precedence
<tt>d: @b * (@c + user9)</tt>
Whats the difference between the new (ERS-111) and the old Aibo (ERS-110)?
Did ERS-110 have the thermal sensor? A least I don't remember it being mentioned before?
--
Jan Tångring (jan.tangring@et.se)
Datateknik 3.0, 106 12 Stockholm, www.datateknik.se
+46 8 796 6445, +46 70 399 3859, +46 8 613 3038 (fax)