There was no Chinese monopoly. Blackberry would've introduced a new service, but the Chinese kept them from launching it until a domestic version came out first. It's a common theme in Chinese business. Like circumstantial evidence; one piece may mean nothing but when it happens to multiple companies then it gets fishy. It's all about the IP. I'm not sure how the military played into your post.
Translation: "We're not really sure how we got it to work. Basically we just randomly fiddled with things until we got an acceptable output." Much like the time-test C programming technique of adding/removing * and & to pointers until it works.
assigning them to a three tiered system of security levels
I'm curious what the justification for a 3-tier system is. Why not 2 or 4? If it's arbitrary then it may be worse than what they're trying to fix.
The cost of the added servers is greatly minimized by making them virtual servers on the same machine
But then an attack on one virtual server for a particular functionality takes out all other virtual servers on that machine? How does this fix anything?
With the new security-enhanced XenSE, this might become easier and more possible.
If I had a dollar for every time I've read about a new OS that is "vastly more secure" than anything else... and it still gets hacked.
What has you chained to your firewall?
How about the ability to control, monitor, and filter traffic through an external border point? And isn't most DOS-resiliant software written for the firewall-type application?
I interviewed with Microsoft right before graduating. It wasn't so much an interview as a series of logic puzzles and code sample writing. The interviewer didn't even give me his name so I had to ask when the whole thing was over. Not impressed.
Obviously the interviewer didn't know much about crypto. His main focus was fear mongering about the NSA and break-ins. But Schneier seems to discount quantum cryptanalysis out of hand. Doesn't he realize that quantum programs have been written already to do factoring and list searches? It's just a matter of overcoming manufacturing/quality issues with qubit design.
I don't think symbol manipulation is really the thing that makes us "intelligent". It is more likely a byproduct of what lies below that level. Trying to reduce the processes that allow us to think like we do to a purely symbolic level does not account for the perturbations that have to occur at a really low level.
John Searle advocates a position that symbol manipulation isn't intelligence. Rather that consciousness is an emergent property of patterns in neural firing. Although the details how we get from A to B are rather sketchy at best.
I strongly believe that the "symbolic" point of view is only the most obvious part of a drastically complex dynamic system in which every single perturbation can lead to effects that could not be expected if the system was purely based on the "symbolic" representation.
Again to bring Searle into the mix... The difference between syntax and semantics is that semantics is the only one of the two that has intent. There is no intentionality for 1 + 1 = 2. But there is for the statement "I believe in the validity of axiomatic mathematicaly systems." Again, how we get that intentionality is a matter for debate.
Ah, philosophy of math. How fickle and unforgiving it is.
True, you can apply meaning to a syntactic structure. But like the mistake Douglas Hofstadter makes in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, there is nothing that "forces itself upon us." Or, another way of refuting Hofstadter, there's nothing about D:=B|| that makes it "Doug has two brothers" anymore than "Assign B to D, double pipe".
Machine translation is an example of applying semantics to a syntactic structure. It doesn't work because the syntax gives us semantics but rather we structure the syntax in such a way that we can systimatically apply semantics and get meaningful output. Like creating your own algebra.
Dreyfus commits a whole book to asking why these things don't work. I believe Minsky overestimates the project. It may all boil down to the fact that purely syntactic (symbol manipulation) work isn't going to give you any semantically meaningful output.
You would presume that. However it is important to recall that the NSA made changes to the original DES standard that made it more resistant to differential attacks, something that the rest of the cryptography world wouldn't "invent" for 15 years or so. Course the NSA also shortened the key to 56 bits. So this isn't a clear case of them helping against their interests.
Well, yes and no. The actual key is 56 but the entire length is 64 with the 8 bits of parity. That parity was important back in the day of noisy communications channels and costly retransmissions.
The DES changes suggested by NSA to IBM resulted in DES's resistance to differential cryptanalysis attacks, which were unknown to the public for at least another decade. Rest assured they know of techniques that others don't. They don't hire all those mathematicians for their social graces.
In other news, vacation home sales among U.K. doctors are up today. The doctors say this is in no way related to the influx of people worried about their thumbs.
Considering that the whole concept of economics was created in human minds, using the human mind to better understand it seems quite logical.
Well, it seems logical... But the problem is that humans often act in illogical ways. Perhaps that's part of the root of problems when social science tries to formulate hard rules like natural science. And remember that human minds have been trying to better understand themselves since Aristotle and earlier and we're still not sure what's going on with ourselves.
When we truly understand the mind, will we really need an economy? Cognitive science is a field I find myself interested in. As such, I've often pondered what society will do when we've unlocked the secrets of the mind. Now I know...
How can the greedy be phased out? How much does one man need?
Well, economics is a social science. As such, it most likely will never rest upon firm rules such as those in the natural sciences. Cognitive science won't provide those rules because it merely describes the brain's functionality on a neural level. But quite frankly, humans are not the sum of our neural activity (to take from another school of psychology, Gestalt). If we view consciousness as an emergent property like John Searle does then the inability to make this correlation becomes clear.
Summary: looking at the brain won't create miralculously successful economic theories/"laws".
Everyone is using the word "sentient." But sentience is only feeling. Sapience is the important aspect as in reflecting on one's feelings. Quite simply, I see no evidence on how/why strong artificial intelligence could ever happen. I'll take the Searle/Dreyfus side on this and not Kurzweil/random journalists. So what is the point of arguing for legal rights of things that currently don't exist and in reality won't ever exist?
Slashdot Mirror
There was no Chinese monopoly. Blackberry would've introduced a new service, but the Chinese kept them from launching it until a domestic version came out first. It's a common theme in Chinese business. Like circumstantial evidence; one piece may mean nothing but when it happens to multiple companies then it gets fishy. It's all about the IP. I'm not sure how the military played into your post.
More likely just Sony trying to shore up its sagging position with Blue-Ray.
This is the kind of quality blogging that makes Slashdot #1 on my list.
There's a complicated algorithm at work here.
Translation: "We're not really sure how we got it to work. Basically we just randomly fiddled with things until we got an acceptable output." Much like the time-test C programming technique of adding/removing * and & to pointers until it works.
Now I can overclock my car's OBD-II computer.
Don't bother. It's time to upgrade to the CAN interface.
Nerds playing at being intelligence operatives. Cute.
Of course, making the antimatter can be expensive.
In other news, Vatican officials hurried down to St. Peter's tomb and were relieved to find it devoid of anti-matter containment devices.
assigning them to a three tiered system of security levels
I'm curious what the justification for a 3-tier system is. Why not 2 or 4? If it's arbitrary then it may be worse than what they're trying to fix.The cost of the added servers is greatly minimized by making them virtual servers on the same machine
But then an attack on one virtual server for a particular functionality takes out all other virtual servers on that machine? How does this fix anything?With the new security-enhanced XenSE, this might become easier and more possible.
If I had a dollar for every time I've read about a new OS that is "vastly more secure" than anything else... and it still gets hacked.What has you chained to your firewall?
How about the ability to control, monitor, and filter traffic through an external border point? And isn't most DOS-resiliant software written for the firewall-type application?I interviewed with Microsoft right before graduating. It wasn't so much an interview as a series of logic puzzles and code sample writing. The interviewer didn't even give me his name so I had to ask when the whole thing was over. Not impressed.
Brains: doubtful. Minds: definitely not.
So it wasn't just math. Biology also helped.
"Math, my dear boy, is nothing more than the lesbian sister of biology." -Peter GriffinObviously the interviewer didn't know much about crypto. His main focus was fear mongering about the NSA and break-ins. But Schneier seems to discount quantum cryptanalysis out of hand. Doesn't he realize that quantum programs have been written already to do factoring and list searches? It's just a matter of overcoming manufacturing/quality issues with qubit design.
I'm also curious about 802.11 interference. A poorly placed microwave in a dorm room could possibly kill an otherwise strong signal.
Wile E. Coyote all the way. He was just a victim of Acme's shoddy quality control department (or lack thereof).
I don't think symbol manipulation is really the thing that makes us "intelligent". It is more likely a byproduct of what lies below that level. Trying to reduce the processes that allow us to think like we do to a purely symbolic level does not account for the perturbations that have to occur at a really low level.
John Searle advocates a position that symbol manipulation isn't intelligence. Rather that consciousness is an emergent property of patterns in neural firing. Although the details how we get from A to B are rather sketchy at best.
I strongly believe that the "symbolic" point of view is only the most obvious part of a drastically complex dynamic system in which every single perturbation can lead to effects that could not be expected if the system was purely based on the "symbolic" representation.
Again to bring Searle into the mix... The difference between syntax and semantics is that semantics is the only one of the two that has intent. There is no intentionality for 1 + 1 = 2. But there is for the statement "I believe in the validity of axiomatic mathematicaly systems." Again, how we get that intentionality is a matter for debate.
Ah, philosophy of math. How fickle and unforgiving it is.
True, you can apply meaning to a syntactic structure. But like the mistake Douglas Hofstadter makes in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, there is nothing that "forces itself upon us." Or, another way of refuting Hofstadter, there's nothing about D:=B|| that makes it "Doug has two brothers" anymore than "Assign B to D, double pipe".
Machine translation is an example of applying semantics to a syntactic structure. It doesn't work because the syntax gives us semantics but rather we structure the syntax in such a way that we can systimatically apply semantics and get meaningful output. Like creating your own algebra.
Dreyfus commits a whole book to asking why these things don't work. I believe Minsky overestimates the project. It may all boil down to the fact that purely syntactic (symbol manipulation) work isn't going to give you any semantically meaningful output.
In addition it could also possibly pose an interesting safety issue, since a pedestrian or motorist would not hear it coming.
Easy. Put baseball cards between the spokes. Problem solved.
You would presume that. However it is important to recall that the NSA made changes to the original DES standard that made it more resistant to differential attacks, something that the rest of the cryptography world wouldn't "invent" for 15 years or so. Course the NSA also shortened the key to 56 bits. So this isn't a clear case of them helping against their interests.
Well, yes and no. The actual key is 56 but the entire length is 64 with the 8 bits of parity. That parity was important back in the day of noisy communications channels and costly retransmissions.
The DES changes suggested by NSA to IBM resulted in DES's resistance to differential cryptanalysis attacks, which were unknown to the public for at least another decade. Rest assured they know of techniques that others don't. They don't hire all those mathematicians for their social graces.
It's the sound of a thousand philosophers rolling their eyes in unison.
In other news, vacation home sales among U.K. doctors are up today. The doctors say this is in no way related to the influx of people worried about their thumbs.
when you buy software that's dependent on a for-profit company to keep working, what do you expect?
Is it possible to mod the article itself as flamebait?
Considering that the whole concept of economics was created in human minds, using the human mind to better understand it seems quite logical.
Well, it seems logical... But the problem is that humans often act in illogical ways. Perhaps that's part of the root of problems when social science tries to formulate hard rules like natural science. And remember that human minds have been trying to better understand themselves since Aristotle and earlier and we're still not sure what's going on with ourselves.
When we truly understand the mind, will we really need an economy? Cognitive science is a field I find myself interested in. As such, I've often pondered what society will do when we've unlocked the secrets of the mind. Now I know... How can the greedy be phased out? How much does one man need?
Well, economics is a social science. As such, it most likely will never rest upon firm rules such as those in the natural sciences. Cognitive science won't provide those rules because it merely describes the brain's functionality on a neural level. But quite frankly, humans are not the sum of our neural activity (to take from another school of psychology, Gestalt). If we view consciousness as an emergent property like John Searle does then the inability to make this correlation becomes clear.
Summary: looking at the brain won't create miralculously successful economic theories/"laws".
Everyone is using the word "sentient." But sentience is only feeling. Sapience is the important aspect as in reflecting on one's feelings. Quite simply, I see no evidence on how/why strong artificial intelligence could ever happen. I'll take the Searle/Dreyfus side on this and not Kurzweil/random journalists. So what is the point of arguing for legal rights of things that currently don't exist and in reality won't ever exist?