From a WWDC perspective, the big announcement is Swift. This should make it significantly easier to write apps for iOS and OS X. Of course, if they made a Mono-style variant, then it would be truly significant, as you could write once and compile anywhere. Other targets wouldn't get all the bells and whistles of the integrated OS, but at least they'd function... unlike writing something for OpenStep and expecting it to run under OS X/Linux/Windows.
... for those of us who didn't grow up with it, what is it? I presume it has something to do with reading, and that it was around a while ago, but not TOO long ago (as the same people who were part of it are part of it again). Google helps, but this is the stuff that should be in TFS -- not just a link to the kickstarter.
IOW, there's not enough material in TFS to comment on the topic without first doing actual research. Is this a trick?
This is what polymorphic software does, and I think you'll find it on pretty much every computer that's part of a botnet.
By this measure, botnet software should be really difficult to detect and compromise -- and yet it isn't.
Also, it's worth noting that while government-sponsored and targeted attacks would be more difficult using this method, most malware depends on whatever the current security flaws are and/or human failure to initially get its foot in the door.
And the logic path wouldn't be changing, even if the compiled structure was randomized.
Plus, I think you'll find that many AM scanners these days include "doesn't follow the structure of a standard compiler" as one of the major red flags in looking for malware.
The logic may be twisted, but corporations = people under the law.
Therefore, the government paying a corp for a service is like the govt paying a contractor for a service -- you don't get to look inside the private workings of either, you just get to enjoy the services rendered.
Enough of playing the advocate.
I agree with you 100% -- but I also know that you have to stick your foot in the door with reasonable claims before you can pry the door wide open with claims that those inside may not currently find reasonable. Get them used to the idea of living in a FOSS culture before demanding that their suppliers have to also be a part of it. Preference to FOSS? sure... required? That will involve a significant cultural shift, whether it "should" be the case or not.
Also require that anything developed by the city staff itself be released as FOSS if at all possible. Evaluate all competing bits to ensure that they allow derivative works to be released as FOSS.
Because it's one thing to pay public money to a private org to get work done; it's quite another to pay public money to public servants and have the resulting product not be available to the public.
No country can have a legitimate government unless it separates church and state. Religion breeds fanaticism, and fanaticism is the opposite of reason. All human beings have a right to rational government.
Let's see here: 1. No country can have a legitimate government unless.... 2. Religion breeds fanaticism 3. fanaticism is the opposite of reason 4. All human beings have a right to rational government
1. I'm sorry, but if this is true, there have only been a handful of legitimate governments throughout history, and most of them did not end well. Just because the USA (and most of the western world these days) separates church and state -- because it's a good idea to keep people from using one to overly influence people regarding the other -- does not mean that's the only legitimate way to govern a group of people.
2. So does science. See Global warming as an example -- on both sides.
3. No, it's orthagonal. It's perfectly possible to be reasonable in most areas but a fanatic about one topic.
4. I hope you're not using the USA as an example here. Rational Government has to do with having a governance structure that is fully defined and cannot be modified without the agreement of the people -- those governing can't do an end run around it. Unfortunately, this method of governance appears to be as common as that of More's Utopia.
This is likely why they're keeping the Beats brand intact... they don't want people associating it with the default (cheap) headphones Apple provides.
Personally, I thought Apple's Bose relationship was the best audio one they ever had going. I had some of their Harmon Kardon speakers back in the day, and those were decent for their time.
I really don't see Apple saying "now with Beats inside" any time soon....
This is likely for the streaming agreements, so they can bolster their offerings on iTunes Radio. I doubt it has much to do with the headphones (hence why they're leaving that part of the business alone).
Coke and Safeway Select DO taste the same though. Of course, that's today's Dasani Coke, not the coke of yesteryear that used whatever water the local bottler felt like using. I've definitely tasted how Coke has changed in different places over the years, even though I don't drink it at all anymore.
SS has also done a pretty good job at making their Tonic Water taste just like Schweppe's. Maybe they've caught on to the Dasani mineral content? It wouldn't be too difficult, as they've stripped out all the extra stuff, so all you've got left is a simple set of minerals and H2O.
Is he actually a Zionist or is Iran just jumping to a conclusion based on his heritage?
I'd guess #2: based on his actions since school days, he's more an opportunist than a Zionist. But Zionist is the Arabic Moslem version of Communism's "Capitalist Pig".*
* Yes, I know that Iran is less Arabic Moslem than the US is Chistian, but we're talking about leadership here -- and Iranian leadership IS managed by Arabic Moslems, even if the majority of the people living there could care less and have their own much deeper traditions.
You have a point; it's even more of a point when you realise that "satan" means adversary. Now it means more in the USA when you say "Satan" -- but Christianity uses the name to represent "The Devil" or "Lucifer" -- in which case "the great satan" wouldn't really fit, as that would imply more than one satan.
And I think it's safe to say that Khomeini and his regime considered the US their great adversary -- as did the USSR at the time.
So many arguments throughout history began as a misunderstanding about word choice. Not saying that's the case here (as he was probably making an intentional play on words), but it's possible.
How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?
Not all countries separate church and state. Iranian attorneys (and most mid-east attorneys I'd guess) have to navigate religious law as well as civic law.
...that I get to ignore patents and make whatever the fuck I want?
For personal use, yes. If you're caught using a home-made object patented by someone else in public, especially for financial gain, you'd better be licensing the patent or you're in for a loss at the patent court.
And in this case, you could find it increasingly difficult to actually BUY a cheap 3D printer as all the makers get sued for patent infringement or end up caving and paying licensing fees that dramatically increase the cost.
All it takes is copies of prior inventors work & videos that show someone else showed the idea first & filed with the patent office and then any later patent application/s are deemed unpatentable.
Been that way forever.
...the gotcha is the "filed with the patent office" bit. Has anyone done this? Also, it's easy to add a few extra words to a patent application to say "...but not like that prior art; this one has X as well!"
This has been published April 2012, the provisional patent is from October 2012, so Makerbot wasted some time and money, by the look of it.
Depends; these days, you have to actually submit prior art evidence to the USPTO and someone there has to agree that it's prior art. Otherwise, the patent stands.
So even though "we" know there's prior art... has anyone submitted this to the USPTO?
>If there is a creator of the universe, why wouldn't he/she/it listen to you?
Because a creator of universes would be very unlikely to take an interest in some animals on one planet in one universe. It takes a massive ego to expect that a god would give a damn about you.
I'd expect them to continue to make universes, not be a petty god that monitors the details of tiny lives like the absurd gods of man's imagination.
For someone who appears to not be a theirst, you seem to have a very specific view of what sort of being created the universe. Pretty much every depiction of a god or gods in Human history paints said God as being somewhat petty by human interpretation. If you accept the premise of an intelligent being creating our universe, you should be able to accept that such a being may actually pay attention to the details of what happened next, if you accept that said being is capable of such awareness and didn't just create the universe as an accident in passing.
I fail to see how your response negates my statement. Even with IR filters, visible spectrum cameras can be overloaded with thermal energy. The main thing that gets overloaded is the focus logic that most visible spectrum cameras use, but the sensors themselves get too strong a signal for the filter to fully block, and that overloads the CCDs across the board, so that the signal to noise ratio is too near the floor.
Dedicated thermal sensors as you say are far into the IR spectrum, and can be overloaded by the same IR burst, as IR tends to be noisy and travel across the waveform spectrum instead of being stable at a single frequency.
If you've got a few cameras (thermal and visual) around, you can test this with an IR laser -- point it at each device while it's on, and check the result -- it will likely be a big white spot in the image.
I caneven do this with my IR-based remote for my digital cameras -- it's not strong enough to really mess with the image, but it is strong enough to register as a white dot on most digital cameras when aimed directly at the lens.
You were part way there... driver was a traffic cop, and the car death was a setup framed by evil villain X who traffic cop had given one too many tickets. When driver gets out, they find they're the only person who still knows how to drive, and the autonomous cars no longer listen to humans' instructions. The local government asks said ex-con to override a car and drive into navigation HQ to take out the mystery man/AI controlling the car network -- of course it's actually being managed by evil villain X.
So what happens when the right lane is an unmarked or badly marked exit lane?
Personally, I think most of the collision avoidance stuff has been worked out now. It's the road navigation quirks that I'm more concerned with, as it seems it'd be pretty easy to force one of these off the road or into an exit lane. Just look at some of the mistakes professional GPS systems make; a car depending solely on these and immediate visual navigation are going to have a pretty hard time navigating complex shifting laneways and new routes.
For that matter, computers have a reliable scheduler, so they can safely text and drive. I can let my car post status updates for me automatically without having to touch a screen....
Even if you jammed the LIDAR, visual (or thermal) cameras could detect the cars moving. It's non-car objects like children or tree branches that are more difficult.
I'd think thermal jamming would be the first thing someone would attempt -- it'll block both the thermal and visual cameras, as visual cameras always go a bit into the thermal spectrum and can be overloaded.
LIDAR would actually be trickier, as you'd have to know exactly what range you were supposed to be jamming. You'd have to use a spread-spectrum scanner these days to even begin to figure that out.
Personally, I think using a spread-spectrum scanner to plot the location of foreign objects would be an excellent first-level monitoring system on these cars. Fall back to LIDAR, and from there to visual/thermal. Or use all of the above for a composite image.
In practice, "people" as a whole are mostly streaming the same videos -- it's the herd mentality. So if Google peers directly to the data provider, the data crosses the switch once, and then gan be cached locally to serve the streamers.
When done correctly, streaming raraely causes a bottleneck. The problem between Comcast and L3 is that Comcast's peering switches haven't been upgraded in a decade or so, so ANY meaningful amount of traffic traversing these switches will cause a bottleneck. Streaming, torrenting, playing online games, downloading every linux distro known to man, etc. How Comcast gets around this is that they have other "special" peering agreements with the most common providers of high bandwidth material. So SOME streaming movies, games, etc. will now be zippy on their network, but the stuff going through L3 will still be bottlenecked.
And yes, they have to do continual upgrades to the peering equipment and not just to the last mile -- but this is what the customer subscription increases are already going towards, isn't it? The peering switches just need ONE upgrade for all the subscribers in the area; the costs to keeping these pipes as current as their other "special" ones are pretty minimal, and are part of the costs of doing business. But Comcast has decided they can charge their peers, their peers' customers, AND their customers for the same thing. Makes me wonder where the money is actually going, as it doesn't appear to be going into infrastructure.
Conversely, Google is writing down the infrastructure costs as basic costs to absorb in order to grow their market -- advertising and data metrics. They see that every time they invest in improving the infrastructure, they end up taking in more money.
So maybe the problem is with Comcast's business model? They have the money coming in based on the size of their target market; maybe they're trying to get around the saturated market segment they're stuck with by marketing their customers as a service.... Wal Mart style.
Slashdot Mirror
From a WWDC perspective, the big announcement is Swift. This should make it significantly easier to write apps for iOS and OS X. Of course, if they made a Mono-style variant, then it would be truly significant, as you could write once and compile anywhere. Other targets wouldn't get all the bells and whistles of the integrated OS, but at least they'd function... unlike writing something for OpenStep and expecting it to run under OS X/Linux/Windows.
Thank you! That gives me way better idea of what it was than the info on the kickstarter page.
I had no idea what it was even though I knew he was in TNG and Roots; I never knew about the Reading Rainbow thing.
... for those of us who didn't grow up with it, what is it? I presume it has something to do with reading, and that it was around a while ago, but not TOO long ago (as the same people who were part of it are part of it again). Google helps, but this is the stuff that should be in TFS -- not just a link to the kickstarter.
IOW, there's not enough material in TFS to comment on the topic without first doing actual research. Is this a trick?
This is what polymorphic software does, and I think you'll find it on pretty much every computer that's part of a botnet.
By this measure, botnet software should be really difficult to detect and compromise -- and yet it isn't.
Also, it's worth noting that while government-sponsored and targeted attacks would be more difficult using this method, most malware depends on whatever the current security flaws are and/or human failure to initially get its foot in the door.
And the logic path wouldn't be changing, even if the compiled structure was randomized.
Plus, I think you'll find that many AM scanners these days include "doesn't follow the structure of a standard compiler" as one of the major red flags in looking for malware.
The logic may be twisted, but corporations = people under the law.
Therefore, the government paying a corp for a service is like the govt paying a contractor for a service -- you don't get to look inside the private workings of either, you just get to enjoy the services rendered.
Enough of playing the advocate.
I agree with you 100% -- but I also know that you have to stick your foot in the door with reasonable claims before you can pry the door wide open with claims that those inside may not currently find reasonable. Get them used to the idea of living in a FOSS culture before demanding that their suppliers have to also be a part of it. Preference to FOSS? sure... required? That will involve a significant cultural shift, whether it "should" be the case or not.
Also require that anything developed by the city staff itself be released as FOSS if at all possible. Evaluate all competing bits to ensure that they allow derivative works to be released as FOSS.
Because it's one thing to pay public money to a private org to get work done; it's quite another to pay public money to public servants and have the resulting product not be available to the public.
Not all countries separate church and state.
No country can have a legitimate government unless it separates church and state. Religion breeds fanaticism, and fanaticism is the opposite of reason. All human beings have a right to rational government.
Let's see here:
1. No country can have a legitimate government unless....
2. Religion breeds fanaticism
3. fanaticism is the opposite of reason
4. All human beings have a right to rational government
1. I'm sorry, but if this is true, there have only been a handful of legitimate governments throughout history, and most of them did not end well. Just because the USA (and most of the western world these days) separates church and state -- because it's a good idea to keep people from using one to overly influence people regarding the other -- does not mean that's the only legitimate way to govern a group of people.
2. So does science. See Global warming as an example -- on both sides.
3. No, it's orthagonal. It's perfectly possible to be reasonable in most areas but a fanatic about one topic.
4. I hope you're not using the USA as an example here. Rational Government has to do with having a governance structure that is fully defined and cannot be modified without the agreement of the people -- those governing can't do an end run around it. Unfortunately, this method of governance appears to be as common as that of More's Utopia.
This is likely why they're keeping the Beats brand intact... they don't want people associating it with the default (cheap) headphones Apple provides.
Personally, I thought Apple's Bose relationship was the best audio one they ever had going. I had some of their Harmon Kardon speakers back in the day, and those were decent for their time.
I really don't see Apple saying "now with Beats inside" any time soon....
This is likely for the streaming agreements, so they can bolster their offerings on iTunes Radio. I doubt it has much to do with the headphones (hence why they're leaving that part of the business alone).
Coke and Safeway Select DO taste the same though. Of course, that's today's Dasani Coke, not the coke of yesteryear that used whatever water the local bottler felt like using. I've definitely tasted how Coke has changed in different places over the years, even though I don't drink it at all anymore.
SS has also done a pretty good job at making their Tonic Water taste just like Schweppe's. Maybe they've caught on to the Dasani mineral content? It wouldn't be too difficult, as they've stripped out all the extra stuff, so all you've got left is a simple set of minerals and H2O.
Is he actually a Zionist or is Iran just jumping to a conclusion based on his heritage?
I'd guess #2: based on his actions since school days, he's more an opportunist than a Zionist. But Zionist is the Arabic Moslem version of Communism's "Capitalist Pig".*
* Yes, I know that Iran is less Arabic Moslem than the US is Chistian, but we're talking about leadership here -- and Iranian leadership IS managed by Arabic Moslems, even if the majority of the people living there could care less and have their own much deeper traditions.
You have a point; it's even more of a point when you realise that "satan" means adversary. Now it means more in the USA when you say "Satan" -- but Christianity uses the name to represent "The Devil" or "Lucifer" -- in which case "the great satan" wouldn't really fit, as that would imply more than one satan.
And I think it's safe to say that Khomeini and his regime considered the US their great adversary -- as did the USSR at the time.
So many arguments throughout history began as a misunderstanding about word choice. Not saying that's the case here (as he was probably making an intentional play on words), but it's possible.
How exactly could an attorney help someone avoid a fatwa?
Not all countries separate church and state. Iranian attorneys (and most mid-east attorneys I'd guess) have to navigate religious law as well as civic law.
My mistake; this is completely correct. I didn't notice the original submission date.
...that I get to ignore patents and make whatever the fuck I want?
For personal use, yes. If you're caught using a home-made object patented by someone else in public, especially for financial gain, you'd better be licensing the patent or you're in for a loss at the patent court.
And in this case, you could find it increasingly difficult to actually BUY a cheap 3D printer as all the makers get sued for patent infringement or end up caving and paying licensing fees that dramatically increase the cost.
All it takes is copies of prior inventors work & videos that show someone else showed the idea first & filed with the patent office and then any later patent application/s are deemed unpatentable.
Been that way forever.
...the gotcha is the "filed with the patent office" bit. Has anyone done this? Also, it's easy to add a few extra words to a patent application to say "...but not like that prior art; this one has X as well!"
http://hackaday.com/2012/04/23...
This has been published April 2012, the provisional patent is from October 2012, so Makerbot wasted some time and money, by the look of it.
Depends; these days, you have to actually submit prior art evidence to the USPTO and someone there has to agree that it's prior art. Otherwise, the patent stands.
So even though "we" know there's prior art... has anyone submitted this to the USPTO?
>If there is a creator of the universe, why wouldn't he/she/it listen to you?
Because a creator of universes would be very unlikely to take an interest in some animals on one planet in one universe. It takes a massive ego to expect that a god would give a damn about you.
I'd expect them to continue to make universes, not be a petty god that monitors the details of tiny lives like the absurd gods of man's imagination.
For someone who appears to not be a theirst, you seem to have a very specific view of what sort of being created the universe. Pretty much every depiction of a god or gods in Human history paints said God as being somewhat petty by human interpretation. If you accept the premise of an intelligent being creating our universe, you should be able to accept that such a being may actually pay attention to the details of what happened next, if you accept that said being is capable of such awareness and didn't just create the universe as an accident in passing.
I fail to see how your response negates my statement. Even with IR filters, visible spectrum cameras can be overloaded with thermal energy. The main thing that gets overloaded is the focus logic that most visible spectrum cameras use, but the sensors themselves get too strong a signal for the filter to fully block, and that overloads the CCDs across the board, so that the signal to noise ratio is too near the floor.
Dedicated thermal sensors as you say are far into the IR spectrum, and can be overloaded by the same IR burst, as IR tends to be noisy and travel across the waveform spectrum instead of being stable at a single frequency.
If you've got a few cameras (thermal and visual) around, you can test this with an IR laser -- point it at each device while it's on, and check the result -- it will likely be a big white spot in the image.
I caneven do this with my IR-based remote for my digital cameras -- it's not strong enough to really mess with the image, but it is strong enough to register as a white dot on most digital cameras when aimed directly at the lens.
You were part way there... driver was a traffic cop, and the car death was a setup framed by evil villain X who traffic cop had given one too many tickets. When driver gets out, they find they're the only person who still knows how to drive, and the autonomous cars no longer listen to humans' instructions. The local government asks said ex-con to override a car and drive into navigation HQ to take out the mystery man/AI controlling the car network -- of course it's actually being managed by evil villain X.
Let's call the movie "Demolition Derby"
When the normal speed of traffic is above the posted speed limit, self-driving cars will drive the speed limit as legally required but will cruise in the right lane as legally required when driving below the normal speed of traffic.
So what happens when the right lane is an unmarked or badly marked exit lane?
Personally, I think most of the collision avoidance stuff has been worked out now. It's the road navigation quirks that I'm more concerned with, as it seems it'd be pretty easy to force one of these off the road or into an exit lane. Just look at some of the mistakes professional GPS systems make; a car depending solely on these and immediate visual navigation are going to have a pretty hard time navigating complex shifting laneways and new routes.
For that matter, computers have a reliable scheduler, so they can safely text and drive. I can let my car post status updates for me automatically without having to touch a screen....
Even if you jammed the LIDAR, visual (or thermal) cameras could detect the cars moving. It's non-car objects like children or tree branches that are more difficult.
I'd think thermal jamming would be the first thing someone would attempt -- it'll block both the thermal and visual cameras, as visual cameras always go a bit into the thermal spectrum and can be overloaded.
LIDAR would actually be trickier, as you'd have to know exactly what range you were supposed to be jamming. You'd have to use a spread-spectrum scanner these days to even begin to figure that out.
Personally, I think using a spread-spectrum scanner to plot the location of foreign objects would be an excellent first-level monitoring system on these cars. Fall back to LIDAR, and from there to visual/thermal. Or use all of the above for a composite image.
Theoretically, you are correct.
In practice, "people" as a whole are mostly streaming the same videos -- it's the herd mentality. So if Google peers directly to the data provider, the data crosses the switch once, and then gan be cached locally to serve the streamers.
When done correctly, streaming raraely causes a bottleneck. The problem between Comcast and L3 is that Comcast's peering switches haven't been upgraded in a decade or so, so ANY meaningful amount of traffic traversing these switches will cause a bottleneck. Streaming, torrenting, playing online games, downloading every linux distro known to man, etc. How Comcast gets around this is that they have other "special" peering agreements with the most common providers of high bandwidth material. So SOME streaming movies, games, etc. will now be zippy on their network, but the stuff going through L3 will still be bottlenecked.
And yes, they have to do continual upgrades to the peering equipment and not just to the last mile -- but this is what the customer subscription increases are already going towards, isn't it? The peering switches just need ONE upgrade for all the subscribers in the area; the costs to keeping these pipes as current as their other "special" ones are pretty minimal, and are part of the costs of doing business. But Comcast has decided they can charge their peers, their peers' customers, AND their customers for the same thing. Makes me wonder where the money is actually going, as it doesn't appear to be going into infrastructure.
Conversely, Google is writing down the infrastructure costs as basic costs to absorb in order to grow their market -- advertising and data metrics. They see that every time they invest in improving the infrastructure, they end up taking in more money.
So maybe the problem is with Comcast's business model? They have the money coming in based on the size of their target market; maybe they're trying to get around the saturated market segment they're stuck with by marketing their customers as a service.... Wal Mart style.