If they start copying the visual aspects too closely, they are in danger of infringing on MS's copyrights on the look and feel. If not truely infringing, they may get close enough to get tied up in lawsuits for... forever.
Then again, it doesn't look like they're big enough to be on MS's radar.
Jesus Christ! You have no idea what Internet2 is, do you?
Internet2 is a bunch of universities who go together to negotiate a bunch of bandwidth from a single Telco (Level 3, used to be Quest) for a low price. Otherwise, a university wouldn't be able to afford a dedicated 10Gbps line.
It is then used to research network technologies and to carry experimental data. Sometimes it's used for distance education classes in high-def. Most often, it sits unused and is a penis-measurement between universities (although that will hopefully change significantly when the LHC experiments come online)
There's nothing to commercialize, unless you are thinking about raw datastreams from particle detectors or improved TCP tuning algorithms like FAST.
In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.
Thompson also sued the state bar in April 2006. After a few press releases, he dropped the suit in May 2006. For the most part this is how his cases go. There are a few big releases about "SUEING TAKE-TWO FOR $234 million," then the case is dropped within a month or two.
Also of note is that he did a similar campaign against Janet Reno. Yes, that Janet Reno. From wikipedia:
Thompson gave Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Thompson said that Reno then put her hand on his shoulder and responded, "I'm only interested in virile men. That's why I'm not attracted to you." He filed a police report accusing her of battery for touching him.
Even more:
In 1990, after his election loss, Thompson began a campaign against the efforts of Switchboard of Miami, a social services group of which Reno was a board member. Thompson charged that the group placed "homosexual-education tapes" in public schools. Switchboard responded by getting the Florida Supreme Court to order that he submit to a psychiatric examination. Thompson did so and passed, and since then has stated on more than one occasion that he is "the only officially certified sane lawyer in the entire state of Florida."
Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.
The trick is to invest in the one-trick pony *before* it becomes a one-trick pony, and sell after everyone else has seen the trick. If you can do that, then it's a much better investment than the trusty horse.
Just like the housing market. The time to dump your real estate investments was last year when everyone figured out "OMG, WE CAN MAKE EASY MONEY FLIPPING HOUSES."
My point is that Microsoft and Apple are two entirely different investments.
Walk to the subway station, and there are about 5 vendors who will happily sell you pirated version of any music CD, most DVDs, and almost any software for $5.
While there are plenty of people who download software in the US, you'll have a hard time finding that sort of rampant piracy in the US.
In fact, in Russia, I only remember one store where I could buy non-pirated CDs. The piracy isn't even the same order of magnitude.
Come on, looking at the net income over the last 5 years is about as fair as looking at just the 4th quarter (Holiday season probably accounts for 1/2 of Apple's sales).
Notice that in 2001, we are talking pre-explosion of the iPod. The net income for Apple was -$37m. Last year's net income for Apple was $1989m. Look at the last couple years of income:
If you were an investor, who do you put your money in? The company whose income increased about 20% / yr over the last 5 years, or the company whose income has been more than doubling for the last four years? It's two completely different kinds of investment: stable, mature company or hot, rising star?
(Yes, I have run roughshed over some of the math, but that's the general idea.)
Slashdot censors their news by tagging some stories with the "gaming" tag and placing them under a different subdomain
FALSE!
Governments censor, private entities can do what they want. The first amendment does not give you the right to talk on Slashdot; it guarantees that the government can't prevent you from posting on Slashdot. Slashdot can, of course, block your inane comments anytime it wants to.
Labeling or sorting content so parents can more easily control what content their children have access to is not censorship
Oh sure - separate content is equal. While we're at it, let's start sorting kids into different schools so I can control which races my kids are accessing.
A government-mandated separation of pornography and other forms of speech has the same sort of legal bearings as government-mandated separation of races in schools.
COMPUTER SCIENCE IS NOT PROGRAMMING. COMPUTER SCIENCE IS NOT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.
I fully believe you can have a PhD in computer science and not understand a damn thing about how to program. Think of math; you can't get a PhD in math if you're *just* really good at trig., even if that's the most applicable part of the subject.
You can be a great programmer, and a failure at computer science. A computer scientist also makes for a really lousy programmer in most cases.
So yes, I can run circles around most folks algorithmically in my department without being able to tell you a damn thing about transistors. That's simply not part of my program of studies.
I know tenured professors who probably haven't written a program outside pseudocode in 10 years, and they are happy for that. Why? Because there are huge, wide swaths of the subject that has nothing to do with programming.
Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.
For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.
So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.
It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.
I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?
I knew the guy who ran the tech side of BestBuy.com, and you're not that far off.
BestBuy.com is a completely separate entity within BestBuy. The two can barely talk to each other; there is the BestBuy.com computer system and internal BestBuy computer system.
I've had a few times where I order a part for in-store pickup and immediately head to the store. The stores have no idea what's coming until the.com system makes the order to the store system. This is not a 2 second DB transaction either; I've had to wait around for an hour or two just for the electronic order to make it over.
BestBuy.com has different prices and specials as the store. I'm not that surprised the same item might have a BB.com price and intranet price. I fully believe that there are two IT teams - one for the website, one for the store's intranet web site - who don't use a common database.
A recent survey found that a minuscule number of consumers would pay $500 for a 4 GB iPhone.
Gee, was this the highly scientific survey that was a web-quiz on someone's webpage that only about 1400 people answered? The one whose conclusions (besides being invalid due to a piss-poor sampling of the population) were based on fifth-grade statistics?
If these are the same methods that concluded that Linux is the most desired missing feature on Dell desktops, I'm not going to hold my breath for any conclusions based on that survey.
Yes, it'd be great if we could accelerate particles like this for the "next next big thing" after the ILC. Unfortunately, the energy levels using these and other exotic techniques are not yet all that high.
Notice that the electrons are spun at SLAC for about 2 miles up to 43 GeV, then this technique about doubles the energy to 85 GeV in 33 inches.
However, they still need to show that this can be done again and again; the ILC will be in the range of 500-1000 GeV. I only work with particle physicists (mathematician at heart), but I understand going from 85 -> 1000 GeV using this tech might be revolutionary, rather than the evolutionary
Planning a large-scale evolutionary experiment is much easier than planning a large-scale revolutionary experiment. Like most things, they need to show this scales a couple factors more before they can build a multi-billion dollar accelerator. The ILC and LHC are, after all, very clever evolutions of previous successful smaller experiments.
Still, the great thing about science is surprises do happen. I think it's unlikely that the "next next" accelator will be plasma based but Damn - that'd be cool.
No, the content is not plain text. I guess you could turn off the data encryption... but why?
I seriously have been told by the FNAL folks that they consider SSH less secure, as it is much more complicated. They also don't trust it, as some of the auth protocols have been rewritten several times because of security-related "oversights".
Anyhow, my original point is that just because the original poster doesn't know how to use telnet securely doesn't mean there aren't large, secure sites which rely on telnet on a day-to-day basis. They would be very interested in examining the impact of this exploit.
That'll account for a couple thousand computers. It's left as an exercise for the reader to find other sites.
Are they just crazy? I know that almost every single box at FNAL has the telnet daemon running, and is behind no firewall. Why aren't they hacked-to-death? Kerberos.
FNAL has a policy that every service beyond central IT's web pages is protected by Kerberos. The Kerberos-enabled version of telnet is as secure as one can get; I've been told by their sysadmins that it is more secure than SSH because it is simpler and the network and authz/authn stacks are separated. So, historically, Kerberos-enabled telnet has had less bugs than SSH.
Just because YOU don't run telnet (or don't know how to run it securely) doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of boxes out there that are secured by it.
If there are actually any Sun boxes at FNAL (they were one of the original big adopters of Linux), you can bet they'll probably be turned off today...
Wait, the guy who has been hired by Adobe to be the tech evangelist for Flex doesn't like Java? (Click on his profile in the article)
What's this you say, he is writing an article which bashes Java for writing web applets and uses a series of questionable logic approaches to advocate Flex for web applets?
Sheesh, if I was writing the summary for this article, it would have been "Java's Greatest Missed Opportunity WAS NOT BEING THIS AWESOME PRODUCT CALLED FLEX WHICH ADOBE MAKES! BUY FLEX!"
Congratulations all of you who are arguing about the merits of Java - you've been astroturfed!
Having a "discrete derivative-like operator" was just an example of what one might do along these lines.
They're not the only people to do this sort of research. I remember a (Los Alamos, I think) physics research team doing a similar thing with some of Einstein's equations. By taking a different approach, they got some of the conserved quantities to stay conserved in solutions.
Not all approximations to the derivative are created equal. In fact, for smooth functions, the finite difference method is a poor solution, as its error is going to be O(h^2), where h is the step size. So, if you discretize the problem with the traditional central differnce, set it up as a matrix problem and solve the matrix with *no error at all* (and there will be error, as you're doing numerics on a computer), your solution is going to have O(h^2) error.
On the other hand, if you approximate the derivative using sinc methods, the error is O(2^h). This means that your numerical solution is going to be a much better approximation to the true solution.
Moral of the story? Even though, in the limit as h -> 0, or as your discrete geometry approaches a continuous one, how you get there is going to make a huge difference in what your solution is going to be.
No, it has nothing to do with the finite element/difference methods at all.
In fact, it's a fundamentally different approach from both of those methods. Finite element/difference means that you think of the problem as a continuous, smooth manifold. Then, you break the manifold into chunks (discretize) it, and you apply the "natural laws" like they would work on a smooth surface to the discretized approximation. The idea is that, the smaller the chunks, the errors becomes too small to notice.
However, in some cases the discretization process causes quantities (like total energy of the system) to not be conserved. The little errors add up to a lot. In fluid dynamics, non-conserved quantities cause solutions to the systems that just look wrong to the casual observer.
This team's approach is fundamentally different. Instead of discretizing a continuous problem involving a smooth manifold and continuous operators, they think of the problem as discrete to begin with and define operators on the discrete geometry. They don't say "apply the derivative to an approximation of a smooth surface", they say "apply this discrete derivative-like operator to this discrete surface". It turns out that if you define your discrete operators correctly, you can focus on conserving quantities (such as total system energy) that the normal approximation to the derivative won't.
It offers no speedup in computation time, and probably has no parallelization opportunities beyond those normally there in fluid dynamics. However, it *does* produce better-looking solutions as all of the conservation laws are met.
They were selling decent 8' HDMI cables for $19.95. Not bad considering Radio Shack and Best Buy and Circuit City and ALL of them don't carry any for less than $60.
What do you mean, decent HDMI cables? They're a digital cable, there's no data loss until the cable degrades enough that all the data is lost. That's what error-correcting codes are for.
That's what I hate most about cord manufacturers. The cost of a DVI cable seems to have gone UP because they now can be used for TVs. The worst, lowest quality cord carrying a digital signal, after error-correction will produce, bit for bit, the same video signal as the highest-quality cord. Either that, or it won't connect at all.
Unlike analog cords consumers are used to, there is no low, middle, and high quality. There is either working or not-working.
And, if that wasn't true, we'd all be using a gold-plated Monster cable for our RAID boxes.
I was screaming that it was a fabrication last time it was on Slashdot, but that didn't stop twice as many people from posting that I was completely wrong.
It only takes a bit of blood to turn it into a free-speech orgy, even if the law was well-within the limits of free speech as the Supreme Court has put into place.
Just for reference, political statements (i.e., burning the flag, ranting on your blog) are heavily shielded by the First Amendment. Political statements paid for by a campaign to get someone elected are NOT heavily shielded by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld that fact again and again.
Here's a list of very good/better alternatives:
Zope - What Rails want's to be when it grows up. Ancient but still ahead of anything else with classic persistance. (www.zope.org)
I program in python day in and day out. That said, Python can be a miserable choice for a large-scale framework. Why? It has a Global Interpreter Lock, meaning the interpreter can run on at most one processor at a time.
So, the nice new multiprocessor server you bought will have similar performance to the one-processor server you replaced it with. The "python way of doing it" is achieving multi-processing in multiple processes, not threads.
Unfortunately, precisely zero of the new-fangled Python web frameworks use multiple processes. You can hack something together, but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of using a framework? Zope does something like that with ZEO, but Zope has other problems.
The lack of a thread-safe Python interpreter is something you want to watch out for.
The difference here is that the article referenced basically cuts out an important adjective: "paid". The bill wants to address PAID political bloggers, not someone stating their own opinion.
Traditional media stating their opinion is called Journalistic Opinion pieces. Some guy on the internet stating their opinion to lots of people is called a blogger.
Traditional media *being paid by campaigns to say what the campaign wants* does NOT produce Journalistic Opinions. Anyone being paid for an opinion piece about a campaign must register.
To apply the exact same point you made, but with the correct assumptions, what makes the paid political blogger so special that he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as print media?
So if I use ads and merchandise to support my site and try to make something of a living off of my writing I have to register as a lobbyist?
No, if you get paid by a political campaign to influence a large number of people, you have to register as a lobbyist. However, the people writing the article see this as a bad thing. To me, it smells like they don't want *their* employeers revealed.
Grassroots organizations that are paid for by the GOP / Dems just look pathetic. On the other hand, a witty anonymous blogger paid for by the GOP / Dems can present themselves as credible and balanced; in the scheme of campaigns, this is not legal.
And yes, courts have held up campaign laws as reasonable limits on free speech over and over again. Are you really saying "being paid to write and distributing a pamphlet" is so fundamentally different from "being paid to write and distribute a pamp^H^H^H^H BLOG! ON THE INTERNET!" that it should abide by a second set of laws?
To put things in perspective, Slashdoters often complain there's fundamentally no difference in "doing X" and "doing X ON THE INTERNET!" so they shouldn't be patentable. Why did we suddenly decide "being a lobbyist" and "being a lobbyist ON THE INTERNET!" are so fundamentally different?
What kind of sick language designer writes an interpreter in Java to demonstrate something related to High Performance computing ?
Actually, it's not that bad of an idea. For example, if you are writing in C, you might be tempted to write a matrix-vector multiply as nested for-loops; you should write it as a library call, as LAPACK will always be faster than your code.
On the other hand, if you write in an interpreted language linked to a fast library, the cost of the library call is always O(1) while the numeric operation takes a lot more. If it takes LAPACK 4 seconds to do an operation with a 4000x4000 matrix, who cares if the library call took.000001s in an interpreted language instead of.0000001s in C?
So - just like anything else - as long as you use the tools correctly, they will behave as desired.
I think you didn't get the gist of the article (or simply didn't read it). The author is not arguing for income equality, but the necessity of social mobility.
When social mobility - or even the appearance of social mobility - disappears from a society, people will go outside the boundaries to make it happen. And, by social mobility, I mean something people feel that they can control, not luck (i.e., it's important to feel that if they are a genius who works hard, they can make money).
In Brazil, if you are born in a slum, you die in a slum. There's no equivalent of the "American Dream", telling folks that hard work will get you far in life (debate for yourselves whether or not this is true in America). If you work hard in a favela, you won't die as quickly in the favela. You will never get out.
That sort of thinking/belief is what drives people to consider options outside the boundaries of law.
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
The question here is who does the burden of proof fall under? Does the government have to show, for every game they want to block, there is *no* serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value anywhere in the game for minors? That covers large swaths of human existence (Art is particularly broad; I'd argue that Bully can be argued as an artistic portrayal of childhood, given expensive enough lawyers) Or does the publisher have to prove that there is *serious* value in one of these categories?
Read one way, and it means that the government would have to do serious work in order to block even a single game. Read another way, it would mean that the game publishers would have to go through a lot of work to publish any game.
Hopefully it is the latter (burden of proof on the publishers). I'm no lawyer, but I think there's plenty of precedent showing that the burden of proof must lay on the government in the restriction of the First Amendment. That would mean this law would get thrown out all the quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, internally they're fine.
... forever.
If they start copying the visual aspects too closely, they are in danger of infringing on MS's copyrights on the look and feel. If not truely infringing, they may get close enough to get tied up in lawsuits for
Then again, it doesn't look like they're big enough to be on MS's radar.
Jesus Christ! You have no idea what Internet2 is, do you?
Internet2 is a bunch of universities who go together to negotiate a bunch of bandwidth from a single Telco (Level 3, used to be Quest) for a low price. Otherwise, a university wouldn't be able to afford a dedicated 10Gbps line.
It is then used to research network technologies and to carry experimental data. Sometimes it's used for distance education classes in high-def. Most often, it sits unused and is a penis-measurement between universities (although that will hopefully change significantly when the LHC experiments come online)
There's nothing to commercialize, unless you are thinking about raw datastreams from particle detectors or improved TCP tuning algorithms like FAST.
Thompson also sued the state bar in April 2006. After a few press releases, he dropped the suit in May 2006. For the most part this is how his cases go. There are a few big releases about "SUEING TAKE-TWO FOR $234 million," then the case is dropped within a month or two.
Also of note is that he did a similar campaign against Janet Reno. Yes, that Janet Reno. From wikipedia: Even more: Yup - his antics are so ridiculous that they made him take a sanity test.
The trick is to invest in the one-trick pony *before* it becomes a one-trick pony, and sell after everyone else has seen the trick. If you can do that, then it's a much better investment than the trusty horse.
Just like the housing market. The time to dump your real estate investments was last year when everyone figured out "OMG, WE CAN MAKE EASY MONEY FLIPPING HOUSES."
My point is that Microsoft and Apple are two entirely different investments.
Uh... you've never been to Russia, have you?
Walk to the subway station, and there are about 5 vendors who will happily sell you pirated version of any music CD, most DVDs, and almost any software for $5.
While there are plenty of people who download software in the US, you'll have a hard time finding that sort of rampant piracy in the US.
In fact, in Russia, I only remember one store where I could buy non-pirated CDs. The piracy isn't even the same order of magnitude.
Come on, looking at the net income over the last 5 years is about as fair as looking at just the 4th quarter (Holiday season probably accounts for 1/2 of Apple's sales).
Notice that in 2001, we are talking pre-explosion of the iPod. The net income for Apple was -$37m. Last year's net income for Apple was $1989m. Look at the last couple years of income:
(FY2006) 1,989.00, 1,328.00, 266.00, 69.00, 65.00, (FY2001) -25.00
After the explosion of the iPod (FY2003), we have roughly exponential growth
The net income for Microsoft was $7346m in 2001 and $12599m in 2006. Here's the last couple years of income:
(FY2006) 12,599.00, 12,254.00, 8,168.00, 7,531.00, 5,355.00, (FY2001) 7,346.00
Slow, but steady growth.
If you were an investor, who do you put your money in? The company whose income increased about 20% / yr over the last 5 years, or the company whose income has been more than doubling for the last four years? It's two completely different kinds of investment: stable, mature company or hot, rising star?
(Yes, I have run roughshed over some of the math, but that's the general idea.)
FALSE!
Governments censor, private entities can do what they want. The first amendment does not give you the right to talk on Slashdot; it guarantees that the government can't prevent you from posting on Slashdot. Slashdot can, of course, block your inane comments anytime it wants to.
Oh sure - separate content is equal. While we're at it, let's start sorting kids into different schools so I can control which races my kids are accessing.
A government-mandated separation of pornography and other forms of speech has the same sort of legal bearings as government-mandated separation of races in schools.
Repeat after me:
COMPUTER SCIENCE IS NOT PROGRAMMING. COMPUTER SCIENCE IS NOT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.
I fully believe you can have a PhD in computer science and not understand a damn thing about how to program. Think of math; you can't get a PhD in math if you're *just* really good at trig., even if that's the most applicable part of the subject.
You can be a great programmer, and a failure at computer science. A computer scientist also makes for a really lousy programmer in most cases.
So yes, I can run circles around most folks algorithmically in my department without being able to tell you a damn thing about transistors. That's simply not part of my program of studies.
I know tenured professors who probably haven't written a program outside pseudocode in 10 years, and they are happy for that. Why? Because there are huge, wide swaths of the subject that has nothing to do with programming.
CS = Science, with a strong applied component.
Sometimes I think states depend too heavily on the federal government loan shark.
For example, take Colorado. Their land-grant institution, CSU, is supposed to be the premier state-run school. However, only about 8% of the budget is provided for by the state. The rest of it is mostly provided by student loans (in turn, provided by the government) and federal government grants.
So, if Colorado ever wanted to exert a state right over a federal right, Congress can easily cut education funding for the state and watch the state universities collapse.
It's sad that states are so dependent on the teat of Uncle Sam. Of course, if they wanted to provide the services through the state, the resulting state tax increase (followed by no federal tax increase) would insure the whole government got voted out.
I wonder if the founding fathers would be saddened by how state governments basically only have the rights and duties the federal government doesn't care to control. Look how easily ID systems just went from state control to federal control - barely any fighting that Joe Q Public even noticed! What state right is next?
I knew the guy who ran the tech side of BestBuy.com, and you're not that far off. BestBuy.com is a completely separate entity within BestBuy. The two can barely talk to each other; there is the BestBuy.com computer system and internal BestBuy computer system. I've had a few times where I order a part for in-store pickup and immediately head to the store. The stores have no idea what's coming until the .com system makes the order to the store system. This is not a 2 second DB transaction either; I've had to wait around for an hour or two just for the electronic order to make it over.
BestBuy.com has different prices and specials as the store. I'm not that surprised the same item might have a BB.com price and intranet price. I fully believe that there are two IT teams - one for the website, one for the store's intranet web site - who don't use a common database.
Gee, was this the highly scientific survey that was a web-quiz on someone's webpage that only about 1400 people answered? The one whose conclusions (besides being invalid due to a piss-poor sampling of the population) were based on fifth-grade statistics?
If these are the same methods that concluded that Linux is the most desired missing feature on Dell desktops, I'm not going to hold my breath for any conclusions based on that survey.
Yes, it'd be great if we could accelerate particles like this for the "next next big thing" after the ILC. Unfortunately, the energy levels using these and other exotic techniques are not yet all that high.
Notice that the electrons are spun at SLAC for about 2 miles up to 43 GeV, then this technique about doubles the energy to 85 GeV in 33 inches.
However, they still need to show that this can be done again and again; the ILC will be in the range of 500-1000 GeV. I only work with particle physicists (mathematician at heart), but I understand going from 85 -> 1000 GeV using this tech might be revolutionary, rather than the evolutionary
Planning a large-scale evolutionary experiment is much easier than planning a large-scale revolutionary experiment. Like most things, they need to show this scales a couple factors more before they can build a multi-billion dollar accelerator. The ILC and LHC are, after all, very clever evolutions of previous successful smaller experiments.
Still, the great thing about science is surprises do happen. I think it's unlikely that the "next next" accelator will be plasma based but Damn - that'd be cool.
No, the content is not plain text. I guess you could turn off the data encryption... but why?
I seriously have been told by the FNAL folks that they consider SSH less secure, as it is much more complicated. They also don't trust it, as some of the auth protocols have been rewritten several times because of security-related "oversights".
Anyhow, my original point is that just because the original poster doesn't know how to use telnet securely doesn't mean there aren't large, secure sites which rely on telnet on a day-to-day basis. They would be very interested in examining the impact of this exploit.
Let me take a crack at this:
1) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
That'll account for a couple thousand computers. It's left as an exercise for the reader to find other sites.
Are they just crazy? I know that almost every single box at FNAL has the telnet daemon running, and is behind no firewall. Why aren't they hacked-to-death? Kerberos.
FNAL has a policy that every service beyond central IT's web pages is protected by Kerberos. The Kerberos-enabled version of telnet is as secure as one can get; I've been told by their sysadmins that it is more secure than SSH because it is simpler and the network and authz/authn stacks are separated. So, historically, Kerberos-enabled telnet has had less bugs than SSH.
Just because YOU don't run telnet (or don't know how to run it securely) doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of boxes out there that are secured by it.
If there are actually any Sun boxes at FNAL (they were one of the original big adopters of Linux), you can bet they'll probably be turned off today...
Wait, the guy who has been hired by Adobe to be the tech evangelist for Flex doesn't like Java? (Click on his profile in the article)
What's this you say, he is writing an article which bashes Java for writing web applets and uses a series of questionable logic approaches to advocate Flex for web applets?
Sheesh, if I was writing the summary for this article, it would have been "Java's Greatest Missed Opportunity WAS NOT BEING THIS AWESOME PRODUCT CALLED FLEX WHICH ADOBE MAKES! BUY FLEX!"
Congratulations all of you who are arguing about the merits of Java - you've been astroturfed!
Having a "discrete derivative-like operator" was just an example of what one might do along these lines.
They're not the only people to do this sort of research. I remember a (Los Alamos, I think) physics research team doing a similar thing with some of Einstein's equations. By taking a different approach, they got some of the conserved quantities to stay conserved in solutions.
Not all approximations to the derivative are created equal. In fact, for smooth functions, the finite difference method is a poor solution, as its error is going to be O(h^2), where h is the step size. So, if you discretize the problem with the traditional central differnce, set it up as a matrix problem and solve the matrix with *no error at all* (and there will be error, as you're doing numerics on a computer), your solution is going to have O(h^2) error.
On the other hand, if you approximate the derivative using sinc methods, the error is O(2^h). This means that your numerical solution is going to be a much better approximation to the true solution.
Moral of the story? Even though, in the limit as h -> 0, or as your discrete geometry approaches a continuous one, how you get there is going to make a huge difference in what your solution is going to be.
No, it has nothing to do with the finite element/difference methods at all.
In fact, it's a fundamentally different approach from both of those methods. Finite element/difference means that you think of the problem as a continuous, smooth manifold. Then, you break the manifold into chunks (discretize) it, and you apply the "natural laws" like they would work on a smooth surface to the discretized approximation. The idea is that, the smaller the chunks, the errors becomes too small to notice.
However, in some cases the discretization process causes quantities (like total energy of the system) to not be conserved. The little errors add up to a lot. In fluid dynamics, non-conserved quantities cause solutions to the systems that just look wrong to the casual observer.
This team's approach is fundamentally different. Instead of discretizing a continuous problem involving a smooth manifold and continuous operators, they think of the problem as discrete to begin with and define operators on the discrete geometry. They don't say "apply the derivative to an approximation of a smooth surface", they say "apply this discrete derivative-like operator to this discrete surface". It turns out that if you define your discrete operators correctly, you can focus on conserving quantities (such as total system energy) that the normal approximation to the derivative won't.
It offers no speedup in computation time, and probably has no parallelization opportunities beyond those normally there in fluid dynamics. However, it *does* produce better-looking solutions as all of the conservation laws are met.
Very interesting research.
What do you mean, decent HDMI cables? They're a digital cable, there's no data loss until the cable degrades enough that all the data is lost. That's what error-correcting codes are for.
That's what I hate most about cord manufacturers. The cost of a DVI cable seems to have gone UP because they now can be used for TVs. The worst, lowest quality cord carrying a digital signal, after error-correction will produce, bit for bit, the same video signal as the highest-quality cord. Either that, or it won't connect at all.
Unlike analog cords consumers are used to, there is no low, middle, and high quality. There is either working or not-working.
And, if that wasn't true, we'd all be using a gold-plated Monster cable for our RAID boxes.
I was screaming that it was a fabrication last time it was on Slashdot, but that didn't stop twice as many people from posting that I was completely wrong.
It only takes a bit of blood to turn it into a free-speech orgy, even if the law was well-within the limits of free speech as the Supreme Court has put into place.
Just for reference, political statements (i.e., burning the flag, ranting on your blog) are heavily shielded by the First Amendment. Political statements paid for by a campaign to get someone elected are NOT heavily shielded by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld that fact again and again.
I program in python day in and day out. That said, Python can be a miserable choice for a large-scale framework. Why? It has a Global Interpreter Lock, meaning the interpreter can run on at most one processor at a time.
So, the nice new multiprocessor server you bought will have similar performance to the one-processor server you replaced it with. The "python way of doing it" is achieving multi-processing in multiple processes, not threads.
Unfortunately, precisely zero of the new-fangled Python web frameworks use multiple processes. You can hack something together, but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of using a framework? Zope does something like that with ZEO, but Zope has other problems.
The lack of a thread-safe Python interpreter is something you want to watch out for.
The difference here is that the article referenced basically cuts out an important adjective: "paid". The bill wants to address PAID political bloggers, not someone stating their own opinion.
Traditional media stating their opinion is called Journalistic Opinion pieces. Some guy on the internet stating their opinion to lots of people is called a blogger.
Traditional media *being paid by campaigns to say what the campaign wants* does NOT produce Journalistic Opinions. Anyone being paid for an opinion piece about a campaign must register.
To apply the exact same point you made, but with the correct assumptions, what makes the paid political blogger so special that he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as print media?
No, if you get paid by a political campaign to influence a large number of people, you have to register as a lobbyist. However, the people writing the article see this as a bad thing. To me, it smells like they don't want *their* employeers revealed.
Grassroots organizations that are paid for by the GOP / Dems just look pathetic. On the other hand, a witty anonymous blogger paid for by the GOP / Dems can present themselves as credible and balanced; in the scheme of campaigns, this is not legal.
And yes, courts have held up campaign laws as reasonable limits on free speech over and over again. Are you really saying "being paid to write and distributing a pamphlet" is so fundamentally different from "being paid to write and distribute a pamp^H^H^H^H BLOG! ON THE INTERNET!" that it should abide by a second set of laws?
To put things in perspective, Slashdoters often complain there's fundamentally no difference in "doing X" and "doing X ON THE INTERNET!" so they shouldn't be patentable. Why did we suddenly decide "being a lobbyist" and "being a lobbyist ON THE INTERNET!" are so fundamentally different?
Actually, it's not that bad of an idea. For example, if you are writing in C, you might be tempted to write a matrix-vector multiply as nested for-loops; you should write it as a library call, as LAPACK will always be faster than your code.
On the other hand, if you write in an interpreted language linked to a fast library, the cost of the library call is always O(1) while the numeric operation takes a lot more. If it takes LAPACK 4 seconds to do an operation with a 4000x4000 matrix, who cares if the library call took
So - just like anything else - as long as you use the tools correctly, they will behave as desired.
I think you didn't get the gist of the article (or simply didn't read it). The author is not arguing for income equality, but the necessity of social mobility.
When social mobility - or even the appearance of social mobility - disappears from a society, people will go outside the boundaries to make it happen. And, by social mobility, I mean something people feel that they can control, not luck (i.e., it's important to feel that if they are a genius who works hard, they can make money).
In Brazil, if you are born in a slum, you die in a slum. There's no equivalent of the "American Dream", telling folks that hard work will get you far in life (debate for yourselves whether or not this is true in America). If you work hard in a favela, you won't die as quickly in the favela. You will never get out.
That sort of thinking/belief is what drives people to consider options outside the boundaries of law.
The question here is who does the burden of proof fall under? Does the government have to show, for every game they want to block, there is *no* serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value anywhere in the game for minors? That covers large swaths of human existence (Art is particularly broad; I'd argue that Bully can be argued as an artistic portrayal of childhood, given expensive enough lawyers) Or does the publisher have to prove that there is *serious* value in one of these categories?
Read one way, and it means that the government would have to do serious work in order to block even a single game. Read another way, it would mean that the game publishers would have to go through a lot of work to publish any game.
Hopefully it is the latter (burden of proof on the publishers). I'm no lawyer, but I think there's plenty of precedent showing that the burden of proof must lay on the government in the restriction of the First Amendment. That would mean this law would get thrown out all the quicker.