Sony may be into proprietary designs, but Sony is also the master of cheap high quality consumer electronics. Right now, Sony is heading in the direction of wearable computers and web server in your toaster style technologies, but from the bottom up, which I think is the right way to go. It's along the line of instead of trying to shrink your computer down until it fits on your belt, they're trying to make your pager do more, until it's as powerful as a computer.
After reading a story about Sony a few months back in Wired, I'd now say that my dream job would be working at JPL, MIT Media Lab, or Sony. I'd like to live in the future, and Sony appears to be at least 2 or 3 years ahead of what can actually be bought in a store.
Re:And the prizes for weirdest number of processor
on
Top 500 Supercomputers
·
· Score: 2
94 IBM MHPCC 243 - fastest computer with a number of processors in no way related to common powers of 2
hmm, 243 is 3^5. I wonder what strange architecture dictated that number.
Machine translation isn't there yet. Babelfish at least starts with what you want in the first language. Imagine feeding the output from a 95% accurate speech recognition system though babelfish. You'd come out with gibberish.
I'd prefer a system that assists me with speaking a second language. Something where I can be talking to someone, forget a word, hit a button on the Language eCoach(tm), say "you're welcome, in japanese" and hear "dou itashimashite" in a earphone. Or, someone says something I don't understand, so I repeat it to the translator and it gives me the english.
With such a device, it would be possible to have a conversation in a foreign language after about 80 hours of instruction, because you don't have to memorize heavy vocabulary. It would also make the learning itself easier, because you don't have to waste time looking stuff up in the dictionary.
If the translation was imperfect, it wouldn't matter so much. Maybe it'd give me different options, like if I say "bank, in german", it would say "with money, Bank, with river, Strand", and give the user the option of saying whatever is right. Babelfish translates "I went down to the bank" as "Ich ging unten zur Bank", which may or may not be what I meant.
I'm able to check the information for my 401k online. I personally wouldn't think it the end of the world if my financial information got disclosed, but I know some people would. They require 128-bit ssl to login to an account, which I initially thought really funny, because your password has to be 5 numeric digits.
Now, if were cracking against/etc/password, I could probably break passwords of that form before my web browser is even finished loading, but it doesn't matter, because I'm not cracking against/etc/password. The only way I can test a password is by attempting to connect to the server. Assuming 15 seconds to test a password, since their server is fairly slow, that's 15 1/2 days for someone who knows my social security and account number to be able to get access to my account.
Of course, it will lock me out after like 3 attempts, so even if I had two weeks to spare, I wouldn't be able to get in. In short, password strength only matters to the degree that an attacker would be able to attack the password. If the attacker can't try passwords quickly, it is definitely preferable to give the users a password they can remember rather than something that matches the formula for "secure".
I didn't see any mention in the documentation, but does anyone know whether this will compile on MacOS X server? I tried this with Samba 2.0.4 right when OS X came out, and couldn't get it to work right, but I don't know whether it was something misconfigured or due to the changes I had to make to the config file to get it to compile.
The fact is that when you say something in a public forum, it is then public.
This is what I would expect also. I don't know if anyone notice this, but here we are on slashdot, where few people can utter a sentence without promoting Open Source, but people are saying "you can't use my words without giving me a cut".
Let me see if I understand: people should write code for free and distribute it without charge, even if they could make money off it, but the media shouldn't be able to compile stories (regardless of whether they're any good) from what you post in a public forum without your permission? Is version 3 of the GPL going to include "separate permission is required if you use this code in crappy products, or products which I don't approve of"?
fluffhead said on slashdot.org "this is good news"
or
considered it "good news for Andover and Slashdot" (fluffhead on slashdot.org, 11/8/99)
would be sufficient. It's all the information needed to look up the reference, and it's also the most identifying information, since you could hypothetically be displaying a fake email address, or two slashdot users could reference the same email address.
I consider citing an electronic forum such as this similar to a "personal communication" sometimes seen in bibliographies. Being overly formal, making the citation looks like you're quoting another magazine, for example, would misrepresent the issue, because posts to slashdot are not your deeply considered, once-and-for-all opinion hte subject. For anonymous coward, I would just use "blah blah blah" said an anonymous poster to slashdot.org.
I came to the conclusion that Corel sees a method to remove Microsoft from it's near monopoly on software for non-Macs. By packaging Linux with Word Perfect, Corel can create the integrated packages that people are used to with MS Windows/MS Office. It will remove a lot of the fear the common user faces when considering a switch to Linux. What Corel gets out of it is a chance to make a lot of money, because their name may be enough to get people to bundle Linux on low cost PCs to be sold to the home user.
Given the brouhaha over the beta test requiring an NDA, I'll be curious to see the license terms. Are they going to be bundling proprietary software with the distro, or will the whole thing be open source? I wasn't able to find any information on the website.
I was really disappointed by the article. I think what is was that turned me off was the authors assumption that anyone who wants to copy a DVD is doing something illegal.
"Rendering CD/DVD drives for computers incapable of reading music CDs or DVD movies might be another way to go"
So, do I have to buy another copy of the song if I want to listen to it on my Rio?
I can't say anything coherent, because even though I'm used to this kind of stuff from corporate PR goons, I thought Wired was on the side of the reasonable and unlobotamized.
This is a good point. I use a 17" right now, and never use any app full screen. What I would like to see is a portrait display the width of a 17" monitor (and height about 150% of what normal is).
"Did you want this on the company account, Mr. Jones?"
"No, put it on my personal account."
Oh, yeah, this patent is novel. The patent office has totally forgotten that a patent is supposed to be for a general mechanism. If I patent the idea of "storing some of the users information so that they don't have to tell me everything again", can someone else come along and patent "storing the users address so they don't need to tell me again"?
I have to agree. Reading the website, it's all very nice how they can say what it's going to do, but I can write up a spec for a magic chip that breaks all encryption systems in under 25 seconds, but that doesn't mean it's going to come to pass.
I sort of like the idea of a super-language that can easily be translated into natural languages, but I don't see how machine translation into this super-language would be possible when machine translation into a simpler (natural) language isn't. The problem with machine translation isn't converting the internal representation back into a natural language, it's figuring out what the sentence means.
For example, find a rule that can be used to tranlate "at" in the following sentences:
Bob stands at the window. Bob stands at the watercooler.
In the first, it's implied that Bob is actually facing the window, but in the second, Bob probably isn't facing it. You need to actually know the real world meaning of the sentences to see the difference -- there isn't any syntactic difference at all. How is the UNL "enconverter" going to figure out the difference?
Re:Another Problem with One Time Pads...
on
The Code Book
·
· Score: 1
I would definitely agree that OTPs are too much trouble, but I disagree that Public Key Crypto allows two parties secure communication without any previous contact. You need to authenticate who you are talking to through some other means before it's secure. I can't know 100% for sure that someone hasn't broken into my mail server and modified the PGP key block at the end of Joe Blow's sig file. If someone is interfering with our communications, a third party can listen in without the knowledge of either party.
The advantage is that to start a secure channel with public key crypto, you need method to authenticate that the info you are getting is from who you think it's from, but it doesn't need to be free from eavesdroppers (e.g. I don't care if someone hears me reading my PGP key fingerprint over the telephone).
The key for where open source works and is necessary is how much based on the system. That is, when you have a high level system for doing one thing that isn't highly critical, it doesn't matter whether it is open source. It doesn't make a big difference whether a game, or a web browser, or a page layout program is highly reliable.
On the other hand, when I'm setting up a web server, I want it to run without any problems for a long time. I need a stable operating system, and stable server software.
I think the real indicator for when open source is going to work is, if someone needs to set up something to do X, is it worth the time to modify some open source software to accomplish the task at hand, or is it better to just use off the shelf commercial software and worry about bugs?
I don't think there are very many programmers in the OS movement who work on programs they don't see themselves using, and a program like Quake isn't worth writing for your own enjoyment. You need to be able to sell it for that type of software to get written.
I'll go for that, as long as users are told that their email will be scanned. I don't mean "use of company computer may be logged" buried on page 684 of the employee handbook, but email everyone to let them know that effective whenever, their email will be scanned for inappropriate use.
Employees don't have a legal right to privacy (not here at least, and I don't think they should), but they do have an expectation of privacy, and should be informed when their expectations can get them in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony may be into proprietary designs, but Sony is also the master of cheap high quality consumer electronics. Right now, Sony is heading in the direction of wearable computers and web server in your toaster style technologies, but from the bottom up, which I think is the right way to go. It's along the line of instead of trying to shrink your computer down until it fits on your belt, they're trying to make your pager do more, until it's as powerful as a computer.
After reading a story about Sony a few months back in Wired, I'd now say that my dream job would be working at JPL, MIT Media Lab, or Sony. I'd like to live in the future, and Sony appears to be at least 2 or 3 years ahead of what can actually be bought in a store.
94 IBM MHPCC 243 - fastest computer with a number of processors in no way related to common powers of 2
hmm, 243 is 3^5. I wonder what strange architecture dictated that number.
Machine translation isn't there yet. Babelfish at least starts with what you want in the first language. Imagine feeding the output from a 95% accurate speech recognition system though babelfish. You'd come out with gibberish.
I'd prefer a system that assists me with speaking a second language. Something where I can be talking to someone, forget a word, hit a button on the Language eCoach(tm), say "you're welcome, in japanese" and hear "dou itashimashite" in a earphone. Or, someone says something I don't understand, so I repeat it to the translator and it gives me the english.
With such a device, it would be possible to have a conversation in a foreign language after about 80 hours of instruction, because you don't have to memorize heavy vocabulary. It would also make the learning itself easier, because you don't have to waste time looking stuff up in the dictionary.
If the translation was imperfect, it wouldn't matter so much. Maybe it'd give me different options, like if I say "bank, in german", it would say "with money, Bank, with river, Strand", and give the user the option of saying whatever is right. Babelfish translates "I went down to the bank" as "Ich ging unten zur Bank", which may or may not be what I meant.
I'm able to check the information for my 401k online. I personally wouldn't think it the end of the world if my financial information got disclosed, but I know some people would. They require 128-bit ssl to login to an account, which I initially thought really funny, because your password has to be 5 numeric digits.
/etc/password, I could probably break passwords of that form before my web browser is even finished loading, but it doesn't matter, because I'm not cracking against /etc/password. The only way I can test a password is by attempting to connect to the server. Assuming 15 seconds to test a password, since their server is fairly slow, that's 15 1/2 days for someone who knows my social security and account number to be able to get access to my account.
Now, if were cracking against
Of course, it will lock me out after like 3 attempts, so even if I had two weeks to spare, I wouldn't be able to get in. In short, password strength only matters to the degree that an attacker would be able to attack the password. If the attacker can't try passwords quickly, it is definitely preferable to give the users a password they can remember rather than something that matches the formula for "secure".
later,
kevin
I didn't see any mention in the documentation, but does anyone know whether this will compile on MacOS X server? I tried this with Samba 2.0.4 right when OS X came out, and couldn't get it to work right, but I don't know whether it was something misconfigured or due to the changes I had to make to the config file to get it to compile.
The fact is that when you say something in a public forum, it is then public.
This is what I would expect also. I don't know if anyone notice this, but here we are on slashdot, where few people can utter a sentence without promoting Open Source, but people are saying "you can't use my words without giving me a cut".
Let me see if I understand: people should write code for free and distribute it without charge, even if they could make money off it, but the media shouldn't be able to compile stories (regardless of whether they're any good) from what you post in a public forum without your permission? Is version 3 of the GPL going to include "separate permission is required if you use this code in crappy products, or products which I don't approve of"?
I would say that just citing as:
or
would be sufficient. It's all the information needed to look up the reference, and it's also the most identifying information, since you could hypothetically be displaying a fake email address, or two slashdot users could reference the same email address.
I consider citing an electronic forum such as this similar to a "personal communication" sometimes seen in bibliographies. Being overly formal, making the citation looks like you're quoting another magazine, for example, would misrepresent the issue, because posts to slashdot are not your deeply considered, once-and-for-all opinion hte subject. For anonymous coward, I would just use "blah blah blah" said an anonymous poster to slashdot.org.
later,
kevin
I came to the conclusion that Corel sees a method to remove Microsoft from it's near monopoly on software for non-Macs. By packaging Linux with Word Perfect, Corel can create the integrated packages that people are used to with MS Windows/MS Office. It will remove a lot of the fear the common user faces when considering a switch to Linux. What Corel gets out of it is a chance to make a lot of money, because their name may be enough to get people to bundle Linux on low cost PCs to be sold to the home user.
Given the brouhaha over the beta test requiring an NDA, I'll be curious to see the license terms. Are they going to be bundling proprietary software with the distro, or will the whole thing be open source? I wasn't able to find any information on the website.
I was really disappointed by the article. I think what is was that turned me off was the authors assumption that anyone who wants to copy a DVD is doing something illegal.
"Rendering CD/DVD drives for computers incapable of reading music CDs or DVD movies might be another way to go"
So, do I have to buy another copy of the song if I want to listen to it on my Rio?
I can't say anything coherent, because even though I'm used to this kind of stuff from corporate PR goons, I thought Wired was on the side of the reasonable and unlobotamized.
-kevin
This is a good point. I use a 17" right now, and never use any app full screen. What I would like to see is a portrait display the width of a 17" monitor (and height about 150% of what normal is).
let's think about the concept of tanks of fermenting slugs for a while
The only thing I can think of is something that will make cheap tequila appealing by comparison.
At a hotel/bar/store/anything:
"Did you want this on the company account, Mr. Jones?"
"No, put it on my personal account."
Oh, yeah, this patent is novel. The patent office has totally forgotten that a patent is supposed to be for a general mechanism. If I patent the idea of "storing some of the users information so that they don't have to tell me everything again", can someone else come along and patent "storing the users address so they don't need to tell me again"?
Would I be correct in assuming you couldn't solve it?
I couldn't either, but at least I don't whine about it.
I have to agree. Reading the website, it's all very nice how they can say what it's going to do, but I can write up a spec for a magic chip that breaks all encryption systems in under 25 seconds, but that doesn't mean it's going to come to pass.
I sort of like the idea of a super-language that can easily be translated into natural languages, but I don't see how machine translation into this super-language would be possible when machine translation into a simpler (natural) language isn't. The problem with machine translation isn't converting the internal representation back into a natural language, it's figuring out what the sentence means.
For example, find a rule that can be used to tranlate "at" in the following sentences:
Bob stands at the window.
Bob stands at the watercooler.
In the first, it's implied that Bob is actually facing the window, but in the second, Bob probably isn't facing it. You need to actually know the real world meaning of the sentences to see the difference -- there isn't any syntactic difference at all. How is the UNL "enconverter" going to figure out the difference?
I would definitely agree that OTPs are too much trouble, but I disagree that Public Key Crypto allows two parties secure communication without any previous contact. You need to authenticate who you are talking to through some other means before it's secure. I can't know 100% for sure that someone hasn't broken into my mail server and modified the PGP key block at the end of Joe Blow's sig file. If someone is interfering with our communications, a third party can listen in without the knowledge of either party.
The advantage is that to start a secure channel with public key crypto, you need method to authenticate that the info you are getting is from who you think it's from, but it doesn't need to be free from eavesdroppers (e.g. I don't care if someone hears me reading my PGP key fingerprint over the telephone).
The key for where open source works and is necessary is how much based on the system. That is, when you have a high level system for doing one thing that isn't highly critical, it doesn't matter whether it is open source. It doesn't make a big difference whether a game, or a web browser, or a page layout program is highly reliable.
On the other hand, when I'm setting up a web server, I want it to run without any problems for a long time. I need a stable operating system, and stable server software.
I think the real indicator for when open source is going to work is, if someone needs to set up something to do X, is it worth the time to modify some open source software to accomplish the task at hand, or is it better to just use off the shelf commercial software and worry about bugs?
I don't think there are very many programmers in the OS movement who work on programs they don't see themselves using, and a program like Quake isn't worth writing for your own enjoyment. You need to be able to sell it for that type of software to get written.
I'll go for that, as long as users are told that their email will be scanned. I don't mean "use of company computer may be logged" buried on page 684 of the employee handbook, but email everyone to let them know that effective whenever, their email will be scanned for inappropriate use.
Employees don't have a legal right to privacy (not here at least, and I don't think they should), but they do have an expectation of privacy, and should be informed when their expectations can get them in trouble.