One sample tests are based on identifying what something is in a huge population, given the guarantee that they all look alike and that similar situations in the past have proven them to then be similar. Consider having a bag of grass-ish stuff, what are the odds that if I check one sample and it's marijuana that the rest is as well?
If it was designed as such before it was implemented I might have agreed with you. This was more a hack to make a generic kernel that can fit any computer.
That's not quite accurate... It wasn't the beatles that sued:
Apple: Hey Jude, I thought we agreed there's only room for one apple in this business! Apple: STFU, we're not IN your business. Apple: I know it's been a hard day's night for you, but yeah, you are. Apple: STFU. Apple: Right, we'll see you in the Court on Penny Lane.
(later)
Court: Apple, STFU. Apple: We have triumphed yet again! Apple: Waaaaaah! Twist and Shout! You never give me your money! We'll appeal and then you're going to lose that girl! All: STFU!
An OS is like a car, you have a good bit of it that takes care of moving your car (the kernel / engine compartment) and a good bit that takes care of you ("user space" for both). The idea is, you can do whatever you want in any passenger seat (login as user, can't crash the system), when you're root (driver) you can crash the system (into a tree or an oops, whichever suits your fancy). Now, when there's a flaw with the suspension that causes your wheels to drift out from under the car, this microkernel mechanism allows you to leave the car in floating condition in the middle of the highway, call the emergency service, they'll reattach the wheels and you can drive on. The same for engine failure, when it fails you'll just stop and you can get another and you can continue. Theoretically, you could have a failed battery after which your car just stops somewhere and you can't run off. Of course, all runs on the car power, so you can't dial emergency help and you're stuck with a perfectly good car that doesn't move. Or, for the analogy, a kernel that can't load a new disk driver off disk.
The kernel should run the drivers that need system level access and shouldn't have been running any other tasks in kernel mode in any case.
>... his system completely compromised with ONE SINGLE GODDAMN FUCKING WRONG CLICK WHEN BROWSING A SHADY SITE?
Zero clicks actually. Microsoft is a corporation. If their computers need more of their software to fix, they earn more money. What took you so long to figure out?
Must say, the 4 most started programs by me are IE (unfortunately, but it keeps crashing so there it goes), the command prompt and two compilers. Windows XP really does have an intuitive interface - it's just labeled cmd.exe and obsoleted by bash.
Just like they've made the Automatic Update window? If you don't have them enabled it'll show every few minutes, it'll auto-reinstall if you visit windowsupdate (for MANUAL updates, for crying out loud) and if you try to delete it, you have to do so within 4 seconds of killing the process - because it auto-respawns. After which it'll tell you that "Critical windows system files have been damaged - insert service pack cd now" with 3 dialogs that you really shouldn't consider running without automatic update nagging turned on.
Why did patents exist & why are they superfluo
on
Public Patents?
·
· Score: 1
Patents were invented so that the simple man, inventing something complex had time to create a company around it and produce enough products to give him a real tactical advantage against big corporations that have a lot of production capacity standing ready and so that he would actually benefit from his invention. Also, it served to make sure that all ideas were public 20 years after conception so that no true invention would be lost. Consider what would've happened if Einstein didn't publish stuff but just keep it to himself, or if Lempel and Ziv never considered telling others about compression. You'd have a lot of pointless repeated research.
Currently patents are being used for patenting the obvious. When you have an idea nowadays, you have to make a proof-of-concept before you can publish it (since it might not work - guys with patents on infinite compression, please do comply with this rule too...). In software in particular, your proof of concept is 80% of the work needing to be done and the sole thing that you have that others don't. You won't get a marketing position that's better than theirs, you won't be able to get any products on the shelf since both the products and the shelf are virtual. There is nothing to be gained by patents except for a very small gain on behalf of the company producing it.
However, if something is obvious and you patent it, you stifle inventions made by others that actually are with some content. Around 5 years ago I've seen a small article illustrating how to make a webshop in a few hundred lines of code. They also illustrate that you'd have broken about 40 software patents in those 300 lines, all the while not seeing those patents or actually stealing their ideas. If all those patents were enforced, you wouldn't be able to make such a webshop until about 2012. Just consider what would happen if something like that happens.
Shut down the USPTO software department and disallow any patent claiming a method for processing.
I don't think I can train up to average 80-90mph by bike... That'd be required to halve the time taken by driving a car to work... Also, the acceleration kind of sucks...
> No, most of us with our CS degrees are not creating the next processor, or the next programming language or OS.
In case you DO fall under this category (at least the language and the OS), visit www.mega-tokyo.com/forum. It's a forum of people who like IT and are creating a new OS (each their own).
> because the system will first be tested by generating a key, transmitting that key over regular channels and comparing it with the source... that's just testing whether the installation works properly
> Since you can't generate entangled photons of a particular polarization, just generate and measure, there's no way for you to fool the checks
I'm not trying to fool the checks. I'm trying to find the use of quantum encryption.
Normal encryption involves exchanging a key in some way, by exchanging information and using previously-acquired information to create a key and to be sure the other party is who they say they are. Multiple methods exist, but they all boil down to either trusting something both share (TTP) or sharing a fixed amount of information "securely" by unknown methods.
Quantum encryption serves only as a purpose to make the link itself, and not the endpoints integrity, secure. You could do that by putting a random bit generator in the middle sending the same OTP to both ends, although quantum entanglement prevents people from listening in on the key. They don't prevent plain hijacking the key though.
You should read up on what Man-In-The-Middle actually stands for. I don't think you realise why quantum encryption won't help against it.
Now, what if I act as the receiver, breaking the line at his end and routing it solely to me? Using those particle spins to decrypt the data, read it, making a new line with brand new particle spins to the actual receiver, sending data with brand new particle spin one-time pad along the second line.
Say, following the definition of "man-in-the-middle".
The current state of cryptography is that people can have either secure communication but possibility for man-in-the-middle attacks or secure communication with a requirement for a third party or prior knowledge (previously exchanged key etc). All systems must comply with this basic law, since if you can't ascertain the identity of the other party without relying solely on its information, you need somebody else to tell you or some memory of that entity. If you thus rely solely on the other entity to declare itself as anything, you cannot make for a secure cryptographic channel.
The idea of quantum cryptography is that you have some form of signal sent both ways that only the receivers can receive, since it can't be tapped in the middle due to detected signal loss and single-atomic-unit transmissions being measured. It's pointless, because anything the actual receiver can do, I can do too, and anything the actual receiver can't do I can't do either. Without prior knowledge, it's not anyhow more secure than current systems. With prior knowledge, it might be ever so slightly more secure, yet not much (on the order of 10^-40 % less chance of decryption).
Slashdot Mirror
One sample tests are based on identifying what something is in a huge population, given the guarantee that they all look alike and that similar situations in the past have proven them to then be similar. Consider having a bag of grass-ish stuff, what are the odds that if I check one sample and it's marijuana that the rest is as well?
If it was designed as such before it was implemented I might have agreed with you. This was more a hack to make a generic kernel that can fit any computer.
That's not quite accurate... It wasn't the beatles that sued:
Apple: Hey Jude, I thought we agreed there's only room for one apple in this business!
Apple: STFU, we're not IN your business.
Apple: I know it's been a hard day's night for you, but yeah, you are.
Apple: STFU.
Apple: Right, we'll see you in the Court on Penny Lane.
(later)
Court: Apple, STFU.
Apple: We have triumphed yet again!
Apple: Waaaaaah! Twist and Shout! You never give me your money! We'll appeal and then you're going to lose that girl!
All: STFU!
An OS is like a car, you have a good bit of it that takes care of moving your car (the kernel / engine compartment) and a good bit that takes care of you ("user space" for both). The idea is, you can do whatever you want in any passenger seat (login as user, can't crash the system), when you're root (driver) you can crash the system (into a tree or an oops, whichever suits your fancy). Now, when there's a flaw with the suspension that causes your wheels to drift out from under the car, this microkernel mechanism allows you to leave the car in floating condition in the middle of the highway, call the emergency service, they'll reattach the wheels and you can drive on. The same for engine failure, when it fails you'll just stop and you can get another and you can continue. Theoretically, you could have a failed battery after which your car just stops somewhere and you can't run off. Of course, all runs on the car power, so you can't dial emergency help and you're stuck with a perfectly good car that doesn't move. Or, for the analogy, a kernel that can't load a new disk driver off disk.
The kernel should run the drivers that need system level access and shouldn't have been running any other tasks in kernel mode in any case.
Protected mode with PAE only goes to 2^32 * 2^4 = 2^36 = 64 billion addresses. Now if they added Long Mode, that might be something.
That gives a whole different view to what the "Big Bang" actually was...
> 3) +5 ability to skewer pompous know-it-alls
Aw crap.... I was maxing that skill already, can't use more points!
> ... his system completely compromised with ONE SINGLE GODDAMN FUCKING WRONG CLICK WHEN BROWSING A SHADY SITE?
Zero clicks actually. Microsoft is a corporation. If their computers need more of their software to fix, they earn more money. What took you so long to figure out?
Must say, the 4 most started programs by me are IE (unfortunately, but it keeps crashing so there it goes), the command prompt and two compilers. Windows XP really does have an intuitive interface - it's just labeled cmd.exe and obsoleted by bash.
There's lies, damn lies and statistics.
Did you try bananas? They seem to work quite well.
Just like they've made the Automatic Update window? If you don't have them enabled it'll show every few minutes, it'll auto-reinstall if you visit windowsupdate (for MANUAL updates, for crying out loud) and if you try to delete it, you have to do so within 4 seconds of killing the process - because it auto-respawns. After which it'll tell you that "Critical windows system files have been damaged - insert service pack cd now" with 3 dialogs that you really shouldn't consider running without automatic update nagging turned on.
Patents were invented so that the simple man, inventing something complex had time to create a company around it and produce enough products to give him a real tactical advantage against big corporations that have a lot of production capacity standing ready and so that he would actually benefit from his invention. Also, it served to make sure that all ideas were public 20 years after conception so that no true invention would be lost. Consider what would've happened if Einstein didn't publish stuff but just keep it to himself, or if Lempel and Ziv never considered telling others about compression. You'd have a lot of pointless repeated research.
Currently patents are being used for patenting the obvious. When you have an idea nowadays, you have to make a proof-of-concept before you can publish it (since it might not work - guys with patents on infinite compression, please do comply with this rule too...). In software in particular, your proof of concept is 80% of the work needing to be done and the sole thing that you have that others don't. You won't get a marketing position that's better than theirs, you won't be able to get any products on the shelf since both the products and the shelf are virtual. There is nothing to be gained by patents except for a very small gain on behalf of the company producing it.
However, if something is obvious and you patent it, you stifle inventions made by others that actually are with some content. Around 5 years ago I've seen a small article illustrating how to make a webshop in a few hundred lines of code. They also illustrate that you'd have broken about 40 software patents in those 300 lines, all the while not seeing those patents or actually stealing their ideas. If all those patents were enforced, you wouldn't be able to make such a webshop until about 2012. Just consider what would happen if something like that happens.
Shut down the USPTO software department and disallow any patent claiming a method for processing.
(note, that's a regexp)
I don't think I can train up to average 80-90mph by bike... That'd be required to halve the time taken by driving a car to work... Also, the acceleration kind of sucks...
I almost asked what provider Salvador Dali or Joan Miro had, but apparently it weren't their email addresses posted...
Just imagine infinite ultra monkeys typing away at typewriters... What a Shakespearian outcome that would have!
> since we know that all spammers are good, law-abiding citizens
They might well be law-abiding citizens, just in a different country.
> No, most of us with our CS degrees are not creating the next processor, or the next programming language or OS.
In case you DO fall under this category (at least the language and the OS), visit www.mega-tokyo.com/forum. It's a forum of people who like IT and are creating a new OS (each their own).
> because the system will first be tested by generating a key, transmitting that key over regular channels and comparing it with the source ... that's just testing whether the installation works properly
> Since you can't generate entangled photons of a particular polarization, just generate and measure, there's no way for you to fool the checks
I'm not trying to fool the checks. I'm trying to find the use of quantum encryption.
Normal encryption involves exchanging a key in some way, by exchanging information and using previously-acquired information to create a key and to be sure the other party is who they say they are. Multiple methods exist, but they all boil down to either trusting something both share (TTP) or sharing a fixed amount of information "securely" by unknown methods.
Quantum encryption serves only as a purpose to make the link itself, and not the endpoints integrity, secure. You could do that by putting a random bit generator in the middle sending the same OTP to both ends, although quantum entanglement prevents people from listening in on the key. They don't prevent plain hijacking the key though.
You should read up on what Man-In-The-Middle actually stands for. I don't think you realise why quantum encryption won't help against it.
Nice to know, but I knew that.
Now, what if I act as the receiver, breaking the line at his end and routing it solely to me? Using those particle spins to decrypt the data, read it, making a new line with brand new particle spins to the actual receiver, sending data with brand new particle spin one-time pad along the second line.
Say, following the definition of "man-in-the-middle".
The current state of cryptography is that people can have either secure communication but possibility for man-in-the-middle attacks or secure communication with a requirement for a third party or prior knowledge (previously exchanged key etc). All systems must comply with this basic law, since if you can't ascertain the identity of the other party without relying solely on its information, you need somebody else to tell you or some memory of that entity. If you thus rely solely on the other entity to declare itself as anything, you cannot make for a secure cryptographic channel.
The idea of quantum cryptography is that you have some form of signal sent both ways that only the receivers can receive, since it can't be tapped in the middle due to detected signal loss and single-atomic-unit transmissions being measured. It's pointless, because anything the actual receiver can do, I can do too, and anything the actual receiver can't do I can't do either. Without prior knowledge, it's not anyhow more secure than current systems. With prior knowledge, it might be ever so slightly more secure, yet not much (on the order of 10^-40 % less chance of decryption).
Quantum cryptography is near pointless.
Did the people modding you funny lose real or imaginary mod points?
> Shouldn't the FCC focus on bigger issues like boobs indiscriminately appearing on the Super Bowl.
If the boobs in question are in fact a "bigger issue", yes please.
> One thing to remember, use visudo, not vi /etc/sudoers. The syntax check will likely save your ass one day.
That command is discriminating against the Emacs-people. Why did the sudo people make a visudo and no emacssudo?