You do have a choice. The choice is called "turn off BitLocker". Inherently the BitLocker feature is worthless if it allows you to run an arbitrary bootloader.
1) As siblings have noted, von Neumann's architecture was the one where code and data are *the same*. Idiot.
2) At the time the Harvard (distinct code/data) and von Neumann (unified code/data) were conceived, computer were non-networked devices that occupied an entire room. The idea of computer security didn't *exist*, let alone inform their architectures.
I don't think they're going to be able to get people who actually understand the risks of the Internet to teach these classes. They'll probably take the PE teachers or something, send the teachers to a workshop for a few hours or days to learn the curriculum, and the teachers will end up teaching straight from a workbook written by some bureaucrat. Still, it's a good idea in the abstract, and maybe they'll surprise us.
What would be really useful is a required course in basic computer security (e.g. always enable file extensions, don't run arbitrary programs that arrive in your email inbox, don't trust the website that says "download this for free smilies in AIM!").
As a current college student, I can say that if you are spending significant amounts of time fighting with Java-related issues instead of the actual assignments, you are hopelessly incompetent.
This would be a great thing. A robot arms race is something the US could win easily. Much easier than convincing people to stop blowing themselves up...
Having more than two cores wouldn't benefit me a lot right now. I wouldn't mind it, certainly -- I've been playing a bit with things like Erlang, which should be able to scale arbitrarily -- but I think the real applications are only just catching on to the idea that threading is a good thing. I imagine it's still going to be a lot longer till a quad-core machine is useful for anything other than, say, running virtual machines, as most programming languages do not make threading easy. (Locks and semaphores are almost as bad as manual memory management.)
In general I'd agree with you, but I've found that a quad-core (which is actually pretty cheap these days) is much better than a dual-core if you watch HD video. h264 at 1080p is pretty taxing on the processor, and on a C2D you generally can't have anything in the background or you'll drop frames. A quad-core means you can run one or two other processor-intensive tasks (usually as you said, video encoding/backup/compilation type stuff) and don't have to pause them when you want to watch video. Also, it's very helpful if you use Mathematica a lot for large computations.
Competition from the 'net is a factor, but right now only Apple has a device that "just works" and it's still at the teething stage. It's also rental only. Some of us like to buy discs.
Actually, you're wrong - Microsoft also has a device that "just works" in the form of the Xbox 360. I've downloaded several movies on the Live Marketplace (in HD).
Are you pro-war? Do you think the US needs to maintain permanent military bases in 200+ countries including Germany, Japan, and South Korea? Do you think that the the "security funding" in the US federal budget should exceed all other discretionary spending combined by 50%?
If not, then I can't see how you could support any candidate other than Paul or Kucinich.
Because 1) that one issue is far more complex than you - or Ron Paul - is presenting it and 2) even if it weren't, it wouldn't be more important than all the other craziness combined.
Regardless,/. isn't really the place for political discussions - I was just pointing out the flaw in the OP that said "he won't win because he tells the truth." The real answer is, he won't win because he tells the truth about the fact that he's crazy. If you don't think he's crazy, add "as viewed by the vast majority of Americans" at the end. And if you think that he actually will win, you suffer from mild delusions.
The whole "but Paul has a bunch of crazy ideas" cop-out is moronic.
"I disagree with a lot/the majority of this candidate's policies, therefore I'm not going to vote for him" is a cop out?! I thought that's how democracy was supposed to work... The fact is, most of Paul's ideas are either A) idealistic to the point of being unworkable (e.g. wanting to fund the federal government through excise taxes rather than income taxes), B) shared by all the other candidates (e.g. "america needs to be safe against terrorism"), C) absolutely insane (e.g. withdrawing from NAFTA and NATO), or some combination thereof.
People should really just say they want their nanny state to stay the way it is. So you will vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag politician.
I prefer the status quo to Ron Paul's policies - which means that yes, I will probably vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag poltician, because she's still a better choice.
Huckabee is crazier than Paul or Kucinich, and with Hillary we have a track record (both from her time as First Lady and as a senator) to show that her policies aren't completely insane.
No, their tendency to tell the truth combined with their huge collections of dumb ideas has eliminated them from serious consideration.
I'm willing to give Paul and Kucinich a lot of credit for being honest. In general, I'll even vote for an honest politician who I disagree with on some or many things over a dishonest one who agrees with me, but at some point you have to say "okay, that's just a little TOO crazy". Paul and Kucinich are well past that line.
The real question isn't whether 3.0 will be better than 2.0; it's whether 3.0 will be better than 1.5. Firefox 2 was a step backwards in a lot of ways.
Compared to cryptographic algorithms, floating point math isn't that much more complex then integer math.
Yet the claim is that an actual error in the implementation of elementary amthematical operations on the processor could weaken a cryptographic algorithm run on that processor, even if the algorithm itself is implemented flawlessly in source. Therefore the relevant question remains "where are processor bugs most likely to occur?"
Also, floating point math is exact since floating points representations (like IEEE 754) are eventually all calculations and representations in bits which are always exactly reproducible.
Also irrelevant - most applications of floating point rely on the fact that floating point numbers are sufficiently precise approximations of the reals, therefore they base their algorithms on real-number math (with hedges built in to protect against numerical instability) and are satisfied with inexact answers. Encryption algorithms depend the exact answers produced, and would therefore have to be based on the specific IEEE-specified behavior of a specific precision of floating point number. While such an encryption scheme is possible, it strikes me as unlikely and unnecessarily complex.
It seems to me that the most likely source of a math error is in the floating point unit, since floating point math is far more complex than integer math. I've always understood that most crypto is based on integer math, both because it's based on number theory and because floating point math isn't exact. Doesn't that make this sort of exploit extremely unlikely?
Re:Python is part of the answer
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 0
It doesn't matter if there's a bug in the code; an optimizing compiler should never produce an executable that doesn't behave identically to the same code without optimization.
I was really bummed when I learned Stanford beat us by a few minutes, but apparently the scoring worked out in our favor. I got to sit in on several of the Tartan Racing meetings, and the technology they came up with was fascinating.
- 15km is not quite enough. Many light-rail systems have stops that are farther apart than that. Double that number and it's golden. (15km = approx. 9 mi. 18 mi. should be enough for 90% of light-rail systems.)
Add a second battery? That would double the range, and since you can charge them in parallel it should still only take 60 seconds.
Sure the Amazon tracks are DRM free, but the Fairplay rights from iTunes Music store are something most consumers are never going to run up against... 5 computers, unlimited iPods
Unless I don't have an iPod. To anyone with a different mp3 player, it's worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
ZING.
You do have a choice. The choice is called "turn off BitLocker". Inherently the BitLocker feature is worthless if it allows you to run an arbitrary bootloader.
2) At the time the Harvard (distinct code/data) and von Neumann (unified code/data) were conceived, computer were non-networked devices that occupied an entire room. The idea of computer security didn't *exist*, let alone inform their architectures.
For those that don't get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
You mean like Xbox Live Marketplace?
What would be really useful is a required course in basic computer security (e.g. always enable file extensions, don't run arbitrary programs that arrive in your email inbox, don't trust the website that says "download this for free smilies in AIM!").
As a current college student, I can say that if you are spending significant amounts of time fighting with Java-related issues instead of the actual assignments, you are hopelessly incompetent.
It could be like letters of marque!
This would be a great thing. A robot arms race is something the US could win easily. Much easier than convincing people to stop blowing themselves up...
In general I'd agree with you, but I've found that a quad-core (which is actually pretty cheap these days) is much better than a dual-core if you watch HD video. h264 at 1080p is pretty taxing on the processor, and on a C2D you generally can't have anything in the background or you'll drop frames. A quad-core means you can run one or two other processor-intensive tasks (usually as you said, video encoding/backup/compilation type stuff) and don't have to pause them when you want to watch video. Also, it's very helpful if you use Mathematica a lot for large computations.
Actually, you're wrong - Microsoft also has a device that "just works" in the form of the Xbox 360. I've downloaded several movies on the Live Marketplace (in HD).
If not, then I can't see how you could support any candidate other than Paul or Kucinich. Because 1) that one issue is far more complex than you - or Ron Paul - is presenting it and 2) even if it weren't, it wouldn't be more important than all the other craziness combined.
Regardless, /. isn't really the place for political discussions - I was just pointing out the flaw in the OP that said "he won't win because he tells the truth." The real answer is, he won't win because he tells the truth about the fact that he's crazy. If you don't think he's crazy, add "as viewed by the vast majority of Americans" at the end. And if you think that he actually will win, you suffer from mild delusions.
"I disagree with a lot/the majority of this candidate's policies, therefore I'm not going to vote for him" is a cop out?! I thought that's how democracy was supposed to work... The fact is, most of Paul's ideas are either A) idealistic to the point of being unworkable (e.g. wanting to fund the federal government through excise taxes rather than income taxes), B) shared by all the other candidates (e.g. "america needs to be safe against terrorism"), C) absolutely insane (e.g. withdrawing from NAFTA and NATO), or some combination thereof.
People should really just say they want their nanny state to stay the way it is. So you will vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag politician.
I prefer the status quo to Ron Paul's policies - which means that yes, I will probably vote for another lying, hypocritical scumbag poltician, because she's still a better choice.
Huckabee is crazier than Paul or Kucinich, and with Hillary we have a track record (both from her time as First Lady and as a senator) to show that her policies aren't completely insane.
I'm willing to give Paul and Kucinich a lot of credit for being honest. In general, I'll even vote for an honest politician who I disagree with on some or many things over a dishonest one who agrees with me, but at some point you have to say "okay, that's just a little TOO crazy". Paul and Kucinich are well past that line.
Anyone else read this as a "pi" license and wonder WTF the headline was about?
The real question isn't whether 3.0 will be better than 2.0; it's whether 3.0 will be better than 1.5. Firefox 2 was a step backwards in a lot of ways.
Yet the claim is that an actual error in the implementation of elementary amthematical operations on the processor could weaken a cryptographic algorithm run on that processor, even if the algorithm itself is implemented flawlessly in source. Therefore the relevant question remains "where are processor bugs most likely to occur?"
Also, floating point math is exact since floating points representations (like IEEE 754) are eventually all calculations and representations in bits which are always exactly reproducible. Also irrelevant - most applications of floating point rely on the fact that floating point numbers are sufficiently precise approximations of the reals, therefore they base their algorithms on real-number math (with hedges built in to protect against numerical instability) and are satisfied with inexact answers. Encryption algorithms depend the exact answers produced, and would therefore have to be based on the specific IEEE-specified behavior of a specific precision of floating point number. While such an encryption scheme is possible, it strikes me as unlikely and unnecessarily complex.
It seems to me that the most likely source of a math error is in the floating point unit, since floating point math is far more complex than integer math. I've always understood that most crypto is based on integer math, both because it's based on number theory and because floating point math isn't exact. Doesn't that make this sort of exploit extremely unlikely?
It doesn't matter if there's a bug in the code; an optimizing compiler should never produce an executable that doesn't behave identically to the same code without optimization.
I was really bummed when I learned Stanford beat us by a few minutes, but apparently the scoring worked out in our favor. I got to sit in on several of the Tartan Racing meetings, and the technology they came up with was fascinating.
Add a second battery? That would double the range, and since you can charge them in parallel it should still only take 60 seconds.
Yes, Windows supports soft links.
Canada's already using that.
Unless I don't have an iPod. To anyone with a different mp3 player, it's worthless.