So basically, let's redefine the meaning of "working better" to keep your (factually incorrect) argument going. Just admit you're wrong already. Better is conventionally taken to mean "with greater fitness than the other thing", not "with an order of magnitude greater fitness than the other thing" which might be referred to as being "an order of magnitude better" in common parlance. Most advances in technology are *not* an order of magnitude better, or even an integer factor (minimum of 2x) better. Most advances in technology are incremental, best measured in some percentage (a FRACTION) of the original.
You're a politician, lawyer, or middle manager. I can smell the bullshit from here.
On reconsideration, you'd likely want to redefine last_known_good_GPS_signal() to some constant value which would always evaluate true when compared against near_a_known_tunnel_entrance().
It would take some engineering skill up front, but it's the sort of thing that could be commoditized.
So you simply override the "speedo" to say you're always moving 0 units distance per unit time and define near_a_known_tunnel_entrance() as true, whether by modifying firmware or by falsifying the input signal.
You were saying?
"Of necessity, physics had to develop a framework of thinking that would allow understanding counter-intuitive elements of reality. Something like quantum physics is not very intuitive, and in order to make progress, physics essentially evolved a framework of thinking that was very effective for coming to correct answers that are not obvious. And in order to do this, it requires quite a lot of mental exertion. One cannot conduct one's everyday life reasoning from first principles; it would just require too much mental energy. So I think you have to operate most of your life with reasoning by analogy or essentially copying other people with minor variations. But if you are trying to break new ground and be really innovative, that's where you have to apply first-principle thinking and try to identify the most fundamental truths in any particular arena and you reason up from there. This requires quite a bit of mental exertion and I can give you some examples of how this helps one in the rocket business."
"I had an existential crisis when I was 12 or 13, and [was] trying to figure out what does it all mean, why are we here, is it all meaningless, that sort of thing. I came to the conclusion that the best thing we can do is try to improve the scope and scale of consciousness and gain greater enlightenment which will in turn allow us to ask better and better questions, because obviously the universe is the answer, so what is the question? All questions, I suppose.""
"A lot of people in physics are concerned about expenditures on manned space flight because they are not sure what's the point. Generally I would agree: if we were just going to bounce around in low Earth orbit, it's questionable whether it's worth the expense. However, if one considers the objective to become a space-faring civilization and a multi-planet species, I think that physicists should support that because it increases the probable lifespan of humanity dramatically, and dramatically increases the scope and scale of civilization, which in turn is what will lead to greater enlightenment in physics and other arenas. "
It will, however, require a rethinking of the way we handle data and computation and the hardware which performs those tasks. Luckily, it's not too difficult to build a CPU which performs fully homomorphic operations. The math isn't even beyond high-school level (it's about on par with RSA). The primary issue right now is speed.
Why bother audting a closed binary which can change drastically from one version to the next, requiring a near-complete (if not total) re-audit (a laborious process the first time around)?
The better solution is to look to open source implementations, like tcplay. Audit an open source implementation, where it's easy to see exactly what changed and how it might affect the machine's state.
I asked it once, and I'll ask it again: Who are you and why should we believe that you know the current state of US and British intelligence capabilities, and are fit to compare them? (And to give it to us straight.)
Will.Woodhull proposed a theory and now you're all over the comments knocking it down. Anyone got a shilling?
Who are you and why should we take your word for it? You speak about US intelligence capability (how would you know?) but proffer information on the British. Then, you ask us to trust you ("I assure you,..."). If you were really speaking from authority and experience, you wouldn't need to ask people to trust you. What you're asking us to trust in this case is that you know the capabilities of both US and British intelligence and are fit to compare them in a meaningful way.
I doubt it.
And that's without even getting into the real meat of the question, which is, is Will.Woodhull's theory plausible?
"The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it."
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love", by Robert Heinlein
Speaking as someone who got a free desktop P4 and ran a (headless) intranet server on it, the cost of the power by the second month would easily cover the purchase of a dedicated RPi or BeagleBone. By the end of the year, you could've bought at least 12 more efficient systems for the cost of just running the single P4. I turned mine off and then later donated it to another friend.
Tried running a media server (not public facing) on an old P4 a friend gave me. $40 on the next electric bill. Guess which machine got donated to someone else?
Mod parent up. +1 Informative. I've read quite a few other posts suggesting they completed extinguishing the fire with water. But, they *did* use dry chemicals prior to opening up the battery.
Clearly, you've never used a can of compressed air held upside down and sprayed on the RAM to cool it down. Why, that might even allow someone to mount an attack!
Don't spout off BS when you're several years behind the news...
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as 6000BC. The world was created on January 1, 1970 at midnight, a little more than 1385424985 seconds ago.
Poe's law? I'm not sure whether the parent is serious or not. (I'm not.)
No you wouldn't. They'd never have any time for it.
So basically, let's redefine the meaning of "working better" to keep your (factually incorrect) argument going. Just admit you're wrong already. Better is conventionally taken to mean "with greater fitness than the other thing", not "with an order of magnitude greater fitness than the other thing" which might be referred to as being "an order of magnitude better" in common parlance. Most advances in technology are *not* an order of magnitude better, or even an integer factor (minimum of 2x) better. Most advances in technology are incremental, best measured in some percentage (a FRACTION) of the original.
You're a politician, lawyer, or middle manager. I can smell the bullshit from here.
So I'm supposed to do all my calculations without any Pi? How can you have any Pi if you don't eat your machine?
This should be +5 Insightful, as it is, in fact, true.
On reconsideration, you'd likely want to redefine last_known_good_GPS_signal() to some constant value which would always evaluate true when compared against near_a_known_tunnel_entrance().
It would take some engineering skill up front, but it's the sort of thing that could be commoditized.
So you simply override the "speedo" to say you're always moving 0 units distance per unit time and define near_a_known_tunnel_entrance() as true, whether by modifying firmware or by falsifying the input signal. You were saying?
"Of necessity, physics had to develop a framework of thinking that would allow understanding counter-intuitive elements of reality. Something like quantum physics is not very intuitive, and in order to make progress, physics essentially evolved a framework of thinking that was very effective for coming to correct answers that are not obvious. And in order to do this, it requires quite a lot of mental exertion. One cannot conduct one's everyday life reasoning from first principles; it would just require too much mental energy. So I think you have to operate most of your life with reasoning by analogy or essentially copying other people with minor variations. But if you are trying to break new ground and be really innovative, that's where you have to apply first-principle thinking and try to identify the most fundamental truths in any particular arena and you reason up from there. This requires quite a bit of mental exertion and I can give you some examples of how this helps one in the rocket business."
"I had an existential crisis when I was 12 or 13, and [was] trying to figure out what does it all mean, why are we here, is it all meaningless, that sort of thing. I came to the conclusion that the best thing we can do is try to improve the scope and scale of consciousness and gain greater enlightenment which will in turn allow us to ask better and better questions, because obviously the universe is the answer, so what is the question? All questions, I suppose.""
"A lot of people in physics are concerned about expenditures on manned space flight because they are not sure what's the point. Generally I would agree: if we were just going to bounce around in low Earth orbit, it's questionable whether it's worth the expense. However, if one considers the objective to become a space-faring civilization and a multi-planet species, I think that physicists should support that because it increases the probable lifespan of humanity dramatically, and dramatically increases the scope and scale of civilization, which in turn is what will lead to greater enlightenment in physics and other arenas. "
Slashdot fortune: "Forty two."
This is an American website. Nice try.
There's a better way. For a recent summary of the state of the art, see http://www.aui.ma/africacrypt2012/images/africacrypt2012/fully%20homomorphic%20encryption.pdf.
You have to give up the Cloud ideas for real privacy.
This is not true.
This is not true.
This is not true.
It will, however, require a rethinking of the way we handle data and computation and the hardware which performs those tasks. Luckily, it's not too difficult to build a CPU which performs fully homomorphic operations. The math isn't even beyond high-school level (it's about on par with RSA). The primary issue right now is speed.
Why bother audting a closed binary which can change drastically from one version to the next, requiring a near-complete (if not total) re-audit (a laborious process the first time around)?
The better solution is to look to open source implementations, like tcplay. Audit an open source implementation, where it's easy to see exactly what changed and how it might affect the machine's state.
This is a bad solution to a non-problem.
Mod up informative!
So, a log cabin?
I asked it once, and I'll ask it again: Who are you and why should we believe that you know the current state of US and British intelligence capabilities, and are fit to compare them? (And to give it to us straight.) Will.Woodhull proposed a theory and now you're all over the comments knocking it down. Anyone got a shilling?
Who are you and why should we take your word for it? You speak about US intelligence capability (how would you know?) but proffer information on the British. Then, you ask us to trust you ("I assure you, ..."). If you were really speaking from authority and experience, you wouldn't need to ask people to trust you. What you're asking us to trust in this case is that you know the capabilities of both US and British intelligence and are fit to compare them in a meaningful way.
I doubt it.
And that's without even getting into the real meat of the question, which is, is Will.Woodhull's theory plausible?
"The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it." -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love", by Robert Heinlein
AC is right.
Speaking as someone who got a free desktop P4 and ran a (headless) intranet server on it, the cost of the power by the second month would easily cover the purchase of a dedicated RPi or BeagleBone. By the end of the year, you could've bought at least 12 more efficient systems for the cost of just running the single P4. I turned mine off and then later donated it to another friend.
Tried running a media server (not public facing) on an old P4 a friend gave me. $40 on the next electric bill. Guess which machine got donated to someone else?
I think the choir you're looking for is down the hall.
Oops. s/completed extinguishing the fire with water/ completed extinguishing the fire with dry chemicals/
Mod parent up. +1 Informative. I've read quite a few other posts suggesting they completed extinguishing the fire with water. But, they *did* use dry chemicals prior to opening up the battery.
I wish I hadn't spent all my mod points. +1 Insightful
Clearly, you've never used a can of compressed air held upside down and sprayed on the RAM to cool it down. Why, that might even allow someone to mount an attack! Don't spout off BS when you're several years behind the news...