There are exceedingly few jobs that cannot be replaced by robots in principle. Jobs that make no sense if done by a robot (Congressman, President), and jobs that center on social interaction (floor sales, etc.) are the only ones that come to mind. Almost anything else can be done by a robot, and probably better than almost any human, in principle. In practice it just becomes a question of developing hardware/software suitable to the task. Oh, I suppose we can add building the FIRST robot who designs and builds other, better, robots to the list of jobs that can't be done by robots.
Apparently you fail reading comprehension if you think my post supports that view.
My ENTIRE point was that obscurity, alone or in addition to "encryption and stuff" ONLY inconveniences legitimate users while providing zero security benefit. To make this as simple as I can, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
The only reason to add obscurity is if you're stupid enough to think that inconvenience for legitimate users is a kind of security. If you have secure encryption, it takes a billion years to crack, and doesn't get in the way of any authorized user doing their job. If you have secure encryption and obscurity it takes a billion years plus one day to crack, and gets in the way of normal users doing their damned jobs. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You sure seem to have assumed a whole lot of shit about me based on nothing.
For all you know I'm an african-american lesbian. So fuck off.
Of course, I agree with you about supporting fundamental liberties for everyone. I'm just rather irked at your bullshit assumption that I somehow ever supported doing anything like this to anyone you prejudicial fuck. The only one in this thread ever talking about this having ever been ok is you. Don't go accusing me of what bigger assholes than you (surprising that such could exist) have said.
Eh, hard to explain what I mean without drawing graphs of wavefunctions, but I'll try (and I may be wrong anyway, someone who's done QM past two 400 level classes four years ago would have to weigh in there).
The interference pattern isn't the result of the photons going through both slits per se (that's a really awkward, but accessible way of explaining the math, and I don't think it works very well), but a result of the wavefunctions of the photons from each slit overlapping and interfering with each other. When you measure which slit the photons travel through the position wavefuction (x-hat Psi) collapses to a Dirac Delta function (basically an infinite probability spike at x=x_0, where x_0 is the position of the slit). Because of this the wavefunctions from the photons going through different slits no longer overlap, so they no longer interfere with each other. The summary's use of the term 'weak measurement' suggests to me that they measure particle position in a way which did not collapse the wavefunctions to a dirac delta entirely, but only enough so that the probability that a photon went through one slit and not the other is large (I'd have to read the actual article to be more specific than that). It is then conceivable that the wavefunctions would still overlap and interfere with each other.
Essentially, they aren't measuring which slit the photons go through exactly, they're taking a measurement which of slit the particles very, very likely went through. For each photon they're saying something like "there's a 99% chance it went through the left [or right] slit," and that measurement apparently doesn't destroy the interference pattern.
Or I could be entirely misreading the summary, or the summary could be fubar.
Obscurity keeps Joe Derp from breaking into your system on accident. Obscurity does nothing for motivated attackers. Since security is all about time-until-breakage, and obscurity at best adds time on linearly (admittedly, this is hard to measure) compared to the exponential gains provided by properly implemented cryptographic protocols the only reason to rely on obscurity is if you're a water headed moron who thinks it makes a difference because you can't imagine a mindset other than your own (i.e. the mindset of the attacker). Of course, that probably describes the majority of humans alive today.
Put another way, obscurity takes a few days (for any widely used system; for evidence see the rate of DRM cracking on video games, movies, and music) of dedicated effort to bypass. Properly implemented cryptography takes billions of years of dedicated effort to bypass. Obscurity only adds hassle for legitimate users. It does virtually nothing to slow down dedicated attackers.
You forget that they have been bought by MS. I'd assume that all of their decisions until the actual takeover will be predicated on what they think MS would want (if not based on MS execs outright telling them what they want). Open ain't gonna happen.
Allow me to introduce you to a magical concept known as utilitarianism: that which produces the most good for the most people is good. Open protocols are utilitarian. Closed protocols are the anti-thesis of utilitarian.
You can't measure both variables in the traditional double slit experiment--either you measure which slit the photons go through, or you detect an interference pattern, not both. It was one of the critical pieces of evidence in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Measuring which slit the photons traveled through collapses their wavefunction to a position eigenstate, changing their wavefunctions so that no interference pattern is created.
From the summary it sounds like they measured position (which slit the photons went through) in a way that did not completely collapse the wave function, but only collapsed it enough to distinguish which slit the photon's must have gone through, thus not eliminating the interference pattern. That's my best guess, but it's been years since I've taken quantum mechanics (and who knows how inaccurate the summary is).
Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.
Jesting aside, if their response to not being able to VIDEO call me on their iPhone is to reject AUDIO calling me and decide to not speak to me altogether, I'm almost certainly better off.
Then again, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for high maintenance relationships and am prone to simply not answering my phone for days at a time anyway.
The ease of developing a tool has nothing to do with whether or not it is popular. They're completely unconnected. Ease of use might have something to do with it, but ease of development is entirely unrelated. VOIP apps ARE easy to develop. Encrypted voice apps ARE easy to develop (once you've converted the analog audio to digital audio you can apply any encryption algorithm you like with whatever key-exchange protocol you like). Getting a large userbase on a given standard is one part luck, two parts MBA-bullshit--as I said, entirely unrelated.
Congratulations, you win the NON-SEQUITUR of the DAY AWARD!
Sure, that's easier. It has nothing to do with whether or not legalized abortion can be credited with declining crime rates (which, frankly, I think the data on is weak, but I also think it's stronger than the data for any alternative explanation).
I'd think it's common knowledge by now that violent crime has been declining for 20-something years (basically since crack cocaine peaked, though that may just be a coincidence). If you didn't know this, you've had your head hidden some where dark and smelly for a while and I don't quite know what to do with you.
That is officially the stupidest thing I've ever read on/.
I mean really? You think THAT is the only thing preventing the murder of IP holders? Fuck, I can think of DOZENS of reasons to murder certain IP holders before that (I'm looking at you Bieber). Notice how they aren't being murdered?
Slashdot Mirror
There are exceedingly few jobs that cannot be replaced by robots in principle. Jobs that make no sense if done by a robot (Congressman, President), and jobs that center on social interaction (floor sales, etc.) are the only ones that come to mind. Almost anything else can be done by a robot, and probably better than almost any human, in principle. In practice it just becomes a question of developing hardware/software suitable to the task. Oh, I suppose we can add building the FIRST robot who designs and builds other, better, robots to the list of jobs that can't be done by robots.
Yes. Both made me almost overdose on opiates.
Next question.
Your entire post is wrong.
Apparently you fail reading comprehension if you think my post supports that view.
My ENTIRE point was that obscurity, alone or in addition to "encryption and stuff" ONLY inconveniences legitimate users while providing zero security benefit. To make this as simple as I can, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
Security(Encryption +Obscurity) = Security(Encryption) + ShitTonofInconvenience
The only reason to add obscurity is if you're stupid enough to think that inconvenience for legitimate users is a kind of security. If you have secure encryption, it takes a billion years to crack, and doesn't get in the way of any authorized user doing their job. If you have secure encryption and obscurity it takes a billion years plus one day to crack, and gets in the way of normal users doing their damned jobs. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Yeah, but pointing that out to them is the fast track to testicular tazerdom.
You misunderstood. He has multiple personalities.
You sure seem to have assumed a whole lot of shit about me based on nothing.
For all you know I'm an african-american lesbian. So fuck off.
Of course, I agree with you about supporting fundamental liberties for everyone. I'm just rather irked at your bullshit assumption that I somehow ever supported doing anything like this to anyone you prejudicial fuck. The only one in this thread ever talking about this having ever been ok is you. Don't go accusing me of what bigger assholes than you (surprising that such could exist) have said.
...and cops wonder why we hate them?
Eh, hard to explain what I mean without drawing graphs of wavefunctions, but I'll try (and I may be wrong anyway, someone who's done QM past two 400 level classes four years ago would have to weigh in there).
The interference pattern isn't the result of the photons going through both slits per se (that's a really awkward, but accessible way of explaining the math, and I don't think it works very well), but a result of the wavefunctions of the photons from each slit overlapping and interfering with each other. When you measure which slit the photons travel through the position wavefuction (x-hat Psi) collapses to a Dirac Delta function (basically an infinite probability spike at x=x_0, where x_0 is the position of the slit). Because of this the wavefunctions from the photons going through different slits no longer overlap, so they no longer interfere with each other. The summary's use of the term 'weak measurement' suggests to me that they measure particle position in a way which did not collapse the wavefunctions to a dirac delta entirely, but only enough so that the probability that a photon went through one slit and not the other is large (I'd have to read the actual article to be more specific than that). It is then conceivable that the wavefunctions would still overlap and interfere with each other.
Essentially, they aren't measuring which slit the photons go through exactly, they're taking a measurement which of slit the particles very, very likely went through. For each photon they're saying something like "there's a 99% chance it went through the left [or right] slit," and that measurement apparently doesn't destroy the interference pattern.
Or I could be entirely misreading the summary, or the summary could be fubar.
Obscurity keeps Joe Derp from breaking into your system on accident. Obscurity does nothing for motivated attackers. Since security is all about time-until-breakage, and obscurity at best adds time on linearly (admittedly, this is hard to measure) compared to the exponential gains provided by properly implemented cryptographic protocols the only reason to rely on obscurity is if you're a water headed moron who thinks it makes a difference because you can't imagine a mindset other than your own (i.e. the mindset of the attacker). Of course, that probably describes the majority of humans alive today.
Put another way, obscurity takes a few days (for any widely used system; for evidence see the rate of DRM cracking on video games, movies, and music) of dedicated effort to bypass. Properly implemented cryptography takes billions of years of dedicated effort to bypass. Obscurity only adds hassle for legitimate users. It does virtually nothing to slow down dedicated attackers.
You forget that they have been bought by MS. I'd assume that all of their decisions until the actual takeover will be predicated on what they think MS would want (if not based on MS execs outright telling them what they want). Open ain't gonna happen.
Allow me to introduce you to a magical concept known as utilitarianism: that which produces the most good for the most people is good. Open protocols are utilitarian. Closed protocols are the anti-thesis of utilitarian.
You can't measure both variables in the traditional double slit experiment--either you measure which slit the photons go through, or you detect an interference pattern, not both. It was one of the critical pieces of evidence in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Measuring which slit the photons traveled through collapses their wavefunction to a position eigenstate, changing their wavefunctions so that no interference pattern is created.
From the summary it sounds like they measured position (which slit the photons went through) in a way that did not completely collapse the wave function, but only collapsed it enough to distinguish which slit the photon's must have gone through, thus not eliminating the interference pattern. That's my best guess, but it's been years since I've taken quantum mechanics (and who knows how inaccurate the summary is).
Which is why I can say "not my problem" so easily.
My friendships are stronger than not being able to video chat with me from their iphones. Maybe you just need better friends.
Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.
Jesting aside, if their response to not being able to VIDEO call me on their iPhone is to reject AUDIO calling me and decide to not speak to me altogether, I'm almost certainly better off.
Then again, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for high maintenance relationships and am prone to simply not answering my phone for days at a time anyway.
What? Whatever you're smoking, please share.
The ease of developing a tool has nothing to do with whether or not it is popular. They're completely unconnected. Ease of use might have something to do with it, but ease of development is entirely unrelated. VOIP apps ARE easy to develop. Encrypted voice apps ARE easy to develop (once you've converted the analog audio to digital audio you can apply any encryption algorithm you like with whatever key-exchange protocol you like). Getting a large userbase on a given standard is one part luck, two parts MBA-bullshit--as I said, entirely unrelated.
Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP.
And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?
Yes. Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.
It's not the book's source; that article was authored by the same guy who wrote Freakonomics.
Congratulations, you win the NON-SEQUITUR of the DAY AWARD!
Sure, that's easier. It has nothing to do with whether or not legalized abortion can be credited with declining crime rates (which, frankly, I think the data on is weak, but I also think it's stronger than the data for any alternative explanation).
I'd think it's common knowledge by now that violent crime has been declining for 20-something years (basically since crack cocaine peaked, though that may just be a coincidence). If you didn't know this, you've had your head hidden some where dark and smelly for a while and I don't quite know what to do with you.
Yes you did, when you registered your title at the local courthouse. You being ignorant of what that means doesn't change the fact that you did it.
More than 100 miles from the nearest international airport?
Its hard to outrun a police helicopter, even if your Maserati does do 185.
That is officially the stupidest thing I've ever read on /.
I mean really? You think THAT is the only thing preventing the murder of IP holders? Fuck, I can think of DOZENS of reasons to murder certain IP holders before that (I'm looking at you Bieber). Notice how they aren't being murdered?