.. these hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings are helping us discover the Ultimate Question of Life, Universe and Everything. No need to invoke the PETA and all that, thank you very much.
I check my weblogs all the time and never see anyone of my visitors using it..
That doesn't say much about how many of your visitors use Opera, because Opera by default identifies itself as some version of Internet Explorer. See the Opera page .
So don't get immersed in cataloging all the things in the wild, that burns too many cycles and changes everyday.
Aha, here goes the point. One can pare down a software system by limiting the number of situations in which the software is supposed to work correctly. This is not possible in security -- you can limit what you do, not what a malicious adversary can do. It is a much scarier situation to deal with, and that is why crypto is hard.
Security and usability are mutually exclusive
on
Security and Usability
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Security/Cryptography is not easy, almost by definition, because you are building systems that withstand all attacks -- even ones you cannot foresee at the time of design. Defense is hard when you dont know exactly what to defend against. As opposed to traditional software design, where, you have a very well-defined goal to meet. Such paranoia almost always leads to lack of usability.
Update (Oct 30, 2005): Oh crap, here comes the Slashdotting.. The server probably won't be able to take the beating so if the game doesn't work now bookmark us and return in a few days time. Sorry! - Craig
The best strategy for Creationists is to let the experiment(s) continue and pray that they dont succeed.
If the experiment succeeds (say, using instead DNA instead of PNA), it proves that life is indeed intelligent design, but it also proves that it doesn't take a "higher intelligence" to do it. And that is the trump card of creationists. On the other hand, if it doesn't, they can still claim that we are not intelligent enough to create life.
This shouldn't be very surprising. With all the current infrastructure, it just takes a few enterprising minds to get that crucial idea, and "create life". Note that the article pinpoints the distinction between life and non-life as the ability to undergo evolution. The creation of "intelligence" from scratch will possibly take a lot more work.
He said "moisture in the old boat's wood". The portion of the ship that floats (reasonably) above the water is absolutely dry, and could very well be inflammable than a piece of soaked wood.
It is certainly more than about explaining to all the retards who refuse to listen about global warming (Yes, including those that refused to sign the Kyoto agreement). To those that are involved, it would be more about sheer intellectual curiosity. For instance, think of how neat it would be if the mission finds evidence that (some form of) life once existed on Venus.
This is representative of the problems I considered "cute" back in my high-school days: Show that, given any 6 points inside a circle of radius 1, some two are within distance 1 of each other.
The proof is simple, but involves a cute trick.
Well, If b=0, b^0 is not even defined ! For n=0, it is easy to see that there is no solution. For n smaller than 3, it is elementary to show that there are solutions (even infinitely many of them), and for n > 3, you have to be Andrew Wiles to show that:)
Ultimately, we are a bunch of interconnected neurons, which implies that there should be some algorithm that predicts how we will react to, say, a member of the opposite sex with certain well-defined characteristics - smell, color, size of boobs, social status, whatever else you can think of. But, I doubt if something as simplistic as this could even be a close approximation. Also, this article looks like cheap propaganda - stinks !
Slashdot Mirror
.. these hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings are helping us discover the Ultimate Question of Life, Universe and Everything. No need to invoke the PETA and all that, thank you very much.
That doesn't say much about how many of your visitors use Opera, because Opera by default identifies itself as some version of Internet Explorer. See the Opera page .
Wrong, That would be 1 million 420 emails.
So don't get immersed in cataloging all the things in the wild, that burns too many cycles and changes everyday.
Aha, here goes the point. One can pare down a software system by limiting the number of situations in which the software is supposed to work correctly. This is not possible in security -- you can limit what you do, not what a malicious adversary can do. It is a much scarier situation to deal with, and that is why crypto is hard.
Security/Cryptography is not easy, almost by definition, because you are building systems that withstand all attacks -- even ones you cannot foresee at the time of design. Defense is hard when you dont know exactly what to defend against. As opposed to traditional software design, where, you have a very well-defined goal to meet. Such paranoia almost always leads to lack of usability.
... sucks. What sort of reading is it if I cant even grep.
Here at MIT, we regularly see ghostly figures walking around in distress at 4 in the morning. We call them grad students.
Brewster Jennings and co. is a "real" company. The CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose cover was blown for political reasons, "worked" for Brewster Jennings.
Update (Oct 30, 2005): Oh crap, here comes the Slashdotting.. The server probably won't be able to take the beating so if the game doesn't work now bookmark us and return in a few days time. Sorry! - Craig
This is from BrewsterJennings.com.
The best strategy for Creationists is to let the experiment(s) continue and pray that they dont succeed.
If the experiment succeeds (say, using instead DNA instead of PNA), it proves that life is indeed intelligent design, but it also proves that it doesn't take a "higher intelligence" to do it. And that is the trump card of creationists. On the other hand, if it doesn't, they can still claim that we are not intelligent enough to create life.
This shouldn't be very surprising. With all the current infrastructure, it just takes a few enterprising minds to get that crucial idea, and "create life". Note that the article pinpoints the distinction between life and non-life as the ability to undergo evolution. The creation of "intelligence" from scratch will possibly take a lot more work.
He said "moisture in the old boat's wood". The portion of the ship that floats (reasonably) above the water is absolutely dry, and could very well be inflammable than a piece of soaked wood.
It is certainly more than about explaining to all the retards who refuse to listen about global warming (Yes, including those that refused to sign the Kyoto agreement). To those that are involved, it would be more about sheer intellectual curiosity. For instance, think of how neat it would be if the mission finds evidence that (some form of) life once existed on Venus.
This is representative of the problems I considered "cute" back in my high-school days: Show that, given any 6 points inside a circle of radius 1, some two are within distance 1 of each other. The proof is simple, but involves a cute trick.
Well, If b=0, b^0 is not even defined ! For n=0, it is easy to see that there is no solution. For n smaller than 3, it is elementary to show that there are solutions (even infinitely many of them), and for n > 3, you have to be Andrew Wiles to show that :)
That one's really easy. Set a=42, b=0 and c=42, for any n :)
Ultimately, we are a bunch of interconnected neurons, which implies that there should be some algorithm that predicts how we will react to, say, a member of the opposite sex with certain well-defined characteristics - smell, color, size of boobs, social status, whatever else you can think of. But, I doubt if something as simplistic as this could even be a close approximation. Also, this article looks like cheap propaganda - stinks !