As far as I can see, he's using a microcontroller which is, itself, Turing-complete. So it's still only emulating a Turing machine (just with physical tape, instead of an emulator on your computer).
The point of a real Turing machine is that the logic is emergent from the individually-useless instructions on the tape. This is interesting from a hardware perspective, but in this instance the tape itself isn't the program - it's all the microcontroller
They'd be fools to not use SSL. They'd probably even be required to do it by law, since the backhaul should be as secure as the communications channel (GSM and others are all encrypted).
Would I be terribly surprised if they didn't use SSL? Not really. But they should, and it'd be easy.
1. Probably. It's a picocell. Should they not? It's using a few hundred kbps max, probably much lower. 2. This isn't relevant. We're talking about cell signals, not WiFi. If he's got a rogue AP, it has nothing to do with his setup.
It's samzenpus. If you read something and go "this should be in Idle, where nobody will see it" then odds are it's posted by samzenpus. His arrival coincided with Idle, so...
Other notes about Idle: Ever noticed that most of the posters are UID>1000000?
Just sayin'. And yes this is totally OT, no need to mod it down.
All HSDPA phones I've ever seen do have EDGE radios. But I'm pretty sure the UMTS/HSDPA traffic is multiplexed and not sent simultaneously, not least because it would seem that a phone can only maintain one connection to a tower (due to having only one SIM)
And that DDTM setting is also a feature of EDGE, which is 7 years old and essentially deprecated.
I don't mean to flame, but Sprint/Verizon should get on the ball. GSM is superior technology, and my GSM phone will work literally anywhere else in the world. *Everybody* uses GSM, so I can pick up a prepaid SIM when I go to Europe and not pay outrageous charges. HSDPA at a real-world 20+ MBPS is faster than anything Verizon has, and Sprint's "4G" is cheating a bit. Why stick with a dying standard? Hopefully we'll all converge back on LTE.
Hmm. That seems... primitive. I had a RAZR v3m back in 2006 where I could download at HSDPA speeds while on speaker or something, no problem. It would suspend my web browser if I was on EDGE.
You *are* constructing a strawman. Of course I would not prefer to put innocents in jail to make sure we get everybody. But they're not analogous situations.
Let me explain. If I throw you in jail for a crime you didn't commit, that hurts you. That's bad, we all agree that shouldn't happen. But if the government wiretapping had been public, they still could've done it. The classified-ness of information is like metadata: it only indirectly relates to its existence or application. Throwing you in jail is an action with a consequence: you're in jail. But classifying information, the information doesn't change. It just means that some people can't see it.
But, you say, if they couldn't classify anything then they couldn't do unpopular or illegal things! You're right, but that's only because the press / others would be able to get a hold of it. That's a level of indirection away from the action of jailing itself.
Basically, there is information out there that could seriously, seriously damage our country if it was revealed. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, but even I could easily envision a situation where Al-Quaeda could take over a key piece of infrastructure and hold us hostage for it. Throwing the wrong person in jail simply isn't in the same scope.
So unsensitive information should be unclassified. Sensitive information (like the aforementioned launch authorization codes) should be a secret. But there are some things that have a reason to be secret, but shouldn't be classified because the public needs to know about it (wiretapping). There's no real criteria to decide that people need to know about it, but the NYTimes has a history of making good choices about that sort of thing. Wikileaks has no such history. If the New York Times got the missile launch codes, they wouldn't publish it. I hope Wikileaks wouldn't either. But I don't necessarily trust them to make that choice.
Voice and data at the same time is nothing new. All flavors of GSM 3G can do it, and even EDGE can pause data transfers (while retaining connections) when on a voice call.
Simultaneous voice and data on cell networks has been around for 8 years. Does Sprint/Verizon not have this?
Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?
Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.
Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.
Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.
As I understand it you can't even address particular sectors with a guarantee on a SSD so I wouldn't trust a utility like 'shred' because the wear leveling will have it writing 0's all over the disk instead of over the file. But they're easier to dissolve in acid.
- Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs... Oops! Wear leveling is done on HDDs too. And it isn't a disadvantage: it is a solution.
Wear-leveling is done for bad sectors on a HDD, not as standard practice.
- More expensive, lower capacity Don't need to address that, since that is the topic of the article...
- Asymmetric read vs. write performance Oops! Platter drives have this problem too!
Wrong. I just ran a benchmark and saw widely varying performance based on sector size and sequential vs random, but the reads and writes were the same speeds. I tested all 3 of my HDDs. If this is true, [citation needed]
- Requires TRIM Solved.
- Limited lifetimes Funny, that's considered the major downside to platter drives. Anyway, this is the same as the first point.
- Performance of SSDs degrades with use. Solved. See TRIM. Note that this is also a problem on platter drives.
These two are related. SSDs may last longer than HDDs for certain use environments (space?) and types (maybe even a typical user) but they're definitely not a given. Try to defrag a MLC drive a few times and it'll be dead in a week (yes I know you don't need to defrag a SSD, but there are processes that can mimic it). And every HDD I've owned (dozens) for the past 15 years is still spinning, though I suppose I may be lucky. And a SSD will have cells go bad as a consequence of the technology, while a bad sector on a HDD is a fault. If a HDD goes bad, it's due to mechanical failure of the supporting systems, not degradation of the media itself.
--
Look, SSDs are great. I love coding on one because compiles are wicked fast. But they are not ready to replace HDDs. And they're not the panacea you're making them out to be. Like literally everything else, you pick the right tool for the job. I'll keep my backups and my movies and music and 11 days of recorded TV on my 2TBs of spinning media, and my OS, applications, and code on a smaller 128GB SSD.
Perhaps the "inhibition area" would grow if there were consequences. If a kid does something bad and his parents can't/won't make life difficult for him, then what purpose does it have? If I can set off a firecracker at school, and the school calls my parents, and they don't care - why shouldn't I do it again?
This needs to happen from the beginning of life. If the kid throws a temper tantrum because he doesn't get a lollipop, don't encourage that behavior by giving him one. Otherwise the tantrums won't go away - they'll just get more sophisticated.
I still have never heard a proper explanation as to how 14-year-olds were considered adults and running families, if they have the inferior brain of teenagers today. The only conclusion I can come up with is that the brain isn't developing as fast as it used to, because it doesn't need to. This squares with mine (and your) experience - I didn't pull any stupid shit because I knew I couldn't get away with it, and from a young age my parents didn't tolerate any BS.
Very interesting. You can make very strong cases that neither of those behaviors should be considered delinquent.
If you didn't need to escape your parents and responsibilities to smoke weed or drink beer, would you have done it, and in the same amounts? (you leave amount unspecified)
I truly don't mean to insult you or your family, but perhaps the fact that your siblings were inclined to 'delinquency' is a problem with how you were raised. I see no reason why a teenager couldn't be given the responsibilities of an adult and make it work.
At least, that's what I and many of my peers did. We showed ourselves mature enough to handle the responsibility from a young age (13ish) and we got it, and kept it because we didn't blow it.
Perhaps if we stopped treating teenagers like little kids, they'd stop acting like them. The whole extended childhood is a very modern notion, and back then you didn't have the 16-year-old kid with 2 kids himself going around and getting into mischief (if he did, he'd be dead). My point is, we're probably doing this to our youth. I'm not arguing for throwing kids in the steel mill at age 12, but maybe it's time we toned down the "little kid who can't be trusted to be responsible" approach.
All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place. The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it (death panels?) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.
Had the fiasco been about the bill, it wouldn't have been about "yous gonna kill my gramma!" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany *and* Russia.
In other words, the problem is not the lack of information. It's the fact that people hear what they want to hear, or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda, and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available.
And I'm not objecting to that. But this bill isn't really about that, and the fraud issue should be addressed in a separate bill.
You just know that Fox would find and misrepresent some edge case that the proposed bill would be considered fraud, and try to use it to take down the whole bill. This was hard enough to pass as it was.
All the Democrats need to do now is explain what the healthcare bill actually is. The Obama/Democrats healthcare bill is wildly unpopular, but if you ask people "would you support a bill with xyz" where xyz are the provisions of the bill, like 80% are for it.
It's a simple matter of telling people what the bill is and forcing them to drop their prejudice.
We can only hope. I've never heard Republican's saying it, but I've spoken to many liberal democrats who hope that'll be the end result.
Single-payer is really the only way to do it anyway. It's diluting the risk pool, so the cost is minimum for everyone. Government has proven it can be very efficient at this (Medicare has a margin of 99 cents out for the dollar in)
Because health insurance isn't really insurance. You expect to use it and you plan to use it, I don't plan to get a house fire, or a flood - if I did, it'd be fraud. But I do plan on having insurance so if I need cholesterol medication (likely given my history) I won't have to pay the whole cost. And I do plan on my annual checkup, which would be several hundred dollars without insurance.
All these health insurance problems seem perfectly reasonable to me. It's not really insurance.
What happens when an uninsured person goes to the ER? You pay for it, but in the least efficient way possible. There's a lot of reasons for the current inefficiency - namely that they *will* get turned away from an annual checkup that would've found their heart attack waiting to happen.
We already decided healthcare was a right, when we mandated that ERs accept everyone. But why would you want to keep it as inefficient (the *most* inefficient) as it currently is?
We are a second world nation, due to fools like you. Our standards of living are well below many other nations. It's not so much that we've fallen, though we have, but that other nations have risen without us.
Face it. Our country isn't the best thing ever anymore. But I believe wholeheartedly that we can fix this.
I think that was GP's point./b/ *IS* about getting it out into the open. Sort of like the gloryhole of the internet - all you see of everybody else is the most shameful, worst, most embarrassing parts of them - but you don't know them, and never will, so it's OK. And the same is true of you.
So on/b/ you can be an asshole, venting your (perfectly natural) hate of everybody else *at* everybody else. And then not be like that in the real world.
There wouldn't be a problem if people didn't keep stealing from the fund. I don't have the statistics in front of me but Medicare was pulling in like 10 times what they needed to pay out. Had they held on to it/invested it, we'd still have it today.
There's a lot of blame to go around for stealing from medicare, but it's not Medicare's fault. Not even close.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can see, he's using a microcontroller which is, itself, Turing-complete. So it's still only emulating a Turing machine (just with physical tape, instead of an emulator on your computer).
The point of a real Turing machine is that the logic is emergent from the individually-useless instructions on the tape. This is interesting from a hardware perspective, but in this instance the tape itself isn't the program - it's all the microcontroller
They'd be fools to not use SSL. They'd probably even be required to do it by law, since the backhaul should be as secure as the communications channel (GSM and others are all encrypted).
Would I be terribly surprised if they didn't use SSL? Not really. But they should, and it'd be easy.
1. Probably. It's a picocell. Should they not? It's using a few hundred kbps max, probably much lower.
2. This isn't relevant. We're talking about cell signals, not WiFi. If he's got a rogue AP, it has nothing to do with his setup.
No, it doesn't. It does call setup (instructing GV to call your cell) over data. But your GV phone number is *just* a phone number.
Perhaps you added your GV number to your 'calling circle'?
It's samzenpus. If you read something and go "this should be in Idle, where nobody will see it" then odds are it's posted by samzenpus. His arrival coincided with Idle, so...
Other notes about Idle: Ever noticed that most of the posters are UID>1000000?
Just sayin'. And yes this is totally OT, no need to mod it down.
All HSDPA phones I've ever seen do have EDGE radios. But I'm pretty sure the UMTS/HSDPA traffic is multiplexed and not sent simultaneously, not least because it would seem that a phone can only maintain one connection to a tower (due to having only one SIM)
And that DDTM setting is also a feature of EDGE, which is 7 years old and essentially deprecated.
I don't mean to flame, but Sprint/Verizon should get on the ball. GSM is superior technology, and my GSM phone will work literally anywhere else in the world. *Everybody* uses GSM, so I can pick up a prepaid SIM when I go to Europe and not pay outrageous charges. HSDPA at a real-world 20+ MBPS is faster than anything Verizon has, and Sprint's "4G" is cheating a bit. Why stick with a dying standard? Hopefully we'll all converge back on LTE.
Hmm. That seems ... primitive. I had a RAZR v3m back in 2006 where I could download at HSDPA speeds while on speaker or something, no problem. It would suspend my web browser if I was on EDGE.
Does CDMA even have a suspend-on-call feature?
You *are* constructing a strawman. Of course I would not prefer to put innocents in jail to make sure we get everybody. But they're not analogous situations.
Let me explain. If I throw you in jail for a crime you didn't commit, that hurts you. That's bad, we all agree that shouldn't happen. But if the government wiretapping had been public, they still could've done it. The classified-ness of information is like metadata: it only indirectly relates to its existence or application. Throwing you in jail is an action with a consequence: you're in jail. But classifying information, the information doesn't change. It just means that some people can't see it.
But, you say, if they couldn't classify anything then they couldn't do unpopular or illegal things! You're right, but that's only because the press / others would be able to get a hold of it. That's a level of indirection away from the action of jailing itself.
Basically, there is information out there that could seriously, seriously damage our country if it was revealed. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, but even I could easily envision a situation where Al-Quaeda could take over a key piece of infrastructure and hold us hostage for it. Throwing the wrong person in jail simply isn't in the same scope.
So unsensitive information should be unclassified. Sensitive information (like the aforementioned launch authorization codes) should be a secret. But there are some things that have a reason to be secret, but shouldn't be classified because the public needs to know about it (wiretapping). There's no real criteria to decide that people need to know about it, but the NYTimes has a history of making good choices about that sort of thing. Wikileaks has no such history. If the New York Times got the missile launch codes, they wouldn't publish it. I hope Wikileaks wouldn't either. But I don't necessarily trust them to make that choice.
Voice and data at the same time is nothing new. All flavors of GSM 3G can do it, and even EDGE can pause data transfers (while retaining connections) when on a voice call.
Simultaneous voice and data on cell networks has been around for 8 years. Does Sprint/Verizon not have this?
Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?
Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.
Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.
Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.
As I understand it you can't even address particular sectors with a guarantee on a SSD so I wouldn't trust a utility like 'shred' because the wear leveling will have it writing 0's all over the disk instead of over the file. But they're easier to dissolve in acid.
Soooo.... Tie?
- Wear leveling used on flash-based SSDs...
Oops! Wear leveling is done on HDDs too. And it isn't a disadvantage: it is a solution.
Wear-leveling is done for bad sectors on a HDD, not as standard practice.
- More expensive, lower capacity
Don't need to address that, since that is the topic of the article...
- Asymmetric read vs. write performance
Oops! Platter drives have this problem too!
Wrong. I just ran a benchmark and saw widely varying performance based on sector size and sequential vs random, but the reads and writes were the same speeds. I tested all 3 of my HDDs. If this is true, [citation needed]
- Requires TRIM
Solved.
- Limited lifetimes
Funny, that's considered the major downside to platter drives. Anyway, this is the same as the first point.
- Performance of SSDs degrades with use.
Solved. See TRIM. Note that this is also a problem on platter drives.
These two are related. SSDs may last longer than HDDs for certain use environments (space?) and types (maybe even a typical user) but they're definitely not a given. Try to defrag a MLC drive a few times and it'll be dead in a week (yes I know you don't need to defrag a SSD, but there are processes that can mimic it). And every HDD I've owned (dozens) for the past 15 years is still spinning, though I suppose I may be lucky. And a SSD will have cells go bad as a consequence of the technology, while a bad sector on a HDD is a fault. If a HDD goes bad, it's due to mechanical failure of the supporting systems, not degradation of the media itself.
--
Look, SSDs are great. I love coding on one because compiles are wicked fast. But they are not ready to replace HDDs. And they're not the panacea you're making them out to be. Like literally everything else, you pick the right tool for the job. I'll keep my backups and my movies and music and 11 days of recorded TV on my 2TBs of spinning media, and my OS, applications, and code on a smaller 128GB SSD.
Perhaps the "inhibition area" would grow if there were consequences. If a kid does something bad and his parents can't/won't make life difficult for him, then what purpose does it have? If I can set off a firecracker at school, and the school calls my parents, and they don't care - why shouldn't I do it again?
This needs to happen from the beginning of life. If the kid throws a temper tantrum because he doesn't get a lollipop, don't encourage that behavior by giving him one. Otherwise the tantrums won't go away - they'll just get more sophisticated.
I still have never heard a proper explanation as to how 14-year-olds were considered adults and running families, if they have the inferior brain of teenagers today. The only conclusion I can come up with is that the brain isn't developing as fast as it used to, because it doesn't need to. This squares with mine (and your) experience - I didn't pull any stupid shit because I knew I couldn't get away with it, and from a young age my parents didn't tolerate any BS.
Very interesting. You can make very strong cases that neither of those behaviors should be considered delinquent.
If you didn't need to escape your parents and responsibilities to smoke weed or drink beer, would you have done it, and in the same amounts? (you leave amount unspecified)
I truly don't mean to insult you or your family, but perhaps the fact that your siblings were inclined to 'delinquency' is a problem with how you were raised. I see no reason why a teenager couldn't be given the responsibilities of an adult and make it work.
At least, that's what I and many of my peers did. We showed ourselves mature enough to handle the responsibility from a young age (13ish) and we got it, and kept it because we didn't blow it.
Perhaps if we stopped treating teenagers like little kids, they'd stop acting like them. The whole extended childhood is a very modern notion, and back then you didn't have the 16-year-old kid with 2 kids himself going around and getting into mischief (if he did, he'd be dead). My point is, we're probably doing this to our youth. I'm not arguing for throwing kids in the steel mill at age 12, but maybe it's time we toned down the "little kid who can't be trusted to be responsible" approach.
All this stuff was online and accurate information was all over the place. The problem was certain groups and companies spreading falsehoods about it (death panels?) and people being too stupid to recognize cynical lies.
Had the fiasco been about the bill, it wouldn't have been about "yous gonna kill my gramma!" and the demise of America into simultaneously Nazi Germany *and* Russia.
In other words, the problem is not the lack of information. It's the fact that people hear what they want to hear, or otherwise get sucked in by propaganda, and refuse to have their minds changed even though the facts are readily available.
And I'm not objecting to that. But this bill isn't really about that, and the fraud issue should be addressed in a separate bill.
You just know that Fox would find and misrepresent some edge case that the proposed bill would be considered fraud, and try to use it to take down the whole bill. This was hard enough to pass as it was.
All the Democrats need to do now is explain what the healthcare bill actually is. The Obama/Democrats healthcare bill is wildly unpopular, but if you ask people "would you support a bill with xyz" where xyz are the provisions of the bill, like 80% are for it.
It's a simple matter of telling people what the bill is and forcing them to drop their prejudice.
We can only hope. I've never heard Republican's saying it, but I've spoken to many liberal democrats who hope that'll be the end result.
Single-payer is really the only way to do it anyway. It's diluting the risk pool, so the cost is minimum for everyone. Government has proven it can be very efficient at this (Medicare has a margin of 99 cents out for the dollar in)
Because health insurance isn't really insurance. You expect to use it and you plan to use it, I don't plan to get a house fire, or a flood - if I did, it'd be fraud. But I do plan on having insurance so if I need cholesterol medication (likely given my history) I won't have to pay the whole cost. And I do plan on my annual checkup, which would be several hundred dollars without insurance.
All these health insurance problems seem perfectly reasonable to me. It's not really insurance.
What happens when an uninsured person goes to the ER? You pay for it, but in the least efficient way possible. There's a lot of reasons for the current inefficiency - namely that they *will* get turned away from an annual checkup that would've found their heart attack waiting to happen.
We already decided healthcare was a right, when we mandated that ERs accept everyone. But why would you want to keep it as inefficient (the *most* inefficient) as it currently is?
So we fix the problems.
As for how terrible Medicare is, try to say that at an AARP meeting. But I hope you can run fast, because they'll kill you if you can't.
We are a second world nation, due to fools like you. Our standards of living are well below many other nations. It's not so much that we've fallen, though we have, but that other nations have risen without us.
Face it. Our country isn't the best thing ever anymore. But I believe wholeheartedly that we can fix this.
I think that was GP's point. /b/ *IS* about getting it out into the open. Sort of like the gloryhole of the internet - all you see of everybody else is the most shameful, worst, most embarrassing parts of them - but you don't know them, and never will, so it's OK. And the same is true of you.
So on /b/ you can be an asshole, venting your (perfectly natural) hate of everybody else *at* everybody else. And then not be like that in the real world.
I know I do, sometimes. Less so than I once did.
There wouldn't be a problem if people didn't keep stealing from the fund. I don't have the statistics in front of me but Medicare was pulling in like 10 times what they needed to pay out. Had they held on to it/invested it, we'd still have it today.
There's a lot of blame to go around for stealing from medicare, but it's not Medicare's fault. Not even close.