b/c, IMHO, 'computing' is the act of programming a machine with instructions
Computing and programming are not synonymous. Whether a machine is a programmable computer is a completely separate question from whether it's a computer at all, ie. the universal Turing machine vs Turing machine distinction.
as opposed to what?
Reality could compute uncomputable functions (like functions on the reals). That would make natural laws super-Turing, ie. Turing + Oracle. The Oracle isn't a computer as we currently define it.
The type of computation discussed in this article is not the type of computation used in the phrase "every physical event is a computation". These physicists are trying to discern computation from physical processes by discerning whether the process can encode information in its initial conditions, and other information can be extracted from its results. This is good when trying to determine which processes lend themselves to building computers, but it does not address the question of whether the universe is a computer, and whether the laws of physics are merely closed form equations describing some of its operational semantics.
When the real Officer Bruch gave his 'rebuttal', he started out by started out by saying, "Everything he just said was true. And it was right, and it was correct." If I had been in the room at the time, I would have asked him, "Seriously? Were you listening when Professor Duane said that if a suspect protested his innocence in the way that he described, you would take that out-of-context quote and only tell the jury that he said 'I never liked the guy?'"
Yes, and there are many, many documented cases where a cop became convinced of someone's guilt contrary to later evidence, and then went to extreme measures to find something to charge them with. The Constitution is meant to prevent abuses of power at all levels of government, and the Fifth Amendment is one of them. And this shows the lie in your claim of sampling error: you never know what kind of cop you're talking to, or what he thinks of you and how his perceptions affect his belief in your guilt or innocence.
Duane is absolutely correct that talking to the police can never, ever help you. Since you seem so confused about Duane's message, it's not "no one should ever talk to the police", it's simply "anyone who isn't a expert in criminal law should not talk to the police on any criminal matter (and don't represent yourself either)"; the latter addendum is because there are many psychological compulsions people have when being accused that can easily bypass one's better judgment.
And your analyses of the downsides of the fifth amendment are ridiculously one-sided. You consider the scenarios where the 5th is less than ideal without considering any contrary scenarios that it was intended to address (many of which were raised in your previous articles -- and I know this because I raised a few, none of which you addressed). That's intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
And yet, somehow, everyone seems to have understood what was meant. So what's the problem?
Because he contradicted himself in the same sentence resulting in ambiguity. We only understood unambiguously what was meant because of the additional context that Linus also said 'no', and the laughter of the audience implied a juxtaposition between words and action. Striving for clarity is not a bad thing.
Grammatically correct, yes. Accurate, no. It has nothing to do with common phrasing. Nodding is specifically an up-down motion with the head. Shaking is left-right motion with the head. The former is almost universally taken to mean agreement, the latter almost universally taken to mean disagreement. Check the links.
He hasn't read Harry Potter ("What will I learn from that?") this is both an ignorant and arrogant statement. an intelligent individual would read the books and then say there was nothing to learn from them, yet this kid assumes there is nothing to learn from it.
Or maybe he reached his conclusion via a logical argument, instead of an assumption like you're assuming. For instance, the fact that non-fiction books collectively contain more knowledge than fiction books, leads to the inevitable conclusion that if one desires to optimize the acquisition of knowledge, one is better served by avoiding fiction in preference to non-fiction.
Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities.
Snowden has a political opinion that governments ought to not spy on their citizens without warrants and overall ought to be more transparent.
No, LGPL libraries can be distributed in commercial software, and only changes to the library itself, if any, need be open sourced under the LGPL. They don't need permission from anyone to distribute it.
"The NSA is spying on China!" "This NSA is spying on the EU!" Not only is that shit really not that surprising, but it really isn't the kind of thing he can make the same claim about in terms of public good.
The Europeans seem quite surprised and angered by the information, so I call bullshit.
And this is why we should fear how much the government should be allowed to intrude into our lives. Because who knows what sort of low-level bitter bureaucrat may just take a disliking to you, and end up abusing government powers.
By telling the Chinese and the world that the US spies on them and leaking important details
Yes, I'm sure it came as quite a "shock" that the U.S. spies on foreign nations. I'm sure the U.S. would also be quite "shocked" to discover that other nations spy on it.
Before you read any further, this is a pseudo-contest in which I'm soliciting answers in the form of a specific, precisely defined scenario in which you think that the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference (i.e. that the outcome in a world with the Fifth Amendment, is better than the outcome in a world without the Fifth Amendment, even if you hold all other assumptions constant).
Trivial. Consider a petty thief unwilling to testify that he witnessed a murder because it would leave him open to prosecution for stealing. With the 5th amendment, the petty thief can submit testimony for the more heinous crime without fear of incriminating himself for petty theft. ndykman's comment has it exactly right.
Any pointers describing why they failed? L4 can run Linux as a guest with comparable performance to Xen's hypervisor, so it's not like it isn't powerful enough as a substrate.
The performance hit comes from the hardware isolated process model used by modern microprocessors.
Lets be clear: the performance hit comes from the expensive x86/x64 trap handling. RISC processors are on the order of 30 cycles. x86/x64 is on the order of 2,000-3,000 cycles. The braindead x86 architecture is the only reason microkernels haven't already "taken over the world".
The L4 and EROS/CapROS microkernels did a lot of small hacks to reduce the above overhead, and they got some pretty decent performance even out of x86. But contrary to your previous claim, x86 makes good microkernels very difficult to construct.
We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.
Even assuming I grant you the above, the difference is clearly between making food cheap and life entertaining vs. making your air unbreathable and gambling with your money to the point where you may not be able to afford to eat tomorrow. No difference you say? Yeesh.
As many others have stated, use a tool that computes a hash of file contents. Coincidentally, I wrote one last week to do exactly this when I was organizing my music folder. It'll interactively prompt you for which file to keep among the duplicates once it's finished scanning. It churns through about 30 GB of data in roughly 5 minutes. Not sure if it will scale to 4.2 million files, but it's worth a try!
I don't know much about oauth, but this sounds like a stupid move.
No, it's how it should have been to begin with. Bearer tokens are now pure capabilities supporting arbitrary delegation patterns. This is exactly what you want for a standard authorization protocol.
Tying crypto to the authorization protocol is entirely redundant. For one thing, it immediately eliminates web browsers from being first-class participants in OAuth transactions. The bearer tokens + TLS makes browsers first-class, and is a pattern already used on the web quite a bit, albeit not as granularly as it should be.
His criticisms against bearer tokens are based on the ideals of authenticating identity, but bearer tokens in OAuth are about authorization. These are very different problems, and authentication actually impedes the delegation patterns that people want to use OAuth for.
Giving someone a bearer token authorizes them to use a resource on your behalf. That third-party shouldn't also have to authenticate with the resource as well. It could be a person or service that's entirely unknown, so authentication requirements actually prevent work from getting done. This just leads to awkward workarounds, which OAuth was supposed to prevent!
Right, because real estate is at such a premium that we can barely manage to fit in four cores on a single die with 8M cache, so we couldn't possibly afford a few hundred transistors to decode the arcane instruction set.
Cores can be shut down to conserve power, as can caches in some cases, but instruction decoders cannot. I think you underestimate how power usage scales with numbers of transistors. Since this whole article is heavily biased towards low power and mobile computing, that's a very relevant factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Computing and programming are not synonymous. Whether a machine is a programmable computer is a completely separate question from whether it's a computer at all, ie. the universal Turing machine vs Turing machine distinction.
Reality could compute uncomputable functions (like functions on the reals). That would make natural laws super-Turing, ie. Turing + Oracle. The Oracle isn't a computer as we currently define it.
The type of computation discussed in this article is not the type of computation used in the phrase "every physical event is a computation". These physicists are trying to discern computation from physical processes by discerning whether the process can encode information in its initial conditions, and other information can be extracted from its results. This is good when trying to determine which processes lend themselves to building computers, but it does not address the question of whether the universe is a computer, and whether the laws of physics are merely closed form equations describing some of its operational semantics.
Yes, and there are many, many documented cases where a cop became convinced of someone's guilt contrary to later evidence, and then went to extreme measures to find something to charge them with. The Constitution is meant to prevent abuses of power at all levels of government, and the Fifth Amendment is one of them. And this shows the lie in your claim of sampling error: you never know what kind of cop you're talking to, or what he thinks of you and how his perceptions affect his belief in your guilt or innocence.
Duane is absolutely correct that talking to the police can never, ever help you. Since you seem so confused about Duane's message, it's not "no one should ever talk to the police", it's simply "anyone who isn't a expert in criminal law should not talk to the police on any criminal matter (and don't represent yourself either)"; the latter addendum is because there are many psychological compulsions people have when being accused that can easily bypass one's better judgment.
And your analyses of the downsides of the fifth amendment are ridiculously one-sided. You consider the scenarios where the 5th is less than ideal without considering any contrary scenarios that it was intended to address (many of which were raised in your previous articles -- and I know this because I raised a few, none of which you addressed). That's intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
Everything is up for grabs, by informed opinions. Trolls and rants from ignorant people don't qualify.
Because he contradicted himself in the same sentence resulting in ambiguity. We only understood unambiguously what was meant because of the additional context that Linus also said 'no', and the laughter of the audience implied a juxtaposition between words and action. Striving for clarity is not a bad thing.
Grammatically correct, yes. Accurate, no. It has nothing to do with common phrasing. Nodding is specifically an up-down motion with the head. Shaking is left-right motion with the head. The former is almost universally taken to mean agreement, the latter almost universally taken to mean disagreement. Check the links.
Pet peeve alert:
You don't shake your head 'yes', you nod your head 'yes'. Shaking your head indicates 'no'.
I suspect much more. The past two administrations have classified more documents than all previous administrations combined.
Or maybe he reached his conclusion via a logical argument, instead of an assumption like you're assuming. For instance, the fact that non-fiction books collectively contain more knowledge than fiction books, leads to the inevitable conclusion that if one desires to optimize the acquisition of knowledge, one is better served by avoiding fiction in preference to non-fiction.
Tell that to comedians. Some of them make a living off of that!
Snowden has a political opinion that governments ought to not spy on their citizens without warrants and overall ought to be more transparent.
No, LGPL libraries can be distributed in commercial software, and only changes to the library itself, if any, need be open sourced under the LGPL. They don't need permission from anyone to distribute it.
The Europeans seem quite surprised and angered by the information, so I call bullshit.
And this is why we should fear how much the government should be allowed to intrude into our lives. Because who knows what sort of low-level bitter bureaucrat may just take a disliking to you, and end up abusing government powers.
Yes, I'm sure it came as quite a "shock" that the U.S. spies on foreign nations. I'm sure the U.S. would also be quite "shocked" to discover that other nations spy on it.
Trivial. Consider a petty thief unwilling to testify that he witnessed a murder because it would leave him open to prosecution for stealing. With the 5th amendment, the petty thief can submit testimony for the more heinous crime without fear of incriminating himself for petty theft. ndykman's comment has it exactly right.
Any pointers describing why they failed? L4 can run Linux as a guest with comparable performance to Xen's hypervisor, so it's not like it isn't powerful enough as a substrate.
Not even. Mach is a horrible microkernel. I have no idea why GNU/Hurd hasn't switch to something more serious, like an L4 variant.
Lets be clear: the performance hit comes from the expensive x86/x64 trap handling. RISC processors are on the order of 30 cycles. x86/x64 is on the order of 2,000-3,000 cycles. The braindead x86 architecture is the only reason microkernels haven't already "taken over the world".
The L4 and EROS/CapROS microkernels did a lot of small hacks to reduce the above overhead, and they got some pretty decent performance even out of x86. But contrary to your previous claim, x86 makes good microkernels very difficult to construct.
While ideal, proper education takes decades to have effects. All the other changes are short-term with immediate benefits.
Even assuming I grant you the above, the difference is clearly between making food cheap and life entertaining vs. making your air unbreathable and gambling with your money to the point where you may not be able to afford to eat tomorrow. No difference you say? Yeesh.
As many others have stated, use a tool that computes a hash of file contents. Coincidentally, I wrote one last week to do exactly this when I was organizing my music folder. It'll interactively prompt you for which file to keep among the duplicates once it's finished scanning. It churns through about 30 GB of data in roughly 5 minutes. Not sure if it will scale to 4.2 million files, but it's worth a try!
No, it's how it should have been to begin with. Bearer tokens are now pure capabilities supporting arbitrary delegation patterns. This is exactly what you want for a standard authorization protocol.
Tying crypto to the authorization protocol is entirely redundant. For one thing, it immediately eliminates web browsers from being first-class participants in OAuth transactions. The bearer tokens + TLS makes browsers first-class, and is a pattern already used on the web quite a bit, albeit not as granularly as it should be.
His criticisms against bearer tokens are based on the ideals of authenticating identity, but bearer tokens in OAuth are about authorization. These are very different problems, and authentication actually impedes the delegation patterns that people want to use OAuth for.
Giving someone a bearer token authorizes them to use a resource on your behalf. That third-party shouldn't also have to authenticate with the resource as well. It could be a person or service that's entirely unknown, so authentication requirements actually prevent work from getting done. This just leads to awkward workarounds, which OAuth was supposed to prevent!
Give this man some points! He has it exactly right.
Cores can be shut down to conserve power, as can caches in some cases, but instruction decoders cannot. I think you underestimate how power usage scales with numbers of transistors. Since this whole article is heavily biased towards low power and mobile computing, that's a very relevant factor.