... the X2's 1600 total stream processors have a peak computational rate of 2.4 teraflops. That's, erm, considerable--beyond the obvious graphics applications, that's the sort of computing power that may one day enable men to figure out what women want.
Allow me to note that the very idea of plugging a woman's desires into a matrix processing unit is precisely what women do not want. It simply won't work.
To effectively compute female emotions, you'd need something like a quantum computer where you get all possible results at once (and I do mean simultaneously), usually with lots of yelling, doors slamming, and things being thrown.
Grab a couple computer science tests, some Knuth books, or ACM programming contest sheets.
Find a simple problem (one that'll take 10-30 minutes to code) and write it up nicely in a couple different languages. Use at least one OO language if you know one.
Discuss the projects you worked on, but tell them it was work for hire and stress that you respect the privacy of the other companies, but you brought other code samples for them to see.
Uh, you kind of missed the point about evolving defenses to natural substances.:-)
But thanks for the links. They kind of support the idea that we shouldn't introduce things into the environment or common usage (such as nano materials) without some caution and analysis of the dangers.
Here is a related question: What happens to this definitional scheme when naturally occurring nanomaterials (ex/ carbon nanotubes and fibers) are harvested/mined and then used for commercial purposes? While they are not "man-made" in the traditional sense, they presumably pose the same exposure risks as engineered nanomaterials created in a lab.
Asbestos fibers occur naturally. Mercury occurs naturally. Lead occurs naturally.
Why are all those regulations out there for natural things? Naturally-occurring means it's good for you, right? We have evolved defenses! Your lead cannot harm me, I'm bulletproof!...
See the problem with that argument? Mercury didn't kill people, until it was dumped into drinking water by irresponsible companies primarily because no regulations were in place. Lead didn't kill anyone, until it was used in cars and leached into ground water (although the current additives aren't much better).
If we wait for catastrophes to regulate/monitor/study something we know is dangerous, we're simply repeating historical ignorance.
In all seriousness, English speakers have an easy gig.
Nearly all Europeans under about 30yo can speak English reasonably well. I have worked with many world-class researchers from all over the world, and they all have passable English (if with an accent).
If you ever get lost in Europe, find a teenager and ask for directions in English. They love to speak to native English speakers. (I made the mistake of asking in really bad German once, and got answered in really good German... and had no clue what he said.)
Exactly -- this is not somebody using a fake Hotmail account to sign up for newsletters... Clearly, if they were to arrest everybody who has ever used a fake name on the Internet, the whole fucking country would be in jail.
You want a law interpreted so that everyone is a lawbreaker? With that point of view, why have laws at all? Why not just arrest everyone we don't like... and hope that it isn't you? Making everyone a lawbreaker and enforcing it subjectively is called a despotic dictatorship. Did you think this through?
Every programmer knows that sometimes functions have unintended side-effects, and even if the function might get the job done, sometimes the side-effects crash the whole system. Laws are similar... they're written to try to accomplish something. When something unintended is introduced, it can break everything.
This is a side-effect that you do not want to see happen. As you stated, it'd instantly create thousands of felons that did nothing but protect their own privacy. That would be a very nasty unintended side-effect indeed.
If necessary, write a new function. Don't introduce unnecessary side-effects.
If you abuse this law (meant to deter actual computer crime) to criminally enforce the TOS of any random website, it sets such a bad precedent that we can basically jail anyone that uses the web, a phone, or any device with a computer in it such as a car or a washing machine.
The biggest problem, besides the overreaching law, is that any idiot can -- and does -- write his own TOS.
There are a lot of fields that would benefit a LOT by someone who knew some basic good programming, not just fiddling around with statements, but understanding the order of algorithms and such.
If you like working with hardware, PBX and phone installation is good. There's lots of programming required on phones, but it's all really simple stuff. Alarm installation or maintenance. Cable installation, or better yet, cable support from the hardware/software side. Cash register programming. Network installations require router programming.
IMHO, the trick would be convincing the employer that you can do it all... and actually learn to do it all. All of these things are easy to get into, although some can go into a lot of depth, such as programming routers.
If you like a little more software and a little less pulling cable, programming firewalls and script programming might be more along your lines. Sysadmin for automating tasks. Database programming (although honestly, Real Database Programming uses a lot of programming skills, so if you're not very good at programming, you could have trouble with your db tables sucking and lookups taking forever).
That's what I was thinking, however I hope this does not become standard. I can read the links if I want pictures.
Even the text-only version includes tons of javascript and other crap... takes a long time to load. Functions completely borked on text-only browsers, etc.
technically speaking, Iran was not our "enemy" during the Carter administration because the US didn't have the cojones to declare war after the hostages were taken Not doubting Carter didn't have cojones, but I don't believe the US has declared war on anyone since WWII. I'm sure someone will correct me, but Korea was a "police action" and I don't believe there was any declaration in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. By the time Reagan came around, American certainly believed Iran was more an enemy than when Carter was failing to handle the hostage crisis.
Now the war on drugs, which I'm not certain qualifies as a real war declaration, is really a war on its own citizens. The "war on terrorism" is more like a war on "any faction we don't like, domestic or abroad". Not sure that is an actual declaration, either... since neither are possible to actually win. (Yes, Terrorism has surrendered and signed a peace accord. Mr. Terrorism has declared all his followers to cease fire, and urged Mr. Drugs to turn himself in to the authorities for a war tribunal.)
Apparently it's not a flash of photons, but a flash of electrons.
Maybe it's measuring the magnetic deflection? I know that both photons and electrons can be moved with a charge, so they may have an effect on each other.
If you remove the scatter and noise, you can probably get a pattern of electrons passing by photons... but I am not a physicist!
from TFA, I believe it's imaging a laser pulse shot through neon gas. It's the laser pulse that triggered the flash in the first place.
Bizarrely, the article states
As each flash is intense enough to completely ionise a neon atom and release an electron, the researchers could use those electrons like a flashgun, to illuminate some of the original 2.5 femtosecond trigger pulses of laser light. This is interesting, because the neon is releasing electrons, not photons.
I agree that snapping a photo of light sounds dubious, but it looks like an electron flash, so maybe it's just making something visible that wouldn't have been seen otherwise.
If you know that one of the ends of the communication is a person/entity of interest, you just have to copy the communication. Since the bits are running past your equipment, I don't see why you couldn't copy it now, decrypt it later. This comes down to: 1: copy encrypted communication you want to view 2: ??? 3: profit!
Seriously, with the encrypted stream, you might eventually be able to decrypt it, depending on your resources. The most likely fastest way would be to break into the sender's house and steal his private key from his hard drive, and hope it was scrambled with a null password. Or you could spend years trying to brute-force the eavesdropped cyphertext, and get nowhere (unless you get astronomically lucky).
The thing is that cyphertext was designed to make eavesdropping fail. That's why it's encrypted. You're expected to snoop on those bits... and the encryption was designed to make those bits useless to anyone but the intended recipient.
The Ringer Equivalence Number is just the number of phones the ringer can drive. More than that, and they won't have the voltage to ring.
It has nothing to do with talking on the phone.
What you'd want to do is use an inductive microphone or even an inductive loop around the actual cable. It doesn't touch it, and is very difficult to detect if it's nearby the cable... Search for the USS Halibut, and how it tapped a Soviet military underwater cable by using a nearby inductive coil which never interfered with the cable.
But the computer is even more vulnerable than a phone to bugs. Tons of malware exists that can "own" a computer, which has given rise to an entire new security market. A phone is easy to tell if it has a bug... you can simply open it up and look at it. Computers not so much.
It also recommends using a cellphone for confidential calls. Just make sure neither provider uses ATT.
When doing this for a computer programming area, we wrote a simple downsampler to ~32 colors which split it across several columns, then created lineprinter values for each darkness value, using lots of overstriking for the dark areas. A pic of Einstein came out looking remarkably good, especially since it had to be viewed from a distance. (We stapled it to the ceiling:-)
Mountain lions are protected in virtually every state. Wrong. They are protected only in California (for virtually no reason, but that's CA for you) and Florida (where there are fewer than 100). I was wrong about the part about protecting livestock. They are indeed protected in most states, although they do allow limited hunting and allow for protection of livestock.
My confusion was there are two versions of "protected", the endangered species act, and statewide versions. In New Mexico, you cannot kill one unless it's threatening people or livestock or if they are allowed to be hunted for that year... and that's the case in most states. This is in contrast to "protected" where there is never a hunting season and it's a major issue if you kill one (e.g. endangered species). I confused the two terms, and CA and FL are the only states which has this higher form of protection.
Unlike vermin, they cannot be indiscriminately hunted.
Slashdot Mirror
Changed my password, some fucker was using my account. Sorry for the crap he/she wrote.
Me too!
Man, my impersonator was a real jerk. Nothing but lucid, excellent posts from now on.
... the X2's 1600 total stream processors have a peak computational rate of 2.4 teraflops. That's, erm, considerable--beyond the obvious graphics applications, that's the sort of computing power that may one day enable men to figure out what women want.
Allow me to note that the very idea of plugging a woman's desires into a matrix processing unit is precisely what women do not want. It simply won't work.
To effectively compute female emotions, you'd need something like a quantum computer where you get all possible results at once (and I do mean simultaneously), usually with lots of yelling, doors slamming, and things being thrown.
Grab a couple computer science tests, some Knuth books, or ACM programming contest sheets.
Find a simple problem (one that'll take 10-30 minutes to code) and write it up nicely in a couple different languages. Use at least one OO language if you know one.
Discuss the projects you worked on, but tell them it was work for hire and stress that you respect the privacy of the other companies, but you brought other code samples for them to see.
Uh, you kind of missed the point about evolving defenses to natural substances. :-)
But thanks for the links. They kind of support the idea that we shouldn't introduce things into the environment or common usage (such as nano materials) without some caution and analysis of the dangers.
Here is a related question: What happens to this definitional scheme when naturally occurring nanomaterials (ex/ carbon nanotubes and fibers) are harvested/mined and then used for commercial purposes? While they are not "man-made" in the traditional sense, they presumably pose the same exposure risks as engineered nanomaterials created in a lab.
Asbestos fibers occur naturally. Mercury occurs naturally. Lead occurs naturally.
Why are all those regulations out there for natural things? Naturally-occurring means it's good for you, right? We have evolved defenses! Your lead cannot harm me, I'm bulletproof! ...
See the problem with that argument? Mercury didn't kill people, until it was dumped into drinking water by irresponsible companies primarily because no regulations were in place. Lead didn't kill anyone, until it was used in cars and leached into ground water (although the current additives aren't much better).
If we wait for catastrophes to regulate/monitor/study something we know is dangerous, we're simply repeating historical ignorance.
In all seriousness, English speakers have an easy gig.
Nearly all Europeans under about 30yo can speak English reasonably well. I have worked with many world-class researchers from all over the world, and they all have passable English (if with an accent).
If you ever get lost in Europe, find a teenager and ask for directions in English. They love to speak to native English speakers. (I made the mistake of asking in really bad German once, and got answered in really good German... and had no clue what he said.)
The fact is, I've spent half a lifetime trying to understand girlspeak without much progress.
There's a reason you can't learn it.
If the OP wasn't born a female, the learning procedure for girlspeak is extremely painful, and involves scalpels.
The most painful part isn't when the doctor removes his manhood ... it's when they scoop out half his brains!
(okok, old joke, apologies to the geekgrrls :-)
Exactly -- this is not somebody using a fake Hotmail account to sign up for newsletters ... Clearly, if they were to arrest everybody who has ever used a fake name on the Internet, the whole fucking country would be in jail.
You want a law interpreted so that everyone is a lawbreaker? With that point of view, why have laws at all? Why not just arrest everyone we don't like... and hope that it isn't you? Making everyone a lawbreaker and enforcing it subjectively is called a despotic dictatorship. Did you think this through?
Every programmer knows that sometimes functions have unintended side-effects, and even if the function might get the job done, sometimes the side-effects crash the whole system. Laws are similar... they're written to try to accomplish something. When something unintended is introduced, it can break everything.
This is a side-effect that you do not want to see happen. As you stated, it'd instantly create thousands of felons that did nothing but protect their own privacy. That would be a very nasty unintended side-effect indeed.
If necessary, write a new function. Don't introduce unnecessary side-effects.
If you abuse this law (meant to deter actual computer crime) to criminally enforce the TOS of any random website, it sets such a bad precedent that we can basically jail anyone that uses the web, a phone, or any device with a computer in it such as a car or a washing machine.
The biggest problem, besides the overreaching law, is that any idiot can -- and does -- write his own TOS.
There are a lot of fields that would benefit a LOT by someone who knew some basic good programming, not just fiddling around with statements, but understanding the order of algorithms and such.
If you like working with hardware, PBX and phone installation is good. There's lots of programming required on phones, but it's all really simple stuff. Alarm installation or maintenance. Cable installation, or better yet, cable support from the hardware/software side. Cash register programming. Network installations require router programming.
IMHO, the trick would be convincing the employer that you can do it all... and actually learn to do it all. All of these things are easy to get into, although some can go into a lot of depth, such as programming routers.
If you like a little more software and a little less pulling cable, programming firewalls and script programming might be more along your lines. Sysadmin for automating tasks. Database programming (although honestly, Real Database Programming uses a lot of programming skills, so if you're not very good at programming, you could have trouble with your db tables sucking and lookups taking forever).
My understanding is that they aren't making it legal, merely that you cannot sue them.
That's what I was thinking, however I hope this does not become standard. I can read the links if I want pictures.
Even the text-only version includes tons of javascript and other crap ... takes a long time to load. Functions completely borked on text-only browsers, etc.
I need a "luddite version" of viewing. :-)
Now the war on drugs, which I'm not certain qualifies as a real war declaration, is really a war on its own citizens. The "war on terrorism" is more like a war on "any faction we don't like, domestic or abroad". Not sure that is an actual declaration, either... since neither are possible to actually win. (Yes, Terrorism has surrendered and signed a peace accord. Mr. Terrorism has declared all his followers to cease fire, and urged Mr. Drugs to turn himself in to the authorities for a war tribunal.)
Would that be the famous double-slit experiment?
Apparently it's not a flash of photons, but a flash of electrons.
Maybe it's measuring the magnetic deflection? I know that both photons and electrons can be moved with a charge, so they may have an effect on each other.
If you remove the scatter and noise, you can probably get a pattern of electrons passing by photons ... but I am not a physicist!
from TFA, I believe it's imaging a laser pulse shot through neon gas. It's the laser pulse that triggered the flash in the first place.
Bizarrely, the article states
As each flash is intense enough to completely ionise a neon atom and release an electron, the researchers could use those electrons like a flashgun, to illuminate some of the original 2.5 femtosecond trigger pulses of laser light. This is interesting, because the neon is releasing electrons, not photons.I agree that snapping a photo of light sounds dubious, but it looks like an electron flash, so maybe it's just making something visible that wouldn't have been seen otherwise.
If I wasn't at e-work and had some time, I'd put up that site with this story.
1: copy encrypted communication you want to view
2: ???
3: profit!
Seriously, with the encrypted stream, you might eventually be able to decrypt it, depending on your resources. The most likely fastest way would be to break into the sender's house and steal his private key from his hard drive, and hope it was scrambled with a null password. Or you could spend years trying to brute-force the eavesdropped cyphertext, and get nowhere (unless you get astronomically lucky).
The thing is that cyphertext was designed to make eavesdropping fail. That's why it's encrypted. You're expected to snoop on those bits
The Ringer Equivalence Number is just the number of phones the ringer can drive. More than that, and they won't have the voltage to ring.
It has nothing to do with talking on the phone.
What you'd want to do is use an inductive microphone or even an inductive loop around the actual cable. It doesn't touch it, and is very difficult to detect if it's nearby the cable... Search for the USS Halibut, and how it tapped a Soviet military underwater cable by using a nearby inductive coil which never interfered with the cable.
They recommend Skype, which encrypts its traffic.
... you can simply open it up and look at it. Computers not so much.
But the computer is even more vulnerable than a phone to bugs. Tons of malware exists that can "own" a computer, which has given rise to an entire new security market. A phone is easy to tell if it has a bug
It also recommends using a cellphone for confidential calls. Just make sure neither provider uses ATT.
Cellphones are easily tapped... with the right equipment. That's the catch, the equipment is very expensive (last I checked, a few years ago).
Analog cellphones were incredibly easy to listen to with a scanner, but this is no longer the case since most is digital.
Exactly!
:-)
When doing this for a computer programming area, we wrote a simple downsampler to ~32 colors which split it across several columns, then created lineprinter values for each darkness value, using lots of overstriking for the dark areas. A pic of Einstein came out looking remarkably good, especially since it had to be viewed from a distance. (We stapled it to the ceiling
My confusion was there are two versions of "protected", the endangered species act, and statewide versions. In New Mexico, you cannot kill one unless it's threatening people or livestock or if they are allowed to be hunted for that year
Unlike vermin, they cannot be indiscriminately hunted.