Yea, but saying "Objective-C isn't purpose specific - you can do iPods, iPads, iPhones *and* Macs" - is sort of like saying "We play *all* kinds of music - Country *and* Western!"
I said to myself "older guy" when I read only your first paragraph;-)
The second paragraph clinched it!;-)
Now I'm no spring chicken myself - but I agree with half of your argument.
While a language is a "pallet" - languages evolve as technologies and paradigms do. Many languages evolve as the entire way software is written changes. Just because you're a wiz at Z-80 assembly, it doesn't mean that you're well versed into thinking in an object-oriented manner as would be required in a C++ or Java based GUI app - or the multiprocessor concurrency semantics of Kernel development. If your good at BASIC, it doesn't necessarily mean you can think in pointers and dynamic memory allocations, etc.
My point is that new languages often arise out of a new way of *thinking* - not just the arbitrary desire for a new *syntax*.
Java (as much as I hate it) - and C++ (as much as I lothe it) aren't going away or drying up - but they have flatlined
You can see the "fast risers" like Ada (WTF?), Objective-C (i.e. iPhone/iPad), etc. - but these are generally very vertical (specfic-purpose) languages.
As an iOS developer - I kind of agree with Apple. I write apps which register URL handlers - and when one clicks on on - I make the *user* validate that this is what they really want to do.
The same kind of exploits could be done on PCs - if you had a URL handler - like "SSH" which blindly allowed a third-party URL-click to launch SSH on your PC and log into a site - or even to do the same thing with *skype* URLs.
Has anyone verified if these kind of behaviors would or would not happen on a PC or Linux machine?
"unlike literature, history, politics and music, math has little relevance to everybody's daily life."
I listen to music.
I am forced to hear people yammer about politics occasionally on NPR
As for history and literature - probably the furthest thing from relevant in my day-to-day life.
As an engineer and programmer - math is with me all the time.
As a "average joe" - it's with me every time I pay for something or tell time. Even if *I'm* not doing it - its often some machine I'm directly involved with that does.
The two words that summarized where the whole article was coming from, were: "Professor" and "Emeritus"
So here's the way I understand it - or rather I probably misunderstand it:
.
Quantum Computing - because it stores superpositions of bits, which can represent all values, can work work on data with not just a single value, but with all possible values, thus doing stuff effectively in parallel
Before you stop reading - it gets better...
This is good for solving "what-if" problems - (which I think is technically described as "NP-Hard" - but I'm not positive) - or problems which can only be solved be trying any/every/a-shitload-of permutations, rather than figuring it out through an exact formula - like the "Traveling Salesman Problem" - or cryptographic analysis.
So for a crappy example: Suppose you were trying to figure out the square-root of 11 (and didn't know how, like me, and could only do it) by using successive approximation.
You would try "3" - which yields "9" - and then "4" which yields "16". So knowing it's between the two, you'd try "3.5" which yields "12.25" - then maybe "3.4" which yeilds "11.56", etc.
So if you were testing each variable "A", instead of setting "A" to be "3" or "4" or "3.5", "A" was a superposition of a bunch of numbers, you could somehow easily deduce which "A" was valid from a formula like "A*A=11".
I obviously don't know exactly what the mechanism is - and a better example would probibly be one which used a few binary digits (solved by using qubits) - which would have a finite range of possible solutions - rather than a floating-point number like I did in my bad example.
So - if you follow my train of thought - you could see how a cryptographic analysis problem which would require a lot of "what-if" quessing could be solved if all of the potential states of all of the bits could be instantly tested in parallel
I concur. I was going to post the same. An article that actually explained something would have been great, but I knew nothing about Quantum Computing before reading it, and am no better off now.
"An Apple press conference?!" one might ask - "Oh boy! What could it be? Announcement of the new CDMA iPhone for Verizon? Maybe a 4G/LTE iPhone?! A newer iPad? Something totally different to be dazzled with that no one is even thinking about?!"
.
BzzzzzzWrong answer. Just a new desktop OS, or maybe a Laptop.
I am kind of a dumbass - and spend a lot of time reading on theoretical physics to try to educate myself. I've read all the Steven Hawking books and Brian Green book(s). I think the clearly most descriptive book on the subject of relativity was "Visualizing Relativity" by Lewis Carrol Epstein (sp?)
It's light on the math - though a lot of the mathematics of relativity are in fact quite simple. (e=mc^2 - duh). It is heavy on giving you a good conceptual understanding of the matter.
I am curious as to this book - but would like to hear more about it. So many of the books achieve the wrong balance between being too detailed, and not detailed enough - or going into detail on some things - and glossing over the background behind it. Hawking understands this dilemma - which is why he's essentially written the same book three times - trying to fine-tune the message each time.
Also - I think the subject of relativity has been beat to death. It used to be edgy - but there is so much more beyond it that I haven't even scratched the surface on.
He disabled the comments on his blog, too bad - I wanted to post!
I have disabled Comments on this post so that respectable visitors do not have to read the remarks made by a small number of extremely ignorant, rude, malicious and disingenuous individuals who cannot tolerate people expressing opinions that do not concur with their own.
There was a./ article a few years ago - similar - about a $500 Ethernet cable made in "low oxygen" environments...yadda...yadda...sold to people to get better sound quality out of the MP3's.
All the same points were made, and shenanigans called.
There was a lot of interesting stuff said in the old discussion - a lot of it had to do with the fact that when people review this HiFi/Audio stuff - the testing is all very subjective, and is never done as a blind trial. Thus, one can boast the virtues of the $500 Ethernet cable - as they know they are listening through one - but one would never do a blind-sound test between a $500 and a $5 cable.
1. No - it works off of the domain name, (first two levels - e.g. "google.com" - not the whole URI, or even the machine name.
2. If someone knows you use the tool it doesn't matter - they still don't know your "master" password. And even if there is a web site security breach and they get your site password, and even if they knew that you used that tool - it's a one-way hash - so they can't get your master password even with all that info - e.g. other web sites you use with the same master password are not compromised.
superpwdhash is exactly that - a JS Bookmarklet that does it. But the hashes that it generates are "pwdhash" compliant - so it will generate passwords that are consistent with other pwdhash tools (like the firefox extensions).
It is stateless - it doesn't store anything on your mahcine. The hash uses only the domain name, and a password you enter.
So, for example, if I am on another machine - I can run a pwdhash JavaScript hash generator from a web site, generate my password - and enter (copy/paste) it into the site I am trying to log into.
In reality, I have a program called KeyGrinder on my iPhone which allows me to generate them too - same passwords - algorithms, etc - so I generate my passwords using that, if I'm on a computer without a pwdhash too/extention/web-site hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, but saying "Objective-C isn't purpose specific - you can do iPods, iPads, iPhones *and* Macs" - is sort of like saying "We play *all* kinds of music - Country *and* Western!"
The second paragraph clinched it! ;-)
Now I'm no spring chicken myself - but I agree with half of your argument.
While a language is a "pallet" - languages evolve as technologies and paradigms do. Many languages evolve as the entire way software is written changes. Just because you're a wiz at Z-80 assembly, it doesn't mean that you're well versed into thinking in an object-oriented manner as would be required in a C++ or Java based GUI app - or the multiprocessor concurrency semantics of Kernel development. If your good at BASIC, it doesn't necessarily mean you can think in pointers and dynamic memory allocations, etc.
My point is that new languages often arise out of a new way of *thinking* - not just the arbitrary desire for a new *syntax*.
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
Java (as much as I hate it) - and C++ (as much as I lothe it) aren't going away or drying up - but they have flatlined
You can see the "fast risers" like Ada (WTF?), Objective-C (i.e. iPhone/iPad), etc. - but these are generally very vertical (specfic-purpose) languages.
Problems are:
1. It is very difficult to fly through the camera - when you're not actually looking at it.
2. You need to be near it - Meaning the Parrot becomes a WiFi access point that your phone has to connect to. i.e. You cant fly it over the open 'net.
3. There is no type of "docking" - or "auto docking" - so you need to be there to physically turn it off, plug it back into the charger, etc.
The Parrot would be cool if it was more like the Rovio - and visa-versa!
...if only...
Two dead bodies sewn together make a Frankenstein...
As an iOS developer - I kind of agree with Apple. I write apps which register URL handlers - and when one clicks on on - I make the *user* validate that this is what they really want to do. The same kind of exploits could be done on PCs - if you had a URL handler - like "SSH" which blindly allowed a third-party URL-click to launch SSH on your PC and log into a site - or even to do the same thing with *skype* URLs. Has anyone verified if these kind of behaviors would or would not happen on a PC or Linux machine?
Never-mind...rhetorical question...
Beets....Bears....Battlestar Galactica
I listen to music.
I am forced to hear people yammer about politics occasionally on NPR
As for history and literature - probably the furthest thing from relevant in my day-to-day life.
As an engineer and programmer - math is with me all the time.
As a "average joe" - it's with me every time I pay for something or tell time. Even if *I'm* not doing it - its often some machine I'm directly involved with that does.
The two words that summarized where the whole article was coming from, were: "Professor" and "Emeritus"
.
Quantum Computing - because it stores superpositions of bits, which can represent all values, can work work on data with not just a single value, but with all possible values, thus doing stuff effectively in parallel
Before you stop reading - it gets better...
This is good for solving "what-if" problems - (which I think is technically described as "NP-Hard" - but I'm not positive) - or problems which can only be solved be trying any/every/a-shitload-of permutations, rather than figuring it out through an exact formula - like the "Traveling Salesman Problem" - or cryptographic analysis.
So for a crappy example: Suppose you were trying to figure out the square-root of 11 (and didn't know how, like me, and could only do it) by using successive approximation.
You would try "3" - which yields "9" - and then "4" which yields "16". So knowing it's between the two, you'd try "3.5" which yields "12.25" - then maybe "3.4" which yeilds "11.56", etc.
So if you were testing each variable "A", instead of setting "A" to be "3" or "4" or "3.5", "A" was a superposition of a bunch of numbers, you could somehow easily deduce which "A" was valid from a formula like "A*A=11".
I obviously don't know exactly what the mechanism is - and a better example would probibly be one which used a few binary digits (solved by using qubits) - which would have a finite range of possible solutions - rather than a floating-point number like I did in my bad example.
So - if you follow my train of thought - you could see how a cryptographic analysis problem which would require a lot of "what-if" quessing could be solved if all of the potential states of all of the bits could be instantly tested in parallel
Could anyone who understands this stuff chime in?
I concur. I was going to post the same. An article that actually explained something would have been great, but I knew nothing about Quantum Computing before reading it, and am no better off now.
Is this a rotary engine, or the piston kind?
$10 says it'll be done before Duke-Nukem 4Ever...
.
Bzzzzzz Wrong answer. Just a new desktop OS, or maybe a Laptop.
"Oh. Apple still makes those?"
It's Malabu Stacy with a new hat!
But...but...but...Theirs is unbreakable!
Actually - it runs at 2520 baud! (1050 bytes / 3.75 sec) * (9bits) = 2520 bps [One stop - no parity]
It's light on the math - though a lot of the mathematics of relativity are in fact quite simple. (e=mc^2 - duh). It is heavy on giving you a good conceptual understanding of the matter.
I am curious as to this book - but would like to hear more about it. So many of the books achieve the wrong balance between being too detailed, and not detailed enough - or going into detail on some things - and glossing over the background behind it. Hawking understands this dilemma - which is why he's essentially written the same book three times - trying to fine-tune the message each time.
Also - I think the subject of relativity has been beat to death. It used to be edgy - but there is so much more beyond it that I haven't even scratched the surface on.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
All the same points were made, and shenanigans called.
There was a lot of interesting stuff said in the old discussion - a lot of it had to do with the fact that when people review this HiFi/Audio stuff - the testing is all very subjective, and is never done as a blind trial. Thus, one can boast the virtues of the $500 Ethernet cable - as they know they are listening through one - but one would never do a blind-sound test between a $500 and a $5 cable.
2. If someone knows you use the tool it doesn't matter - they still don't know your "master" password. And even if there is a web site security breach and they get your site password, and even if they knew that you used that tool - it's a one-way hash - so they can't get your master password even with all that info - e.g. other web sites you use with the same master password are not compromised.
superpwdhash is exactly that - a JS Bookmarklet that does it. But the hashes that it generates are "pwdhash" compliant - so it will generate passwords that are consistent with other pwdhash tools (like the firefox extensions).
It is stateless - it doesn't store anything on your mahcine. The hash uses only the domain name, and a password you enter.
So, for example, if I am on another machine - I can run a pwdhash JavaScript hash generator from a web site, generate my password - and enter (copy/paste) it into the site I am trying to log into.
In reality, I have a program called KeyGrinder on my iPhone which allows me to generate them too - same passwords - algorithms, etc - so I generate my passwords using that, if I'm on a computer without a pwdhash too/extention/web-site hand.