CHY872

54 ms·

481.
by CHY872 12y ago
Ok, so one thing that is bugging me: This is totally a software based problem. At the moment, if I have a big hard disk I'm almost certainly going to have some kind of big read error in at least a couple of sectors - which practically
482.
by CHY872 12y ago
How is this even unusual? Google do much the same, all the time. You'd expect the NSA to do it.
483.
by CHY872 12y ago
I agree, but only up to a point. Of course, it'll help you loads in specific scenarios, but in many more you'll be able to get what you want by simply hacking around the parts of the operating system that gives you those issues in
484.
by CHY872 12y ago
Ah, ok. I guess I meant that you didn't have to choose the major you'd graduate with. To give a comparison (for the sake of where I was coming from) I'm in the UK, where you apply for a specific course, you take no minors, an
485.
by CHY872 12y ago
They're saying that one should not continue to use orphaned software (when it's so security critical). So they're stopping the distribution of the encryption part of it, and continuing to distribute the part of the software t
486.
by CHY872 12y ago
I can't help but feel that this really isn't Google's fault. A simple heuristic to make recruiting grads simpler is to restrict yourself to the top universities (most companies do this) - but I bet that the CS programs for mo
487.
by CHY872 12y ago
I also have no experience, but my guess is that when you are running normally, you want to share the bandwidth of a server fairly between all clients. When you've just accidentally rebooted all servers, you want to do it completely unf
488.
by CHY872 12y ago
The motivation would be so that if you had a TrueCrypt archive lying around on a drive that you find in 5 years time, it would be possible to decrypt it - but they don't want to allow encryption because they won't be continuing de
489.
by CHY872 12y ago
I don't think so. Pierre worked on this in the open, whilst the phpng team did their work in secret. That makes it at least inconsiderate of them that Pierre was not told that the changes might break optimisations in phpng - there shou
490.
by CHY872 12y ago
I think what shocked me the most about that debate was how much the phpng developers tried to undermine Pierre Joye, by even contradicting their own goals. In particular, their primary advertised concern was on the 4% increase in memory usa
491.
by CHY872 12y ago
It's a combined fault. Clearly the operator made a mistake, but the system shouldn't have let such a calamitous operation take place without at least three levels of "Are you sure" (or something smarter like "Confir
492.
by CHY872 12y ago
I think you missed my point. In each web page downloaded there's a bunch of (basically constant) static data - to download your javascript files, and set up your document - your template (or similar). This is the only data that single
493.
by CHY872 12y ago
This seems like an odd thing to be shouting about. As far as I can see, throughout this thread the performance benefits of single page apps are touted as being fantastic, making it worthwhile to use the new technology etc. When has performi
494.
by CHY872 12y ago
Because it's a semantic thing. If I tell Twitter that I want to link to a web page, they damn well better link me to that web page, and not what it redirects to, because I've asked them to link me to that web page. I could be usin
495.
by CHY872 12y ago
It's the Pocket to Buffer to Twitter workflow. Pocket adds getpocket.com and pocket.co, Buffer adds j.mp, Twitter adds t.co.
496.
by CHY872 12y ago
That's where you're wrong. The user interfaces to so many medical devices are tacked on, almost as an afterthought. The devices are made by hardware people, and the software people never get a look-in (as usual). They're mess
497.
by CHY872 12y ago
Ugh, the other replies aren't quite getting at the crux of the matter. A function f : {0, 1}^k -> {0, 1}^n -> {0, 1}^m is considered to be pseudo-random if (when provided with a key K) there is no way of distinguishing between it
498.
by CHY872 12y ago
Sorry for the confusion - that's what I meant. They both vaguely work around the microkernel architecture, except where it's not desirable for performance reasons - so for example on my Mac basically every hardware driver runs in
499.
by CHY872 12y ago
I'm just not sure they're all advantages for a general purpose kernel. Many have tried the microkernel model - Windows (NT) and OS X as two examples were both designed around the microkernel model, but have had to give it up since
500.
by CHY872 12y ago
It's neither. They make the assumption that their combined cloud partners aren't all in cahoots, and distribute their data such that the probability that a) one can intercept enough chunks and b) one can infer meaning from the chu
501.
by CHY872 12y ago
No, it relies on them being able to do that, but also to be able to improve their products such that they stay relevant. Things like A/B testing require Google to know what the user is doing in order to test their effectiveness - a FHE
502.
by CHY872 12y ago
I somehow can't reply to your other post - but this isn't proposing a model of computation that allows you to perform those operations (if x1 == 5) - that would defeat the purpose. The goal is to allow you to perform some commonly
503.
by CHY872 12y ago
Yup - Ars can explain it better than me! http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/how-bo... Clearly, though, this would be a case where homomorphic encryption would not be required - because they
504.
by CHY872 12y ago
No. It's because they're different things. The idea here is that we perform the operation, but the output is not known either. So my data can pass through my system with me doing whatever I want to it, and when it comes out it can
505.
by CHY872 12y ago
So the obvious difference is that if I run an obfuscated program, I'd expect to get the same output as the original program - the obfuscated program is to an extent expected to perform as a normal program, but be unreadable. With HE, y
506.
by CHY872 12y ago
Unfortunately not. HE has some performance issues (that might be solveable with time) but the primary issue is that Google do actually want to see exactly what you're doing. It's important for basically everything Google does tha
507.
by CHY872 12y ago
So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings woul
508.
by CHY872 12y ago
Infinity * 0 returns NaN.
509.
by CHY872 12y ago
So I'm guessing that this will backfire. Mozilla say that Adobe will create the software, which will presumably be bundled with the browser. This means that if Adobe's DRM gets cracked, suddenly every site using that DRM is vulner
510.
by CHY872 12y ago
I think you're overestimating 'Most' people. If Firefox has a ~20% market share, that's saying that there are hundreds of millions of Firefox users who use it for the freedom (as opposed to the competitive performance an

More ›