monochr

9 ms·

31.
by monochr 12y ago
I always find it funny how the only people who think that computers will overtake humans are the ones who don't deal with them at a basic level every day. "It will get so smart and so capable that it will destroy us" is somew
32.
by monochr 12y ago
The real problem here isn't Orwell. It's Terry Gilliam[1]. From Google to the NSA you have no recourse against the automated algorithms lumping you in a category which will never put you in jail but will add ridiculous restriction
33.
by monochr 12y ago
So long as you don't look too close at the data. From the Flinn effect to the fact that IQ tests predict parenatal incomes mich better than future earnings the best thing you can say about the test is that it measures willingness to to
34.
by monochr 12y ago
It is a 1000+ page book. Many have said more than should have been said about it. My problem with it starts from the premise that IQ measures anything other than the ability to think like the middle class designers of the tests want you to
35.
by monochr 12y ago
It's in section 4.3: 4.3 Persistent Attacks Consider a scenario with panic communication and a persistent adversary with goal . In addition, preventing both signals and screens is important. Working Example: Consider the previously d
36.
by monochr 12y ago
"Now, however, the pendulum is swinging back." Yes, "now". It's not like books such as the the bell curve were published during the whole period from 1940 to today. The problem is that when you go back and read thos
37.
by monochr 12y ago
Again thank you for not reading my post and the links therein: Kerckhoffs' principle: The details of the authentication system that is in place is public information and known to all participants, including Oscar. Alice and Bob retain
38.
by monochr 12y ago
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/hotsec08/tech/full_paper... 3.1 Security Assumptions Our threat model is based on four pragmatic assumptions. Kerckhoffs' principle: The details of the authentic
39.
by monochr 12y ago
Even if a system can fail in many ways you still should make every failure mode as difficult as possible. What you're saying makes as much sense as not improving seat belts in cars because the airbags might fail and you would still die
40.
by monochr 12y ago
Thank you for not reading my post: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/hotsec08/tech/full_paper...
41.
by monochr 12y ago
Yes, it literally would have since they found out who she was by looking through her phone after kidnapping her for an unrelated death of a cartel member. Try and read the article before you comment.
42.
by monochr 12y ago
>VPN Are a terrible idea. You need to trust the operator that they won't screw you by keeping logs. Since these are centralized they are always at the whims of cartels and the like. Just stop and think for a second if you won't
43.
by monochr 12y ago
This is why we need not only password locks and full encryption but panic passwords and hidden logins on every piece of electronics we own. That no mobile OS offers these yet is pathetic. When twitter and facebook don't let you connect
44.
by monochr 12y ago
>"I use Vi because I can type faster in it, a mouse slows me down!" I use vim (or emacs) because the regex search/replace and macros mean that when I need to edit the same thing 5,000 times in a data file I don't need
45.
by monochr 12y ago
I don't think I've ever seen a physics paper not typeset in Latex.
46.
by monochr 12y ago
Did you read your own link? "In 1989, Jacques Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published the results of his numerical integration of the Solar System over 200 million years. These were not the full equations of motion, but
47.
by monochr 12y ago
Give me enough money for telescopes, detectors and computers and it is trivial to calculate the motions of the solar system for as long as you want to whatever precision you require. The resources might be beyond the capabilities of humanit
48.
by monochr 12y ago
So get better telescopes for the tolerance you want. We have no problems making predictions over thousands of years with current technology when it comes to stellar mechanics that agree extremely well with the historical record. Yours seems
49.
by monochr 12y ago
You have astronomy as scinece confused with astronomy as historical records. I can't recreate an eclipse in 500 CE but I can calculate when another like it will happen in the same place it did.
50.
by monochr 12y ago
The average user of sage is a phd in a field that uses maths extensively. I really don't see how you can think that someone like that is dumb enough to not be able to debug a python function call to the point where something went wrong
51.
by monochr 12y ago
As another physicist who used mathematica what you mean is that you were too lazy to think about what assumptions were made implicitly in the calculations you were performing and liked mathematica because it did them automagically for you.
52.
by monochr 12y ago
It shouldn't be. Maple is just as much of a black box as Mathematica. That it didn't screw up on this one task is no guarantee it won't screw up others when you aren't looking. Worse since you can't check the source
53.
by monochr 12y ago
That's only true for closed source systems. You can easily debug open source ones, look at their insides and so on. This whole article is really just telling people to use the scientific method in computing too: if you don't know
54.
by monochr 12y ago
Yes, what a horrid fate to have the weeks and months needed to think ideas through. How horrible to go to a library to find what you need. The sheer inhumanity of going 20 minutes without compulsively checking a glowing screen because you f
55.
by monochr 12y ago
I only wish more people did this and didn't force standardization on the rest of us who need customization.
56.
by monochr 12y ago
If partial or inaccurate information about a subject was the criteria for not talking about it then Torvalds should have shut up about kernels and let Minix be the default for everything. Read the exchange between him and Tanenbaum and tell
57.
by monochr 12y ago
Here is the original paper if anyone is interested: arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6423.pdf
58.
by monochr 12y ago
Different people have different definitions of complexity. For me having a single point of failure is complexity, for most people a centralized single process handling as much as possible is simplicity. Neither is right or wrong.
59.
by monochr 12y ago
Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are stupid, evil and part of a grand conspiracy to destroy everything you love. They just have different priorities. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
60.
by monochr 12y ago
Being a developer and being an admin are completely different jobs. A admin needs to know a dozen languages and codes in bash most of the time, they have a hand written folder with glued in scraps next to their terminal which explains why t

More ›