So much potential
But also so many questions left hanging. Don't ... leave ... me ... this ... way ...
(edit: damn it! that was a Communards hit... nothing to do with Erasure :(. Never mind.. carry on)
1384 posts • joined 8 Nov 2007
But also so many questions left hanging. Don't ... leave ... me ... this ... way ...
(edit: damn it! that was a Communards hit... nothing to do with Erasure :(. Never mind.. carry on)
There's no point in buying it now
Well I'd make an offer if they'd accept it. True, I've got no money and no experience (apart from having a half dozen Raspberry Pis around the place and having experience with using mobile phones), but I'm sure that the team is well on top of things and if they'll have me, I'd gladly be their leader.
I doubt that this will happen, but it could weaken the power of big copyright lobby interests in pursuing sites that are merely indexing (or even just linking to) "infringing" content. In such cases, it's the user who's downloading the content, with the indexer just telling them how to access it. In both the arenas of patent and copyright law, we know who the real infringers are---the people who hold the copies and distribute them---so they should be the real target of litigation, and not the "finger pointers" (who tell you how the things work or how to find them) or the people who follow that direction.
Yeah, I know that patents and copyrights are completely different things, but I do think that the parallels are worth thinking about here. It could herald a radical shift towards sensible interpretation of "IP" ownership---if the judgement is allowed to stand, that is... Unfortunately, these things rarely follow "sensible" rules...
But it took a whole lot of energy and hydrocarbons to make and transport....
Well, if it's sitting(*) on a shelf, it still has some potential energy due to its elevation. If you were to drop it on your foot, say, you could convert that potential energy into kinetic energy.
The internet, on the other hand, where streaming videos reside, has no such store of potential energy because, as we all know, the Internet weighs nothing.
(* as an aside, why the hell do Brits say "is sat" on a shelf? what the hell kind of tense/conjugation is that?)
Never use averages as the source of your data. Anything which combines data has already lost important detail.
Oh, I don't know about that. While reading the first article in the series (and again, with the German tank problem) I was slightly disappointed not to see Little's Law listed. Now there's an interesting (and valid) application of averages...
A case of two nations "divided by a common language?"
"The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions," Churchill wrote in The Second World War. No interpreters were needed, for one thing, but there were "differences of expression, which in the early days led to an amusing incident." The British wanted to raise an urgent matter, he said, and told the Americans they wished to "table it" (that is, bring it to the table). But to the Americans, tabling something meant putting it aside. "A long and even acrimonious argument ensued," Churchill wrote, "before both parties realised that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing."
So Now. Actually old, redone.
Six years ago ...
Damn it! You beat me to it:
An excellence-oriented '80s male does not wear a regular watch. He wears a Rolex watch, because it weighs nearly six pounds and is advertised only in excellence-oriented publications such as Fortune and Rich Protestant Golfer Magazine. The advertisements are written in incomplete sentences, which is how advertising copywriters denote excellence.
(Dave Barry, In Search of Excellence)
You walk into the interview and sing "Alice's Restaurant" and walk out
I don't think they'd let you finish the whole song. It's a bit of a shaggy dog story and they'd probably twig before you got too far into it.
Or arrest you for littering, or something.
VideoLAN (and no doubt others) can do true multicast so that several screens can be tuned into the same video stream. If you've got a segmented network topology (several different subnets), you have to be aware that most routers/gateways won't forward multicast packets by default, so you need to explicitly enable it and run something like pimd to do the actual forwarding (Linux kernel, for example, does all the lower-level handling of UDP multicast networking, but you need something like pimd at the higher level to implement the network topology).
A couple of handy commands for testing this:
iperf -c 18.104.22.168 -u -T 2 # sender
iperf -s -B 22.214.171.124 -u -T 2 # receiver
(replacing the 224/* address with whatever multicast address you're using)
Have a downvote for "viri". I stopped reading after that.
So this virus (presumably written by pot smokers) infected a machine which then stopped working, without even 'taking care of business' first. Why am I not surprised?
Nah, it worked. It's just that it lived so close to the top of memory that the stack area overlapped the area for the stored message (so regular subroutine calls and interrupts garbled it). For something that couldn't even "take care of business" as you put it, it was remarkably successful, bugs and all.
(this comment based on actually disassembling the code and figuring out how it worked; I'm sure I have a copy of this still filed away somewhere)
"why is MSE even searching for Stoned when it is ineffective on systems these days?"
For a few reasons:
* because, as someone pointed out above, it's cheap to add more signatures (things are much better than O(n) complexity we had in the very early days). If you can scan for it, and it's cheap to do so, then why not?
* because it's one of those viruses that your scanner is expected to pick up (and virus scanner manufacturers used to use number of viruses detected as a marketing tool)
* there are such things as virus droppers that will install all sorts of malware. The blockchain (or any random data file) mightn't be (isn't) a virus in itself, but if it contains the virus (which it doesn't) a dropper can pull it out and use it to infect something (so if I had an SQL database with lots of virus code, it would be nice if the av software could detect it in the db file)
* who says that it's ineffective? Some people still use floppies. (true, its not much of a risk, but the infection mechanism still works)
* by catching the floppy-only variant, you might also catch derived versions (like NoInt) that can infect hard disk boot sectors
Mostly, though, it's probably just a combination of inertia and anti-virus writers liking to keep old signatures around for historical/completist reasons. Maybe they should drop these old signatures, but imagine the embarrassment should one of these apparently "extinct" viruses have a high-profile outbreak and MS's program failed to detect it?
You're a nation, alright.
There are stackable add-ons for the Pi as well. This solution is a bit of an abomination, but it looks like it can take any of the add-on cards so long as they don't have conflicting requirements for GPIO pins. This other supplier seems to have a saner approach, with single-purpose modules being stackable using I2C, I guess, so GPIO conflicts shouldn't happen provided everything has a unique I2C bus address.
Then, there's GrovePi (as mentioned in the latest MagPi, also this link) that does away with physical stacking and does everything through wiring up modules with a standard 4-wire connector. I think that's probably the neatest implementation for stuff like robots because you can route your sensors to where they make sense physically.
I think you were saying that in the Arduino world, it's quite common to have pass-through connectors for stacking. Using a Gertduino would let you build up a stack of such Arduino modules, with a Pi controlling the whole show on the bottom.
There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
Gotta love that the power consumption metrics were carried out by a guy called Watt. Any relation to James Watt, I wonder?
Someone might even burn the White House down. Again.
Fuck yeah! That's what you get when you try to mess with Canada! Eh?
The 64 core parallella chip seems to be about to start production
Actually, it's not. The original Kickstarter campaign included the 64-core boards as a stretch goal, which was not met. Those 64-core boards they've been testing are engineering prototypes, only going to backers who came in at a certain level.
The whole Parallella project has been something of a disappointment, IMO. I think they over-promised (at least the 16-core machine isn't really a "supercomputer for everyone") and struggled to deliver. At least we know they've been plugging away at trying to make it a success and I do have sympathy for them in terms of the unforeseen problems they ran into. They have delivered at least some 16-core boards and hopefully they'll get around to delivering the rest to all the Kickstarter and pre-order customers within the next month. I'm one of the pre-order customers, so I'm hoping that they'll clear their commitments to everyone who ordered one within that time frame.
After that, and people have the boards in hand, hopefully people will still have enough interest in the platform for them to be able to make money by ramping up to full-scale production of the 16-core boards... I'm sure they're still doing work on the 64-core (and higher, up to 1024-core) and if they can get the funding for it, that's where they do want to go. I just don't expect it any time soon...
As for your idea of neural nets, I'm sure that it's pretty feasible to run them on the Epiphany cores. There's a pretty long thread about it on their forums somewhere. It's nowhere near the level of brain simulation, of course, but you can always cluster them and even single boards should be pretty efficient, given the right algorithms and such.
The story is about a narrow minded judge using a very broad interpretation of a USA-ian law to try to do an end run around international law and treaties
It's not the first time this has happened. From an old article here: Kentucky judge OKs 141-site net casino land grab. It's almost as if concepts like non-USA law and territoriality doesn't exist.
That was also my first thought (so I'm not the only one pining for the fjords). Then I thought, why not do the Benelux countries? It's sure to come in at much less than a Terabyte, being so boring and all (geographically speaking, of course).
Not about ipv6, but the whole concept of Internet of Things.
I think that there are plenty of companies out there salivating at the thought of making a lot of net-connected gizmos. Most of them will be junk, but they'll be able to charge a premium for them. That's not the real issue, though. The real issue is how many of these gizmos basically won't work unless you use the manufacturer's servers for data collection and control. Like many other readers here, I would never buy a product that worked like that, regardless of how useful or desirable the gizmo was. It's this element of being able to spy on users (or simply being able lock them into a subscription service for the lifetime of the device) that I fear will be quite appealing for many companies.
This, in my opinion is the single greatest factor that is stopping (or will stop) the advance of this IoT thing. OK, I said I wouldn't mention IPv4/IPv6, but ...
I know that IPv4 and NAT issues are also another technical limitation. You can't easily connect to your server without either renting a VM or server from a hosting provider (which also might have privacy/legal issues surrounding it), can coax your ISP to do port forwarding for your incoming traffic, or simply shell out for a (scarce) public IPv4 address.
IoT device manufactures really need to provide two options for the user: first, they need to let you configure the devices so that you use your own server (and provide the server software), and secondly, they also need to make their stuff IPv6-capable. The latter is a bit of gamble considering it adds cost for a feature that not many people are using yet (and it's unknown if/when they will). On the other hand, if they don't support IPv6 then all these devices will go straight to landfill if/when the switchover happens...
As for NAT, IP was not originally designed for address translation and some internet protocols do not work with it, notably active FTP and SIP
Maybe it's ignorance on my part, but I don't think that's true.
As I see it, it's not NAT that's the problem, but the fact that it's generally a one-way only operation (eg, sNAT to modify your outgoing packets so that they appear to come from the router rather than whatever your local address is). I'd thought that any program that operates from behind the firewall should work fine so long as it restricts itself to only making outgoing connections, with incoming packets for the session being correctly identified by the router as belonging to that session and so routed back inwards correctly. Am I wrong on this?
If you're talking about running an FTP or SIP server inside your NAT'd network, then obviously you're out of luck unless whoever runs your NAT'ing firewall (most likely your ISP, because they realise the value of public IP addresses and usually charge extra for them, with everyone else behind NAT) agrees to do traffic forwarding of incoming connections. That being so, it's not a problem of FTP/SIP (or any other server that's designed to accept incoming requests) is incompatible with NAT, but rather that ISP's NAT policies dictate that regular users can't just request port forwarding so that their mail server or whatever appears to be "on the Internet" (at least not without paying). Again, that's the situation as I understand it.
The really big problem with NAT is that if ISPs allowed users to run servers behind the NAT box, you'd very quickly run into conflicts about the assignment of port numbers. Some services (like http) are quite happy moving from the default ports (80/443) so long as the client machine puts the right port address in the URL. Other applications are much more picky about what port they listen or talk on, and the clients (or peers, if we're talking about something like an online game like World of Warcraft, which I think uses a p2p system for downloading updates) simply don't have the option of trying to connect to a different port. I assume that SIP works with a fixed port number for receiving incoming calls (unless you have an external directory where you can look up ip:port for a number?), so if that's the case then you can only have a maximum of one user behind the firewall who "owns" that incoming port. This technical limitation (and, I guess, any privacy/security concerns arising from making a mistake and routing to the wrong user) makes me suspect that ISPs will generally not even entertain your request for port forwarding if you're a regular NAT user ...
As much as I hate this restriction with NAT, I'm still not sure that I like the alternative of flat routing (no hiding behind NAT) in IPv6. I know people will say that I can just use a router and drop packets like I used to be able to do in IPv4. At least I assume that's the case. My problem is basically that IPv6 is so complex that I'm not sure I trust myself to even do this routing correctly and be sure that none of my IPv6 devices can't be accessed from random machines on the 'net somewhere.
玉. is either 'tama' (kun-yomi) or 'gyoku' (on-yomi). If it's in a compound it's much more likely to use kun-yomi (Japanese style reading) and mean "ball" or a round thing. Like 'eyeball' is 'medama' (with tama undergoing a sound change, becoming dama). The on-yomi (Chinese style reading) by itself would mean "jewel" or "jade" (the material). There might be some compound words (eg, 玉石, ぎょくせき, gems and stones) that use the on-yomi, but I think that the tama/ball reading is much more usual (eg, 玉石 also has the reading たまいし, a pebble/boulder/round stone).
How about "inu no kintama" for the Japanese translation. 犬の金玉. Literally "dogs gold balls".
I have a copy of "Japanese Street Slang" at home. As you might imagine, it has a whole section devoted to testicles :) Kintama is the #1 word they recommend, but (as with many of the words in the book) I've never heard it spoken. It does seem to have a good pedigree, though (no pun intended).
The other word that I was actually going to suggest is in there too: O-inari. The 'o' at the start is an honorific prefix. Look up the web to see pictures of "Inari sushi" (contracted to "inarizushi"). For example, this one. From the resemblance to scrota, it should be obvious that people could understand its slang use. The only thing about using it with kitsune (as opposed to inu) as some people have suggested is that there's also a kami (somewhere between a spirit and a god) named Inari, and the kitsune are his messengers. If you said something like 'kitsune no inari", people might thing you were referring to the kami and get confused. You'd just have to try it out on a native Japanese speaker.
On another related point, I'm sure loads of you have heard the story about how the dog's bollocks could have come from Meccano sets and the "Box Deluxe". I'm sure that's pure bollocks. I always thought that the idea came because there must (self-evidently) be something good about them (the dog's bollocks) because they like to lick them so much. I've always wondered if the phrase translated literally into other languages because it would be strong support for the "self-evident" etymology theory. When I heard 'la puta madre' in Spanish I thought it literally meant 'dog's bollocks' (madra being the Irish word for dog, but that's a false friend). Alas, although it does translate to it in English, it's not a literal translation.
Anyway, this is all vital research, and I'm glad that el Reg is championing it in its pages. Thumbs up!
Definitely my favourite pulse. I make tomato-based stews fairly regularly... mostly with split yellow peas or chickpeas. Makes for a very hearty and cheap meal. I used to be vegetarian, but these days if I'm making such a thing, I'll chop up some chorizo and put it in the pot at the start to crisp it up a bit and release the oils (which stay in the pot and give a really nice flavour to the rest of the dish---it's crazy, but I sometimes see recipes telling to to throw out these delicious oils after cooking ii!). I take the chorizo bits out at that point and float a few of them on top of the stew when serving it, but sometimes I leave them in. In fact, I had a version of this for dinner today and yesterday, but I poached a ray wing in the stew for about 5 min at the end of cooking, then added some pre-packed crayfish.
I guess what I'm getting at is that it's actually dead simple to make (recipes for this sort of thing abound, but I've evolved my own as I went along) a very tasty and nutritious dinner very cheaply using simple ingredients: mainly onions, garlic, spices, tomato, celery, carrots, potatoes and pulses. I haven't calculated it, so maybe it's not a pound-a-day cheap, but I'd say it's close and probably a lot better for you than some of the things people are suggesting (like Mars bars!).
But taking a samovar to work would be even more hassle than a teapot.
You could always try making and selling a brew on your train to work. Or maybe barter the tea for chocolatey snacks your fellow passengers might have. I think it would probably be within the spirit of the exercise, if not the letter.
Have an upvote. I can't see any reason why someone would downvote your original post, since what you say is perfectly fine (even using "real estate", which makes for a good analogy). The detractors should take a look at FPGA programming (eg, this free introductory course) if they don't understand (or want to know) why "wider isn't always better" as you put it.
What, a complete nutjob?
I think it's probably the hookers and
coke "bath salts*" lifestyle that people aspire to ...
* I dunno. Maybe the hip people are doing "alloy wheel cleaner" these days.
even Executives should be able to figure this out now!
I don't know. The problem with idiots, as someone once said, is that they're so damned ingenious. I'm sure they'll find some way to stick the thing in the wrong way!
it was probably while watching The IT Crowd :)
You know, you're probably right :)
"BECAUSE SHE'S DEAD!!"
Sorry for your loss. Move on.
Damp squib is the one you want. Squids should be damp, squibs should not.
Pshaw. I know English good: I'll continue to say "damp squid" irregardless.
I found the subtitles for the episode on the net (dialogue between Negative One and Moss):
"Heard you been catching some nice letters."
"I get the same letters as everyone else."
"Good when they fall in the right order, though, innit?"
The Countdown episode was definitely one of the best. The secret club reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where George pretends to have a dead supermodel wife, which opens the door to another secret club (of course, George being George, his lies are found out and when he goes back, the club is a meat locker).
Also, who doesn't like Countdown (trivia: Channel 4's first ever broadcast)? It's great to see them taking the piss out of themselves. Likewise, I think the 8/10 cats does Countdown episodes are pretty excellent. I laughed myself silly watching one the other night (the one with the Countdown stuntman). I can't recall the last time I had so much fun watching a tv programme...
As a series brilliant, totally brilliant. The last episode hmmmmmm
Pretty much have to agree. That last episode was a bit of a damp squid, IMO.
Where's H. P. Lovecraft when you need him?
I'll have you know that my doctorate at Miskatonic University has given me fine preparation for such a thing.
Now where did I leave my Petri dish, length of wire and Bunsen burner? ...
Humans are funny. They'll fiddle as Rome burns
Rome didn't burn in a day, you know. You've got to something to while the hours away. Why not this?
In my day, when Humpty Dumpty cracked his shell, not even all the king's horses and all the king's men could put him back together again. The big bad wolf ate Little Red Riding Hood, and even in a tale with a happy ending (Hansel and Gretel), the witch gets burned alive in her own oven. We also played Cowboys and Indians and Cops and Robbers. Nowadays, Humpty Dumpty can be rebuilt, the huntsman saves Little Red Riding Hood (or maybe the wolf only came for tea) and Hansel and Gretel would have been adopted by the kindly witch.
What is this world coming to?
You start off with high-speed trading (well, just arbitrage, as you said), then talk about how price of one commodity affects particular stock values. Then you say "Being able to cross-calculate these price changes also takes us a little closer to being able to plan the economy". But which price changes? The differences in prices that arbitrage exploits, or the correlations between fluctuations in one commodity and some other figures? It should be clear that the first kind of fluctuation essentially holds no information: I'd liken it to quantum fluctuations in a vacuum---it's meaningless, random, with any apparent information content just being an artefact of quantisation effects (in fact you can use the same language and say that arbitrage works because it exploits quantisation artefacts in different stock markets).
Lots of people, myself included, would argue that arbitrage doesn't really add value to an economy. You can argue for the "invisible hand", and that it's bringing the market in line with the ideal of perfect information flow but it's obviously not perfect or (a) people wouldn't be making money on arbitrage (how can it be perfect information flow if only some people are able to exploit stock/commodity data?), and (b) you've already mentioned that all this HFT can have bad effects as feedback loops (or "flocking"*) behaviour causes markets to go completely out of whack from time to time.
If, instead, you're talking about the web of connections and correlations between various stock and commodity prices, then you haven't established the connection between arbitrage or HFT algorithms and the ability to plan the economy. Quite frankly, that's a ludicrous postulation. Yes, I understand that you try to make the link by mentioning how algorithms are evolved, but consider:
* these algorithms aren't designed to build up an understanding of the economic system as a whole, but to exploit short-term fluctuations (including impulses deliberately injected into the system by buying and selling with a view to sending various stock prices in one direction or another). You literally can't see the wood for the trees.
* experiments with new models or new impulse triggers cost money--real money. You might argue that we can "evolve" better models this way, but in reality it's no different from a gambling addict pouring money into ever more complex (and fraught) betting systems. The only difference is that high-frequency traders generally aren't using their own money to fund these experiments.
* you can't account for (or predict) delays between an impulse and an observed effect. Eddie Murphy might have been right in his reasoning for when to buy/sell concentrated frozen orange juice in Trading Places, but he could just as easily have been wrong (it was just a film, after all). There's too much elasticity in time and in perceived value.
* there are too many hidden variables. If you can't even count the number of hidden variables, then how can you build a statistical model?
* all these mechanical traders are working in secrecy, so how are we to trust this as a means of economic planning (the "invisible hand" becomes a "shadowy hand").
* all these mechanical traders are also competing against each other, and they have no way of knowing (short of widespread industrial espionage) whether the observed changes are a result of "the market" responding, or simply a knee-jerk reaction by other trading bots. Again, hardly a sound basis for economic planning
Taking all this into account, your whole argument just falls apart. There definitely is something to be said for economic modelling that takes into account the whole web of ownership, profit and loss statements, bills of material, futures markets, taxation systems, shipping costs and so on. But to try to link this to arbitrage and HFT is a pure nonsense.
Then again, this sort of speculative (and flawed) thinking is just what economists do, right?
*re flocking: looks more like murmuration, but that's almost beside the point. I say "almost" because while you may be able to predict flocking behaviour pretty well, you've got practically zero chance of predicting behaviour in a murmuration. As with markets, there are too many free variables.
Ergot, we should install filtering or something?
Really? Ships have diesel engines. Diesel engines become more efficient the bigger you build them. This wikipedia page rates fuel efficiency "of rail and ship transport [as] generally much more efficient than trucking, and air freight is much less efficient".
So do you have any argument to back up that claim? Or are you really trying to say that transporting stuff is the problem? What's the solution, if not using the most efficient transport systems (ie, rail and ship) possible?