Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



General Mills Retracts "No Right to Sue" EULA Clause

SmurfButcher Bob Re:And again: (88 comments)

Actually, it doesn't matter what they claim; there is no commercial consideration, ergo no contract. No cash? No standing. End of story.

Otherwise, as another posted above... ya'all owe me $500 for reading this, and agree not to sue me, and agree to pay for any and all legal defense that I need defending any and all lawsuits, ever. And I get to borrow your house whenever I want.

about 8 months ago

Full-Disclosure Security List Suspended Indefinitely

SmurfButcher Bob Meh, obsolete anyway (162 comments)

<sarcasm>...and good riddance. Look guy, Ellison said it - Oracle's database has not been hacked in over a decade.


about 9 months ago

Keyless Remote Entry For Cars May Have Been Cracked

SmurfButcher Bob I almost expect... (398 comments)

unlock = true;
try {
if (!rxkeycode()) { unlock = false; }
} catch { }
if (unlock) { unlock_the_door(); }

Short of having found a "master keycode", I'd suspect something analogous to the above. Pretty much find any type of problem in the hypothetical rxkeycode() and you win, if that's how it's implemented. The cars it doesn't work on... either the triggered bug doesn't happen, or the logic starts with "unlock=false" blah blah blah.

Would be interesting to know, not that they'll ever tell.

about a year and a half ago

Windows: Not Doomed Yet

SmurfButcher Bob Re:nope (737 comments)

Errr... that's a tad backwards I think. Home users have no relevance to the enterprise; to the contrary, they are historically driven BY the enterprise. You may have omitted the decade+ time where there WERE no "home users". We did not adopt PCs because "Sally the Secretary" had one at home.

Windows made it into the enterprise simply because of legacy DOS applications. DOS was somewhat simple to write software on. And the PC was somewhat simple to build hardware for.

Contrast that with a Mac. To write a business app required everything you'd do on a PC, and then... 300 hours f*ing with font colors. For an accounting package. Or inventory. Or... yeah, I'll take my DBase or Foxbase in DOS, please. Spend six hours of your life f*ing around with making an 80column print job line up. Now we get to repeat that on screen? And it really did come down to that. There was no OO, everything was top-down, and mice were for pussies.

Windows, more than a GUI, was an API to make it cheaper to write software.
"Visual Basic", all that junk was an effort to make it cheaper to write software.
Because in the beginning, there wasn't any. *Everything* was vertical. Even .jpeg decoding had to be written, yourself.

The strategy was a cornerstone of the "Application Barrier to Entry". If you don't know that phrase, you are missing the basis of MS anti-trust. .NET is just a continued tactic for chasing the 1000 Monkey Coding Model, which makes it cheaper to write software... put 10,000 monkeys on a keyboard and you'll get Hamlet? Put 1,000 monkeys in VS.NET and you'll get working code. THAT is today's strategy behind how MS stays in the enterprise.

Some home users picked up PCs at home due to familiarity, but most home buys were for "that's where the software is", and also "jackass website requires IE". Or "AOL sux on mac". Or, "game requires PC". There weren't too many copies of Wolf3d running on a Mac as I recall. And OS2 was stillborn.

It is funny how such things evolve. Windows is entrenched in SKorea due to an e-commerce law; when SSL was new, the SK Govt passed a law requiring a specific form of encryption be used for all e-commerce traffic. The only accepted implementation ever made was an ActiveX control. Can you guess why ActiveX was the chosen tactic? It was cheapest to develop that way. Cheap!! The very reason the ActiveX model was invented, and exposed to the browser. And Excel. And Word. And Outlook. And any other application that cared to use it. Hopefully one of our SK readers will chime in with how that situation has evolved over time, since then. But it all started with cost to develop; users were never even considered. Every website out there had to push that control, and every user wanting online commerce had to run IE. Period. The enterprise drove home buys there, for sure.

You do hit the nail on the head later on regarding any-device stuff. Windows 8 is just the continuation of the 1000 monkey model, and it is likely a response to Oracle. With targets of desktop, mobile, and server... you get to pick what you'll develop in, and that dictates your cost. You can use Java, and have one codebase, one skillset, and one dev team handle it all. You can go Apple, and have a codebase for IOS, another for MacOS, another for your (linux?) server that has nothing to do with the other two, and... yeah, skillset requirements all over, and probably 3 teams that need to talk really well, and a project manager from hell. Or, you can do it with one team using .NET, single project, same skillset, and even the same GUI concept between desktop, mobile, and server-side widget crap.

If you consider some fictitious company the scope of Fedex, rolling a from-scratch solution for every form-factor that they CAN use in the office, warehouse, loading bay, airplane, truck, and wrist - your options are Oracle... or .NET. Those really are the two choices that don't implicitly involve separate trainwrecked codebase, skillsets, and teams. And with Win8... the salespoint is obvious: potentially the lowest skillset needed over the entire lifecycle, and everything now has a standard GUI, kind of like how Google just made Android have at least one standard theme. From that perspective, you can see how Win8's horrible UI was kind of required to happen. Presuming that MSFT is shooting to keep .NET the best value for "write once run anywhere... if it supports .NET".

Will it matter? I cannot say. Up til the past few years, the enterprise drove the PC market. When you heard about the Saudi Aramco hack a few months back, did you catch the fact that they have 40,000 PCs in their production? Legacy today, certainly. But *how did they get there*. It wasn't home users. Those desktops were dictated by the vertical stack, and that was dictated by cost to create. One decision, resulting in purchase of 40,000 machines. In just one single shop. Next, repeat for National Grid. ConEd. PacBell. Verizon. These days, the enterprise probably doesn't drive the PC market anymore. But that just threatens the enterprise devs with higher costs to deal with fragmentation. And that's why MSFT force-fed that stupid Win8 GUI.


about a year and a half ago

Sony Launches Internet Service Offering Twice the Speed of Google Fiber

SmurfButcher Bob Re:And it's in Japan (268 comments)

I have a high-speed BiDi parallel port, if that'll help...

about a year and a half ago

FCC Issues Forfeiture Notices to Two Business for Jamming Cellular Frequencies

SmurfButcher Bob Re:This is awesome (350 comments)

When I fire up my 500KW transceiver within 50 miles of you? Not very well.

about a year and a half ago

Sony Launches Internet Service Offering Twice the Speed of Google Fiber

SmurfButcher Bob Even has a SLA! (268 comments)

...if for any reason it causes the silentl install of a rootkit or performs some other criminal act within your enterprise, you'll be entitled to a pair of $1 iTunes gift certificates.
Take THAT, google fiber!

about a year and a half ago

Creationist Bets $10k In Proposed Literal Interpretation of Genesis Debate

SmurfButcher Bob Re:Easy... (1121 comments)

Nah, it's the entire premise behind "Bible Code". It works fine!

about a year and a half ago

Kim Dotcom Reveals Mega Will Offer 50GB of Free Storage

SmurfButcher Bob Re:Woohoo piracy returns! (203 comments)

Same name, guilty. Let them burn in hell.

about 2 years ago

John McAfee Tells World How He Fooled Cops and Escaped Belize

SmurfButcher Bob Re:Would /. please spare us ?? (243 comments)

> Well, in Julians case, attention whoring seems to be saving his freedom and probably his life.
Err... I might suggest that the attention whoring is what put those things in jeopardy in the first place.

Just sayin.

about 2 years ago

Samba 4.0 Released: the First Free Software Active Directory Compatible Server

SmurfButcher Bob Re:How does Microsoft feel about this? (343 comments)

Seeing how MS is in a fight for its life to stay relevant on the enterprise side... and knowing that a linux stack will likely happen on every enterprise they're in... having a good interop is a good thing for them.

If the linux boxes I deploy do NOT talk nicely with my MS stuff... it is MS that loses value, not the little toasters I'm deploying. The game is about Apple and Oracle. Apple and Oracle are things that compete against MS in many areas. Linux is something MS can allow to fill voids they don't cover, without giving traction to the two competing for-profits.

about 2 years ago

Researchers Find Crippling Flaws In Global GPS

SmurfButcher Bob Re:In other news (179 comments)

Almost. The manipulation is irrelevant.

Proper summary should be, "In other news, shitty software is shitty." THAT aspect is interesting, largely because few people realize how shitty most of it is, nor where that shittiness is found, vs. where we expect that shittiness should not be. That you can brick a receiver with a divide by zero in a cached almanac... the genius pool at $GPSCO being of THAT quality may be news to most.

about 2 years ago

Microsoft's Hidden Windows 8 Feature: Ads

SmurfButcher Bob Re:M$ (635 comments)

It seems you are not familiar with QuickBooks, or anything else from Intuit. :)

more than 2 years ago

Astronomers Search For Dyson Spheres of Alien Civilizations

SmurfButcher Bob Re:First space-faring race = a bunch of nutjobs (686 comments)

So you're saying that at least one alien theology states that their deity will be found in a human's anal cavity?

more than 2 years ago

White House Confirms Chinese Cyberattack

SmurfButcher Bob Re:Nuclear weapons? (212 comments)

Because they have to be, stupid! They're SCADA!

more than 2 years ago

Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Arrested, Jailed

SmurfButcher Bob Re:it didn't (747 comments)

No, he realizes what's up.

cut-n-paste from http://www.social-engineer.org/general-blog/innocence-of-the-media/ :

Adding more fuel to the fire, the creator of the movie, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian born Christian immigrant living in Southern California, originally masqueraded as “Sam Bacile”, a 52-year old Jewish real estate developer from Israel. [3] “Sam Bacile” claimed the movie was made with $5 million in donations by “more than 100 Jewish donors”, as reported by the Associated Press.

Trailers and excerpts were uploaded to YouTube in July 2012 garnering little attention. In September 2012, Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-American blogger previously exiled from Egypt for calling for attacks on Egypt, translated the YouTube video to Arabic and reuploaded it. Morris Sadek then sent video links to journalists.

more than 2 years ago

IPv6 Must Be Enabled On All US Government Sites By Sunday

SmurfButcher Bob And on Monday, the headline will be (179 comments)

..."At least 2,000 US Federal Government sites were hacked when it was discovered that they were not behind a NAT anymore."

more than 2 years ago

Apple CEO Tim Cook Apologizes For Maps App, Recommends Alternatives

SmurfButcher Bob Re:Skewed methodology (451 comments)

Even more skewed is the definition of "accurate" as simply, "was found, somewhere", while ignoring the attributes being correct in every aspect.

I once geocoded an address in FL and the result was 4 miles out to sea. GDT considered that "accurate" because the address query was resolved.

It'll be interesting to see how many f*ups occur because of such misrepresentations of what "accuracy" is. Never mind the GPS inaccuracy on top of it.

more than 2 years ago


SmurfButcher Bob hasn't submitted any stories.



A Pauli game

SmurfButcher Bob SmurfButcher Bob writes  |  more than 9 years ago

Pauli's exclusion. Naievely put, two things cannot share the same state. Simple.

Let's tweak it a little, and see what happens in a given case. And yes, I do have an agenda with this. In no way do I suggest that any of this is correct, or relevent. It *will* be consistent relative to itself, however.

We're going to change Pauli to include the object in question - no two states the same, which includes the object itself. Once it is in a given state, it *must* change.

Now, let's make a 5-space. It'll be our typical XYZ, plus a B that we don't perceive (which is just a plain-old axis, just like X and Y and Z, and it is orthogonal to them), and a time (which is also just a plain old axis, orthogonal to the rest).

Let's stuff a singularity S at our origin. Our universe is born, we now have an object, and it has "state" as defined by our space. There's a problem - S has state, and our modified Pauli says it has to change. So, it moves. How far? How fast? Well, far and fast enough that it'll resolve the exclusion - per "tick" of the clock, it'll move its own radius from where it was. Also note it cannot go backwards - that "state" is already occupied.

Note that it doesn't matter what direction it goes - any will do. Just for yucks, let's say it initially started moving along B. We can easily have picked X or Y, but let's pick B.

Within the XYZ subspace, S isn't moving. Neat, huh? That's why we picked B.

So, let's give our little friend a kick in the pants. We induce a small velocity along X.

Question - it's been trucking along B in order to resolve the exclusion, at the rate of one radius per tick. Now that there's an X componant to it's velocity, does it need to travel along "B" a full radius?

Nope, it doesn't. "Speed" along B will decrease. In fact, if we "kick" up the speed along X to the point where S is now moving "one radius per tick", any speed along B will go to zero, won't it? After all, the displacement "per tick" along X is now adequate to fully resolve our exclusion.

So, we've created an interesting game which effectively has a similar rule to one in real life - there's no such thing as a standing wave.

We can expand our game a little bit - let's get rid of B.

Instead, let's say S initially "decided" to start travelling along T. How far, how fast? Again, one radius. (Yeah, I know there's a contradiction floating around here in regards to the definition of Time. If we're allowed to neglect friction, we can neglect this too. We're demonstrating a concept.)

So, S is cruising along T... and again, within our XYZ subspace, you and I would not perceive it as moving. We start our displacement along X - and S slows down along the T axis. How much? Well, Pythagoras solved that one - a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Keep pushing S faster along X, and displacement along T slows down even further. Finally reach the speed along X that resolves the exclusion? Displacement along T stops dead in its tracks. S is still moving, though, you'd better believe it.

Let's modify our game once again. By virtue of the exclusion, we've effectively asserted that S must move one radius per tick. The result, when XYZT is viewed as "flat" and "static" (unchanging) is that S is a long smear. There is no "time" in this view; all of the positions of S are kinda glued together to form a solid extrusion.

We're going to add a new assertion - when our space is viewed this way, S must be *continuous*. No gaps, breaks, cuts, jumps. Switching back to our "more normal" 3-space + time, this means that S *must* move one radius per tick, never slower, and *never faster*.

Moving faster, after all, would cause a break in the continuity we just defined.

So, let's replay our game one more time. Add speed along X, and T slows down etc. Keep going faster along X until displacement along T stops. Try to go even faster along X - and you can't, you'd "break" the smear (extrusion).

Do NOT try to apply this game to real life; the first thing you'll notice is that, if you *reduce* the speed along X, the exclusion must be resolved by a displacement along another axis - and no duh, that's the whole point of the game. But you'll notice that there is no rule for *which* axis that'll get picked - B, Y and Z are all just as likely. We don't observe that in real life, though - when I hit the brakes on my car, it doesn't usually start sliding sideways or flying. Usually.

Still, it's interesting to see the effect.

If you're *really* bored, (and I mean **really**), follow up on the a^2 + b^2 = c^2 thing. It'd be merely an exercise, but attempting to relate it to inertia / mass increases at relativistic speeds might be fun (even if futile).



SmurfButcher Bob SmurfButcher Bob writes  |  more than 9 years ago

Regarding space being a 3D thing or not - it's all about perception, and perception is why it's such a challenge.

Consider something, a game merely provided as a thought experiment.

Consider a creature who lives in a 2D world... that is, his perception is limited to exactly one single plane that is infinitely thin. Grab a stiff sheet of paper, neglect friction, and pretend it has no thickness. We're going to try to see what our creature sees, the same way he sees it, and eventually see how it scales as "dimensional perception" increases.

Take a round pen, and "intersect" the middle of it with our plane. ----|-----
Our creature will perceive the pen as a circular wall... remember, he has no concept of "up" and "down". Easy.

Spin the pen in various directions, and note what happens - and remember, we're only interested in that infinitely thin section that our creature can perceive. You can produce spin 0 (if the pen is a cyllander), spin 1, spin 1/2, spin 2... you can create all types of "spin" based on the direction you rotate it. Interesting. Note that this is not necessarily the same "spin" that the quark-heads talk about, but it demonstrates a fair part of the concept. It certainly demonstrates the concept of things "coming into view", and will probably make our poor creature pull his hair out. It's especially interesting because our creature sees the pen changing - shape, size, you name it - but you and I know that the damned pen isn't changing one bit.

Now for a really neat demo - tilt the pen, and hold it still. ------/-----
Without rotating the pen, move it straight up or down. What's our creature going to perceive? Yep... he'll see the "pen" (the big circular wall, which is now an oval due to the tilt) moving across his plane. That's neat, and a good concept demonstrator - but it isn't the really cool part. The really cool part is that he'll see the pen moving along the X-Y plane- despite the reality that it's really moving along the (unperceived) Z axis. You can see that the pen has no horizontal motion whatsoever - yet, horizontal motion is exactly (and only) what he perceives. Take a second to reenforce why he perceives it that way, and make the reasons work. Remember, we don't care what his perception is, there is no horizontal motion in reality. The motion is all in the unperceived vertical. Period. The only thing changing (not moving, but changing) is the point of intersection with his ability to perceive, the cross-section within his perception.

Finally, grab a more complex object. Something fun - a coffee mug perhaps, or a fork, or even a pair of scissors. I'll use scissors, because I enjoy cutting things... and when we're done, we can use them to wreck havoc on our creature's universe.

Open the scissors up a little, and hold them below the sheet of paper. What's our creature going to perceive? Nothing.

Now, lift the scissors and stick the points into our creature's plane of perception.
Our creature will perceive the scissors as intially one, then two completely separate objects as the points come into view, right? And what else... they will appear to spontaneously exist. Of course, you know that the scissors have always been there, just not within the creature's view.

Things get interesting, though - if our creature decides to kick one of those objects, he'll notice that the other object moves a little. It'll make no sense to him - the two objects have nothing to do with each other, yet they almost seem to be... I dunno... entangled somehow. (And no, I'm not suggesting that this is how entanglement or pair production works, this is just a method of showing how a limited perception can create the illusion of such a thing.)

Move the scissors up, and notice that our creature would see the two objects moving toward each other, and also get bigger (as each blade gets thicker). Keep moving up, and our creature will be astonished when they actually merge (at the hinge-point). Keep moving up more, and more, and the creature will become baffled as the merged object suddenly breaks back into two separate pieces, moving away from each other. Move it up some more, to the handles and beyond, and our creature will see the two chunks break into four (when the handles are intersecting) then back to two (and the end of the handles), then suddenly shrink away to nothing!

Wash, rinse and repeat the game with something incredibly complex, like a lawnmower. Our poor creature is going to need a good stiff drink after trying to explain this one to his friends, I tell ya...

The one very cool thing about this entire game (and it is merely a game, it is not reality by any stretch) is that we've beaten the 2D perception of a 3D object to death, so we can see how it scales up. What we can do now is repeat the game, using a 4D object - namely, let's introduce what we perceive to be time into our game. Do this any way you like - open and close the scissors, spin them as you move them up and down, let them rust, whatever. You will rapidly discover that our (now hopelessly confused) creature cannot differentiate the 3D game from 4... he won't be able to tell how many dimensions we're throwing at him. He'll perceive them all as one single "dimension" that he calls "time". Think about when we played the game the first time - what we call Z in our perception, would be "time" in his, right? We then replay the game with both our Z and our time, it's still just "time" in his. He cannot tell if there is only one unperceived dimension, or one hundred... these extra vectors are all summed together into one, for him.

Now, stick your head out the nearest window, and watch a car drive by. You should be able to see it in a whole new way - as if you were some poor (hopefully drunk, by now) creature, perceiving a shifting 3D cross-section of a god-knows-how-many dimensional *static* object. There's still motion, for sure - but it isn't necessarily the object that's "moving", is it :) The thing that's actually moving just might be the point of intersection between our... uh, perspective-space and the object, and the "object's motion" is merely a side-effect of us only seeing a limited cross-section of a larger-dimensional solid.

I'm not suggesting that this is the case, but suddenly a photon spontaneously changing into an electron/selectron pair that move away from each other suddenly takes on a whole new... view. Or, the right-hand-rule - an electron following a helical path in an E-field? What if we took our pen, and made it wobble as it moved along? Fun games, regardless of how wrong they are.

It's all about perception, or lack thereof.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?