thelucky41
From the cited paper, most of the acquired devices were not even reset:
> Not reset devices: A surprising number of devices (61% ) were not reset by the previous owners. Due to the setup of our experiment, we had no possibility of asking the previous owners any questions.
I'm doubtful this exists, but I'd like it if it were possible to perform a factory reset or account transfer completely online, and other features around improving the security in the resale market.
For those curious like me how the wifi password was actually leaked:
> WPA-supplicant is responsible for connecting to configured access points after provisioning. We found that it creates its con- figuration files on the user data partition in the folder “misc/wifi/”. Here the file “wpa_supplicant.conf ” contains the Wi-Fi credentials, such as the SSID and PSK.
Whether the F-35 will be successful or not does not matter whether there are armchair journalists or mainstream reporters covering the project, but in this case we can enjoy the increased accountability. This should be seen as a positive effect of social media, if anything.
This had me wondering how many mistakes in previous projects were smoothed over by clever marketing, and how many are being exposed now. Does social media make it easier or harder for the general public to get accurate information on this sort of thing?
If a router receives a peer-to-peer packet, where should it send this packet? With pinecone, this is answered by looking at a cheatsheet, where each node is assigned a specific virtual neighbor that they are in charge of finding among the physical routing tree. This cheatsheet is generated by connecting neighbors who are ordered by their cryptographic public keys.
As peers find routes to their neighbors, they are also discovering routes to other nodes along the chain, helping speed up the entire process of deciding where to send packets.
Saying nothing about comparing LOC in an imperative/OO language to a functional one, does the brevity actually help a reader's understanding of the code at all? It seems to me that a lot of the comparisons call out descriptions of explicit actions in C++ where OCaml does the same action implicitly.
That seems like a language trade-off more than a feature.
The original article is the author's anecdotal evidence that a 10 times difference in productivity is caused by environment. It's enough to generate a hypothesis, at least. After reading a few of the references, I've found it's even harder to generate good data for this than I expected. It would be of no surprise to me that environment is a large confounding factor on what generates these "10x" programmers.
For each of the technologies involved with the X-37, et al., that technology required testing with a human-in-the-loop to act as the judge for if the control output made sense. It simply isn't feasible to begin testing your robot pilot without first testing it with a pilot there in the first place.
[1] http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1992/07/art3full.pdf [2] http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/IB_11-11-508.pd...
Aside from the strong hardware support and large community behind it, Thingsquare has recently released it's slides from their training classes on Contiki that give an excellent overview. Porting an already existing platform to my own custom hardware has been relatively painless compared to Linux or an RTOS, though it is difficult to make Contiki's makefile based workflow work well in an IDE.
Cooperative protothreads are surprisingly easy to work with, and the IP/mesh networking stack is highly configurable at each layer. Combined with an excellent overall code quality, this is the very first open-source project I've ever really wanted to get involved in.
[1] http://thingsquare.com/customers/ [2] http://www.contiki-os.org/
When I was 16 and learning how to program in Java, there was an online competition for high schoolers, and this was one of the introductory programming questions. Your program had to execute in under a time limit (5 seconds, N=13), and I had come up with the best solution I could and was still at 7 seconds. It took me the rest of the month spending hours a day reading on speed optimizations in order to cut down every unnecessary instruction, and remove every intermediate variable. Eventually, the program executed in 4.9 seconds.
While quite interesting, the problem only took an afternoon to implement the algorithm. What differentiated my chops from my competitors was that I could improve my program beyond the first implementation.
Dogfighting is obsolete as homing missiles fly faster, farther, and are more maneuverable than the plane carrying them. Air superiority belongs to the plane with the more sophisticated radar and stealth that is flying at a higher altitude. Flying faster also aids intercepting incoming aircraft or escaping interception attempts.
General purpose computers are quite good at what they do, however, there are a large number of tasks that you want done but don't need or want a general purpose computer, or a user, in the loop, which is what "smart" hardware is there for.
Like most standardized tests, the AP tests are incredibly game-able. As a student, I began taking random AP tests without taking the class and just studying a guide the week before the test. I passed every test (most with a 5), but that was because I had learned to become good at the test, rather than learning the material behind it. (There are some exceptions, like art portfolios)
But myself and the above commenter (InclinedPlane) are the exception. There is, frankly, no better way for a student to demonstrate prior knowledge of a subject than through a standardized test.
Dartmouth, and all colleges, are welcome to set their policies to reflect their trust in the system, but there should be a way, whether internal or standardized, for a student to be placed based on prior knowledge.
Issues that we deal with when driving an automobile are amplified 100x when in the cockpit of an aircraft. Traffic is nearly impossible to spot during the day time without someone like an air traffic controller (ATC) telling you about it. Managing a plane in inclement weather is an effort in bravery and extraordinary situational decision making. Crashes, though statistically unlikely to be fatal, can have extreme consequences for both passengers an innocent by-standers. All-in-all, the experience of flying is just plain difficult. There are dozens of controls to handle at any given moment, and even the distractions are amplified (ever tried writing something down while driving? It happens in planes all the time)
So how did we overcome these issues? Regulations and technology. Just looking at the traffic issue, there are rules for which alititude to fly at for which direction and type of flight you are, rules for entering high traffic areas by verifying you have communicated intentions first, rules for what equipment your plane has to have before entering specific high traffic areas, and strict expectations that pilots will be able to control their aircraft to the best of their ability. There is plenty of redundancy in the system as well.
I would venture to say that landing a plane is much more demanding than driving a car, even in the most severe driving conditions, yet we trust autopilots to set the plane down in even the most severe 0 visibility scenarios (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BUA3EwKpVM). The technology in vehicles is beginning to make sense to implement in the same way we have it present in airplanes right now, but I would love to see the regulatory structure begin to step up and build a reasonable, redundant, and safe system for driving an driver-less car. Then I can see the world you are describing.
Sushi Burrito.
If that isn't a thing already, it needs to be.
It is completely within his duties to do that. It is also completely within Delta's duties as his employer to question his judgement and fire him for being a racist later.