oakenshield

Nope; Skynet had intelligence.

A recent blog post from OkCupid dissects Match.com (and eHarmony, to a lesser extent) to bits: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/04/07/why-you-should-...

Oh, I wasn't dissing the Google method. I'm just saying that if people bothered to read the whole manpage for some application just once, they'd know of the "cool" features they might need, instead of waiting until someone posts it on HN or reddit.

It's like people don't know about man pages anymore. Google is the man page... only you may not get your answer on the first try.

I feel that it is indeed going to be a revolution of sorts, and people who don't use computers professionally will start using tablets in their work. Tablets have the opportunity to become much more pervasive: laptops by design require folks to sit down, but tablets have a nicer form factor that could replace virtually anything people use while standing up/on the move: writing pads, file folders, electrical/electronic measurement equipment(with Apple approved connectors, of course), etc. Lots of professions could benefit from a usable tablet design --- doctors, field engineers, etc.

The show Stargate Atlantis shows an amusing example of one "future". Stuck in a dead spaceship on the bottom of the ocean with air running out and water leaking in? Not to worry, just hook up your tablet to the system and hack it. For Rodney Mckay, difficult takes a few seconds. Impossible -- a few minutes.

Are you sure about the "constitutionally approved" quip? I watched Gary Locke on The Daily Show on March 18th, and he clears up a bunch of these misconceptions and privacy concerns. Specifically, he says that Jefferson was the head of the first census committee, and half of the questions even in 2010 census are questions put in by Madison.

I also don't understand why it's fashionable to distrust the census. It happens in most countries and they ask more or less the same questions. We all care about the economic and racial demographics of places where we live and work; where do you think that information comes from?

EDIT: link to interview: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/gary-loc...

It's not that cryptography has failed; it's more that the web-using public is largely ignorant and unaware what security or cryptography means. They think in real-life analogues: a random person on the street hears me talking to my friend outside my house about my weekend plans. Not a big deal, because (1) that random person didn't hear every single word, (2) we'd see if they were eavesdropping too closely, and (3) no human can remember every last detail of speech they hear. Unfortunately, an eavesdropper on the wire can do all this and more, but people don't seem to understand.

I think the right way to go is for providers make strong cryptography standard (like your Adium example). The current GPG usage model and its integration with email is poorly executed, and most of the web-using public won't care to learn how it works let alone create key pairs. The only thing the public at large can understand is secrecy of social communication. I await the day Facebook or Google start automatically generating and managing keys, and encrypting communication between users based on their social connections.

Atlanta. It's a huge metro with a fairly low cost of living. Fair winter weather (no snow) and the summers are alright too. Lots of smart kids from Georgia Tech, plenty of security-related startups, lots of finance companies, etc. I also recently learned of an early stage tech statup seed funding firm based here (Shotput ventures).

IMO, AI is logically quite different from Machine Learning / Statistical Learning.

The stuff mentioned on this page is largely about methods to learn from structured or unstructured data, and this is a field that has become highly relevant of late due to the data deluge. Research in these areas has progressed immensely as well, and we now have methods to mine many different types and volumes of data. If you have a good grip of statistical techniques and some basic ML ideas, you will be able to single out and pick the right technique that fits your problem, given your data type, SNR ratio, structured-ness, volume, your resource constraints, etc. Knowing a little more about ML will also allow you to change/invent new methods to suit your own problems better (e.g., a new way to compress your feature space).

This was my exact impression; I hate leaving the keyboard when I'm writing or reading code. To simulate some of the functionality of codebubble in vim, I :vsp the same file and scroll up/down to the method I want.

I have, however, come to realize that navigation through a large project with keys alone is suboptimal. One typo in a nav command and you have to press at least four or five more keys. With the mouse, you're less likely to make such mistakes and your retry time would also be low. It'd be like trying to browse the web using the keyboard alone... even I, a hardcore vim user, found firefox/vimperator underwhelming to say the least.

What would be awesome is if they made some sort of hybrid superintelligent keyboard where the whole keyboard surface could also act as sort of a multi-touchpad. As a compromise, I've found that the thinkpad-style pointing stick in the middle of the keyboard does a fair job.

> Furthermore, Voracek, Hofhansl and Fisher (2005) found 6% of women were receptive to offers of casual sex with a strange man

Anyone know which strange man they're talking about and what his MO is?

This is from 2004.

The problem with ECC is (has been, rather) that it's covered by patents, and OpenSSL didn't have ECC APIs until very recently. I believe the implementation in the latest versions of OpenSSL are based on the work of the same authors. Unfortunately, with so much deployed code using RSA-based handshakes, it seems tough for ECC to gain traction all that soon.

Looks very interesting. Does anybody know if any of it is going to be webcast?

I disagree. I am a late-stage PhD candidate in CS, and I cannot stress the importance given to quality writing in academic circles. All of us know that clear, concise writing plays a large part in getting your paper accepted, and we're repeatedly told that if a reviewer did not understand something in a paper, the fault should be assumed to be with the writing. Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" is a permanent fixture on most grad student desks.

My point is: if you're reading a reputable CS paper published at a top conference, it is less likely to be hard to understand due to writing flaws than due to the complexity of subject matter. Journals are a different beast, but most good CS papers get published at conferences anyway.

Although I agree, I think a viral "kick in the nuts" such as pleaserobme has been long overdue; it's about time people paid more attention to how much they reveal online.