The content of the lecture notes[1] seem good, although I don't really like the presentation that much. Also, its difficult to follow just the notes without watching or listening to the lectures. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the online education websites (Coursera, EdX, etc.) Last year I took "The Hardware/Software Interface"[2] on Coursera and it was great.
As someone who very recently took this course (around 6 months ago to be exact), his flow of lecture is jarring if you aren't paying attention (and the confusion of the slides accentuates this), but the raw content is still very very useful (revising for this exam was easier than some others).
While I'm not able to share them with you, IC also has a system of recorded lectures, which makes these even easier to follow.
Hmm. You have a point. I get a lot of what he's saying but some is certainly unclear. And, damnit, despite many good links he doesn't seem to have anything like that anywhere. (sighs) So, we have one solid critique of this page.
Should at least update it with speaker's notes. I always distributed those with my PowerPoints just in case they landed on a new audience not possessing innate, psychic abilities. I heard that happens on occasion.
> Later, he conducted a study showing that rats developed atherosclerosis after being fed artificial trans fats. When he removed the substance from their diets, the atherosclerosis disappeared from their arteries.
Similarly, I got 3 wavs and 3 320s. I could distinguish the 128s but not between the other two. Please note that I did this wearing studio headphones (shure srh840).
> HTTPS would hide attacks from existing intrusion detection systems.
is completely wrong. Intrusion detection systems are usually checking traffic between the reverse proxies and the servers where traffic is not encrypted.
There are quite a few problems with his post and it makes it appear that he has an agenda rather that genuine concern.
There is a coursera course called "Learning How to Learn"[1] by Barbara Oakley that is starting soon. I took the previous session and it was very interesting. I liked the science[2] behind each part of the course (procrastination, memory, modes of thinking etc). The weekly interviews were certainly a big plus (however they were usually long at ~40 minutes).
It's a fun four week course with very little work and I recommend it.
If I were to pick one part of that course to share it would be the explanation of how long term memories are formed through practice (1-6 Introduction to Memory).
Knowing how something actually works, and knowing precisely how my actions achieve the desired result is important to me. I'm very skeptical of study techniques, and more interested in the underlying physiology that I am trying to manipulate.
Long-term potentiation (LTP) "is widely considered one of the major cellular mechanisms that underlies learning and memory."[1]
Spaced Repetition[2] and Spaced Learning[3] at techniques directly designed around LTP.
The course content is locked, but there is a fantastic paper that gives a thorough overview of what we know about the behavior of memory[4], as well as a video series by the principle author[5] linked below.
This is kind of my thing. Please let me know if you are interested in learning more, or if you know of additional sources you'd recommend I check out.
I have found Part II of Luc Beaudoin's book "Cognitive Productivity"[1] to be very interesting. It presents a theory of learning using a "mindware" model in which learning is the purposeful instilling of mindware[2]. His core strategies for "instilling mindware" include deliberate practice and repetition. I'm no expert in this field, but I've found Beaudoin's model to be helpful in understanding why deliberate practice works--it helps develop the "monitors" we need to recognize when knowledge is applicable, the "motivators" to push us to do something about it, and the knowledge itself. I don't know how widely accepted his theories are, or if there are other accessible sources, but I've found the book to be very useful in thinking about how I learn.
Other sources commonly cited by Beaudoin include Carl Bereiter, K. Anders Ericsson, Keith Stanovich, Phillip Ackerman, and Aaron Sloman. I hope this provides as much fodder for you as it has for me :).
Actually, you can view both previous sessions. I am not sure if you can do it without previously registering for the course since I registered for both previous sessions. I am sure though that you have to login to view the content. Here are the urls:
What a great reference! Awhile back I wrote down "learning to learn" as one of my outside-work goals and didn't really know how to approach it. It seems like a force-multiplier for everything you can do - I look forward to the course!
Thank you. I am embarking on a course of independent study which I expect to last for a year to four, and I have a feeling that this course will pay for itself in both time, effort, and increased understanding.
Actually, it's processed by a script (a bot if you like), however, if something fails a person replies to you. This is the problem with many of the challengers. When everything is ok they proceed, when something fails[1] it might take weeks to get a reply.
[1]: failure might be because of a corner case or an implementation not working on a specific configuration.
It seems that they're buying parts from a manufacturer and putting them together with a custom configuration of OpenWRT. I went through the listing and nowhere does it say "all components completely designed and manufactured by us". The OpenWRT logo is actually on their page, so they're not hiding what they use. Open up an iPhone (which is built by third parties - not by Apple), and you'll see components from lots of other manufacturers too. The people complaining seem to not know that literally no one - not even Linksys or Apple - builds routers or any other consumer electronic product entirely from scratch.
This product is neither great nor original, but the claims that they somehow lied about what they were doing just ring hollow to me.
Our first prototypes were pretty clunky, and cost between $200-$400 just for the parts, but they worked well and proved the concept. We knew that the device had to be small enough to easily conceal, built with quality components, and rock solid. But we also wanted to make it inexpensive. We wanted to make it available to as many people as possible.
By our fourth round of prototypes we had created a model with 64mb memory and a 580mhz CPU. This not only runs the software well, it flies!
At last happy with the board, we designed a simple, minimalist case in plain white to house it. The end result is our current model. We decided to name it the anonabox.
And? "We designed a case". "We bought lots of other prototype equipment to make this thing before we put together the final version".
I see nothing here indicating claims that the electronics are designed and/or built by them. It looks like they are very inexperienced at this and it took them a long time to find the parts necessary to build what they wanted. Again, it may be a crappy, unoriginal product. But I just don't see anything to be outraged about.
They didn't design the case either. The product comes complete, in the same case, from a Chinese manufacturer. Zero assembly required... same RAM and CPU specs... 5 different models to choose from... $20. Claiming they did ANY hardware design, assembly, etc. is the fraudulent part.
Meh. They may well have played with their own designs and then found this. Either way anyone saying this is fraudulent is being pedantic. They created a product that does what it says. End of story.
They put the open hardware logo beside a commercially purchased product they claimed "we designed" at least part of. Lastly the bottom of their page is clearly worded in reference to manufacturing... with "backup suppliers for parts". I just can't make the same leap in acceptance that it was a wording error.
As someone who backed, then retracted my pledge, my thinking was thus:
When you are looking at a product designed for security, you want complete, up-front honesty. The campaign had claimed (or perhaps strongly insinuated) that it had effectively designed four prototypes. This turned out not to be true (well, allegedly at this point -- it's really not clear). That raises other questions about what they might not be forthcoming about.
In short: I expect a security product to be proactively disclosing things like this. That's how you build trust.
It's your money and you're entitled to your opinion. But by this logic, the manufacturers of your smartphone, the keyboard on which you typed this response, the monitor on which you saw it, and the computer you used to submit it all lied to you by claiming that they "made" these devices. Open any of them and you'll find chips from Intel, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, and countless others.
They likely designed four prototypes. That says nothing about creating them from scratch, and they would be idiotic to even attempt to do so. They certainly couldn't do that on $600K.
I agree, the only thing they said they actually designed was the case which is different from the linked pictures as far as I can tell. About the board was that it was finally one that was small and did all the things they wanted for the software to run. This smells a lot like a witch hunt.
You should note the date on that article (April 3rd). Kay Sievers rights have been reinstated by Linus.
It's also important to note that the issue was with Sievers specifically and not with systemd. As Linus said "[...] you don't fix problems in the code you write [...]".
eg, "[...] But I'm not willing to merge something where the maintainer is known to not care about bugs and regressions and then forces people in other projects to fix their project."
I can't talk about systemd, but I had to deal with pulseaudio issues as developer of a third party project and it wasn't a pleasant experience. Kay is not involved with PA in any way, but I remember PA developers blaming Ubuntu because of their PA integration.
Yes, it is probably me seeing things here as result of my own frustrations, but I wouldn't like to experience a similar situation with systemd.
[1]: Direct link to PDFs https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/AdvancedCompArchitecture/Lect...
[2]: Details: https://www.coursera.org/course/hwswinterface Course content: https://class.coursera.org/hwswinterface-002