SJCL had substantial peer review during its development, but I'm not aware of a public 3rd party audit from a security firm.
Oh yeah, and before people with torches show up, let me clarify that is a Javascript based crypto product but not browser and website based crypto. The deployment target is situations where the code delivery problem is solved: HTML5 mobile apps (including phonegap / cordova), desktop apps with things like AppJS, browser extensions, etc. It's a high level secure-by-default framework for building collaborative realtime and storage applications. Javascript is a natural language for this, because the framework provides storage through an object database, and that approach is natural an convenient in Javascript. We're spending the time and money to make a secure framework now so we don't have to spend quite as much time in reinvention and security review for each new crypto application we build.
You should ping me via email if you're serious about arranging for OSS crypto to get reviewed, not because I want to sell you audit services, but because someone already beat you to the punch in a big way, and you should talk to them. :)
Not that we can find evidence of. SJCL is written by some of the best security people around. I have confidence in it - running in a "safe" runtime like a cordova app or extension. This is a library used by so many - it makes sense to try to crowd-fund an ongoing set of audits.
Another interesting mechanic would be different types of attacks: thrust, slash left, slash right, slash down. The player can see the attack beginning and has a small amount of time to choose the correct defense to that attack. Choosing the correct defense reduces the amount of focus lost. You could also add shields. If you press block with a shield it'll block any attack with minimal loss of focus. Shields would have hit points and break if used too many times.
Mount and Blade is the closest game I've played to this. It still has hit points, but that makes sense for a medieval game where you're fighting heavily armored humans.
The only difference I can tell is the game uses the term "poise" instead of "focus." But the notion of attack variants, responses and improvised gear pretty closely meshes with what everybody here and at the original post's thread seem to want.
To think that the social welfare state is a natural outgrowth of churches setting up schools and hospitals is completely ridiculous. The two things couldn't be more opposite. Social welfare emerges as a result of the collapse of Christianity in a society. The Dutch will talk about how they don't think anyone should be without health care, but if they saw someone in need they wouldn't help them. I don't know which comes first, but people who believe in social welfare seem to believe they have no personal responsibility to help those in need. Look at the average giving of the Dutch or someone like Joe Biden who while talking constantly about compassion gave an average of $369 per year for the last decade. Social welfare leads to an almost complete lack of the personal compassion that is at the heart of Christianity.
European countries have far more social structure than the US. People are part of groups (tribes) formed around religion, culture, nationality, language, political ideals, labour, and even football. It is the group, not the individual, that takes care of its members. Members of the group contribute and the leaders decide what happens with the contributions. This model doesn't fit individual compassion, because it would distantiate you from the group ("you (member) think we (the group) are not doing enough!?").
That being said, Christianity was in fact the binding element that provided Western-Europe with its strong social structure that still exists today. It was not so much the Bible or morale that bound them, for most it was in fact the fight against catholic oppression that led to Calvinism and other reformations. Without support or leadership from the Vatican, protestants formed scattered social groups, in which members had to protect and support each other. In doing so they found themselves reinventing the biblical message. To protect the family, social gatherings (sunday prayers), give to the poor (prevent them from stealing), take care of the weak. Again, not as individuals, but as a group.
The US on the other hand, was formed through immigration of people who had little or no social relations with each other. The result was an individualistic society where everyone took care of themselves. However, such a system is not inately human. There is no one to take care of the inevitable unfortunate. The individual compassion that is enabled by the lack of social commitments cannot begin to pay the rent for a single mother, the health care bill of a retiree, or the school books of a poor man's daughter. As economic tides reveal the pain of individualism groups are formed.
Gradually, America is shifting towards a stronger social structure. Middle-America finds refuge for its mediocre economic opportunities in evangelical Christianity, whereas the people along the coast-lines are bounded by progressive politics. The growing schism between these groups is exemplary of the social bonds getting stronger.
This also reveals the dark side of social structure. Deep hatred between different groups. A hatred that far exceeds any individual conflict, a hatred that has led to all of history's atrocities we know so well. Yet, the social bonds are unavoidable. Man is meant to live in a tribe. That is how we evolved.
To believe in social welfare is to acknowledge that everyone has a responsibility to help those in need, and that the state should enforce that responsibility.
That's true only if you believe that what the state does is necessarily and only helpful. (There are other requirements as well, but I'm limiting myself to two of the more obvious problems.)
Govt help programs, at least in the US, are aimed more at benefitting middle class providers than the poor who are supposedly the beneficiaries.
"but if they saw someone in need they wouldn't help them" -- this applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. Similarly, a Christian or non-Christian could easily help such a person as well.
Given the overall message of Christianity (read: Christ) then, by your definition, there should be no want or suffering in the world, but yet there is. You are free to believe what you want about the Dutch, but at the very least, you have to admit that they have created a society that attempt to provide some basic standard of health and social well-being to its citizens. Not the same can always be said for other "compassionate" Christian societies.
But it doesn't apply to Christians and non-Christians alike. Conservatives and especially Christians give far more time and money to help those less fortunate.
"Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.""
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730
You're misunderstanding Christianity. Jesus said: "For you always have the poor with you" Matthew 26:11. Christians don't believe that its possible to eradicate poverty. In fact we believe that society will continue to grow worse until the end. The point is not to build a utopia, it is to personally help those you see in need.
I'd also be curious to find out whether or not the less religious give more time, and how much money that time is worth.
Depends on how you count worth. The lawyer who volunteers at a soup kitchen, to use a lesswrong.com example, is giving up X dollars per hour of income to provide far less than X dollars per hour of charity, and since this is true for people who give to charity in general (without reference, but I'd be very surprised if it were controversial), it seems clear that people who primarily give time are donating for reputation rather than effect. I've no clue about the relative proportions of time and money the religious and non-religious give, though.
"The lawyer who volunteers at a soup kitchen... is giving up X dollars per hour of income to provide far less than X dollars per hour of charity."
What about the lawyer who does pro bono legal work for the same soup kitchen? Or (closer to the HN crowd) the coder who puts up a website for a charity?
"it seems clear that people who primarily give time are donating for reputation"
Reputation is one possible motive, but I could imagine others: warm-fuzzy feelings, a desire to connect to one's community, a lack of funds to donate (if a second job is out of the question), and so on.
One might also choose volunteering as an alternative to other non-working activities. The soup kitchen lawyer guy wasn't exactly going to be pulling down $100/hr watching SportsCenter that Saturday.
"If you tell a Dutch person you’re going to raise his taxes by 500 euros and that it will go to help the poor, he’ll say O.K., he said. But if you say he’s going to get a 500-euro tax cut, with the idea that he will give it to the poor, he won’t do it. The Dutch don’t do such things on their own. They believe they should be handled by the system. To an American, that’s a lack of individual initiative."
That's simply not true. Compared to any other country people in the US give far more.
"Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/
I liked Atlas Shrugged quite a lot, but there were a few parts that seemed ridiculous. Specifically the idea that everything was about money. In the model society near the end the banker loans Dagny a car and says that it isn't free he's charging her for it. As he shows Dagny around he explains how they charge each other for everything. Even husbands and wives pay each other one way or another. I wouldn't want to live in a society like that. Making personal or even business relationships primarily about money causes all sorts of problems. People need to be paid fairly, but focusing too much on money destroys intrinsic motivation. I'll fix my parents computer for free because I want to help them, but I wouldn't do the same thing just for money. Even trying to keep track of how many favors I've done for my friends would cause too many problems. I help them when they need it and they help me, but no one expects that things be exactly equal.
I agree....it's this type of over the top stuff that turns me off her writing. Atlas Shrugged should be rewritten, "now with 50% less cheese!"
But actually, can you see her point? Its quite true in real life, that you are constantly being evaluated by your peers to maintain some sort of a balance between reciprocation of favors. I think what she was warning about was excessive power of the state, so that favors were distributed primarily from them, as the result can be an entire society with a dependent personality and no sense of personal responsibility. Does that remind you of anything we see currently?
The private sector could handle it. He points to private schools that are already succeeding with the poorest children. The problem is how to get the government and unions out of the way so successful ideas can be widely applied. I think a voucher system would quickly begin to solve many of Americas education problems. Such systems have already succeeded in Sweden and parts of the US.
Theres a downloadable Stanford lecture on Hannibal, wich is great; the archeologist guy who gives the talk was involved in a student expedition across the Alps, with a real elephant!
Why would this necessarily be a benefit? This same argument could have been made at any time in history. For millennia humanity has benefited from converting resources from one form to another. What has changed?
Trying to be carbon neutral would have the obvious drawback of significantly slowing economic growth. Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?
Well for a start, if poor nations become rich, they may not want to continue working for a pittance to satisfy the richer nations whims. Prices may go up pretty fast.
Also, if the poorer nations are using all the coal+oil, there's going to be less for the rich nations... again, making prices rise.
Nothing has changed, and yes the same argument holds true regardless of climate change. Being carbon neutral means that resources are being used at the same rate they are being created, ergo, sustainability.
Is there a benefit to being carbon neutral that outweighs this cost?
The Author said "So Obama will spend upwards of a trillion dollars of stimulus in a combination of tax cuts, building roads, bridges, and hopefully public transportation. And it can't hurt and maybe it will help." I can think of plenty of ways this could hurt.
Obama could create new entitlements that burden America for generations. The money could be used to prop up failing businesses, creating a situation where success is determined by who has the best lobbyists.
Not every loan is a bad idea, but plenty of them are. There is no guarantee the effect of this loan will be positive.
And by setting a precedent for bailing out bad businesses not only are the people who have to pay for this hurt, but everyone in the future because businesses will be encouraged to be corrupt rather than produce goods.
This is like in the prisoners dilemma, but you force the American people to not rat anyone out - so the corrupt businessman can get all the benefits at the cost of the American people.
I certainly see parts of Atlas Shrugged becoming reality in the current financial crisis. If failing businesses continue to be propped up on a large scale it won't be too many years before the US economy grinds to a halt. If the productive are constantly taxed to help the unproductive the incentive to create wealth will disappear.
"While GM often blames "legacy costs" such as retiree health care and pensions for its troubles, its Jobs Bank SHOWS THAT THE COMPANY HAS INFLICTED SOME WOUNDS ON ITSELF. Documents show that GM itself helped originate the Jobs Bank idea in 1984 and agreed to expand it in 1990, seeing it as a stopgap until times got better and workers could go back to the factories. The idea was to help train or find jobs for senior UAW employees who would "otherwise be permanently laid off" because of better technology or higher productivity. Ford later matched the plan for its UAW employees."
(emphasis mine)
I couldn't have linked to a better article to help make my point -- the management is so incompetent that they would rather have senior employees sitting idle than simply giving them retirement or severance packages. That kind of goofy, short-sighted thinking wasn't imposed upon GM management by the UAW.
