Osmocom Cellular Network Infrastructure - <AUTHOR> https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki <comment><USER2> So, if we ever manage to get proper open-source control of the cellular radios of random smartphones, would it be possible to use those cheap devices to create a GSM mesh network?

<comment><USER3> Not legally, since all of the frequencies in question require licensing and most are allocated to mobile phone providers.

But yes, this is already possible, in fact, Osmocom has a fully open baseband running on certain phone chipsets.

<comment><USER4> Note that the Osmocom baseband project isn't aimed at end-user devices, only at researchers. For example it runs part of the stack on the laptop the phone is attached to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> it's funny how we have two hundred dozen squared projects claiming their goal is mesh networking to fight the police state du jour, while on the other hand we have a bunch of badly known full scale GSM AGPL platforms. :/

</comment><comment><USER6> I used this once to configure a small GSM network using a LimeSDR.

</comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone started a project like this for LTE or 5G?

<comment><USER8> There are a couple projects of differing scope:

\- srsLTE ([https://www.srslte.com/](https://www.srslte.com/))

\- OpenAirInterface ([https://www.openairinterface.org/](https://www.openairinterface.org/))

I've successfully used srsENB as a base station, largely to generate "model" LTE waveforms so that I could then decode them and verify my understanding. srsLTE is quite well written code-wise and is actively improving/growing. Seems to have a supportive single company and community behind it.

OpenAirInterface is more geared towards 5G research and is a lot more ad-hoc in terms of documentation and capabilities.

<comment><USER9> Please note: OpenAirInterface is _not_ open source software. Large parts of it (particularly everything related to the RAN) are under a license that does not comply with either DFSG, nor OSI Open Source Definition, nor the FSF Free Software Definiton.</comment></comment></comment>


Hundreds of manhole covers disappear - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_missing_manhole_covers

<comment><USER2> _"... Take the lowly subject of 'manhole covers'. The humble manhole cover reproduces many of the dilemmas of computer-security in miniature. Manhole covers are, of course, technological artifacts, access-points to our buried urban infrastructure. To the vast majority of us, manhole covers are invisible. They are also vulnerable. For many years now, the Secret Service has made a point of caulking manhole covers along all routes of the Presidential motorcade. This is, of course, to deter terrorists from leaping out of underground ambush or, more likely, planting remote-control car- smashing bombs beneath the street. ..."_

I remembered this bit reading the _"Hacker Crackdown"_ by Bruce Stirling ~ <http://www.mit.edu/hacker/part3.html> The caulking involved bolting the manhole covers down with a super glue adhesive to secure the thread to the bolt to the concrete & steel forming a very secure join. Anyone ever seen one of these?

You can listen to it here ~ [http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/podcast-of- bruce-ste.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/13/podcast-of-bruce- ste.html)

<comment><USER3> A few years ago, before the anti-capitalism movement ran out of steam, before May Day you would see crews spot-welding manholes in the City, London's financial district. The eco-terrorists liked to tear up the cables, I suppose if they were still around today they'd be carrying (petrol-powered!) angle grinders to get at them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Disgruntled Microsoft interviewers are the prime suspects.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is relevant for context: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhole_cover_theft></comment>


Late-Fall-Round Applications Due Soon - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/11/product-placeme.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Y'all seem pretty smart, we'll accept a few...</comment>


Burnout [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/07/504734219/episode-740-burnout <comment><USER2> I understand that customer service reps do a hard, yet important job. However, calling them "heroes" is a little too much kool-aid for me. It reminds me of every startup claiming that "this changes everything".

<comment><USER3> At my company, we don't call them heroes, but they are.

It's easy to underestimate their impact, but a good person in support can really make someone's day.

<comment><USER4> A hero is someone who puts himself in harm's way for the benefit of others. A guy in a desk job is not a hero.

<comment><USER5> > A guy in a desk job is not a hero.

In the modern world, all large battles are fought out behind desks.

A researcher who gives up a $200k job at a large IT company (e.g. Google or Facebook) for a measly paid job at a university to work on a project with eventual high societal impact IS a hero.

<comment><USER4> These are not battles. These are just people/companies having careers and making money. Even the researcher is usually forgoing the well paid job to do the research because the research is interesting to him - he's just trading off one for of payoff (money) for another (job satisfaction). Meanwhile, there's no payoff in volunteering to go to a war with a high chance of getting killed or maimed.

Re: battles. There are still real battles in the world (Ukraine, Syria) where there's plenty of heroes.

To sum up, I'd say that it's a blessing that a lot of the world is so peaceful now that the meaning of the word 'hero' is getting washed down to literally 'people doing their (maybe slighly unpleasant) jobs'.

<comment><USER6> My father put 30 years into the US Navy. He recently passed away. At his funeral, a Marine Corps Colonel got up and thanked him for his service, and called him a hero. However, it was not for his service to the Navy. It was for his whistleblowing activity at the Veterans Administration, where he worked as a full time civilian. He was never put in physical harm, but his whistleblowing put his career at risk. There were unfair retaliatory actions taken against him and the stress of what he was doing took a toll on his life.

I think you're right that most people that work in a contractual fashion with a money payoff should not be considered heroes, but it's also not true that only people who go to war should be considered heroes. Rosa Parks (and the less famous women who did the same thing and preceded her), for example, are certainly heroes.

<comment><USER7> > Rosa Parks (and the less famous women who did the same thing and preceded > her), for example, are certainly heroes.

Not every activist or revolutionist is violent. Sticking to known examples: Gandhi is another excellent non violent example. Sticking to politics, Nelson Mandela. Mark Felt, also a whistleblower. More recent examples are William Binney, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange. These are my examples, of people I consider heroes. History will decide who the public's heroes were.

These people go against authority, often get ignored or bullied in return, including loved ones and relatives. Like the poster from Fargo, "What If You're Right And They're Wrong". It indeed takes great courage and often sacrifice to go against the tide.

That support employee who's ignoring his protocol and is risking a sneer (or worse) from his boss, the one telling you truth while he's now allowed? He's performing one _heroic deed_. If its a pattern, we can speak of a hero.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's interesting to me about this podcast was the suggestion that the solution to burnout is not less work or taking a break, but getting appreciation for the work you put in. Burnout seems to not be really about the work involved but the appreciation you get for doing that job and whether you feel your job is making a difference.

<comment><USER9> Very bad suggestion which may lead to death. see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi)

<comment><USER10> What is the connection between the parent and your reply? Is there something in that link regarding the appreciation given for work done that I'm missing? Do you deny that excessive quantities of work could be (partly) a response to the lack of acknowledgement?

<comment><USER9> If someone is working hard and burned out, then continue of that will lead to death, so advice to continue work is very bad advice.

For example, if someone is damaged a knee, he need to relax until knee will restore it health. What will happen if someone will continue to run and jump with damaged knee instead?

If your brain is damaged, I will suggest to relax at least until brain will restore it condition. If you will continue to damage your brain, as suggested, you may die, because, unlike a knee, our body cannot live without a brain.

<comment><USER10> The whole point is that there might be more effective alternatives. It's not rational to argue that the alternatives are bad because of things that can happen (in extremes) when the proposed alternatives are _not_ used.

<comment><USER9> I tried that and damaged my brain to point that, when I think about a problem at work, I feel like knife is put in my head.

If you have some spare brains to throw out, you can try alternatives on them, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While working 80-hour weeks at a startup, our boss would walk by in the evening and say, "go home". I never knew if he was serious or not. We never went home.

(A different kind of burnout vs. call center burnout)

<comment><USER12> Why do you do that? Why do you work much more than you have to?

Are you afraid that you'll get fired? It's not like you will have a hard time finding a new job these days as a developer.

<comment><USER11> We thought we were changing the world -- like all startups.</comment></comment></comment>


Is programming the new math?  - <AUTHOR> http://infinigons.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-programming-new-math.html <comment><USER3> Physical education is the new math. Students don't like to be trapped in stuffy classrooms. They want to be outside and run around in the fresh air and sunshine. Over the semester, not only have my students improved markedly in physical fitness, but they've learned critical problem solving skills. We're playing football. They've developed increasingly sophisticated plays, analyzed defenses and developed counter-strategies. They fluidly execute novel strategies informed by planning and an awareness of the evolving whole-field situation. Clearly, PE is the new math.

WTF? Math has specific content and method. A proof is not a program. A for loop is not an integral. Your vaguely technical subject is not a substitute for math just because your students seem more engaged. Teaching people to think logically isn't the point of math, any more than it is the point of history, biology, literature or, yes, even programming. If your students have fuzzy feeling when problem solving, they probably have fuzzy ideas about math. They haven't been taught clearly. If they're uncomfortable with reasoning in math, they haven't been forced to develop intellectual independence. And foisting of "check the steps" on a computer won't help. And don't get me started on how naive an ideas of correctness that is.

<comment><USER4> _A proof is not a program._

The Curry–Howard isomorphism[1] would beg to differ. I think programming is much closer to math than this comment gives it credit for. In some sense, programming is even stricter than math. When doing math, you just have to satisfy your instructor or your reader. When programming, your program must run on a real computer -- there's no room for hand waving or imprecise arguments.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–Howard_correspondence>

<comment><USER3> While I admit it is true in the technical sense of Curry-Howard, it is certainly not true in the sense the OP meant: that learning program is a substitute for learning mathematics.

Let's examine the post in light of C-H. I'm not super familiar with Python, but I believe it is dynamically (that is to say, singleton) typed. This might not correspond exactly to Python, but let's assume there is an any type, product types (for forming tuples in function arguments) corresponding logically to conjunction and function types corresponding logically to implication. Any well-formed expression (e.g. 0) has any type, so any is true as a proposition. Thus, all types are inhabited and all propositions are true. By proof irrelevence, the logical content of any Python program is equal to the constant function 0. In other words, they have no proof content. Thus, I claim the students here are not doing math via programming in the techincal sense of C-H.

I stand by my original claim that they are not doing math by programming in a looser sense, either. I studied computer science, spent a dozen years working as a programmer and now I'm studying math in graduate school.

> I think programming is much closer to math than this comment gives it credit > for.

I might have said something like this before I started doing serious math.

You make a mistake by thinking that programming and math are the same, except that programs get "checked" by computer. That's like claiming that video games are more physically demanding than sports because the rules are enforced perfectly.

Math is about understanding why something is true. A program that uses or applies a mathematical idea rarely (never?) contains a proof of that idea's correctness. For a mathematician, testing is insufficient evidence for truth. Proofs are universal and they generally apply to an infinite number of cases. There is a deep qualitative difference between conceptually understanding why something is true and checking a finite number of cases, or even implementing a procedure to check those cases. You can try to belittle mathematical methods by calling them hand waving or imprecise, but programmers are not even trying to do what they do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I had a rather bruising experience last fall "teaching" precalculus to a lecture of 180 students. Although I'd try to engage the students and explain how the stuff is useful, the students would have none of it. I got scathing reviews about how I was teaching stuff that wouldn't be useful until calculus 2 (which is, of course, a feature and not a bug).

We're fundamentally talking about 18-year-olds with bad attitudes here. If we can engage them with programming as opposed to further disengage them with math, I'm all for it. Anything that hastens the realization that learning is your own responsibility would pay great dividends to the students.

<comment><USER6> I think your employers set you up for failure. Nearly all educational institutions make math seem like something only weirdos could enjoy, for their later employment as tools of industry.

I say that as someone who was once so motivated to learn math, I lied to a highschool precalculus teacher in order to take proof-oriented calculus at a university. (Though she thought she forebade me, I gained prerequisites in a summer-school, running as fast through the material as I was allowed, passing the maximum 3 tests per day — one test per chapter — once I hit my stride. This allowed me to take classes at a university with a highly regarded undergrad math program).

Yet... the university class was boring. Producing "rigorous" epsilon-delta proofs (and whatever else we did) was a tedious exercise which improved my abilities in no significant way. Probably made me dumber. I took only one more math class after that. All of it was a waste of time. Didn't "teach me how to think better" or any of that paternalistic claptrap.

I wish you did not blame your students for their "bad attitude." I sincerely don't mean to be rude, but maybe your attitude could also use some modification. In a better world, you might have been teaching an intro to enjoying one's inborn mathematical abilities, with a crack team of TAs from the psychology dept undoing everyone's damage from earlier schooling.

<comment><USER7> I can't figure out what your hatred of epsilon-delta proofs has to do with employers setting up a pre-calculus teacher "for failure" and the indoctrination of students as "tools of industry".

I'm sorry that your introduction to real math left you sour, but I assure you that epsilon-delta proofs are not a conspiracy by the industrialist class to brainwash kids away from critical thinking--or whatever you are alleging.

<comment><USER6> My "hatred of epsilon-delta proofs"? Boy, your little put-down is not only insulting, it's even absurd that I have feelings one way or another about simple mathematical techniques. Unless 'boredom' = 'hate' in your world.

Sorry to even mention this and get your blood pressure up. (Didn't mean to scratch a sore spot by simply criticizing an educational system that I certainly paid my dues in.)

And BTW, in addition to your other unsupported inferences (ironic given the subject matter), I wouldn't confuse not taking further math classes with stopping one's mathematical education. If you insist on reading things that don't exist in someone's words, how do your proofs turn out well? You must be constantly assuming things which aren't given, and even changing "equals" to "not equals" in a problem to turn it to one you have a textbook solution for.

[Edit: Ahh... Not to sound at all stalker-y, but I looked at your public account info to understand your perspective better. I see that not only you studied at UChicago — which probably means Spivak's Calculus and learning epsilon-delta proofs might be a matter of pride with you — you work at a financial market. My comment does contain a criticism of the status quo, which you may have strong ideological feelings about and therefore respond with a bit less rationality than otherwise. And... maybe I did come across as calling a subset of people here 'tools'.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A common gripe from young students when learning math is "I'm never going to use this!"

With programming, it's much easier to motivate the subject matter - <USER2> _want_ to learn the math so they can improve their projects.

Similarly, I found linear algebra and linear programming much more interesting when I was studying economics, and classical physics much more fun when writing little javascript animations.

So maybe applied math is a better approach at the intro levels. I'm just not sure how we get there from existing math-centric teachers and curricula.

<comment><USER9> Good point, but in any case "I'm never going to use this" is hardly ever a valid excuse. Its consistent application would rule out almost everything we call education, save the narrowest vocational training. It's also self- defeating: if you don't learn it, then indeed you'll never have the opportunity to get a STEM-related, well-paying job for using it.

I could never understand some people's obsession with only learning things of immediate and obvious use. You should study math for much the same reason you study Shakespeare: to learn to think about things you had never thought about before, in ways that you had never imagined to exist.

<comment><USER10> Education should not be about immediate and obvious use, true.but at least it should be about long term use.

So when people learn history, for example, they should get some stories that help them define their national identity, in the long term. but if they just learn a bunch of dates that they forget a short time after the test, they just wasted their time.

Does math, as taught today, have long term value? for non technical people, i'm not really sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with "I'm never going to use it" is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further down the line, this attitude excludes you from jobs and opportunities where you need to be able to use it.

I say teach math (up to algebra and basic trig and calculus) and programming in every high school. Dropping out is so much easier than dropping in at a later age.

</comment><comment><USER12> Some subjects just cannot be taught from authority. The problem with math education, as I see it, is that primary and secondary school math teachers really can't answer too many 'why' questions (for a variety of reasons such as lack of knowledge or lack of time).

Teaching math from a programming perspective (or vice versa) should work since you must (as opposed to 'shall') model problems you care about in terms of math.

</comment><comment><USER13> Iterative programming is the new arithmetic, Functional programming is the new math.

</comment><comment><USER14> I had a short stint as a research assistant for a prof who's using programming to teach high school seniors and entering freshmen math skills [1]. I'd have to ask him how the research is going now, but the preliminary results were encouraging.

[1]: <http://sites.google.com/site/computationalsystems/>

</comment><comment><USER15> As much as the discussion has focused on defending mathematics and the importance of teaching it, that's not to discount the value in teaching kids about coding. Whether or not they later become hackers, they'll have an appreciation for how things work and an interest in doing rather than simply watching.

</comment><comment><USER16> I always found math to be problematic because it builds on itself, yet math classes vary so much by school and teacher. I ran into difficulty in a graduate level course simply because I had never once been shown algebra with inequalities.

Also, you don't get instant, positive feedback, and immediate indication of whether your solution is correct as you do when programming.

<comment><USER17> I think there is a limit to the positive feedback programming presents as well. Sure, a program may run as intended, but what if there are bugs that need to be worked out? What if there was a cleaner, faster way to perform the operations that version 1 did? This is what I truly enjoy about programming. Not that there is "instant, positive feedback," but that there are so many approaches to a solution, and room for refinement to make the program faster and cleaner.</comment></comment>


A deep dive to find a nasty bug - <AUTHOR> http://blog.boundary.com/2012/04/04/a-deep-dive-to-find-a-nasty-bug/

<comment><USER2> CONCLUSION: It is a miracle computers work.

<comment><USER3> No kidding!

On a related note, it's always fun to demonstrate code's sensitivity to minor alterations to a non-technical person and see their reactions.

For example, just remove a semi-colon from a random PHP file that gets included in your web app and watch it completely die.

It's a decent way to impress upon people with little technical knowledge the importance of debugging.

(bonus points if you can create an impressive runtime bug that mangles the code's functionality in a flashy way, think mis-spelled variables in PHP)

<comment><USER4> If you (rightly) preserve code's sensitivity to alteration for the sake of the computer, then you also have a responsibility to offer clear diagnostics to the programmer. Clang gets this right: people make mistakes, and often they're hard to spot—no need to make it harder!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you've never worked with Joe, this is the kind of nonsense he does in his sleep.

I first worked with Joe four years ago. He joined the team knowing no Ruby. What did he do his first week? Diagnose and patch a pretty big bug in MRI's threading implementation.

His blog is equally intense: <http://timetobleed.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> I can't get over how awesome that photo of Joe Damato is.</comment>


Why Streamy Could be the Next FriendFeed - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_streamy_could_be_the_next_friendfeed.php# <comment><USER2> Where is the real money? Money from one VC (Facebook's investor) is paid to another (FriendFeed's investor). None of them have even reached break even point.

I'll be happy if the latest web 2.0 models have a solid revenue & profit stream. I hope web 2.0 startup model doesn't become another ponzi scheme.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't the deal mostly in stock?

<comment><USER2> Yes 13.5m cash + 34m in stock. While the whole idea of doing things on the internet is awesome, we should also work on creating technological innovations. Kind of start ups like <http://anybots.com/>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know it's tough to find free domain names, but "Streamy" is kinda bad

<comment><USER5> Umm...sorry, but for what they're doing, streamy.com is an awesome brand. It's pretty short, fairly memorable, makes perfect sense for what they're doing, isn't too specific that they're locked into _exactly_ what they're doing, not easy to misspell, and it's easy to tell someone verbally.</comment></comment>