[HN Gopher] Foundations of Computer Science ___________________________________________________________________ Foundations of Computer Science Author : tosh Score : 134 points Date : 2022-01-27 12:19 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (infolab.stanford.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (infolab.stanford.edu) | Scarbutt wrote: | What other books teach data structures/algorithms along with | discrete math like this one? | quda wrote: | bdhdnjdjdkd wrote: | This is great! It would be wonderful if this kind of thing would | be added to the open textbook movement so people can mix, match, | and update the content. https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks | | Us societal rejects would greatly appreciate it. | exdsq wrote: | Looks good! Their examples of using goto in automata (chapter 10) | is the first time I've seen it that makes sense to me. | joelbondurant1 wrote: | beebmam wrote: | It's quite ironic that the "Foundations of Computer Science" are | hosted on an HTTP server without TLS. | | I was lucky enough to have gone to a university system (UC) which | gave me an opportunity to learn the fundamentals of computer | science, but when I see major universities (like Stanford) | operate public HTTP sites without TLS, I can't be anything other | than disappointed. | | It's 2022, there's really no excuse to operate public HTTP sites | without TLS (with minor exceptions). Even self-signed certificate | HTTPS would be far better than HTTP without TLS. | Kranar wrote: | I feel like in the absence of an overwhelming justification, | your comment is just derailing the topic and attracting | unnecessary attention. | bananabiscuit wrote: | Why is it important for this particular site to use https or | tls? | wackafooe wrote: | Please explain your reasoning. Why would this site need HTTPS? | falcor84 wrote: | I don't think any explanation about a particular site is | needed. I came to believe that we in HN all agreed that mass | surveillance is bad and that promoting HTTPS everywhere is | the least we can do make surveillance more difficult. | | Just as no one would want government agents following them | around as they go about their day attending university | lectures, and just as we wouldn't be happy with that agent | asking us "Why, what do you have to hide?", we also shouldn't | be comfortable with having our visit to resources on | stanford.edu be open to surveillance by every node on the | network. In a world where even example.com uses TLS, we can | surely expect the same from all Stanford subdomains. | Zababa wrote: | Just to push back on your first paragraph, there is no "we | in HN". HN is composed of individual people with various | degrees of belief in "HTTPS everywhere" and "mass | Surveillance is bad", especially since many people here | benefit directly or indirectly from money from mass | surveillance. | pasquinelli wrote: | there are many we's in hn emerging from the headlines we | choose to click on. | mburee wrote: | Why would it need encryption? The only convincing argument | would be stuff like as insertions by ISPs and so on but that's | extremely uncommon. Additionally everyone and their mother | seems to be a CA these days... | beebmam wrote: | There's more to HTTPS than just data integrity promises. One | of the most popular topics on Hacker News is privacy, so I'd | imagine people here would understand why virtually all public | websites should be HTTPS only. | qsort wrote: | Ah yes, the obvious privacy implications of reading topics | in elementary computer science. | | You are right that virtually all public websites should be | HTTPS only. Serving static, non-sensitive data is the use | case that "virtually" is there for. | Supermancho wrote: | > You are right that virtually all public websites should | be HTTPS only. | | That is correct. | beebmam wrote: | Is there any reason to be so sarcastic here, other your | desire to engage in bad faith here? There are good | reasons to make the paths that people request on public | websites private to the client & server, even when that | content is seemingly not interesting (to you) to gather | for snooping purposes. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Its always entertaining to see users claiming bad faith | when they are engaging in bad faith themselves. | | Please list the good reasons that are relevant for a | fully publically accessible page of information that | contains nothing that asks for usernames/passwords or | whatever. | 533474 wrote: | Don't feed the troll | beebmam wrote: | The proof of the burden as to why this website should | force all communication to be public is on you. HTTPS | exists and configuring it is simple in this era, and the | choice to not use it for a university's public website is | either laziness or incompetence. | | You surely must be aware that content like headers and | even URL paths (and other parts of the URL) are | confidential over HTTPS. | | Why should I allow an employer, an abusive spouse, an | abusive parent, a parole officer, a detective looking to | charge me with a crime, a gang looking to intimidate me, | know which content I'm accessing from a website? All it | takes is something like a wireshark application somewhere | between (inclusive) my network and the server's network, | and they will full have access to everything I've | requested from the server and everything it has responded | with, including all metadata. No warrants needed. | | Like I said in another comment: "Why should we make any | personal details about our lives public information if it | doesn't need to be? Do you go around announcing all the | things that you do in your life that are seemingly | harmless? Sometimes revealing information to the public | that one would think is harmless can end up doing a lot | of harm, both to you and others. Privacy matters, a lot." | jcelerier wrote: | > Do you go around announcing all the things that you do | in your life that are seemingly harmless? | | you must not like twitter much | [deleted] | theWreckluse wrote: | Why's it /so/ disappointing? I/We would definitely | appreciate if you could elaborate. I'm not saying https is | pointless, but why is it such a big deal for a site like | this? | | And how is self signed better? If anything I'd say it's | worse! It creates a false sense of security. | beebmam wrote: | Sure I'd be glad to elaborate. Why should we make any | personal details about our lives public information if it | doesn't need to be? Do you go around announcing all the | things that you do in your life that are seemingly | harmless? Sometimes revealing information to the public | that one would think is harmless can end up doing a lot | of harm, both to you and others. Privacy matters, a lot. | | A self-signed certificate used for HTTPS still protects | the client/server from snooping by a unaffiliated party, | even if it doesn't protect from a MITM intercepting and | responding to the request in the case where the client | hasn't already added this self-signed certificate to | their trusted CA store. | utopcell wrote: | Going against my better judgement and feeding the troll: | While public key cryptography is Computer Science, HTTPS | most definitely has nothing to do with Computer Science | theory. | gryn wrote: | not ironic at all, you're just confusing (theoretical) | "Computer Science" with "Software Engineering" industry best | practices. | Jtsummers wrote: | Related HN submission: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30084470 | | https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2022/2/258231-abstractions-th... | | Aho and Ullman received the Turing Award last year and their | Turing lecture and this book have some overlap. | omarhaneef wrote: | There are so many topics that one might consider "foundational" | in computer science. While this (what I would call the Data | structures and algos) is one approach, you could also: | | -- start with binary and work your way through hardware and logic | gates | | -- start off with theory like turing machines, first order | predicate logic and work your way up | | -- start off with a hello world, and slowly iterate over | programming (in a post internet world, this is especially | popular) with loops, if/then statements and so on | | But, perhaps aging myself, this book is close to my idea of the | traditional introduction. | Turing_Machine wrote: | > -- start off with theory like turing machines, first order | predicate logic and work your way up | | Or start off with the lambda calculus-based alternative to | Turing machines, as in seen in SICP. | munificent wrote: | Just my opinion: | | _> -- start with binary and work your way through hardware and | logic gates_ | | I'd consider this foundations of computer engineering. | | _> -- start off with theory like turing machines, first order | predicate logic and work your way up_ | | I'd think of this as more like foundations of computability | theory, but, yeah, this seems like another viable angle for me. | | _> -- start off with a hello world, and slowly iterate over | programming (in a post internet world, this is especially | popular) with loops, if /then statements and so on_ | | I'd call this foundations of software engineering. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-27 23:00 UTC)