Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Английский язык для магистрантов в сфере компьютерных наук = English Master’s Course In Computer Science. Учебное пособие
.pdf
Stuart is familiar with this set-up. Many of her organisation’s dataprocessing systems remain reliant on Cobol, she says. “When Windows
arrived, our eecutives all wanted their computers to look that way,”
says Stuart, “so front ends changed. But behind the scenes, the Cobol
systems remain.”
Stuart asked for her company not to be named, though it is a well-
known financial institution. We also contacted the major �K banks, but
none would talk publicly about what technology drives their backrooms,
with most citing security concerns.
However, while Cobol is evidently still at large in business, a
term used repeatedly to describe such systems is “legacy”. “Legacy
code supports our business model,” says Madden. “We have around
2,500 programs running in Cobol and 60 of the 100 staff in our
department are focused on legacy systems.”
Mike Gilpin, from the market research company Forrester, says that
the company’s most recent related survey found that 32 % of enterprises
say they still use Cobol for development or maintenance. But it’s worth
pointing out that in the same survey, in which multiple answers were
permitted and no breakdown of “development” and “maintenance” was
specified, Microsoft Visual Basic, .Net and Java top the languages-used
charts, at 65 % apiece.
A lot of this maintenance and development takes place
on IBM products. The company’s software group director of product
delivery and strategy, Charles Chu, says that he doesn’t think “legacy” is
pejorative. “Business constantly evolves,” he adds, “but there are 250bn
lines of Cobol code working well worldwide. Why would companies
replace systems that are working well?”
The impression is that Cobol is to business what the internalcombustion engine is to motoring: it’s been around for so long, and
is installed in so many places, with so much supporting infrastructure,
that doing something different – even if the end result could be better –
would be impossibly costly. Obviously, Cobol hasn’t stood still for
50 years. Older Cobol systems have been updated to integrate with
today’s modish object-oriented programming languages. Barely a year
ago, for instance, IBM updated its Enterprise Cobol to version 4.1, and
further revisions are on the way.
71
Is there a new generation of programmers ready to grab the Cobol
cudgels? Michael Coughlan, a lecturer at the �niversity of Limerick,
thinks so. The institution’s computer science student intake tailed off
10 years ago. The course evolved and Coughlan says that around half
his fourth-year students now take the elective modules where Cobol is
used.
Bugs mean business
Of course, a decade ago, folks got worked up about something
called the millennium bug. The debate over how serious was the threat
that seemed to detonate with a “phut” has been played out, but Cobol
code was high on the offender list, resulting in a mini-boom for Cobol
developers. Then it all went quiet, the web entered the ascendant and
Cobol got forgotten again. Well, by the outside world at least.
Stuart holds that Cobol cobblers remain in demand, and she
estimates that those prepared to travel can epect to earn up to Ј80,000
a year. Moreover, despite imminent retirement, Stuart isn’t about to
issue the End-Perform command on her work just yet: “I’ll continue
doing bits and pieces. Cobol is just a great language for business and it
isn’t going away.”
And business, it appears, agrees.
Begin: drinking 99 bottles
According to Michael Coughlan, a lecturer at the �niversity of
Limerick, one of Cobol’s perceived drawbacks is its verbosity. But
he reckons that’s also one of its strengths. “It’s not just a write-only
language,” he says. “You can come back years later and understand
the code.”
This opinion is shared by Mike Gilpin, of Forrester, who is an eCobol programmer. “Cobol is one of the few languages written in the
last 50 years that’s readable and understandable,” he says. And he’s
scathing about the readability of more fashionable languages, such as
PHP and Java: “Modern programming languages are ridiculously hard
to understand.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/apr/09/cobol-internet-
programming
72
Text 9.
Popular encryption software: Researchers help close security hole
August 9, 2018
Ana l ysi s of t he AMmodulated signal showing the
portion relevant to the security
of the encryption software.
Cybersecurity researchers
at the Georgia Institute of
Technology have helped close
a security vulnerability that
could have allowed hackers
to steal encryption keys from a popular security package by briefly
listening in on unintended “side channel” signals from smartphones.
The attack, which was reported to software developers before it
was publicized, took advantage of programming that was, ironically,
designed to provide better security. The attack used intercepted
electromagnetic signals from the phones that could have been analyzed
using a small portable device costing less than a thousand dollars. �nlike
earlier intercept attempts that required analyzing many logins, the
“One & Done” attack was carried out by eavesdropping on just one
decryption cycle.
“This is something that could be done at an airport to steal people’s
information without arousing suspicion and makes the so-called ‘coffee
shop attack’ much more realistic,” said Milos Prvulovic, associate chair
of Georgia Tech’s School of Computer Science. “The designers of
encryption software now have another issue that they need to take into
account because continuous snooping over long periods of time would
no longer be required to steal this information.”
The side channel attack is believed to be the first to retrieve the
secret eponent of an encryption key in a modern version of OpenSSL
without relying on the cache organization and/or timing. OpenSSL is a
popular encryption program used for secure interactions on websites and
for signature authentication. The attack showed that a single recording
73
of a cryptography key trace was sufficient to break 2048 bits of a private
RSA key.
Results of the research, which was supported in part by the National
Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) will be presented
at the 27th �SENIX Security Symposium August 16th in Baltimore.
After successfully attacking the phones and an embedded system
board – which all used ARM processors – the researchers proposed a
fi for the vulnerability, which was adopted in versions of the software
made available in May.
Side channel attacks etract sensitive information from signals
created by electronic activity within computing devices during normal
operation. The signals include electromagnetic emanations created by
current flows within the devices computational and power-delivery
circuitry, variation in power consumption, and also sound, temperature
and chassis potential variation. These emanations are very different from
communications signals the devices are designed to produce.
In their demonstration, Prvulovic and collaborator Alenka Zajic
listened in on two different Android phones using probes located near,
but not touching the devices. In a real attack, signals could be received
from phones or other mobile devices by antennas located beneath tables
or hidden in nearby furniture.
The “One & Done” attack analyzed signals in a relatively narrow
(40 MHz wide) band around the phones’ processor clock frequencies,
which are close to 1 GHz (1,000 MHz). The researchers took advantage of
a uniformity in programming that had been designed to overcome earlier
vulnerabilities involving variations in how the programs operate.
“Any variation is essentially leaking information about what the
program is doing, but the constancy allowed us to pinpoint where we
needed to look,” said Prvulovic. “Once we got the attack to work, we
were able to suggest a fi for it fairly quickly. Programmers need to
understand that portions of the code that are working on secret bits need
to be written in a very particular way to avoid having them leak.”
The researchers are now looking at other software that may have
similar vulnerabilities, and epect to develop a program that would allow
automated analysis of security vulnerabilities.
74
“Our goal is to automate this process so it can be used on any code,”
said Zajic, an associate professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Electrical
and Computer Engineering. “We’d like to be able to identify portions
of code that could be leaky and require a fi. Right now, finding these
portions requires considerable epertise and manual eamination.”
Side channel attacks are still relatively rare, but Prvulovic says the
success of “One & Done” demonstrates an unepected vulnerability. The
availability of low-cost signal processing devices small enough to use in
coffee shops or airports could make the attacks more practical.
“We now have relatively cheap and compact devices -- smaller
than a �SB drive -- that are capable of analyzing these signals,” said
Prvulovic. “Ten years ago, the analysis of this signal would have taken
days. Now it takes just seconds, and can be done anywhere -- not just
in a lab setting.”
Producers of mobile devices are becoming more aware of the need
to protect electromagnetic signals of phones, tablets and laptops from
interception by shielding their side channel emissions. Improving the
software running on the devices is also important, but Prvulovic suggests
that users of mobile devices must also play a security role.
“This is something that needs to be addressed at all levels,” he said.
“A combination of factors -- better hardware, better software and cautious
computer hygiene -- make you safer. You should not be paranoid about
using your devices in public locations, but you should be cautious about
accessing banking systems or plugging your device into unprotected
�SB chargers.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180809112430.htm
75
Text 10.
By 2040, artificial intelligence could upend nuclear stability
April 24, 2018
A new RAND Corporation paper finds that artificial intelligence
has the potential to upend the foundations of nuclear deterrence by the
year 2040.
While AI-controlled doomsday machines are considered unlikely,
the hazards of artificial intelligence for nuclear security lie instead in
its potential to encourage humans to take potentially apocalyptic risks,
according to the paper.
During the Cold War, the condition of mutual assured destruction
maintained an uneasy peace between the superpowers by ensuring that any
attack would be met by a devastating retaliation. Mutual assured destruction
thereby encouraged strategic stability by reducing the incentives for either
country to take actions that might escalate into a nuclear war.
The new RAND publication says that in coming decades, artificial
intelligence has the potential to erode the condition of mutual assured
destruction and undermine strategic stability. Improved sensor
technologies could introduce the possibility that retaliatory forces such
as submarine and mobile missiles could be targeted and destroyed.
Nations may be tempted to pursue first-strike capabilities as a means
of gaining bargaining leverage over their rivals even if they have no
intention of carrying out an attack, researchers say. This undermines
strategic stability because even if the state possessing these capabilities
has no intention of using them, the adversary cannot be sure of that.
“The connection between nuclear war and artificial intelligence is
not new, in fact the two have an intertwined history,” said Edward Geist,
co-author on the paper and associate policy researcher at the RAND
Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. “Much of
the early development of AI was done in support of military efforts or
with military objectives in mind.”
He said one eample of such work was the Survivable Adaptive
Planning Eperiment in the 1980s that sought to use AI to translate
reconnaissance data into nuclear targeting plans.
76
�nder fortuitous circumstances, artificial intelligence also could
enhance strategic stability by improving accuracy in intelligence
collection and analysis, according to the paper. While AI might
increase the vulnerability of second-strike forces, improved analytics
for monitoring and interpreting adversary actions could reduce
miscalculation or misinterpretation that could lead to unintended
escalation.
Researchers say that given future improvements, it is possible
that eventually AI systems will develop capabilities that, while fallible,
would be less error-prone than their human alternatives and therefore
be stabilizing in the long term.
“Some eperts fear that an increased reliance on artificial intelligence
can lead to new types of catastrophic mistakes,” said Andrew Lohn, co-
author on the paper and associate engineer at RAND. “There may be
pressure to use AI before it is technologically mature, or it may be
susceptible to adversarial subversion. Therefore, maintaining strategic
stability in coming decades may prove etremely difficult and all nuclear
powers must participate in the cultivation of institutions to help limit
nuclear risk.”
RAND researchers based their perspective on information collected
during a series of workshops with eperts in nuclear issues, government
branches, AI research, AI policy and national security.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180424083858.htm
При переводе переводчик должен решить две задачи:
1) правильно понять содержание высказывания (текста) на язы-
ке оригинала;
2) полно и точно передать это содержание средствами языка
перевода.
Переводчику необходимо:
1) иметь определенный запас слов английского языка (в том чис-
ле специальной терминологии в определенной области знаний);
2) знать грамматику английского языка, иначе слова останутся
лишь «кирпичами, из которых не удастся ничего «построить;
3) владеть техникой перевода и уметь эффективно пользовать-
ся словарем (прежде чем открывать словарь, знать по формальным
признакам, к какой части речи относится незнакомое слово; знать
все особенности построения словаря);
4) иметь представление об области знания, к которой относится
переводимый текст (а в идеале – хорошо ориентироваться в ней).
5) Знать культурные и иные реалии, которыми пользуются но-
сители языка.
При переводе необходимо разобраться в структуре английского
предложения, чтобы правильно выбрать значение слова в словаре.
английском языке существует много слов, одна и та же форма которых относится к разным частям речи. Например, слово iron
может быть тремя частями речи: n (noun) – именем существитель-noun) – именем существитель-) – именем существительным, a (adjective) именем прилагательным иadjective) именем прилагательным и) именем прилагательным и v (verb) – глаголом.verb) – глаголом.) – глаголом.
Это показано в словаре:
iron I II n 1. 1) железо; 2) черный металл…; 2. 1) железное, скобя-
ное изделие; 2) pl.. стремя …; 3) утюг; 4) pl.. оковы, кандалы …;
iron II IIII a 1. железный; 2. 1) сильный, крепкий, твердый, несгибаемый; 2) суровый, жестокий …; 3) черного или серого цвета … .
iron III IIIIII v 1. утюжить, гладить; 2. покрывать, обивать железом … .
78
Можно привести еще множество примеров, когда одно и то
же по форме слово (чаще всего глагол) может относиться к разным частям речи:
• water (n) – вода (n) – водаn) – вода) – вода
• water (v) – поливать (v) – поливатьv) – поливать) – поливать
• closed (v, past simple) – закрылзакрыл
• closed (participle II) – закрытыйзакрытый
• empty (adj.) – пустойпустой
• empty (v) – опорожнятьопорожнять
• books (n, pl.) – книгикниги
• books (v, 3d person, sg.) – заказываетзаказывает
• cause (n) – причина (n) – причинаn) – причина) – причина
• cause (v) – вызывать, быть причиной (v) – вызывать, быть причинойv) – вызывать, быть причиной) – вызывать, быть причиной
• official (a) – официальный (a) – официальныйa) – официальный) – официальный
• official (n) – официальное лицо (n) – официальное лицоn) – официальное лицо) – официальное лицо
Самое простое предложение This results in a good effect results in a good effectresults in a good effect in a good effectin a good effect a good effecta good effect good effectgood effect effecteffect нуж-
но проанализировать с точки зрения его структуры, а не начинать
переводить с якобы простого и очевидного: “Эти результаты”, так
как дальше тупик. о-первых, в данном английском предложении
“This” – не “эти”, а “этот” Тогда почему “результаты”? том тоThis” – не “эти”, а “этот” Тогда почему “результаты”? том то” – не “эти”, а “этот” Тогда почему “результаты”? том то
и дело, что никакие это не “результаты”. Остается один вариант:
“results” – 3-е лицо единственного числа глагола “result”. Словарьresults” – 3-е лицо единственного числа глагола “result”. Словарь” – 3-е лицо единственного числа глагола “result”. Словарьresult”. Словарь”. Словарь
дает значение глагола result (in) (in)in)): приводить (к). Теперь все встает
на свои места: This results in a good effect – Это приводит к положительному эффекту (результату).
Основной вывод из приведенного выше примера: чтобы разобраться в структуре английского предложения, в первую очередь
необходимо найти сказуемое. се, что стоит слева от сказуемого,
будет относиться к группе подлежащего (это может быть больше,
чем одно или два слова), а справа от сказуемого будет группа до-
полнения, затем – обстоятельство (последнее, в частности, обстоятельство времени, может стоять в начале предложения).
Существует три основных признака сказуемого английского
предложения:
1. се формы вспомогательных (be, do, have) и модальных гла-be, do, have) и модальных гла-, do, have) и модальных гла-do, have) и модальных гла-, have) и модальных гла-have) и модальных гла-) и модальных гла-
голов (can, may, should, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одноcan, may, should, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одно, may, should, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одноmay, should, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одно, should, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одноshould, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одно, etc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одноetc.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одно.) входят в состав сказуемого. Это одно
79
из немногих правил английской грамматики, в которых нет ис-
ключений.
2. Суффикс -ed Past Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при-ed Past Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при- Past Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при-Past Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при- Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при-Simple, но: не путать его с прошедшим при-, но: не путать его с прошедшим при-
частием (Participle II). То есть одна и та же форма, например,Participle II). То есть одна и та же форма, например, II). То есть одна и та же форма, например,II). То есть одна и та же форма, например,). То есть одна и та же форма, например, used,
может переводиться как использовал и использованный.
3.Окончание -s 3-го лица единственного числа Present Simples 3-го лица единственного числа Present Simple 3-го лица единственного числа Present SimplePresent Simple SimpleSimple
(Indefinite), но: не путать его с множественным числом существи-Indefinite), но: не путать его с множественным числом существи-), но: не путать его с множественным числом существительных (форма books переводится как заказывает и книги; results –results – –
приводит [к] и результаты).
Контекст без преувеличения можно назвать самым надежным
помощником переводчика. Контекст позволяет понять значение
слова и выбрать то единственное словарное соответствие, которое
требуется для данного конкретного случая:
– open (книгу, окно)
открывать
– discover (новые земли)
– reveal (секрет)
– unveil (памятник)
– prescription (медицинский)
рецепт
– recipe (кулинарный)
– formula
Слова – ложные друзья переводчика:
• accurate – точный, а не аккуратный – точный, а не аккуратный
• actual – действительный, а не актуальный – действительный, а не актуальный
• fraction – дробь (мат.), а не фракция – дробь (мат.), а не фракция
• magazine – журнал, а не магазин – журнал, а не магазин
• compleion – цвет лица, а не комплекция – цвет лица, а не комплекция
• compositor – наборщик, а не композитор – наборщик, а не композитор
• corpse – труп, а не корпус – труп, а не корпус
• data – данные, а не дата – данные, а не дата
• Dutch – голландский, а не датский – голландский, а не датский
80
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]