Slashdot Mirror

> That's interesting considering that we outsourced most of our manufacturing to China.

This is an incorrect urban legend. The US produces about as much as it ever has:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k2F...

We do it with a lot fewer people these days, due to improved productivity. The stuff we import from China is in *addition* to the domestically made stuff.

Everything captures particulate matter in cities. Here's something that's been doing it for over a hundred years.

A Different Argument for the Right to Bear Arms
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot...

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot...

A meter of snow also means you're not driving anywhere.

Facts say otherwise

Not all attribution is equal, just like not all evidence is equal. A lot of evidence cited in attribution is definitely circumstantial. Reuse of malware is just one example I've seen cited. But that's not all there is - there's also a number of other things to look at, such as means and motive.

That said, it's one thing to spoof your IP. It's another to try and convincingly plant enough evidence that someone else did a complex attack, especially after that code has been picked over by experts. That's not to say people don't try it - but when even advanced nation state actors make code errors that cause entire malware campaigns to get caught and unravel (see the programming error that caused Stuxnet to be discovered, for instance), it's hard to think that someone could perfectly fake all the evidence. Not impossible, certainly, but far from easy.

And we've seen at least one recent example of someone trying it and failing. The Lazarus group (commonly linked to North Korea) tried to put in a bunch of Russian/Cyrillic into some of their malware, only to have it pointed out as nothing like what a native Russian speaker would use. (See http://baesystemsai.blogspot.c... )

Ultimately, if someone wants to make an accusation that an attack was a false flag, I'd like to see proof of that. I'm not going to believe some crazy wild Rube-Goldberg-esque scenario over a seemingly straightforward and obvious one, especially when the arguments for the former are coming from the very people who stand most to gain from the attack, or from deflecting blame, or even just sowing confusion about it.

I was shocked to realize the same thing a few years ago. We were looking for live music performers for a festival. A cellist friend brought in a CD of his friend playing Beethoven's Emperor Concerto. While we listened to it, he raved about how good his friend was. I pointed out he was missing a lot of notes, and everyone looked at me like I had just said spaghetti grows on trees. So I started pointing out every time he missed a note, and all I got were dumb stares. It gradually dawned on me that the vast majority of people, even trained musicians like my cellist friend, can't hear individual missed notes.

In the years since, I've thought about why this might be. I think it's because the "individual" notes in music are not acoustically distinct. When you have 4 instruments each playing different notes, it's not like putting 4 distinct marbles in a bowl. Each "note" is actually a hodgepodge of a fundamental frequency with dozens of overtones. The ratio of the amplitude of these overtones to the fundamental determine the sound of the note characteristic to each instrument (e.g. violin vs. guitar). When you play multiple notes together, these overtones combine into a morass of sound instead of remaining distinct. It's not like putting 4 separate marbles into a bowl. It's like mixing 4 different color paints in the bowl. So being able to separate out the individual notes is something your brain has to learn how to do. "What combination of notes and overtones would produce the sum total amplitude that I'm hearing?"

Except for a few exceptional people and musically inclined individuals (who near lots of notes over and over in different combinations), most people's brains never learn this. So rather than hearing individual notes, most people only hear an overall sound. They're unable to pick out a missed note in a piano concerto, or a misplaced opening riff. Listen to Ravel's Bolero (same melody repeated over and over with different instrument combinations) and try to name the instruments. Easy when it starts with individual instruments, but gets harder when multiple instruments start playing together.

I head up Firefox marketing, but I use Chrome every day.

That speaks volumes to the quality of Firefox.

But talking to friends, it sounds more and more like living on Chrome has started to feel like their only option. And unfortunately, too many people think Firefox isn’t a modern alternative.
Except it is. Yes, three years ago, Firefox was reeling. But today, Firefox is SO much better than it was even a year ago.

So, you're failing at your job and blaming your friends for not using a browser that you won't even use? Hold on, I came prepared.

Accounting and Economics were the specialties of the original nerds, see: "technology" is the Solow Residual!"

crazed Ukrainian soldiers

Yes, sure. Defending one's Motherland from invaders is "crazy".

Nazi battalions

The last National Socialist left Ukraine in 1944... He was in a hurry...

they sure did
Besides, Russian soldiers all have perfect English grammar, and spend 10% of their time shooting dissidents and the other 90% posting on slashdot. It's not skeptical westerners at all. All loyal westerners think alike.

If only there were some option other than "make it illegal" or "do nothing"...

Some people get a large amount of utility out of vehicles that use a lot of fuel (e.g. people who need high towing capacity). An omniscient social planner would want to allow these people to pay for the environmental cost of their driving while discouraging others from using inefficient vehicles (and discourage unnecessary driving too). Is there anything that could accomplish these without mind control? Hmm, let's think about it.

Lo and behold, higher fuel taxes accomplish all of the above while still letting people make their own choices. Amazing!

Serious economists generally agree that our gas taxes are too low by $2 per gallon or more. (A prominent example is Greg Mankiw, Harvard prof and economic adviser to GWB and Romney, though, like all economic advisers, too often ignored.) We aren't making drivers pay the cost of building and maintaining the roads, much less the social costs of gridlock and pollution. The road construction subsidies given to private transportation, on top of the externalities involved, distort people's incentives tremendously. Those perverse incentives affect a lot of other choices people make (e.g. employment and housing markets). We could fix this at a stroke, and even do it in a revenue-neutral way by reducing taxes on productive behavior like payroll and income.

Most other first world countries have had this figured out for a long time now. UK fuel tax is something like $3/gal. German fuel taxes are over $6/gallon, and other than problems due to some dude named Assad, they've been doing just fine. Unfortunately, here in the States it's a political third rail, so even though people on both the right and left will admit it makes sense in private, either will lambast the other to oblivion if they ever propose it in public.

The wage stagnation statistic is largely a myth that economists don't agree with. It uses an inappropriate measure of inflation, discounts changing household size and tax changes, and fails to take into account the improved quality of goods that lead to a higher real purchasing power.

Waves are as intermittent as the wind. I live about 200 meters from the beach, here in Ventura, CA. I can hear the surf when it's up. And it's quite often that it will go a week or two with less than 1m high waves. Now, we do get a good surfing season in (1-3m waves) a few times a year, but it's variable. Waves are as intermittent as the wind - which shouldn't be a surprise because waves are predominantly driven by wind. And I don't think anyone is arguing that wind is NOT intermittent.

As far as tides go, here's a good primer on how variable they are, and why you cannot just make predictions. You do need to have actual measurements to assist your predictions - and even then it's a guess. A good one, but still a guess. Ask any fisherman or harbor captain and they'll tell you the tides are variable and only somewhat predictable. Much like NOAA itself says. And it is intermittent (meaning not constant) as many, many, many sources confirm.

It's not surprising, because the energy from a fluid is related to the velocity (squared). A lower tide has less energy, and a 12 hour cycle time also makes the energy low - such that you want to trap the water behind a temporary dam, then let it all out at the greatest differential in height. But that, of course, creates zero energy for a majority of the time then a big burst of energy when the water is funneled through the turbines. Which - by definition - is intermittent. It may be repeatable, and it may even be predictable. But it is not constant, it is intermittent.

Here are just a few of many easy to find links that define Tidal and intermittent. Lets see how long Angelo denies reality;

http://hydroearth.blogspot.com...
http://tidalpower.co.uk/advant...
http://energyeducation.ca/ency...
https://www.google.com/search?...


Just one of many.."Intermittent electricity is electrical energy that is not continuously available due to external factors that cannot be controlled, produced by electricity generating sources that vary in their conditions on a fairly short time scale. Sources of intermittent electricity include solar power,[1] wind power,[2] tidal power, and wave power.[3] Although solar and tidal power are fairly predictable (length of days, weather patterns, tidal cycles), they are still intermittent because the time period that electricity can be created is limited. Because of this varying electrical generation these sources are considered non-dispatchable, meaning that their electrical output cannot be used at any given time to meet societies fluctuating electricity demands. "

Biometrics aren't passwords, they are user IDs.

They're neither. http://divegeekstuff.blogspot....

Conclusion: biometric properies are more like usernames, not like passwords. So, use them for identification, not authentication.

Wrong. Biometrics are lousy usernames (and lousy passwords). They're good authenticators in many situations, but the model is entirely different. http://divegeekstuff.blogspot....

Biometry is not suitable for authentication. Essentially using biometry is like using a password you cannot change, but constantly tell anybody around you.

Wrong. http://divegeekstuff.blogspot....

Biometric is a ONLY username, not a password.

Wrong. http://divegeekstuff.blogspot....

More generally, if the information gets stolen, you can never change it.

This is true, but irrelevant. Replaceability is unnecessary for biometric security. Your biometrics wouldn't be any more (or less) secure if you could replace them.

That's why people should adopt the philosophies of "biometrics = who you are (username)"

This is also wrong. Biometrics are terrible identifiers. They have no uniqueness guarantees and cannot be matched exactly, which makes them prone to Birthday Paradox problems.

Here's my screed on fingerprint / biometric security, which I'm going to post on every /. article where these incorrect ideas come up. Maybe it will help.

Claim:Fingerprint authentication is serious James Bond shizzle and it's totally secure.

No. No, it's not. See below.

Claim:Fingerprint authentication is insecure because you only have ten fingers, and when you've used them all you have no more new "passwords".

This is wrong, because it assumes that fingerprints (or other biometrics) are just a slightly different sort of password. They're not. Biometric authenticators are nothing at all like passwords; the security model is completely different. To understand how and why, we first need to understand the password authentication security model.

Why are passwords secure (when they are)? Passwords are secure when the attacker doesn't know them or can't guess them. That seems simple and obvious, but some subtleties arise when you think about howan attacker might acquire them. There are two primary ways: stealing copies somehow, and repeated guessing, also known as a "brute force search". These interact—in some cases the attacker can steal some information and guess the rest—and there are many methods of optimizing both, but it all boils down to getting a copy, or guessing.

Suppose the attacker has obtained a copy of your password, and you don't know it. Your security is compromised, but now the attacker has a choice. He can change your password, lock you out of your own account/device and use it for his own purposes, or he can leave your password and make covert use of your account/device/whatever. In many cases, the attacker opts for the latter approach because the former is too noticeable and the account/device often quickly gets shut down. Or suppose the attacker has obtained a copy of your password but hasn't gotten around to using it yet. In either case, changing your password shuts off the attacker's access, closing the window of vulnerability.

But there's another reason to change your password from time to time, and that's to protect it against compromise by guessing. Depending on how the system is built, what information the attacker has to start with and the attacker's resources, the attacker will be able to make guesses at some rate. If you change your password before the attacker can guess your password, the attacker has to start over. Another way to look at it is that as the attacker guesses, he gains knowledge about your password, because he knows a bunch of things it is not. When you change your password, that knowledge is invalidated.

In a nutshell: Password security derives from password secrecy, and you remove whatever knowledge the attacker has when you change it (assuming you don't just change a character or two). Another way of looking at it is that password secrecy erodes over time, and rotation restores it.

But... your fingerprints are not secret. You leave them on almost everything you touch. From a security perspective the only reasonable way to think about biometrics is that they are public information. We have to assume the attacker already has your fingerprints. In the case of smartphone or a credit card, odds are good that there are nice fingerprints on the device itself.

The purpo

But if those nanoscale structures are actually robust somehow, then this could be pretty cool.

You should check out some pictures of the stained glass windows still in place in some 14th century churches and cathedrals.

The glass colors are created similarly, by nanotech sized particles mixed in with the glass.
For example, gold particles are the proper size to create the most beautiful color of red.

Of course back then the artists didn't likely have any clue this is what they were actually doing, but the effect is identical none the less.
The mixed in particles are the exact size needed to refract light at the right color.

Just think of the crazy by-chance discovery, or massive trial and error, it took to discover that gold particles of all things would be capable limiting light passing through to only the color red!

My point being, just as you said you suspect, the nano particle structure can indeed be VERY robust all depending on the substrate it is contained within, and we have 700+ year old examples of this still in existence today.
But for the technique in the article, while light on details (pun intended), they are almost certainly not using thick glass as their substrate. I guess we'll have to see if this ever makes it out of a lab setting.

Some interesting reading on the subject:

http://nano--tech.blogspot.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...

It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book.

That might be exceptional, but it isn't true. It is the lowest level in a decade. Here's a graph of the unemployment rate since the 1960s:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
where you can see the rate dropped below 4.4% many times.

Here's a graph (from six months ago) looking just at the last 15 years:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
and you can see the rate was below 4.4% right until the 2008 economic crash hit. You can also see that 4.4% is nothing exceptional, simply the continuation of the trend.

I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'

Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."

There was no argumentum ad hominem (or "homenim" - I know, looking things up is hard) in my post. Perhaps you should learn what that phrase means.

Nor did I claim there were closures in Java. Of course there are, but I said nothing on the subject. (And I have never confused Java with Javascript. I've been using both languages since shortly after they were thrust on an undeserving world. I've never been under the impression they were in any way related, aside from being distant members of the C syntactic family.)

And, incidentally, the alot is better than you at everything. Because you're an idiot. I don't claim that says anything about the facticity or quality of your arguments, of course; that would be argumentum ad hominem. Your arguments fail on their own merits.

Because there would always be some loophole a corporate attorney would find which would allow the company to enrich the C room or do something stupid like a stock buy back rather than do something useful with the money.

If you made the rule airtight, companies wouldn't bother bringing the money back into this country because they'd claim you're interfering with their right to do with their money what they want.

Know what happened the last time the U.S. gave a tax amnesty to corporations? Nothing.

Look into SAT scores for upper income blacks. Strangely they correlate to around the SAT scores of low income whites. There is something going on more than just income alone.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...
http://isteve.blogspot.com/201...

I work with a lot of Africans and blacks. There are cultural differences for sure, many of the africans don't want to associate with blacks due to cultural differences.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j1o-...

Took me a while to find. They misspelled the name 'Dylan'. The link to the analysis is here:

https://zerosum0x0.blogspot.co...

so many students are left behind in maths early on as don't have these core revelations.

Here in the US, we are stuck with Common Core revelations.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g4p...

goods artikel ,,,this Jasa Adsense murah

Jasa Adsense murah

Umm no but thanks for playing. http://backreaction.blogspot.c...

Google "emoluments" for more info. While some claim those laws don't apply to the president, no court has yet ruled on it,

FYI, the arguments that emoluments don't apply in Trump's case are really, really weak.

Basically, using the criteria proposed by Trump's own legal defense counsel (common usage of the term at the time), the definition of emolument is practically any form of payment for practically any reason. Here's an analysis by John Mikhail, professor of law at Georgetown.

The bigger fish they should be frying should be the "crippling construction defects"

I may be going way out on a limb here, but maybe ship construction and health issues are handled by different people.

I'm pretty sure it's just this guy doing everything:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eosG...

the prize money will go to Strategic Machine, a firm founded by the duo.

That seems a little unfair. If I had won, the prize money would not have been given directly to my parents. If a machine wins, it should receive the prize. If it cannot actually spend it, then that would appear to be a rather basic limitation to its AI-ness. But it wouldn't be a problem for the competition or whoever awarded the prize.

You would also hope that the authorities would keep an eye on the money to ensure that whoever had access to the AI didn't defraud it of its winnings. Maybe it is time for machines to have property rights.

So you're saying the poker playing computer needs to have a module added that will let it shitpost "Muh Freedums!" on Twitter? And order vast quantities of alcohol online, of course. 'cause that's its fuel. I saw it on a documentary so it must be true.

It's obvious why airlines overbook- it's a worthwhile gamble, given how frequently people can't make their flight.

But it's also obvious that if no one is taking them up on their compensation offers when the flight is overbooked, they aren't paying the social costs of their gamble, and so they're getting away with defrauding people.

The solution is obvious. Especially if people have already rightfully boarded the plane, they should only be removed voluntarily. Everyone on board turned down $800 compensation for missing the flight, but I'm sure somebody would have accepted $2,000 or less. If once in ten thousand flights nobody accepts an offer less than $20,000, the airline will just have to take that risk into account when they decide how much to overbook.

It doesn't take a great economist to come to this obvious conclusion; it was my immediate reaction and many others'. But I'll mention that a great economist has posted the same thing.

In this case, where it wasn't really overbooked but the airline needed to transport employees, already at $800 it's odd that they didn't just find another way to get one of their employees there (even by taxi).

We're with The Government and you're under arrest. You and Robert Kahn are credited with "inventing" TCP/IP which is a key technology now used by internet villians. Unfortunately we can't arrest Chris Sholes, the developer of QWERTY, but we've already locked up Federico Faggin, Ted Hoff and the gang of Intel thugs who claim to have developed the first microprocessor. We're headed to Redmond after we're done with you.

Perhaps the government ought to produce those orphaned drugs themselves

Could you cite a few examples of where the government proved to be more efficient at producing a product or delivering a service, than a privately-run firm?

drug companies that are charging prohibitive amounts to citizens

The hate towards the drug companies is misplaced — and whether they are sinfully greedy or not is irrelevant. The simple fact is, had they not existed, the drugs would not have existed — unavailable at any price.

If only K of something — anything, from LeBron's sneakers to life-saving medicines — is available despite there being N people desiring it, then whichever way you pick to distribute it:

• Lottery
• Charge the highest price at which there are still willing buyers
• Minorities first
• Government employees first
• Celebrities first
• ...

  N-K people will still not receive it — and no amount of "outrage" will help.

  The only hope for the rest is that the second method — charging whatever the market will bear — will be chosen, because then the profits (however "obscene") may be used to produce more of the stuff... Incidentally, Capitalism is all about the second method and that is why we tend to enjoy an abundance of most things — to the point, where some people are already talking about "post-scarcity".

Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now.

And without the US government and its invasion of Iraq - an unprovoked war of aggression, the supreme international crime according to the Nuremburg Principles - there would be no ISIS. Indeed, Saddam Hussein kept Iraq pretty free from terrorists - if they entered the country, he killed them. If there aren't any terrorists, there won't be any terrorists.

The invasion - justified, as we know, by Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs which never existed - fragmented Iraq into its constituent parts. Those parts had always been unstable, thanks to Mr Sykes and M Picot who deliberately drew its borders back in 1916. They threw in a large Shia majority, a Sunni minority who were given power, and a substantial Kurdish minority who were obviously going to push for independence and a unified Kurdish state. When the USA charged in with its "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg), it smashed all the delicate mechanisms that maintained a precarious state of peace. The Americans disbanded the army, the Baath Party, and every other major institution. Many of the Iraqi army officers and men are now fighting for ISIS.

More recently, some bright sparks in or near Washington (perhaps Langley?) hit on a cunning plan. Ever since Vietnam, American leaders have grappled with the problem of political blowback whenever American armed forces personnel were killed or injured. So why not deploy a "throw-away" army of plausibly deniable proxies to do your dirty work for you? And that is what ISIS is. Just look at the benefits:

1. Washington can tell ISIS to do anything, no matter how hideous or revolting, without the great mass of the public ever suspecting the connection. ISIS can burn captured pilots alive, drown people in a swimming pool, crucify all the inhabitants of a Christian village, and murder over 100,000 Syrian soldiers. And none of this is blamed on the US government! Glorious.

2. It's a win-win. If ISIS overthrows the Syrian government, well and good - mission accomplished. But if it is defeated, routed, massacred or even exterminated, Washington can just look happy and claim the credit.

3. No need to pay benefits, insurance, pensions. No VA costs! Profit!!

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wxE...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rP8...

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/...

Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now.

And without the US government and its invasion of Iraq - an unprovoked war of aggression, the supreme international crime according to the Nuremburg Principles - there would be no ISIS. Indeed, Saddam Hussein kept Iraq pretty free from terrorists - if they entered the country, he killed them. If there aren't any terrorists, there won't be any terrorists.

The invasion - justified, as we know, by Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs which never existed - fragmented Iraq into its constituent parts. Those parts had always been unstable, thanks to Mr Sykes and M Picot who deliberately drew its borders back in 1916. They threw in a large Shia majority, a Sunni minority who were given power, and a substantial Kurdish minority who were obviously going to push for independence and a unified Kurdish state. When the USA charged in with its "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg), it smashed all the delicate mechanisms that maintained a precarious state of peace. The Americans disbanded the army, the Baath Party, and every other major institution. Many of the Iraqi army officers and men are now fighting for ISIS.

More recently, some bright sparks in or near Washington (perhaps Langley?) hit on a cunning plan. Ever since Vietnam, American leaders have grappled with the problem of political blowback whenever American armed forces personnel were killed or injured. So why not deploy a "throw-away" army of plausibly deniable proxies to do your dirty work for you? And that is what ISIS is. Just look at the benefits:

1. Washington can tell ISIS to do anything, no matter how hideous or revolting, without the great mass of the public ever suspecting the connection. ISIS can burn captured pilots alive, drown people in a swimming pool, crucify all the inhabitants of a Christian village, and murder over 100,000 Syrian soldiers. And none of this is blamed on the US government! Glorious.

2. It's a win-win. If ISIS overthrows the Syrian government, well and good - mission accomplished. But if it is defeated, routed, massacred or even exterminated, Washington can just look happy and claim the credit.

3. No need to pay benefits, insurance, pensions. No VA costs! Profit!!

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wxE...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rP8...

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/...

Extreme vetting for the win!

exactly man.I am working hard to be a programmer.I need Visa. My blog is https://passwordmania.blogspot... and I have worked hard to made this blog.

I've been a part of several groups that conducted this exact type of exercise. Hopefully you get all the answered you need.

Actually, while it's not as fast as Moore's law, the cost of solar historically has come down by 22% for each doubling in volume. Here's the solar learning curve: http://costing.irena.org/media...

Granted, at a certain solar production capacity the cost goes up again due to storage needs, but batteries also follow a learning curve: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jRpo...

Captain being French, it's no wonder there was so much menage a Troi on Enterprise.

> yellow / blue palate

If the roof of your mouth, palate, is yellow / blue then you have bigger problems to worry about.

The process of tinting the palette towards the Orange and Teal colors is called color grading.

It sucks because it is constantly over-used.

--
WTB: old Apple 2 games, original disks, namely:
* Captain Goodnight and the Islands of Fear
* Empire I: World Builders
* Empire II: Interstellar Sharks
* Empire III: Armageddon

Can be found here.

That's Cogent and Hurricane Electric - Nanog thread

It's been going on a long time. Here's a peering cake from 2009.

Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c...

That is a weak rebuttal. Basically it says "I don't like this theory therefore it must not be true". A simulation would not have to compute the state of every quark in 13.85B-LY^3 with planck-time granularity. It would just need to compute the sensory input to a single brain.

Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c...

To tell the truth, I think that the "Universe is a simulation" is just the latest creationist effort. In a simulation, dinosaurs can be put in the ground just for fun, bioogical relations are just that way because the great simulator in the sky wants them that way, and the apparent age of the universe, speed of light, and radioactivity are all 100 percent arbitrary.

So if the universe is a simulation, there is no reason why the Abrahamic God didn't create it in October 4004 b.c.e. as determined by Usher so it is now science, and must be taught in the nation's classrooms. The Bible is now the scientific description of a scientific simulation program.

Solved everything and did the final endrun around those supreme court athiests. Howbow dah?

Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c...