Slashdot Mirror

You mean 'a guy'. Not 'Wall Street'.

That said: Fuck what wall street says. Anything the the believe, factual or not, that might means a few cents less on the bottom line for a quarter is 'bad'. Bottom line: by all measures Costco benefited from treating their employees like human beings.

http://books.google.com/books?...

Did you know that we actually have done economic studies that show the impact of raising the minimum wage, and how little it actually helps the impoverished? According to a study published in the Southern Economic Journal in 2010, raising the federal minimum wage from then $7.25 to $9.50 would only benefit11.3% of those living in poverty, if you ignore any possible negative repercussions. However, coupled with negative employment effects, the conclusion is that it'd be a net loss.

I haven't seen a study yet that looked at raising the rates over 100% to $15, but I suspect that'd it'll end up even worse.

One of the concerns is that new unskilled workers - high schoolers and college kids - will be disproportionally targeted. After all, if your employment costs double, you can't risk someone with no proven work history when there's older, experienced individuals with responsibilities who can't afford to mess up a job around.

Another impact is that non-national chain stores will be severely impacted. Sole proprietorships - the Ma and Pa stores of mythical Main Street USA - will take great hits. These businesses usually lack the flexibility to provide employment as a loss-leader, and often don't have the option of doubling their employment budget. They'll have to make do with less, or simply not operate as a business.

So where's the fix?

What a lot of this comes down to is what I feel is an incorrect assumption; that minimum wage jobs are life-long careers, and that we intend for someone to work as an unskilled laborer for their entire life. The Brookings institute did a study/a - which does not prove causation, you know the drill - that showed that if a person could graduate highschool, get a full time job, and avoid marriage until after 21, they had only a 2% chance of living below the poverty line. In other words, analyzing the current population, that 15-20% that are living below the poverty line, 98% of them did not do at least one of those things.

There's heavy selection bias here, where the lifestyles that lead to success may coincidentally include these 3 goals, but that's part of the point.

We need to focus on education and long term planning - especially financial - and encourage a strong work ethic. Reducing the ability for highschool-aged folks to get jobs is almost the direct opposite direction. We need to focus on providing a path to skilled labor, blue or white collar, and realize that unskilled labor is primarily the domain of those just entering the workforce, not someone who's been in it for years.

Um no, that's the exact opposite of reality. British crime and violence rates have been falling for years, and they're now at their lowest point in recorded history. So you'd have had a good argument if your underlying premise wasn't completely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

"Which country was it that a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in the middle of the street?"

Not the one whose marathon runners were blown to bits at least and who had thousands of civilians killed by airliners being flown into a building. Nor the one where school children and university students are often gunned down. No that's the country where people just get their face eaten in broad daylight instead:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

"Which country is doing it's best to achieve the total surveillance regime of 1984."

America, why? Did you miss the Snowden revelations or something? Oh you're talking about that long out of date report on the number of CCTV cameras in the UK? Don't you know that places in America with high population density actually have more cameras per head of population than equivalent places in the UK? The only reason America as a whole has less is because vast swathes of America are redneck towns where there's nothing worth stealing anyway. That doesn't stop the NSA harvesting every bit of information available there anyway though.

"Which country did we wisely give the boot to more than 200 years ago."

Who knows, it can't have been Britain given that we have a better education system, a better healthcare system, less crime, less violent crime, less murders, and higher levels of personal happiness.

Well, I suppose it could've been Britain if you're a criminal who likes being sick with a high chance of being beaten or murdered and is poorly educated and consistently unhappy. I suppose that would explain the high level of ignorance and falsehoods you've just managed to post in only a handful of sentences.

But I guess when you live in a country with as many problems as America you've got to try and justify your inaction somehow. It's okay I guess if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself everything is okay as if that'll somehow fix the problem. Of course, in doing this you've missed the most important questions I asked. How exactly is widespread gun ownership in the US protecting your freedoms given their clear erosion? How did countries like Libya where citizens were banned from having guns rise up and overthrow their dictator if they didn't have guns? Both these things conflict directly with your argument and show how completely wrong it is, but you've avoided answering them instead going off on a rant about the UK because you know that these questions highlight the more simple fact that you are wrong to equate guns with freedom.

If I'm not mistaken, zram was called compcache or ramzswap and existed on the 2.6.28 kernel back in 2008.

Many sites are reporting Swift as having "none of the baggage of C."

However, they also report that "Swift code can still be mixed with standard C and Objective C code in the same project."

Seems to me that if you can call C routines, C can happily malloc() and free() the heap and leave stale pointers into freed heap. Likewise, C can happily point into the stack and leave pointers into stale stack frames, and point past the end of arrays, etc.. I don't think they can get rid of the "baggage of C" withoud building all kinds of performance killiing safety checks into the C code. If I'm wrong about this, please don't hesitate to let me know!

Many sites are reporting Swift as having "none of the baggage of C."

However, they also report Swift code can still be mixed with standard C and Objective C code in the same project."

If you can call C routines, C can happily malloc() and free() the heap and leave stale pointers into freed heap. Likewise, C can happily point into the stack and leave pointers into stale stack frames, and point past the end of arrays, etc.. I don't think they can get rid of the "baggage of C" withoud building all kinds of performance killiing safety checks into the C code. If I'm wrong about this, please don't hesitate to let me know!

Hidden containers are less useful than you might imagine in practice for a variety of reasons. Some of these points are relevant.

None of those points are relevant, except maybe "it's difficult to get right".

The first third of the thread, people are either not talking about hidden containers or don't know what a hidden container is, and instead go on about various steganographic methods of hiding the use of encryption. (E.g. "LUKS header, by design, is visible header."... that goes for TrueCrypt as well, and has nothing to do with hidden containers.)

In the middle third of the thread, they're discussing variations of "it's hard!" and "you can't protect the outer container" (though TrueCrypt does just that).

In the last third of the thread, random people are musing about their little pet-ideas and other off-topic tangents.

There are good arguments for not adding hidden containers to LUKS, most importantly the fact that nobody's stepping up to implement it, but no real arguments against hidden containers.

My workplace is in an unincorporated urban area of Los Angeles (91748) where Verizon has a monopoly on phone service and none of the cable companies offer service to commercial areas. Verizon realizes they have a monopoly on commercial Internet service, so has not bothered upgrading their phone lines. The DSL speeds are 1.5 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. They charge $50/mo for this. Some phone lines are capable of 3.0/.768, but talking with other nearby businesses it seems to be about one in 5-10 phone lines which are able to get the higher speeds. (The "higher" speed is $100/mo.)

I went camping up in the San Bernardino Mountains this past weekend. The 3G internet speeds there on my phone were 1.8 Mbps down, 0.8 Mbps up. What Verizon is (not) doing with DSL in areas where they have no competition is absolutely criminal. If Google can pull this off, it'll be a work-around to the "one DSL company and one cable Internet company are sufficient competition" court decisions. And a good kick to the rear of the existing de facto monopolies as they'd be forced to actually offer competitive service and pricing or lose all their customers. The satellites being in LEO means they'll be circling the Earth, so they would cover the U.S. just as well as Central Africa.

I trust them not to sell my data for marketing purposes : https://developers.google.com/...

And this:
https://developers.google.com/...

Especially the part about what they permanently log (almost everything), and what they "promise" to delete within 24-48 hours. Or at least what they're promising today.

I trust them not to sell my data for marketing purposes : https://developers.google.com/...

And this:
https://developers.google.com/...

Especially the part about what they permanently log (almost everything), and what they "promise" to delete within 24-48 hours. Or at least what they're promising today.

LUKS is very good, but until someone works out a way to do hidden containers, it's not even close to a replacement for the most critical feature of TrueCrypt.

Hidden containers are less useful than you might imagine in practice for a variety of reasons. Some of these points are relevant. I don't have any use for hidden containers, although I do use LUKS on a large number of systems.

False Dichotomy.

I trust them not to sell my data for marketing purposes : https://developers.google.com/...

If you bought Comcast in 2009, you'd probably have a different opinion :). https://www.google.com/finance...

I'm thinking of Network Coding Meets TCP. Though that doesn't give a great background. I've experimented with my own implementation, but had to shelve it due to lack of time. I'll try to quickly summarise the core idea;

You have packets [p1, .. pn] in your stream's transmission window.

Randomly pick coefficients [x1, ..., xn] and calculate a new packet = x1*p1 + x2*p2 + , .... (in a galois number field, so '+' is an XOR and '*' is a pre-computed lookup table). Sending the coefficients in the packet header.

The receiver collects the packets, and attempts to combine pairs of packets to reduce the complexity of the coefficients. Basically like solving simultaneous equations. That sounds complicated, but the algorithm isn't too hard;

- Keep the current set of packets, sorted by their coefficients. When you receive an incoming packet, you attempt to subtract each of your existing packets which have a smaller coefficient set (again, galois field math). If you're left with nothing, this packet didn't give you any new information, so throw it away.

- Attempt to subtract this new packet from each of the existing packets in your set. Insert your new packet into the list.

When you have a packet with a most significant coefficient of 1. You know you will be able to decode that packet eventually. And you know that you can eliminate that coefficient from any other incoming packet. So you can send an acknowledgement to the sender and they can advance their transmit window. Once you have eliminated all other coefficients you can deliver the packet to the application. Keep each packet in memory until the sender has advanced their window and stopped sending it.

Each incoming packet may eliminate a coefficient from the packets in your list, while at the same time introducing a new one. If you don't send extra redundant packets you may never be able to decode anything. Consider the worst case where every packet is the XOR of two neighbouring packets in the stream, you can't decode anything until you receive a single packet by itself. Sending more redundant packets will reduce the latency to decode the stream while adding to the number of useless packets received.

NO, they weren't trying. They bought Motorola for the patents it had, the cellphone business was a secondary thing.

• Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.
• Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio will help protect the Android ecosystem. Android, which is open-source software, is vital to competition in the mobile device space, ensuring hardware manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, applications developers and consumers all have choice.

There was no Consumer benefit here because the Moto-X was priced competitively with Samsung, HTC and Apple. If they'd been priced more competitively then you'd see more uptake. The Moto-X is a great phone, Google botched it.

I started at NTH (currently called NTNU) in Trondheim (Norway) in 1977, so my first-year programming class was in Fortran 2, hand-punched on 80-column cards.

I can still recall my sense of wonder when I realized (during the second lab exercise or so) that "I can make this computer do anything I like!".

My first ever extra-curricular program used modulo 1e10 arithmetic on a 36/72 bit machine in order to calculate pi with as many digits as I could manage within the 60 cpu seconds which was my maximum allotment.

Since then I've done an awful lot of hacking, but almost exclusively in the old meaning of the term.

Currently I'm playing around with hardware/software codesign on the Mill computer architecture, writing fast & efficient fp emulation for machine models without full hw fpu.

Terje

What PERL looks like to Python programmers..

http://www.google.com/imgres?i...

1. No, but if you want to make a commercial enterprise, don't come looking to me for a free hand out to get it started.

I thought that was the whole point of kickstarter. I don't think many of them are non-profits. This is just seed money for an educational semi-startup.

Yes but it is distasteful to me that a man who is worth somewhere between $6 and 145 million (it seems odd that the range is so large) is asking people with a lot less money to give him $1m. Even if we assume his net worth is only $6m, I really think he could manage to front 20% of his net worth to start up a business. I have a net worth of around $110k. If I was starting up a business I could float 20% of my net worth ($22k) fairly easily either through loans or taking it from investments. Rich people are rich because they find ways for other people to spend money on their behalf. The fact that his cause is "good" doesn't make this practice any better.

Um, actually Amazon tries not to make a profit. I'm not sure they've ever made more than 2% profit in a quarter. Typically, closer to 0%.

https://www.google.com/finance...

That's excess profit. That's like saying you didn't make any money last year because you spent it all on a house and a boat.
Amazon is making plenty of profits. It's just spending them on expanding so it doesn't actually post profits but if you look
at it's total net worth you can see that it is still growing every year.

Um, actually Amazon tries not to make a profit. I'm not sure they've ever made more than 2% profit in a quarter. Typically, closer to 0%.

https://www.google.com/finance...

Link to the tool instead of sifting through several lame blogs: http://www.google.com/get/vide...

http://www.google.com/get/vide...

..would a professor of CompSci think this is a good idea, despite the hundreds of problems it *causes* with existing practices and procedures? Oh, wait.. maybe because the idea is patented and he'll get paid a lot.
http://www.google.com/patents/...

As an employee of the University of California a professor is *required* to report any discovery or method that *might* be patentable to the University.

The University takes it from there, it has an office that researches viability, handles the process and then licenses the patents to "industry". With respect to licensing small local companies are given a better deal than larger internationals. As for the licensing fees collected, 50% goes to the University, 25% to the department (UC Irvine's Computer Science department in this case) and 25% to the employee(s).

At least that is how it was a few years ago when I was a grad student at UC.

Two comments in reply:

(1) It is common for comments on articles about scientific results to include anecdotes of the form "The result is clearly wrong, because I experienced the exact opposite." This kind of response is so common, in fact, that the phrase "the plural of anecdote is not data" has become a shorthand way of noting that the anecdotal evidence of one person does not disprove a statistical aggregate based on a much larger set of data. Indeed, a quick search would make that clear. Even if it were the only thing that I had written, I would hope that the meaning would be clear from the large cultural context. As it is, I provided greater context with the second and third sentences of my post, which I would invite you to re-read before concluding that I don't know what the word "data" means.

(B) That being said, if you are going to be pedantic (as it seems you are insisting upon), the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes." The plural of "datum" is "data". From the point of view of a grammatical pedant, I am entirely correct.

That would be Vernor Vinge's science fiction short story ``Long Shot'':

http://books.google.com/books?...

I used libbde to mount BitLockered volumes on my SIFT workstation:
http://code.google.com/p/libbd...

I've only used with Win7 however, and I haven't tested Win8.

In the words of Larry Wall:
"You want it in one line? Does it have to fit in 80 columns?"
http://groups.google.com/group...

There are quite a number of minor changes to the strings in the code (grammar fixes, additions of code comments).

Also, the specific changes you're talking about all concern changing 'English (U.S.) resources' to 'English (United States) resources'. That line is apparantly auto-generated by VS: https://www.reddit.com/r/priva...

Or just Google search for it:
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

There are quite a number of minor changes to the strings in the code (grammar fixes, additions of code comments).

Also, the specific changes you're talking about all concern changing 'English (U.S.) resources' to 'English (United States) resources'. That line is apparantly auto-generated by VS: https://www.reddit.com/r/priva...

Or just Google search for it:
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

I think what a lot of people want to know is whether 7.1a is still reliable and, if not, how many versions back one must go to get a release that's still feature-complete but not questionable in security.

In the meantime, if you need to encrypt a file, you can use GPG and Cryptophane if you want a GUI. Nowhere near as elegant as TC but it should get the job done.

A smartphone is already a brain enhancer.

You've got to be joking.

IT managers aren't effected in the same way: https://support.google.com/chr...

Actually, Google does have an eBookstore: Google Play Books. They also sell Movies, TV shows, and music on their Google Play store.

Not that I want you stay on Chrome for any particular reason (I've gravitated to mostly using firefox myself, for other reasons) but I do use this web-store hosted extension - backstop - for blocking 'backspace sometimes blows away your entire comment instead of deleting one character' idiocy.

Cloud-to-Butt is on the Chrome Web Store. I installed the Firefox version of Cloud-to-Butt for a while for stools and giggles. But I'm not so sure what the ESRB would think of character names like Butt Strife and Fox McButt. And I just reverted someone's accidental vandalism on TV Tropes that mentioned Butty with a Chance of Meatballs.

Because the plan totally isn't to do something pretty similar in Firefox.

Also to get rid of troublesome extensions like Adblock Plus.

Oh, really? It's also worth pointing out that AdBlock Plus by default doesn't block Google ads.

For those of us on the Dev channel for Chrome hit this in February. It's definitely a fucked up decision by the Chrome team and has led to a lot of folks ripping out Chrome in favor of something else. The claim made by the devs is that it's safer if the extensions come out of their web store and would eliminate malicious activity from extensions. They obviously didn't want to fix the browser to alert the user when malicious extensions are installed or provide a sysadmin set of functions necessary to install necessary, safe extensions. Of course we all know it's another fucking walled garden take-over by Google. I've already recommended to clients that they don't use Chrome and have removed it from a little over 4000 systems thus far. Personally Google is fucking the user community on this one, so fuck Google.

Only by adding one of the following phrases:

"on the internet" "on a mobile device" "in the cloud" "with rounded corners"

Well, that last one is an Apple exclusive, but you get the idea.

Funny how the only such patent I have come across in the last couple of years was the one Samsung tried to sue Apple with. http://www.google.com/patents/US5579239

There has never been a Lynch mob in Iran. They have culture.

BWAAA HAAA HAAA

You so funny!

Pictures worth a thousand words - literal Iranian lynchings

Google, who gladly works hand in hand with the NSA

I have to call bullshit on this rather common but unsupported and unsupportable claim.

There is no evidence that Google had cooperated with the NSA in any way other than actually required by law, and there they claim to be sticklers in demanding that the government dot the i's and cross the t's, including refusing any requests that are overly broad. We can't see what they actually do, of course, because the law makes it illegal for them to say... however Google was the company that first started publishing transparency reports and took the initiative to negotiate permission to publish aggregate statistics about the requests they're legally prevented from publishing. Those published numbers make it clear that Google is not providing information about large numbers of users.

There is evidence that the NSA had an extensive operation in place tapping Google's internal network. When this was revealed, Google immediately accelerated plans to encrypt all of those links to foil the snooping.

Beyond that, look at Google's Internet security track record. Google was the first major webmail provider to switch to HTTPS. Google is still the only major web search engine that requires HTTPS. For logged-in uses, all Google services are all-encrypted, all the time, and for most services even users that aren't logged in get HTTPS by default. Yes, Google designed SPDY, and designed it without an unencrypted mode. The HTTP/2 committee may have added support for unencrypted operation, but Google didn't design it in. Google's next-gen protocol, QUIC, not only doesn't have an unencrypted mode, security is baked so deeply into it that it's basically impossible to remove or disable.

FWIW, I'm a Google engineer, and until recently my job was to work on part of the internal communications security infrastructure. It's vanishingly unlikely that Google could have had any kind of sanctioned NSA tap in place without it being visible to me, and I saw no hint of any such thing.

I happen to personally know several of the people involved with SPDY and there's no way any of them would be party to any attempt to deliberately weaken the protocol.

Beyond that, I can tell you that the internal response to the Snowden revelations about NSA access into Google was one of fury, and a deep and abiding commitment to make sure it can't happen again. Google wants to ensure that the only way the government can get data about Google's users is to come in through the front door, with appropriate court documentation.

[Google] is a Corporation whose core focus to track and monitor every single person and thing online?

This is also simply untrue. Google's core focus is in its mission statement, which you can search for. 90% of its revenue comes from targeted advertising, and Google does collect information to do that ad targeting... but only with user approval. If you don't want Google to track you, Google provides tools you can use to ensure you're not tracked. In the process you'll have to give up some (not all, but some) use of Google's services, because the targeted advertising is the fee you pay for those services. Google hopes you'll like that deal and be happy with it. But if you're not, Google wants to ensure you can opt out. See http://google.com/privacy/tool...

(Disclaimer: The above is not an official company statement. In fact, company policy encourages me not to make it (though policy doesn't prohibit me). It is, however, my firm personal view.)

So have a wide open throttle and squirt more fuel in yet make the engine labour is your idea of saving fuel?

Take a look at page 12 on this document and note where the most efficient operating point is. It's not quite at wide open throttle (and low engine speed), but it is close.

You ever wondered how much back pressure a turbo puts on the exhaust system? Its puts any losses in the throttle to shade.

I wonder if you are capable of reading. I did also write that a small engine may be less efficient than a larger engine if a large amount of power is demanded.

So, now I have a citation to support my point and what do you have? Just the irony that you keep suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about, while, in fact, it is you that is clueless.

What's more convincing is his story. "programmers with no experience in security, totally fucked up the security," is a significantly more believable scenario then "programmers with no experience in security, and no history of fraud, purposefully designed a security flaw into our system specifically so they could exploit it." The fact he found a hundred million or so in BTC under his couch further increases the first story's credibility, because if you're good at security you don't do that shit.

The bit of "and no history of fraud" got me and reminded me something I read else-web. In an interview tin Mark Karpeles (google tanslate):

Il quittera la capitale un peu vite, accusé, selon nos informations, de fraude informatique.

He left the capital quickly after being accused of computer fraud.

I would certainly encourage people not to take my word for it and do some searches ("Karpeles fraud France" is a good one). You might wish to reconsider your conditions on the second option.

If someone is feeling upset over something, they can turn to friends online for help and can get assistance, support, and guidance through their troubled times.

Internet "friends" are no such thing - they are just electronic ghosts of people. The relationship is superficial and shallow - no matter how nice it is.

Nothing beats face to face interaction with someone. Nothing.

We have mirror neurons that allow us to connect and help with emotional regulation.

That kid didn't have adequate real personal connections. From what I've read, his family sounds pretty fucked up and mix in any mental illness this kid had (reported Aspie), you get the actions he committed.

If there was someone who was able to be a real friend to this guy (a VERY tall order considering his previous assaults, abusive actions and emotional issues), maybe - maybe the shooting wouldn't have happened.

Kids like this usually find "healthier" outlets for their rage like boxing, for example - see Mike Tyson.

It's pretty sad when folks spend all their time online and consider their online contacts as friends.

Now for the thick headed, I am NOT talking about communication with your real friends with email or posting to your friends about meeting up at Joe's Bar for happy hour. I am talking about the phony "friends" that are only online with no physical contact.

In addition to the poor choices associated with irrationality ... remember that these are diseases of the brain. Complex syndromes that have effects beyond behavior and thinking. For example, depression is associated with pain.

Some interesting reading: Peter Kramer's Against Depression.

Indeed. I am so grateful that the FCC required me to pay more in order to subsidize the lifestyle choices of other people

It would be so unfair if people were expected to deal with the consequences of their own decisions without coerced assistance from people that made more sensible choices.

Hi! Welcome to 2014 where humans live together in these things called 'societies'. Good thing for you, your opinion is in the minority otherwise social services that benefit us all like open internet, interstate roads, guaranteed postal services, unemployment benefits, socialized emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), etc wouldn't be possible.

There is plenty of reading to learn about societies so you better get started

Hmm? Brazil and Argentina have "mercado livre" for years, and AFAICT they're ebay with a different name (same platform).

Yep. Until not that much time ago, M.L. was a fine place to buy and sell. But from some years to now, things changed - user's support is near zero, you just can't make a complaint online. Too much rules are relaxed, what favors bad faith sellers.

EBay was a partner until recently, but what we heard is that eBay got fed with all that and decided to do business directly around here. What is one of the best noticies we got in years : we *need* competition around here.

I found something here to supports what I'm saying. Google translating here.

Really? Many people like dual monitors, which gives lots of horizontal resolution and not so much vertical.

I use dual monitors, but rotate one of them to portrait orientation. Portrait is perfect for a web browser, since web pages are typically much longer than they are wide.

I tend to like lining up editors side by side rather than top to bottom.

I do this, too, on my landscape-oriented monitor. I can tile three editor windows and a shell on it. Since my documentation, e-mail, etc., all tends to be web-based, that stuff is on the portrait monitor and my "work" on the landscape-oriented monitor. It's very productive.

With an ultra-wide monitor like this one, I could add another couple of columns. I'd like that.

Google: flash read disturb

The Micron presentation is rather old, but gives a good overview of how Flash works.