Who cares about homosexuality. It's not a big news item in any form. The big news item is that EA rightfully earned the Golden Poo. I'd honestly put any number of local cable monopolies above EA but EA is definitely top 10 epic fucking fail companies in this country. I can't wait for that stock to tank and rid us of one more worthless company that has yet to add any significant value to anything it has shoved its greedy little hands into.
You have to realize that if they take the money we're trying to throw at them, they wouldn't be able to make arguments about how their profitability is diminishing and that they need over-reaching legislation to give them supreme control over all digital distribution systems so that they can then force you to pay $150/month to watch the same shitty cable with ads every 3 minutes and zero on-demand (unless you want to pay that $9.99 for 24/hr access!).
I would be laughing at this comment if I had not been in that war myself. Unfortunately, I am now forever unclean.
And it's not just Blackboard Learn. It's every piece of software they've ever written (I have a great deal of experience extending and supporting BBTS at every level, there were massive gaps in middleware that they didn't provide that I had to write myself). I'm quite convinced they design the software to be intentionally bad to secure service contracts (that are enormously expensive, indeed). Even something as simple as monitoring their services was a nightmare. The tools they provided almost always hung when opened. I had to reverse engineer the protocol they were using and write an app that would detect when a service was having problems and auto-restart it. One service would just kill itself if it got too many errors (as I was told by one of their engineers, it maintains a count of failed actions, if that count gets too high, the process either hangs or exits), and these errors were internal, not really "errors," and happened at a very rapid rate. I just can't comprehend that level of bad. Don't even get me started on the DB structure, the backup methods, nor the interfaces between the individual components and their 3rd-party bindings (which weren't well maintained). Holy shit, man. Holy shit.
There were some bright people working there, unfortunately they have to support a monumental failure. I feel their pain.
It really makes you wonder, though. If you logically reason through the changes in technology and consumption, you immediately realize that $16.99 CDs that contain 1 good song and 11 awful ones are probably selling at under 1/50th of their rate from only 15 years ago. Yet more music is purchased today ($.99 for a song vs $16.99, we buy more because it's more affordable and easier to get than before). The losses claimed here are directly classified as losses in "the sale of music." But that's certainly not a valid container to encapsulate what we're talking about. A large majority of people now use online radio and YouTube (VEVO being the largest entity on YT) to consume music, though not necessarily exclusively. The last time I checked, *ALL* of these services provide enormous ad revenue. So to make a valid comparison to 15 years ago, the actual revenue stream from their music channels should also include this ad revenue that results from zero work on their part (literally, which means costs are also down). I would imagine with that factored in, they'd be making far more money today than they were 15 years ago, and because they need people to deal specifically with these advertisers and to look for new opportunities, they've probably actually created jobs.
The constant whining about piracy is a joke. I can't really take anyone who says it has an impact at all seriously. I listen to music *CONSTANTLY* throughout the day. I don't have a single MP3. I haven't pirated a song in over 10 years. But I do recall I bought no less than 15 CDs in the mid 90s. With a very modest estimate at $.05/hr from my consumption today, I would claim at 8 hours a day, that's $12/month = $144/yr. Those 15 CDs are $255. So in just 2 short years, I've generated more revenue for them than I ever have in direct purchases. Considering the popular songs on YT having 100M+ views, I'd imagine they have a far larger user base with similar consumption habits than they ever did selling CDs, and I'd imagine their profits are literally through the roof. But you'll never see them mention ad revenue when talking about music sales, ever, because if we realized just how profitable they are despite the "massive amounts of piracy" that is happening, we (everyone it impacts, not just the/. crowd) wouldn't take their copyright trolling bullshit nor their push for legislation seriously.
Wow/. really butchered that one. The strings are encrypted with a fixed-length repeating pattern of XORs. The brute-force (try every pattern) then match against a word dictionary took 8 hours. Modifying the algorithm to be smarter and to look for the pattern rather than accepting/rejecting the result lowered that to 10 minutes. But the original algorithm in C finishes in 5 seconds.
Sometimes, sometimes the language you're working in really is the bottleneck. I've written a log parser in JavaScript that runs entirely in the browser and can process >200MB of text logs with full aggregation per second. That's an enormous amount of work (it's actually bottlenecked by the disk). V8 is enormously fast when used correctly. Later, for fun, I wrote an application that deciphered simple strings (
A large chunk of that is the raw speed of C. Another (larger) chunk is because strings in JS are immutable and the algorithm is almost entirely string manipulation (fixed length, per-character manipulations). Combine language limitation + raw speed = wtf improvement.
I always just make a folder called 'accelerator' and fill it with shortcuts to any application I want to use, then add it to my path. Win+R becomes an uber fast way to run any program you want. I never delve deeper into my start menu than accessing a recently opened application, anyway.
Actual corrected headline. Please stop with the sensationalist headlines about hacking. The only number that matters is how long it took to find the exploits and to package them into an attack vector versus the reward from Google.
There are virtually no applications that will survive for more than a few minutes against a 0day when the attacker is given sufficient capability to execute an attack.
Fortunately, I don't believe that would hold. The need for interoperability with "non-supported" platforms and devices still exists. And the storage is cloud-based which does not guarantee persistence nor consistency of service (ever try to use Netflix on a device with under 400MB of space to buffer? or at night when they do maintenance?). This is almost certainly less convenient than popping a DVD into a tray and hitting play. Far less. That is the opposite direction of ripping, and far more cumbersome than piracy, which makes it in no way an alternative.
The purpose of ripping is that I can make a backup (either physical or digital) and be assured that my copy is protected. "Digitizing" my DVD to be held in someone else's cloud does not offer the same. This means I can take 1 file and play it *ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD* on *ANY DEVICE I OWN* at my own leisure without asking permission, paying a fee for a service, and with complete and utter privacy. Piracy results in high quality and extremely fast delivery of these DRM-free universal formats that almost every device in existence (including my TV, via USB, right out of the box) can play. That delivery chain is far more efficient and convenient to me than anything else available, and it is precisely this fact that prompts the MPAA and RIAA to try to get legislation to kill it. They still want their 1970s model of what amounts to extortion back. Relevant: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
Oh, and the last thing you want is a server somewhere keeping a log of when and how often you watch those digitized porn DVDs you own, right? The privacy concerns I don't think I've seen mentioned yet in RE to this story, but they're enormous, too. Just as important as the convenience factor.
More importantly, the wording of FATA is FATAlly flawed. It specifies "person." Most of our tax money is paid to groups of individuals, not to individuals. Nice loophole they've got there. We need judges who aren't imbeciles. It's very clear the spirit of the act was designed to prevent the abuse of taxpayer money by way of fraudulent activities.
It's outrageous to realize that Judges try so hard to get around doing any real judging. The case was an investigation of a person, specifically Michael Mann. The Judge, in some defiantly twisted logic, claims that because his funding was from grants given to the University, not him directly, that he can't possibly (literally) commit fraud. So much fail. SOOOOOOOOOO much fail. We might as well all become researchers and buy hookers and blow with federal grant money at a University.
The difference between an overweight and an underweight woman is this: I would never make fun of an overweight woman's body. Being overweight may not be healthy in many cases, nor may it be the peak of sexual attraction, but being underweight is absolutely fucking disgusting. I want to date a woman, not a skeleton with some skin draped over it.
Physical fitness is so much more important. I would highly doubt that an underweight person is "more healthy" in a sedentary lifestyle than an overweight one. There's this thing we call "skinny fat." Horrible fitness level with just very low calorie intake. Awful. The worst. They have such a high body fat to body muscle ratio that the primary deposits (the stuff you can't get rid of short of starving nearly to death) appear as an excess of fat would. Sure, you might fit into a size 0, but you're absolutely horribly disgustingly ugly. Eat a goddamn hamburger and hit the gym once in a while.
It should be pointed out that despite what people think, there are more advanced issues available in JavaScript if they wish to act elitist. Most people who haven't spent a significant amount of time writing code for Node.js or working on a proper "AJAX" application may have never even thought about them. For instance, say you're in a browser and you want to do some computation. Well every browser out there will *eventually* bother the user to kill your script because the event loop is completely blocked until you relinquish control (this is why setTimeout exists, because it's necessary when programming in an uninterruptible event loop). So if you want to spend 10 seconds doing complex calculations, aggregations, etc on data to make pretty graphs for a user, you're most likely going to:
1. Break at least 2-3 browsers because the user needs to opt to let your script finish. Most notably IE.
2. Prevent the user from doing anything on the site in the meantime.
This situation falls under the same premise as multithreading: resource contention. To have a responsive application, and to do long, complex calculations like this, you need to explicitly design a re-entrant (trivial via closures) function that can work for X number of iterations then pre-empt itself for anything else on the event loop, including your own code. You place a setTimeout every so often and pick right back up where you were (which will be far easier with the addition of yield). You run into a lot of the same issues you would in multithreading, except you get the guarantee that any action you take is atomic, but the state of your data unless private may change after a setTimeout (which is a really nice thing, actually).
I've written multi-threaded servers in C. I didn't find it any more challenging than writing highly useful web applications in JavaScript. Let the trolls be damned, ignorance is a wonderful thing.
If you bothered to watch any of the EFF presentations or even read the linked 18 USC 2703 above, it specifically states:
(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage. ...only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure...
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.— ....if the governmental entity obtains a warrant....
(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.— ... only when the governmental entity obtains a warrant....
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the— ... of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph...
In all cases, either a warrant or a court ordered subpoena is required. Interesting. Which part are you having difficulty reading?
It seems like those are bits of information that would be of the utmost importance to protect from warrantless probes for information. I have just removed all FB cookies and will never again log into FB, and called my ISP to change my IP address. How many more privacy fails is it going to take before FB gets it?
1. Monsanto abuses genetics to accidentally (not kidding) on purpose make Round-Up (TM) resistant corn.
2. This corn is """""licensed"""""" to some farmers to produce it (probably at no cost to prove Monsanto's corn is epic).
3. This corn is then sold to the people who use it -- not people who are legally in a contract with Monsanto. These people then either cook the corn and sell it for foodstuffs, distill it into ethanol, turn it into feed, or re-use the corn for planting future crops (or some combination of the three, plus whatever else corn is used for).
4. Of the cases where the corn (not labeled property of Monsanto, I'm sure) was re-used on different farm plots around the US (because sometimes you need seed to plant corn, ridiculous, right?), Monsanto seed appeared in a pretty large % of plots around the US based purely on how the farming industry works.
5. Monsanto creates a seed-Nazi party and goes around testing every farm it can find for Mansanto seed. If any is found, the owner is sued, and because the owner can't defend itself against a multi-billion dollar corporation, it just settles.
6. Monsanto gains total control over the growth of corn in the USA.
I have a few problems with this, and although IANAL, I would assume any sane judge would too. First, the addition of seeds into patent law (at the behest of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes, campaign contributions, and extremely highly compensated do-nothing positions after retirement) is incompatible with the infringing case of the same law:
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
If one considers what was patentable before these cases, it would seem.... unlikely.... to say the least.. that you would drop a patented lawnmower into some dirt and a few months later, hundreds of near perfect replica lawnmowers would have grown in its place. Worst of all, if one carefully examines the patent law, that which is patentable is never that which already existed.
So we have a problem. Monsanto has achieved the patentability of genetically modified seeds. But these seeds are (for the people using them, in general) indistinguishable from a naturally occurring, pre-existing product (corn). Secondly, it is implied in the infringement section quoted above that the creation, use, and sale or offer thereof of a patented object is known in advance by the infringer. It is very clear, in cases of pre-seed patentability what is and isn't patented (almost always accompanied by a patent number, just for clarification).
It would be hard, if not impossible, I would claim, for Monsanto to prove that these farmers knowingly used patented technology without authorization to grow their crops. I would also point out that because of the one-sided nature of both the grant of these patents (in that Monsanto can get any seed it wants, essentially, patented and that nobody but them can distinguish patented seed from naturally occurring seed) that Monsanto has the capability through simple sabotage to force unwitting persons into infringing on their patent. The sheer awkwardness of this position (and from what we know, historically, about what has happened, what is very likely the case) should leave much doubt into the validity of these patent claims. Further, it should bring a great deal of speculation into the legality of the patent provisions made for seeds and for infringement made without a reasonable possibility of knowledge of use or transfer of patented materials. I argue, that unless Monsanto followed every single grain of corn from every plant grown from a Monsanto seed, that they have no rights to the specific litigation and "damages" they construe certain farmers caused them. Sp
I heard if you dial up the radiation to guaranteed-to-give-superpowers-or-kill levels, you can see more detail in the nudie scans, though! Damn right we're cranking it up!
The ROI goes straight into big pharma. Paying for condoms and pills for a single couple over 40 years is probably $20,000+... per couple. Sterilization. That's the real answer. But it's not one big pharma will consider, ever. Kids need big pharma's stuff too, so it's a win for them all the way down any other way.
These are usually the best kinds of tests. Primarily because "closed book" tests tend to be partially or mostly factual regurgitation. For one, that's one of the least effective methods of testing understanding. For two, not everyone memorizes every little tiny fact (and indeed, this is rarely useful). And finally, in the real world, nobody tries solving hard problems without having plentiful references to check their facts and gain insight.
I don't care if a network engineer knows off the top of his head what the 7th bit in a TCP-IP header represents or if a programmer knows what the valid prefix opcodes for IA-32 are, nor should those bits of trivia ever be useful except in extremely domain-specific situations in which case I expect you to have a manual in your hand for complete faith that you are absolutely certain to fuck things up otherwise.
What's so difficult about taxing loans against untaxable (and unusable) holdings as income? No more loans against huge stock portfolios at low interest rate with no taxes.
I have control over the client. I have control over the server. I can modify anything in the client I wish, and I can make the server do whatever I want. Public key cryptography is not resilient against MITM when you control either end entirely. Here's the general method:
1. Generate your own public/private key pair.
2. Replace public key in client.
3. Sit proxy (or server) on your machine that uses the private key.
4. If traffic is to be sent to the original server, use the original public key to send (modified) data through to the orig server.
1. You assume the defense and prosecution are infallible.
2. You assume that the jurors will either: A) Listen only to the defense/prosecution or B) Rely on google for their answer.
3. Juries have a de facto right to nullification.
Where do you draw the line? Almost every jury candidate has seen CSI or one of these moronic crime/police TV shows that are horrendously wrong in almost every way. Why would it be a bad thing to let them actually google something to get more information? You argue that a perfect jury is completely ignorant, but then that's just a jury capable of (and willing to be) brainwashed by the lawyers rather than deciding based on the evidence presented whether or not the defendant is guilty. I, for one, do not want anyone's fate being decided by a bunch of half-wits regurgitating "facts" given to them by lawyers during the case. It doesn't help the fact that the majority of lawyers I've met or talked to have been incredibly stupid.
Is it OK when we decide the fate of a person based on incorrect information and emotional sentiment provided by lawyers but not when we research things ourselves and decide independent of their obviously (by definition) biased views and willingness to hide details? So it's fine to kill someone because someone else says it's OK?
1. The use of mobile technology may be very important towards educating jurors during their jury duty. It may be important for them to research case law and to educate themselves about various aspects of the case.
2. If their opinions can be so easily swayed by FB/Twitter, I don't want them being jurors, ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about homosexuality. It's not a big news item in any form. The big news item is that EA rightfully earned the Golden Poo. I'd honestly put any number of local cable monopolies above EA but EA is definitely top 10 epic fucking fail companies in this country. I can't wait for that stock to tank and rid us of one more worthless company that has yet to add any significant value to anything it has shoved its greedy little hands into.
You have to realize that if they take the money we're trying to throw at them, they wouldn't be able to make arguments about how their profitability is diminishing and that they need over-reaching legislation to give them supreme control over all digital distribution systems so that they can then force you to pay $150/month to watch the same shitty cable with ads every 3 minutes and zero on-demand (unless you want to pay that $9.99 for 24/hr access!).
I would be laughing at this comment if I had not been in that war myself. Unfortunately, I am now forever unclean.
And it's not just Blackboard Learn. It's every piece of software they've ever written (I have a great deal of experience extending and supporting BBTS at every level, there were massive gaps in middleware that they didn't provide that I had to write myself). I'm quite convinced they design the software to be intentionally bad to secure service contracts (that are enormously expensive, indeed). Even something as simple as monitoring their services was a nightmare. The tools they provided almost always hung when opened. I had to reverse engineer the protocol they were using and write an app that would detect when a service was having problems and auto-restart it. One service would just kill itself if it got too many errors (as I was told by one of their engineers, it maintains a count of failed actions, if that count gets too high, the process either hangs or exits), and these errors were internal, not really "errors," and happened at a very rapid rate. I just can't comprehend that level of bad. Don't even get me started on the DB structure, the backup methods, nor the interfaces between the individual components and their 3rd-party bindings (which weren't well maintained). Holy shit, man. Holy shit.
There were some bright people working there, unfortunately they have to support a monumental failure. I feel their pain.
It really makes you wonder, though. If you logically reason through the changes in technology and consumption, you immediately realize that $16.99 CDs that contain 1 good song and 11 awful ones are probably selling at under 1/50th of their rate from only 15 years ago. Yet more music is purchased today ($.99 for a song vs $16.99, we buy more because it's more affordable and easier to get than before). The losses claimed here are directly classified as losses in "the sale of music." But that's certainly not a valid container to encapsulate what we're talking about. A large majority of people now use online radio and YouTube (VEVO being the largest entity on YT) to consume music, though not necessarily exclusively. The last time I checked, *ALL* of these services provide enormous ad revenue. So to make a valid comparison to 15 years ago, the actual revenue stream from their music channels should also include this ad revenue that results from zero work on their part (literally, which means costs are also down). I would imagine with that factored in, they'd be making far more money today than they were 15 years ago, and because they need people to deal specifically with these advertisers and to look for new opportunities, they've probably actually created jobs.
/. crowd) wouldn't take their copyright trolling bullshit nor their push for legislation seriously.
The constant whining about piracy is a joke. I can't really take anyone who says it has an impact at all seriously. I listen to music *CONSTANTLY* throughout the day. I don't have a single MP3. I haven't pirated a song in over 10 years. But I do recall I bought no less than 15 CDs in the mid 90s. With a very modest estimate at $.05/hr from my consumption today, I would claim at 8 hours a day, that's $12/month = $144/yr. Those 15 CDs are $255. So in just 2 short years, I've generated more revenue for them than I ever have in direct purchases. Considering the popular songs on YT having 100M+ views, I'd imagine they have a far larger user base with similar consumption habits than they ever did selling CDs, and I'd imagine their profits are literally through the roof. But you'll never see them mention ad revenue when talking about music sales, ever, because if we realized just how profitable they are despite the "massive amounts of piracy" that is happening, we (everyone it impacts, not just the
Wow /. really butchered that one. The strings are encrypted with a fixed-length repeating pattern of XORs. The brute-force (try every pattern) then match against a word dictionary took 8 hours. Modifying the algorithm to be smarter and to look for the pattern rather than accepting/rejecting the result lowered that to 10 minutes. But the original algorithm in C finishes in 5 seconds.
Sometimes, sometimes the language you're working in really is the bottleneck. I've written a log parser in JavaScript that runs entirely in the browser and can process >200MB of text logs with full aggregation per second. That's an enormous amount of work (it's actually bottlenecked by the disk). V8 is enormously fast when used correctly. Later, for fun, I wrote an application that deciphered simple strings (
A large chunk of that is the raw speed of C. Another (larger) chunk is because strings in JS are immutable and the algorithm is almost entirely string manipulation (fixed length, per-character manipulations). Combine language limitation + raw speed = wtf improvement.
Have you seen V8, BigTable, etc?
I always just make a folder called 'accelerator' and fill it with shortcuts to any application I want to use, then add it to my path. Win+R becomes an uber fast way to run any program you want. I never delve deeper into my start menu than accessing a recently opened application, anyway.
Actual corrected headline. Please stop with the sensationalist headlines about hacking. The only number that matters is how long it took to find the exploits and to package them into an attack vector versus the reward from Google.
There are virtually no applications that will survive for more than a few minutes against a 0day when the attacker is given sufficient capability to execute an attack.
Fortunately, I don't believe that would hold. The need for interoperability with "non-supported" platforms and devices still exists. And the storage is cloud-based which does not guarantee persistence nor consistency of service (ever try to use Netflix on a device with under 400MB of space to buffer? or at night when they do maintenance?). This is almost certainly less convenient than popping a DVD into a tray and hitting play. Far less. That is the opposite direction of ripping, and far more cumbersome than piracy, which makes it in no way an alternative.
The purpose of ripping is that I can make a backup (either physical or digital) and be assured that my copy is protected. "Digitizing" my DVD to be held in someone else's cloud does not offer the same. This means I can take 1 file and play it *ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD* on *ANY DEVICE I OWN* at my own leisure without asking permission, paying a fee for a service, and with complete and utter privacy. Piracy results in high quality and extremely fast delivery of these DRM-free universal formats that almost every device in existence (including my TV, via USB, right out of the box) can play. That delivery chain is far more efficient and convenient to me than anything else available, and it is precisely this fact that prompts the MPAA and RIAA to try to get legislation to kill it. They still want their 1970s model of what amounts to extortion back. Relevant: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
Oh, and the last thing you want is a server somewhere keeping a log of when and how often you watch those digitized porn DVDs you own, right? The privacy concerns I don't think I've seen mentioned yet in RE to this story, but they're enormous, too. Just as important as the convenience factor.
More importantly, the wording of FATA is FATAlly flawed. It specifies "person." Most of our tax money is paid to groups of individuals, not to individuals. Nice loophole they've got there. We need judges who aren't imbeciles. It's very clear the spirit of the act was designed to prevent the abuse of taxpayer money by way of fraudulent activities.
It's outrageous to realize that Judges try so hard to get around doing any real judging. The case was an investigation of a person, specifically Michael Mann. The Judge, in some defiantly twisted logic, claims that because his funding was from grants given to the University, not him directly, that he can't possibly (literally) commit fraud. So much fail. SOOOOOOOOOO much fail. We might as well all become researchers and buy hookers and blow with federal grant money at a University.
The difference between an overweight and an underweight woman is this: I would never make fun of an overweight woman's body. Being overweight may not be healthy in many cases, nor may it be the peak of sexual attraction, but being underweight is absolutely fucking disgusting. I want to date a woman, not a skeleton with some skin draped over it.
Physical fitness is so much more important. I would highly doubt that an underweight person is "more healthy" in a sedentary lifestyle than an overweight one. There's this thing we call "skinny fat." Horrible fitness level with just very low calorie intake. Awful. The worst. They have such a high body fat to body muscle ratio that the primary deposits (the stuff you can't get rid of short of starving nearly to death) appear as an excess of fat would. Sure, you might fit into a size 0, but you're absolutely horribly disgustingly ugly. Eat a goddamn hamburger and hit the gym once in a while.
http://www.crossfitsouthbay.com/2011/05/skinny-fat/
It should be pointed out that despite what people think, there are more advanced issues available in JavaScript if they wish to act elitist. Most people who haven't spent a significant amount of time writing code for Node.js or working on a proper "AJAX" application may have never even thought about them. For instance, say you're in a browser and you want to do some computation. Well every browser out there will *eventually* bother the user to kill your script because the event loop is completely blocked until you relinquish control (this is why setTimeout exists, because it's necessary when programming in an uninterruptible event loop). So if you want to spend 10 seconds doing complex calculations, aggregations, etc on data to make pretty graphs for a user, you're most likely going to:
1. Break at least 2-3 browsers because the user needs to opt to let your script finish. Most notably IE.
2. Prevent the user from doing anything on the site in the meantime.
This situation falls under the same premise as multithreading: resource contention. To have a responsive application, and to do long, complex calculations like this, you need to explicitly design a re-entrant (trivial via closures) function that can work for X number of iterations then pre-empt itself for anything else on the event loop, including your own code. You place a setTimeout every so often and pick right back up where you were (which will be far easier with the addition of yield). You run into a lot of the same issues you would in multithreading, except you get the guarantee that any action you take is atomic, but the state of your data unless private may change after a setTimeout (which is a really nice thing, actually).
I've written multi-threaded servers in C. I didn't find it any more challenging than writing highly useful web applications in JavaScript. Let the trolls be damned, ignorance is a wonderful thing.
If you bothered to watch any of the EFF presentations or even read the linked 18 USC 2703 above, it specifically states:
...only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure...
....if the governmental entity obtains a warrant....
... only when the governmental entity obtains a warrant....
... of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph...
(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.—
(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.—
(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—
In all cases, either a warrant or a court ordered subpoena is required. Interesting. Which part are you having difficulty reading?
It seems like those are bits of information that would be of the utmost importance to protect from warrantless probes for information. I have just removed all FB cookies and will never again log into FB, and called my ISP to change my IP address. How many more privacy fails is it going to take before FB gets it?
Then where does it end? Let's consider the facts:
1. Monsanto abuses genetics to accidentally (not kidding) on purpose make Round-Up (TM) resistant corn.
2. This corn is """""licensed"""""" to some farmers to produce it (probably at no cost to prove Monsanto's corn is epic).
3. This corn is then sold to the people who use it -- not people who are legally in a contract with Monsanto. These people then either cook the corn and sell it for foodstuffs, distill it into ethanol, turn it into feed, or re-use the corn for planting future crops (or some combination of the three, plus whatever else corn is used for).
4. Of the cases where the corn (not labeled property of Monsanto, I'm sure) was re-used on different farm plots around the US (because sometimes you need seed to plant corn, ridiculous, right?), Monsanto seed appeared in a pretty large % of plots around the US based purely on how the farming industry works.
5. Monsanto creates a seed-Nazi party and goes around testing every farm it can find for Mansanto seed. If any is found, the owner is sued, and because the owner can't defend itself against a multi-billion dollar corporation, it just settles.
6. Monsanto gains total control over the growth of corn in the USA.
I have a few problems with this, and although IANAL, I would assume any sane judge would too. First, the addition of seeds into patent law (at the behest of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes, campaign contributions, and extremely highly compensated do-nothing positions after retirement) is incompatible with the infringing case of the same law:
"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
If one considers what was patentable before these cases, it would seem.... unlikely.... to say the least.. that you would drop a patented lawnmower into some dirt and a few months later, hundreds of near perfect replica lawnmowers would have grown in its place. Worst of all, if one carefully examines the patent law, that which is patentable is never that which already existed.
So we have a problem. Monsanto has achieved the patentability of genetically modified seeds. But these seeds are (for the people using them, in general) indistinguishable from a naturally occurring, pre-existing product (corn). Secondly, it is implied in the infringement section quoted above that the creation, use, and sale or offer thereof of a patented object is known in advance by the infringer. It is very clear, in cases of pre-seed patentability what is and isn't patented (almost always accompanied by a patent number, just for clarification).
It would be hard, if not impossible, I would claim, for Monsanto to prove that these farmers knowingly used patented technology without authorization to grow their crops. I would also point out that because of the one-sided nature of both the grant of these patents (in that Monsanto can get any seed it wants, essentially, patented and that nobody but them can distinguish patented seed from naturally occurring seed) that Monsanto has the capability through simple sabotage to force unwitting persons into infringing on their patent. The sheer awkwardness of this position (and from what we know, historically, about what has happened, what is very likely the case) should leave much doubt into the validity of these patent claims. Further, it should bring a great deal of speculation into the legality of the patent provisions made for seeds and for infringement made without a reasonable possibility of knowledge of use or transfer of patented materials. I argue, that unless Monsanto followed every single grain of corn from every plant grown from a Monsanto seed, that they have no rights to the specific litigation and "damages" they construe certain farmers caused them. Sp
I heard if you dial up the radiation to guaranteed-to-give-superpowers-or-kill levels, you can see more detail in the nudie scans, though! Damn right we're cranking it up!
The ROI goes straight into big pharma. Paying for condoms and pills for a single couple over 40 years is probably $20,000+... per couple. Sterilization. That's the real answer. But it's not one big pharma will consider, ever. Kids need big pharma's stuff too, so it's a win for them all the way down any other way.
These are usually the best kinds of tests. Primarily because "closed book" tests tend to be partially or mostly factual regurgitation. For one, that's one of the least effective methods of testing understanding. For two, not everyone memorizes every little tiny fact (and indeed, this is rarely useful). And finally, in the real world, nobody tries solving hard problems without having plentiful references to check their facts and gain insight.
I don't care if a network engineer knows off the top of his head what the 7th bit in a TCP-IP header represents or if a programmer knows what the valid prefix opcodes for IA-32 are, nor should those bits of trivia ever be useful except in extremely domain-specific situations in which case I expect you to have a manual in your hand for complete faith that you are absolutely certain to fuck things up otherwise.
What's so difficult about taxing loans against untaxable (and unusable) holdings as income? No more loans against huge stock portfolios at low interest rate with no taxes.
I have control over the client. I have control over the server. I can modify anything in the client I wish, and I can make the server do whatever I want. Public key cryptography is not resilient against MITM when you control either end entirely. Here's the general method:
1. Generate your own public/private key pair.
2. Replace public key in client.
3. Sit proxy (or server) on your machine that uses the private key.
4. If traffic is to be sent to the original server, use the original public key to send (modified) data through to the orig server.
You've just MITM'ed public key cryptography.
That's my information. When do I get paid?
I don't? Time to stop using FB. Oh wait....
1. You assume the defense and prosecution are infallible.
2. You assume that the jurors will either: A) Listen only to the defense/prosecution or B) Rely on google for their answer.
3. Juries have a de facto right to nullification.
Weak.
Where do you draw the line? Almost every jury candidate has seen CSI or one of these moronic crime/police TV shows that are horrendously wrong in almost every way. Why would it be a bad thing to let them actually google something to get more information? You argue that a perfect jury is completely ignorant, but then that's just a jury capable of (and willing to be) brainwashed by the lawyers rather than deciding based on the evidence presented whether or not the defendant is guilty. I, for one, do not want anyone's fate being decided by a bunch of half-wits regurgitating "facts" given to them by lawyers during the case. It doesn't help the fact that the majority of lawyers I've met or talked to have been incredibly stupid.
Is it OK when we decide the fate of a person based on incorrect information and emotional sentiment provided by lawyers but not when we research things ourselves and decide independent of their obviously (by definition) biased views and willingness to hide details? So it's fine to kill someone because someone else says it's OK?
1. The use of mobile technology may be very important towards educating jurors during their jury duty. It may be important for them to research case law and to educate themselves about various aspects of the case.
2. If their opinions can be so easily swayed by FB/Twitter, I don't want them being jurors, ever.