Add the means test proposed earlier and I think you've got a financially workable plan. Now you just have to find a few hundred suicidal politicians to back it up.
This is terrible advice. The first thing you need to do is consult a lawyer- the consultation will almost always be free- and the first thing they will tell you is not to do exactly this kind of shit. It can only make things worse.
You can call back up into Java from the JNI, so technically the NDK exposes everything that the Java side does. I used this to allow Python access to the android libraries via javalin2 last year.
Well, yes, but the fourth core was still locked, and in many cases was fully functional. They just locked a core on a quad core to avoid the cost of retooling to produce the triple core design when market demand exceeded the number of failed chips.
I may be missing a split hair someplace, but in case you haven't played with them AMD sold a bunch of defective quad cores as triple cores with the defective one locked. A lot of the time they still worked fine.
Hmmm, well, I can't say I agree with that- I've open sourced the work I've done on Apple's OSX updater, various crypto toolkits, etc, and have never seen anybody do anything about it until I've either contacted them directly or released it into the wild- but, it's your code so you're the boss.
Anyways, if you'd like to collaborate drop me an email- my username@gmail.com.
when you change just one character on the input if you use a good algorithm (sha2 or rijndael aka AES) so it's difficult, if not impossible to predict what change will happen in the hash by changing the input, if you don't know the secret and initialization vector.
AES is not a hash. AES is a symmetric block cipher.
Nate Silver seems to think they are given his posts on the topic and comments on his twitter feed, although its interesting that their rating in his pollster rankings isn't *that* terrible.
Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.
Kind of. Here's the article, but now that the iPhone4 is out its unclear whether this was a blip or a sign of things to come.
The end justifies the means? What is that even supposed to mean in this context? If I felt that the end justified the means I would be supporting the US military, since I have friends over there who have bled- and one who lost an eye- for their unwillingness to wantonly ice the innocent. But as a matter of principle, allowing those who want to kill for the sake of killing to do so cannot be allowed, whether here or abroad- and that video shows everything I need to know to tell me that the gunner wanted nothing more than to blow away a dying man.
As for the presentation of the video, I just don't care. If he had called it "Lollipops and sunshine in Iraq" it would not have altered the terror and agony those involved felt in their last moments, or reduced the burden of loss felt by their loved ones. Yet people like you- who, let's not pretend, don't care at all about either of those things- seek to diminish the events of that day by killing the messenger. In this case, literally.
It amazes me that people can watch that video and then bitch about the title. Who gives a shit? You just heard a member of the US military begging for the opportunity to light up someone whose greatest crime was trying to drag their torn and shattered body into an alley to die. If the gunner had been any more excited about the prospect he would have blown a load. "Pick up a weapon. C'mon, just pick up a weapon..."- that people can, in the name of patriotism, try to condone this behavior disgusts me.
And indeed they do. A recent court ruling here in Germany already said that if you don't encrypt your WiFi, you are responsible for what people who can access it freely do.
This I disagree with; blaming the medium for the message is like yelling at sewer workers because I flung poo at your house.
The reverse argument - if you encrypt it, you can consider it private - is not far off.
This I agree with; what has clearly been kept private should not be infringed except under truly extraordinary circumstances, and these, by their very unremarkability, would clearly not qualify.
Nevertheless, since we do not, at this time, have such standards, I still maintain it was not ok for Google to simply copy it all down.
Again though, why not? Google kept private forever what you made public for a moment. That's the danger of making things public, a danger you accept when you decide to leave your wifi open.
Someone at Google didn't think enough.
Clearly- but not criminally.
I don't say they had evil intend, as some paranoid people here do. But there is such a thing as neglect.
Neglect applies a grievous harm test to the action, which is clearly not met here; you would have to change the law as surely to get over this hurdle as I would to make the matter utterly within the law.
I do not understand this argument. How is your data private if its sitting out in open air?
We're talking about electro-magnetic waves here, right?
Light is electro-magnetic waves. So what you're saying is that anyone looking into my private house can not possibly ever violate my privacy, because I was "broadcasting" it into open air, right? I could close the curtains, after all.
Yeah, pretty much. There was a couple a few years ago who got busted in their own house for fucking in front of a huge picture window that let out onto the street.
While that is true (closing the curtains), the reverse is not. Just because I did not close the curtains does not automatically mean you can point a camera at my bedroom and that's ok.
It doesn't automatically make it so- but it doesn't rule it out either. It becomes a question of intent, and I think google had a perfectly plausible intent here.
I don't know if geeks just don't get it at times, but many of the laws we have on our books are there exactly because it is easier to make it illegal than to force everyone to adopt security protocols.
You seem very passionate about this, but it doesn't actually mean anything. I'm not forcing everybody to live behind steel doors, I'm just saying don't fuck in public and think that it was between you and her.
According to the arguments posted here, we wouldn't need laws against breaking and entering - after all, everyone could just install strong enough locks and doors and windows if they didn't want their homes to be broken into.
Note that WEP- trivially breakable- would still have been dropped here. There was no effort to break in, only to observe what was already out in the open.
That is not the thinking that makes a society work. A society works by agreeing on what kinds of activities we want or don't want, and then writing that down.
Ok, so, I disagree with you; stop writing that down.
If we don't want people listening in on open WiFi traffic, we can write that down. It is an alternative approach to forcing everyone to run encryption.
Again, not what I am arguing.
It's called "laws".
You can argue all you want about encryption and broadcast and bla bla, but the fact remains that this simple, straighforward approach of writing something down we don't want people to do even when it's easy has been fairly successfull for a couple thousand years now.
We can also disagree with those laws and their application. What has been is not necessarily what should be, and in this case I disagree- so find a better reason than "we've always done it this way".
I do not understand this argument. How is your data private if its sitting out in open air? That's like saying that just because I was yelling in public doesn't mean you have a right to hear what I was saying if I wasn't yelling *at you*.
The structure of tornado is already well documented.
The winds near the ground are already well documented.
NOAA and the NSF disagree, and they know a hell of a lot more than you. Prove it doesn't have scientific value or STFU.
THEIR warnings only have 13 mintues lead time, Storm chasers (those damn armatures) often provide running commentary an hour ahead or arrival.
Nobody can accurately predict where a twister is going to be an hour ahead of time, so, stop BSing- I'm not buying it.
Self serving drivel designed for more Discovery Channel programming funds.
You have no evidence for this claim. I have plenty of examples of amateur stormchasers/idiots getting into trouble and causing trouble because they wanted to put videos of themselves getting sucked into a tornado on youtube.
I know its hard to pick the truth from the self serving boiler plate, but if the best you have is the funding requester's web site I'm glad you are not managing my funds.
You made a claim about what their stated goals were, and now say that I can't use their words to contradict you? Get a dictionary and look up the word "stated", genius.
Slashdot Mirror
Add the means test proposed earlier and I think you've got a financially workable plan. Now you just have to find a few hundred suicidal politicians to back it up.
alot of money?
Means the results are here on earth. Five bucks says its about extremophiles in the transition area between the crust and the mantle.
To be fair, a bendable mechanical robot suit would be pretty cool...
This is terrible advice. The first thing you need to do is consult a lawyer- the consultation will almost always be free- and the first thing they will tell you is not to do exactly this kind of shit. It can only make things worse.
I see lots of posts saying its up, but it's down for me. No idea.
You can call back up into Java from the JNI, so technically the NDK exposes everything that the Java side does. I used this to allow Python access to the android libraries via javalin2 last year.
Well, yes, but the fourth core was still locked, and in many cases was fully functional. They just locked a core on a quad core to avoid the cost of retooling to produce the triple core design when market demand exceeded the number of failed chips.
I may be missing a split hair someplace, but in case you haven't played with them AMD sold a bunch of defective quad cores as triple cores with the defective one locked. A lot of the time they still worked fine.
I put Ubuntu on the machine and told them I just changed the wallpaper.
Hmmm, well, I can't say I agree with that- I've open sourced the work I've done on Apple's OSX updater, various crypto toolkits, etc, and have never seen anybody do anything about it until I've either contacted them directly or released it into the wild- but, it's your code so you're the boss.
Anyways, if you'd like to collaborate drop me an email- my username@gmail.com.
Was just considering this. Have you open sourced what you have?
when you change just one character on the input if you use a good algorithm (sha2 or rijndael aka AES) so it's difficult, if not impossible to predict what change will happen in the hash by changing the input, if you don't know the secret and initialization vector.
AES is not a hash. AES is a symmetric block cipher.
35 = 15
Math and science education is seriously lacking.
Yeah! You can't assign to a constant like that!
Mostly irrelevant, but in reference to your sig: http://www.google.com/buzz/debatem1/e7PTAk9Vvcv/A-little-odd-people-screaming-for-Obamas
They kind of glide across the surface now.
Belly up.
They had the free developer version of MS SQL, but it felt like crippleware to me.
This is why they lose. They don't understand that if you piss me off, I will go elsewhere.
Nate Silver seems to think they are given his posts on the topic and comments on his twitter feed, although its interesting that their rating in his pollster rankings isn't *that* terrible.
Did I miss something? I mean, I really haven't read anything about android sales surpassing iPhone sales. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool and everything, but I just don't see it happening.
Kind of. Here's the article, but now that the iPhone4 is out its unclear whether this was a blip or a sign of things to come.
The end justifies the means? What is that even supposed to mean in this context? If I felt that the end justified the means I would be supporting the US military, since I have friends over there who have bled- and one who lost an eye- for their unwillingness to wantonly ice the innocent. But as a matter of principle, allowing those who want to kill for the sake of killing to do so cannot be allowed, whether here or abroad- and that video shows everything I need to know to tell me that the gunner wanted nothing more than to blow away a dying man.
As for the presentation of the video, I just don't care. If he had called it "Lollipops and sunshine in Iraq" it would not have altered the terror and agony those involved felt in their last moments, or reduced the burden of loss felt by their loved ones. Yet people like you- who, let's not pretend, don't care at all about either of those things- seek to diminish the events of that day by killing the messenger. In this case, literally.
That's terrifying to me.
It amazes me that people can watch that video and then bitch about the title. Who gives a shit? You just heard a member of the US military begging for the opportunity to light up someone whose greatest crime was trying to drag their torn and shattered body into an alley to die. If the gunner had been any more excited about the prospect he would have blown a load. "Pick up a weapon. C'mon, just pick up a weapon..."- that people can, in the name of patriotism, try to condone this behavior disgusts me.
And indeed they do. A recent court ruling here in Germany already said that if you don't encrypt your WiFi, you are responsible for what people who can access it freely do.
This I disagree with; blaming the medium for the message is like yelling at sewer workers because I flung poo at your house.
The reverse argument - if you encrypt it, you can consider it private - is not far off.
This I agree with; what has clearly been kept private should not be infringed except under truly extraordinary circumstances, and these, by their very unremarkability, would clearly not qualify.
Nevertheless, since we do not, at this time, have such standards, I still maintain it was not ok for Google to simply copy it all down.
Again though, why not? Google kept private forever what you made public for a moment. That's the danger of making things public, a danger you accept when you decide to leave your wifi open.
Someone at Google didn't think enough.
Clearly- but not criminally.
I don't say they had evil intend, as some paranoid people here do. But there is such a thing as neglect.
Neglect applies a grievous harm test to the action, which is clearly not met here; you would have to change the law as surely to get over this hurdle as I would to make the matter utterly within the law.
I do not understand this argument. How is your data private if its sitting out in open air?
We're talking about electro-magnetic waves here, right?
Light is electro-magnetic waves. So what you're saying is that anyone looking into my private house can not possibly ever violate my privacy, because I was "broadcasting" it into open air, right? I could close the curtains, after all.
Yeah, pretty much. There was a couple a few years ago who got busted in their own house for fucking in front of a huge picture window that let out onto the street.
While that is true (closing the curtains), the reverse is not. Just because I did not close the curtains does not automatically mean you can point a camera at my bedroom and that's ok.
It doesn't automatically make it so- but it doesn't rule it out either. It becomes a question of intent, and I think google had a perfectly plausible intent here.
I don't know if geeks just don't get it at times, but many of the laws we have on our books are there exactly because it is easier to make it illegal than to force everyone to adopt security protocols.
You seem very passionate about this, but it doesn't actually mean anything. I'm not forcing everybody to live behind steel doors, I'm just saying don't fuck in public and think that it was between you and her.
According to the arguments posted here, we wouldn't need laws against breaking and entering - after all, everyone could just install strong enough locks and doors and windows if they didn't want their homes to be broken into.
Note that WEP- trivially breakable- would still have been dropped here. There was no effort to break in, only to observe what was already out in the open.
That is not the thinking that makes a society work. A society works by agreeing on what kinds of activities we want or don't want, and then writing that down.
Ok, so, I disagree with you; stop writing that down.
If we don't want people listening in on open WiFi traffic, we can write that down. It is an alternative approach to forcing everyone to run encryption.
Again, not what I am arguing.
It's called "laws".
You can argue all you want about encryption and broadcast and bla bla, but the fact remains that this simple, straighforward approach of writing something down we don't want people to do even when it's easy has been fairly successfull for a couple thousand years now.
We can also disagree with those laws and their application. What has been is not necessarily what should be, and in this case I disagree- so find a better reason than "we've always done it this way".
I do not understand this argument. How is your data private if its sitting out in open air? That's like saying that just because I was yelling in public doesn't mean you have a right to hear what I was saying if I wasn't yelling *at you*.
The structure of tornado is already well documented. The winds near the ground are already well documented.
NOAA and the NSF disagree, and they know a hell of a lot more than you. Prove it doesn't have scientific value or STFU.
THEIR warnings only have 13 mintues lead time, Storm chasers (those damn armatures) often provide running commentary an hour ahead or arrival.
Nobody can accurately predict where a twister is going to be an hour ahead of time, so, stop BSing- I'm not buying it.
Self serving drivel designed for more Discovery Channel programming funds.
You have no evidence for this claim. I have plenty of examples of amateur stormchasers/idiots getting into trouble and causing trouble because they wanted to put videos of themselves getting sucked into a tornado on youtube.
I know its hard to pick the truth from the self serving boiler plate, but if the best you have is the funding requester's web site I'm glad you are not managing my funds.
You made a claim about what their stated goals were, and now say that I can't use their words to contradict you? Get a dictionary and look up the word "stated", genius.