There are lots of things that can't simply be controlled for. Dating for a while before getting engaged and married is a good idea because you really get to know your would-be spouse (gotta make it through the holidays at least once with your potential future in-laws!) but guys who are focused on their partner's appearance and women who focus on their partner's money are more likely to get divorced? Is that a convoluted way of saying "Don't obsess over things about your partner you can't control?"
The quotes in the summary say that couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to get divorced than couples who get married in ceremonies with 200+ people, but they also say that the more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you are to get divorced. How much do they think a 200+ person wedding costs??
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it also reminds me of a quite from Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath: "Experts are pretty bad at predictions. But they are great at assessing base rates."
Numbers are the bedrock of the capitalist regime. They are sacred. Do not transform them when copying them. Better to mangle words cause we all know they have semiotic plasticity anyway. But for the love of the capitalism and all it portends, please keep the numbers pure. That is all.
Science and engineering rely on the numbers being "pure" too, jackass. It's not always about money.
I prefer to not be injured or killed because altered numbers mean a structure is unstable, or that I get an incorrect dosage of medication.
Which are supported by trade agreements that were negotiated with the United States as a whole.
If California secedes, then it gets to negotiate those treaties all by its lonesome, including with the United States. Who wants to bet that they'll get the same terms?
Good luck getting much water out of the Colorado river post secession, but that's been drying up anyway.
I'm glad you think that water is so immaterial to California; how, exactly, do you think the new country will be able to produce enough food to support its citizens without it?
Spector ultimately believes the people who actually make the games are going to make better decisions than the number crunchers.
The people with the money call the shots. How will a year-long boot camp for programmers make managers and number crunchers listen to programmers when they don't now?
Didn't at least one exchange deal with a rash of compromised Bitcoin accounts (which spurred a crash in the value) by rolling back transactions? Yes, they did. How is that not modifying transactions?
If someone steals US dollars out of my wallet, they're gone. If someone breaks into my bank account and transfers money out, I may get reimbursed but the money that I am compensated with more then likely comes from the bank itself; no one waves a magic wand and takes the money back from the thief.
I have feeling that Bitcoin is secure the same way Mac OS X was "secure" for a long time: because there wasn't enough of a profit motive for attacking it. The more people that flock to Bitcoin, the more bad guys will start to work on breaking it to their advantage. (I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.)
I don't have a common key for my house, office, and car either. Nor do I want one.
There's a big difference between a physical object (a key) and a piece of data to be remembered (a password)
You don't have to remember or describe the arrangement of the bumps and notches on your key, it's just there. And lock providers don't require you to select an arrangement of X number of bumps and Y number of notches when you request a key, while another lock provider requires X number of bumps, Z number of notches, and Q half-bumps.
And while you don't have a single key for your car, your house, and your office, I'm willing to bet you keep them all on the same keyring.
What's the big deal? Because you find the least secure website that follows your password schema and you crack it.
Why would any single sign-on system store user passwords? MIT figured out in the 1980s for Kerberos that you don't have to transmit passwords, just basically pass around encrypted session tokens.
If someone cracks Slashdot and goes for my user credentials, all they should get is a token that's only good for authenticating to Slashdot. Congrats! You can have my remaining mod points...
"Many names were almost as good as none, when a being wished not to be found. But some name was necessary, if a being wished to be found sometimes." --Daniel Keys Moran, Emerald Eyes
Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was about the government abridging your right to free speech.
If people want DUI checkpoint apps, they can switch to Android or some other phone platform that allows them to run the types of app they want. The market will reward or punish Apple accordingly. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
This is a potentially useful bit of microbiology. Eventually we're going to have to clean up landfill sites and the like, so what would be more useful than a bug that strips all the iron out of a pile of stuff and deposits it in sediment? Scoop garbage into tanks, let the bugs do their work, collect the sludge at the bottom for processing. If we could engineer these bacteria to eat other stuff like copper or various types of plastic, we could potentially reclaim a lot of what we call "garbage" on the cheap.
For reasons why this might be a horrifically bad idea, I present you with the story of Klebsiella planticola.
I am still not a lawyer, but from the SFGate blog following the trial:
The prosecutor referred to CALJIC 2.11, which says that the production of all available evidence is not required. "Neither side is required to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the evidence, or who may appear to have some knowledge of these events. Neither side is required to produce all objects or documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence," it says.
If a bank is robbed and a suspect is apprehended, should a jury be required to listen to the eyewitness testimony of all of the tellers, bank guards, managers, and customers? The prosecution and the defense are going to interview witnesses and determine which ones to call. And if the defense felt that Sturgeon's testimony would have been credible or even admissible, they would have called him.
If the confession is really that "weak" then the jury can come to the same conclusion that the cops did if the rest of the evidence presented is good enough.
The jury's job is to determine the guilt or innocence of Hans Reiser, not Sean Sturgeon. And Sturgeon never confessed to killing Nina; in fact, it appears he was more concerned about Nina Reiser's whereabouts than Hans Reiser was.
Any confessions to other slayings would likely be ruled as irrelevant, especially when it turned out that the people he confessed to killing weren't dead.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle blog that was following Reiser's trial, Sean Sturgeon's testimony was not excluded: he was never called on to testify, by either the prosecution or the defense.
If you were the defense attorney and Sturgeon could provide testimony that would help exonerate your client, wouldn't you call him as a witness?
Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.
According to Everything2: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1316784 A person who commits, or attempts to commit, a felony can be convicted of murder if someone dies during the commission (or attempt) if:
* the person has intentionally engaged in the felony
* the felony is inherently dangerous
* the death occurs during the commission of the felony
* the death is independent and collateral to the felony, and
* the felon (or an accomplice) caused the death.
The inherently dangerous element is automatically satisfied if the felony is listed in the first-degree murder statute; [emphasis mine] in California, those felonies are arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts involving children, oral copulation, [sexual] penetration by foreign object, and drive-by shootings.
If Hans Reiser abducted Nina and then killed her, even if it was accidental, then he could be convicted of first-degree murder in California.
So why did the binary program also have the password for the gmail account? One would assume that the email address would have been enough. After all, sending someone email doesn't require their password.
Gmail requires a username and password to access their SMTP server.
It sounds as if the programmer was using the Gmail API to mail it to himself -- since so much data was already going to Gmail, what's one more outgoing message? -- and by using his own account to do it, the users in question won't notice a strange message in their Sent mailbox.
IANAL, but I'd guess that they don't have to renew the license. Other than that, nothing.
It's not like Amazon never had a patent, only that (some?) of its claims have now been rejected. If Apple used 1-Click in its Apple Store without licensing the patent from Amazon, Amazon would have every right to sue.
All of this talk of being "required" to sign a contract is bogus. You can activate an iPhone without signing up for a 2-year contract.
I have a co-worker who did exactly this; he was told how to do it by a sales associate at the store he purchased it from. This is not illegal in any way; AT&T lets you do month-to-month on all of their plans in this manner, if you buy the phone first. Given that the iPhone price is not subsidized by the contract in any way, shape or form, why tie yourself into a contract?
When you activate the iPhone in iTunes, enter all 9's for your Social Security number. You'll fail the credit check (duh!) and you will be told you can either go to an AT&T store to talk to a representative or you can go month-to-month.
Given how much whining people have done about being "forced" to sign a with AT&T contract in order to use an iPhone, you would think that month-to-month thing would be being shouted from the rooftops. Are iPhone-bashers just ignoring inconvenient facts?
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of things that can't simply be controlled for. Dating for a while before getting engaged and married is a good idea because you really get to know your would-be spouse (gotta make it through the holidays at least once with your potential future in-laws!) but guys who are focused on their partner's appearance and women who focus on their partner's money are more likely to get divorced? Is that a convoluted way of saying "Don't obsess over things about your partner you can't control?"
The quotes in the summary say that couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to get divorced than couples who get married in ceremonies with 200+ people, but they also say that the more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you are to get divorced. How much do they think a 200+ person wedding costs??
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it also reminds me of a quite from Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath: "Experts are pretty bad at predictions. But they are great at assessing base rates."
I suppose this site is just a figment of my imagination, then.
Numbers are the bedrock of the capitalist regime. They are sacred. Do not transform them when copying them. Better to mangle words cause we all know they have semiotic plasticity anyway. But for the love of the capitalism and all it portends, please keep the numbers pure. That is all.
Science and engineering rely on the numbers being "pure" too, jackass. It's not always about money.
I prefer to not be injured or killed because altered numbers mean a structure is unstable, or that I get an incorrect dosage of medication.
Great trade connections.
Which are supported by trade agreements that were negotiated with the United States as a whole.
If California secedes, then it gets to negotiate those treaties all by its lonesome, including with the United States. Who wants to bet that they'll get the same terms?
Good luck getting much water out of the Colorado river post secession, but that's been drying up anyway.
I'm glad you think that water is so immaterial to California; how, exactly, do you think the new country will be able to produce enough food to support its citizens without it?
Spector ultimately believes the people who actually make the games are going to make better decisions than the number crunchers.
The people with the money call the shots. How will a year-long boot camp for programmers make managers and number crunchers listen to programmers when they don't now?
transactions cannot be modified
Didn't at least one exchange deal with a rash of compromised Bitcoin accounts (which spurred a crash in the value) by rolling back transactions? Yes, they did. How is that not modifying transactions?
If someone steals US dollars out of my wallet, they're gone. If someone breaks into my bank account and transfers money out, I may get reimbursed but the money that I am compensated with more then likely comes from the bank itself; no one waves a magic wand and takes the money back from the thief.
I have feeling that Bitcoin is secure the same way Mac OS X was "secure" for a long time: because there wasn't enough of a profit motive for attacking it. The more people that flock to Bitcoin, the more bad guys will start to work on breaking it to their advantage. (I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.)
I would not even be surprised if most of them were inside jobs.
So you're saying that the problem isn't that Bitcoins aren't secure, it's just more likely that the people running the exchanges are thieves.
That's supposed to make us feel better? Talk about a distinction without a difference...
I don't have a common key for my house, office, and car either. Nor do I want one.
There's a big difference between a physical object (a key) and a piece of data to be remembered (a password)
You don't have to remember or describe the arrangement of the bumps and notches on your key, it's just there. And lock providers don't require you to select an arrangement of X number of bumps and Y number of notches when you request a key, while another lock provider requires X number of bumps, Z number of notches, and Q half-bumps.
And while you don't have a single key for your car, your house, and your office, I'm willing to bet you keep them all on the same keyring.
What's the big deal? Because you find the least secure website that follows your password schema and you crack it.
Why would any single sign-on system store user passwords? MIT figured out in the 1980s for Kerberos that you don't have to transmit passwords, just basically pass around encrypted session tokens.
If someone cracks Slashdot and goes for my user credentials, all they should get is a token that's only good for authenticating to Slashdot. Congrats! You can have my remaining mod points...
This is Firefox we're talking about; "multiple versions ago" could mean as far back as March.
"Many names were almost as good as none, when a being wished not to be found. But some name was necessary, if a being wished to be found sometimes."
--Daniel Keys Moran, Emerald Eyes
Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was about the government abridging your right to free speech.
If people want DUI checkpoint apps, they can switch to Android or some other phone platform that allows them to run the types of app they want. The market will reward or punish Apple accordingly. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The excerpt above is from the linked article. Tekgoblin is the one that got it wrong.
I went to Papadmitriadis's Twitter feed to see if "Stemgraph" was a local nickname for Systemgraph but it was...
(wait for it...)
all Greek to me.
This is a potentially useful bit of microbiology. Eventually we're going to have to clean up landfill sites and the like, so what would be more useful than a bug that strips all the iron out of a pile of stuff and deposits it in sediment? Scoop garbage into tanks, let the bugs do their work, collect the sludge at the bottom for processing. If we could engineer these bacteria to eat other stuff like copper or various types of plastic, we could potentially reclaim a lot of what we call "garbage" on the cheap.
For reasons why this might be a horrifically bad idea, I present you with the story of Klebsiella planticola.
I'm thirty-mumble.
I can't imagine what a dull life it would be still having my first ID here...
Because not everyone treats user accounts on like alt characters in World of Warcraft?
I'm just waiting for a bunch of smartass mods to swoop in and mark all of this graybeard talk as "Offtopic".
How often do you get to downmod a 4- or 5-digit UID?
I'm going to have to remember that example the next time I have this discussion with my mother.
(Well, maybe not use the words "horse porn" but the part about password reminders being sent to your email.)
I'm not a fan of Hans Reiser (and I believe he did kill his wife) but even I can see this is total flame-bait.
Try rephrasing the question without trying to rehash the same arguments from the eleventy-one thread and Hans Reiser, please...
I am still not a lawyer, but from the SFGate blog following the trial:
The prosecutor referred to CALJIC 2.11, which says that the production of all available evidence is not required. "Neither side is required to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the evidence, or who may appear to have some knowledge of these events. Neither side is required to produce all objects or documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence," it says.
If a bank is robbed and a suspect is apprehended, should a jury be required to listen to the eyewitness testimony of all of the tellers, bank guards, managers, and customers? The prosecution and the defense are going to interview witnesses and determine which ones to call. And if the defense felt that Sturgeon's testimony would have been credible or even admissible, they would have called him.
If the confession is really that "weak" then the jury can come to the same conclusion that the cops did if the rest of the evidence presented is good enough.
The jury's job is to determine the guilt or innocence of Hans Reiser, not Sean Sturgeon. And Sturgeon never confessed to killing Nina; in fact, it appears he was more concerned about Nina Reiser's whereabouts than Hans Reiser was.
Any confessions to other slayings would likely be ruled as irrelevant, especially when it turned out that the people he confessed to killing weren't dead.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle blog that was following Reiser's trial, Sean Sturgeon's testimony was not excluded: he was never called on to testify, by either the prosecution or the defense.
If you were the defense attorney and Sturgeon could provide testimony that would help exonerate your client, wouldn't you call him as a witness?
I'm not a lawyer but here's what I found in a couple of minutes of Googling:
From FindLaw: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html
Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.
According to Everything2: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1316784
A person who commits, or attempts to commit, a felony can be convicted of murder if someone dies during the commission (or attempt) if:
* the person has intentionally engaged in the felony
* the felony is inherently dangerous
* the death occurs during the commission of the felony
* the death is independent and collateral to the felony, and
* the felon (or an accomplice) caused the death.
The inherently dangerous element is automatically satisfied if the felony is listed in the first-degree murder statute; [emphasis mine] in California, those felonies are arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts involving children, oral copulation, [sexual] penetration by foreign object, and drive-by shootings.
If Hans Reiser abducted Nina and then killed her, even if it was accidental, then he could be convicted of first-degree murder in California.
So why did the binary program also have the password for the gmail account? One would assume that the email address would have been enough. After all, sending someone email doesn't require their password.
Gmail requires a username and password to access their SMTP server.
It sounds as if the programmer was using the Gmail API to mail it to himself -- since so much data was already going to Gmail, what's one more outgoing message? -- and by using his own account to do it, the users in question won't notice a strange message in their Sent mailbox.
IANAL, but I'd guess that they don't have to renew the license. Other than that, nothing.
It's not like Amazon never had a patent, only that (some?) of its claims have now been rejected. If Apple used 1-Click in its Apple Store without licensing the patent from Amazon, Amazon would have every right to sue.
All of this talk of being "required" to sign a contract is bogus. You can activate an iPhone without signing up for a 2-year contract.
I have a co-worker who did exactly this; he was told how to do it by a sales associate at the store he purchased it from. This is not illegal in any way; AT&T lets you do month-to-month on all of their plans in this manner, if you buy the phone first. Given that the iPhone price is not subsidized by the contract in any way, shape or form, why tie yourself into a contract?
When you activate the iPhone in iTunes, enter all 9's for your Social Security number. You'll fail the credit check (duh!) and you will be told you can either go to an AT&T store to talk to a representative or you can go month-to-month.
Given how much whining people have done about being "forced" to sign a with AT&T contract in order to use an iPhone, you would think that month-to-month thing would be being shouted from the rooftops. Are iPhone-bashers just ignoring inconvenient facts?