A bit of rouge satellite goes extremely well with some eyeliner asteroid, and you'll want to round them out with a nice, light, gamma burst lipstick to bring it all together.
Ah, so that's why they can come to the US and outperform their native schoolmates, even though they don't yet have a firm grasp on the language!
It explains everything!
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
If that were the problem, then the US wouldn't rank 40+ countries behind the Asian countries. They must have an inferior education, even though they obviously know a lot more, because they didn't do it on their own!
Did you ever think that perhaps doing group work may be more beneficial than doing solo work?
I've read it, and autodidacticism is one of the central tenants. In particular he pays a lot of attention to George Washington's self-education, which began around age 12 or 13, if I remember right, and was in full swing by the time he was 16 (when he taught himself surveying). Likely because his formal education ended so early, Washington always felt it was lacking, which he compensated for by continuing his self-education throughout his entire life.
That the man who is arguably the greatest man in American history was self taught is astounding. Mind you he was not a prodigy. He was smart, probably above average, but he was not a natural genius or anything of the sort. In fact most of the educated elite thought he was of moderate intelligence and some had a real problem with his elevated status and position of authority given his lack of formal education.
Gatto's book is definitely worth a read if you want some insight into the public education system (at least in New York) and why it works so poorly in the US.
And I don't see what is wrong with advertising someone's book if you found it insightful. Could you please explain to me the problem? I'll hold off on telling anybody about any books that I like until you do, thanks.
Where they tend to fall short are places where subtle insights are critical; for example, they may understand the basic idea behind RSA, but rarely do they understand Blum-Blum-Shub or its security proof, even after reading a lot about it.
Most professionally educated programmers don't understand it or its security proof either. They may be able to give you the book definition, but if they don't work with it regularly they aren't going to understand it.
The self-taught programmer may not know Blum-Blum-Shub or its security proof, but it is only because he hasn't needed to know it yet. If he ever does need to know it, he is well practiced at learning it on his own, whereas the college educated programmer may have more difficulty, depending on how much their professors spoon-fed them. The best teachers simply ask an interesting question, and require their students to find the answer, either within the class materials or elsewhere.
There is a reason grad school requires increasing amounts of research - often a class consists of "tell me why this works" or "tell me why that doesn't work" or "explain this to me", for concepts of which the student only has a vague understanding. When you get onto a PhD track you are writing more papers than you are listening to lectures. Hell your final test for a PhD is all original research, where you ask a unique and difficult question and then answer it yourself. You get a counselor to help steer you in a good direction, but that's it. A lot of the really important stuff out there isn't in books, and if you don't know how to find it your education will stagnate.
It's pretty simple really, if someone bitches about X browser not working, and you aren't going to fix the site when that's the only browser that has a problem, then that browser is unsupported.
If someone bitches about Y browser not working, and you are going to fix the site so that particular browser works correctly, then that browser is supported.
It doesn't matter if anybody ever actually bitches about the browser not working, if you never plan on fixing problems specific to that browser then it is an unsupported browser. All it means is that if you aren't using X, Y, or Z browser they aren't going to listen to your complaints. It doesn't mean your browser of choice doesn't work (in fact, given today's state of browsers, it is rare that your browser won't work).
People don't seem to understand that "Unsupported" simply means they aren't going to support it. It doesn't mean it won't work.
You know IE8 passes acid2 (the test for the current web standards) just fine with the default settings, and IE9 gets a 95 on the acid3 test. It's not 100%, like Webkit, but then again acid3 has been strongly criticized for cherry-picking elements that are still in the working draft (i.e. not even finalized).
In other words, Internet Explorer is 100% standards compliant, and will likely comply with the new standards as soon as we actually have a new set of standards.
The word still doesn't fit. Or at least, it isn't the best word for the job, and if you are getting creative with verbiage the point is generally to use the absolute best word for the job.
Quash means to suppress or extinguish, neither of which adequately expresses fixing a bug or a group of bugs. It would be similar to using "quell" there, it just doesn't fit right. Look at the synonyms and it should be more clear why the word just doesn't work.
In this case, the words we usually use - patch or fix - are the words that are most descriptive and most appropriate.
There were idiots believing there could be freedom with full feudalism (capitalism) being allowed in the economic side of life
You obviously don't understand how either feudalism or capitalism work. Making such a statement is impossible if you actually know how the two vastly different economic systems work.
If you are trying to make the argument that our current form of capitalism is really feudalism, then again you don't understand either system at all. We are much closer to fascism or socialism than feudalism, and we are a long way off of pure capitalism.
Go read a book on economic systems, it'll do you some good.
And for the record, in medieval times feudal serfs kept a much higher percentage of the goods produced by their labors than the citizens of any western country do today. In that sense, feudalism almost sounds like something to strive for (it's not though, honestly, there is a lot wrong with it).
...the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns wins.
Er... I said that wrong.
The party who has the least to lose by sticking to their guns wins, or the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns loses, take your pick.
To be fair, Leiberman had absolutely no power to force Amazon to take Wikileaks down.
However, most Americans don't appreciate what Wikileaks did, and getting a call from a Senator is a Big Deal. It expresses just how displeased the public is (via their representatives), and if Leiberman is willing to call them there are certainly dozens more who will simply vote against whatever new bill Amazon might lobby for.
I don't really see what is wrong with that. The senators have no obligation to do what the lobbyists want (thank god for that), and Amazon has no obligation to do what a Senator wants (thank god for that too). Between the two of them, the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns wins.
If you think that is wrong, you probably don't do too well in inter-personal relations, because that is simply how the world works, and there is nothing wrong with it. No laws were broken, there isn't even any corruption or coercion. It was simply a Senator expressing his displeasure privately (which is much more likely to actually change something) and a company deciding it wasn't worth damaging their relationship with said Senator.
That's what you do when someone does something that affects you that you do not approve of.
It's funny that the government - by abridging one of our most fundamental freedoms - is claiming to protect our freedom.
Excuse me, but exactly what freedom has been abridged? The freedom to piss a lot of people off without any consequences? Sorry, that freedom does not exist.
Nobody has been censored here. It should be pretty obvious that if you piss people off, and then threaten a whole industry, lots of people in that industry won't want to have anything to do with you. That's what happening here. He threatened the entire financial industry. Why the hell are you surprised that financial institutions don't want anything to do with him or his company now?
Are you saying that Paypal, a private company, does not have the right to choose to do business with whomever they want? Who is it that wants to abridge freedoms, hmm? Your hypocrisy is simply incredible.
The worst thing that has happened is that the US government is pressuring other governments to extradite Assange to Sweden to face charges or rape which have been on the books for at least six months now. It's not like this was trumped up to get rid of him, the two girls accused Assange of rape months ago, which is why he left Sweden in the first place.
And honestly, if he were innocent he should not have run in the first place (though that shouldn't be a basis for a guilty verdict, obviously).
That doesn't matter. If you can read the area where the private key is stored you can duplicate the signature process and produce another (falsely) verifiable image without the use of the camera.
That's the problem. The authentication process is (practically speaking) unbreakable once it leaves the camera. However, if the camera itself can be broken into and the private key copied, then the most secure authentication process in the world won't prevent a false authentication.
That's the problem with Canon's system. It's not the signature that is the problem, it's the camera that is the problem.
Oh please, they are $3500 cameras. That's mid-range professional equipment, not "breathtakingly expensive" gear.
Yeah, it's a hella-expensive camera to be taking your vacation photos with, but for "breathtakingly expensive" check out some of the $20k medium-format dslr's, or the $40k large-format Hasselblads.
Those are breathtakingly expensive cameras. Hell the first 39mp large-format digital back for Hasselblad's V series was $40,000, and that didn't include the camera body!
A $3500 Canon is expensive, but not breathtakingly so.
Skylarov has experience with such things, Adobe tried to use the DMCA on him. Who knows if they would have been ultimately successful, instead of going to trial they settled for his expert testimony in another copyright case.
It obviously didn't put him off cracking these things, so he's probably not too worried.
The fact that in the past he has been used as an expert witness in the field of encryption circumvention by an industry giant makes it tough to discredit him with respect to his expertise on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong!
The satellite is the makeup!
A bit of rouge satellite goes extremely well with some eyeliner asteroid, and you'll want to round them out with a nice, light, gamma burst lipstick to bring it all together.
Doesn't the solar system look so pretty now?
That's a trademark, not copyright.
I'm quite certain the problem here is that it looks identical to Pac-Man.
Obviously the more laws there are the more laws can be broken, and therefore the more criminals will be.
Simple logic will tell you that.
Without laws there would be no criminals.
"Pac-Man" is trademarked, not copyrighted. They would hit you with a cease-and-desist for trademark infringement if that were the case.
I'm not sure how DMCA notices work in detail, so I don't know if a lack of specifics makes it unenforceable or not.
The only thing I can think of that might trip you up is if the map layout is identical. I'm not entirely sure how that would work for Copyright.
It would be a risk on your part to tell Google not to take it down, so you should probably talk to a copyright lawyer first.
Ah, so that's why they can come to the US and outperform their native schoolmates, even though they don't yet have a firm grasp on the language!
It explains everything!
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
If that were the problem, then the US wouldn't rank 40+ countries behind the Asian countries. They must have an inferior education, even though they obviously know a lot more, because they didn't do it on their own!
Did you ever think that perhaps doing group work may be more beneficial than doing solo work?
+1 Funny
I've read it, and autodidacticism is one of the central tenants. In particular he pays a lot of attention to George Washington's self-education, which began around age 12 or 13, if I remember right, and was in full swing by the time he was 16 (when he taught himself surveying). Likely because his formal education ended so early, Washington always felt it was lacking, which he compensated for by continuing his self-education throughout his entire life.
That the man who is arguably the greatest man in American history was self taught is astounding. Mind you he was not a prodigy. He was smart, probably above average, but he was not a natural genius or anything of the sort. In fact most of the educated elite thought he was of moderate intelligence and some had a real problem with his elevated status and position of authority given his lack of formal education.
Gatto's book is definitely worth a read if you want some insight into the public education system (at least in New York) and why it works so poorly in the US.
And I don't see what is wrong with advertising someone's book if you found it insightful. Could you please explain to me the problem? I'll hold off on telling anybody about any books that I like until you do, thanks.
Where they tend to fall short are places where subtle insights are critical; for example, they may understand the basic idea behind RSA, but rarely do they understand Blum-Blum-Shub or its security proof, even after reading a lot about it.
Most professionally educated programmers don't understand it or its security proof either. They may be able to give you the book definition, but if they don't work with it regularly they aren't going to understand it.
The self-taught programmer may not know Blum-Blum-Shub or its security proof, but it is only because he hasn't needed to know it yet. If he ever does need to know it, he is well practiced at learning it on his own, whereas the college educated programmer may have more difficulty, depending on how much their professors spoon-fed them. The best teachers simply ask an interesting question, and require their students to find the answer, either within the class materials or elsewhere.
There is a reason grad school requires increasing amounts of research - often a class consists of "tell me why this works" or "tell me why that doesn't work" or "explain this to me", for concepts of which the student only has a vague understanding. When you get onto a PhD track you are writing more papers than you are listening to lectures. Hell your final test for a PhD is all original research, where you ask a unique and difficult question and then answer it yourself. You get a counselor to help steer you in a good direction, but that's it. A lot of the really important stuff out there isn't in books, and if you don't know how to find it your education will stagnate.
Unfortunately, most teachers are not good teachers.
Exactly.
It's pretty simple really, if someone bitches about X browser not working, and you aren't going to fix the site when that's the only browser that has a problem, then that browser is unsupported.
If someone bitches about Y browser not working, and you are going to fix the site so that particular browser works correctly, then that browser is supported.
It doesn't matter if anybody ever actually bitches about the browser not working, if you never plan on fixing problems specific to that browser then it is an unsupported browser. All it means is that if you aren't using X, Y, or Z browser they aren't going to listen to your complaints. It doesn't mean your browser of choice doesn't work (in fact, given today's state of browsers, it is rare that your browser won't work).
People don't seem to understand that "Unsupported" simply means they aren't going to support it. It doesn't mean it won't work.
You know IE8 passes acid2 (the test for the current web standards) just fine with the default settings, and IE9 gets a 95 on the acid3 test. It's not 100%, like Webkit, but then again acid3 has been strongly criticized for cherry-picking elements that are still in the working draft (i.e. not even finalized).
In other words, Internet Explorer is 100% standards compliant, and will likely comply with the new standards as soon as we actually have a new set of standards.
Cut the FUD please, it doesn't help.
The word still doesn't fit. Or at least, it isn't the best word for the job, and if you are getting creative with verbiage the point is generally to use the absolute best word for the job.
Quash means to suppress or extinguish, neither of which adequately expresses fixing a bug or a group of bugs. It would be similar to using "quell" there, it just doesn't fit right. Look at the synonyms and it should be more clear why the word just doesn't work.
In this case, the words we usually use - patch or fix - are the words that are most descriptive and most appropriate.
What's the point if the environmentalists don't do any kind of checking up on the companies?
Their support shouldn't be based on a pledge to do good, their support should be based on whether or not they are actually doing good.
Then said environmentalists want to be considered the experts on which companies are good for the environment.
What a joke.
This reminds me of the time Greenpeace was hit with massive fines for dumping waste of the US coast, which violates EPA regulations.
It's not illegal for Wikileaks, but it is illegal for the person who sent them the classified documents. Wikileaks actively encourages this activity.
Paypal's terms of service clearly state that encouraging illegal activity will result in termination of service.
So?
Paypal is a US company, they can do business with whomever they wish.
Unless you feel that a person should not have the right to choose who they do business with.
If that's the case, I'm glad I don't live in Europe.
Twenty-five whole dollars huh?
That'll show em who'se boss!
There were idiots believing there could be freedom with full feudalism (capitalism) being allowed in the economic side of life
You obviously don't understand how either feudalism or capitalism work. Making such a statement is impossible if you actually know how the two vastly different economic systems work.
If you are trying to make the argument that our current form of capitalism is really feudalism, then again you don't understand either system at all. We are much closer to fascism or socialism than feudalism, and we are a long way off of pure capitalism.
Go read a book on economic systems, it'll do you some good.
And for the record, in medieval times feudal serfs kept a much higher percentage of the goods produced by their labors than the citizens of any western country do today. In that sense, feudalism almost sounds like something to strive for (it's not though, honestly, there is a lot wrong with it).
Blame isn't something that must be divided.
The thief is 100% to blame for stealing the cash, the shopkeeper is 100% to blame for not protecting his money.
They both could have prevented the theft, so they are both 100% to blame.
It should not reduce the thief's punishment, nor should it cause you to punish the shopkeeper, but both are at fault.
...the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns wins.
Er... I said that wrong.
The party who has the least to lose by sticking to their guns wins, or the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns loses, take your pick.
To be fair, Leiberman had absolutely no power to force Amazon to take Wikileaks down.
However, most Americans don't appreciate what Wikileaks did, and getting a call from a Senator is a Big Deal. It expresses just how displeased the public is (via their representatives), and if Leiberman is willing to call them there are certainly dozens more who will simply vote against whatever new bill Amazon might lobby for.
I don't really see what is wrong with that. The senators have no obligation to do what the lobbyists want (thank god for that), and Amazon has no obligation to do what a Senator wants (thank god for that too). Between the two of them, the party who has the most to lose by sticking to their guns wins.
If you think that is wrong, you probably don't do too well in inter-personal relations, because that is simply how the world works, and there is nothing wrong with it. No laws were broken, there isn't even any corruption or coercion. It was simply a Senator expressing his displeasure privately (which is much more likely to actually change something) and a company deciding it wasn't worth damaging their relationship with said Senator.
That's what you do when someone does something that affects you that you do not approve of.
It's funny that the government - by abridging one of our most fundamental freedoms - is claiming to protect our freedom.
Excuse me, but exactly what freedom has been abridged? The freedom to piss a lot of people off without any consequences? Sorry, that freedom does not exist.
Nobody has been censored here. It should be pretty obvious that if you piss people off, and then threaten a whole industry, lots of people in that industry won't want to have anything to do with you. That's what happening here. He threatened the entire financial industry. Why the hell are you surprised that financial institutions don't want anything to do with him or his company now?
Are you saying that Paypal, a private company, does not have the right to choose to do business with whomever they want? Who is it that wants to abridge freedoms, hmm? Your hypocrisy is simply incredible.
The worst thing that has happened is that the US government is pressuring other governments to extradite Assange to Sweden to face charges or rape which have been on the books for at least six months now. It's not like this was trumped up to get rid of him, the two girls accused Assange of rape months ago, which is why he left Sweden in the first place.
And honestly, if he were innocent he should not have run in the first place (though that shouldn't be a basis for a guilty verdict, obviously).
That doesn't matter. If you can read the area where the private key is stored you can duplicate the signature process and produce another (falsely) verifiable image without the use of the camera.
That's the problem. The authentication process is (practically speaking) unbreakable once it leaves the camera. However, if the camera itself can be broken into and the private key copied, then the most secure authentication process in the world won't prevent a false authentication.
That's the problem with Canon's system. It's not the signature that is the problem, it's the camera that is the problem.
Oh please, they are $3500 cameras. That's mid-range professional equipment, not "breathtakingly expensive" gear.
Yeah, it's a hella-expensive camera to be taking your vacation photos with, but for "breathtakingly expensive" check out some of the $20k medium-format dslr's, or the $40k large-format Hasselblads.
Those are breathtakingly expensive cameras. Hell the first 39mp large-format digital back for Hasselblad's V series was $40,000, and that didn't include the camera body!
A $3500 Canon is expensive, but not breathtakingly so.
Skylarov has experience with such things, Adobe tried to use the DMCA on him. Who knows if they would have been ultimately successful, instead of going to trial they settled for his expert testimony in another copyright case.
It obviously didn't put him off cracking these things, so he's probably not too worried.
The fact that in the past he has been used as an expert witness in the field of encryption circumvention by an industry giant makes it tough to discredit him with respect to his expertise on the subject.
The PhD helps too.
That was for Adobe.
This is Canon.
Dumbass.