But, if it's millions of times slower, then you'd need a cloud provider with a million CPUs to do the same work you could do on your desktop with 1 CPU.
I wonder if this ruling would equally apply if the same piece of information was shared by word of mouth through the 'grapevine'. That's technically also a 'thing of value' if it sets off a wildfire of gossip.
And what is the threshold for 'value'? If someone gives their old newspaper clipping to someone else and says, "please pass this on when you're finished". Is that also sufficiently 'of value'?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. It is a legitimate concern in how to measure 'campaign contributions', and where the threshold falls where the guarantee of freedom of speech for one person crosses over with the ability to 'pay' for additional 'speech'.
In the short term they may seem all over the place, but the AC frequency is accurate when averaged over the entire day.
In the '60s, '70s, '80s the wall clocks in schools and other public places were simple AC motors. In the absence of a loss of power, those clocks were accurate to with a few seconds over a year. Even our old AC powered kitchen clock kept perfect time.
These days, you can't even trust a wall clock to be accurate to within a few minutes.
Remember the signatures of the designers that were molded onto the inside of the original Amiga 1000 enclosures? Well, I see an update on that kickstarter page that the new A1200 boxes will get a similar treatment with at least one signature.
I still fondly remember the day back in the mid '80s when I opened up my first Amiga and found those signatures. It showed the designers really cared about what they'd created.
Kind of like the 'easter egg' hidden in a later version of Workbench that after a magic disk/in/out/mouse/press/etc incantation, would put up the message "We made Amiga, they f*cked it up". Implying they == Commodore.
I must dust off my old hardware and check out this kickstarter page in more detail.
I can't imagine they were his students, as you'd think he'd need a pretty good disguise not to be instantly recognised. Besides the fact, that back in '60s (and still true today) the humanities subjects would have had a much wider selection of female 'talent' than you can find in the sciences.
Also, importantly, it creates the opportunity to properly educate the 'harasser' that specifically they are doing is considered harassment. They may also be able to learn the appropriate behaviour. All with a legal hammer hanging over them if they ignore it. In many cases this is more than enough - and would be greatly beneficial to those that truly didn't understand they were crossing boundaries. Sometimes the underdog just needs a powerful ally to be on their side to overt a problem - and they don't need their ally to go nuclear on the problem.
Have you ever been to a class on harassment and had more than a few people (including women) present some hypothetical situation because they aren't sure if it is considered harassment? Even though the rest of room can clearly see it is (o isn't), there are people that really don't fully understand to complexities human interaction to know.
BTW, this applies to both sexual harassment and harassment in general.
Or maybe it's like internet bandwidth and is being heavily oversold? Where average demand of people popping in for the occasional visit is hundreds of times lower than the peak demand if an apocalypse comes.
Interestingly, one of the arguments against comparing gun-deaths between countries is that in the absence of guns people find other ways to do the killing and the overall homicide rates are otherwise equal.
The US obviously has an issue with homicides (gun or otherwise), and that is probably produced by a number of factors including fear mongering, drug laws, poverty differentials, etc. Problems which if eliminated would also dramatically reduce the overall homicide rate.
However, it's also true that guns are by a wide margin the method of choice in the USA; 70%+ of all homicides are by firearm in the US. So the statistics are otherwise quite comparable at the total homicides level, simply because the number of "deaths by gun" is so big in the US.
That's not to say that guns are the primary cause, but it definitely makes an otherwise non-fatal altercation far more likely to become fatal - which would show up as an increase in the total homicide rate.
A proper comparison would require a large number of variables to be isolated and properly studied (even regionally across the USA, across demographic boundaries, and against social-economic groupings). Dropping a single number like total deaths doesn't immediately implicate the gun as the cause, but it does leave one thinking what may be the proverbial or the literal 'smoking gun'.
What the law is really trying to say is "you can't intentionally or through negligence hit a pedestrian no matter what". Just because the light goes green doesn't mean you won't be liable if you accelerate over the top of a slow pedestrian that hasn't finished crossing. Same applies if the intersection is still full of slow cars, you can't just T-bone the cross traffic because "you had right of way".
However, by saying "the pedestrian always has right of way" without qualifiers gives the wrong message to pedestrians. It misses the important fact that there are many situations where a pedestrian can be killed/injured and it won't be the driver's fault.
I'm not talking about idiots racing each other to the crossings, or people playing chicken with motorists who can clearly see them. I'm talking about people coming out of nowhere where they are running way too fast from non visible areas, sudden unpredictable changes of direction/speed, popping out on a narrow street from behind obstacles, etc. The driver might even be going quite slowly, but if they don't see you, you don't get the benefit of any braking systems or driver reaction.
That's why this sort of thing isn't solved with a simple rule that appoints blame, but by a proper education targeted at both sides of the problem. It also helps if the city avoid otherwise dangerous intersection/crossing designs, or traffic controls that frustrate both (or either) motorists and/or pedestrians. Impatient drivers waiting at a 3 minute light phase that only lets 2 cars through in their direction become dangerous. Pedestrians that have to walk half a mile out of their way to find a crossing will take risks. It's simple psychology.
You can't eliminate everything, but I'm sure there're still a few things that can be done.
But, you're only able to do this, because of your broad knowledge of the technology side of things. True, you may or may not be able to implement some low level detail, but your background tells you whether or not it's even possible and have an idea of the approximate level of difficulty, and if not, you know who to call. A completely non-technical guy that understands the business problem, probably has no clue as to what type of solutions may even exist or be possible that could solve their problem. And they'd have trouble trying to work out what resources they'd even need to get the job started.
Whereas, someone like yourself that is a domain 'expert' in some segment of technology (otherwise not directly related to a client's business) would be able to know if your domain is applicable to providing a solution, and most likely exactly what resources would be required to make it happen (possibly including yourself as an engineering resource).
A meeting where a bunch of non-technical (or semi-technical) guys sit there spouting off all sorts of buzzwords is as useful as an echo chamber. Sadly, I've seen this happen, and they bring their 'solution' to engineering and ask 'how long it will take to get this implemented'. Amidst heavy eye rolling from the technical people, everyone has to go into damage control mode and pray nothing has already been said to the customer.
One Time Pad is secure so long as the pad generators are not predictable. You need more than a single pad though; one for each of the parties communicating.
No, because the hospital admission rate shows that pedestrian / cyclist collisions on the sidewalk is less likely than each of the other three - AND - that of those, it's usually a kid (young enough to be allowed on the sidewalk) on a bicycle that gets hurt.
As I said, dickheads will be dickheads; which doesn't magically imply that there are no dickhead cyclists. Just that "dickhead+cyclist" is not the greatest pedestrian threat on the sidewalk, and is far below the other three.
And it also doesn't imply that sidewalking pedestrians / cyclist collisions never happen.
Accidents are often caused by bikers, not just by car or truck or motorcycle drivers.
Funnily, in Australia a Monash University study found that 87% of accidents between a cyclist and a car was caused by the car. So, yes some are caused by the cyclist going for a Darwin Award, but the vast majority are caused by the driver of the car.
Don't worry, it's far more likely that a skateboarder, jogger or car turning into a driveway will knock you over on the sidewalk. Dickheads will be dickheads no matter what mode of transport they employ or where they use it.
...or people are swinging them around with equal disregard to their surroundings.
This.
People focus solely on the phone/camera image on the end of the stick and don't watch the surroundings. Maybe in an open area with nothing nearby people might have a little extra peripheral concentration to pay attention. But, in a dark partly crowded museum with people and exhibits everywhere, I find people barely pay enough attention when they use their cameras without a selfie stick. When that stick comes out, forget about it.
Yeah right, so it's none of my business if I have to waste my time waiting to walk down a narrow corridor because every second git is trying to capture a picture of themselves next to some random exhibit. And it's not my problem that I have to do the limbo rock to get underneath the selfie sticks, or get whacked across the head because I didn't see the extended shaft in the low ambient lighting at the museum.
It doesn't happen often, but when it does it is really annoying. The last time I went to the museum, there was a bus load of tourists doing exactly that. Luckily some loudmouth tourist from another country cracked the shits first and loudly told everyone to take a break from the selfies and the let people past.
I always tell the people who complain that I've brought a big arse camera that I've brought mine so no one else has to bring theirs. This means everyone can relax and enjoy the experience while I enjoy capturing it.
For anyone that wants to know what the music sounds like; it is conventional instrumental ambient music with a nice ensemble of guitar/bass/piano(synth)/drums. It sounds pretty relaxing, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual like brain wave synced synthesiser swirls and crashing waves. Although some of the percussion is reminiscent of nature.
I really like the electric guitar and synth tones he uses. Bad guitar tone and cheap sounding synths are two of my pet hates - but this music delivers quality tone, so nothing to complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
That's old news from a long time ago.
And where does bittorrent factor into all of this?
That last 30% has to be distributed amongst all the other traditional high bandwidth users: porn, torrents, and massive software updates/downloads.
"I'm calling to report that a door is a jar!"
When is a door not a door? When it's a jar! If it was simply ajar, it would still be a door.
I think they need to come up with a better IDEA.
But, if it's millions of times slower, then you'd need a cloud provider with a million CPUs to do the same work you could do on your desktop with 1 CPU.
I wonder if this ruling would equally apply if the same piece of information was shared by word of mouth through the 'grapevine'. That's technically also a 'thing of value' if it sets off a wildfire of gossip.
And what is the threshold for 'value'? If someone gives their old newspaper clipping to someone else and says, "please pass this on when you're finished". Is that also sufficiently 'of value'?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. It is a legitimate concern in how to measure 'campaign contributions', and where the threshold falls where the guarantee of freedom of speech for one person crosses over with the ability to 'pay' for additional 'speech'.
The bits you're looking for must be under all the brown stains that have developed over the years whenever the Whitehouse ran out of toilet paper.
Different protocols have different requirements; especially something as time sensitive as NTP.
Treating security with a 'one size fits all' approach is never a good idea.
In the short term they may seem all over the place, but the AC frequency is accurate when averaged over the entire day.
In the '60s, '70s, '80s the wall clocks in schools and other public places were simple AC motors. In the absence of a loss of power, those clocks were accurate to with a few seconds over a year. Even our old AC powered kitchen clock kept perfect time.
These days, you can't even trust a wall clock to be accurate to within a few minutes.
I'd love to lean into the mic at a packed concert and say, "Ok Google, call mom, yes ... Hold the tourniquet tight while I find the vein."
Remember the signatures of the designers that were molded onto the inside of the original Amiga 1000 enclosures? Well, I see an update on that kickstarter page that the new A1200 boxes will get a similar treatment with at least one signature.
I still fondly remember the day back in the mid '80s when I opened up my first Amiga and found those signatures. It showed the designers really cared about what they'd created.
Kind of like the 'easter egg' hidden in a later version of Workbench that after a magic disk/in/out/mouse/press/etc incantation, would put up the message "We made Amiga, they f*cked it up". Implying they == Commodore.
I must dust off my old hardware and check out this kickstarter page in more detail.
I can't imagine they were his students, as you'd think he'd need a pretty good disguise not to be instantly recognised. Besides the fact, that back in '60s (and still true today) the humanities subjects would have had a much wider selection of female 'talent' than you can find in the sciences.
Also, importantly, it creates the opportunity to properly educate the 'harasser' that specifically they are doing is considered harassment. They may also be able to learn the appropriate behaviour. All with a legal hammer hanging over them if they ignore it. In many cases this is more than enough - and would be greatly beneficial to those that truly didn't understand they were crossing boundaries. Sometimes the underdog just needs a powerful ally to be on their side to overt a problem - and they don't need their ally to go nuclear on the problem.
Have you ever been to a class on harassment and had more than a few people (including women) present some hypothetical situation because they aren't sure if it is considered harassment? Even though the rest of room can clearly see it is (o isn't), there are people that really don't fully understand to complexities human interaction to know.
BTW, this applies to both sexual harassment and harassment in general.
Or maybe it's like internet bandwidth and is being heavily oversold? Where average demand of people popping in for the occasional visit is hundreds of times lower than the peak demand if an apocalypse comes.
Interestingly, one of the arguments against comparing gun-deaths between countries is that in the absence of guns people find other ways to do the killing and the overall homicide rates are otherwise equal.
The US obviously has an issue with homicides (gun or otherwise), and that is probably produced by a number of factors including fear mongering, drug laws, poverty differentials, etc. Problems which if eliminated would also dramatically reduce the overall homicide rate.
However, it's also true that guns are by a wide margin the method of choice in the USA; 70%+ of all homicides are by firearm in the US. So the statistics are otherwise quite comparable at the total homicides level, simply because the number of "deaths by gun" is so big in the US.
That's not to say that guns are the primary cause, but it definitely makes an otherwise non-fatal altercation far more likely to become fatal - which would show up as an increase in the total homicide rate.
A proper comparison would require a large number of variables to be isolated and properly studied (even regionally across the USA, across demographic boundaries, and against social-economic groupings). Dropping a single number like total deaths doesn't immediately implicate the gun as the cause, but it does leave one thinking what may be the proverbial or the literal 'smoking gun'.
What the law is really trying to say is "you can't intentionally or through negligence hit a pedestrian no matter what". Just because the light goes green doesn't mean you won't be liable if you accelerate over the top of a slow pedestrian that hasn't finished crossing. Same applies if the intersection is still full of slow cars, you can't just T-bone the cross traffic because "you had right of way".
However, by saying "the pedestrian always has right of way" without qualifiers gives the wrong message to pedestrians. It misses the important fact that there are many situations where a pedestrian can be killed/injured and it won't be the driver's fault.
I'm not talking about idiots racing each other to the crossings, or people playing chicken with motorists who can clearly see them. I'm talking about people coming out of nowhere where they are running way too fast from non visible areas, sudden unpredictable changes of direction/speed, popping out on a narrow street from behind obstacles, etc. The driver might even be going quite slowly, but if they don't see you, you don't get the benefit of any braking systems or driver reaction.
That's why this sort of thing isn't solved with a simple rule that appoints blame, but by a proper education targeted at both sides of the problem. It also helps if the city avoid otherwise dangerous intersection/crossing designs, or traffic controls that frustrate both (or either) motorists and/or pedestrians. Impatient drivers waiting at a 3 minute light phase that only lets 2 cars through in their direction become dangerous. Pedestrians that have to walk half a mile out of their way to find a crossing will take risks. It's simple psychology.
You can't eliminate everything, but I'm sure there're still a few things that can be done.
But, you're only able to do this, because of your broad knowledge of the technology side of things. True, you may or may not be able to implement some low level detail, but your background tells you whether or not it's even possible and have an idea of the approximate level of difficulty, and if not, you know who to call. A completely non-technical guy that understands the business problem, probably has no clue as to what type of solutions may even exist or be possible that could solve their problem. And they'd have trouble trying to work out what resources they'd even need to get the job started.
Whereas, someone like yourself that is a domain 'expert' in some segment of technology (otherwise not directly related to a client's business) would be able to know if your domain is applicable to providing a solution, and most likely exactly what resources would be required to make it happen (possibly including yourself as an engineering resource).
A meeting where a bunch of non-technical (or semi-technical) guys sit there spouting off all sorts of buzzwords is as useful as an echo chamber. Sadly, I've seen this happen, and they bring their 'solution' to engineering and ask 'how long it will take to get this implemented'. Amidst heavy eye rolling from the technical people, everyone has to go into damage control mode and pray nothing has already been said to the customer.
One Time Pad is secure so long as the pad generators are not predictable. You need more than a single pad though; one for each of the parties communicating.
No, because the hospital admission rate shows that pedestrian / cyclist collisions on the sidewalk is less likely than each of the other three - AND - that of those, it's usually a kid (young enough to be allowed on the sidewalk) on a bicycle that gets hurt.
As I said, dickheads will be dickheads; which doesn't magically imply that there are no dickhead cyclists. Just that "dickhead+cyclist" is not the greatest pedestrian threat on the sidewalk, and is far below the other three.
And it also doesn't imply that sidewalking pedestrians / cyclist collisions never happen.
Accidents are often caused by bikers, not just by car or truck or motorcycle drivers.
Funnily, in Australia a Monash University study found that 87% of accidents between a cyclist and a car was caused by the car. So, yes some are caused by the cyclist going for a Darwin Award, but the vast majority are caused by the driver of the car.
Don't worry, it's far more likely that a skateboarder, jogger or car turning into a driveway will knock you over on the sidewalk. Dickheads will be dickheads no matter what mode of transport they employ or where they use it.
...or people are swinging them around with equal disregard to their surroundings.
This.
People focus solely on the phone/camera image on the end of the stick and don't watch the surroundings. Maybe in an open area with nothing nearby people might have a little extra peripheral concentration to pay attention. But, in a dark partly crowded museum with people and exhibits everywhere, I find people barely pay enough attention when they use their cameras without a selfie stick. When that stick comes out, forget about it.
Yeah right, so it's none of my business if I have to waste my time waiting to walk down a narrow corridor because every second git is trying to capture a picture of themselves next to some random exhibit. And it's not my problem that I have to do the limbo rock to get underneath the selfie sticks, or get whacked across the head because I didn't see the extended shaft in the low ambient lighting at the museum.
It doesn't happen often, but when it does it is really annoying. The last time I went to the museum, there was a bus load of tourists doing exactly that. Luckily some loudmouth tourist from another country cracked the shits first and loudly told everyone to take a break from the selfies and the let people past.
I always tell the people who complain that I've brought a big arse camera that I've brought mine so no one else has to bring theirs. This means everyone can relax and enjoy the experience while I enjoy capturing it.
For anyone that wants to know what the music sounds like; it is conventional instrumental ambient music with a nice ensemble of guitar/bass/piano(synth)/drums. It sounds pretty relaxing, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual like brain wave synced synthesiser swirls and crashing waves. Although some of the percussion is reminiscent of nature.
I really like the electric guitar and synth tones he uses. Bad guitar tone and cheap sounding synths are two of my pet hates - but this music delivers quality tone, so nothing to complain about.
Worth a listen for anyone interested.