I think it's possible to make the valid point that just hiding your communications, even if done perfectly, is not enough, and pursuing social change in addition to that is also needed, without casting baseless aspersions on cryptography in general. TFA strays too far towards the latter IMO.
That only a fraction of a percent of humanity is currently capable/willing to ensure that their crypto ducks are in a row is a more valid point, and how to get the general population to choose the right platforms/apps/providers when there is no way to establish trust relationships that is not vulnerable to everyone ending up trusting a prick -- that is also a valid point.
Eventually, however, social prohibitions against snooping will become impossible to enforce at the individual level, forget at the institutional level, just like it has become rather impossible these days to stop a determined individual from eavesdropping on face-to-face conversations, nor even prosecute them were a listening device discovered, if they were careful enough. There's a window past which the technical execution of strong crypto will be the only recourse left.
Yeah, I would say to the OP that it matters what information you touch or privileges you have in that job position, e.g. if you are running around to network racks with a "god key" having theft as a conviction would not be a good match.
I would say that, but the truth is that in a lot of places whether they even check is arbitrary, and then what they do with the information is also arbitrary. HR and hiring committees in general tend to be a quite slapdash.
Shoot a randomly speckled light pattern through a splitter. Put one copy of the pattern into a multipixel camera, then multiply what the multpixel camera saw with what the single pixel receiver saw after the second copy of the pattern bounced off or through the target. Rinse repeat, sum that array of pixels over lots of iterations. Basically that tweaked with additional statistics and physics for efficiency/accuracy. Perhaps eliminate the multipixel camera if you can find some other way to know the speckle patterns you emit.
Still not clear on how they get the duplicate of the post-scattering image when using a chicken breast as a scatterer, myself, though. Maybe they are acattering before the chicken breast and just have found additional math to compensate for the scattering in the chicken.
They are telling English speakers to pronounce it "DevOne" because that's how it is pronounced in italian. Because they know English speakers tend to suffer from ethnocentrism and reading comprehension problems.
It does half of what Jack does, and a few desktop-related things Jack doesn't yet, and saps developer talent away from Jack, preventing Jack from maturing into something beyond an audiophile server, as far as I can tell. Also it further inflicts INI-style config files on anyone unfortunate enough to have to mess with its innards. (Behold the mess in/usr/share/pulseaudio/ and it's poorly commented contorted structure)
"Ambient" is important to define here. The temperature of the air is not actually playing much of a role in the black body equation. If the sky was made of more buildings at ambient temperature, then the story would be different, but other than the sun it's mostly an open pit into which anything radiated never returns. Also keep in mind that that figure may be referencing the temperature of the air near the whole building including the lower floors; it is cooler up high on tall buildings.
The idea is that the heat provided from within the building and the heat from the 3% of sunlight that gets through the mirror all pools and the mirror material then converts it to a specific passband. So you have more heat pooling than what comes in on that passband.
How effective this system remains when contaminated with a coat of dust is a question. Also comparative advantage to absorbing the heat/light and using it to power AC.
Funny, the presence of that search box is the only reason I still prefer firefox over Chrome or Opera.
Being able to cache a search term in that box and still alter URLs and then go back to my pre-typed search term and mod it and then use it to replace a tab's contents is indispensible.
I still use Firefox for any "real browsing" because the others don't have a separate search box without adding an extension, an extension which eventually breaks or robs you of another 5 minutes of your time when you have to start fresh on a new system. Having that extra box hanging around so you can modify search terms while still having a url bar to type in is just too essential when actually doing serious research on the web.
But for performance and thorough feature support I sometimes have to use chrome. Luckily you can still disable the annoying omnibar search by defining a null "search engine" which just browses https://s/ and clicking a few options to limit the amount of stuff that can appear in the evil focus-grabbing dropdown menu. So for 1 minute of customization time you can get chrome to the point where it's half as useful as firefox for browsing and it doesn't hose your CPU under linux like firefox.
I do hope to see this downsized to an individual level that can help bring ad hoc mesh networks a little closer to being
TFA is about a refinement to tech that's existed for quite some decades now -- I remember pricing out dual FSO/microwave setups way back when. They never really came down into a price range where we could justify deploying them versus leasing telco, even the small ones, and we saw no real motion towards commoditization.
The cloning could go horribly wrong yielding birth defects, or the animal could endure a lifetime of suffering due to factors like (spitballing here) not having compatible intestinal flora.
You should start the business-account ticket process anyway. You might even convince them to proactively approach these services from their side. Defending the ability of one's assigned blocks to send email is one of the jobs of any address holder, even if Comcast doesn't care about how badly their residential customers are treated (by others as well as their own techs) they should care about business address ranges.
You could try demanding different addresses as well.
Yes, it did. Because quite regularly, those things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not actually true.
This is evident since people seem to "just know" things that are easily disprovable, not just hard to prove subject matter that requires a research paper.
A google of phrases like "most people think" can make for some fun afternoon reading.
I'd make a similar complaint, but the objective of this project is obviously just to harvest a base of credentials. It's such a bad idea on the surface when they could just mine wikipedia, that I don;t believe for a second they are serious about the product.
In all seriousness, were GNOME-the-desktop to have some major security incident and it affects the viability of GNOME-the-PoS with potential customers by associating the brand with security problems in search engine results, someone will start to appreciate the merit of avoiding name collisions.
Neither are interframe arrival times on just about any traffic monitored, and one could easily encode a cnc to look at stat counters on the interfaces.
So really this is in the area of "horse already left the barn."
A vulnerability that requires standing on one leg while juggling two white cats and wearing a clown nose is something they can keep to themselves, because it's so unlikely that anyone else will stumble across it.
...and they have an ample supply of cats and clown noses.
This argument is as spurious as the frames of reference and definitions needed to support it are extreme. Also the orginal post didn't say there were no flaws with "simultaneity", just that calling it "wrong" was "wrong." It's well known that any causal relationship is preserved from any frame of reference, and furthermore "events" on the macro scale don't happen at a discrete moment in time. If you have a balloon with a chipmunk suspended inside it, and you release the chipmunk so it falls and pops the balloon, it can be said with perfect accuracy that the baloon popped simultaneuously with the chipmunk falling, assuming the balloon was not on a table and the chipmunk continued to fall past the edge of the balloon.
The arguments against "simultaneity" require the precise scientific definition of the term, which should be confined to academic papers.
Do not try the above experiment at home.
The general gist of the matter is it would be technically possible to "synchronize" these clocks in the sense that with enough external data to accurately determine the frames of reference involved, we could know the time on one of the clocks as observed by an individual next to that clock from the value of another a clock next to us, even if that individual could never tell us the time on the clock because by the time any communication reached us, it would be stale. This despite the fact that the clocks are actually running at different rates on most frames of reference, not just different offsets. If that was done bilaterally, and both calculations yielded each other's input value, both parties could agree that, in retrospect, they read the clocks at the same "time".
An external observer to both clocks might see the readings happen at different times, but if they have any intellect they have to account for their perspective not being the only valid one.
It would also be possible to construct an average aggregate clock out of a group of these, the question is merely the utility of such a clock, since instead of a "timezone" you'd have a "framezone" where you'd have both an offset and an ongoing drift, not to mention the parameters of that adjustment would not be constant because phenomina like shifting planetary crust don't play nice.
We would not be able to measure the speed of light without such systems, so they obviously play an important role.
It is not just a matter of clocks, but that observers at different speeds will have a difference sense of when things they see happen at the same versus different times.
This assumes the observer is not capable of measuring the velocity to the observed system and compensating for it. Given enough data, the two observers at different velocities could calculate what time each of the two events would have occured at if at the exact time of the event the system the two observers magically teleported to the same location. The problems are agreeing on a mutual standardized location/frame and acquiring said data. You can construct systems where the former is difficult, but there are far more simple applications where it is not difficult to do so. The latter may indeed be very difficult.
Maybe I'm up too late, but this post makes no sense to me whatseoever. It's the usual "major parties both suck" substance-free mantra that gets mod points, followed by some sort of assertion that people who vote for major party candidates believe cops will know how they voted and retaliate (clue: people who believe that vote libertarian. Or well some of them probably vote for extremist parties as well.) There are reaons people vote for major parties. They may not be right or even strategic reasons, but they are not some ridiclous fear of institutional retaliation. Were they, we would not have so many registered independents.
More importantly, it means there is probably something larger than an asteriod to settle on a lot closer to us than Alpha Centauri. Of course we'd need a buttload of reactor power to survive in such an environment.
Well, IIRC it is stated in TFA with the right equipment the range could be extended up to several centimeters or perhaps more. Not sure how accurate that statement is though.
Enough to, say, be pretty disturbing if coupled to a sensor for metabolites in a urinal.
Slashdot Mirror
If your crypto is vulnerable in this way, it is not technically executed correctly.
I think it's possible to make the valid point that just hiding your communications, even if done perfectly, is not enough, and pursuing social change in addition to that is also needed, without casting baseless aspersions on cryptography in general. TFA strays too far towards the latter IMO.
That only a fraction of a percent of humanity is currently capable/willing to ensure that their crypto ducks are in a row is a more valid point, and how to get the general population to choose the right platforms/apps/providers when there is no way to establish trust relationships that is not vulnerable to everyone ending up trusting a prick -- that is also a valid point.
Eventually, however, social prohibitions against snooping will become impossible to enforce at the individual level, forget at the institutional level, just like it has become rather impossible these days to stop a determined individual from eavesdropping on face-to-face conversations, nor even prosecute them were a listening device discovered, if they were careful enough. There's a window past which the technical execution of strong crypto will be the only recourse left.
Yeah, I would say to the OP that it matters what information you touch or privileges you have in that job position, e.g. if you are running around to network racks with a "god key" having theft as a conviction would not be a good match.
I would say that, but the truth is that in a lot of places whether they even check is arbitrary, and then what they do with the information is also arbitrary. HR and hiring committees in general tend to be a quite slapdash.
Shoot a randomly speckled light pattern through a splitter. Put one copy of the pattern into a multipixel camera, then multiply what the multpixel camera saw with what the single pixel receiver saw after the second copy of the pattern bounced off or through the target. Rinse repeat, sum that array of pixels over lots of iterations. Basically that tweaked with additional statistics and physics for efficiency/accuracy. Perhaps eliminate the multipixel camera if you can find some other way to know the speckle patterns you emit.
Still not clear on how they get the duplicate of the post-scattering image when using a chicken breast as a scatterer, myself, though. Maybe they are acattering before the chicken breast and just have found additional math to compensate for the scattering in the chicken.
You're thinking too small. Used on lottery scratch tickets it would provide resources to then buy boobies and a beer to boot.
They are telling English speakers to pronounce it "DevOne" because that's how it is pronounced in italian. Because they know English speakers tend to suffer from ethnocentrism and reading comprehension problems.
It does half of what Jack does, and a few desktop-related things Jack doesn't yet, and saps developer talent away from Jack, preventing Jack from maturing into something beyond an audiophile server, as far as I can tell. Also it further inflicts INI-style config files on anyone unfortunate enough to have to mess with its innards. (Behold the mess in /usr/share/pulseaudio/ and it's poorly commented contorted structure)
Then why aren't you hearing anything from the Red Hat customer base?
I am. Were I to walk into the systems suite here at work and yell "yeah centos 7!" I would probably be bombarded with nerf darts. In a mean way.
"Ambient" is important to define here. The temperature of the air is not actually playing much of a role in the black body equation. If the sky was made of more buildings at ambient temperature, then the story would be different, but other than the sun it's mostly an open pit into which anything radiated never returns. Also keep in mind that that figure may be referencing the temperature of the air near the whole building including the lower floors; it is cooler up high on tall buildings.
The idea is that the heat provided from within the building and the heat from the 3% of sunlight that gets through the mirror all pools and the mirror material then converts it to a specific passband. So you have more heat pooling than what comes in on that passband.
How effective this system remains when contaminated with a coat of dust is a question. Also comparative advantage to absorbing the heat/light and using it to power AC.
Funny, the presence of that search box is the only reason I still prefer firefox over Chrome or Opera.
Being able to cache a search term in that box and still alter URLs and then go back to my pre-typed search term and mod it and then use it to replace a tab's contents is indispensible.
I still use Firefox for any "real browsing" because the others don't have a separate search box without adding an extension, an extension which eventually breaks or robs you of another 5 minutes of your time when you have to start fresh on a new system. Having that extra box hanging around so you can modify search terms while still having a url bar to type in is just too essential when actually doing serious research on the web.
But for performance and thorough feature support I sometimes have to use chrome. Luckily you can still disable the annoying omnibar search by defining a null "search engine" which just browses https://s/ and clicking a few options to limit the amount of stuff that can appear in the evil focus-grabbing dropdown menu. So for 1 minute of customization time you can get chrome to the point where it's half as useful as firefox for browsing and it doesn't hose your CPU under linux like firefox.
I do hope to see this downsized to an individual level that can help bring ad hoc mesh networks a little closer to being
TFA is about a refinement to tech that's existed for quite some decades now -- I remember pricing out dual FSO/microwave setups way back when. They never really came down into a price range where we could justify deploying them versus leasing telco, even the small ones, and we saw no real motion towards commoditization.
The cloning could go horribly wrong yielding birth defects, or the animal could endure a lifetime of suffering due to factors like (spitballing here) not having compatible intestinal flora.
You should start the business-account ticket process anyway. You might even convince them to proactively approach these services from their side. Defending the ability of one's assigned blocks to send email is one of the jobs of any address holder, even if Comcast doesn't care about how badly their residential customers are treated (by others as well as their own techs) they should care about business address ranges.
You could try demanding different addresses as well.
Yes, it did. Because quite regularly, those things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not actually true.
This is evident since people seem to "just know" things that are easily disprovable, not just hard to prove subject matter that requires a research paper.
A google of phrases like "most people think" can make for some fun afternoon reading.
I'd make a similar complaint, but the objective of this project is obviously just to harvest a base of credentials. It's such a bad idea on the surface when they could just mine wikipedia, that I don;t believe for a second they are serious about the product.
Heh. I see what you did there.
In all seriousness, were GNOME-the-desktop to have some major security incident and it affects the viability of GNOME-the-PoS with potential customers by associating the brand with security problems in search engine results, someone will start to appreciate the merit of avoiding name collisions.
Neither are interframe arrival times on just about any traffic monitored, and one could easily encode a cnc to look at stat counters on the interfaces.
So really this is in the area of "horse already left the barn."
Those academic scientists at (insert school) and their money grubbing ways, always asking for a handout, feeding off the public trough.
A vulnerability that requires standing on one leg while juggling two white cats and wearing a clown nose is something they can keep to themselves, because it's so unlikely that anyone else will stumble across it.
...and they have an ample supply of cats and clown noses.
This argument is as spurious as the frames of reference and definitions needed to support it are extreme. Also the orginal post didn't say there were no flaws with "simultaneity", just that calling it "wrong" was "wrong." It's well known that any causal relationship is preserved from any frame of reference, and furthermore "events" on the macro scale don't happen at a discrete moment in time. If you have a balloon with a chipmunk suspended inside it, and you release the chipmunk so it falls and pops the balloon, it can be said with perfect accuracy that the baloon popped simultaneuously with the chipmunk falling, assuming the balloon was not on a table and the chipmunk continued to fall past the edge of the balloon.
The arguments against "simultaneity" require the precise scientific definition of the term, which should be confined to academic papers.
Do not try the above experiment at home.
The general gist of the matter is it would be technically possible to "synchronize" these clocks in the sense that with enough external data to accurately determine the frames of reference involved, we could know the time on one of the clocks as observed by an individual next to that clock from the value of another a clock next to us, even if that individual could never tell us the time on the clock because by the time any communication reached us, it would be stale. This despite the fact that the clocks are actually running at different rates on most frames of reference, not just different offsets. If that was done bilaterally, and both calculations yielded each other's input value, both parties could agree that, in retrospect, they read the clocks at the same "time".
An external observer to both clocks might see the readings happen at different times, but if they have any intellect they have to account for their perspective not being the only valid one.
It would also be possible to construct an average aggregate clock out of a group of these, the question is merely the utility of such a clock, since instead of a "timezone" you'd have a "framezone" where you'd have both an offset and an ongoing drift, not to mention the parameters of that adjustment would not be constant because phenomina like shifting planetary crust don't play nice.
We would not be able to measure the speed of light without such systems, so they obviously play an important role.
It is not just a matter of clocks, but that observers at different speeds will have a difference sense of when things they see happen at the same versus different times.
This assumes the observer is not capable of measuring the velocity to the observed system and compensating for it. Given enough data, the two observers at different velocities could calculate what time each of the two events would have occured at if at the exact time of the event the system the two observers magically teleported to the same location. The problems are agreeing on a mutual standardized location/frame and acquiring said data. You can construct systems where the former is difficult, but there are far more simple applications where it is not difficult to do so. The latter may indeed be very difficult.
Maybe I'm up too late, but this post makes no sense to me whatseoever. It's the usual "major parties both suck" substance-free mantra that gets mod points, followed by some sort of assertion that people who vote for major party candidates believe cops will know how they voted and retaliate (clue: people who believe that vote libertarian. Or well some of them probably vote for extremist parties as well.) There are reaons people vote for major parties. They may not be right or even strategic reasons, but they are not some ridiclous fear of institutional retaliation. Were they, we would not have so many registered independents.
More importantly, it means there is probably something larger than an asteriod to settle on a lot closer to us than Alpha Centauri. Of course we'd need a buttload of reactor power to survive in such an environment.
Well, IIRC it is stated in TFA with the right equipment the range could be extended up to several centimeters or perhaps more. Not sure how accurate that statement is though.
Enough to, say, be pretty disturbing if coupled to a sensor for metabolites in a urinal.