...and that's what I get for indulging the speculation of a poster who didn't RTFA, without first reading TFA myself.
It isn't the mass they say is off. It's the size. I stand by my fundamental point though: 4% of a small number is still 4%, and applying human scale to subatomic particles is nonsense.
"4% of 0.0000000000000000000000000167 grams" is still 4%. On the scale of atoms, it's a huge difference; imposing the scale of day-to-day experience by measuring it in grams is misleading. You then might as well say "the total mass of a proton doesn't matter at all" because it is a very small number of grams; calling it surprising that "even a physicist" wouldn't do that is flatly incorrect.
Once we dismiss the mass of a proton, we might as well dismiss the mass of a neutron (which is similarly a very small number of grams). In that case I'm not sure where exactly we should say the mass of matter is accumulated, though.
Which brings up another point: if the mass of each proton is 4% less, then the mass of all protons combined in a macroscopic lump of matter is 4% less... yet the object weighs the same as it did yesterday. Given the rather wide range of materials we've weighed, I suspect that's a little harder to explain than it sounds.
That's all fine and good in a textbook, and yet in the real world any number of people have "decoded" the message. Your objections are that the function is "one-way" and that it is not 1-to-1 (implying that there is no inverse function). However:
"One-way function" only means "we don't know a convenient mathematical operation to reverse this"; if you want it to mean more, then there are no one-way functions. That the best algorithm for reversing the MD5 hash function may consist of "check likely inputs until you find a match", doesn't mean there's no algorithm. And, that is exactly what people have done to correctly decode the message.
The fact that the same string could represent some other message in a different context doesn't change its unambiguous meaning in this context. A function that isn't 1-to-1 doesn't have a single general inverse, but it does have any number of inverses over restricted domains. That's why it's possible to have functions like arcsin.
Maybe the PR guy isn't so much "ingorant" as "more interested in practical matters than mathematical theory". Pretty good attitude if your organization is going to deal with real-world security, actually.
"Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels"
I wasn't aware you were a business executive with knowledge of how to run a successful company. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just an asshat spouting off on slashdot.
But hey, if you want to believe that the Fortune 500 are run by retarded weasels, then perhaps you should do some graduate research to find out why retarded weasles make such successful businessmen and you don't.
"Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company"
Yes, you said that after comparing what the agency was doing to the practices of a private company. The fail isn't my comprehension; the fail is you.
"No, oversight. Financial and otherwise."
Micromanagement under the guise of oversight is still micromanagement.
"If surfing never came up in the context of TSA work why would they ban it? Hmmm?"
What kind of nonsense question is that? My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
"And what they decide is only as appropriate as we, their bosses, say it is. This isn't some private company."
Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies. Good luck with that. (But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government, you might look into the typical relationship of stockholders to management in the corporate sector.)
A major component of most things you drink is water.
Most things you drink aren't bottled in your home town. (Including bottled water, if you're into that sort of thing.)
If somehow this technique were to be come a common defense tool, then someone planning a crime could shrewdly stockpile tap water from a city with a distinct signature that isn't where the crime will take place.
It might be marginally useful as a tool in a civil case if you want to convince the jury where someone was (but probably not if you want to convince them where he/she wasn't); I would hope it would be considered too inconclusive to be used in a criminal trial.
"Is there a timestamp attached to those water molecules?"
Well, there sort of is. Hair grows at the root only, so if I watch how the patterns change moving from the root of a hair to the tip, I can get a fuzzy sort of timeline of your waters' origin. Circumstances where that's precise enough to be useful, though, seem narrow.
As I've said elsewhere, I would certainly favor a system that gives recourse to class members who claim not to have known about the class.
I think a lot of this is missing the forest for the trees, though. The bottom line is, in every class action I've heard of (certainly including every one where I was included in the class), opting out of the class would only have preserevd the right to bring an individual action that would be more expensive to me than any compensation I could ever hope to be awarded.
The system is screwed up in particularly cynical ways, and in reality today there are attourneys who use the system to exploit both sides; but the fact that the defendent is "shielded" from further individual action by class members is the least of the things to worry about. If the rest of the system were set up correctly, it would be evident that such a shield is a necessary and just provision.
Yeah, it would be nice if they did that. It might even be profitable.
But here's the thing: You do realize, don't you, that their rights are not contingent on your approval of their product offerings? Either copyright is valid (in which case it is still valid even though they don't offer the product in the form you want) or it isn't (in which case it would remain invalid even if they offered the option you want).
If you're going to turn someone's phrasing back on them, try reading carefully enough to know what they said; or are you too stupid to know the difference between "indignant" and "ignorant"?
In any event, feel free to point out a class action where the only notice was buried in the NY Times classifieds. Or were you just full of crap? That the law doesn't prescribe mail as the only means of notice, does not change the fact that classes are notified by mail.
In a better world, an opt-in system wouldn't be a sure way to ensure that a class action never moved forward. Don't get me wrong, with the flaws in the settlement structure typically associated with a class action, I would sympathize if you argue that class actions shouldn't move forward; but if that's your position, just say so instead of dreaming up changes to the system that would effectively sabotage it.
In a better world, we wouldn't need class actions anyway because it would be economically feasible for each wronged individual to get individually compensated in a way that's actually meaningful and proportional to the harm done to that individual.
But we're in this world, and what I'd like to see is a system of class actions that are opt-out, but: (1) with recourse for class members who claim they weren't properly notified of the action; (2) with a prohibition on over-inflated fees to the attourneys; and (3) with a prohibition on the use of coupons or store credit to settle with the individuals in the class.
Well, don't let the facts get in the way of a good indignant rant, but in point of fact the members of the class are notified by mail. I typically get one or two such notices each year.
Next you complain that the notices are too long and nobody reads them, and then I point out you don't have to read them becuase you should know that there's always a right to opt out and all you have to do is find the info on how to do so.
If you can't be bothered to do that, it's apparently not that important to you to preserve the right to sue individually... which is probably because you already thought it through and realized your individual damages wouldn't justify the costs you would incur filing an individual action.
That, of course, is exactly why there is such a thing as a class action lawsuit. The concept of class action is not a bad one - the problem is with the settlement structure.
"but that's clearly a load of horse shit. It would just say so if that was the case."
If that's the depth of your understanding of the texts, then it's no wonder you've given up on them. Here's a hint: they were written for a different culture at a different time in a different language, and have since been reinterpreted and translated by people with their own agendas.
You make exactly the same mistake as the most dangerous types of religious fundamentalists: you put too much stock in the wording of (the version you've seen of) the religious texts.
When I hear a subset of the/. crowd claim that individuals should be allowed to "share" music files for free without fear of copyright lawsuits, I respectfully disagree (in general), but at least I get where they're coming from.
But I see a lot of people here wanting to defend sites that provide a means for anyone to watch movies on demand, taking a profit and not passing any compensation on to the rights-holders... which I guess makes sense if you think there shouldn't be copyright at all, but in that case my disagreement with your position is perhaps a bit less respectful.
Particularly intersting since any site that isn't engaged in copyright infringement gets screamed at if they dare make you look at an ad.
Seems to me taking the position against the rights-holders has become a knee-jerk reaction.
You didn't read the article but concluded that it's anti-Apple based on your failure to understand a criticism raised in the survey? How are you liking that coolaid (or is it cider in Jobs's cult)?
I don't develop iPod apps, but I care about the approval process. (Note that doesn't mean I have the same problems with it that a lot of other people do; to me, it means I consider the approval process as part of the definition of the product I'd be buying if I were to buy an iPad/iPhone/iPod.)
Non-technical friends of mine who use (or, in some cases, used to use) iPods/iPhones/iPads seem to be quite aware of the app store approval process - well beyond their awareness of other comparably technical subjects - because it gets a lot of press and it does affect them even if the fanboy contingent wants to pretend it doesn't. Perhaps they want an app that Apple refuses to approve, eh?
This problem (and related problems) are almost always poorly phrased. However, your assertion that failure to ask about the day-of-week of the 2nd child's birth makes the day-of-week of the 1st child's birth irrelevant is incorrect, if the problem is understood as it was intended. And actually my own phrasing there is a bit poor there, because the crux of the problem is that there is no ordering - no "1st child" and "2nd child".
A better (or in any event less misleading) phrasing would be: "There are two children. It is a given that one of them is a male born on Tuesday. What are the odds that both are males?"
IMO the most explicit way to state the problem is: Take a large number of 2-child families. Dismiss any of them that do not have at least one male child who was born on a Tuesday. Randomly select one of the remaining families. What are the odds that the family you've selected has two male children?
In that phrasing, it's easier to see why the answer is less than 50% (since I didn't distinguish one child from the other you can't treat their genders as independent events) but more than 25% (the demographics of the families you dismiss are skewed). The "birthday" factor changes the skew, so it is not irrelevant.
It is a common complaint among those who don't reach the correct answer, that this isn't really the question that was asked. It is; it was just asked poorly.
If someone else was in possession of the pictures that were shared, then those pictures were not your private information. Your beef should be with your sister, not Facebook.
Oh, and people don't need social networking sites or physical contact with everyone in your building to prank you by distributing photos you don't want distributed. That kind of thing has gone on for decades.
Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.
1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.
2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.
You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.
No, the state law that Detroit is trying to overturn is about 4 years old. The contract Comcast is said to be ignoring, on the other hand... From TFA: "The city is seeking to overturn Comcast's current franchise agreement with the city and reinstate its 1985 franchise." And: "...since imposing a new franchise agreement in April 2007, Comcast has violated the 1985 franchise..."
That makes the contract in question 25 years old. Thanks for playing.
I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.
The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?
Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.
I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.
If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.
IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.
Slashdot Mirror
...and that's what I get for indulging the speculation of a poster who didn't RTFA, without first reading TFA myself.
It isn't the mass they say is off. It's the size. I stand by my fundamental point though: 4% of a small number is still 4%, and applying human scale to subatomic particles is nonsense.
"4% of 0.0000000000000000000000000167 grams" is still 4%. On the scale of atoms, it's a huge difference; imposing the scale of day-to-day experience by measuring it in grams is misleading. You then might as well say "the total mass of a proton doesn't matter at all" because it is a very small number of grams; calling it surprising that "even a physicist" wouldn't do that is flatly incorrect.
Once we dismiss the mass of a proton, we might as well dismiss the mass of a neutron (which is similarly a very small number of grams). In that case I'm not sure where exactly we should say the mass of matter is accumulated, though.
Which brings up another point: if the mass of each proton is 4% less, then the mass of all protons combined in a macroscopic lump of matter is 4% less... yet the object weighs the same as it did yesterday. Given the rather wide range of materials we've weighed, I suspect that's a little harder to explain than it sounds.
That's all fine and good in a textbook, and yet in the real world any number of people have "decoded" the message. Your objections are that the function is "one-way" and that it is not 1-to-1 (implying that there is no inverse function). However:
"One-way function" only means "we don't know a convenient mathematical operation to reverse this"; if you want it to mean more, then there are no one-way functions. That the best algorithm for reversing the MD5 hash function may consist of "check likely inputs until you find a match", doesn't mean there's no algorithm. And, that is exactly what people have done to correctly decode the message.
The fact that the same string could represent some other message in a different context doesn't change its unambiguous meaning in this context. A function that isn't 1-to-1 doesn't have a single general inverse, but it does have any number of inverses over restricted domains. That's why it's possible to have functions like arcsin.
Maybe the PR guy isn't so much "ingorant" as "more interested in practical matters than mathematical theory". Pretty good attitude if your organization is going to deal with real-world security, actually.
"Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels"
I wasn't aware you were a business executive with knowledge of how to run a successful company. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just an asshat spouting off on slashdot.
But hey, if you want to believe that the Fortune 500 are run by retarded weasels, then perhaps you should do some graduate research to find out why retarded weasles make such successful businessmen and you don't.
"Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company"
Yes, you said that after comparing what the agency was doing to the practices of a private company. The fail isn't my comprehension; the fail is you.
"No, oversight. Financial and otherwise."
Micromanagement under the guise of oversight is still micromanagement.
"If surfing never came up in the context of TSA work why would they ban it? Hmmm?"
What kind of nonsense question is that? My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
"And what they decide is only as appropriate as we, their bosses, say it is. This isn't some private company."
Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies. Good luck with that. (But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government, you might look into the typical relationship of stockholders to management in the corporate sector.)
Another fun but pointless fact: tin foil isn't made of aluminum.
Your defense strategy if caught training with terrorists would be to lie about what country yuo were in?
Good luck with that.
A major component of most things you drink is water.
Most things you drink aren't bottled in your home town. (Including bottled water, if you're into that sort of thing.)
If somehow this technique were to be come a common defense tool, then someone planning a crime could shrewdly stockpile tap water from a city with a distinct signature that isn't where the crime will take place.
It might be marginally useful as a tool in a civil case if you want to convince the jury where someone was (but probably not if you want to convince them where he/she wasn't); I would hope it would be considered too inconclusive to be used in a criminal trial.
"Is there a timestamp attached to those water molecules?"
Well, there sort of is. Hair grows at the root only, so if I watch how the patterns change moving from the root of a hair to the tip, I can get a fuzzy sort of timeline of your waters' origin. Circumstances where that's precise enough to be useful, though, seem narrow.
As I've said elsewhere, I would certainly favor a system that gives recourse to class members who claim not to have known about the class.
I think a lot of this is missing the forest for the trees, though. The bottom line is, in every class action I've heard of (certainly including every one where I was included in the class), opting out of the class would only have preserevd the right to bring an individual action that would be more expensive to me than any compensation I could ever hope to be awarded.
The system is screwed up in particularly cynical ways, and in reality today there are attourneys who use the system to exploit both sides; but the fact that the defendent is "shielded" from further individual action by class members is the least of the things to worry about. If the rest of the system were set up correctly, it would be evident that such a shield is a necessary and just provision.
Yeah, it would be nice if they did that. It might even be profitable.
But here's the thing: You do realize, don't you, that their rights are not contingent on your approval of their product offerings? Either copyright is valid (in which case it is still valid even though they don't offer the product in the form you want) or it isn't (in which case it would remain invalid even if they offered the option you want).
If you're going to turn someone's phrasing back on them, try reading carefully enough to know what they said; or are you too stupid to know the difference between "indignant" and "ignorant"?
In any event, feel free to point out a class action where the only notice was buried in the NY Times classifieds. Or were you just full of crap? That the law doesn't prescribe mail as the only means of notice, does not change the fact that classes are notified by mail.
In a better world, an opt-in system wouldn't be a sure way to ensure that a class action never moved forward. Don't get me wrong, with the flaws in the settlement structure typically associated with a class action, I would sympathize if you argue that class actions shouldn't move forward; but if that's your position, just say so instead of dreaming up changes to the system that would effectively sabotage it.
In a better world, we wouldn't need class actions anyway because it would be economically feasible for each wronged individual to get individually compensated in a way that's actually meaningful and proportional to the harm done to that individual.
But we're in this world, and what I'd like to see is a system of class actions that are opt-out, but: (1) with recourse for class members who claim they weren't properly notified of the action; (2) with a prohibition on over-inflated fees to the attourneys; and (3) with a prohibition on the use of coupons or store credit to settle with the individuals in the class.
Well, don't let the facts get in the way of a good indignant rant, but in point of fact the members of the class are notified by mail. I typically get one or two such notices each year.
Next you complain that the notices are too long and nobody reads them, and then I point out you don't have to read them becuase you should know that there's always a right to opt out and all you have to do is find the info on how to do so.
If you can't be bothered to do that, it's apparently not that important to you to preserve the right to sue individually... which is probably because you already thought it through and realized your individual damages wouldn't justify the costs you would incur filing an individual action.
That, of course, is exactly why there is such a thing as a class action lawsuit. The concept of class action is not a bad one - the problem is with the settlement structure.
"but that's clearly a load of horse shit. It would just say so if that was the case."
If that's the depth of your understanding of the texts, then it's no wonder you've given up on them. Here's a hint: they were written for a different culture at a different time in a different language, and have since been reinterpreted and translated by people with their own agendas.
You make exactly the same mistake as the most dangerous types of religious fundamentalists: you put too much stock in the wording of (the version you've seen of) the religious texts.
When I hear a subset of the /. crowd claim that individuals should be allowed to "share" music files for free without fear of copyright lawsuits, I respectfully disagree (in general), but at least I get where they're coming from.
But I see a lot of people here wanting to defend sites that provide a means for anyone to watch movies on demand, taking a profit and not passing any compensation on to the rights-holders... which I guess makes sense if you think there shouldn't be copyright at all, but in that case my disagreement with your position is perhaps a bit less respectful.
Particularly intersting since any site that isn't engaged in copyright infringement gets screamed at if they dare make you look at an ad.
Seems to me taking the position against the rights-holders has become a knee-jerk reaction.
You do know there's an easy way not to be stripped of your right to file an individual lawsuit, right?
Apple will only be shielded from further suits in which the plaintif failed to opt out of the class action.
". . . based on how it was held by a conductor (eg, you)"
Huh? I don't stand in front of an orchestra waving my arms around...
You didn't read the article but concluded that it's anti-Apple based on your failure to understand a criticism raised in the survey? How are you liking that coolaid (or is it cider in Jobs's cult)?
I don't develop iPod apps, but I care about the approval process. (Note that doesn't mean I have the same problems with it that a lot of other people do; to me, it means I consider the approval process as part of the definition of the product I'd be buying if I were to buy an iPad/iPhone/iPod.)
Non-technical friends of mine who use (or, in some cases, used to use) iPods/iPhones/iPads seem to be quite aware of the app store approval process - well beyond their awareness of other comparably technical subjects - because it gets a lot of press and it does affect them even if the fanboy contingent wants to pretend it doesn't. Perhaps they want an app that Apple refuses to approve, eh?
You're assuming the motive was to manipulate the outcome.
Did it not occur to you that maybe the motive was to provide any outcome that would look real enough to get paid, while not doing as much work?
This problem (and related problems) are almost always poorly phrased. However, your assertion that failure to ask about the day-of-week of the 2nd child's birth makes the day-of-week of the 1st child's birth irrelevant is incorrect, if the problem is understood as it was intended. And actually my own phrasing there is a bit poor there, because the crux of the problem is that there is no ordering - no "1st child" and "2nd child".
A better (or in any event less misleading) phrasing would be: "There are two children. It is a given that one of them is a male born on Tuesday. What are the odds that both are males?"
IMO the most explicit way to state the problem is: Take a large number of 2-child families. Dismiss any of them that do not have at least one male child who was born on a Tuesday. Randomly select one of the remaining families. What are the odds that the family you've selected has two male children?
In that phrasing, it's easier to see why the answer is less than 50% (since I didn't distinguish one child from the other you can't treat their genders as independent events) but more than 25% (the demographics of the families you dismiss are skewed). The "birthday" factor changes the skew, so it is not irrelevant.
It is a common complaint among those who don't reach the correct answer, that this isn't really the question that was asked. It is; it was just asked poorly.
If someone else was in possession of the pictures that were shared, then those pictures were not your private information. Your beef should be with your sister, not Facebook.
Oh, and people don't need social networking sites or physical contact with everyone in your building to prank you by distributing photos you don't want distributed. That kind of thing has gone on for decades.
Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.
1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.
2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.
You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.
No, the state law that Detroit is trying to overturn is about 4 years old. The contract Comcast is said to be ignoring, on the other hand... From TFA: "The city is seeking to overturn Comcast's current franchise agreement with the city and reinstate its 1985 franchise." And: "...since imposing a new franchise agreement in April 2007, Comcast has violated the 1985 franchise..."
That makes the contract in question 25 years old. Thanks for playing.
I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.
The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?
Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.
I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.
If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.
IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.