I'd describe it more as a "social group" and then it is obvious that, given the option, people will gravitate towards groups that cause them the least social stress / most social support.
Essentially being a causeless effect, or rather an effect that causes it's cause never to have occurred?
Pretty much, yep. Because you are now existing at a prior point in the chain of causality. So you've already accepted either: 1. circular causality (and a supreme janitor who cleans up the past to keep the future tidy) (and how would you tell the difference) or
2. effect without cause (because you exist prior to your parents giving birth to you).
The problem with all of those approaches is that they assume a "meta-time" (even if not stated as such) that will alter the PRESENT based upon changes in the FUTURE.
That's how a photograph that you have right (taken in the future) now will change based upon events that have not happened yet.
Once you get past that, you understand that there is no "grandfather paradox". If it exists in the current time then it exists in the current time. The future will not reach back and "clean up" the present to make it more acceptable to the future.
Watch a week of The Daily Show. Watch how they compare current comments by politicians to past comments by those same politicians.
I don't think this is about the time-to-publish.
I think this is more about not having the depth or experience to dig into the background material. Reporters who really know their subject material will have no problem attracting viewers.
Our government needs MASSIVE improvements in their computer security. But the requirements of the government (get it secure now) are the opposite of the requirements of business (keep it just sucky enough to be able to sell the next version).
And with that situation, no matter how many smart people you have working in government, there will always be more work than they can do. Which leads to hiring people who are less smart. And just about anyone in IT can tell you what happens when you put less skilled people in charge of a system.
You may not know WHO has a password of y0m@mm@soF@t!!!eleven but you will know that SOMEONE (at least one person) in the organization has that password.
And if you are on the inside of that organization you'll know the pattern for forming usernames. That means that you'll only need to make a single attempt per username to crack someone's password (although you will not know who's password it is initially).
A better approach would be to simply store the hashes of the passwords that have been used or attempted in the past X days in a dictionary and not allow anyone to use those.
That way, the most common passwords will keep updating as they are attempted and will keep being forbidden. Even if no one has them as an actual password at this time.
And the people STILL share passwords because they cannot remember how to navigate through the various folders.
This is a case where I'd prefer the *nix method and just mount the directories under the user's home directory.
Technology will never be a match for someone's mindset. Bob's files are in Bob's directory on Bob's computer. If Alice wants to see Bob's files, Alice wants to go to Bob's computer. And then Alice wants to copy them to Alice's computer to work on them.
If the password can be easily remembered, it will end up in a dictionary.
But that doesn't matter. At least it doesn't in the way that TFA discusses passwords.
You have two different uses for passwords:
#1. Lets you login to your computer or account or whatever.
#2. Encrypts files that you don't want other people to read.
If we're dealing with #1 then simple passwords are perfect AS LONG AS SOMEONE IS MONITORING THE ACCOUNT FOR FAILED LOGIN ATTEMPTS and dealing with them (and having a delay between individual attempts).
In case #2 then you want a HUGE key because the file can be attacked off-line.
Watch the video. Clare asks him if he's finished his homework and he hangs his head.
Then he talks about wanting to write in his journal.
I'm thinking of a contest. What can you turn him into? Does he cut himself? Does he start fires? How about racist, given that he can recognize faces on a web cam.
IPv6 will cause a huge problem with existing blacklists.
It won't cause any problems with whitelists (which should be checked PRIOR to the blacklists).
But they're still going to have to go through routers. So we're going to have to work on hacks that identify the routers that the communication is traversing. Then you should be able to see the "gateways" to the spammy networks and adjust the scoring.
Or, to quote Jayne, "Ten percent of nothin' is... let me do the math here... nothin' into nothin'... carry the nothin'."
But that's not the issue here. If you want to make money with music, become a studio musician.
The RIAA is selling the dream of fame. You give them EVERYTHING and you get a shot at fame. And, as has been stated before, they could demand that you swim through a pool of sewage and if you refused, there would be someone else right behind you who would take that offer and think you were an idiot.
Suppose you could identify the customers who you didn't really want to keep? The ones that TRY to optimize their usage of your plans to THEIR benefit?
And the ones who call into your support lines driving up YOUR support line costs?
Everyone else is a "good" customer who takes what you provide and pays the price you demand.
So yeah, it makes sense at the corporate "fuck the customer" level to fire employees who not only aren't trying to "fuck the customer" but are trying to HELP the customer optimize the CUSTOMER'S usage of your plans.
It's not curious, Spamhaus didn't show up for court. The only evidence the court had to go by was e360's. It doesn't matter if a second grader could refute the evidence, there was nobody there to refute it.
Refuting the "evidence" should be secondary to establishing jurisdiction.
Since SpamHaus was not operating in that Court's jurisdiction, shouldn't that have cause the case to be thrown out?
Otherwise, anyone anywhere in the world can sue you and you'd have the burden of representing yourself in all the different venues. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
HDMI.001 ...
HDMI.002
HDMI.999
There, you're good for 999 versions and the names easily sort.
Back to the topic, just buy whatever cable, cut the bag open and if it doesn't work ... RETURN IT TO THE STORE FOR A REFUND.
The store will try to re-sell it ... but which of the regular customers are going to buy a cable when it is obviously rejected by someone else.
So, eventually, the store will try to return them to the manufacture for a refund.
That's when the manufacturers can put pressure to get the label restrictions fixed.
We use a 3rd party to monitor our sites and their IDS device runs snort.
The best stuff out there is Open.
s/cyber/blogosphere/g
Amazingly enough, it has the exact same relevance.
Nope. I mean that there is no way to set up an experiment to show that its claims are false.
And you're going to have to define "vertical evolution" if you want to start making claims about it.
Creationism should not be taught in a SCIENCE class because it is not science. There is no way to falsify any of its claims.
So what is distinctive about Group A that is not the same in Group B in that MMO?
Other than the name and colours they choose, they are exactly the same as almost every other grouping in those MMO's.
So what makes them "distinctive"?
I'd describe it more as a "social group" and then it is obvious that, given the option, people will gravitate towards groups that cause them the least social stress / most social support.
Pretty much, yep. Because you are now existing at a prior point in the chain of causality. So you've already accepted either:
1. circular causality (and a supreme janitor who cleans up the past to keep the future tidy) (and how would you tell the difference) or
2. effect without cause (because you exist prior to your parents giving birth to you).
The problem with all of those approaches is that they assume a "meta-time" (even if not stated as such) that will alter the PRESENT based upon changes in the FUTURE.
That's how a photograph that you have right (taken in the future) now will change based upon events that have not happened yet.
Once you get past that, you understand that there is no "grandfather paradox". If it exists in the current time then it exists in the current time. The future will not reach back and "clean up" the present to make it more acceptable to the future.
Obligatory cartoon linkage:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/
Watch a week of The Daily Show. Watch how they compare current comments by politicians to past comments by those same politicians.
I don't think this is about the time-to-publish.
I think this is more about not having the depth or experience to dig into the background material. Reporters who really know their subject material will have no problem attracting viewers.
Our government needs MASSIVE improvements in their computer security. But the requirements of the government (get it secure now) are the opposite of the requirements of business (keep it just sucky enough to be able to sell the next version).
And with that situation, no matter how many smart people you have working in government, there will always be more work than they can do. Which leads to hiring people who are less smart. And just about anyone in IT can tell you what happens when you put less skilled people in charge of a system.
It leaks information.
You may not know WHO has a password of y0m@mm@soF@t!!!eleven but you will know that SOMEONE (at least one person) in the organization has that password.
And if you are on the inside of that organization you'll know the pattern for forming usernames. That means that you'll only need to make a single attempt per username to crack someone's password (although you will not know who's password it is initially).
A better approach would be to simply store the hashes of the passwords that have been used or attempted in the past X days in a dictionary and not allow anyone to use those.
That way, the most common passwords will keep updating as they are attempted and will keep being forbidden. Even if no one has them as an actual password at this time.
And the people STILL share passwords because they cannot remember how to navigate through the various folders.
This is a case where I'd prefer the *nix method and just mount the directories under the user's home directory.
Technology will never be a match for someone's mindset. Bob's files are in Bob's directory on Bob's computer. If Alice wants to see Bob's files, Alice wants to go to Bob's computer. And then Alice wants to copy them to Alice's computer to work on them.
If the password can be easily remembered, it will end up in a dictionary.
But that doesn't matter. At least it doesn't in the way that TFA discusses passwords.
You have two different uses for passwords:
#1. Lets you login to your computer or account or whatever.
#2. Encrypts files that you don't want other people to read.
If we're dealing with #1 then simple passwords are perfect AS LONG AS SOMEONE IS MONITORING THE ACCOUNT FOR FAILED LOGIN ATTEMPTS and dealing with them (and having a delay between individual attempts).
In case #2 then you want a HUGE key because the file can be attacked off-line.
It's about a protein that modern chickens have that facilitates the development of the modern egg.
Therefore, at some time in the past that protein was NOT present in chickens (or proto-chickens).
Then, a non-protein-carrying proto-chicken laid an egg which hatched a mutant proto-chicken who DID have that protein.
So the answer, once again, is that the EGG was first.
Watch the video. Clare asks him if he's finished his homework and he hangs his head.
Then he talks about wanting to write in his journal.
I'm thinking of a contest. What can you turn him into? Does he cut himself? Does he start fires? How about racist, given that he can recognize faces on a web cam.
IPv6 will cause a huge problem with existing blacklists.
It won't cause any problems with whitelists (which should be checked PRIOR to the blacklists).
But they're still going to have to go through routers. So we're going to have to work on hacks that identify the routers that the communication is traversing. Then you should be able to see the "gateways" to the spammy networks and adjust the scoring.
Or, to quote Jayne, ... let me do the math here ... nothin' into nothin' ... carry the nothin'."
"Ten percent of nothin' is
But that's not the issue here. If you want to make money with music, become a studio musician.
The RIAA is selling the dream of fame. You give them EVERYTHING and you get a shot at fame. And, as has been stated before, they could demand that you swim through a pool of sewage and if you refused, there would be someone else right behind you who would take that offer and think you were an idiot.
http://www.debian.org/volatile/
Some of the Debian packages change faster than releases can keep up with them. So far, I haven't seen a similar project in Ubuntu.
Start with the basics. Map the traffic patterns and usage patterns.
Now, roll that data up from a hundred different companies.
You'll see the patterns.
Share that information (anonymized) with the companies so that they can hunt down any "weird" traffic on their networks.
Look at the average person who opposed desegregation. Now look at the average person who opposes gay rights.
See how they are almost identical?
Now look at the average person who supported desegregation. And ones who support gay rights.
See how they are almost identical?
Same background, political views, religious beliefs, even where they live.
We use it where I work and it has those same categories.
The annoying thing is that it blocks on-line betting sites as "gaming" in the same category as "zero punctuation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
What other "news" organization would go to court to defend their right to lie in a "news" story?
If you tell the viewers what the viewers want to hear (regardless of any factual basis) then you will attract a lot of viewers.
Suppose you could identify the customers who you didn't really want to keep? The ones that TRY to optimize their usage of your plans to THEIR benefit?
And the ones who call into your support lines driving up YOUR support line costs?
Everyone else is a "good" customer who takes what you provide and pays the price you demand.
So yeah, it makes sense at the corporate "fuck the customer" level to fire employees who not only aren't trying to "fuck the customer" but are trying to HELP the customer optimize the CUSTOMER'S usage of your plans.
Refuting the "evidence" should be secondary to establishing jurisdiction.
Since SpamHaus was not operating in that Court's jurisdiction, shouldn't that have cause the case to be thrown out?
Otherwise, anyone anywhere in the world can sue you and you'd have the burden of representing yourself in all the different venues. Why?