Doesn't really work with books either. Yesterday, I spend half an hour looking for the best book on, say, Chinese history, and today I get ads trying to sell me the rejects I passed over.
Maybe it works on people who buy Danielle Steel novels and Twilight.
Funny example. It is actually illegal in many places to keep found property (at least above a certain threshold; a mere $1 may be okay), it's just rarely caught or enforced. There have, however, been on occasion stings where the police, for example, leave a cash-laden wallet on the street with conspicuous police presence! If you see the cop, but pick up the wallet anyway and don't turn it in to the cop, you get busted.
It's also illegal to download copyrighted material. They don't go after it because it's harder to prove, and the damages are smaller making it a weaker deterrent and thus not worthwhile. They want huge damages, and they get them from sharers, because the sharer is argued to be partially responsible for the future downloads (if downloads were legal, they couldn't make this argument...) as well as, recursively, future re-shares.
Of course, conveniently, no one knows exactly how many times the shared file will be re-shared, and how much of this can be attributed to the victim of the lawsuit (after all, if they didn't share it, other peers would have probably provided the same bits), but oh wait, the RIAA is here with a wonderful statistical model for that, and they say it's $125,000 per song!
I should cite something, so this is from the Napster case: ``Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights." This is not mere sophistry (at least any more-so than any law is): the uploader offers the work, while the downloader is the one who initiates the copying. Both are illegal if copyright is held by neither party.
Maybe everyone here who complains constantly about the abuse of the H1B system can kick a few bucks her way to compensate for the risk she's undertaking to advance their agenda.
yeah, yeah, this is all true of course, but it misses the fucking point.
macs sell at a premium unwarranted by the technical specs.
however the technical specs don't include what matters: 1) the only consumer unix which is stable and feature-complete, 2) the only trackpad in the industry which doesn't suck.
i could live without (2), and i wish there were another choice for (1). if there were a variant of linux with the stability and features of mac os x, i'd happily pay $150+ per year to run it on a thinkpad. however, this isn't an option, and compared to what i'm willing to pay, a macbook is a bargain! a macbook lasts for at least 4 years, so $150*4=$600; easy!
apple is literally the only choice. i don't like that, and i acknowledge that apple is a monopolistic scumbag, but they're currently the only vendor who actually gives a shit about user experience and is willing to invest r&d in that.
i don't like giving apple my money, and i have to suppress the urge to vomit every time i have to go to their goddam "genius bar" to fix a silly problem with their hardware, but there's really no choice at the moment. i hope this changes.
since there aren't that many actual terrorists to test the system with, there really isn't much evidence... but there is some standard wisdom.
appearance: yes, because the adversary can easily figure it out and plan around it, or at least this is the usual argument. also, any judgment call or decision branch in the line slows it down for everyone because people are stupid and stubborn.
behavior: this might be effective, but it would slow the line down significantly and/or cost a lot. the point of security theatre is that it's cheaper than actually fixing things.
i've looked at some of the studies now in detail; they are far from conclusive. to convince me, i would want either a physical neurological explanation or a well-controlled twin study (i.e. well-controlled assignment to foster family). neither exists so far; i need more than a bunch of voodoo correlation.
note: i think that spanking is bad and counter-productive and i certainly wouldn't employ it with my children, but when something is statistically correlated to nearly everything negative, that's almost always statistical confounding.
this guy has seriously claimed, previously, that abolishing the spanking of children would be a necessary and major step toward abolishing the state. give me a fucking break.
I just watched this. It's pretty good, probably the best video format analysis of events.
If I were to criticize, I'd say that his speculation about drugs is a bit unwarranted (even given his "I'm not saying this actually happened, teehee" disclaimers, it's highly speculative), and of course Stefan Molyneux bangs on his ridiculous "spanking children causes the evils of society" drum.
Overall, it's a fair coverage, but he says nothing that you couldn't get from the wikipedia article and the first level of links. It's up to you; either 10 minutes of reading, or 35 minutes of listening.
sure, okay, probably. there are anecdotes both ways, but yeah, forcibly exporting american culture through financial war is one of our primary weapons, so sure.
i was, however, referring to american culture specifically (see, the article was about Obama and US elections...), so your points are irrelevant.
how is it criminal, and how would it be criminal in an ideal free market?
this is equivalent to 1) changing payment processor and 2) cutting wages slightly. unless part (2) takes one below the state-mandated minimum wage (which, btw, wouldn't exist in a free market), i don't see where the crime is.
did you read it? are you stupid? it doesn't have to be a mainstream tv advertisement or a glossy ad in a magazine.
otherOS was definitely advertised, and the court agreed with that part. the court, however, didn't find that there was a problem with terminating a minor feature several years after product release.
that's what's funny about it. culture has become more diverse, not less. the machine is scrambling to keep up and maintain what was fucking trivial in the 1950s. it will mostly succeed, but taken over all, uniformity and predictability is no worse than it ever was, and quite likely has improved.
note that although q1 and q4 are entangled outside of time, this is done by centrally preparing two pairs: (q1,q2) and (q3,q4), and measuring (q2,q3). it's not magic: the qubits do need to be transmitted in the first place, just like regular data (except of course the channel is a lot harder to construct, and error correction is more complex).
growing a one-time pad in the way you describe also requires a "one-way quantum function" which is not an obvious thing (sorry, haven't looked at qc in a while, but it seems very unlikely). anyway, ANY implementation of a protocol is vulnerable to technical faults.
and if the spy is inside your computer (as it increasingly is), no amount of crypto will help you.
i'm afraid the problem isn't technical. it's social.
this is quite off-topic, really, but anyway: standard crypto is more than enough for (almost?) all applications, at least for now. what we really need is more people using what we have already. moving right along...
if there is quantum comms but no quantum computer (or other magical crypto-breaking device), you can of course just use classical public-key crypto over a quantum channel to reap the mitm detection benefit as a bonus. easy.
if, however, your adversaries have a real quantum computer (with a lot of qubits), you need either a new, harder classical one-way function (factoring and elliptic curve are both poly-time on a QC), or a quantum key distribution scheme. the former is quite likely impossible, but there are a few of the latter, e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105032v2.pdf
it's an optional toolbar which is, like the fruity oaty bar, NOT MANDATORY even for frequent fliers. you get a piddling amount of scrip in exchange for being logged. how much?
``A customer who uses the toolbar and never flies with Qantas would take 35 years to earn the 64,000 points required to fly from Sydney to London's Heathrow Airport."
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't really work with books either. Yesterday, I spend half an hour looking for the best book on, say, Chinese history, and today I get ads trying to sell me the rejects I passed over.
Maybe it works on people who buy Danielle Steel novels and Twilight.
Funny example. It is actually illegal in many places to keep found property (at least above a certain threshold; a mere $1 may be okay), it's just rarely caught or enforced. There have, however, been on occasion stings where the police, for example, leave a cash-laden wallet on the street with conspicuous police presence! If you see the cop, but pick up the wallet anyway and don't turn it in to the cop, you get busted.
It's also illegal to download copyrighted material. They don't go after it because it's harder to prove, and the damages are smaller making it a weaker deterrent and thus not worthwhile. They want huge damages, and they get them from sharers, because the sharer is argued to be partially responsible for the future downloads (if downloads were legal, they couldn't make this argument...) as well as, recursively, future re-shares.
Of course, conveniently, no one knows exactly how many times the shared file will be re-shared, and how much of this can be attributed to the victim of the lawsuit (after all, if they didn't share it, other peers would have probably provided the same bits), but oh wait, the RIAA is here with a wonderful statistical model for that, and they say it's $125,000 per song!
I should cite something, so this is from the Napster case: ``Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights." This is not mere sophistry (at least any more-so than any law is): the uploader offers the work, while the downloader is the one who initiates the copying. Both are illegal if copyright is held by neither party.
Maybe everyone here who complains constantly about the abuse of the H1B system can kick a few bucks her way to compensate for the risk she's undertaking to advance their agenda.
yeah, that was going to be (3), but i got lazy.
yeah, yeah, this is all true of course, but it misses the fucking point.
macs sell at a premium unwarranted by the technical specs.
however the technical specs don't include what matters: 1) the only consumer unix which is stable and feature-complete, 2) the only trackpad in the industry which doesn't suck.
i could live without (2), and i wish there were another choice for (1). if there were a variant of linux with the stability and features of mac os x, i'd happily pay $150+ per year to run it on a thinkpad. however, this isn't an option, and compared to what i'm willing to pay, a macbook is a bargain! a macbook lasts for at least 4 years, so $150*4=$600; easy!
apple is literally the only choice. i don't like that, and i acknowledge that apple is a monopolistic scumbag, but they're currently the only vendor who actually gives a shit about user experience and is willing to invest r&d in that.
i don't like giving apple my money, and i have to suppress the urge to vomit every time i have to go to their goddam "genius bar" to fix a silly problem with their hardware, but there's really no choice at the moment. i hope this changes.
since there aren't that many actual terrorists to test the system with, there really isn't much evidence... but there is some standard wisdom.
appearance: yes, because the adversary can easily figure it out and plan around it, or at least this is the usual argument. also, any judgment call or decision branch in the line slows it down for everyone because people are stupid and stubborn.
behavior: this might be effective, but it would slow the line down significantly and/or cost a lot. the point of security theatre is that it's cheaper than actually fixing things.
i've looked at some of the studies now in detail; they are far from conclusive. to convince me, i would want either a physical neurological explanation or a well-controlled twin study (i.e. well-controlled assignment to foster family). neither exists so far; i need more than a bunch of voodoo correlation.
i don't need to. it's prima facie absurd.
note: i think that spanking is bad and counter-productive and i certainly wouldn't employ it with my children, but when something is statistically correlated to nearly everything negative, that's almost always statistical confounding.
this guy has seriously claimed, previously, that abolishing the spanking of children would be a necessary and major step toward abolishing the state. give me a fucking break.
I just watched this. It's pretty good, probably the best video format analysis of events.
If I were to criticize, I'd say that his speculation about drugs is a bit unwarranted (even given his "I'm not saying this actually happened, teehee" disclaimers, it's highly speculative), and of course Stefan Molyneux bangs on his ridiculous "spanking children causes the evils of society" drum.
Overall, it's a fair coverage, but he says nothing that you couldn't get from the wikipedia article and the first level of links. It's up to you; either 10 minutes of reading, or 35 minutes of listening.
jesus christ, did you learn genetics by playing metal gear solid?
You should follow up with one of these in their face.
sounds like garden-variety cynicism to me. do you consider religion, sexual orientation, and racial equality to be on the "superficial level"?
maybe music and art are "superficial" on slashdot, but they aren't to most of the population.
but, sure, yeah, let's focus on haircuts and quinoa. that's a great point you have there.
sure, okay, probably. there are anecdotes both ways, but yeah, forcibly exporting american culture through financial war is one of our primary weapons, so sure.
i was, however, referring to american culture specifically (see, the article was about Obama and US elections...), so your points are irrelevant.
and of course it's in Florida. looks like you were right on the money.
how is it criminal, and how would it be criminal in an ideal free market?
this is equivalent to 1) changing payment processor and 2) cutting wages slightly. unless part (2) takes one below the state-mandated minimum wage (which, btw, wouldn't exist in a free market), i don't see where the crime is.
did you read it? are you stupid? it doesn't have to be a mainstream tv advertisement or a glossy ad in a magazine.
otherOS was definitely advertised, and the court agreed with that part. the court, however, didn't find that there was a problem with terminating a minor feature several years after product release.
well, you put the screws in a ziploc bag with an index card denoting their provenance. thusly constrained, they tend not to wander away.
assuming you really want phillips screws in your iphone for whatever reason, do you have a better idea?
you can just replace the old screws. i doubt they'd notice.
be that as it may, phillips was designed to cam-out to prevent damage from over-tightening, which is idiotic for most of its current applications.
the only reason other screw designs aren't more common is because they were patented (and sometimes marginally more expensive to produce).
there are plenty of citations in the class action complaint. http://ps3movies.ign.com/ps3/document/article/108/1086720/gov.uscourts.cand.226894.1.0.pdf
that's what's funny about it. culture has become more diverse, not less. the machine is scrambling to keep up and maintain what was fucking trivial in the 1950s. it will mostly succeed, but taken over all, uniformity and predictability is no worse than it ever was, and quite likely has improved.
heh. well played, sir.
note that although q1 and q4 are entangled outside of time, this is done by centrally preparing two pairs: (q1,q2) and (q3,q4), and measuring (q2,q3). it's not magic: the qubits do need to be transmitted in the first place, just like regular data (except of course the channel is a lot harder to construct, and error correction is more complex).
growing a one-time pad in the way you describe also requires a "one-way quantum function" which is not an obvious thing (sorry, haven't looked at qc in a while, but it seems very unlikely). anyway, ANY implementation of a protocol is vulnerable to technical faults.
and if the spy is inside your computer (as it increasingly is), no amount of crypto will help you.
i'm afraid the problem isn't technical. it's social.
this is quite off-topic, really, but anyway: standard crypto is more than enough for (almost?) all applications, at least for now. what we really need is more people using what we have already. moving right along...
the problem with your scheme is the "propogated locally" part; note e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem. but it doesn't need to be that hard.
if there is quantum comms but no quantum computer (or other magical crypto-breaking device), you can of course just use classical public-key crypto over a quantum channel to reap the mitm detection benefit as a bonus. easy.
if, however, your adversaries have a real quantum computer (with a lot of qubits), you need either a new, harder classical one-way function (factoring and elliptic curve are both poly-time on a QC), or a quantum key distribution scheme. the former is quite likely impossible, but there are a few of the latter, e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105032v2.pdf
it's an optional toolbar which is, like the fruity oaty bar, NOT MANDATORY even for frequent fliers. you get a piddling amount of scrip in exchange for being logged. how much?
``A customer who uses the toolbar and never flies with Qantas would take 35 years to earn the 64,000 points required to fly from Sydney to London's Heathrow Airport."