They simply bribed a guard to open the gates.
Maybe China shouldn't be so fixated on walls.
The source of failure, obviously, is that the guards' salaries were far too low. As people in positions of such ultimate power they should have been paid sums so huge that no bribe could match it.
If one really could care less, then one must really care. I believe you meant they couldn't care less, meaning they do not care at all.
Yes, this is an ironic idiom, yes, we all see the apparent contradiction in its meaning. No, we don't need linguistically pedantic dorks pointing it out every time it's used.
Suppose I see you biff on a bicycle and wreck yourself. My response to this is, "Smooth move." Do you really think I meant it literally?
After working the numbers, looks like you're probably right. Making up some bullshit (but hopefully within an order of magnitude), supposing the gun transmitter is 1 milliwatt and 1 mm from the bullet, an omnidirectional transmitter at 100 feet would have to put out nearly a megawatt, and that's just to match the power density of the other transmitter. To jam it, you'd have to completely swamp it, so say you'd need 10 megawatts.
Of course, you can use a high gain directional antenna but then you'd only be able to target a few weapons at a time.
Duh! The police firearms will not have these, only "civilian" firearms....
Then there is an incentive for criminals to kill police officers in order to get their "invulnerable" guns.
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity...
on
Encrypted Ammunition?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.
Well, the signal is supposedly encrypted so that it can't be triggered by an outside party. But that doesn't mean some outside party couldn't just broadcast a very strong NOISE signal (aka, jamming) on the same frequency, thereby disabling any gun within a few hundred feet.
The ability to disarm every cop in the building with the push of a button. Yeah, this is a great idea!
So I can prevent you from firing your weapon by carrying a high power radio transmitter that puts the legitimate firing signal under the noise floor? Thanks, as a criminal it really helps me when folks can't shoot back.
The government will love this too. Now they can blast out a couple kilowatts of RF at a certain frequency and make civilians' weapons unable to fire. No more pesky 2nd Amendment concerns!
Not everything is black and white. Giving a laptop to every child in India, think how many of those hundreds of millions of kids might be helped out of poverty by greater access to education and information.
Oh, bullshit. What helps people out of poverty is food, water, clothing, hygiene, and a source of jobs. Once those are in place, we can start talking about education. Your idea to give a laptop to a child who barely has enough food to eat and sleeps three feet from a gutter running with raw sewage, and then sit back smugly thinking you've "cured" all the world's problems, it's enough to make me spray my latte all over my LCD.
The first thing I'd do with that laptop would be to pawn it for a few bags of rice.
Edit the PDF to perform your redactions. Just draw black boxes over what you want to redact. Save your changes and open the file in Acrobat (if you redacted in Acrobat, there's no need to save first). Now, open the Print dialog in Acrobat. Set the printer to "Adobe PDF". Now click the Advanced button. Check the "Print as Image" checkbox. Then print the document to a new PDF file.
The resulting PDF is an image, containing no real text.
Dude, this has happened over and over again. Note the title of this article: "More PDF Blackout Follies." I think it's safe to assume that if they didn't learn from the last ten thousand fuckups, they won't learn from this one.
Impartial is a state of mind, not a monetary status.
The word "disinterested" has no monetary connotation. Even the legal definition (according to my source) is: "Free from bias, prejudice, or partiality." No mention of money. Sure sounds like "impartiality" to me.
As for flammable/inflammable, I see your point. It's the duality that's stupid.
It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.
What's wrong with "impartial?" The word "disinterested" should be taken out and shot, precisely because its meaning is unexpectedly different than what might be inferred from its parts. Just like that other ridiculous word, "inflammable."
It's not the best example anyway, since the compiler will usually do that sort of strength reduction for you. But there are other kinds of reduction that the compiler isn't smart enough to figure out, yet can be done by the programmer without making the code harder to read or introducing "hacks."
Another way of saying this: It sucks to know that even in this day and age of faster and faster computers there are still people who cut corners and use specific hacks to gain speed instead of simply building clean and well-designed systems and let the hardware do the work.
Why do you assume that all optimizations are hacks? Lifting an invariant calculation out of a loop can potentially make things MUCH faster, yet is hardly a "hack." Or how about strength-reducing "2 * x" into "x + x," is that a hack? Same goes for a change of data structures (say, switching from a linear search in a linked list to a constant-time lookup from a hash table). Are hash tables "hacks?"
Man, I can't wait for the day when the hardware is smart enough to morph my linked lists into hash tables for me!
I think you have no clue what you're talking about.
You misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof." I'm not saying hypotheses need not be tested. I'm talking about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The meaning of "burden of proof" in a legal sense. Because any hypothesis can, in concept, be negated, there is no reason to prefer an assumption of validity over an assumption of invalidity. The only real criterion is that the hypothesis be falsifiable.
If you've inferred my opinion on the matter from any of the preceding, you're imagining things.
The guy claimed it probably wasn't possible to write ROBUST code for this task in 10 minutes. I countered his point by example. So the example happens to be me. Big fuckin' deal. Keep your cookie to yourself.
I was going to say something similar. When banging on pixels, you're not really using any advanced language features, whether your language of choice or C or Python. You pay a huge cost in interpreter overhead, however. I'd never write low level image processing code in Python, even though it's the first thing I turn to for zillions of other tasks...
I have extensive experience writing image processing code, and from their description of the problem I think I would be able to bust out the basic structure (reading, processing, writing) in under three minutes. That would leave me seven minutes to figure out how to correct the "corruptions" in the image, which, if they are not pixel interdependent (which would involve some kind of filtering), I could easily do in the allotted time.
More importantly, because I have experience, I would probably not write any bugs, at least in the basic image processing structure of the code. Not because I'm a genius, but because I write image processing code for a living and I can "flow" it out of my fingers without really having to think too much. I can easily imagine people who could do it even faster -- I'm no superhuman.
You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.
Bullshit, things don't work that way. To generalize your argument, you're saying that if we put forth a hypothesis A, then the burden of proof is to prove A. But we can just as easily construct a hypothesis B, which is the opposite of hypothesis A, and now you would say that the burden of proof is to prove B, that is, to prove not A. So in fact, your assertion that global warming is "false until proven true" is clearly based on your own personal biases. We could just as easily say that there is a theory of "Lack of Global Warming" and then you would assert that it is "true until proven false." Can you not see how your personal opinions are at the root of this?
The real truth is, there is no "burden of proof" in science. If you have studied any scientific philosophical thought, you would know that science does not seek provable truth. There is only a progressive movement toward better and better theories. The "world of ice" theories were merely an earlier step in that progression.
Did you also notice in TFA that local real estate prices are climbing signifigantly?
That's been going on in the Gorge for some time now. Living in Hood River, a nearby town, is even more expensive than The Dalles. Although housing is skyrocketing all over Oregon, the communities in the central Gorge are feeling an amplifying effect because of the booming wind-surfing and ski tourism industries there.
Prices would be blowing through the roof in The Dalles with or without Google.
If there was a god, I would pray to be a network engineer at Google's server farms. Man, how awesome that would be.
I personally know a network engineer at Google, have toured several of their facilities and seen him work, and believe me, you don't want his job. Although the network guys are literally the life-blood of the operation, they are considered "bottom tier" in Google's complicated social structure. As they say, shit rolls downhill.
Slashdot Mirror
They simply bribed a guard to open the gates. Maybe China shouldn't be so fixated on walls.
The source of failure, obviously, is that the guards' salaries were far too low. As people in positions of such ultimate power they should have been paid sums so huge that no bribe could match it.
If one really could care less, then one must really care. I believe you meant they couldn't care less, meaning they do not care at all.
Yes, this is an ironic idiom, yes, we all see the apparent contradiction in its meaning. No, we don't need linguistically pedantic dorks pointing it out every time it's used.
Suppose I see you biff on a bicycle and wreck yourself. My response to this is, "Smooth move." Do you really think I meant it literally?
Ritalin & Aderall = amphetamine derivities = speed.
What a bunch of BS. Chocolate contains phenethylamine, which is closely related to MDMA, therefore Hershey's Bar == Ecstasy.
Ritalin is a stimulant drug, yes. Equating it directly to speed because it shares some chemical similarities is a bunch of crap.
After working the numbers, looks like you're probably right. Making up some bullshit (but hopefully within an order of magnitude), supposing the gun transmitter is 1 milliwatt and 1 mm from the bullet, an omnidirectional transmitter at 100 feet would have to put out nearly a megawatt, and that's just to match the power density of the other transmitter. To jam it, you'd have to completely swamp it, so say you'd need 10 megawatts.
Of course, you can use a high gain directional antenna but then you'd only be able to target a few weapons at a time.
Duh! The police firearms will not have these, only "civilian" firearms....
Then there is an incentive for criminals to kill police officers in order to get their "invulnerable" guns.
eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.
Well, the signal is supposedly encrypted so that it can't be triggered by an outside party. But that doesn't mean some outside party couldn't just broadcast a very strong NOISE signal (aka, jamming) on the same frequency, thereby disabling any gun within a few hundred feet.
The ability to disarm every cop in the building with the push of a button. Yeah, this is a great idea!
So I can prevent you from firing your weapon by carrying a high power radio transmitter that puts the legitimate firing signal under the noise floor? Thanks, as a criminal it really helps me when folks can't shoot back.
The government will love this too. Now they can blast out a couple kilowatts of RF at a certain frequency and make civilians' weapons unable to fire. No more pesky 2nd Amendment concerns!
The original sense of the word "hacker" included the concept of "professional?" Are you flipping NUTS?
Not everything is black and white. Giving a laptop to every child in India, think how many of those hundreds of millions of kids might be helped out of poverty by greater access to education and information.
Oh, bullshit. What helps people out of poverty is food, water, clothing, hygiene, and a source of jobs. Once those are in place, we can start talking about education. Your idea to give a laptop to a child who barely has enough food to eat and sleeps three feet from a gutter running with raw sewage, and then sit back smugly thinking you've "cured" all the world's problems, it's enough to make me spray my latte all over my LCD.
The first thing I'd do with that laptop would be to pawn it for a few bags of rice.
It's not that hard. Here's how you do it:
Edit the PDF to perform your redactions. Just draw black boxes over what you want to redact. Save your changes and open the file in Acrobat (if you redacted in Acrobat, there's no need to save first). Now, open the Print dialog in Acrobat. Set the printer to "Adobe PDF". Now click the Advanced button. Check the "Print as Image" checkbox. Then print the document to a new PDF file.
The resulting PDF is an image, containing no real text.
Dude, this has happened over and over again. Note the title of this article: "More PDF Blackout Follies." I think it's safe to assume that if they didn't learn from the last ten thousand fuckups, they won't learn from this one.
They're gonna blame this on Adobe or the PDF format itself.
Impartial is a state of mind, not a monetary status.
The word "disinterested" has no monetary connotation. Even the legal definition (according to my source) is: "Free from bias, prejudice, or partiality." No mention of money. Sure sounds like "impartiality" to me.
As for flammable/inflammable, I see your point. It's the duality that's stupid.
It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.
What's wrong with "impartial?" The word "disinterested" should be taken out and shot, precisely because its meaning is unexpectedly different than what might be inferred from its parts. Just like that other ridiculous word, "inflammable."
Don't you mean x << 1?
It's not the best example anyway, since the compiler will usually do that sort of strength reduction for you. But there are other kinds of reduction that the compiler isn't smart enough to figure out, yet can be done by the programmer without making the code harder to read or introducing "hacks."
Another way of saying this: It sucks to know that even in this day and age of faster and faster computers there are still people who cut corners and use specific hacks to gain speed instead of simply building clean and well-designed systems and let the hardware do the work.
Why do you assume that all optimizations are hacks? Lifting an invariant calculation out of a loop can potentially make things MUCH faster, yet is hardly a "hack." Or how about strength-reducing "2 * x" into "x + x," is that a hack? Same goes for a change of data structures (say, switching from a linear search in a linked list to a constant-time lookup from a hash table). Are hash tables "hacks?"
Man, I can't wait for the day when the hardware is smart enough to morph my linked lists into hash tables for me!
I think you have no clue what you're talking about.
You misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof." I'm not saying hypotheses need not be tested. I'm talking about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The meaning of "burden of proof" in a legal sense. Because any hypothesis can, in concept, be negated, there is no reason to prefer an assumption of validity over an assumption of invalidity. The only real criterion is that the hypothesis be falsifiable.
If you've inferred my opinion on the matter from any of the preceding, you're imagining things.
The guy claimed it probably wasn't possible to write ROBUST code for this task in 10 minutes. I countered his point by example. So the example happens to be me. Big fuckin' deal. Keep your cookie to yourself.
I was going to say something similar. When banging on pixels, you're not really using any advanced language features, whether your language of choice or C or Python. You pay a huge cost in interpreter overhead, however. I'd never write low level image processing code in Python, even though it's the first thing I turn to for zillions of other tasks...
I have extensive experience writing image processing code, and from their description of the problem I think I would be able to bust out the basic structure (reading, processing, writing) in under three minutes. That would leave me seven minutes to figure out how to correct the "corruptions" in the image, which, if they are not pixel interdependent (which would involve some kind of filtering), I could easily do in the allotted time.
More importantly, because I have experience, I would probably not write any bugs, at least in the basic image processing structure of the code. Not because I'm a genius, but because I write image processing code for a living and I can "flow" it out of my fingers without really having to think too much. I can easily imagine people who could do it even faster -- I'm no superhuman.
Well, as he showed, there's a very high incidence of the word "fuck" in his history... Only an admin can screw up so often :-)
You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.
Bullshit, things don't work that way. To generalize your argument, you're saying that if we put forth a hypothesis A, then the burden of proof is to prove A. But we can just as easily construct a hypothesis B, which is the opposite of hypothesis A, and now you would say that the burden of proof is to prove B, that is, to prove not A. So in fact, your assertion that global warming is "false until proven true" is clearly based on your own personal biases. We could just as easily say that there is a theory of "Lack of Global Warming" and then you would assert that it is "true until proven false." Can you not see how your personal opinions are at the root of this?
The real truth is, there is no "burden of proof" in science. If you have studied any scientific philosophical thought, you would know that science does not seek provable truth. There is only a progressive movement toward better and better theories. The "world of ice" theories were merely an earlier step in that progression.
Hmm...
scott@tornado:/u/rel/scott/work$ history | wc -l
I keep a LOT of history... Never know when some old command might come in handy again.47625
Did you also notice in TFA that local real estate prices are climbing signifigantly?
That's been going on in the Gorge for some time now. Living in Hood River, a nearby town, is even more expensive than The Dalles. Although housing is skyrocketing all over Oregon, the communities in the central Gorge are feeling an amplifying effect because of the booming wind-surfing and ski tourism industries there.
Prices would be blowing through the roof in The Dalles with or without Google.
If there was a god, I would pray to be a network engineer at Google's server farms. Man, how awesome that would be.
I personally know a network engineer at Google, have toured several of their facilities and seen him work, and believe me, you don't want his job. Although the network guys are literally the life-blood of the operation, they are considered "bottom tier" in Google's complicated social structure. As they say, shit rolls downhill.