Who cares? Even if the chip was a failed quad core with one of the cores disabled, why is it bad for AMD to sell them as triple cores? Would you prefer they just melt the silicon back down, wasting time, money, and most importantly, energy? I certainly don't.
Re:Let me put it in terms you can understand.
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 1
Do you have proof that the dilution ebay is claiming is due to sale of equity?
Why would I have proof? I'm not taking anybody's side, I'm trying to explain what is going on, that's all. The proof is between eBay and Craigslist.
Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?
You get screwed if that $1000 is spent frivolously, down a rat hole or otherwise. In other words, spent in a way that does not equitably raise value for all shareholders.
The goals of freenet might be vaguely similar, but the structure of the network and the philosophy of how data is exchanged is completely different from my idea, which assumes a constant circulation of data in a looping fashion. Freenet is built out of "small world networks" and depends on hard storage, whereas the entire point of my system is to avoid the need for hard storage (and thus, dependence on any particular storage technology). It's really not a very similar idea at all.
Let me put it in terms you can understand.
on
eBay Sues Craigslist
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Seems like a lot of people don't understand what this economic "dilution" thing is, and why eBay is so upset. Imagine it this way.
You, and nine friends, all pitch in $500 for a classic video game collection (a total of $5000). Each person has a 10% stake, so if the games go up in price, everyone profits.
Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.
Do you see how this dilutes your share of the value? The $1000 stakeholder now has 17%, leaving you with only 8.3%. And suppose that the $1000 of new capital is used to purchase bogus games which have no real value, or even worse, is just pocketed by the chairman. You're getting screwed.
That's what it means when they say you need a "sound financial reason" to dilute the other shareholders' stakes.
The real question is, does Craiglist have this sound financial reason? Is the issuance of fresh stock going to lead ultimately to a gain for all parties? We don't know -- and that's the subject of this lawsuit.
Right idea. Wrong analogy. You still need a disk on the other end. And what benefit do I have for storing your junk?
The benefit is that you get to participate in the network, and thereby store YOUR junk too. Anyway, this sort of system requires a total attitude shift, away from "this is MY data" to "this is the world's data, and we store it in a way that we can all access it."
The only way it would work for storing random junk you care about is if more P2P systems adopted a rarity model. Give up a chunk of your disk, and in return, ensure that the rarest files on the internet get multiple mirrors.
I'm really only using P2P in a literal sense -- this is a "peer to peer" model, not a client-server model, but I did not intend a direct reference to current P2P protocols. They serve a much different purpose.
And I mean it literally -- why have any physical storage at all? Why not just bounce chunks of data around forever on the Internet? Presumably the 'net is going to be here for a long, long time. Imagine a mass P2P network where the data being traded is just encrypted chunks of the data of other users. It needn't ever get written to a mass storage device at all -- just received from one peer and immediately sent to others.
A protocol could be developed to allow one peer to request, or steer, the network to locate and deliver requested blocks on demand. This might be a high-cost operation, akin to bringing data in from backup tape. Or, a client could just wait for the right chunk of data to recirculate to its position in the network. But storing data is easy -- just encrypt it, format it a certain way, and inject it into the network.
A natural model for the topology of such a network, and the protocol itself, is the circulatory system. Here, cells move in a fluid, generally in one direction, but through a complex network of vessels, and in a circulatory manner. The immune system might provide inspiration for directed movement of data chunks. (See? The Internet really is just a series of tubes.)
Over time, the infrastructure of the Internet, the P2P clients, and the exchange protocol itself could evolve, as long as enough redundant chunks are allowed to constantly recirculate. Specialized clients could cache data to "long term" storage for periods of a few days or weeks, in case of large, random outages, but permanent data storage would never rely on any specific technology at all -- even TCP/IP itself. It's all just this mass of recirculating encrypted chunks of data, like cells in the blood stream.
The "trust" you place in a digital certificate is misguided and fictional. Trust is a chain, and business cannot be "trusted" any more than the least scrupulous of their employees. If you organize data like this, it will just make it easier to steal. SSL certificates are okay for encrypting data, but next to useless for identity management.
What are you smoking? This isn't about trust, it's about a way for the business to positively identify you as a specific customer. I don't have to trust the business, and they don't have to trust me. The goal is for them to know I am without using a single identification number everywhere.
If all were implemented as you say, this computer theft would have taken the private keys as well, rendering the certificates worse than useless.
If the private keys are stolen, the company will destroy their master keys and declare that all certs are revoked. Then they'll just start issuing new ones. This is inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as having your SSN stolen, since you can't change it.
I am intrigued. Perhaps somebody should write a boot sector virus which configures an AES password. That way the drive will become a brick with no possibility of recovery.
I don't object to "satellite," I object to "sister."
I can't find a single way of looking at things that would place Earth and Moon in a sibling relationship in any reasonable hierarchy. The Moon orbits the Earth -- no matter how you slice it it's not our "sister."
Pointing out that in some sense the Earth also orbits the Moon (around a center of gravity which is physically inside the Earth) doesn't really help, because you could use the same argument to say that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that would make the Sun our sister as well, which of course due to the transitive nature of siblinghood, would logically make the Moon a "sister" of the Sun, which is even more ridiculous a notion.
I'm not an expert on evolution, so I was reading about Neanderthals on Wikipedia. I don't understand what isn't human about them. They even buried their dead with flowers.
I referred to them (more than once) as "early humans" -- is that not good enough?
All mammals seem to have some form of intercommunication it seems though by that measure, even if it is by scent or subtle body/tail movements. Is our only difference the specificity which our language can define our environment?
I think the real difference between human communication and that of other animals is the fact that we have grammars which directly encode semantic content. An ape can be taught to sign, but the signing lacks grammar, being more a string of symbols with no clear semantic relation.
Modern sign languages are grammatical. I think the sign languages of ancient humans were probably grammatical as well. In other words, I'm speculating that grammar might have evolved before speech did.
I wonder if early humans, such as Neanderthals, communicated primarily by speech or by a combination of speech and hand signals. The fact that human infants as young as 7 months (at the extreme) are capable of communication by signs, even before they are able to talk, suggests to me that language ability in humans might have evolved prior to the development of a modern vocal tract.
I would not be surprised, if we could go back in time, to see early humans communicating primarily by signs, with vocal communication only as a backup. After all, you don't want to make noise when hunting game anyway.
Their credit is destroyed and they get kicked out of their home. And it is all the lenders fault?
I don't care whose fault that is. I am not concerned with people losing their homes. I'm concerned with the economic impact this has created. I find it hard to understand how you could blame consumer greed for that. Consumer greed is a given. So is banker's greed, but at least the banker should have an economic clue.
Was it ethics or good business sense? Unethical is a subset of stupidly greedy. The overlending that caused the problem was stupidly greedy on the parts of both the lenders who wanted sales today and the people who knew in the back of their minds that they couldn't afford the rising payments.
In my mind, it is entirely the fault of the lenders. I find it hard to blame people for taking enormously great loans, even if they knew they couldn't repay. For many people bankruptcy was a given from the beginning. I think you'd have to be a little bit crazy not to take an enormous loan if the bank offered it.
It is the lender's responsibility to minimize the risk of default. You can't blame people for being people, but you can definitely blame the bankers for doing something they knew could not possibly work out in the long term.
Disclaimer: I don't work in the mortgage industry but my industry is closely tied with it, and we've suffered immensely from the subprime collapse. Lots of friends lost their jobs. But I can't bring myself to assign any blame at all to the borrowers who took advantage of the banks' stupidity. The only legal consequence for those people will be bankruptcy.
If you already know in advance which mail is spam and which is coming from "authorized sources", then why are you letting people review them again?
I think you missed the point. The goal isn't to have people filter somebody else's email, the goal is a CAPTCHA simply to tell whether the human is a human. The point is, it's a problem that a spammer would be reluctant to solve, because the solution is basically a weapon against himself.
Get over yourself -- you're not that captivating. And the real email, obviously, would have to come from authorized sources. I'd be willing to donate gigs of old stuff.
The "juicy" parts of my life are not conducted via email anyway -- are yours?
I haven't had a piece of spam go into my inbox in Outlook in over a year, it seems to be doing a good enough job.
That's only half the story. How many pieces of real mail did NOT make it through? I too can easily achieve 100% spam blockage, by deleting my email account.
Yes there is. By mispelling [sic pun] a few words, you can confuse anti-spam filters that are looking for duplicate mass mailed documents or for specific words. Typical spamming programs will allow you to insert random chars (replace 1, l or ! for I) or will substitute some automatically.
That might help it get past the spam filter, but it certainly doesn't help it get past the "Me" filter. *I* will recognize the email as a phish based on a SINGLE misspelling. The problem isn't getting past the filters, the problem is convincing the user that the email is legitimate, and misspellings only hurt that cause.
The OP's description sounded roughly like Hawking radiation, so I just assumed that was what he/she meant. If not, then I have utterly no clue what they are talking about.
gmail is the answer. First, gmail is probably the world's greatest source of difficult-to-classify spam. If we select spam that gmail has failed on, that means the spammer CAPTCHA system has to do a better job than gmail at filtering spam. Either they will fail, which is fine, or they will succeed, which is even better, because this super-powered spam filter will become available to us as it spreads through the botnets.
Second, tech-savvy gmail users could probably be convinced to participate in a program where they "donate" some of their legitimate emails for this scheme. Basically, you'd check that you want to participate, and then, a new "Send" button would appear when you write an outgoing mail that would be something like "Send and Donate". If you clicked this button, you'd see a confirmation screen, so that a single accidental button click couldn't put your email out in the open without a chance to stop it.
I think I see a wonderful circle here. The basic problem is spam. It's a problem, because we can't seem to make a computer program which can reliably determine whether an email is spam.
Wait a second. We can't make a computer program which can reliably tell if an email is spam. So that's your CAPTCHA right there -- present the user with a selection of emails, approximately half of which are spam, and ask them to identify which is which. Since computers are not good at this task (thus the entire problem!) it seems this would be the ideal challenge.
What is absolutely wondrous about this, is that if the spammers try to solve this problem, what they will create is basically a program which can reliably distinguish spam from non-spam. No spammer would ever do that, because if that piece of miracle technology ever got out in the wild, it would render the spam problem obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? Even if the chip was a failed quad core with one of the cores disabled, why is it bad for AMD to sell them as triple cores? Would you prefer they just melt the silicon back down, wasting time, money, and most importantly, energy? I certainly don't.
Do you have proof that the dilution ebay is claiming is due to sale of equity?
Why would I have proof? I'm not taking anybody's side, I'm trying to explain what is going on, that's all. The proof is between eBay and Craigslist.
Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?
You get screwed if that $1000 is spent frivolously, down a rat hole or otherwise. In other words, spent in a way that does not equitably raise value for all shareholders.
The goals of freenet might be vaguely similar, but the structure of the network and the philosophy of how data is exchanged is completely different from my idea, which assumes a constant circulation of data in a looping fashion. Freenet is built out of "small world networks" and depends on hard storage, whereas the entire point of my system is to avoid the need for hard storage (and thus, dependence on any particular storage technology). It's really not a very similar idea at all.
You, and nine friends, all pitch in $500 for a classic video game collection (a total of $5000). Each person has a 10% stake, so if the games go up in price, everyone profits.
Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.
Do you see how this dilutes your share of the value? The $1000 stakeholder now has 17%, leaving you with only 8.3%. And suppose that the $1000 of new capital is used to purchase bogus games which have no real value, or even worse, is just pocketed by the chairman. You're getting screwed.
That's what it means when they say you need a "sound financial reason" to dilute the other shareholders' stakes.
The real question is, does Craiglist have this sound financial reason? Is the issuance of fresh stock going to lead ultimately to a gain for all parties? We don't know -- and that's the subject of this lawsuit.
Right idea. Wrong analogy. You still need a disk on the other end. And what benefit do I have for storing your junk?
The benefit is that you get to participate in the network, and thereby store YOUR junk too. Anyway, this sort of system requires a total attitude shift, away from "this is MY data" to "this is the world's data, and we store it in a way that we can all access it."
The only way it would work for storing random junk you care about is if more P2P systems adopted a rarity model. Give up a chunk of your disk, and in return, ensure that the rarest files on the internet get multiple mirrors.
I'm really only using P2P in a literal sense -- this is a "peer to peer" model, not a client-server model, but I did not intend a direct reference to current P2P protocols. They serve a much different purpose.
And I mean it literally -- why have any physical storage at all? Why not just bounce chunks of data around forever on the Internet? Presumably the 'net is going to be here for a long, long time. Imagine a mass P2P network where the data being traded is just encrypted chunks of the data of other users. It needn't ever get written to a mass storage device at all -- just received from one peer and immediately sent to others.
A protocol could be developed to allow one peer to request, or steer, the network to locate and deliver requested blocks on demand. This might be a high-cost operation, akin to bringing data in from backup tape. Or, a client could just wait for the right chunk of data to recirculate to its position in the network. But storing data is easy -- just encrypt it, format it a certain way, and inject it into the network.
A natural model for the topology of such a network, and the protocol itself, is the circulatory system. Here, cells move in a fluid, generally in one direction, but through a complex network of vessels, and in a circulatory manner. The immune system might provide inspiration for directed movement of data chunks. (See? The Internet really is just a series of tubes.)
Over time, the infrastructure of the Internet, the P2P clients, and the exchange protocol itself could evolve, as long as enough redundant chunks are allowed to constantly recirculate. Specialized clients could cache data to "long term" storage for periods of a few days or weeks, in case of large, random outages, but permanent data storage would never rely on any specific technology at all -- even TCP/IP itself. It's all just this mass of recirculating encrypted chunks of data, like cells in the blood stream.
The "trust" you place in a digital certificate is misguided and fictional. Trust is a chain, and business cannot be "trusted" any more than the least scrupulous of their employees. If you organize data like this, it will just make it easier to steal. SSL certificates are okay for encrypting data, but next to useless for identity management.
What are you smoking? This isn't about trust, it's about a way for the business to positively identify you as a specific customer. I don't have to trust the business, and they don't have to trust me. The goal is for them to know I am without using a single identification number everywhere.
If all were implemented as you say, this computer theft would have taken the private keys as well, rendering the certificates worse than useless.
If the private keys are stolen, the company will destroy their master keys and declare that all certs are revoked. Then they'll just start issuing new ones. This is inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as having your SSN stolen, since you can't change it.
That would be awesome. Finally everybody would be forced to abandon the SSN as a unique ID and move to a system that isn't completely fucked.
I am intrigued. Perhaps somebody should write a boot sector virus which configures an AES password. That way the drive will become a brick with no possibility of recovery.
I don't object to "satellite," I object to "sister."
I can't find a single way of looking at things that would place Earth and Moon in a sibling relationship in any reasonable hierarchy. The Moon orbits the Earth -- no matter how you slice it it's not our "sister."
Pointing out that in some sense the Earth also orbits the Moon (around a center of gravity which is physically inside the Earth) doesn't really help, because you could use the same argument to say that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, and that would make the Sun our sister as well, which of course due to the transitive nature of siblinghood, would logically make the Moon a "sister" of the Sun, which is even more ridiculous a notion.
So uh, yeah.
I'm not an expert on evolution, so I was reading about Neanderthals on Wikipedia. I don't understand what isn't human about them. They even buried their dead with flowers.
I referred to them (more than once) as "early humans" -- is that not good enough?
And you have some argument to support this claim other than "It's obvious?"
All mammals seem to have some form of intercommunication it seems though by that measure, even if it is by scent or subtle body/tail movements. Is our only difference the specificity which our language can define our environment?
I think the real difference between human communication and that of other animals is the fact that we have grammars which directly encode semantic content. An ape can be taught to sign, but the signing lacks grammar, being more a string of symbols with no clear semantic relation.
Modern sign languages are grammatical. I think the sign languages of ancient humans were probably grammatical as well. In other words, I'm speculating that grammar might have evolved before speech did.
Who would have guessed.
I wonder if early humans, such as Neanderthals, communicated primarily by speech or by a combination of speech and hand signals. The fact that human infants as young as 7 months (at the extreme) are capable of communication by signs, even before they are able to talk, suggests to me that language ability in humans might have evolved prior to the development of a modern vocal tract.
I would not be surprised, if we could go back in time, to see early humans communicating primarily by signs, with vocal communication only as a backup. After all, you don't want to make noise when hunting game anyway.
Their credit is destroyed and they get kicked out of their home. And it is all the lenders fault?
I don't care whose fault that is. I am not concerned with people losing their homes. I'm concerned with the economic impact this has created. I find it hard to understand how you could blame consumer greed for that. Consumer greed is a given. So is banker's greed, but at least the banker should have an economic clue.
Was it ethics or good business sense? Unethical is a subset of stupidly greedy. The overlending that caused the problem was stupidly greedy on the parts of both the lenders who wanted sales today and the people who knew in the back of their minds that they couldn't afford the rising payments.
In my mind, it is entirely the fault of the lenders. I find it hard to blame people for taking enormously great loans, even if they knew they couldn't repay. For many people bankruptcy was a given from the beginning. I think you'd have to be a little bit crazy not to take an enormous loan if the bank offered it.
It is the lender's responsibility to minimize the risk of default. You can't blame people for being people, but you can definitely blame the bankers for doing something they knew could not possibly work out in the long term.
Disclaimer: I don't work in the mortgage industry but my industry is closely tied with it, and we've suffered immensely from the subprime collapse. Lots of friends lost their jobs. But I can't bring myself to assign any blame at all to the borrowers who took advantage of the banks' stupidity. The only legal consequence for those people will be bankruptcy.
If you already know in advance which mail is spam and which is coming from "authorized sources", then why are you letting people review them again?
I think you missed the point. The goal isn't to have people filter somebody else's email, the goal is a CAPTCHA simply to tell whether the human is a human. The point is, it's a problem that a spammer would be reluctant to solve, because the solution is basically a weapon against himself.
Get over yourself -- you're not that captivating. And the real email, obviously, would have to come from authorized sources. I'd be willing to donate gigs of old stuff.
The "juicy" parts of my life are not conducted via email anyway -- are yours?
If you're failing SOX/SAS-70/404 audits (or whatever types of audits apply to you)... that's bad, although you've already identified that.
Now how the FUCK can you fail a SAS-70 audit? You get to set your own damn criteria for passing!
I haven't had a piece of spam go into my inbox in Outlook in over a year, it seems to be doing a good enough job.
That's only half the story. How many pieces of real mail did NOT make it through? I too can easily achieve 100% spam blockage, by deleting my email account.
Yes there is. By mispelling [sic pun] a few words, you can confuse anti-spam filters that are looking for duplicate mass mailed documents or for specific words. Typical spamming programs will allow you to insert random chars (replace 1, l or ! for I) or will substitute some automatically.
That might help it get past the spam filter, but it certainly doesn't help it get past the "Me" filter. *I* will recognize the email as a phish based on a SINGLE misspelling. The problem isn't getting past the filters, the problem is convincing the user that the email is legitimate, and misspellings only hurt that cause.
The OP's description sounded roughly like Hawking radiation, so I just assumed that was what he/she meant. If not, then I have utterly no clue what they are talking about.
gmail is the answer. First, gmail is probably the world's greatest source of difficult-to-classify spam. If we select spam that gmail has failed on, that means the spammer CAPTCHA system has to do a better job than gmail at filtering spam. Either they will fail, which is fine, or they will succeed, which is even better, because this super-powered spam filter will become available to us as it spreads through the botnets.
Second, tech-savvy gmail users could probably be convinced to participate in a program where they "donate" some of their legitimate emails for this scheme. Basically, you'd check that you want to participate, and then, a new "Send" button would appear when you write an outgoing mail that would be something like "Send and Donate". If you clicked this button, you'd see a confirmation screen, so that a single accidental button click couldn't put your email out in the open without a chance to stop it.
I think I see a wonderful circle here. The basic problem is spam. It's a problem, because we can't seem to make a computer program which can reliably determine whether an email is spam.
Wait a second. We can't make a computer program which can reliably tell if an email is spam. So that's your CAPTCHA right there -- present the user with a selection of emails, approximately half of which are spam, and ask them to identify which is which. Since computers are not good at this task (thus the entire problem!) it seems this would be the ideal challenge.
What is absolutely wondrous about this, is that if the spammers try to solve this problem, what they will create is basically a program which can reliably distinguish spam from non-spam. No spammer would ever do that, because if that piece of miracle technology ever got out in the wild, it would render the spam problem obsolete.