Most of these feminists (you need to distinguish) reinterpret personal critic or criticising their point of view as prejudices against all women instead.
The death threats are just plump and they are anonymous cowards. The other side actually believes their stuff, but does not use death threat but only arrogant hate speech looking down to the people who are criticising them, saying "the critic not relevant, its just a misogynist, it's not possible (s)he's* attacking the argument, (s)he's or me as asshole person, but (s)he must be attacking the feminist movement"
* sorry for gendering, but i did not want to silently accept the "all critics are straight white men" statement in my own argumentation.
Someone posting a threat wants to threaten you and is not just doing it. So filter it, you do not even see it, the person does not get any feedback if the message arrived (do not send negative feedback, they can try to evade the filter than) and must assume they are filtered. So they either need to publicize the threat in their own media (being easily traced, standing publicly with their reputation behind it) or just stop it. Or they can escalate it to the reality, which is something well known by police, which can act without thinking about "is this the new cyber thingy". Most people would just be stopped and with me not even noticing it i would have the people of mind.
if you publicize it, the troll gets a reaction. This is a mistake. And other people get an idea and see the idea can be successful. Just shut up and wait until the shitstorm is over. And try not to attract trolls again. You cannot win, there are too many destructive people out there. Starting to cry loud "the assholes are haressing me" will not reduce the count of assholes haressing, but chances are it will increase them. So stop giving feedback.
from this tweets it's not even clear to me, which "side" they are taking. Gamergate should have been ended a long time ago. Just ignore the attention horses and it will solve itself.
freenet replaces oneclickhosters. building websites with freenet is PITA. tor replaces proxies. hosting websites is just the same as usual, but they are only reachable via the "tor-proxy".
it will be dynamic ipv6. I already have it with my (german) isp. I get a/56, the router provides an option (default: on) to firewall the clients and define exceptions (ip or ip:port based) for clients with a specific MAC (which means it works with PE, too).
Isn't this a great attack vector anyway? Impersonate the directory and show the clients only your nodes.
@guards: does the guard know, its the guard of a hidden service? Maybe someone used tor nodes in the hope to become guard of the services, maybe renewed the node-ids often and then uncloaked them?
video needs a totally different type of attention. You need sound, you need attention to only one thing, you cannot really multitask, it consumes more time than reading text and looking at images and you can skip through text without missing the important parts, but you cannot easily skip inside a video and be sure not to skip over something important. video is no usecase for "just reading what my cousin did today", its something for people wanting to invest their time into something interesting.
sounds just right. the sender should have the rights for sending from his "From" Adresse, disregarding the Envelope-From (which may be some relay server).
Best is only with respect to the deterministic case.
disregard runtime complexity.
deterministic: there is a best strategy (A). all other strategies (B) are worse or equal. A stochastic strategy (C) may have a good average quality.
stochastic: the deterministic best strategy (A) cannot be perfect anymore, just as no other strategy can. (A) has now unknown quality for a random sequence. (C) still has the same average quality.
So there is now a possibility, that (C) may beat (A) in an average over a lot of games. (as a single game does not have any relevance when using random games)
deterministic: best = np-hard, perfekt other: polynomial, good average
stochastic: best: np-hard, not perfect, quality unknown other: polynomial, good average
the point is not the runtime complexity, but the result. while the best algorithm cannot be beaten on the det. sequence, it may fail completely (in terms of quality) on a sequence without full information. If you got a good polynomial one with an average result, it may be better for many sequences.
one example may be an perfect algorithm with a lookup table for all sequences and a greedy algorithm. With the random sequence, the "perfect" algorithm needs to choose the sequence which is most likely for its next move, discarding a lot of other strategies. Now it may have chosen the worst strategy for the next random and unlikely event. The other algorithm optimizes locally anyway and will continue in both cases as if it does not know the next event.
Jep, and your strategy gets worse, while another strategy may stay average.
Assume you flip a coin. heads or tails.
You NP-complete algorithm knows the sequence. The probalistic one just guesses "heads".
Now the Expectation value of both are Zero in the stochastic case. In the deterministic one its infinite win for the np-complete one and zero for the probalistic one. So this is an example, where a perfect algorithm for deterministic data is just as good as another for stochastic data. This does not mean, you cannot get better than the deterministic-optimal algorithm. As the data is random, the deterministic-optimal algorithm becomes "just another algorithm" and you will need to proof again its better than the other candidates. It may be, maybe even provable the still the optimal one, but the fact that its det-optimal does not imply that its prob-optimal.
A real world example: Las Vegas Quicksort. Quicksort is O(n log n), choosing log n times a median element, then sorting in n the elements on both sides to the correct side.
calculating the median element is O(n), with some constant C. Choosing the median element randomly is O(1). Now you can show, that the propability of a "not too bad" element is so, that the log n * C factor is slower in most cases than the slowdown of the algorithm by choosing a non-optimal "median".
Indeed, one of the best ideas for calendars ever. 5 seasons is reasonable, ~73 days is not perfectly round, but 30/31/28 is strange, too. Now combine it with @beats (1000 beats are one day) and you have an ideal system for measuring time. You just do not get a metric number of days per year, because we would need to change the earth orbit to keep the day and night schedule.
Re:replacing line feeds with terminators is not a
on
Tetris Is Hard To Test
·
· Score: 1
what do you expect from a oneliner? Tetris()? A Perl Oneliner does have semicolons as well.
I disagree. For a stochastic process your greedy "take the option with the best chance" algorithm may work, it may fail completely, just depending on the random numbers. If you have an stochastic polynomial algorithm, you have a chance to get the same or better expectation value than your "optimize global then choose greedy" algorithm. Both approaches may win or fail, but in the deterministic game the np-complete version always wins, while the "shortcut" version cannot compete. In the stochastic version, the shortcut may be as good as the optimal solution, because you cannot get the global optimum anyway so choosing a local one may be a good choice.
you're still not getting the szenario, just as i did not in my first post.
VZW does not want to interfere for this szenario. They interfere with http adding an id and ignore https. The website wants your identification. So they generate a token on the https-site and load image.jpg?token from a http(without s) site. Then they know a token vzw correlation and can assign the same token on your next visit.
nope, he's right. Your adversary is the site, not verizon. And the site can make you request non-http stuff, where verizon (which is not the main enemy) injects an id, which can then be read by the site. There is not much protection without using extreme measures like requestpolicy (and not allowing anything using http).
Slashdot Mirror
Death threats are not okay
Most of these feminists (you need to distinguish) reinterpret personal critic or criticising their point of view as prejudices against all women instead.
both are just not constructive.
The death threats are just plump and they are anonymous cowards.
The other side actually believes their stuff, but does not use death threat but only arrogant hate speech looking down to the people who are criticising them, saying "the critic not relevant, its just a misogynist, it's not possible (s)he's* attacking the argument, (s)he's or me as asshole person, but (s)he must be attacking the feminist movement"
* sorry for gendering, but i did not want to silently accept the "all critics are straight white men" statement in my own argumentation.
Someone posting a threat wants to threaten you and is not just doing it. So filter it, you do not even see it, the person does not get any feedback if the message arrived (do not send negative feedback, they can try to evade the filter than) and must assume they are filtered. So they either need to publicize the threat in their own media (being easily traced, standing publicly with their reputation behind it) or just stop it. Or they can escalate it to the reality, which is something well known by police, which can act without thinking about "is this the new cyber thingy". Most people would just be stopped and with me not even noticing it i would have the people of mind.
So? You are born with a religion? Or maybe its more like being indoctrinated* by people with the religion since you're a child?
* not meant as bad as it sounds, but still indoctrination and not free choice.
if you publicize it, the troll gets a reaction. This is a mistake. And other people get an idea and see the idea can be successful. Just shut up and wait until the shitstorm is over. And try not to attract trolls again. You cannot win, there are too many destructive people out there. Starting to cry loud "the assholes are haressing me" will not reduce the count of assholes haressing, but chances are it will increase them. So stop giving feedback.
from this tweets it's not even clear to me, which "side" they are taking.
Gamergate should have been ended a long time ago. Just ignore the attention horses and it will solve itself.
freenet replaces oneclickhosters. building websites with freenet is PITA.
tor replaces proxies. hosting websites is just the same as usual, but they are only reachable via the "tor-proxy".
it will be dynamic ipv6. I already have it with my (german) isp. I get a /56, the router provides an option (default: on) to firewall the clients and define exceptions (ip or ip:port based) for clients with a specific MAC (which means it works with PE, too).
It is triple encrypted. destination-middlende-entrynode. Each node removes one layer of the onion.
Isn't this a great attack vector anyway? Impersonate the directory and show the clients only your nodes.
@guards: does the guard know, its the guard of a hidden service? Maybe someone used tor nodes in the hope to become guard of the services, maybe renewed the node-ids often and then uncloaked them?
Tits. Did i say Tits? Tits!
"The NSA is killing your privacy"
- "Uh oh!"
"Stop using facebook and dropbox!"
- "I have nothing to hide anyway!"
video needs a totally different type of attention. You need sound, you need attention to only one thing, you cannot really multitask, it consumes more time than reading text and looking at images and you can skip through text without missing the important parts, but you cannot easily skip inside a video and be sure not to skip over something important.
video is no usecase for "just reading what my cousin did today", its something for people wanting to invest their time into something interesting.
this. and you're saying it, as if it weren't true.
> AOL
i found the problem.
> (X ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
> (X ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
it will stop forgery. forever.
> (X ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
It does not.
> (X ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
Not needed, not implemented
> (X ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
None. SMTP stays as it is.
> (X ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Which do not have the keys for your domain.
> (X ) Whitelists suck
But its not a "i do only receive from" whitelist, but a "i only send from, you MAY reject otherwise" whitelist.
> (X ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
Bullshit.
> (X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
WTF? Did you understand DKIM?
> (X ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
for its purpose. which is not (directly) fighting spam.
sounds just right. the sender should have the rights for sending from his "From" Adresse, disregarding the Envelope-From (which may be some relay server).
Best is only with respect to the deterministic case.
disregard runtime complexity.
deterministic:
there is a best strategy (A).
all other strategies (B) are worse or equal.
A stochastic strategy (C) may have a good average quality.
stochastic:
the deterministic best strategy (A) cannot be perfect anymore, just as no other strategy can.
(A) has now unknown quality for a random sequence.
(C) still has the same average quality.
So there is now a possibility, that (C) may beat (A) in an average over a lot of games. (as a single game does not have any relevance when using random games)
no, you got it only the half way.
deterministic:
best = np-hard, perfekt
other: polynomial, good average
stochastic:
best: np-hard, not perfect, quality unknown
other: polynomial, good average
the point is not the runtime complexity, but the result. while the best algorithm cannot be beaten on the det. sequence, it may fail completely (in terms of quality) on a sequence without full information. If you got a good polynomial one with an average result, it may be better for many sequences.
one example may be an perfect algorithm with a lookup table for all sequences and a greedy algorithm.
With the random sequence, the "perfect" algorithm needs to choose the sequence which is most likely for its next move, discarding a lot of other strategies. Now it may have chosen the worst strategy for the next random and unlikely event. The other algorithm optimizes locally anyway and will continue in both cases as if it does not know the next event.
Jep, and your strategy gets worse, while another strategy may stay average.
Assume you flip a coin. heads or tails.
You NP-complete algorithm knows the sequence.
The probalistic one just guesses "heads".
Now the Expectation value of both are Zero in the stochastic case. In the deterministic one its infinite win for the np-complete one and zero for the probalistic one.
So this is an example, where a perfect algorithm for deterministic data is just as good as another for stochastic data.
This does not mean, you cannot get better than the deterministic-optimal algorithm. As the data is random, the deterministic-optimal algorithm becomes "just another algorithm" and you will need to proof again its better than the other candidates. It may be, maybe even provable the still the optimal one, but the fact that its det-optimal does not imply that its prob-optimal.
A real world example: Las Vegas Quicksort.
Quicksort is O(n log n), choosing log n times a median element, then sorting in n the elements on both sides to the correct side.
calculating the median element is O(n), with some constant C.
Choosing the median element randomly is O(1).
Now you can show, that the propability of a "not too bad" element is so, that the log n * C factor is slower in most cases than the slowdown of the algorithm by choosing a non-optimal "median".
Indeed, one of the best ideas for calendars ever. 5 seasons is reasonable, ~73 days is not perfectly round, but 30/31/28 is strange, too. Now combine it with @beats (1000 beats are one day) and you have an ideal system for measuring time. You just do not get a metric number of days per year, because we would need to change the earth orbit to keep the day and night schedule.
what do you expect from a oneliner? Tetris()? A Perl Oneliner does have semicolons as well.
I disagree.
For a stochastic process your greedy "take the option with the best chance" algorithm may work, it may fail completely, just depending on the random numbers. If you have an stochastic polynomial algorithm, you have a chance to get the same or better expectation value than your "optimize global then choose greedy" algorithm. Both approaches may win or fail, but in the deterministic game the np-complete version always wins, while the "shortcut" version cannot compete. In the stochastic version, the shortcut may be as good as the optimal solution, because you cannot get the global optimum anyway so choosing a local one may be a good choice.
you're still not getting the szenario, just as i did not in my first post.
VZW does not want to interfere for this szenario. They interfere with http adding an id and ignore https. The website wants your identification. So they generate a token on the https-site and load image.jpg?token from a http(without s) site. Then they know a token vzw correlation and can assign the same token on your next visit.
Hello supercookies.
nope, he's right. Your adversary is the site, not verizon. And the site can make you request non-http stuff, where verizon (which is not the main enemy) injects an id, which can then be read by the site. There is not much protection without using extreme measures like requestpolicy (and not allowing anything using http).