If we do find free oxygen in an atmosphere, though, you can bet all eyes will be trained on that planet. What kind of technology would be required to confirm the presence of life visually? Obviously radio signals or something like that would be a clincher, but suppose the life there is non-technological. Could we ever "verify" that there was life on that planet without going there or sending a probe (which is currently not feasible)?
Visually, no that's impossible. One square meter of earth is hit with about 1600W or 5*10^21 photons from the sun every second. Even if you built a collector the size of the earth five light years away only 1 in 2.8*10^23 photons from that square meter would hit earth, meaning you'd never get the resolution to positively identify even a giant dinosaur. It's not a matter of technology, but of quantum physics. We'd need a probe to land, build a very powerful radio telescope that would operate a point-to-point link with earth to get any mug shots.
And they're probably the people Microsoft listened to when they made Surface, the problem is that this is the kind of idea that sounds good on paper and falls through in practice. Once they try it and find out it's like awkwardly using an app made for keyboard and mouse using on screen keyboards and sausage fingers they never go through with the plans. And if somebody did go through the effort to "tabletify" their apps they probably did it for the 95% of the market that's not Microsoft.
If you're dead-set on tape backup at home, any recent table-top LTO5 or LTO6 drive (typical cost: $1,500-$3,000) (...) Media cost is pretty trivial after that initial investment, less than $30 for 3TB. (...) But let's say you buy ten 4TB hard drives; you've spent $4,000 for 40TB (late 2013 prices)
More like $1500, you're not breaking even until you have at least 15 disks and 60TB of storage. And it's not like you go from needing nothing to needing 60TB in a week, with a tape drive you're investing heavily in a tape drive and a few tapes that you hope to eventually make up for by buying more tapes. Meanwhile disks get bigger and cheaper so pay-as-you-go makes far more sense, at least it has up until now.
Usually by the time I put the oldest disks out of rotation the newest would be 3x the size, like 500 GB -> 1.5 TB, 750GB -> 2 TB, 1 TB -> 3 TB, 1.5 TB -> 4TB and so on. So I can either swap drive for drive to expand or drop several to consolidate into something smaller, quieter and less power consuming. With a tape you're stuck at one capacity until you make another huge investment, at which point all your old tapes look tiny so you have huge leaps instead of a steady climb. It doesn't really make sense for any home user I can think of.
Where did you get this gem from? By all accounts autonomous cars are better at spotting potential road hazards, like deer and pedestrians, than people are. Seeing as people can only rely on what they see where as the cars use a whole host of sensors to detect objects that may not even be visible, like when it's foggy and/or at night).
Spotting them, I think so too. With an IR camera they're much better at picking out elk and deer and whatnot else in the dark on forest roads than humans. Figuring out who's simply walking by on the sidewalk and who's going to make a panic dash across the crossing - or not the crossing - to catch his bus or is absent-mindedly talking on his cell phone on the other hand without going into ultra-paranoid mode will be tougher.
What's really ridiculous is that Doggy DNA is necessary.
People have been annoyed by this for ages, the ridiculous part is really that it's not just possible but has gone from ridiculously expensive research to something we use to identify owners who don't pick up their dog poo in a few decades. Many people have now seriously started to question if we should just full sequence everyone (currently $5-6000/person) because the lifetime savings in healthcare (hereditary diseases, genetic risk factors, effectiveness of drugs), medical research (finding genes related to conditions), crime (both preventative and to solve cases), immigration (fake relatives) and so on are potentially huge.
So are of course all the scary implications, but I doubt it takes very long before this "Doggy Poo" database is used to find stolen dogs as well assuming the new owner lives in such a building and may not know it's stolen. Or maybe the police take an interest in it for littering public places with poo. This ball is already rolling and it's rolling fast. The police here wanted to keep all the data of DNA drag nets (basically "requesting" all men that have been in the vicinity of a rape site through cell phone records volunteer for DNA testing) but finally got shot down and they'll be destroyed after use for now, but only barely. The threshold for criminals is also going down, so screw up once in your late teens and your DNA is on file forever.
The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. (...) All data about what people do should belong to the public.
You're part of the "we" that like to dictate for everyone else. No, all data about what I do should belong to me. My life is my own and in general it's nobody else's business, I accept that in certain ways aspects of my life is in less than perfect secrecy because it happens in public or around other people or with private or public institutions but my bank account is a private matter between the bank and me. My pay check is a private matter between my employer and me. Where my cell phone is located is a private matter between the cell phone company and me. Life is full of small compartmentalized exchanges of information which together make up the bulk of what we consider privacy. Having sex isn't "private" because those you have sex with can tell other people about it, but I think most would consider an organized collection of that information was an invasion of privacy.
I'm not interested in living my life "fully in the open" as long as there as busybodies, bigots, rumormongers, besserwissers, peer pressure and so on. It's human nature to meddle in things that are none of their business, even if the NSA was wiped off the face of the earth I'd still want my privacy. Apparently you totally disagree since you want to go in that direction anyway, good for you. Put up webcams and broadcast your life to the world if you want, just don't drag me into it. Don't pretend it's something I want to, should have to or need to. And if you want to share video from a private establishment using Google Glass and is asked to leave, please make a scene so I can cheer when they throw you out. The NSA, well we might not win that fight but everyone with total access is a worse nightmare than just the NSA.
There is so much fail in your post, where to begin... perhaps the most obvious is that you say "the object's core unlock key [1] is unlocked, the old names removed and new ones added" when you're referring to a symmetric key that doesn't have names. Either that or you're talking about encrypting the master key with different decryption keys, which is pointless since Charlie already has the master key (you can not assume the client throws this away after each session). Not only that, since the key is symmetric unless there's signing all around he could still add, alter or remove any content posted to the group, unless it's strictly fire-and-forget like an email distribution list.
If you want it to be more like a Facebook group you need functionality to add, edit and remove your own content, moderating capability, user administration.and a host of things that require specific permissions. Maybe you want to give moderators the ability to ban users, but not invite new users or the other way around? Or maybe they can approve new users, but not new moderators. And don't forget all the historical fun because the ban your ex-moderator issued was valid at the time he banned the user, but he's no longer a moderator and can't do that anymore so his permissions must be revoked while you might want to ban & nuke a user that's been spamming your group, removing all his posts.
It's all solvable I think through various interfaces that you get permissions to, but it certainly would get quite complicated. You also don't want an ex-member to be able to run a DoS attack on your group by filling it up with trash, if he has any keys that allows him to post even though they will fail in validation.
Note the commented-out line for strengthening the key. That looks like something was done to weaken the key generation.
More like the commented out code was done by someone who doesn't understand crypto and replaced by someone who did. PBKDF2 has a single purpose and that is to make password recovery from a hash difficult, this looks like it is negotiating a session key where it would be totally pointless since it's not based on a password at all.
To give you a very brief primer on PBKDF2: In the beginning, people stored passwords in plaintext. That was stupid so they started hashing them with for example MD5, so instead of storing $password they'd store md5( $password ). Of course since the same password would end up having the same MD5 sum in every system, leading to rainbow tables. To counter this you add a salt and store md5( $password + $salt ). However, short passwords are quite few so it was still possible to loop through all of them in a short amount of time. So someone thought hey, why don't we just MD5 it again many times and store md5(md5(....(md5(md5($password + $salt))...)). PBKDF2 is basically a system for this, where you pick the hash function and number of iterations. Now testing a single password takes much longer, which is feasible to do on a single login but takes far too long to recover the passwords from a hash table by looping through all of them. So it is useful, but only for this specific purpose.
If you use a GPL library, you're required to use the GPL license for your code as well.
Strictly speaking, the grandparent is absolutely correct and you're wrong. You can pick aaaaaaaaaany license you want, as long as you respect the license of the remaining code meaning you can pick MIT, ISC, Apache, LGPL or any other GPL-compatible license for your code. He's still wrong about the third point though, all of these licenses require you to hand out your code and the distribution rights to your code the moment you deliver a binary to anyone, or else they wouldn't be GPL-compatible.
Playing the devil's advocate here, I'd see many situations where it'd be reasonable to ask that the details be kept secret even if the transaction is not completed, for example if you're negotiating a buyout under an NDA. What if you're negotiating the sale of the entire inventory? A big part of it? A small part of it? A single item? I can sort of understand companies that want to say we want this resolved by the terms of the agreement and in court if necessary, but you can't try to publicly blackmail us by going to the media with it. On the other hand, I really feel you should be able to tell about someone who screwed you over.
Sweden is a much better comparison, they have no oil at all. Norway, well we've hit the jackpot in terms of oil. The oil-related jobs are creating an income level which makes a host of service industries (Like, who cuts the hair of the oil workers? Who serves them beer?) which is entirely out of touch with everyone else. We're leading the McDonald's index and I'm quite sure we have the highest pay for being a McDonald's employee anywhere in the world as well, even post-tax. The government is sucking up most the oil revenue, first the oil companies pay a huge tax on oil (I think 50% + 28% of any profit), the the workers pay their income tax and finally everyone else pays as they get their oil-inflated income tax. In short, it's easy to be Norway
That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in/. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right". Punishing someone after the fact does take the "right" away, you really think saying something then facing an execution squad is free speech? As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.
Most people, even those who like to pretend they only care about negative rights care about positive rights. If you say something and the government wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the law won't let them that's a negative right. If you say something and the community wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the police or the law won't let them that's a positive right. What's really your "freedom" of speech worth if the Taleban will kill you for it and nobody will care? Not very much.
Before Gutenberg it was very hard to in principle prevent a monk to "pirate" a book for you. Same goes for after Gutenberg and hiring a printing press to make "pirate" copies for you. I'm not so sure if it changed with the first Xerox machine or not. Let's face it, for most of human history preventing most of the people most of the time has been good enough. Computers kind of blew the lid on that, if you were following other conventions they'd be Weapons of Mass Infringement. It's rather hard to accept the whack-a-mole won't work when it's worked so well in the 500+ last years. I don't expect things to change much until the pre-Internet generation is dead.
It's not quite as simple as that, you can do many things that like padding things out to fixed sizes so you can't see JPG of 185254 bytes move through the network, but say only 256kb blocks. You can wait for other packets to come in and only multiple blocks at once so there's no clear link between which come in and which go out. You can pad things with dummy traffic so it appears you're routing it to several different nodes, that you're not the end point when you are and that you're not the starting point when you are. Those things are solvable as long as they only have backbone access.
The much harder problem is if they can run poison nodes and in a public network there's really no reason to think they won't. Particularly if they have the ability to interrupt your connections to non-poison nodes they'll quickly and easily trap you in a net where everyone you're talking to is the NSA and the supposed anonymity in routing and relaying traffic is gone. One compromised server in a TOR circuit isn't so bad, but if they have two - particularly the first and last - then you're pretty much boned. At least as far as anonymity is concerned, you can of course still wrap the actual traffic in https or PGP or whatever else for security.
Is the loyalty any better the other way around? Here's lots of training so thank you very much I'm now qualified for a much better position, kthxbye. And contracts that "trap" you with an employer or make you pay a bailout fee are incredibly unpopular and dangerous. To get on the job training there must be a mutual trust that you'll also stay around to let the company benefit from it, otherwise what's the point? My impression is that the trust is broken both ways, they don't trust you to stick around any more than you trust them to keep your job around so you end up with a sub-optimal solution for both parties.
It's not about Bob vs Charlie, it's when you want to promote Bob but corporate/government policy demands you have a public listing and review external applicants. That happens very often in big companies, but in reality the person who is already employed there, experienced in the exact subject matter and in line for the promotion will with 95%+ probability get it. Often there's only one internal candidate because everyone knows if that person wants the job, they'll get it. Same thing if you have to hand off a purchasing decision, if people have already decided on a solution they'll write a very detailed requirements document that only one product could possibly fill. It's simply so that if people don't have the authority to make the decision they'll try disqualifying all other options.
Heavy on the hyperbole are we? And "today's governments" is mostly the US government. Our incarceration rate is 1/10th of the US. We don't have a Gitmo. The 1% is getting richer but with the march of technology the TVs are getting bigger, the smartphones smarter so I can't see any real decline in living standard even though the gap is widening. As for rights, go back to the pre-Internet days and see how much they controlled the mass media back then. They're still trying to put Internet back in the bag, for all the attempts at trying I'd say in most ways we're freer in the 2010s than the 1980s, though there might have been a wild west gap in between. Granted, there's not much progress being made but the trend isn't horribly bad either.
freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.
Yes, it's this terrible human right called freedom of association which on the flip side says I don't have to associate with people I don't want to associate with. Now you're down to schoolyard level though, you can't force someone else to be friends with you. It doesn't exactly belong in the same discussion as actual censorship, harassment, imprisonment, discrimination or persecution based on your speech. It's only the freedom to hold and express an opinion, you can't by law make it a popular one.
BitCoin had value because of SilkRoad, and the silk-roaders were willing to accept it for... something.
1) People buy Bitcoin for US dollars/Euros/Yen to buy drugs 2) Shuffle around until anonymous 3) People buy drugs from sellers for Bitcoin 4) Shuffle around until anonymous 5) Sellers sell Bitcoin to 1) for US dollars/Euros/Yen
That's a closed loop, as long as there's people willing to sell drugs and buy drugs it can keep circulating forever. In fact, the current fluctuations are probably bad for business as both parties would rather have some certainly on the value of what they're getting.
Most likely a sincere do-or-die attempt, they probably hoped for enough sales through that to turn things around. Whether that hope was realistic or they were just grasping at straws I don't know, either way the attempt was free and a slim chance to save the company beats doing nothing and going bankrupt for sure, at least from OCZ's perspective. They might have burned a lot more customers that way, but it reminds me a little of an "Ask Slashdot" about a small CEO/investor introducing hellish work hours and conditions - he doesn't care if he'll burn out the employees in a last-ditch attempt to save the company. If he does nothing he's bankrupt, so he might as well give it a go.
Of course I did and it didn't give any hint that it had problems, for some reason it just ignored the indexes it'd use for a single key and went for a different query plan. As for testing, it's not really tested until it's done on production volume. We just had a proof of concept made by someone and it did what it was supposed to do - show that the general principle worked, but the current implementation would never work except on a small test database. Having it work right is a good start but if it doesn't also work fast it's no good for us.
If you actually had a true full-4k feed at 60+hz (and did I miss the announcement of a mainstream optical media format that holds more than a terabyte?), you could - marginally - detect the difference in a rapidly moving scene.
Get some 60p content and turn it into 30p, I think you'll notice the difference. The "filmatic" 24p is *very* noticable. But yeah for writing code, no problem.
I would say 39" is a bit too much for the average desk though, 30-32" is just right. But as you say the only 4K monitors in that size are all based on the same IGZO panel (variants from Sharp, Asus, Dell), they seriously need a competitor. It's silly that you can buy a ca. 55" 4K TV from LG, Toshiba or Samsung for the same money. I guess it won't really hit the mass market until Apple is ready, like with the Retina tablets and laptops then everyone else followed. Hurry up;)
Trolling, I guess you can't expect more from someone rigging the game to create money from thin air using ASICs. Bitcoin exists somewhere between the dotcom bubble and a pyramid scheme. You know what all those people buying Bitcoin at $1000 think? That they can soon sell it again for $10k, just like those who bought it at $100 thought they could sell it for $1000. None of the people I've heard of with Bitcoins spend it or plan to spend it, they're all speculating. You on the other hand is more like the casino, no matter who wins at the table you end up with a nice profit. But a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money when the bubble pops.
I don't "know". I measure. That's what EXPLAIN is for. Mileage may vary depending on (database) driver and road conditions. Prematurely optimizing based on assumed behavior is one of the things that separate the cheap help from the gurus.
And yet EXPLAIN doesn't always help solve the insanity. I had this big query at work, had a "WHERE processingKey = [fixed value]" at end, worked in <1 second. Needed to get results for 8-900 keys, a simple join right? Query plain goes crazy, takes 90 minutes. Subquery? Same shit. Finally I just write a procedure to loop through the keys one by one to an in-memory table and return that, finishes in 2-3 minutes and locks the database much less. Go figure, it's exactly the same job.
Slashdot Mirror
If we do find free oxygen in an atmosphere, though, you can bet all eyes will be trained on that planet. What kind of technology would be required to confirm the presence of life visually? Obviously radio signals or something like that would be a clincher, but suppose the life there is non-technological. Could we ever "verify" that there was life on that planet without going there or sending a probe (which is currently not feasible)?
Visually, no that's impossible. One square meter of earth is hit with about 1600W or 5*10^21 photons from the sun every second. Even if you built a collector the size of the earth five light years away only 1 in 2.8*10^23 photons from that square meter would hit earth, meaning you'd never get the resolution to positively identify even a giant dinosaur. It's not a matter of technology, but of quantum physics. We'd need a probe to land, build a very powerful radio telescope that would operate a point-to-point link with earth to get any mug shots.
And they're probably the people Microsoft listened to when they made Surface, the problem is that this is the kind of idea that sounds good on paper and falls through in practice. Once they try it and find out it's like awkwardly using an app made for keyboard and mouse using on screen keyboards and sausage fingers they never go through with the plans. And if somebody did go through the effort to "tabletify" their apps they probably did it for the 95% of the market that's not Microsoft.
For most, the answer is "none".
And the TL;DR version should really stop there.
If you're dead-set on tape backup at home, any recent table-top LTO5 or LTO6 drive (typical cost: $1,500-$3,000) (...) Media cost is pretty trivial after that initial investment, less than $30 for 3TB. (...) But let's say you buy ten 4TB hard drives; you've spent $4,000 for 40TB (late 2013 prices)
More like $1500, you're not breaking even until you have at least 15 disks and 60TB of storage. And it's not like you go from needing nothing to needing 60TB in a week, with a tape drive you're investing heavily in a tape drive and a few tapes that you hope to eventually make up for by buying more tapes. Meanwhile disks get bigger and cheaper so pay-as-you-go makes far more sense, at least it has up until now.
Usually by the time I put the oldest disks out of rotation the newest would be 3x the size, like 500 GB -> 1.5 TB, 750GB -> 2 TB, 1 TB -> 3 TB, 1.5 TB -> 4TB and so on. So I can either swap drive for drive to expand or drop several to consolidate into something smaller, quieter and less power consuming. With a tape you're stuck at one capacity until you make another huge investment, at which point all your old tapes look tiny so you have huge leaps instead of a steady climb. It doesn't really make sense for any home user I can think of.
Where did you get this gem from? By all accounts autonomous cars are better at spotting potential road hazards, like deer and pedestrians, than people are. Seeing as people can only rely on what they see where as the cars use a whole host of sensors to detect objects that may not even be visible, like when it's foggy and/or at night).
Spotting them, I think so too. With an IR camera they're much better at picking out elk and deer and whatnot else in the dark on forest roads than humans. Figuring out who's simply walking by on the sidewalk and who's going to make a panic dash across the crossing - or not the crossing - to catch his bus or is absent-mindedly talking on his cell phone on the other hand without going into ultra-paranoid mode will be tougher.
What's really ridiculous is that Doggy DNA is necessary.
People have been annoyed by this for ages, the ridiculous part is really that it's not just possible but has gone from ridiculously expensive research to something we use to identify owners who don't pick up their dog poo in a few decades. Many people have now seriously started to question if we should just full sequence everyone (currently $5-6000/person) because the lifetime savings in healthcare (hereditary diseases, genetic risk factors, effectiveness of drugs), medical research (finding genes related to conditions), crime (both preventative and to solve cases), immigration (fake relatives) and so on are potentially huge.
So are of course all the scary implications, but I doubt it takes very long before this "Doggy Poo" database is used to find stolen dogs as well assuming the new owner lives in such a building and may not know it's stolen. Or maybe the police take an interest in it for littering public places with poo. This ball is already rolling and it's rolling fast. The police here wanted to keep all the data of DNA drag nets (basically "requesting" all men that have been in the vicinity of a rape site through cell phone records volunteer for DNA testing) but finally got shot down and they'll be destroyed after use for now, but only barely. The threshold for criminals is also going down, so screw up once in your late teens and your DNA is on file forever.
The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. (...) All data about what people do should belong to the public.
You're part of the "we" that like to dictate for everyone else. No, all data about what I do should belong to me. My life is my own and in general it's nobody else's business, I accept that in certain ways aspects of my life is in less than perfect secrecy because it happens in public or around other people or with private or public institutions but my bank account is a private matter between the bank and me. My pay check is a private matter between my employer and me. Where my cell phone is located is a private matter between the cell phone company and me. Life is full of small compartmentalized exchanges of information which together make up the bulk of what we consider privacy. Having sex isn't "private" because those you have sex with can tell other people about it, but I think most would consider an organized collection of that information was an invasion of privacy.
I'm not interested in living my life "fully in the open" as long as there as busybodies, bigots, rumormongers, besserwissers, peer pressure and so on. It's human nature to meddle in things that are none of their business, even if the NSA was wiped off the face of the earth I'd still want my privacy. Apparently you totally disagree since you want to go in that direction anyway, good for you. Put up webcams and broadcast your life to the world if you want, just don't drag me into it. Don't pretend it's something I want to, should have to or need to. And if you want to share video from a private establishment using Google Glass and is asked to leave, please make a scene so I can cheer when they throw you out. The NSA, well we might not win that fight but everyone with total access is a worse nightmare than just the NSA.
There is so much fail in your post, where to begin... perhaps the most obvious is that you say "the object's core unlock key [1] is unlocked, the old names removed and new ones added" when you're referring to a symmetric key that doesn't have names. Either that or you're talking about encrypting the master key with different decryption keys, which is pointless since Charlie already has the master key (you can not assume the client throws this away after each session). Not only that, since the key is symmetric unless there's signing all around he could still add, alter or remove any content posted to the group, unless it's strictly fire-and-forget like an email distribution list.
If you want it to be more like a Facebook group you need functionality to add, edit and remove your own content, moderating capability, user administration.and a host of things that require specific permissions. Maybe you want to give moderators the ability to ban users, but not invite new users or the other way around? Or maybe they can approve new users, but not new moderators. And don't forget all the historical fun because the ban your ex-moderator issued was valid at the time he banned the user, but he's no longer a moderator and can't do that anymore so his permissions must be revoked while you might want to ban & nuke a user that's been spamming your group, removing all his posts.
It's all solvable I think through various interfaces that you get permissions to, but it certainly would get quite complicated. You also don't want an ex-member to be able to run a DoS attack on your group by filling it up with trash, if he has any keys that allows him to post even though they will fail in validation.
Note the commented-out line for strengthening the key. That looks like something was done to weaken the key generation.
More like the commented out code was done by someone who doesn't understand crypto and replaced by someone who did. PBKDF2 has a single purpose and that is to make password recovery from a hash difficult, this looks like it is negotiating a session key where it would be totally pointless since it's not based on a password at all.
To give you a very brief primer on PBKDF2:
In the beginning, people stored passwords in plaintext. That was stupid so they started hashing them with for example MD5, so instead of storing $password they'd store md5( $password ). Of course since the same password would end up having the same MD5 sum in every system, leading to rainbow tables. To counter this you add a salt and store md5( $password + $salt ). However, short passwords are quite few so it was still possible to loop through all of them in a short amount of time. So someone thought hey, why don't we just MD5 it again many times and store md5(md5(....(md5(md5($password + $salt))...)). PBKDF2 is basically a system for this, where you pick the hash function and number of iterations. Now testing a single password takes much longer, which is feasible to do on a single login but takes far too long to recover the passwords from a hash table by looping through all of them. So it is useful, but only for this specific purpose.
If you use a GPL library, you're required to use the GPL license for your code as well.
Strictly speaking, the grandparent is absolutely correct and you're wrong. You can pick aaaaaaaaaany license you want, as long as you respect the license of the remaining code meaning you can pick MIT, ISC, Apache, LGPL or any other GPL-compatible license for your code. He's still wrong about the third point though, all of these licenses require you to hand out your code and the distribution rights to your code the moment you deliver a binary to anyone, or else they wouldn't be GPL-compatible.
Playing the devil's advocate here, I'd see many situations where it'd be reasonable to ask that the details be kept secret even if the transaction is not completed, for example if you're negotiating a buyout under an NDA. What if you're negotiating the sale of the entire inventory? A big part of it? A small part of it? A single item? I can sort of understand companies that want to say we want this resolved by the terms of the agreement and in court if necessary, but you can't try to publicly blackmail us by going to the media with it. On the other hand, I really feel you should be able to tell about someone who screwed you over.
Sweden is a much better comparison, they have no oil at all. Norway, well we've hit the jackpot in terms of oil. The oil-related jobs are creating an income level which makes a host of service industries (Like, who cuts the hair of the oil workers? Who serves them beer?) which is entirely out of touch with everyone else. We're leading the McDonald's index and I'm quite sure we have the highest pay for being a McDonald's employee anywhere in the world as well, even post-tax. The government is sucking up most the oil revenue, first the oil companies pay a huge tax on oil (I think 50% + 28% of any profit), the the workers pay their income tax and finally everyone else pays as they get their oil-inflated income tax. In short, it's easy to be Norway
That must be the most ill-conceived post I've seen in /. on all my years here, and that's saying something. Just because you can't prevent anyone from doing something (murder, rape or holding a speech) doesn't make it a "right". Punishing someone after the fact does take the "right" away, you really think saying something then facing an execution squad is free speech? As for "natural" rights, I consider that a joke. Try arguing your "right to life" with a hungry lion, rights only exists between entities that recognize those rights. If your government doesn't recognize freedom of speech, the difference between having it and not having it is entirely philosophical.
Most people, even those who like to pretend they only care about negative rights care about positive rights. If you say something and the government wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the law won't let them that's a negative right. If you say something and the community wants to hang you from the nearest tree but the police or the law won't let them that's a positive right. What's really your "freedom" of speech worth if the Taleban will kill you for it and nobody will care? Not very much.
Before Gutenberg it was very hard to in principle prevent a monk to "pirate" a book for you. Same goes for after Gutenberg and hiring a printing press to make "pirate" copies for you. I'm not so sure if it changed with the first Xerox machine or not. Let's face it, for most of human history preventing most of the people most of the time has been good enough. Computers kind of blew the lid on that, if you were following other conventions they'd be Weapons of Mass Infringement. It's rather hard to accept the whack-a-mole won't work when it's worked so well in the 500+ last years. I don't expect things to change much until the pre-Internet generation is dead.
It's not quite as simple as that, you can do many things that like padding things out to fixed sizes so you can't see JPG of 185254 bytes move through the network, but say only 256kb blocks. You can wait for other packets to come in and only multiple blocks at once so there's no clear link between which come in and which go out. You can pad things with dummy traffic so it appears you're routing it to several different nodes, that you're not the end point when you are and that you're not the starting point when you are. Those things are solvable as long as they only have backbone access.
The much harder problem is if they can run poison nodes and in a public network there's really no reason to think they won't. Particularly if they have the ability to interrupt your connections to non-poison nodes they'll quickly and easily trap you in a net where everyone you're talking to is the NSA and the supposed anonymity in routing and relaying traffic is gone. One compromised server in a TOR circuit isn't so bad, but if they have two - particularly the first and last - then you're pretty much boned. At least as far as anonymity is concerned, you can of course still wrap the actual traffic in https or PGP or whatever else for security.
Is the loyalty any better the other way around? Here's lots of training so thank you very much I'm now qualified for a much better position, kthxbye. And contracts that "trap" you with an employer or make you pay a bailout fee are incredibly unpopular and dangerous. To get on the job training there must be a mutual trust that you'll also stay around to let the company benefit from it, otherwise what's the point? My impression is that the trust is broken both ways, they don't trust you to stick around any more than you trust them to keep your job around so you end up with a sub-optimal solution for both parties.
It's not about Bob vs Charlie, it's when you want to promote Bob but corporate/government policy demands you have a public listing and review external applicants. That happens very often in big companies, but in reality the person who is already employed there, experienced in the exact subject matter and in line for the promotion will with 95%+ probability get it. Often there's only one internal candidate because everyone knows if that person wants the job, they'll get it. Same thing if you have to hand off a purchasing decision, if people have already decided on a solution they'll write a very detailed requirements document that only one product could possibly fill. It's simply so that if people don't have the authority to make the decision they'll try disqualifying all other options.
Heavy on the hyperbole are we? And "today's governments" is mostly the US government. Our incarceration rate is 1/10th of the US. We don't have a Gitmo. The 1% is getting richer but with the march of technology the TVs are getting bigger, the smartphones smarter so I can't see any real decline in living standard even though the gap is widening. As for rights, go back to the pre-Internet days and see how much they controlled the mass media back then. They're still trying to put Internet back in the bag, for all the attempts at trying I'd say in most ways we're freer in the 2010s than the 1980s, though there might have been a wild west gap in between. Granted, there's not much progress being made but the trend isn't horribly bad either.
freedom of speech is a total fiction anyway...there is a plethora of restrictions on free speech, not the least being having to be careful of what you say in social settings as to not alienate yourself from whatever group your are trying to gain favor in.
Yes, it's this terrible human right called freedom of association which on the flip side says I don't have to associate with people I don't want to associate with. Now you're down to schoolyard level though, you can't force someone else to be friends with you. It doesn't exactly belong in the same discussion as actual censorship, harassment, imprisonment, discrimination or persecution based on your speech. It's only the freedom to hold and express an opinion, you can't by law make it a popular one.
BitCoin had value because of SilkRoad, and the silk-roaders were willing to accept it for... something.
1) People buy Bitcoin for US dollars/Euros/Yen to buy drugs
2) Shuffle around until anonymous
3) People buy drugs from sellers for Bitcoin
4) Shuffle around until anonymous
5) Sellers sell Bitcoin to 1) for US dollars/Euros/Yen
That's a closed loop, as long as there's people willing to sell drugs and buy drugs it can keep circulating forever. In fact, the current fluctuations are probably bad for business as both parties would rather have some certainly on the value of what they're getting.
Most likely a sincere do-or-die attempt, they probably hoped for enough sales through that to turn things around. Whether that hope was realistic or they were just grasping at straws I don't know, either way the attempt was free and a slim chance to save the company beats doing nothing and going bankrupt for sure, at least from OCZ's perspective. They might have burned a lot more customers that way, but it reminds me a little of an "Ask Slashdot" about a small CEO/investor introducing hellish work hours and conditions - he doesn't care if he'll burn out the employees in a last-ditch attempt to save the company. If he does nothing he's bankrupt, so he might as well give it a go.
Of course I did and it didn't give any hint that it had problems, for some reason it just ignored the indexes it'd use for a single key and went for a different query plan. As for testing, it's not really tested until it's done on production volume. We just had a proof of concept made by someone and it did what it was supposed to do - show that the general principle worked, but the current implementation would never work except on a small test database. Having it work right is a good start but if it doesn't also work fast it's no good for us.
If you actually had a true full-4k feed at 60+hz (and did I miss the announcement of a mainstream optical media format that holds more than a terabyte?), you could - marginally - detect the difference in a rapidly moving scene.
Get some 60p content and turn it into 30p, I think you'll notice the difference. The "filmatic" 24p is *very* noticable. But yeah for writing code, no problem.
I would say 39" is a bit too much for the average desk though, 30-32" is just right. But as you say the only 4K monitors in that size are all based on the same IGZO panel (variants from Sharp, Asus, Dell), they seriously need a competitor. It's silly that you can buy a ca. 55" 4K TV from LG, Toshiba or Samsung for the same money. I guess it won't really hit the mass market until Apple is ready, like with the Retina tablets and laptops then everyone else followed. Hurry up ;)
Trolling, I guess you can't expect more from someone rigging the game to create money from thin air using ASICs. Bitcoin exists somewhere between the dotcom bubble and a pyramid scheme. You know what all those people buying Bitcoin at $1000 think? That they can soon sell it again for $10k, just like those who bought it at $100 thought they could sell it for $1000. None of the people I've heard of with Bitcoins spend it or plan to spend it, they're all speculating. You on the other hand is more like the casino, no matter who wins at the table you end up with a nice profit. But a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money when the bubble pops.
I don't "know". I measure. That's what EXPLAIN is for. Mileage may vary depending on (database) driver and road conditions. Prematurely optimizing based on assumed behavior is one of the things that separate the cheap help from the gurus.
And yet EXPLAIN doesn't always help solve the insanity. I had this big query at work, had a "WHERE processingKey = [fixed value]" at end, worked in <1 second. Needed to get results for 8-900 keys, a simple join right? Query plain goes crazy, takes 90 minutes. Subquery? Same shit. Finally I just write a procedure to loop through the keys one by one to an in-memory table and return that, finishes in 2-3 minutes and locks the database much less. Go figure, it's exactly the same job.