>And why on Earth would someone conduct private business on a company email account.
Because you're working late and you need to tell your wife that you're going to be late home, and your employer isn't a douche so is fine with you sending personal emails and has said so.
Not every employer has a scorched earth policy regarding these things.
It provides exactly 1 bit of information per reader - has it been pressed or not.
Of course, since the odds of it being pressed are minuscule, the min entropy is much less than 1 bit per press. It's:
-log_2(max( P(G+ button pressed), 1-P(G+ button pressed))) bits. It's bigger than zero though, so I can't agree with your statement.
I'm thinking false because they certainly don't have a monopoly in search. They might have had in the past, but not when the Forbes business was going on and not now. As we've seen, there are plenty of other buttons attached to articles on web pages (twitter, facebook, etc). If they were saying your search results will suffer if you put on other vendor's buttons, then yes, that would clearly have been an abuse
It's like saying Seagate are abusing their monopoly in storage because they told someone their data integrity will suffer if they don't buy drives for backups.
You have less evidence of what really happened than the reporter. You talk about biases and then proceed to describe how your past experience with an unrelated reporter on an unrelated subject caused you to decide this piece is false. Are you retarded?
It is one of four times where I have direct knowledge of facts showing the reporter twisting facts to a false narrative. That is every single time I've had direct, first hand knowledge of something reported in the press. So that strongly suggests a lot of press reports are twisting facts.
A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".
B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".
The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them. The second is an accusation of abuse of power.
These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.
I have never once read an article on a topic which I have first hand experience in, where the journalist didn't twist the facts into a false narrative that they had pulled out of their arse. For example, I was involved in setting up IEEE 802.22. I chaired the study group that formed it. It defined mechanisms for communication between heterogeneous networks (E.G. Wifi and 3G) so sessions can hand over smoothly. A guy from Lucent and a guy from Nokia were the vice chair and secretary. I had to justify this activity to my employer (Intel) who were paying my wages and expenses. There was an article in an industry rag called Bluenote that published an article to the effect "OMG, Intel and Nokia and Lucent! They must be pouring millions into this standard" based on nothing. Nobody said this, it wasn't true and the journalist knew it wasn't true, but they wrote it anyway.
In TFA and TFS, the narrative is "Google abuses it's monopoly in search". It is the natural response of a tech journalist to twist the representation of any events concerning Google into that narrative and that it exactly what happened.
>Having a random number (with verification) would need to be verified if it was not already handed out and if it where not already used.
There are easy ways around this:
1) Use a big enough random number. 256 bit uniform random numbers will not collide.
2) Have a secret key and a counter and encrypt the counter through a decent block cipher (say AES, or Simon which you can easily extend to a 256 bit block size). Since the counter values never collide and the block cipher is a bijective mapping, you get numbers out the other side that are indistinguishable from random to anyone without the key, and they will never collide.
We shopped recently to replace a very aging MB air that my wife used. Five minutes of prodding and typing in the Apple store and we picked the non-touch-bar MBP. The killer feature being a working escape key. Seriously, the escape key is to the new MBPs as the headphone jack is to the iPhone 7.
Me too. I used a Mac on a daily basis for a couple of years, and never really got used to it. Nothing about it is intuitive to me, and I spent a lot of time just trying to figure out how to do things that should not have been complex.
But that's the beauty of having options! Macs don't work well for me, but they do for others.
I've had no significant problems. I can bring up a shell, type unixy things at it, compile LaTeX, C and run many more froo froo languages. People running a window system on Linux - now that's odd behavior. Haven't these people heard of screen?
OK. For everyone who didn't get the subtext, it is that the benefits of infrastructure spending and transport subsidy are far outweighed by the economic benefit. It was written in the way it was written to mirror the erroneous logic of the prior posting stating that trains are unsustainable because they cost a lot.
If you need explanations of any other instances of humor or sarcasm or unconstrained piss taking, please consult with a normal human who speaks English.
> It will be bailed out by the government. Hey it is owned by the government !
Just like roads. They are economically unsustainable also. They make zero profit. That's why any country with roads is in a worse state economically than countries without roads.
I've had a successful 20 year career on the basis of knowing a lot about a fairly wide range of technical topics so that I am able to bring together solutions drawing on these different disciplines. The first step on that path was getting my first job after college in a different technical area to my degree. This was a hiring mistake by my first employer, but it worked out well.
The thing I have noticed, is that after a very deep dive into solving a particular problem in computer security a few years ago, which drew on all my experience along with that of a few other people, I've been considered the 'expert' in that field. As I've been more recognized as the expert, people's understanding of my place as a broad skilled problem solver has diminished. They tend to think I'm a narrowly focused specialist. I get offered jobs on the basis of my position of eminence in a field I'm done with. I'd like to move on to new problems.
My escape plan is to write a book, which will be published next year, telling everyone how to do my job. Then I'll find something else to do with a clear conscience. I'm two years and 298 pages in so far.
I prefer the individual shows, not "channels". But I do sort of miss IFC and BBC America, as they tended to have an above average amount of stuff that was decent to watch if you were just browsing. For everything else, I couldn't care less if a show was FX vs AMC vs Scifi or whatnot.
Acorn has lots of British shows available. That's a good substitute for BBC America.
When you cut the cord, you dispense with channels and pay for some combination of Netflix, Hulu, Acorn or other on demand, over the internet providers of content and watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it.
Slashdot Mirror
Burma Shave
>And why on Earth would someone conduct private business on a company email account.
Because you're working late and you need to tell your wife that you're going to be late home, and your employer isn't a douche so is fine with you sending personal emails and has said so.
Not every employer has a scorched earth policy regarding these things.
Fair enough. It's also fair enough to call out the journalists when they fail to present information in a highly distorted way.
It provides exactly 1 bit of information per reader - has it been pressed or not.
Of course, since the odds of it being pressed are minuscule, the min entropy is much less than 1 bit per press. It's:
-log_2(max( P(G+ button pressed), 1-P(G+ button pressed))) bits.
It's bigger than zero though, so I can't agree with your statement.
I'm thinking false because they certainly don't have a monopoly in search. They might have had in the past, but not when the Forbes business was going on and not now. As we've seen, there are plenty of other buttons attached to articles on web pages (twitter, facebook, etc). If they were saying your search results will suffer if you put on other vendor's buttons, then yes, that would clearly have been an abuse
It's like saying Seagate are abusing their monopoly in storage because they told someone their data integrity will suffer if they don't buy drives for backups.
Wow. A troll mod for stating facts. It's a harsh crowd today.
You have less evidence of what really happened than the reporter. You talk about biases and then proceed to describe how your past experience with an unrelated reporter on an unrelated subject caused you to decide this piece is false. Are you retarded?
It is one of four times where I have direct knowledge of facts showing the reporter twisting facts to a false narrative. That is every single time I've had direct, first hand knowledge of something reported in the press. So that strongly suggests a lot of press reports are twisting facts.
A) Google to web site person: "By putting these +1 buttons on articles, we get to know what articles are liked better so the search algorithms work better".
B) Web site person to Google: "Surprise! I'm a journalist. Here's my headline: 'Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers' ".
The first is a natural consequence of how computers work. They are stupid and need data to help them.
The second is an accusation of abuse of power.
These are not the same things. The first is true, the second is a twisting of the truth by a journalist to create a false perception.
I have never once read an article on a topic which I have first hand experience in, where the journalist didn't twist the facts into a false narrative that they had pulled out of their arse. For example, I was involved in setting up IEEE 802.22. I chaired the study group that formed it. It defined mechanisms for communication between heterogeneous networks (E.G. Wifi and 3G) so sessions can hand over smoothly. A guy from Lucent and a guy from Nokia were the vice chair and secretary. I had to justify this activity to my employer (Intel) who were paying my wages and expenses. There was an article in an industry rag called Bluenote that published an article to the effect "OMG, Intel and Nokia and Lucent! They must be pouring millions into this standard" based on nothing. Nobody said this, it wasn't true and the journalist knew it wasn't true, but they wrote it anyway.
In TFA and TFS, the narrative is "Google abuses it's monopoly in search". It is the natural response of a tech journalist to twist the representation of any events concerning Google into that narrative and that it exactly what happened.
Did they tell you the parables were true also?
I remember them being primarily concerned with attempts to raise money to fix the roof on the church.
Argh, crap. Copied the wrong text and answered a different question. My defense is jetlag.
>Having a random number (with verification) would need to be verified if it was not already handed out and if it where not already used.
There are easy ways around this:
1) Use a big enough random number. 256 bit uniform random numbers will not collide.
2) Have a secret key and a counter and encrypt the counter through a decent block cipher (say AES, or Simon which you can easily extend to a 256 bit block size). Since the counter values never collide and the block cipher is a bijective mapping, you get numbers out the other side that are indistinguishable from random to anyone without the key, and they will never collide.
which for a tent-pole movie
I've never seen a movie about tent poles. I'm guessing it's a metaphor but not one I'm familiar with.
We shopped recently to replace a very aging MB air that my wife used. Five minutes of prodding and typing in the Apple store and we picked the non-touch-bar MBP. The killer feature being a working escape key. Seriously, the escape key is to the new MBPs as the headphone jack is to the iPhone 7.
I gave it a go.... a good, solid go.
Me too. I used a Mac on a daily basis for a couple of years, and never really got used to it. Nothing about it is intuitive to me, and I spent a lot of time just trying to figure out how to do things that should not have been complex.
But that's the beauty of having options! Macs don't work well for me, but they do for others.
I've had no significant problems. I can bring up a shell, type unixy things at it, compile LaTeX, C and run many more froo froo languages. People running a window system on Linux - now that's odd behavior. Haven't these people heard of screen?
If it was not peer-reviewed, it is ancient crackpottery. Literally. Just saying.
Or ancient cracked pottery.
No it's not. It's LGBTQP+BBQ+UTC&A
OK. For everyone who didn't get the subtext, it is that the benefits of infrastructure spending and transport subsidy are far outweighed by the economic benefit. It was written in the way it was written to mirror the erroneous logic of the prior posting stating that trains are unsustainable because they cost a lot.
If you need explanations of any other instances of humor or sarcasm or unconstrained piss taking, please consult with a normal human who speaks English.
The USA has many, many roads, and I would say that we are doing better economically than most countries, by a long shot.
Did you feel a faint whooshing noise overhead?
Maybe 'relaunch' wasn't the ideal word to choose.
> It will be bailed out by the government. Hey it is owned by the government !
Just like roads. They are economically unsustainable also. They make zero profit. That's why any country with roads is in a worse state economically than countries without roads.
I've had a successful 20 year career on the basis of knowing a lot about a fairly wide range of technical topics so that I am able to bring together solutions drawing on these different disciplines. The first step on that path was getting my first job after college in a different technical area to my degree. This was a hiring mistake by my first employer, but it worked out well.
The thing I have noticed, is that after a very deep dive into solving a particular problem in computer security a few years ago, which drew on all my experience along with that of a few other people, I've been considered the 'expert' in that field. As I've been more recognized as the expert, people's understanding of my place as a broad skilled problem solver has diminished. They tend to think I'm a narrowly focused specialist. I get offered jobs on the basis of my position of eminence in a field I'm done with. I'd like to move on to new problems.
My escape plan is to write a book, which will be published next year, telling everyone how to do my job. Then I'll find something else to do with a clear conscience. I'm two years and 298 pages in so far.
I prefer the individual shows, not "channels". But I do sort of miss IFC and BBC America, as they tended to have an above average amount of stuff that was decent to watch if you were just browsing. For everything else, I couldn't care less if a show was FX vs AMC vs Scifi or whatnot.
Acorn has lots of British shows available. That's a good substitute for BBC America.
Yes. That's why I run MythTV hooked up to my HDHomerun box on a little server box.
WTF are these things TFS calls 'channels'?
When you cut the cord, you dispense with channels and pay for some combination of Netflix, Hulu, Acorn or other on demand, over the internet providers of content and watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it.
I know. mathchat and PILOT lost out to the same deficiency.