Nope. The SSID database is not all that they did. They sniffed the data packets as well. As in: they got the MACs of the machines of the network, even hardwired machines, they also logged the contents of all the IP traffic, mDNS names, NMB names, etc.
What Google did was unauthorized access to a computer system. You know, computers communicate with each other, the network is as much part of the system as the CPU is. What they did is in fact illegal in many places where they did it. The prosecutors know better than stand up to someone with such deep pockets, though. No, it wasn't like BP -- people understand so little about IT that the public outcry wasn't enough to cover possible fallout from messing with a legal department that got more dough than your entire state's (and subdivisions thereof) legal departments, all combined.
There are good reasons for that. The eye's diameter's square affects the eye's surface area. The surface area pretty much determines how fast our eyes can move -- our eye's performance is limited by the drag of the tear film. There's no room to grow larger eye muscles to compensate for it. One must remember that in the fast (saccadic) motions of the eyes, the viscous drag is "the" term that matters. The inertia can be ignored. Our eyes would move the same even if they were made of a material 10x as dense as water.
Remember: we're blind during a saccade - as the image blurs on the retina, it is suppressed. Fast saccades are a useful thing to have:)
Very informative. While it's a cool project, in a way I'm fine only dealing with distributed signal processing that can power a dozen nodes through one PoE ethernet drop:)
Distance doesn't always follow visibility. There are things that are far away but are much brighter than some of the nearby stuff, so are easier to notice. For the example of our Solar neighborhood, by number and by mass most of the stars are faint (magnitude > 14), and "all" of the light comes from the most luminous ones (from here). What you see at 14 billion l.y. away is entire galaxies, not individual stars.
If you don't understand that the "so far" part is always implied, you don't get what science is. There are very few absolutes. Theories are subject to revision, nothing wrong with that.
I don't think that the your-speed-is signs use anything fancy, there's either a frequency-to-voltage converter involved that has a bad temperature coefficient, or the microprocessor that measures the doppler frequency runs off some piss-poor oscillator. That happens. The modern hand-held guns aren't really calibrated, they are merely checked for being in calibration. If their calibration is off, there's nothing to adjust, they have to be serviced. Again, the problem is not with their accuracy, but in the fact that they don't measure what they advertise to measure. High-bandwidth (kHz and up) instantaneous velocity cannot be reasonably used as a stand-in for speedometer speed with its orders-of-magnitude lower bandwidth (20Hz tops). Yet it's used just that way. That's where the problem is.
The cop's radar gun is much more accurate than any speedometer, usually -- after all, it's either a heterodyne measuring relative to a 100ppm oscillator (at worst), or a pulse timer measuring to similar oscillator's time base. The problem is that it is not measuring the average speed of the car. It measures the relative instantaneous speed of whatever the microwaves or laser beam happened to bounce off. The guns I've seen are not designed to average those instantaneous readings long enough to give you what would pass for average speed. The problem is that vehicles are 'rickety' -- there are various pieces that vibrate back and forth, sometimes with significant instantaneous velocities even if the deflection is almost too small to see. Those add up to the slowly changing speed of the vehicle as a whole. This stuff is not insignificant.
The security problems just weren't exploited, that's all. I'm pretty damn sure applying today's knowledge, there'd be lots of holes that could be found. Buffer overruns, I'm sure, unless all of the service developers used some secure framework that prevented all that. It's naive to think that all of the service developers back then could pull off what somehow eludes the most today -- namely, code free from exploitable holes.
I understand that there are people who indeed cannot simply ignore and remove from the mind once they see something, but let's just clarify that it isn't normal, no way, no how. Porn is ensnaring and addicting as hell to some people, just like alcohol is. That doesn't mean that prohibition is going to fix it. Been there, done that.
The circumcision will do it, but it's like saying that preemptive post-pubescence amputation is a good solution to prevention of breast cancer. Proper foreskin care will do it too, but there's no agenda in showing that, so the AAP has no interest in standing on high moral ground and inviting studies that would show something else than their preconceived notion. Good science takes not only knowing the common biases, but also having the integrity to take into account other outcomes and checking for them as well. The studies put forth by AAP show that circumcision helps, but they don't address at all whether other methods (hygiene for crying out loud!) may yield similarly good outcomes without having to circumcise. They've taken the politcal propaganda playbook to heart, and wave papers in pretense of good scientific support for policymaking. It ain't so.
I've gone through all of the papers that are used as primary data sources in this policy making, and they all fail to control for the most basic things. It's scary the reviewers don't know any better. It's like they never heard Feynman's rat maze parable from the Caltech commencement.
Never mind that every single study that I've seen (and I've seen many) that is supposed to support health benefits of circumcision completely and utterly fails to control for the very things that you'd think make the difference. Like the fact that in most non-circumsized kids in the U.S. the parent's don't know how to care for the foreskin -- namely that you should to start stretching the frenar band to allow retraction of the foreskin around 7 days of age (in uncomplicated births, of course), and should have it completely retractable all the way to corona by 8 weeks (that's stretching it, so to speak). There's usually a separable bond between a part of the glans and foreskin, and that needs to be slowly worked its way back to allow for full retraction. That's what you need to maintain proper hygiene. Once you accomplish that, there is no further benefit to circumcision. That's where the story ends. Never mind that your first intercourse will not cause any damage to the penis or foreskin. If you have intact foreskin and can't retract it fully, your parents have failed you.
I don't know what's the consensus about it at the moment, but all I know is that my daughter would prefer girly toys from day one. She had equal access to both "girly" and "boyish" toys. This was well before she turned 12 months old and with zero exposure to media other than radio. Our son is exactly the same in the opposite direction. Dolls were never for him, even though he had more girly hand-me-down toys to start with. He always preferred the "boy" stuff -- again, with no media exposure.
the side effect is a lot more women are portrayed as anonymous objects of sex. it is arguably not a great thing for kids to grow up with.
To most normal prepubescent kids, sex is a synonym of gender or a reproductive action done by mammals and has no other subtexts. In a normal (but still too rare) family where mammalian reproductory system is not taboo, the prepubescent kid's don't give a rat's ass about copulation. It's what mammals do to have kids, no big deal, us humans included. They similarly don't give a rat's ass about seeing people naked. My daughter's reaction to, say, seeing a random guy running naked on the street would be "isn't he cold?" in cold weather, and "did he use sunscreen?" if it's sunny out there. Something like that.
Once they reach puberty, they of course start having their own desires, but of course in the U.S. everyone pretends it isn't so. Your sexuality is only acknowledged once you hit 16/18. That's supposedly a good thing:/
You know what? If you have a kid that's that far gone, it'd be better if you gave it up for adoption. Seriously. All the bad parenting has been already done, or the kid has serious mental issues. Maybe both. In any case, if my kid did that to me, I'd let her spend a week at a foster family.
they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men
The fuck? Pornography is precisely where women earn more than men, almost always. By their logic, the more porn employment, the better the pay skew towards women.
I've always believed in separating the artist from the art.
Well said: it can only be a belief, as it's not rational in the least. It's your money, you'd be stupid if you supported someone whose political agenda, presumably, you heavily disagree with. It's fine and dandy but when it reaches politics, it's genuinely a bad thing to do. You can't separate Card from his views unless you find his stuff in the trash bin so that he doesn't see a single cent from your purchase.
I frankly said couldn't care less about the symbolism. It's not very detracting to me. I enjoyed both the extended Ender series, and the Narnia stories. I think they are both reasonably well written. While Card's writing had obvious religious bend that I noticed even in the first book, I'm hard pressed to see any of that in Narnia. Yeah, the symbolism may be similar, but so what. I don't mind good winning over evil:)
It doesn't matter what views he pushes in his work! The customers have simply spoken to show that they are not going to support him with their money. He may be a good writer, but the money goes also to support his pet cause, and demonstrably the market wants to have none of that. I see no problem with that at all. That's how free markets are supposed to work, last I heard.
I'd rather think that's known as simply the market not supporting an author they disagree with. He has, by his own doing, turned out to be more of a liability than an asset for some of those businesses who associate with him. Good story or not, the market simply doesn't want to support his agenda. After all, his income is now ostensibly used to push an agenda his former customers disagree with. He is a good writer and I enjoyed his Ender books, even the catholic subplots, but he's getting nuttier and nuttier as time goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The SSID database is not all that they did. They sniffed the data packets as well. As in: they got the MACs of the machines of the network, even hardwired machines, they also logged the contents of all the IP traffic, mDNS names, NMB names, etc.
What Google did was unauthorized access to a computer system. You know, computers communicate with each other, the network is as much part of the system as the CPU is. What they did is in fact illegal in many places where they did it. The prosecutors know better than stand up to someone with such deep pockets, though. No, it wasn't like BP -- people understand so little about IT that the public outcry wasn't enough to cover possible fallout from messing with a legal department that got more dough than your entire state's (and subdivisions thereof) legal departments, all combined.
Wait a minute, access to JSTOR was open from the campus too, you insensitive clod! It wasn't secured, just as the open APs aren't.
There are good reasons for that. The eye's diameter's square affects the eye's surface area. The surface area pretty much determines how fast our eyes can move -- our eye's performance is limited by the drag of the tear film. There's no room to grow larger eye muscles to compensate for it. One must remember that in the fast (saccadic) motions of the eyes, the viscous drag is "the" term that matters. The inertia can be ignored. Our eyes would move the same even if they were made of a material 10x as dense as water.
Remember: we're blind during a saccade - as the image blurs on the retina, it is suppressed. Fast saccades are a useful thing to have :)
Very informative. While it's a cool project, in a way I'm fine only dealing with distributed signal processing that can power a dozen nodes through one PoE ethernet drop :)
This should be +5 informative. Well done.
Distance doesn't always follow visibility. There are things that are far away but are much brighter than some of the nearby stuff, so are easier to notice. For the example of our Solar neighborhood, by number and by mass most of the stars are faint (magnitude > 14), and "all" of the light comes from the most luminous ones (from here). What you see at 14 billion l.y. away is entire galaxies, not individual stars.
If you don't understand that the "so far" part is always implied, you don't get what science is. There are very few absolutes. Theories are subject to revision, nothing wrong with that.
I don't think that the your-speed-is signs use anything fancy, there's either a frequency-to-voltage converter involved that has a bad temperature coefficient, or the microprocessor that measures the doppler frequency runs off some piss-poor oscillator. That happens. The modern hand-held guns aren't really calibrated, they are merely checked for being in calibration. If their calibration is off, there's nothing to adjust, they have to be serviced. Again, the problem is not with their accuracy, but in the fact that they don't measure what they advertise to measure. High-bandwidth (kHz and up) instantaneous velocity cannot be reasonably used as a stand-in for speedometer speed with its orders-of-magnitude lower bandwidth (20Hz tops). Yet it's used just that way. That's where the problem is.
The cop's radar gun is much more accurate than any speedometer, usually -- after all, it's either a heterodyne measuring relative to a 100ppm oscillator (at worst), or a pulse timer measuring to similar oscillator's time base. The problem is that it is not measuring the average speed of the car. It measures the relative instantaneous speed of whatever the microwaves or laser beam happened to bounce off. The guns I've seen are not designed to average those instantaneous readings long enough to give you what would pass for average speed. The problem is that vehicles are 'rickety' -- there are various pieces that vibrate back and forth, sometimes with significant instantaneous velocities even if the deflection is almost too small to see. Those add up to the slowly changing speed of the vehicle as a whole. This stuff is not insignificant.
And people wonder why I always like it when visiting Switzerland :)
The security problems just weren't exploited, that's all. I'm pretty damn sure applying today's knowledge, there'd be lots of holes that could be found. Buffer overruns, I'm sure, unless all of the service developers used some secure framework that prevented all that. It's naive to think that all of the service developers back then could pull off what somehow eludes the most today -- namely, code free from exploitable holes.
I understand that there are people who indeed cannot simply ignore and remove from the mind once they see something, but let's just clarify that it isn't normal, no way, no how. Porn is ensnaring and addicting as hell to some people, just like alcohol is. That doesn't mean that prohibition is going to fix it. Been there, done that.
The circumcision will do it, but it's like saying that preemptive post-pubescence amputation is a good solution to prevention of breast cancer. Proper foreskin care will do it too, but there's no agenda in showing that, so the AAP has no interest in standing on high moral ground and inviting studies that would show something else than their preconceived notion. Good science takes not only knowing the common biases, but also having the integrity to take into account other outcomes and checking for them as well. The studies put forth by AAP show that circumcision helps, but they don't address at all whether other methods (hygiene for crying out loud!) may yield similarly good outcomes without having to circumcise. They've taken the politcal propaganda playbook to heart, and wave papers in pretense of good scientific support for policymaking. It ain't so.
I've gone through all of the papers that are used as primary data sources in this policy making, and they all fail to control for the most basic things. It's scary the reviewers don't know any better. It's like they never heard Feynman's rat maze parable from the Caltech commencement.
Never mind that every single study that I've seen (and I've seen many) that is supposed to support health benefits of circumcision completely and utterly fails to control for the very things that you'd think make the difference. Like the fact that in most non-circumsized kids in the U.S. the parent's don't know how to care for the foreskin -- namely that you should to start stretching the frenar band to allow retraction of the foreskin around 7 days of age (in uncomplicated births, of course), and should have it completely retractable all the way to corona by 8 weeks (that's stretching it, so to speak). There's usually a separable bond between a part of the glans and foreskin, and that needs to be slowly worked its way back to allow for full retraction. That's what you need to maintain proper hygiene. Once you accomplish that, there is no further benefit to circumcision. That's where the story ends. Never mind that your first intercourse will not cause any damage to the penis or foreskin. If you have intact foreskin and can't retract it fully, your parents have failed you.
I don't know what's the consensus about it at the moment, but all I know is that my daughter would prefer girly toys from day one. She had equal access to both "girly" and "boyish" toys. This was well before she turned 12 months old and with zero exposure to media other than radio. Our son is exactly the same in the opposite direction. Dolls were never for him, even though he had more girly hand-me-down toys to start with. He always preferred the "boy" stuff -- again, with no media exposure.
the side effect is a lot more women are portrayed as anonymous objects of sex. it is arguably not a great thing for kids to grow up with.
To most normal prepubescent kids, sex is a synonym of gender or a reproductive action done by mammals and has no other subtexts. In a normal (but still too rare) family where mammalian reproductory system is not taboo, the prepubescent kid's don't give a rat's ass about copulation. It's what mammals do to have kids, no big deal, us humans included. They similarly don't give a rat's ass about seeing people naked. My daughter's reaction to, say, seeing a random guy running naked on the street would be "isn't he cold?" in cold weather, and "did he use sunscreen?" if it's sunny out there. Something like that.
Once they reach puberty, they of course start having their own desires, but of course in the U.S. everyone pretends it isn't so. Your sexuality is only acknowledged once you hit 16/18. That's supposedly a good thing :/
Relax, HW. Whoooooosh....
You know what? If you have a kid that's that far gone, it'd be better if you gave it up for adoption. Seriously. All the bad parenting has been already done, or the kid has serious mental issues. Maybe both. In any case, if my kid did that to me, I'd let her spend a week at a foster family.
they feel pornography encourages the culture that allows women to make less money than men
The fuck? Pornography is precisely where women earn more than men, almost always. By their logic, the more porn employment, the better the pay skew towards women.
I've always believed in separating the artist from the art.
Well said: it can only be a belief, as it's not rational in the least. It's your money, you'd be stupid if you supported someone whose political agenda, presumably, you heavily disagree with. It's fine and dandy but when it reaches politics, it's genuinely a bad thing to do. You can't separate Card from his views unless you find his stuff in the trash bin so that he doesn't see a single cent from your purchase.
I frankly said couldn't care less about the symbolism. It's not very detracting to me. I enjoyed both the extended Ender series, and the Narnia stories. I think they are both reasonably well written. While Card's writing had obvious religious bend that I noticed even in the first book, I'm hard pressed to see any of that in Narnia. Yeah, the symbolism may be similar, but so what. I don't mind good winning over evil :)
It doesn't matter what views he pushes in his work! The customers have simply spoken to show that they are not going to support him with their money. He may be a good writer, but the money goes also to support his pet cause, and demonstrably the market wants to have none of that. I see no problem with that at all. That's how free markets are supposed to work, last I heard.
I'd rather think that's known as simply the market not supporting an author they disagree with. He has, by his own doing, turned out to be more of a liability than an asset for some of those businesses who associate with him. Good story or not, the market simply doesn't want to support his agenda. After all, his income is now ostensibly used to push an agenda his former customers disagree with. He is a good writer and I enjoyed his Ender books, even the catholic subplots, but he's getting nuttier and nuttier as time goes.