That reduction of uncertainty is exactly what is wrong with using "cleaned" datasets for further analysis. Unless the associated statistical errors are carried along through all subsequent analysis, any conclusions are worthless.
They tried to palm off some heavily processed "cleaned" datasets in place of raw data. Of course that wasn't "good enough". And "go get it yourself" isn't good enough either.
There have been several court rulings that the police do *NOT* have any expectation of privacy, and these sorts of wiretapping cases generally get overturned pronto. But that doesn't stop the cops from hassling people, and the "internal investigation" will clear them regardless of any video evidence, assuming the investigators even bother to look at it. And good luck getting your camera back in one piece. Oh, and then there's a little concept called "qualified immunity" which means the cops can't be held liable for what they do "in the furtherance of their duty" as long as they have the least, feeblest excuse that they didn't know they weren't supposed to do it.
A function that returns a string of 12 random ASCII characters including upper and lowercase alphas, numerics and symbols will score 100% on a password strength test like http://www.passwordmeter.com/ but I find that a password like that will be hard to type, much less to remember.
Another way is to return two random words from a list of less-used English words, separated by two or three random numerics. That won't score as high but it will be plenty secure against dictionary attacks and will be easier to remember.
http://www.random.org/randomness/ has a useful discussion of pseudo-random (program generated) versus "true" (aka physically generated) random numbers.
It means they can focus sound energy into a small spot, much smaller than without the superlens array. They can also control the location of the spot, or even have more than one focus spot at the same time. It wouldn't be practical for music because of the limited frequency range, but there are applications where they can use sound energy to push small objects around. If they can scale it down to microscopic size using ultrasonic frequencies, it might be useful to manipulate cells or large biological molecules.
"...If the news story is accurate, and isn’t omitting some key facts, the result seems unconstitutional and quite wrong. Even if Hoff was trying to get Moore fired, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with such a goal. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts...."
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not a magical construct. It's very real, and is simply the response of free consumers in a free marketplace to the desirability and the cost of goods and services. My liberty is more at risk from Obama and his henchmen (including those at the FCC) than it is from the free market.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were indeed "already published" then it would take no time at all to respond to them, so that argument goes out the window.
That reduction of uncertainty is exactly what is wrong with using "cleaned" datasets for further analysis. Unless the associated statistical errors are carried along through all subsequent analysis, any conclusions are worthless.
They tried to palm off some heavily processed "cleaned" datasets in place of raw data. Of course that wasn't "good enough".
And "go get it yourself" isn't good enough either.
How many is "Mountains of FOIA requests"? One? Because they refused to supply anything at all right from the start.
It would be trivial, if they had ever intended to publish the data and analysis.
Just put everything in a tarball on a public server. Simple as that.
They're still more credible than the Iranian government propaganda service.
STUXNET did real physical damage to the centrifuges by playing with their operating speeds.
$100 million for the lawyers, free movie tickets for the "class"...
There have been several court rulings that the police do *NOT* have any expectation of privacy, and these sorts of wiretapping cases generally get overturned pronto. But that doesn't stop the cops from hassling people, and the "internal investigation" will clear them regardless of any video evidence, assuming the investigators even bother to look at it. And good luck getting your camera back in one piece.
Oh, and then there's a little concept called "qualified immunity" which means the cops can't be held liable for what they do "in the furtherance of their duty" as long as they have the least, feeblest excuse that they didn't know they weren't supposed to do it.
It's not just you. I wouldn't give them passwords I'm actually using.
A function that returns a string of 12 random ASCII characters including upper and lowercase alphas, numerics and symbols will score 100% on a password strength test like http://www.passwordmeter.com/ but I find that a password like that will be hard to type, much less to remember.
Another way is to return two random words from a list of less-used English words, separated by two or three random numerics. That won't score as high but it will be plenty secure against dictionary attacks and will be easier to remember.
http://www.random.org/randomness/ has a useful discussion of pseudo-random (program generated) versus "true" (aka physically generated) random numbers.
It means they can focus sound energy into a small spot, much smaller than without the superlens array. They can also control the location of the spot, or even have more than one focus spot at the same time. It wouldn't be practical for music because of the limited frequency range, but there are applications where they can use sound energy to push small objects around. If they can scale it down to microscopic size using ultrasonic frequencies, it might be useful to manipulate cells or large biological molecules.
They had crypto-enabled real-time audio drivers in 1965? Who knew?
But seriously, it could be a potentially lucrative little add-on.
Time to start working on an audio stream encryption front end.
I already upgraded to Firefox 5.
They should have contacted the FBI or equivalent authorities in their country before agreeing to give money to the hackers.
If it's so valuable to them, how much will they pay me for it?
I am an ATT DSL customer and I got the same message.
At ~160kB/sec download speed (1.5 Mb/sec DSL) for a month of 100% usage, I would be getting something like 450 GB of downloaded data.
ATT plain DSL accounts supposedly go into overage at around a third of that.
So I have to be careful if I want to run downloads more than eight hours a day, every day for the whole month.
http://volokh.com/2011/03/11/60000-damages-for/
"...If the news story is accurate, and isn’t omitting some key facts, the result seems unconstitutional and quite wrong. Even if Hoff was trying to get Moore fired, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with such a goal. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts...."
Whoops, sorry, economics is not a religion. Well, maybe your belief in Big Government vs Big Business is, but that's your problem, not mine.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not a magical construct. It's very real, and is simply the response of free consumers in a free marketplace to the desirability and the cost of goods and services. My liberty is more at risk from Obama and his henchmen (including those at the FCC) than it is from the free market.
"More government regulation" is not the way in which I choose to exercise that responsibility.
Who is going to protect my freedoms against the government?
Since when has any American government bureaucrat settled for "a minimal amount of regulation"?