The complaint is that the expectation of "logging off" should invalidate existing cookies.
Yes, but for what added benefit? If someone else has enough access privileges to get cookies from my browser session before I click logout, then they almost certainly have enough privileges to just install a key logger and steal my username/password directly. Same for if they're able to install a trojan browser that doesn't actually delete cookies when instructed to.
But it's nowhere near as effective as the Firefox version. Last I checked, the Chrome version couldn't block those annoying ads that play at the start of some video clips, whereas with Firefox I didn't even know such things existed.
For the last six months and over the last six months have very different meanings.
The one you criticized was in fact the correct usage.
"Over" is certainly the correct word, but the phrase is in the wrong place in the sentence. As written, "over the past six months" modifies the main verb of the sentence, in this case "told." A better phrasing would be "Santiago-Serrano told authorities he stole $50,000 worth of computers over the past six months".
You bought the car, not the plans to the car, nor the rights to sell it.
Really? You're telling me I don't have the right to sell a car I own? You might want to check your facts there.
There's a huge difference between streaming from your hard drive versus streaming from amazon. Yoru hard drive is YOUR hard drive. No one profits when you stream from your hard drive.
Not really. Is it OK if I put my mp3's in my Dropbox folder so I can listen to them at both work and at home? That's certainly not MY hard drive, but it seems perfectly legit to me.
Amazon is NOT starting a streaming service where you don't have to pay; what they ARE doing is starting a service that helps people listen to music they already own. If I have the right to listen to my music (which of course the RIAA would prefer I didn't), then why don't I have the right to hire a company to help me do it?
If you read the link where these numbers came from (I know, that would be WAY uncool around here), you'll see that "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."
Do you really think the University of California as an institution gave $1.5 million to Obama? Of course not, but add up all the generally left-leaning faculty, staff, grad students, and alumni across all the campuses and that number sounds much more reasonable.
Even if I was streaming pandara all day, and surfing the internet, and using various network aware apps and youtube (which would conflict with pandora from an audio standpoint), it would still be hard to hit 220 meg between say 930am and 1130am on lines 336 and 337.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't you be doing something perfectly legitimate like streaming live baseball or even just watching YouTube videos? I imagine that would use a rather large chunk of data rather quickly.
Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that.t.
Tethering apps, much like home NAT routers, will change IP, link, and physical layer properties of your packets but will leave the higher level stuff intact. In particular, HTTP headers are not changed by these processes and that is where the user-agent string is located. You can think of a packet you send as being something like:
[Wireless header] [IP header] [HTTP header] packet contents (this gets blurry with HTTP as to what you call header and what you call data for a request) [HTTP footer] [IP footer] [Wireless footer]
So this of course gets us into the whole other discussion of why a common carrier has any business looking at the packets I'm sending/receiving any more deeply than is necessary to route them where I want.
Now, if you are shady, you can do what is called "Naked Short Selling", in which you perform this trick with assets that don't actually exist.
And if you want to do it in a way that won't potentially cost you \infty dollars if the share price goes UP instead of DOWN, you do it by buying a Put Option. It costs you a little in fees vs a naked short (also known as selling a naked call), but the maximum you can lose is the initial fee you pay.
And the problem is? Personally I don't really care if my service is $50/month or $10/month + $10/month per 50GB. My guess would be that in the future we'll see ISPs implement usage rates more like cell phone companies in that you get some allocation of "peak time" data with your monthly plan and then get charged for overages during those peak hours but not for usage during off-hours (or at least get charged at a lower rate). In the end my cost will stay about the same, my grandmother's will go way down, and a few people will see theirs go up. What's the problem again?
So I know it's uncool to RTFA, but AT&T is not in fact implementing a hard cap like Comcast wherein they cut you off completely after you exceed it. Instead, they just charge $10 per 50 GB that you go over. Yes it sucks from a Net Neutrality standpoint that they aren't including U-Verse traffic in the "cap," but at the end of the day really all that's happening is that ISPs are moving to a business model more like the phone companies have been using for decades.
No, they don't get to keep them, but they do get to get your business by having prices that are automatically 7-10% lower than the store down the street.
But he, and you, are missing the entire point of flu vaccines. Yes, a healthy person does not personally need a flu vaccine to prevent them from dying; however, there are many people--mostly the very young and very old--who cannot get flu vaccines due to other health concerns and for whom the flu could be fatal. The reason to get a flu vaccine is not to protect yourself, it's to protect your grandparents & your newborn nephew.
The proof is actually rather technical, but the general idea is as follows:
A problem is in NP iff solutions to said problem can be verified in polynomial time. That is, there is a Turing Machine that when given an instance of the problem and a proposed solution will run in polynomial time and spit out a yes or no; we'll call this machine the Verifier.
Since we are trying to show that solving 3-SAT in poly time solves any NP problem in poly time, let's start by picking any old NP problem, and call it's verifier machine V. Let's also pick some particular instance of the problem that we're interested in. To answer our question, we essentially need to answer the question "Is there any input to V that will cause it to give a 'yes'". The hugely technical part of the Cook-Levin theorem is that the preceding sentence can actually be coded as an instance of 3-SAT with polynomial-many (in the length of your problem instance) clauses; this is done by introducing variables to trace each step of the computation of V to make sure it agrees with what V is supposed to do and then having extra variables for the inputs of the proposed solution. Thus, if you can answer this 3-SAT problem in polynomial time (as you surely can if you claim to have an algorithm that can answer ANY 3-SAT problem in poly-time), then you have answered the original question from your other NP problem in poly time as well.
Despite what is taught in most CS classes, constants do in fact matter. If I give you an algorithm for breaking RSA that runs in time n^(2^1000000000000000000), it's essentially useless as the the number of clock cycles to decrypt even a 2 bit key exceeds the number of nanoseconds that have passed since the beginning of the universe. My algorithm is polynomial, but who cares?
Discrete log is also in NP--I can verify your proposed solution by simply exponentiating it, which is a very fast operation when working in modular arithmetic. In fact, any reasonably normal asymmetrical encryption algorithm pretty much has to be in NP since you can verify a proposed private key for any public key by simply encrypting and decrypting something, both of which should be polynomial time or else the system is probably too slow to be useful anyways.
You might want to check your math there. Comcast currently caps at 250GB per month, so unless you're streaming 4+ movies per day, you really shouldn't have trouble. You can say whatever you want about the appropriateness of bandwidth caps in general, but the truth is that 250GB is a LOT to pull in one month; in particular, you can download at 100k/s continuously for the entire month and still stay under the cap...
Hashing is so fast as to be a truly negligible part of the time required to perform a brute-force attack. At worst, it maybe makes it take twice as long, which in the world of password cracking is completely irrelevant (just think, if it takes 2 days without hashing, is there much of a difference if it goes up to 4 days?).
The parent's post is 100% correct in that restricting your keys to only a certain subset of the alphabet has the same effect as simply using shorter keys in the first place. For example, if I tell you that passwords are no more than 8 characters and only consist of lower case letters a-z, then there are only as many combinations as using a 37 bit key in the first place. Hashing my character password up to 128 bits doesn't actually do anything to increase the strength; if it did, we would just hash everything and anything up to $LARGE_NUMBER-bits and call it a day.
True, the number of trapezoids is not an active area of research, but the idea of picking which points to evaluate a function at in order to approximate its integral in some nice way is in fact active. For example, Gaussian Quadrature methods can be used to exactly calculate integrals of some classes of functions by simply evaluating them at certain points and weighting appropriately and there are questions as to which classes of functions can be approximated in this way and more specifically what the points/weights should be.
After some further digging, I clearly gave this paper way too much credit and it does in fact appear to be just the trapezoid rule, but the general point I was trying to make--that numerical integration is not as trivial as some people seem to think--is still valid.
First, does anyone have a link to the actual article? TFS only seems to include an abstract. Second, this was published in 1994. Third, while it may simply seem that the author is rediscovering integration, the field of numerical integration is actually a rather rich one. It's all well and good to say "take an antiderivate and evaluate at the endpoints", but for a function that is found experimentally this is essentially nonsense. While the submitter here claims that this article is simply rediscovering the trapezoid rule, there's actually no such evidence given in the Abstract--algorithms for determining how big of rectangles/trapezoids/etc to use in your calculations is actually an active area of research (albeit usually for the multidimensional case) and it is possible that this researcher did actually discover a better algorithm for deciding how to do the numerical approximations.
The sad part is that many students and their families are talked into sending in dozens of applications to schools that they really have no chance at getting into. At $50-$100 each, application costs in the thousands of dollars are becoming more and more the norm. What's worse, many schools apply a simple GPA/SAT based gross-cut filter and won't even look at some of these applications; in essence, these students and their families have spent $50 to have a computer think for 1ms and then spit back a "no."
Slashdot Mirror
The complaint is that the expectation of "logging off" should invalidate existing cookies.
Yes, but for what added benefit? If someone else has enough access privileges to get cookies from my browser session before I click logout, then they almost certainly have enough privileges to just install a key logger and steal my username/password directly. Same for if they're able to install a trojan browser that doesn't actually delete cookies when instructed to.
But it's nowhere near as effective as the Firefox version. Last I checked, the Chrome version couldn't block those annoying ads that play at the start of some video clips, whereas with Firefox I didn't even know such things existed.
You might want to check your English books again.
For the last six months and over the last six months have very different meanings.
The one you criticized was in fact the correct usage.
"Over" is certainly the correct word, but the phrase is in the wrong place in the sentence. As written, "over the past six months" modifies the main verb of the sentence, in this case "told." A better phrasing would be "Santiago-Serrano told authorities he stole $50,000 worth of computers over the past six months".
Or even better, just set your browser to only allow session cookies from nytimes.com and block anything longer term. On Chrome, this is done via
Options -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings -> Manage Exceptions -> Add [*.]nytimes.com and set it as "Session Only"
You bought the car, not the plans to the car, nor the rights to sell it.
Really? You're telling me I don't have the right to sell a car I own? You might want to check your facts there.
There's a huge difference between streaming from your hard drive versus streaming from amazon. Yoru hard drive is YOUR hard drive. No one profits when you stream from your hard drive.
Not really. Is it OK if I put my mp3's in my Dropbox folder so I can listen to them at both work and at home? That's certainly not MY hard drive, but it seems perfectly legit to me.
Amazon is NOT starting a streaming service where you don't have to pay; what they ARE doing is starting a service that helps people listen to music they already own. If I have the right to listen to my music (which of course the RIAA would prefer I didn't), then why don't I have the right to hire a company to help me do it?
If you read the link where these numbers came from (I know, that would be WAY uncool around here), you'll see that "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."
Do you really think the University of California as an institution gave $1.5 million to Obama? Of course not, but add up all the generally left-leaning faculty, staff, grad students, and alumni across all the campuses and that number sounds much more reasonable.
Even if I was streaming pandara all day, and surfing the internet, and using various network aware apps and youtube (which would conflict with pandora from an audio standpoint), it would still be hard to hit 220 meg between say 930am and 1130am on lines 336 and 337.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't you be doing something perfectly legitimate like streaming live baseball or even just watching YouTube videos? I imagine that would use a rather large chunk of data rather quickly.
Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that.t.
Tethering apps, much like home NAT routers, will change IP, link, and physical layer properties of your packets but will leave the higher level stuff intact. In particular, HTTP headers are not changed by these processes and that is where the user-agent string is located. You can think of a packet you send as being something like:
[Wireless header]
[IP header]
[HTTP header]
packet contents (this gets blurry with HTTP as to what you call header and what you call data for a request)
[HTTP footer]
[IP footer]
[Wireless footer]
So this of course gets us into the whole other discussion of why a common carrier has any business looking at the packets I'm sending/receiving any more deeply than is necessary to route them where I want.
Now, if you are shady, you can do what is called "Naked Short Selling", in which you perform this trick with assets that don't actually exist.
And if you want to do it in a way that won't potentially cost you \infty dollars if the share price goes UP instead of DOWN, you do it by buying a Put Option. It costs you a little in fees vs a naked short (also known as selling a naked call), but the maximum you can lose is the initial fee you pay.
http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1300132800000&chddm=486795&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:ZZ&ntsp=0
Ouch. Personally I prefer stuffing my extra cash into my pillow
And the problem is? Personally I don't really care if my service is $50/month or $10/month + $10/month per 50GB. My guess would be that in the future we'll see ISPs implement usage rates more like cell phone companies in that you get some allocation of "peak time" data with your monthly plan and then get charged for overages during those peak hours but not for usage during off-hours (or at least get charged at a lower rate). In the end my cost will stay about the same, my grandmother's will go way down, and a few people will see theirs go up. What's the problem again?
So I know it's uncool to RTFA, but AT&T is not in fact implementing a hard cap like Comcast wherein they cut you off completely after you exceed it. Instead, they just charge $10 per 50 GB that you go over. Yes it sucks from a Net Neutrality standpoint that they aren't including U-Verse traffic in the "cap," but at the end of the day really all that's happening is that ISPs are moving to a business model more like the phone companies have been using for decades.
Civil suits, sure. But criminal charges? Really?
Or it could be that you're looking at the Paid part of the site...
No, they don't get to keep them, but they do get to get your business by having prices that are automatically 7-10% lower than the store down the street.
But he, and you, are missing the entire point of flu vaccines. Yes, a healthy person does not personally need a flu vaccine to prevent them from dying; however, there are many people--mostly the very young and very old--who cannot get flu vaccines due to other health concerns and for whom the flu could be fatal. The reason to get a flu vaccine is not to protect yourself, it's to protect your grandparents & your newborn nephew.
The proof is actually rather technical, but the general idea is as follows:
A problem is in NP iff solutions to said problem can be verified in polynomial time. That is, there is a Turing Machine that when given an instance of the problem and a proposed solution will run in polynomial time and spit out a yes or no; we'll call this machine the Verifier.
Since we are trying to show that solving 3-SAT in poly time solves any NP problem in poly time, let's start by picking any old NP problem, and call it's verifier machine V. Let's also pick some particular instance of the problem that we're interested in. To answer our question, we essentially need to answer the question "Is there any input to V that will cause it to give a 'yes'". The hugely technical part of the Cook-Levin theorem is that the preceding sentence can actually be coded as an instance of 3-SAT with polynomial-many (in the length of your problem instance) clauses; this is done by introducing variables to trace each step of the computation of V to make sure it agrees with what V is supposed to do and then having extra variables for the inputs of the proposed solution. Thus, if you can answer this 3-SAT problem in polynomial time (as you surely can if you claim to have an algorithm that can answer ANY 3-SAT problem in poly-time), then you have answered the original question from your other NP problem in poly time as well.
Despite what is taught in most CS classes, constants do in fact matter. If I give you an algorithm for breaking RSA that runs in time n^(2^1000000000000000000), it's essentially useless as the the number of clock cycles to decrypt even a 2 bit key exceeds the number of nanoseconds that have passed since the beginning of the universe. My algorithm is polynomial, but who cares?
Discrete log is also in NP--I can verify your proposed solution by simply exponentiating it, which is a very fast operation when working in modular arithmetic. In fact, any reasonably normal asymmetrical encryption algorithm pretty much has to be in NP since you can verify a proposed private key for any public key by simply encrypting and decrypting something, both of which should be polynomial time or else the system is probably too slow to be useful anyways.
You might want to check your math there. Comcast currently caps at 250GB per month, so unless you're streaming 4+ movies per day, you really shouldn't have trouble. You can say whatever you want about the appropriateness of bandwidth caps in general, but the truth is that 250GB is a LOT to pull in one month; in particular, you can download at 100k/s continuously for the entire month and still stay under the cap...
Hashing is so fast as to be a truly negligible part of the time required to perform a brute-force attack. At worst, it maybe makes it take twice as long, which in the world of password cracking is completely irrelevant (just think, if it takes 2 days without hashing, is there much of a difference if it goes up to 4 days?). The parent's post is 100% correct in that restricting your keys to only a certain subset of the alphabet has the same effect as simply using shorter keys in the first place. For example, if I tell you that passwords are no more than 8 characters and only consist of lower case letters a-z, then there are only as many combinations as using a 37 bit key in the first place. Hashing my character password up to 128 bits doesn't actually do anything to increase the strength; if it did, we would just hash everything and anything up to $LARGE_NUMBER-bits and call it a day.
Yikes. I guess I gave the guy way too much credit.
True, the number of trapezoids is not an active area of research, but the idea of picking which points to evaluate a function at in order to approximate its integral in some nice way is in fact active. For example, Gaussian Quadrature methods can be used to exactly calculate integrals of some classes of functions by simply evaluating them at certain points and weighting appropriately and there are questions as to which classes of functions can be approximated in this way and more specifically what the points/weights should be. After some further digging, I clearly gave this paper way too much credit and it does in fact appear to be just the trapezoid rule, but the general point I was trying to make--that numerical integration is not as trivial as some people seem to think--is still valid.
First, does anyone have a link to the actual article? TFS only seems to include an abstract. Second, this was published in 1994. Third, while it may simply seem that the author is rediscovering integration, the field of numerical integration is actually a rather rich one. It's all well and good to say "take an antiderivate and evaluate at the endpoints", but for a function that is found experimentally this is essentially nonsense. While the submitter here claims that this article is simply rediscovering the trapezoid rule, there's actually no such evidence given in the Abstract--algorithms for determining how big of rectangles/trapezoids/etc to use in your calculations is actually an active area of research (albeit usually for the multidimensional case) and it is possible that this researcher did actually discover a better algorithm for deciding how to do the numerical approximations.
The sad part is that many students and their families are talked into sending in dozens of applications to schools that they really have no chance at getting into. At $50-$100 each, application costs in the thousands of dollars are becoming more and more the norm. What's worse, many schools apply a simple GPA/SAT based gross-cut filter and won't even look at some of these applications; in essence, these students and their families have spent $50 to have a computer think for 1ms and then spit back a "no."