Not likely. Some moneyed interests obviously were behind the reports, made a huge pile of money from them
The exchange should identify the fraudulent article as the reason for the price movement and break all the trades made yesterday that involved a Buy/Sell more than 2% higher than the previous day's closing price.
Encryption IS allowed on the Ham bands, within certain narrow constraints.
You can use encryption to protect traffic used to control a system.
You can use digital codes that leave the meaning of the message intact.
Encryption with intent to obscure the meaning of the message is not allowed on the Ham bands.
However, that does not mean the technology is not allowed to be built and communicated.
For the purpose of demonstrating the technology, the demonstrators can get around the encryption rule by publishing the actual message and making the content a matter of public record, Then the purpose of performing the encryption is To make a personal demonstration of the technology to enthusiasts, and it cannot possibly be intended to obscure the meaning of the message, since the actual message content is being published openly and widely for all to see, and you can be clear on the decrypted message not being used for a pecuniary purpose ------ this is assuming that the presenter does not receive payment in exchange for demonstrating their work.
The technology could be developed and experimented with for demonstration purposes, AND
then if you want to use it, you could go purchase a license for some frequency ranges to use with the technology.
So you think it is far more appropriate for them to have to develop a nonstandard plug rather than trust in the honesty and decency of the citizens of the UK?
If the citizens of the UK are being decent about it and only drawing a few milliamps, then they should just allow them to do it, As long as they are not plugging in an outlet splitter or a high-wattage appliance such as a Hair dryer or Coffee pot, there is no material power draw....
Or else provide some coin-op power outlets and a keyswitch for staff use.
If they're not for use by the public, then they should not be visible from public space, or the receptacle should be enclosed in a box that has to be lifted or opened for access. Simply attaching a label or sign to a publicly visible receptacle is not sufficient, since people won't notice the sign, and the receptacle itself is basically a universal sign for power available.
US $0.10 worth of electricity is approximately 1.5 Kilowatt hours; the Electricity used to charge an iPhone is at maximum approximately 10 Watt-Hours, assuming he left the phone charging for an hour. In other words, about US $0.0006 worth of electricity.
This depends on the type of request; which gov't department; and the nature of the requestor.
Often there is no fee, but they can charge from $23 to $100 an hour for employee search and review time, for commercial requestors, plus cost of duplication and media, generally after 2 hours and couple hundred pages.
News media, educational, and scientific research requestors also get favorable treatment, where there are often no fees, or fees may be for duplication only, for less than 100 pages.
I strongly doubt government investigations will cease
How is that? It is likely that media organizations will budget less $$$ to front the money on FOIA requests, if the best possible benefits of spending that cash are extremely limited.
How about giving the first person to request AND PAY A FEE, and request it a 7 day exclusive period?
Then announce that the results are available --- for the next 30 days, anyone else can get the results, but they will have to pay the FOIA fee also, and after 30 days, the results will be published for everyone free of charge.
Also, if a second organization requested the FOIA results during the 30 days, then the fee they pay will be half of what the first requestor paid, AND half of the fee they pay after the reduction, if more than $100, will be used to reimburse up to 49% of the first requestor's cost.
If a third organization requested the FOIA, then their fee will be 1/3 of the first requestor's original cost,
AND 2/3 of the fee the third requestor pays is used to reimburse the first two requestors, such that all 3 requestors have approximately the same share of the net cost, plus a nominal overhead per participant.
If there is a 60% fall in solar output; then, no amount of additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are going to be able to stop earth from turning into a barren frozen wasteland.
The drop in solar output will reduce temperature sufficiently for the Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen in the air to liquify, and earth's surface would become a barren wasteland, kind of like what Neptune looks like today.
Yes.... we all own it, BUT the journalists might not request it in the first place, since they have to pay for the request, If they lose the ability to use the results in their business to get the story early.
What I would support is a 7 day exclusivity period that can be requested for an additional fee; where the requestor will get their results of the FOIA requests, But the guaranteed public release will be temporarily delayed after the requestor receives the files and gets a 7 day headstart..
If the journalist cannot find something to report on within their 7 day headstart, then probably there was no "scoop" to get.
You've touched on a big advantage of back-to-back seating: it will be impossible to recline
Big advantage? Hell no.... reclining is the only comfort/relief you get from being crammed into these tight quarters. Always recline first thing, and stay reclined every moment except during takeoff/landing.
And don't spend your dollars to fly on any plane that doesn't have reclining seats.
see if there is any convergence with the periods within which other scientists claim global warming.
Please also cross-reference with how the demographics of the predominant scientists in those fields are varying over time, their television-watching habits, their political party affiliations, and their level of exposure over time to certain alarmist propaganda from anti-industrial/"green" special interest groups.
Are certifications mostly a rip-off, or are some (especially the advanced ones) actually useful, as many people insist?
Not a rip off. Although, IMO many of the people who insist they are worth something are actually people who already hold or are pursuing certs as their way to "get a job". Therefore, there is already a "sunk" investment in certifications, and they would likely be biased / in denial / upset, if it were a fact that their work on certifications were actually for nothing. I am just suggesting most of the people who care about the subject and insist certs are good are likely to have a vested interest.
Earning a CCNA, for example, gives many folks an ego trip; "I'm an expert now!".
If all a person has to their name is that certification, and they don't actually have any experience to back it up -----
they're likely to be really upset if someone claims the cert is just a piece of paper.
This in spite of it being well known in the industry that cheating with "braindumps" is rampant, and many, perhaps most holders of the cert. are not qualified pros, probably just paper certs, since over half the candidates took the "easy way".
I can think of two major uses for most certs:
1. Your prospective employer requires it.
2. You are a consultant and you need to show more letters as part of your sales pitch to compete against the other guy who has letters. Sometimes, whoever has the most letters wins the business, because the consultant is often a pro. helping clueless folks who have no real ability to judge expertise on their own -- so they are reliant on vendor certs.
Having an identity is a basic human right, so we're not allowed to have any losers.
Besides, there are babies being born every day, so there are always new identities available:
Also, they are ripe targets, as they have no idea how to defend themselves against ID theft.
...where it's easy to prove you don't live and without her social security number somehow make you responsible for it
you probably really need to talk to a lawyer.
See! You do become "responsible" for it in some respect, you have to spend money on a lawyer,
Or else, damage will likely happen to you as a result of the identity thief.
If the debt is not yours, then you are not liable for it, BUT, It can be emotionally and financially trying to get out of being held liable for debt you are not supposed to be liable for --- since you have to convince a court of the circumstances, or persuade the creditor/come to a settlement with the bogus creditor for debt you would not be liable for, Or, become responsible for defending yourself against a bogus claim from the creditor, And having to spend bucks but most importantly time and energy to pursue actions against the creditor for common misbehaviors, such as false credit report entries, shady collection practices, etc.
It could actually cost you more to defend against the identity thief than the amount of the bogus debt to begin with,
just financially, before considering how taxing it can be emotionally to not know what the outcome will be for possibly years.
it also still looks like the driverless cars need always on access to the cloud.
That's no good..... the cloud isn't reliable enough.
Suddenly, you have an outage: all the self-driving cars are stranded and can no longer move,
and the world looks like a scene from One Second After.
Hopefully they're planning on technology advancing to the point where all the processing power can actually fit in the car,
before they would think of finalizing their product.
More likely the driverless car would be the one in front with its bumper being ridden.
In other words, now the self-driving car needs to learn the customs and cultural driving quirks of the local population,
otherwise Google's self-driving automaton is at the risk of being declared to be a jackass, for not pulling over for the
cars on its bumper to pass.
Sounds like they might be spinning "The government forced us to change our design so we can break the encryption for them"
TO: "For your convenience, you no longer have to keep a copy of a 14 character recovery code to decrypt your phone: now we can just recover your account for you with a 'super-secure' human verification of the last 4 digits of your credit card that 10 other online retailers know about, and your SSN that can be looked up in a public database."
if you can't run the algorithm for detecting errors because it keeps glitching out, it's probably not going to work
Chances are you can't make good assurances about tolerating any kind of byzantine fault.
I realize there are finally some options for tolerating certain kinds of Byzantine faults in specific kinds of scenarios.
In general, it is too hard or expensive, so the fact is, less reliable hardware does mean the application will be less reliable. Buying cheaper hardware is still a cost tradeoff that adds risk. The risk may be more limited if the software is really really REALLY good, and there's a really resilient system of thousands of nodes.
Imagine you don't want to pay for ECC protected buffers/RAM, because it's too expensive....
you receive some data from a user over the network.
You decode the packet, verify the checksum, and store the data.
Before you get to reading the data after verifying the checksum --- a 1-bit error occurs in the RAM.
You won't detect the error, because you already verified the integrity, your next step is to add the corrupted data to the database.... boom you have data corruption.
instead of the expensive, and rare, high-end personnel and internal resources that Google and Facebook have.
Then they are destined to fail, if they are unwilling to invest in suitably skilled personnel AND high enough quality development for the chosen architecture to implement their intended plan.
might it be more worthwhile to buy more reliable and expensive hardware?
Paying up to keep the more qualified personnel on staff can have other benefits.
I think the competition for good people is much less than you imply.... if you are willing to pay up.
Many times the top 1% of the technical talent does not wind up with significantly more pay than
the next 30% down.
Developers in the top 70% can still build highly-resilient applications, also,
and if you pay more than the typical market rate for them, you can likely pick many of them up.
It's those "C" level folks that are so hard to avoid, and the fact is, No interview screening procedures the average person will come up with are likely to reliably distinguish and eliminate those.
Uh no... there definitely is. There's no X86 based system that really falls into this category though.
Many mainframe systems are bulletproof, in the sense the mainframe won't fail or crash, or lose work, or corrupt data, upon any component failures. Tandem computers' systems and some other past solutions on the market were pretty darned bullet proof.
That didn't mean no components failed -- only that when components died - CPUs and system bus included, things kept working.
The shift to platforms such as X86 was a shift away from super-reliable systems and towards super-cheap systems.
The tradeoff was made a long time ago..... cheaper always wins in the long run.
Now there are many expensive X86 computers being sold to businesses as "super reliable servers" just like the ol' business computers were sold.
Ultimately...... they're going to give way to cheaper X86, or their successor as time marches on.
This goes back to business rule #1: Lower cost = More profit.
The fact is, the business doesn't need things to be close to bulletproof ---- especially after the competition switches to the cheaper thing and uses the lower cost of their cheaper X86 servers to offer their services at lower price and undercut you in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Not likely. Some moneyed interests obviously were behind the reports, made a huge pile of money from them
The exchange should identify the fraudulent article as the reason for the price movement and break all the trades made yesterday that involved a Buy/Sell more than 2% higher than the previous day's closing price.
Encryption IS allowed on the Ham bands, within certain narrow constraints.
You can use encryption to protect traffic used to control a system. You can use digital codes that leave the meaning of the message intact.
Encryption with intent to obscure the meaning of the message is not allowed on the Ham bands. However, that does not mean the technology is not allowed to be built and communicated.
For the purpose of demonstrating the technology, the demonstrators can get around the encryption rule by publishing the actual message and making the content a matter of public record, Then the purpose of performing the encryption is To make a personal demonstration of the technology to enthusiasts, and it cannot possibly be intended to obscure the meaning of the message, since the actual message content is being published openly and widely for all to see, and you can be clear on the decrypted message not being used for a pecuniary purpose ------ this is assuming that the presenter does not receive payment in exchange for demonstrating their work.
The technology could be developed and experimented with for demonstration purposes, AND then if you want to use it, you could go purchase a license for some frequency ranges to use with the technology.
So you think it is far more appropriate for them to have to develop a nonstandard plug rather than trust in the honesty and decency of the citizens of the UK?
If the citizens of the UK are being decent about it and only drawing a few milliamps, then they should just allow them to do it, As long as they are not plugging in an outlet splitter or a high-wattage appliance such as a Hair dryer or Coffee pot, there is no material power draw....
Or else provide some coin-op power outlets and a keyswitch for staff use.
If they're not for use by the public, then they should not be visible from public space, or the receptacle should be enclosed in a box that has to be lifted or opened for access. Simply attaching a label or sign to a publicly visible receptacle is not sufficient, since people won't notice the sign, and the receptacle itself is basically a universal sign for power available.
US $0.10 worth of electricity is approximately 1.5 Kilowatt hours; the Electricity used to charge an iPhone is at maximum approximately 10 Watt-Hours, assuming he left the phone charging for an hour. In other words, about US $0.0006 worth of electricity.
File suit against the copyright aggregator.
This depends on the type of request; which gov't department; and the nature of the requestor. Often there is no fee, but they can charge from $23 to $100 an hour for employee search and review time, for commercial requestors, plus cost of duplication and media, generally after 2 hours and couple hundred pages.
News media, educational, and scientific research requestors also get favorable treatment, where there are often no fees, or fees may be for duplication only, for less than 100 pages.
I strongly doubt government investigations will cease
How is that? It is likely that media organizations will budget less $$$ to front the money on FOIA requests, if the best possible benefits of spending that cash are extremely limited.
How about giving the first person to request AND PAY A FEE, and request it a 7 day exclusive period?
Then announce that the results are available --- for the next 30 days, anyone else can get the results, but they will have to pay the FOIA fee also, and after 30 days, the results will be published for everyone free of charge.
Also, if a second organization requested the FOIA results during the 30 days, then the fee they pay will be half of what the first requestor paid, AND half of the fee they pay after the reduction, if more than $100, will be used to reimburse up to 49% of the first requestor's cost.
If a third organization requested the FOIA, then their fee will be 1/3 of the first requestor's original cost, AND 2/3 of the fee the third requestor pays is used to reimburse the first two requestors, such that all 3 requestors have approximately the same share of the net cost, plus a nominal overhead per participant.
If there is a 60% fall in solar output; then, no amount of additional greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are going to be able to stop earth from turning into a barren frozen wasteland.
The drop in solar output will reduce temperature sufficiently for the Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen in the air to liquify, and earth's surface would become a barren wasteland, kind of like what Neptune looks like today.
Yes.... we all own it, BUT the journalists might not request it in the first place, since they have to pay for the request, If they lose the ability to use the results in their business to get the story early.
What I would support is a 7 day exclusivity period that can be requested for an additional fee; where the requestor will get their results of the FOIA requests, But the guaranteed public release will be temporarily delayed after the requestor receives the files and gets a 7 day headstart..
If the journalist cannot find something to report on within their 7 day headstart, then probably there was no "scoop" to get.
You've touched on a big advantage of back-to-back seating: it will be impossible to recline
Big advantage? Hell no.... reclining is the only comfort/relief you get from being crammed into these tight quarters. Always recline first thing, and stay reclined every moment except during takeoff/landing.
And don't spend your dollars to fly on any plane that doesn't have reclining seats.
see if there is any convergence with the periods within which other scientists claim global warming.
Please also cross-reference with how the demographics of the predominant scientists in those fields are varying over time, their television-watching habits, their political party affiliations, and their level of exposure over time to certain alarmist propaganda from anti-industrial/"green" special interest groups.
Are certifications mostly a rip-off, or are some (especially the advanced ones) actually useful, as many people insist?
Not a rip off. Although, IMO many of the people who insist they are worth something are actually people who already hold or are pursuing certs as their way to "get a job". Therefore, there is already a "sunk" investment in certifications, and they would likely be biased / in denial / upset, if it were a fact that their work on certifications were actually for nothing. I am just suggesting most of the people who care about the subject and insist certs are good are likely to have a vested interest.
Earning a CCNA, for example, gives many folks an ego trip; "I'm an expert now!". If all a person has to their name is that certification, and they don't actually have any experience to back it up ----- they're likely to be really upset if someone claims the cert is just a piece of paper. This in spite of it being well known in the industry that cheating with "braindumps" is rampant, and many, perhaps most holders of the cert. are not qualified pros, probably just paper certs, since over half the candidates took the "easy way".
I can think of two major uses for most certs:
1. Your prospective employer requires it.
2. You are a consultant and you need to show more letters as part of your sales pitch to compete against the other guy who has letters. Sometimes, whoever has the most letters wins the business, because the consultant is often a pro. helping clueless folks who have no real ability to judge expertise on their own -- so they are reliant on vendor certs.
Good afternoon... inventory of the internet here:
Having an identity is a basic human right, so we're not allowed to have any losers. Besides, there are babies being born every day, so there are always new identities available: Also, they are ripe targets, as they have no idea how to defend themselves against ID theft.
you probably really need to talk to a lawyer.
See! You do become "responsible" for it in some respect, you have to spend money on a lawyer, Or else, damage will likely happen to you as a result of the identity thief.
If the debt is not yours, then you are not liable for it, BUT, It can be emotionally and financially trying to get out of being held liable for debt you are not supposed to be liable for --- since you have to convince a court of the circumstances, or persuade the creditor/come to a settlement with the bogus creditor for debt you would not be liable for, Or, become responsible for defending yourself against a bogus claim from the creditor, And having to spend bucks but most importantly time and energy to pursue actions against the creditor for common misbehaviors, such as false credit report entries, shady collection practices, etc.
It could actually cost you more to defend against the identity thief than the amount of the bogus debt to begin with, just financially, before considering how taxing it can be emotionally to not know what the outcome will be for possibly years.
I paid the bill and waited another five years for the entry to fall off my credit report.
No need to wait five years, you should have been able to dispute it with the CRA.
Something also tells me the Electric company is not going to risk losing thousands to the consumer in a lawsuit over a $2.75 charge.
it also still looks like the driverless cars need always on access to the cloud.
That's no good..... the cloud isn't reliable enough.
Suddenly, you have an outage: all the self-driving cars are stranded and can no longer move, and the world looks like a scene from One Second After.
Hopefully they're planning on technology advancing to the point where all the processing power can actually fit in the car, before they would think of finalizing their product.
AI-Module_FleeAccidentScene.dll
AI-Module_GetawayCar.dll
AI-Module_MobileProstitutionVan.dll
AI-Module_RamRaiding.dll
BulletProofGlass.dll
HeavilyArmoredBody.dll
InfraredJammer.dll
HoodMountedLaser.dll
BumperAttachedBatteringRam.dll
DriverSideRocketLauncher.dll
WindowTint.dll
StuddedRunflatTires.dll
PerformanceExhaust.dll
OdometerSetback.dll
ColdairIntake.dll
MufflerDelete.dll
RadarDetector.dll
FakeLicensePlate.dll
HiddenRearGunTurret.dll
EMPGenerator.dll
PoliceRadioJammer.dll
SmugglingCompartment.dll
DroneLaunchingPad.dll
More likely the driverless car would be the one in front with its bumper being ridden.
In other words, now the self-driving car needs to learn the customs and cultural driving quirks of the local population, otherwise Google's self-driving automaton is at the risk of being declared to be a jackass, for not pulling over for the cars on its bumper to pass.
Of course we do.... where else are we going to launch and land large prototype and home-built airplanes?
Your neighbor's backyard? Close down the nearest highway and use the road as a runway?
Public airport beats the alternatives.
Sounds like they might be spinning "The government forced us to change our design so we can break the encryption for them"
TO: "For your convenience, you no longer have to keep a copy of a 14 character recovery code to decrypt your phone: now we can just recover your account for you with a 'super-secure' human verification of the last 4 digits of your credit card that 10 other online retailers know about, and your SSN that can be looked up in a public database."
if you can't run the algorithm for detecting errors because it keeps glitching out, it's probably not going to work
Chances are you can't make good assurances about tolerating any kind of byzantine fault.
I realize there are finally some options for tolerating certain kinds of Byzantine faults in specific kinds of scenarios. In general, it is too hard or expensive, so the fact is, less reliable hardware does mean the application will be less reliable. Buying cheaper hardware is still a cost tradeoff that adds risk. The risk may be more limited if the software is really really REALLY good, and there's a really resilient system of thousands of nodes.
Imagine you don't want to pay for ECC protected buffers/RAM, because it's too expensive.... you receive some data from a user over the network.
You decode the packet, verify the checksum, and store the data.
Before you get to reading the data after verifying the checksum --- a 1-bit error occurs in the RAM. You won't detect the error, because you already verified the integrity, your next step is to add the corrupted data to the database.... boom you have data corruption.
instead of the expensive, and rare, high-end personnel and internal resources that Google and Facebook have.
Then they are destined to fail, if they are unwilling to invest in suitably skilled personnel AND high enough quality development for the chosen architecture to implement their intended plan.
might it be more worthwhile to buy more reliable and expensive hardware?
Paying up to keep the more qualified personnel on staff can have other benefits. I think the competition for good people is much less than you imply.... if you are willing to pay up. Many times the top 1% of the technical talent does not wind up with significantly more pay than the next 30% down.
Developers in the top 70% can still build highly-resilient applications, also, and if you pay more than the typical market rate for them, you can likely pick many of them up.
It's those "C" level folks that are so hard to avoid, and the fact is, No interview screening procedures the average person will come up with are likely to reliably distinguish and eliminate those.
There is no such thing as "bullet-proof hardware"
Uh no... there definitely is. There's no X86 based system that really falls into this category though. Many mainframe systems are bulletproof, in the sense the mainframe won't fail or crash, or lose work, or corrupt data, upon any component failures. Tandem computers' systems and some other past solutions on the market were pretty darned bullet proof.
That didn't mean no components failed -- only that when components died - CPUs and system bus included, things kept working.
The shift to platforms such as X86 was a shift away from super-reliable systems and towards super-cheap systems.
The tradeoff was made a long time ago..... cheaper always wins in the long run.
Now there are many expensive X86 computers being sold to businesses as "super reliable servers" just like the ol' business computers were sold. Ultimately...... they're going to give way to cheaper X86, or their successor as time marches on.
This goes back to business rule #1: Lower cost = More profit.
The fact is, the business doesn't need things to be close to bulletproof ---- especially after the competition switches to the cheaper thing and uses the lower cost of their cheaper X86 servers to offer their services at lower price and undercut you in the marketplace.