Global warming refers to a general trend. Even if there is global warming, it can still be colder one year than the other, even though the trend is upwards.
The fact that the temperature was warmer on average for several years in the past, could mean that there was more melting, causing ice to be more brittle, or more likely to break when ice re-froze.
In other words, damage could have happened to the glacier over time that caused certain regions to be less stable or less sustainable, even if the
pattern for a later year had been colder.
It's not 2010 that matters alone, it's the group of large number of years.... 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
You can't just take one year out of all those, and use temperature or other changes during that one year to show that there IS or IS NOT atmospheric gas pollution causing global warming, or if global warming did or did not result in an event.
The mass might break off due to past global warming, even if it happened to be colder this year.
The mass might break off even if there is no global warming at all.
Global warming might effect the probability that large pieces break off of glaciers over time, rather than being a single cause of any deteoriation event.
So anyways, the fact temps cooled alone is no proof that global warming did not result in this.
Of who can blow up a rack of PCs into the smallest size pieces.
And having the US military unexpectedly enter into the contest, using a tactical nuke to blow up the rack, for their entry in the contest
You know... for PR... to bolster recruitment rates.
.
Same difference... AMD could probably best Intel, if they spent more money on a rig of their own. I think it kind of defeats the point to have large corporations with massive resources the average high-end user could barely dream of seeing in person participate in contests like this
Cannot. It is forbidden for me (and most software engineers) to even look at software patents/software patent applications.
In the event that I were infringing on one, it could become willful infringement the moment I was found to have seen the patent in question.
Anyways, we are not discussing just a patent application, but a report by the author of the Article of Apple allegedly copying designs from apps in the app store to patent claims.
Specifically... the diagram was copied directly from their app.
They make MS look better than MS did before [in regards to OS, anticompetitive practices, etc], but MS still looks pretty horrible.
You have (perhaps) just forgotten why, or become so desensitized regarding MS, you forgot how bad they really are.............
And MS has become much better about carefully hiding any evilness.
Apple is less experienced, so even when their evilness is not as extreme a false appearance of greater evilness comes up.
That is, if they are looking at people's application submissions, figuring out their functionality, and submitting patent applications claiming they invented this (thing the app published on their store does).
Then the claim is false, deceptive, harms the person who actually did the work and developed the application, and benefits them.
Except the algorithm doesn't really do that... to defeat the captcha, it only needs to get it right about 10 or 20% of the time, to give the malicious script a "good enough guess" to brute-force the Captcha with 5 or 6 retries.
As long as the number retries are less than those the a fair percentage of humans require....
reCaptcha, and indeed all Captchas have a fundamental flaw.... advances in computer vision will eventually render them all obsolete.
Most of the CS knowledge is already around to totally defeat captchas of this sort... it's only an Engineering question.
They will most likely get broken when sufficiently unethical engineers are hired by sufficiently wealthy spammers.
It's basically a known fact, that spammers will eventually break conventional captchas totally, by developing algorithms to guess captcha answers.
It's only a question of when and how long will it take them to figure out all the systems that matter.
This does not mean it is a respectable thing for people to specifically target Captcha and attempt to hasten its demise.
reCaptcha is a big one... but there are other Captcha systems that matter (like Google's).
And there are other ways around them besides software algorithms... Amazon-style mech turk, for example...
find a few thousand folks in certain countries to pay $0.05/hour for breaking captchas, and suddenly reCaptcha is no longer a boundary.
Interesting is the fact that your little er experiment actually seems to work
Maybe that was part of Google wave's problem... no decent way to moderate it...
also, "playback" and revision history, some of Google waves features, were a performance issue.
I remember seeing a public wave where some user had created hundreds of thousands of revisions, such that the playback and slidebar were unusable.
They should have used some Google magic to help make it scale more fluidly and have fewer performance issues on the client, so it would actually be usable with large waves.
You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand.
It is in the top 50 unfair laws the US ever passed.
Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.
The so called "fair use" exemptions are not exemptions at all, and have eroded to the point where nobody can legally use them, thanks to DRM.
1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.
As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game.
RMS beliefs are anti-copyright, as he has written: All Software Should be Free:
I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.
The definition of the FOSS movement is set out by the Free Software Manifesto. It is inherently anti-copyright.
The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually
So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.
No... but I think you are clueless in regards to the motives, objectives, and reasons for the FOSS movement existing.
Your need to resort to Ad Hominem argument proves your ceaselessness in this matter.
In case you didn't know... if routers are using an AAA server "single signon", the user password is the same as the "router" password.
There may in fact be no router-specific passwords. In a secure environment, any generic accounts are removed/disabled on a router before it's placed into service.
What's wrong here, is that the charge is criminal instead of civil.
He didn't launch a denial of service attack against them to deny them the use of the service: "the ability to manage their network"
This is a perversion of the law for purposes it was not intended for, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what 'denial of service' means....
changing the admin password to prevent access would be such a DoS.
INACTION, or the failure to have disclosed a credential is not an action to cause a denial of service condition,
which his superiors are just as responsible for anyways, for not requiring him to provide that information before firing him.
If he followed security best practices, there might be no system passwords that he knew.
e.g. Each user has a username and password, an AAA server authenticates this.
He might have a local user for himself on devices as well, for backup purposes.
Having generic usernames and 'system-wide' passwords available is generally discouraged.
Since activities by a 'system generic user' cannot be audited properly.
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
Ok... but who has the passwords to access the global password management database?
Maybe that was the password they were asking for.... or for him to give people access to..
. Thus both have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that they can access the network and that he cannot. Providing the passwords is reasonable. Providing fingers is not.
I agree that he has an obligation, but that it is a contractual obligation or fiduciary duty due to the employer-employee relationship.
There is no law on the books stating that an employee must divulge any password or security code to their employer immediately when asked, and listing a criminal penalty for failing.
That is, I am saying this is a civil obligation.
The recourse against someone who fails to perform obligations or fulfill civil duties (such as doing what they agreed to do as part of an employment agreement policy or contract, OR... retaining information they agreed to retain), is a suit in civil court.
The employer can go to a judge and get an order issued for the employee to hand over the password.
But until the employee sees that order, there should be no criminal charge involved.
Really the copyright act is one of the most unfair laws ever passed?
Yes. One of the most. I did not say single most; this is not an exclusive position. Of course there are other laws that are just as unfair.
The copyright acts are unfair because they deprive people of natural rights, regarding free speech.
For example: Sing the Happy Birthday song, don't pay the fee, go to jail....
What about the apartheid laws in South Africa?
Note that you are referring to laws plural, and not any specific law that could be compared against the copyright act or the DMCA.
Apartheid was not any single law, but an entire system of great complexity, involving many laws.
A mitigating factor in regards to Apartheid is it was recognized as such and only lasted a short time, only approximately 30 years.
What about the laws that prevent women from voting in Muslim countries?
If you want to talk about Sharia and laws in Muslim countries; I find it incredibly odd that you pick one of the least unfair aspects to use as the example.
Did you forget that they stone people to death over "blasphemy"?
In other words, they kill people for exercising certain natural rights. That is orders of magnitude more unfair than selectivity over who can vote.
Voting on the other hand, isn't really a human right, even in a representative democracy. A government doesn't have to be democratic to be fair, even the US denies various people (such as illegal immigrants, people ever convicted of a felony) voting rights; but, a government can be "fair" without allowing anyone to vote at all.
Unequal voting conditions can lead to unfair treatment under the law (taxation without representation), but without such an unfair condition having been the outcome of the voting system -- there is no tangible unfairness.
That is, inequality in voting, is not itself a significant unfairness.
What about the Jim Crow segregation laws in the US?
Why would you think Jim Crow laws would be the unfair ones, when they were preceded by a system of slavery, and laws that provided for that?
What about the laws that put Japanese American camps during WWII?
War sucks.
And NO it freaking isn't civil disobedience! Civil disobedience as a protest is public.
Civil disobedience does not have to be public, as long as it is an active refusal to obey a law, demand, or command of the government.
There is a dictionary definition for that term, and what you are saying is both in disagreement with that, and what you are saying is also incorrect.
how will my word processor know the difference between an abbr. and the end of a sentence (so it can stretch the sentence for me)? I don't use a capital letter for certain technical words (even when they start a sentence), making it both harder to programmatically detect a new sentence and more important to do so.
It's easy if you don't use abbreviations in a sentence, or don't use "." to indicate an abbreviation in a sentence.
Perhaps it makes more sense to use two spaces after an abbreviation; it uses less paper, has less a systemic impact.
As abbreviations are so rarely used... formatting of an abbreviation should not be as much an issue as formatting of normal sentences.
Also, in such situations.. the recourse is civil, and the employee can't be arrested for "refusing to assist", at least not until a court order has been made, the employee is aware of the court order, and chooses to disobey the order.
But in that case the employee is criminally liable for contempt of court, not "theft".
You're missing my point.. i'm not saying "don't use SSDs", i'm saying, don't use it as an authoritative place for data... Why not use the SSD as a cache device automatically managed by the OS of your storage hardware and always keep the authoritative info on slow storage?
For example, in ZFS world you would use appropriate SSDs as your ZIL and L2ARC, load the server with 64GB of RAM or so, and service most read IOPS directly from cached RAM.
And perform most random writes on SSD initially, to be consolidated soon and batched up as a smaller number of sequential writes to slower block storage.
As long as the cache is bigger than your small subset, you get the data you need hot, and you don't need to take time to come up with application-specific logic or manually move files, and have to keep track of what's where...
Since slow storage is authoritative, as your 'small subset' changes over time, you aren't wasitng I/Os to move files back to slow storage, you're just retiring cache pages that have cooled off, whether those cache pages be on RAM or on SSD is not that important.
Use general-purpose OS tools to keep your hottest data in RAM and on faster storage.
Then you don't need to waste money attempting to devise custom schemes which do not perform significantly better than using SSD as a cache.
Network admins are supposed to have and keep those.
If they forget them, or can't find them, that means they cannot set the VPN concentrator back up if it should die an untimely death.
VPN group passwords are quite important.
And having to change them causes a big mess for all the VPN users of the network, since every single vpn client using lost credentials will have to be manually reconfigured..
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming refers to a general trend. Even if there is global warming, it can still be colder one year than the other, even though the trend is upwards.
The fact that the temperature was warmer on average for several years in the past, could mean that there was more melting, causing ice to be more brittle, or more likely to break when ice re-froze.
In other words, damage could have happened to the glacier over time that caused certain regions to be less stable or less sustainable, even if the pattern for a later year had been colder.
It's not 2010 that matters alone, it's the group of large number of years.... 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
You can't just take one year out of all those, and use temperature or other changes during that one year to show that there IS or IS NOT atmospheric gas pollution causing global warming, or if global warming did or did not result in an event.
The mass might break off due to past global warming, even if it happened to be colder this year.
The mass might break off even if there is no global warming at all.
Global warming might effect the probability that large pieces break off of glaciers over time, rather than being a single cause of any deteoriation event.
So anyways, the fact temps cooled alone is no proof that global warming did not result in this.
Actually... I think it's more like the ants that snuck on board trying to re-arrange deckchairs on the Titanic.
Of who can blow up a rack of PCs into the smallest size pieces.
And having the US military unexpectedly enter into the contest, using a tactical nuke to blow up the rack, for their entry in the contest
You know... for PR... to bolster recruitment rates.
.
Same difference... AMD could probably best Intel, if they spent more money on a rig of their own. I think it kind of defeats the point to have large corporations with massive resources the average high-end user could barely dream of seeing in person participate in contests like this
This is their way of saying essentially:
DEAR WIKILEAKS:
I AM XXXXXXXXXX OF THE GREAT REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
by ORDER OF THE US GUBERMENT YOU ARE TO SUBMIT ALL HARD DRIVES IMMEDIATELY
etc etc
Google got so popular and powerful, now, that the definition of "Evil" is at their whim...
A few tweaks here and there, and whichever site they want will be at the top of the search results for define:evil and searches for "Evil"
So you see.... Google has not only the ability to not be evil and do that. The definition of "evil" has whatever definition Google wants it to have.
Go look at the claim in the patent application
Cannot. It is forbidden for me (and most software engineers) to even look at software patents/software patent applications. In the event that I were infringing on one, it could become willful infringement the moment I was found to have seen the patent in question.
Anyways, we are not discussing just a patent application, but a report by the author of the Article of Apple allegedly copying designs from apps in the app store to patent claims.
Specifically... the diagram was copied directly from their app.
They make MS look better than MS did before [in regards to OS, anticompetitive practices, etc], but MS still looks pretty horrible. You have (perhaps) just forgotten why, or become so desensitized regarding MS, you forgot how bad they really are.............
And MS has become much better about carefully hiding any evilness.
Apple is less experienced, so even when their evilness is not as extreme a false appearance of greater evilness comes up.
Fraud
That is, if they are looking at people's application submissions, figuring out their functionality, and submitting patent applications claiming they invented this (thing the app published on their store does).
Then the claim is false, deceptive, harms the person who actually did the work and developed the application, and benefits them.
Except the algorithm doesn't really do that... to defeat the captcha, it only needs to get it right about 10 or 20% of the time, to give the malicious script a "good enough guess" to brute-force the Captcha with 5 or 6 retries.
As long as the number retries are less than those the a fair percentage of humans require....
A 30% recognition rate is no good for useful OCR. It's only that beneficial when breaking Captchas.
30% just means you have to retry the captcha a few times.
reCaptcha, and indeed all Captchas have a fundamental flaw.... advances in computer vision will eventually render them all obsolete.
Most of the CS knowledge is already around to totally defeat captchas of this sort... it's only an Engineering question. They will most likely get broken when sufficiently unethical engineers are hired by sufficiently wealthy spammers.
It's basically a known fact, that spammers will eventually break conventional captchas totally, by developing algorithms to guess captcha answers. It's only a question of when and how long will it take them to figure out all the systems that matter.
This does not mean it is a respectable thing for people to specifically target Captcha and attempt to hasten its demise.
reCaptcha is a big one... but there are other Captcha systems that matter (like Google's).
And there are other ways around them besides software algorithms... Amazon-style mech turk, for example... find a few thousand folks in certain countries to pay $0.05/hour for breaking captchas, and suddenly reCaptcha is no longer a boundary.
The order is random... you don't know which word is the first word and which is the less-certain one. Only reCaptcha knows that.
Interesting is the fact that your little er experiment actually seems to work
Maybe that was part of Google wave's problem... no decent way to moderate it... also, "playback" and revision history, some of Google waves features, were a performance issue.
I remember seeing a public wave where some user had created hundreds of thousands of revisions, such that the playback and slidebar were unusable.
They should have used some Google magic to help make it scale more fluidly and have fewer performance issues on the client, so it would actually be usable with large waves.
You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand.
It is in the top 50 unfair laws the US ever passed.
Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.
The so called "fair use" exemptions are not exemptions at all, and have eroded to the point where nobody can legally use them, thanks to DRM.
1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.
As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game.
RMS beliefs are anti-copyright, as he has written: All Software Should be Free:
The definition of the FOSS movement is set out by the Free Software Manifesto. It is inherently anti-copyright.
So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.
No... but I think you are clueless in regards to the motives, objectives, and reasons for the FOSS movement existing.
Your need to resort to Ad Hominem argument proves your ceaselessness in this matter.
In case you didn't know... if routers are using an AAA server "single signon", the user password is the same as the "router" password.
There may in fact be no router-specific passwords. In a secure environment, any generic accounts are removed/disabled on a router before it's placed into service.
He gave the passwords to the mayor....
He should have negotiated a plea bargain. The passwords, for release, or a light sentence.
He threw away his only bargaining chip, and let a case go to trial, with odds against him.
What's wrong here, is that the charge is criminal instead of civil.
He didn't launch a denial of service attack against them to deny them the use of the service: "the ability to manage their network"
This is a perversion of the law for purposes it was not intended for, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what 'denial of service' means....
changing the admin password to prevent access would be such a DoS.
INACTION, or the failure to have disclosed a credential is not an action to cause a denial of service condition, which his superiors are just as responsible for anyways, for not requiring him to provide that information before firing him.
If he followed security best practices, there might be no system passwords that he knew.
e.g. Each user has a username and password, an AAA server authenticates this. He might have a local user for himself on devices as well, for backup purposes.
Having generic usernames and 'system-wide' passwords available is generally discouraged. Since activities by a 'system generic user' cannot be audited properly.
"All production system-level passwords must be part of the security administered global password management database."
Ok... but who has the passwords to access the global password management database? Maybe that was the password they were asking for.... or for him to give people access to..
. Thus both have an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that they can access the network and that he cannot. Providing the passwords is reasonable. Providing fingers is not.
I agree that he has an obligation, but that it is a contractual obligation or fiduciary duty due to the employer-employee relationship.
There is no law on the books stating that an employee must divulge any password or security code to their employer immediately when asked, and listing a criminal penalty for failing.
That is, I am saying this is a civil obligation. The recourse against someone who fails to perform obligations or fulfill civil duties (such as doing what they agreed to do as part of an employment agreement policy or contract, OR... retaining information they agreed to retain), is a suit in civil court.
The employer can go to a judge and get an order issued for the employee to hand over the password.
But until the employee sees that order, there should be no criminal charge involved.
Really the copyright act is one of the most unfair laws ever passed?
Yes. One of the most. I did not say single most; this is not an exclusive position. Of course there are other laws that are just as unfair.
The copyright acts are unfair because they deprive people of natural rights, regarding free speech. For example: Sing the Happy Birthday song, don't pay the fee, go to jail....
What about the apartheid laws in South Africa?
Note that you are referring to laws plural, and not any specific law that could be compared against the copyright act or the DMCA. Apartheid was not any single law, but an entire system of great complexity, involving many laws.
A mitigating factor in regards to Apartheid is it was recognized as such and only lasted a short time, only approximately 30 years.
What about the laws that prevent women from voting in Muslim countries?
If you want to talk about Sharia and laws in Muslim countries; I find it incredibly odd that you pick one of the least unfair aspects to use as the example.
Did you forget that they stone people to death over "blasphemy"?
In other words, they kill people for exercising certain natural rights. That is orders of magnitude more unfair than selectivity over who can vote.
Voting on the other hand, isn't really a human right, even in a representative democracy. A government doesn't have to be democratic to be fair, even the US denies various people (such as illegal immigrants, people ever convicted of a felony) voting rights; but, a government can be "fair" without allowing anyone to vote at all.
Unequal voting conditions can lead to unfair treatment under the law (taxation without representation), but without such an unfair condition having been the outcome of the voting system -- there is no tangible unfairness.
That is, inequality in voting, is not itself a significant unfairness.
What about the Jim Crow segregation laws in the US?
Why would you think Jim Crow laws would be the unfair ones, when they were preceded by a system of slavery, and laws that provided for that?
What about the laws that put Japanese American camps during WWII?
War sucks.
And NO it freaking isn't civil disobedience! Civil disobedience as a protest is public.
Civil disobedience does not have to be public, as long as it is an active refusal to obey a law, demand, or command of the government. There is a dictionary definition for that term, and what you are saying is both in disagreement with that, and what you are saying is also incorrect.
how will my word processor know the difference between an abbr. and the end of a sentence (so it can stretch the sentence for me)? I don't use a capital letter for certain technical words (even when they start a sentence), making it both harder to programmatically detect a new sentence and more important to do so.
It's easy if you don't use abbreviations in a sentence, or don't use "." to indicate an abbreviation in a sentence.
Perhaps it makes more sense to use two spaces after an abbreviation; it uses less paper, has less a systemic impact.
As abbreviations are so rarely used... formatting of an abbreviation should not be as much an issue as formatting of normal sentences.
Also, in such situations.. the recourse is civil, and the employee can't be arrested for "refusing to assist", at least not until a court order has been made, the employee is aware of the court order, and chooses to disobey the order.
But in that case the employee is criminally liable for contempt of court, not "theft".
You're missing my point.. i'm not saying "don't use SSDs", i'm saying, don't use it as an authoritative place for data... Why not use the SSD as a cache device automatically managed by the OS of your storage hardware and always keep the authoritative info on slow storage?
For example, in ZFS world you would use appropriate SSDs as your ZIL and L2ARC, load the server with 64GB of RAM or so, and service most read IOPS directly from cached RAM.
And perform most random writes on SSD initially, to be consolidated soon and batched up as a smaller number of sequential writes to slower block storage.
As long as the cache is bigger than your small subset, you get the data you need hot, and you don't need to take time to come up with application-specific logic or manually move files, and have to keep track of what's where...
Since slow storage is authoritative, as your 'small subset' changes over time, you aren't wasitng I/Os to move files back to slow storage, you're just retiring cache pages that have cooled off, whether those cache pages be on RAM or on SSD is not that important.
Use general-purpose OS tools to keep your hottest data in RAM and on faster storage.
Then you don't need to waste money attempting to devise custom schemes which do not perform significantly better than using SSD as a cache.
You mean the list of VPN passwords?
Network admins are supposed to have and keep those. If they forget them, or can't find them, that means they cannot set the VPN concentrator back up if it should die an untimely death.
VPN group passwords are quite important. And having to change them causes a big mess for all the VPN users of the network, since every single vpn client using lost credentials will have to be manually reconfigured..