I see. Whilst they are not managing expectations at all well and effectively misleading people (though I'm sure it's not deliberate), it's clearly not a scam. To call it a scam would imply your money is being taken in return for nothing with no chance of getting it back. I'm sure you didn't mean 'scam' literally, but I can understand RasPi removing your comments saying that, because you're basically saying they're fraudulent, which is a fairly serious accusation!
Launch was in February. Farnell says that EARLIEST date is June. It all stinks. I feel scammed.
Its one thing to be incompetent, its another to constantly lie.
I'm curious - what happened when you asked for your money back?
Sentencing Mangham, Judge Alistair McCreath said his actions could have been "utterly disastrous" for Facebook... and had "real consequences and very serious potential consequences"...
I wonder if the judge is aware that his assessment of Mangham's actions, as quoted, is also an accurate assessment of the security flaw that Mangham exploited, that existed before he even touched a Facebook server. I see no mention of the potential loss to Facebook had the security flaw been exploited to do real harm. There is no question that this would have made $200,000 look like a small amount.
It is my opinion that the court completely failed to see Mangham's actions in perspective. Theft of IP is a serious matter. However, the judge
acknowledged that Mangham had never intended to pass on any of the information he had gathered, nor did he intend to make any money from it
Furthermore, no actual damage was done. The sentence was all about risk. The judge said:
"The creation of that risk, the extent of that risk and the cost of putting it right mean at the end of it all I'm afraid a prison sentence is inevitable."
But if the sentence was all about risk, why did the judge not consider the enormous reduction in risk that resulted from Mangham's actions? Was the "creation of that risk" was all a small price to pay for closing what is obviously a colossal security hole - a much bigger risk?
The bewilderingly long prison sentence leaves me wondering if there is more to this than we can see. For example, we all know that social media is a key tool used by intelligence gathering agencies. What, or should I say whose, intellectual property did Mangham really see? Also, if people become concerned about the security of social media, they may stop using it. The more evil and clever Mangham is made to look, the less disturbing the Facebook security flaw appears.
The problem with nuclear power is the worst case scenario: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
The problem is the willful ignorance of the media because the mysteriousness of nuclear power provides an almost unlimited source of material for media hyperbole. The differences between Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are so enormous - not just the outcome but the risks taken and events leading to the accident - it is ridiculous to include them in the same list.
I would encourage people to understand these accidents and, in particular, look at the culture of safety/corruption in the organisations/countries involved. Chernobyl became operational before a key safety requirement was met (and, ironically, attempts to address this led to the accident). We now know that there were safety concens over Fukushima but TEPCO wasn't going to shut a profitable power station. Where safety regulators have the final say and are not corrupt, nuclear power, like everything else, will be much safer. Most aspects of everyday life are not 100% safe, e.g. walking down stairs, driving, flying etc., but in the USA/Canada and many European countries, at least, nuclear power should be low down on our list of things to worry about. My worry is that investment in nuclear power may detract from investment into developing sources of renewable energy.
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 1
of course, where I said 'fork-exec', I just meant fork. It's been a long time since I just did a fork.
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 1
You can't have an "infinite number" of anything. Infinity doesn't work that way. It simply means arbitrarily large, as in "given any finite value N, I have more than N CPU's in my computer". There's no concept of an infinite number.
You're confusing people because it sounds like "It" is referring to infinity. Also, I think you meant to say explicitly that there is no concept of infinity required for the definition of NP. I would agree that the above poster would have been better saying "think a computer with an unbounded number of CPUs".
Also, nondeterminism doesn't really work the way that would imply. A more exact definition is that if you already have the answer you can confirm it deterministically in the complexity class. You're basically saying that you want to simultaneously test every possible answer on a separate CPU in parallel and have the one which tests positive report back, but for someone who's trying to learn the concept, your way is only confusing.
I generally agree. But I'm not sure the above poster meant that every answer is tested though. They could have been describing a scenario where, when a computational step from one state results in N states, the program does N - 1 'fork-exec's and the newly spawned processes can run in parallel with the original process, i.e. modelling a non-deterministic machine.
As I understand it, here was a site that had reliable links to sites hosting copyrighted material. Links to websites on a plate... for the authorities to shut down! So helping the authorities find the illegal content. What have I missed?
Paragraph 1: this is a huge and pointless waste of money. - To explain what I said - the extra time made up will be taken up by delays. So it will cost billions to go no faster. A joke that made a whoosh sound over head I guess.
A key aspect of this project is that the high speed lines are separate from the existing rail network* so they will not suffer from the congestion issues that account for most delays on railways, e.g. waiting for freight trains, slower commuter trains etc. Furthermore, freeing up capacity on the existing network will reduce congestion and delays there. I don't understand why you think there will be delays.
* I believe this would even be the case for the approx. half mile section in Camden that links HS1 to HS2, if they make the obvious bridge widening and track realignments with the North London Line.
Paragraph 2: we should invest in infrastructure - I did say we need to invest; but scale that up - Build the system so it can expand easily, so 100 years from now, those people are not stuck in the situation we are in now. We can't widen all the bridges and tunnels built. it's a shame they didn't build them to be able to take 3-4 train lines to allow us to upgrade and not disrupt the system.
Well, most of the line beyond the London end will be rated at 400km/h which is quite novel! Unfortunately you would never convince people to spend much extra to allow for future expansion. It's hard enough to convince people that the current plans aren't a white elephant.
Certainly more should be invested in broadband but not instead of HS2. The pros/cons of additional transport capacity are fairly clear and it is easy to see that this is required given current usage trends. Understanding the pros/cons of fast internet requires some insight into future changes to the way society operates so is harder to justify to the public. Still, it should be persued because of the potential that it offers.
Clearly, the advent of the internet has not done anything to reduce rail usage in the UK, suggesting that, so far, it has not made travel redundant. Look at rail usage from the early 1990s, e.g. http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml Who knows whether that trend will continue.
This project is going to cost £33Billion just for phase one (Birmingham -> London).
Nonsense: it's just under £17Billion for phase one (Birmingham -> London). Your misunderstanding is probably the result of the atrocious quality of journalism there has been on this subject.
to help avoid certain vulnerabilities/failures. E.g. see
http://www.impredicative.com/ur/
If you're not familiar with functional programming, this will be somewhat mind bending.
Yes, I think that corruption is the real point here. In my view, safety of nuclear power is ultimately determined by the extent of corruption within the country that is operating/regulating the power stations. In countries with a culture of openness, nuclear power will be much safer: those certifying safety will be able to make better judgements and have greter authority. So I don't see that the question of nuclear power is black and white - I endorse nuclear power only in those countries that can be trusted. Whilst the industry has a trust issue, I would hope that people see that individual countries set their own standards.
Since Fukushima, we now see that TEPCO just didn't want to know about safety issues. There was no way that they were going to shut down a working power station. Chernobyl was brought online before a key safety requirement was satisfied and efforts to resolve that ultimately led to the disaster. Three Mile Island is fundamentally different: caused by sloppy training/operation, a faulty component, HCI confusion due to design and, whilst a disaster, ultimately far less serious. (I am from none of the countries that these disasters occurred in.)
In about 92, a couple of friends at school wrote a BASIC program to fake the login screens on the BBCs to grab the login details. I had a copy because I was curious how it all worked. Still got busted. A year later everything went Mac.
Looks pretty pedestrian to me (although a BGA breakout on so few layers is worth a tip-of-the-hat). I think I only see three signal layers; blue, yellow, and reddish-brown.
Is blue really a signal layer? Looks like blue and pink are silks to me and the board is simply double-sided.
In a restaurant where you pay at the end, you are in debt after eating. I cannot believe such a restaurant needs a licence to offer credit..? Similarly staying in a hotel etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I see. Whilst they are not managing expectations at all well and effectively misleading people (though I'm sure it's not deliberate), it's clearly not a scam. To call it a scam would imply your money is being taken in return for nothing with no chance of getting it back. I'm sure you didn't mean 'scam' literally, but I can understand RasPi removing your comments saying that, because you're basically saying they're fraudulent, which is a fairly serious accusation!
Launch was in February. Farnell says that EARLIEST date is June. It all stinks. I feel scammed. Its one thing to be incompetent, its another to constantly lie.
I'm curious - what happened when you asked for your money back?
Any statement that universally quantifies over the empty set is trivially true.
Teela from He-Man is supposedly over the age of 16, so 7-10 year olds won't be arrested on their way into Canada.
Even if you get a lawyer to write it?
Sentencing Mangham, Judge Alistair McCreath said his actions could have been "utterly disastrous" for Facebook ... and had "real consequences and very serious potential consequences"...
I wonder if the judge is aware that his assessment of Mangham's actions, as quoted, is also an accurate assessment of the security flaw that Mangham exploited, that existed before he even touched a Facebook server. I see no mention of the potential loss to Facebook had the security flaw been exploited to do real harm. There is no question that this would have made $200,000 look like a small amount.
It is my opinion that the court completely failed to see Mangham's actions in perspective. Theft of IP is a serious matter. However, the judge
acknowledged that Mangham had never intended to pass on any of the information he had gathered, nor did he intend to make any money from it
Furthermore, no actual damage was done. The sentence was all about risk. The judge said:
"The creation of that risk, the extent of that risk and the cost of putting it right mean at the end of it all I'm afraid a prison sentence is inevitable."
But if the sentence was all about risk, why did the judge not consider the enormous reduction in risk that resulted from Mangham's actions? Was the "creation of that risk" was all a small price to pay for closing what is obviously a colossal security hole - a much bigger risk?
The bewilderingly long prison sentence leaves me wondering if there is more to this than we can see. For example, we all know that social media is a key tool used by intelligence gathering agencies. What, or should I say whose, intellectual property did Mangham really see? Also, if people become concerned about the security of social media, they may stop using it. The more evil and clever Mangham is made to look, the less disturbing the Facebook security flaw appears.
Say, someone discovers a way to convert scrap metal to gold That person should be allowed to have a patent on it
Unless they're converting scrap gold into gold... which is about the level of sillyness we're seeing with software-related patents.
Patents should be a good thing. The problem seems to be technical ignorance and lack of independence in the awarding process.
The problem with nuclear power is the worst case scenario: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.
The problem is the willful ignorance of the media because the mysteriousness of nuclear power provides an almost unlimited source of material for media hyperbole. The differences between Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are so enormous - not just the outcome but the risks taken and events leading to the accident - it is ridiculous to include them in the same list.
I would encourage people to understand these accidents and, in particular, look at the culture of safety/corruption in the organisations/countries involved. Chernobyl became operational before a key safety requirement was met (and, ironically, attempts to address this led to the accident). We now know that there were safety concens over Fukushima but TEPCO wasn't going to shut a profitable power station. Where safety regulators have the final say and are not corrupt, nuclear power, like everything else, will be much safer. Most aspects of everyday life are not 100% safe, e.g. walking down stairs, driving, flying etc., but in the USA/Canada and many European countries, at least, nuclear power should be low down on our list of things to worry about. My worry is that investment in nuclear power may detract from investment into developing sources of renewable energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIPER_microprocessor
of course, where I said 'fork-exec', I just meant fork. It's been a long time since I just did a fork.
You can't have an "infinite number" of anything. Infinity doesn't work that way. It simply means arbitrarily large, as in "given any finite value N, I have more than N CPU's in my computer". There's no concept of an infinite number.
You're confusing people because it sounds like "It" is referring to infinity. Also, I think you meant to say explicitly that there is no concept of infinity required for the definition of NP. I would agree that the above poster would have been better saying "think a computer with an unbounded number of CPUs".
Also, nondeterminism doesn't really work the way that would imply. A more exact definition is that if you already have the answer you can confirm it deterministically in the complexity class. You're basically saying that you want to simultaneously test every possible answer on a separate CPU in parallel and have the one which tests positive report back, but for someone who's trying to learn the concept, your way is only confusing.
I generally agree. But I'm not sure the above poster meant that every answer is tested though. They could have been describing a scenario where, when a computational step from one state results in N states, the program does N - 1 'fork-exec's and the newly spawned processes can run in parallel with the original process, i.e. modelling a non-deterministic machine.
As it's case sensitive, perhaps I should have said "OCaml".
I assumed Ocaml to be 44 ML. Standard ML is listed below at 47, so ML must mean Ocaml.
As I understand it, here was a site that had reliable links to sites hosting copyrighted material. Links to websites on a plate... for the authorities to shut down! So helping the authorities find the illegal content. What have I missed?
Paragraph 1: this is a huge and pointless waste of money. - To explain what I said - the extra time made up will be taken up by delays. So it will cost billions to go no faster. A joke that made a whoosh sound over head I guess.
A key aspect of this project is that the high speed lines are separate from the existing rail network* so they will not suffer from the congestion issues that account for most delays on railways, e.g. waiting for freight trains, slower commuter trains etc. Furthermore, freeing up capacity on the existing network will reduce congestion and delays there. I don't understand why you think there will be delays.
* I believe this would even be the case for the approx. half mile section in Camden that links HS1 to HS2, if they make the obvious bridge widening and track realignments with the North London Line.
Paragraph 2: we should invest in infrastructure - I did say we need to invest; but scale that up - Build the system so it can expand easily, so 100 years from now, those people are not stuck in the situation we are in now. We can't widen all the bridges and tunnels built. it's a shame they didn't build them to be able to take 3-4 train lines to allow us to upgrade and not disrupt the system.
Well, most of the line beyond the London end will be rated at 400km/h which is quite novel! Unfortunately you would never convince people to spend much extra to allow for future expansion. It's hard enough to convince people that the current plans aren't a white elephant.
Certainly more should be invested in broadband but not instead of HS2. The pros/cons of additional transport capacity are fairly clear and it is easy to see that this is required given current usage trends. Understanding the pros/cons of fast internet requires some insight into future changes to the way society operates so is harder to justify to the public. Still, it should be persued because of the potential that it offers.
Clearly, the advent of the internet has not done anything to reduce rail usage in the UK, suggesting that, so far, it has not made travel redundant. Look at rail usage from the early 1990s, e.g. http://www.railway-technical.com/statistics.shtml Who knows whether that trend will continue.
This project is going to cost £33Billion just for phase one (Birmingham -> London).
Nonsense: it's just under £17Billion for phase one (Birmingham -> London). Your misunderstanding is probably the result of the atrocious quality of journalism there has been on this subject.
to help avoid certain vulnerabilities/failures. E.g. see http://www.impredicative.com/ur/ If you're not familiar with functional programming, this will be somewhat mind bending.
Yes, I think that corruption is the real point here. In my view, safety of nuclear power is ultimately determined by the extent of corruption within the country that is operating/regulating the power stations. In countries with a culture of openness, nuclear power will be much safer: those certifying safety will be able to make better judgements and have greter authority. So I don't see that the question of nuclear power is black and white - I endorse nuclear power only in those countries that can be trusted. Whilst the industry has a trust issue, I would hope that people see that individual countries set their own standards.
Since Fukushima, we now see that TEPCO just didn't want to know about safety issues. There was no way that they were going to shut down a working power station. Chernobyl was brought online before a key safety requirement was satisfied and efforts to resolve that ultimately led to the disaster. Three Mile Island is fundamentally different: caused by sloppy training/operation, a faulty component, HCI confusion due to design and, whilst a disaster, ultimately far less serious. (I am from none of the countries that these disasters occurred in.)
In about 92, a couple of friends at school wrote a BASIC program to fake the login screens on the BBCs to grab the login details. I had a copy because I was curious how it all worked. Still got busted. A year later everything went Mac.
I've been reliably informed that Santa Claus is delivering mine.
Looks pretty pedestrian to me (although a BGA breakout on so few layers is worth a tip-of-the-hat). I think I only see three signal layers; blue, yellow, and reddish-brown.
Is blue really a signal layer? Looks like blue and pink are silks to me and the board is simply double-sided.
Siblings are just a special case of cousin- 0th cousins!
In a restaurant where you pay at the end, you are in debt after eating. I cannot believe such a restaurant needs a licence to offer credit..? Similarly staying in a hotel etc.
The raw in-flight sound really makes this video brilliant. The rocket splutters and then eerie silence.. for a few seconds. Mesmerizing stuff...