Gauss's Law was discovered in the early 19th century. Lorentz did most of his stuff in the late 19th century. Interestingly, I learned this as the "Lorentz Force Equation" instead of Law, and a quick google seems to show that the two titles are fairly evenly used. F=q(VxB) has equally usable names from both periods, and since it was discovered in the midst of the period that I postulated that "Law" was becoming deprecated, I don't see how this is an argument.
"Law" is pretty much a relic. If you'll notice, things discovered before the mid 19th century(roughly) tend to be called laws, and things after aren't. Gravity, Thermodynamics, Ideal Gas, and Conservation are laws, while relativity and quantum are theories. Maxwell's Equations are arguably some of the most important relationships in physics, but aren't titled "Law", but Gauss's Law doesn't predate it by much.
There are exceptions, with no sharp cut off where "Law" became deprecated, but it's usage is far more of a social and philosophical phenomenon than a scientific one.
You propose that one party is priveledged, that with no prior or explicit agreement you cannot use any information about an interaction involving another person. You are basically eliminating the notion that there is any public knowledge about a person. The law does have notions of the presumption of privacy.
The second you step outside of your door, or a secret leaves your mouth, you are explicitly making that knowledge public to some degree. If you give personal information to someone, it is now public information and is on your shoulders to determine whether that person is trustworthy, or have some method of enforcing that trustworthiness. The idea of making the government responsible for enforcing the degree at which your personal information can spread is a nightmare of big-brother proportions, IMO.
Now that's not to say that the government has free reign to investigate people. There must be sufficient oversight from all branches of the government, congress to provide the legal framework, the executive to provide the means and methods, and the judicial to determine acceptibility. Don't get caught up in the faux horrors that the NSA was investigating citizens, recognize that the horror of the situation is the lack of oversight, checks, and culpability.
I would argue that the second that you interact with another person, organization, or any other entity with legal rights, that the information is no longer solely yours to control. If you buy something from me, then who owns the information about that transfer?
When you load slashdot, you handing bytes to your ISP requesting that they hand it to several of their peers, then have those peers hand it back to you. Who "owns" those exchanges?
There's no way to tell whether you are detangling it or if the other side broke entanglement. Also, the concept of simultaneously reading the particles comes into a fair bit of question over long distances.
The judge was put off by the lying of the defense's expert witnesses as well. It's a 139 page decision. Pages 18-36 or so discuss how ID is nothing more than a recasting of creationism as an attempt to bypass earlier SCOTUS rulings. Pages 36 to 64 is a summary of why a hypothetical objective observer, both juvenile and adult, would assume that the disclaimer is a religious endorsement. Pages 64 to 89 is a three part summary of why ID is not science, cannot be science, and is a masquerade of creationism. Page 89 starts the section on the religious motivations of the board. I'm currently on page 94, but it only gets worse for ID from what I've read.
Basically, the judge documents the ever changing face of creationism through scientific creationism to ID as it constantly presents the same unconstitutional ideas. This doesn't hold as a precedent elsewhere, but can be considered in other jurisdictions as influencial. The judge makes it clear that there's a pattern of recasting creationism to avoid the pitfalls that judges point out. That's what is really going to hurt the ID crowd.
Bacteria are a phylum or a kingdom (if you mean all monerans). Your statement of "they remain a bacteria" implies that you're ok with saying "a catfish evolved into a person" (both in chordate phylum) or "a flatworm evolved into a cow" (animal kingdom). "Just a bacteria" is about the most ignorant anti-evolution statement you can make.
Paths have a lot more semantics than that. For example, there are operations like "move C:\My Documents\Soul Coughing\Irresistable Bliss\ D:\foobar" that simply don't exist for tags and don't even have well-defined semantics.
CVS uses file paths in it's repository, and the semantics for a move are not well-defined within it's structure. What if you move a file that's opened by another process? When you save it, it'll show up in the original location. What if a process has locked the file? What if two processes try to move it to two different locations at the same time? Then you have a quite ill-defined race condition.
Someone sat down and defined the semantics for moving a file and when it would be well defined. The fact that someone hasn't done so for a particular type of tagging doesn't imply that it can't be done or that it's fundamentally different.
I think you should look up that word.
Should have said that a file system is a digraph with only one parentless node and a directory is a path. I hate it when I erase half a sentence and begin a completely new one without checking that first half.
I was just trying to say that a file system is a series of labeled nodes with a containment relationship. Hardlinks and symlinks mean that the path down is not always the same as the path up, so it's a directional graph. A node without a parent is an orphan that doesn't show up in the filesystem. If you define similar relationships on tags, then you have a file system or sorts.
A "path" is a digraph that has only one node without a parent. Directories are just a delimited list of the node labels. In Unix-like systems you can have multiple parents or labels for the same node via links.
How is a file path different than "music/albums/Irresistable Bliss" or "C:\My Documents\Soul Coughing\Irresistable Bliss\"? They're both descriptions on how to locate a series of files, one being through information about the disk structure and one through information about the categorization. They're both aliases for a bunch of inodes on the filesystem, which is a bunch of clusters on the disk.
It's also quite possible that Lucent invented this a long time ago for the government, and later got permission from the contracting agency for civilian applications. In this case, Lucent has prior art on the patent, however the details of that prior art are classified.
I doubt he got permission of all the crowd to take pictures, which they made a really big deal about on Friday. Some guy took a picture of the crowd and was escorted out of the tent. Turns out that a convention of people doing borderline legal stuff doesn't care to have images floating the net. The non-feds probably don't either.
Each item instance does have a unique identifier for exactly this contingency. They've said so in the past. It seems they have one machine per server that handles the item database, since back in December they were having problems where one piece of hardware was handling multiple servers, and an item database crash would take down 3ish game servers. They don't have to log every packet, just every transaction. Every drop list, every trade window, every mail window, every auction house exchange, and every NPC vendor would cover all the economic bases that I can think of offhand.
Then you find all the duped item IDs, look for the original instance in the drop tables, then look for all owners after the cloned item IDs show up. The owner at that time gets banned and erased. Anyone that the owner sends items directly to gets banned and erased. Calculate the price that the item has sold for on the AH. Any exchange of a cloned item within 1 standard deviation of that price gets erased and the purchaser gets his money back. Any exchange outside of that range gets investigated. Anything 3 SD out gets locked out and individually investigated.
Check for anyone getting massive gold in a short time. Eliminate those who get it from obvious sources (treasurers of guilds, people who dumped vaulted things on the AH or just checked their week old mailbox). Anyone who they bought from gets their item back and the sale price removed or drop them to 1 gold if they don't have enough. Any transaction that's well outside of normal rates of exchanges gets looked at and similarly flagged.
That's a start. Not easy to implement, but completely doable. I'd guess they have a bunch more techniques. Or they might just roll the server back a couple days until they have a manageable number of people to weed through.
Reverse engineering easier than original design?
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
I guess that's why Linux has a completely working NTFS driver but not a half dozen other superior file systems. I guess that's why MS Word's.doc format is so readily readable and there's no other format that gives the same flexibility.
What is he babbling about? Once you get beyond a trivial protocol or format, reverse engineering is harder. He's just pissed that bitkeeper has a trivial protocol and someone actually spent the 15 minutes to figure it out. I hardly consider "echo foo | telnet 128.0.0.1" a prototypical example of hard reverse engineering.
Most of them are probably related to the query itself-- command line args, bash history, grep's strcmp() and such.
I get a couple that might be from the a spell checker since I see "llama", "llamas", and "llama's" in close proximity. I also get "cuillamartin" from/etc/services and a spanish reference to stopping rmid.
Ah, but there are more stupid people than smart people by a large margin, so if you eliminate the stupid people, then the smart people will realize the odds of them being caught just went up dramaticly.
Because I'm sure it'd work like that in the real world.
The requirements for these types of projects are almost always classified. The capabilities for these projects are almost always classified. The structure of the data, whether test or not, is almost always classified.
If you're dealing with classified material, you have to be behind certified security protection, and no data can travel public lines, encrypted or not.
An OSS model for this simply cannot happen for security concerns. OSS tools can be used, but they'll always have to be put together in a secure area somewhere, and the final requirements can never be public
Or perhaps there's enough companies with other patents that MS can't be sure that they can enforce one of theirs without starting a patent war with the likes of IBM or HP. Patents work on MAD principles among big businesses.
When your code runs for days, recompile time is pretty trivial. Fortran also has massive speed optimizations over Java. Most code like this has a really small inner loop that runs as fast as it possibly can, and even the smallest of performance hits from things like exceptions, object dereferencing, register loading of potentially aliased variables, and 1001 other minor things that goes on in the background that you don't see can increase run time by hours. Fortran is a least common denominator that lacks the flexibility of programming, but makes up for it by allowing the compiler to do all sorts of tricks like automatic parallelization of these inner loops. Java and C++ don't even come close to this, and hand coding such things is a gamble on efficiency for a good programmer, a sure loss for a mediocre programmer.
One lesson of object oriented is that you should let the language do the work for you. Sometimes this means that you shouldn't use object oriented languages.
well, the Earth's shadow is pretty much the same size as the Earth, since sunlight is a rather pretty close to parallel by the time it travels the 93 million miles to get here. It's just that the orbital radius is 5 times the radius of the earth, so it flies through the dark area pretty quickly.
Very illuminating, since it's industry that pushed for the DMCA. It's not the politicians who are using the law to create a nation of criminals to control, it's private industry. Rand, as usual, had a half decent idea and completely went the wrong way with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Gauss's Law was discovered in the early 19th century.
Lorentz did most of his stuff in the late 19th century. Interestingly, I learned this as the "Lorentz Force Equation" instead of Law, and a quick google seems to show that the two titles are fairly evenly used. F=q(VxB) has equally usable names from both periods, and since it was discovered in the midst of the period that I postulated that "Law" was becoming deprecated, I don't see how this is an argument.
"Law" is pretty much a relic. If you'll notice, things discovered before the mid 19th century(roughly) tend to be called laws, and things after aren't. Gravity, Thermodynamics, Ideal Gas, and Conservation are laws, while relativity and quantum are theories. Maxwell's Equations are arguably some of the most important relationships in physics, but aren't titled "Law", but Gauss's Law doesn't predate it by much.
There are exceptions, with no sharp cut off where "Law" became deprecated, but it's usage is far more of a social and philosophical phenomenon than a scientific one.
Yeah, they make them with color and remotes these days.
You propose that one party is priveledged, that with no prior or explicit agreement you cannot use any information about an interaction involving another person. You are basically eliminating the notion that there is any public knowledge about a person. The law does have notions of the presumption of privacy.
The second you step outside of your door, or a secret leaves your mouth, you are explicitly making that knowledge public to some degree. If you give personal information to someone, it is now public information and is on your shoulders to determine whether that person is trustworthy, or have some method of enforcing that trustworthiness. The idea of making the government responsible for enforcing the degree at which your personal information can spread is a nightmare of big-brother proportions, IMO.
Now that's not to say that the government has free reign to investigate people. There must be sufficient oversight from all branches of the government, congress to provide the legal framework, the executive to provide the means and methods, and the judicial to determine acceptibility. Don't get caught up in the faux horrors that the NSA was investigating citizens, recognize that the horror of the situation is the lack of oversight, checks, and culpability.
I would argue that the second that you interact with another person, organization, or any other entity with legal rights, that the information is no longer solely yours to control. If you buy something from me, then who owns the information about that transfer?
When you load slashdot, you handing bytes to your ISP requesting that they hand it to several of their peers, then have those peers hand it back to you. Who "owns" those exchanges?
There's no way to tell whether you are detangling it or if the other side broke entanglement. Also, the concept of simultaneously reading the particles comes into a fair bit of question over long distances.
The judge was put off by the lying of the defense's expert witnesses as well. It's a 139 page decision. Pages 18-36 or so discuss how ID is nothing more than a recasting of creationism as an attempt to bypass earlier SCOTUS rulings. Pages 36 to 64 is a summary of why a hypothetical objective observer, both juvenile and adult, would assume that the disclaimer is a religious endorsement. Pages 64 to 89 is a three part summary of why ID is not science, cannot be science, and is a masquerade of creationism. Page 89 starts the section on the religious motivations of the board. I'm currently on page 94, but it only gets worse for ID from what I've read.
Basically, the judge documents the ever changing face of creationism through scientific creationism to ID as it constantly presents the same unconstitutional ideas. This doesn't hold as a precedent elsewhere, but can be considered in other jurisdictions as influencial. The judge makes it clear that there's a pattern of recasting creationism to avoid the pitfalls that judges point out. That's what is really going to hurt the ID crowd.
Bacteria are a phylum or a kingdom (if you mean all monerans). Your statement of "they remain a bacteria" implies that you're ok with saying "a catfish evolved into a person" (both in chordate phylum) or "a flatworm evolved into a cow" (animal kingdom). "Just a bacteria" is about the most ignorant anti-evolution statement you can make.
Paths have a lot more semantics than that. For example, there are operations like "move C:\My Documents\Soul Coughing\Irresistable Bliss\ D:\foobar" that simply don't exist for tags and don't even have well-defined semantics.
CVS uses file paths in it's repository, and the semantics for a move are not well-defined within it's structure. What if you move a file that's opened by another process? When you save it, it'll show up in the original location. What if a process has locked the file? What if two processes try to move it to two different locations at the same time? Then you have a quite ill-defined race condition.
Someone sat down and defined the semantics for moving a file and when it would be well defined. The fact that someone hasn't done so for a particular type of tagging doesn't imply that it can't be done or that it's fundamentally different.
I think you should look up that word.
Should have said that a file system is a digraph with only one parentless node and a directory is a path. I hate it when I erase half a sentence and begin a completely new one without checking that first half.
I was just trying to say that a file system is a series of labeled nodes with a containment relationship. Hardlinks and symlinks mean that the path down is not always the same as the path up, so it's a directional graph. A node without a parent is an orphan that doesn't show up in the filesystem. If you define similar relationships on tags, then you have a file system or sorts.
A "path" is a digraph that has only one node without a parent. Directories are just a delimited list of the node labels. In Unix-like systems you can have multiple parents or labels for the same node via links.
How is a file path different than "music/albums/Irresistable Bliss" or "C:\My Documents\Soul Coughing\Irresistable Bliss\"? They're both descriptions on how to locate a series of files, one being through information about the disk structure and one through information about the categorization. They're both aliases for a bunch of inodes on the filesystem, which is a bunch of clusters on the disk.
If it's 100% correlation, then they don't hire you because you ARE a sociopath, not because you're predisposed to sociopathy.
It's also quite possible that Lucent invented this a long time ago for the government, and later got permission from the contracting agency for civilian applications. In this case, Lucent has prior art on the patent, however the details of that prior art are classified.
At least you had no compile errors or core dumps, and I bet you didn't have any exploitable vulnerabilities either.
I doubt he got permission of all the crowd to take pictures, which they made a really big deal about on Friday. Some guy took a picture of the crowd and was escorted out of the tent. Turns out that a convention of people doing borderline legal stuff doesn't care to have images floating the net. The non-feds probably don't either.
Each item instance does have a unique identifier for exactly this contingency. They've said so in the past. It seems they have one machine per server that handles the item database, since back in December they were having problems where one piece of hardware was handling multiple servers, and an item database crash would take down 3ish game servers. They don't have to log every packet, just every transaction. Every drop list, every trade window, every mail window, every auction house exchange, and every NPC vendor would cover all the economic bases that I can think of offhand.
Then you find all the duped item IDs, look for the original instance in the drop tables, then look for all owners after the cloned item IDs show up. The owner at that time gets banned and erased. Anyone that the owner sends items directly to gets banned and erased. Calculate the price that the item has sold for on the AH. Any exchange of a cloned item within 1 standard deviation of that price gets erased and the purchaser gets his money back. Any exchange outside of that range gets investigated. Anything 3 SD out gets locked out and individually investigated.
Check for anyone getting massive gold in a short time. Eliminate those who get it from obvious sources (treasurers of guilds, people who dumped vaulted things on the AH or just checked their week old mailbox). Anyone who they bought from gets their item back and the sale price removed or drop them to 1 gold if they don't have enough. Any transaction that's well outside of normal rates of exchanges gets looked at and similarly flagged.
That's a start. Not easy to implement, but completely doable. I'd guess they have a bunch more techniques. Or they might just roll the server back a couple days until they have a manageable number of people to weed through.
I guess that's why Linux has a completely working NTFS driver but not a half dozen other superior file systems. I guess that's why MS Word's .doc format is so readily readable and there's no other format that gives the same flexibility.
What is he babbling about? Once you get beyond a trivial protocol or format, reverse engineering is harder. He's just pissed that bitkeeper has a trivial protocol and someone actually spent the 15 minutes to figure it out. I hardly consider "echo foo | telnet 128.0.0.1" a prototypical example of hard reverse engineering.
Most of them are probably related to the query itself-- command line args, bash history, grep's strcmp() and such.
/etc/services and a spanish reference to stopping rmid.
I get a couple that might be from the a spell checker since I see "llama", "llamas", and "llama's" in close proximity. I also get "cuillamartin" from
Ah, but there are more stupid people than smart people by a large margin, so if you eliminate the stupid people, then the smart people will realize the odds of them being caught just went up dramaticly.
Because I'm sure it'd work like that in the real world.
The requirements for these types of projects are almost always classified. The capabilities for these projects are almost always classified. The structure of the data, whether test or not, is almost always classified.
If you're dealing with classified material, you have to be behind certified security protection, and no data can travel public lines, encrypted or not.
An OSS model for this simply cannot happen for security concerns. OSS tools can be used, but they'll always have to be put together in a secure area somewhere, and the final requirements can never be public
"time shifting" was used in the betamax case to describe using a VCR recording a program so that it could be watched later.
Or perhaps there's enough companies with other patents that MS can't be sure that they can enforce one of theirs without starting a patent war with the likes of IBM or HP. Patents work on MAD principles among big businesses.
I have a whole bag...
When your code runs for days, recompile time is pretty trivial. Fortran also has massive speed optimizations over Java. Most code like this has a really small inner loop that runs as fast as it possibly can, and even the smallest of performance hits from things like exceptions, object dereferencing, register loading of potentially aliased variables, and 1001 other minor things that goes on in the background that you don't see can increase run time by hours. Fortran is a least common denominator that lacks the flexibility of programming, but makes up for it by allowing the compiler to do all sorts of tricks like automatic parallelization of these inner loops. Java and C++ don't even come close to this, and hand coding such things is a gamble on efficiency for a good programmer, a sure loss for a mediocre programmer.
One lesson of object oriented is that you should let the language do the work for you. Sometimes this means that you shouldn't use object oriented languages.
well, the Earth's shadow is pretty much the same size as the Earth, since sunlight is a rather pretty close to parallel by the time it travels the 93 million miles to get here. It's just that the orbital radius is 5 times the radius of the earth, so it flies through the dark area pretty quickly.
Very illuminating, since it's industry that pushed for the DMCA. It's not the politicians who are using the law to create a nation of criminals to control, it's private industry. Rand, as usual, had a half decent idea and completely went the wrong way with it.