Various organizations -cough- us government -cough- have done just such a thing with machine learning to reduce the frequency of human evaluation of pornographic images, or so I've heard through the grapevine.
We can ID dog breeds now, so it's not hard to imagine that we could begin filtering for age.
Odd that they would feel compelled to leave it out, then...
The fact that you two can even have this argument is reason enough to *let the judge decide*... Which, of course, is only possible if he has the evidence.
You jail a CEO for a legislature's inability to understand how math works?
Cryptography isn't about knowing "the algorithm" as in the movies. Nor is it about finding the people who know the right secret trick. When done right, crypto is about being the party holding a particular piece of data, to an incredibly (almost laughably) high degree of certainty.
So how does this work? Is a lawyer supposed to break their client's confidence or maintain a secret in the executive that, by its non-disclosure, perpetuates an an ongoing criminal conspiracy in violation of the constitution?
It all gets done on device. Every keystroke, touch, file, and secure key (vendor owns the trusted execution environment, too) is subject to exposure. If this were to hold, it would be bad.
What if you weren't allowed to use encryption online? Or if your front door had to use a federally approved lock for which law enforcement officers had the key?
This is a cynical (and worryingly effective) attempt to use "terrorists" as an excuse to grossly erode civil liberties.
Apparently, these governments didn't want to bother with having to serve warrants to telephone companies... Which would require, you know, legal warrants. So we ended up with 54-bit encryption (A5/1) when the engineers involved were pushing for 128.
Modular arithmetic is not a crime. If you make it one, French law will suddenly sit in conflict with privacy laws around the world *and in France*. And will it be illegal to transmit random bits? What about SSL?
In fact, children are taught to defuse bullying with humor. Laughing off a threat is a way to attempt to reduce the severity of the threat (and it often works).
Let's get real, though. I have family in Arlington, and people there are racist as fuck. The kid got locked up for being brown.
You're pitting the wrong parties against each other. Yes, the families of fallen servicemen get screwed. No, a million dollars is not crazy for this suit.
You have the damages from failure to perform, and you have the punitive damages from negligence. Penalties in these rare cases are high, in part, to prevent others from acting recklessly. Add in the fact that a lawsuit is, sadly, like a negotiation when you factor in the all-too-common out of court settlement, and you have a cool million. $1.1MM send more thought it, though...
Keep in mind that the number of reported bugs in a given piece of software is proportional to the probability of a bug occurring, the likelihood of a user being sufficiently competent to recognize it as a bug, and the amount of usage of the given piece of software.
The last two figures in that trio have been dropping off precipitously for Yahoo for quite some time.
The problem with dropping QA (as if there is only one) is that you lose the adversarial position of quality. The tension of a QA org, refusing to sign off on shit software, helps that software be better, just as the tension of TPM's, riding the org to hit a schedule, helps the software value scheduling constraints. Giving people causes to champion is an extremely useful way to keep an organization from developing blind spots. A bunch of devs, together, can easily become dogmatic and over index on one aspect of their work.
Domain expert QA also allows developers to solve problems that would have been incomprehensibly out of reach by providing conversational user perspective.
I'm a developer, so a visit from QA might mean something landing on my desk with a thud. Still, skipping QA altogether is going to lead to more developer hours spent on work that would have been covered by (sadly, much less costly) QAE's and more blinds spots, in code and organizational operation.
Love your QA. They are your safety net, fresh eyes, user advocate, exhaustive pounder, field-bug triage, and fire marshal.
Besides, anyone taking advice from Yahoo's tech leadership at this point is woefully out of touch.
Ephemeral primes are prime numbers (typically in pairs), used to establish persistent keys (e.g. DH, J-Pake).
So, even though you went AC to mock this commenter, you should really check your self before exposing ignorance.
That said, the Dual_EC_DRBG trick used by the NSA involved specially crafted primes that, effectively, gave the NSA a back door by which pseudorandom sequences could be inferred with comparatively little effort. It's a brutally clever bit of math, though I'm not sure it would qualify as an ephemeral prime. They seem more like static primes to me.
I'm pretty sure that Bill knows what a backdoor is!
Honestly, trying to enlist Silicon Valley by either A) totally failing to understand what market disruption is or B) leveraging an utterly hamfisted rhetorical device? That is just failing out of the gate. Hillary looks more and more like a clueless, doddering elitist with nowhere near the mental horsepower to serve as President... And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...
I have to agree. I was ready to read a melodramatic rant over slightly new semantics, but I instead found a completely justified and reasonable criticism of horribly unreadable (and kind of broken) code. With some extra swearing thrown in for Linusness.
Remember, coders, if you're doing anything with code that will be used by others or reused by you, readability is crucial. I'm not talking about comments unless the code itself needs to be less readable (e.g. Performance in a hot spot). I mean the code itself.
And, by code that others may use or you may re-use, I mean all code.
This sounds a lot like the line from The American President regarding "White House Resolution 455" (an energy bill reducing fossil fuel emissions), which is, "It is, by far, the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming..."
"...single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change..." begins to sound hilariously similar 20 years later.
Note that I know nothing about the material elements of this speech or bill. I just think that the speechwriting language is eerily similar.
Sadly, the speed of light makes latency a problem, wireless communication can be tough in some environments, and... have you seen the security protocols used in day-to-day military applications?
Yes, we're going to drone it, but drones aren't a perfect answer. Now, carrier airships with drone fleets deployed in flight?
It was a law on the books in several states, at least indirectly. In Illinois, it was explicit enhancement of eavesdropping to a class 3 felony when used against certain protected parties (police, states attorneys, etc.). In California, it was application of wiretapping dual consent laws.
These laws were leveraged by police to harass, and even charge, citizens recording public actions by law enforcement. I'm not sure about every state, but it was struck down in the courts in Illinois.
In NYC, the NYPD used the existence of an ancient (pull out antenna) cell phone hidden gun to make the claim that they were within their rights to fire on citizens with cell phones, as cell phones constituted a "legitimate threat". That is, at the very least, a law enforcement officer using intimidation to enforce an unlawful (and unconstitutional) order. Armed and threatening the use of lethal force is textbook assault. These forceful (mis)applications of police-protecting laws need to be remedied by clear enshrinement of the protection of public documentation as fundamental to free speech.
The truth, in public, should stand at the front of the line of forms of speech that should remain free.
Slashdot Mirror
Various organizations -cough- us government -cough- have done just such a thing with machine learning to reduce the frequency of human evaluation of pornographic images, or so I've heard through the grapevine.
We can ID dog breeds now, so it's not hard to imagine that we could begin filtering for age.
The training set must be horrific...
Odd that they would feel compelled to leave it out, then...
The fact that you two can even have this argument is reason enough to *let the judge decide*... Which, of course, is only possible if he has the evidence.
Whoooosh!
The XJack was totally awesome. Pop out perpendicular connectors? That was the pop-up headlights of PCMCIA cards...
What could possibly go wrong?
You jail a CEO for a legislature's inability to understand how math works?
Cryptography isn't about knowing "the algorithm" as in the movies. Nor is it about finding the people who know the right secret trick. When done right, crypto is about being the party holding a particular piece of data, to an incredibly (almost laughably) high degree of certainty.
We jail a CEO for not being able to make P=NP?
Wow dude... that's like, super meta... I mean, it's basically transmeta...
Get it? Is this thing on?
I'm pretty sure that was an OS/2 convention. Windows bitmaps can have a negative height value resulting in a (now more conventional) top down packing.
Note that bottom-up ordering is more in line with mathematical conventions.
+1 to you for circling back once you got that it bricks the system (and not just the install).
So how does this work? Is a lawyer supposed to break their client's confidence or maintain a secret in the executive that, by its non-disclosure, perpetuates an an ongoing criminal conspiracy in violation of the constitution?
And, yes, I'll gladly chip in $10 for this guy.
Actually, a drone that can only turn left (on a course that turns both ways) would be awesome to watch in a race.
I think their attack is to just own the hardware that's running this code. Job. Done.
It all gets done on device. Every keystroke, touch, file, and secure key (vendor owns the trusted execution environment, too) is subject to exposure. If this were to hold, it would be bad.
What if you weren't allowed to use encryption online? Or if your front door had to use a federally approved lock for which law enforcement officers had the key?
This is a cynical (and worryingly effective) attempt to use "terrorists" as an excuse to grossly erode civil liberties.
So, yeah, fuck this guy.
The British and French are reported to have pushed for weak encryption in cellular phones (A5/1 and A5/3) to make snooping easier for law enforcement. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Sources-We-were-pressured-to-weaken-the-mobile-security-in-the-80s-7413285.html.
Apparently, these governments didn't want to bother with having to serve warrants to telephone companies... Which would require, you know, legal warrants. So we ended up with 54-bit encryption (A5/1) when the engineers involved were pushing for 128.
So what happened?
What virtually everyone here will already have guessed: The back doors left for convenient government snooping made it easy for *anyone* to snoop, effectively rendering the encryption worthless. (http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/3g-encryption-cracked-in-less-than-two-hours/.
Modular arithmetic is not a crime. If you make it one, French law will suddenly sit in conflict with privacy laws around the world *and in France*. And will it be illegal to transmit random bits? What about SSL?
Idiots.
In fact, children are taught to defuse bullying with humor. Laughing off a threat is a way to attempt to reduce the severity of the threat (and it often works).
Let's get real, though. I have family in Arlington, and people there are racist as fuck. The kid got locked up for being brown.
You're pitting the wrong parties against each other. Yes, the families of fallen servicemen get screwed. No, a million dollars is not crazy for this suit.
You have the damages from failure to perform, and you have the punitive damages from negligence. Penalties in these rare cases are high, in part, to prevent others from acting recklessly. Add in the fact that a lawsuit is, sadly, like a negotiation when you factor in the all-too-common out of court settlement, and you have a cool million. $1.1MM send more thought it, though...
Keep in mind that the number of reported bugs in a given piece of software is proportional to the probability of a bug occurring, the likelihood of a user being sufficiently competent to recognize it as a bug, and the amount of usage of the given piece of software.
The last two figures in that trio have been dropping off precipitously for Yahoo for quite some time.
The problem with dropping QA (as if there is only one) is that you lose the adversarial position of quality. The tension of a QA org, refusing to sign off on shit software, helps that software be better, just as the tension of TPM's, riding the org to hit a schedule, helps the software value scheduling constraints. Giving people causes to champion is an extremely useful way to keep an organization from developing blind spots. A bunch of devs, together, can easily become dogmatic and over index on one aspect of their work.
Domain expert QA also allows developers to solve problems that would have been incomprehensibly out of reach by providing conversational user perspective.
I'm a developer, so a visit from QA might mean something landing on my desk with a thud. Still, skipping QA altogether is going to lead to more developer hours spent on work that would have been covered by (sadly, much less costly) QAE's and more blinds spots, in code and organizational operation.
Love your QA. They are your safety net, fresh eyes, user advocate, exhaustive pounder, field-bug triage, and fire marshal.
Besides, anyone taking advice from Yahoo's tech leadership at this point is woefully out of touch.
Ephemeral primes are prime numbers (typically in pairs), used to establish persistent keys (e.g. DH, J-Pake).
So, even though you went AC to mock this commenter, you should really check your self before exposing ignorance.
That said, the Dual_EC_DRBG trick used by the NSA involved specially crafted primes that, effectively, gave the NSA a back door by which pseudorandom sequences could be inferred with comparatively little effort. It's a brutally clever bit of math, though I'm not sure it would qualify as an ephemeral prime. They seem more like static primes to me.
I'm pretty sure that Bill knows what a backdoor is!
Honestly, trying to enlist Silicon Valley by either A) totally failing to understand what market disruption is or B) leveraging an utterly hamfisted rhetorical device? That is just failing out of the gate. Hillary looks more and more like a clueless, doddering elitist with nowhere near the mental horsepower to serve as President... And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...
Who the hell is running this campaign?
I don't know what idiot modded this off topic. It's s straightforward joke that even my grandmother would find funny...
I have to agree. I was ready to read a melodramatic rant over slightly new semantics, but I instead found a completely justified and reasonable criticism of horribly unreadable (and kind of broken) code. With some extra swearing thrown in for Linusness.
Remember, coders, if you're doing anything with code that will be used by others or reused by you, readability is crucial. I'm not talking about comments unless the code itself needs to be less readable (e.g. Performance in a hot spot). I mean the code itself.
And, by code that others may use or you may re-use, I mean all code.
Must be a common core student, eh?
There is a vast difference between overfitting engine management algorithms to limited-scope tests and coding in hard switches to game tests.
The real kicker was using the wheel speed sensors for the switch. Only tray drifters love the environment, apparently.
This sounds a lot like the line from The American President regarding "White House Resolution 455" (an energy bill reducing fossil fuel emissions), which is, "It is, by far, the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming..."
"...single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change..." begins to sound hilariously similar 20 years later.
Note that I know nothing about the material elements of this speech or bill. I just think that the speechwriting language is eerily similar.
Sadly, the speed of light makes latency a problem, wireless communication can be tough in some environments, and... have you seen the security protocols used in day-to-day military applications?
Yes, we're going to drone it, but drones aren't a perfect answer. Now, carrier airships with drone fleets deployed in flight?
StarCraft, baby. Let's do it.
It was a law on the books in several states, at least indirectly. In Illinois, it was explicit enhancement of eavesdropping to a class 3 felony when used against certain protected parties (police, states attorneys, etc.). In California, it was application of wiretapping dual consent laws.
These laws were leveraged by police to harass, and even charge, citizens recording public actions by law enforcement. I'm not sure about every state, but it was struck down in the courts in Illinois.
In NYC, the NYPD used the existence of an ancient (pull out antenna) cell phone hidden gun to make the claim that they were within their rights to fire on citizens with cell phones, as cell phones constituted a "legitimate threat". That is, at the very least, a law enforcement officer using intimidation to enforce an unlawful (and unconstitutional) order. Armed and threatening the use of lethal force is textbook assault. These forceful (mis)applications of police-protecting laws need to be remedied by clear enshrinement of the protection of public documentation as fundamental to free speech.
The truth, in public, should stand at the front of the line of forms of speech that should remain free.