No lawyer is going to give you a definitive answer, and that's half the problem.
Maybe the problem you have isn't the problem you think you have. Sometimes a meta-answer is as good as it gets. Does God exist? There is no answer, so in a sense, all discussion is moot. Does that mean that you shouldn't wonder about such a thing? No. Does it mean you should get pissed off if someone tells you that not only do they not know the answer, the answer PROVABLY does not exist at this time? No.
Brevity from someone who is (usually)paid by the hour seems a virtuous quality to me. Discovering that there IS NO ANSWER to some questions is an answer (or a meta-answer) in itself, worthy of knowing.
I was not stating that the results seemed correct to me - merely that they were stated much more precisely than "it depends".
That depends on how you view his "experiment". If you view it as a test for HIS SOFTWARE, his results were pretty clear. But as he stated himself, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL SOFTWARE, as not all software lends itself to being crippled. Therefor, IT DEPENDS on what kind of software you are trying to peddle. Read TFA again.
Maybe I am just missing the overly scary big brother aspect of this.
Yes, you are.
Cops checking "suspicious" looking cars at random is one thing. Keeping a database of the exact datestamped whereabouts of millions of cars, to be datamined at leisure, is another.
In this case, one datum is essentially meaningless except in particular circumstances. (BOLO, etc.) Collections of data become highly meaningful, and I can't think of a single legitimate reason to do so.
won't be made readily available to the general public
Are you under the impression that something must be "made" readily available to the general public for it to be readily available to the general public?
It's disturbing enough for it to be available to the general non-public.
while it's legal to videotape people on your property where a sign is posted, or in any public place where they have no expectation of privacy (like out in front of your house) it's illegal to audiotape them without their express consent.
Maybe where you live. Where I live (Florida) it's legal to record video without ANY warning whatsoever. Recording audio requires notification, but a notice posted on the door is sufficient.
The specs called for two "C" shaped beams to hug a metal rod as so - ]|[ They were assembled like this - [|]
I was working for a structural engineer at the time of that disaster (who had incidentally also been my Statics instructor in college) and remember it well. It wasn't exactly like that...
The steel rods were supposed to be continuous, from the roof to the bottom walkway. Intermediate walkways were to be supported by nuts threaded onto the continuous rod. To save time (and I assume money) the contractor used several shorter rods, piecing them together at each walkway with a nut on the end of each shorter rod, held together by the steel beams.
Although the steel rods themselves were adequate for the load, the CONNECTIONS at each walkway level were not, especially at the top walkway which bore the combined weight of all the lower walkways. That was what failed.
I'd draw some ascii diagrams but it would take forever and they'd probably get mangled anyway.
Students and library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies.
Whoah. The Library Dictator has spoken. There are probably a LOT of things that students and library patrons shouldn't be doing, but are. And this concerns you how?
This isn't an instant solution but it will probably work in the near-term. Try sanding down the pads of your finger(s). The skin will grow back thicker, i.e. it will callous, and your prints will be more distinct. I play guitar and the pads of my left fingers are about 1/16" thick. Last time I was fingerprinted (for a concealed weapon permit, if you're curious) the cop who did it told me I had the best prints he had seen in a long time.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.
Uh, no. In general, every successful change should not confer a disadvantage, but there are a lot of mutations that are passed along that neither help nor hurt a particular species.
Thanks. I have acrobat pro 6.0. I'll see if that has the OCR feature. (If it does I've never noticed it). I was using readiris pro, which did a horrible job, at least on the scans I get.
Now we have PDFs with pretty accurate text ready for Google to index
What OCR software did you use? I haven't had real good luck with this. (The documents are already scanned into PDF's when I recieve them so I have no control over the quality.)
When you make something, what is your obligation to it? Nothing
You're saying that when a man and woman create a life in the form of a baby, they owe it NOTHING? If that was true, it would pretty much be the ultimate pro-choice argument.
Not a good band to be operating in for weak signal type stuff. The 300Watt paging transmitters operating in that band could cause them some trouble without the use of a helical front end on their receiver.
That's the whole point. It's fairly conventional technology, but they've developed MAGIC TECHNOLOGY at the reciever that filters out the BAD signals (i.e. NOISE). Low operating frequency plus incredibly low S/N ratio equals efficiency equals range. They state on their website that they don't violate Shannon's Law (which was awfully considerate of them.) It's the MAGIC WAVEGUIDE TECHNOLOGY required on each reciever that looks pretty unlikely to me.
A laser mic needs something to "reflect" off of. Like a window or the face of a framed picture.
Or a shiny CRT positioned 8" away from the keyboard?
The original "shotgun mic" got it's name from the number of "barrels" it had
You may be right. But I think the consensus is probably that the term "shotgun" mic came from its shape; long and narrow to allow for ports in the housing to do magic with the phasing of the source audio to further narrow the cardioid pattern. These were also called "super-cardioid" mics I think.
but the electronics necessary to multiplex all that audio together, without introducing phase distortion, would be way too complex or even remotely practical.
You wouldn't want to record a string quartet with one, that's for sure. But for some applications, distortion (of any kind) would essentially be irrelevant.
"Shotgun/gattling gun" mics are no longer used these days. At least I have never seen one in the wild.
The military still uses them, and next time you watch a shuttle launch, you may see a few scattered around. I have no idea what they're used for.
Anyway. Nobody is going to hide anything like that inside a room, I was just... uh. I dunno.
Not that anybody is still reading this thread anyway.
The whole idea of the original article seemed like BS... even granting that it's possible to determine which keys were pressed during normal data entry (which I'm doubtful of) passwords are ENTIRELY different... I am a moderately fast typist (maybe 60wpm) but during the few milliseconds it takes me to enter my password I bet it's more like 600 wpm... it's just a "ka-whump" and if you were looking over my shoulder you probably STILL wouldn't be able to see what I typed in. This is because I do it so often (even at work where I have to change my goddam password every 90 days). Among other reasons. And most tech-savvy people I know are pretty much the same. Etc.
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying they don't work like you think they work. The ones on the football field probably help mask ambient crowd noise, but they don't do much, if anything, to increase the gain of the target audio. Audio frequencies, especially in the range of the human voice (i.e. relatively low) are HIGHLY non-directional.
Now if you want something that actually WORKS, try a laser microphone or an array of mic's in tubes of varied lengths with each tube resonating at a likely component of the targeted frequency range. (Still not directional, but has a lot of gain.)
Good idea. They sell those at the same movie prop houses that carry 57-shot revolvers, self-igniting gasoline, and phones with "AT&T" written on every surface.
You may not realize it, but you just did a pretty good job of defining WYSIWYG
Nah. He described WISIWIG, or "What I See Is What I Get", which isn't the same thing at all. WISIWIG is similar to WISIWYGALAWHIP, or "What I See Is What You Get As Long As We Have Identical Printers". That's less useful. Much less useful. True WYSIWYG should be totally independent of time, place, hardware, moon phase, etc etc.
This sound like the corporate hiring mindset, where the objective is to look for a person with specific "training" and "experience" which perfectly matches the anticipated job description.
That IS frustrating, but in my experience posted job quals mostly fall into one of two categories: 1) it's just a wishlist. They'll take what they can get. 2) It isn't really a job posting, they're just required to publish a vacancy for a position for which they already have a candidate in mind, and the "job requirements" are just a reprint of that candidate's resume. Voila! Perfect match, and the HR weenies never know the difference.
Absent is importance placed on "capable of learning", "able to take on new responsibilities", or even just general intelligence
Again, just my opinion, but I think most (99%?) of the time, that's what the requirement for a degree is for: they're not looking necessarily for someone who knows how to write an LR parser or calculate big-Oh, but the fact that you completed your degree shows that a) you are capable of learning, b) are able to take on new responsibilities, and c) aren't retarded.
You're right, I'm sure... just don't forget that "it's not hard" is not equivalent to "it's worth doing". Also, several weak security measures can be combined to form something much greater than the sum of its parts. (Sez I, adding "IANAC".) I.e. the lock on my front door is weak (pitiful.) My burglar alarm is cheap. My neighbors are incurious dolts. My dog is partially deaf. However, all these things, in combination, keep my property reasonably secure. That, plus I have nothing worth stealing. Uh, what was my point now, anyway? Never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe he meant that the workstation was 1990 vintage, not the incident.
See subject.
No lawyer is going to give you a definitive answer, and that's half the problem.
Maybe the problem you have isn't the problem you think you have. Sometimes a meta-answer is as good as it gets. Does God exist? There is no answer, so in a sense, all discussion is moot. Does that mean that you shouldn't wonder about such a thing? No. Does it mean you should get pissed off if someone tells you that not only do they not know the answer, the answer PROVABLY does not exist at this time? No.
Brevity from someone who is (usually)paid by the hour seems a virtuous quality to me. Discovering that there IS NO ANSWER to some questions is an answer (or a meta-answer) in itself, worthy of knowing.
I was not stating that the results seemed correct to me - merely that they were stated much more precisely than "it depends". That depends on how you view his "experiment". If you view it as a test for HIS SOFTWARE, his results were pretty clear. But as he stated himself, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL SOFTWARE, as not all software lends itself to being crippled. Therefor, IT DEPENDS on what kind of software you are trying to peddle. Read TFA again.
The result of the "real world test" was "it depends". Being surprised by that depends on whether you're an idiot or not.
Maybe I am just missing the overly scary big brother aspect of this.
Yes, you are.
Cops checking "suspicious" looking cars at random is one thing. Keeping a database of the exact datestamped whereabouts of millions of cars, to be datamined at leisure, is another.
In this case, one datum is essentially meaningless except in particular circumstances. (BOLO, etc.) Collections of data become highly meaningful, and I can't think of a single legitimate reason to do so.
won't be made readily available to the general public
Are you under the impression that something must be "made" readily available to the general public for it to be readily available to the general public?
It's disturbing enough for it to be available to the general non-public.
while it's legal to videotape people on your property where a sign is posted, or in any public place where they have no expectation of privacy (like out in front of your house) it's illegal to audiotape them without their express consent.
Maybe where you live. Where I live (Florida) it's legal to record video without ANY warning whatsoever. Recording audio requires notification, but a notice posted on the door is sufficient.
The specs called for two "C" shaped beams to hug a metal rod as so - ]|[
They were assembled like this - [|]
I was working for a structural engineer at the time of that disaster (who had incidentally also been my Statics instructor in college) and remember it well. It wasn't exactly like that...
The steel rods were supposed to be continuous, from the roof to the bottom walkway. Intermediate walkways were to be supported by nuts threaded onto the continuous rod. To save time (and I assume money) the contractor used several shorter rods, piecing them together at each walkway with a nut on the end of each shorter rod, held together by the steel beams.
Although the steel rods themselves were adequate for the load, the CONNECTIONS at each walkway level were not, especially at the top walkway which bore the combined weight of all the lower walkways. That was what failed.
I'd draw some ascii diagrams but it would take forever and they'd probably get mangled anyway.
Well, there's an end to polite discussion.
I'm much too important to waste time on manners.
Congratulations!
Thanks!
Students and library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies.
Whoah. The Library Dictator has spoken. There are probably a LOT of things that students and library patrons shouldn't be doing, but are. And this concerns you how?
This isn't an instant solution but it will probably work in the near-term. Try sanding down the pads of your finger(s). The skin will grow back thicker, i.e. it will callous, and your prints will be more distinct. I play guitar and the pads of my left fingers are about 1/16" thick. Last time I was fingerprinted (for a concealed weapon permit, if you're curious) the cop who did it told me I had the best prints he had seen in a long time.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.
Uh, no. In general, every successful change should not confer a disadvantage, but there are a lot of mutations that are passed along that neither help nor hurt a particular species.
Thanks. I have acrobat pro 6.0. I'll see if that has the OCR feature. (If it does I've never noticed it). I was using readiris pro, which did a horrible job, at least on the scans I get.
Now we have PDFs with pretty accurate text ready for Google to index
What OCR software did you use? I haven't had real good luck with this. (The documents are already scanned into PDF's when I recieve them so I have no control over the quality.)
When you make something, what is your obligation to it? Nothing
You're saying that when a man and woman create a life in the form of a baby, they owe it NOTHING? If that was true, it would pretty much be the ultimate pro-choice argument.
Not a good band to be operating in for weak signal type stuff. The 300Watt paging transmitters operating in that band could cause them some trouble without the use of a helical front end on their receiver.
That's the whole point. It's fairly conventional technology, but they've developed MAGIC TECHNOLOGY at the reciever that filters out the BAD signals (i.e. NOISE). Low operating frequency plus incredibly low S/N ratio equals efficiency equals range. They state on their website that they don't violate Shannon's Law (which was awfully considerate of them.) It's the MAGIC WAVEGUIDE TECHNOLOGY required on each reciever that looks pretty unlikely to me.
A laser mic needs something to "reflect" off of. Like a window or the face of a framed picture.
Or a shiny CRT positioned 8" away from the keyboard?
The original "shotgun mic" got it's name from the number of "barrels" it had
You may be right. But I think the consensus is probably that the term "shotgun" mic came from its shape; long and narrow to allow for ports in the housing to do magic with the phasing of the source audio to further narrow the cardioid pattern. These were also called "super-cardioid" mics I think.
but the electronics necessary to multiplex all that audio together, without introducing phase distortion, would be way too complex or even remotely practical.
You wouldn't want to record a string quartet with one, that's for sure. But for some applications, distortion (of any kind) would essentially be irrelevant.
"Shotgun/gattling gun" mics are no longer used these days. At least I have never seen one in the wild.
The military still uses them, and next time you watch a shuttle launch, you may see a few scattered around. I have no idea what they're used for.
Anyway. Nobody is going to hide anything like that inside a room, I was just... uh. I dunno.
Not that anybody is still reading this thread anyway.
The whole idea of the original article seemed like BS... even granting that it's possible to determine which keys were pressed during normal data entry (which I'm doubtful of) passwords are ENTIRELY different... I am a moderately fast typist (maybe 60wpm) but during the few milliseconds it takes me to enter my password I bet it's more like 600 wpm... it's just a "ka-whump" and if you were looking over my shoulder you probably STILL wouldn't be able to see what I typed in. This is because I do it so often (even at work where I have to change my goddam password every 90 days). Among other reasons. And most tech-savvy people I know are pretty much the same. Etc.
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying they don't work like you think they work. The ones on the football field probably help mask ambient crowd noise, but they don't do much, if anything, to increase the gain of the target audio. Audio frequencies, especially in the range of the human voice (i.e. relatively low) are HIGHLY non-directional.
Now if you want something that actually WORKS, try a laser microphone or an array of mic's in tubes of varied lengths with each tube resonating at a likely component of the targeted frequency range. (Still not directional, but has a lot of gain.)
Good idea. They sell those at the same movie prop houses that carry 57-shot revolvers, self-igniting gasoline, and phones with "AT&T" written on every surface.
You may not realize it, but you just did a pretty good job of defining WYSIWYG
Nah. He described WISIWIG, or "What I See Is What I Get", which isn't the same thing at all. WISIWIG is similar to WISIWYGALAWHIP, or "What I See Is What You Get As Long As We Have Identical Printers". That's less useful. Much less useful. True WYSIWYG should be totally independent of time, place, hardware, moon phase, etc etc.
this might actually be non obvious for a change
It wasn't obvious to you, but I think it was pretty obvious to just about anybody who's ever written software for a retail environment.
Ok, that was written on papyrus but there really isn't all that much difference between papyrus and modern paper.
Sure there is... every try to use Liquid Paper on papyrus? And Liquid Papyrus is really hard to find nowdays.
Obscure Factoid: Liquid Papyrus was invented by the mother of the famous bard Homer.
This sound like the corporate hiring mindset, where the objective is to look for a person with specific "training" and "experience" which perfectly matches the anticipated job description.
That IS frustrating, but in my experience posted job quals mostly fall into one of two categories: 1) it's just a wishlist. They'll take what they can get. 2) It isn't really a job posting, they're just required to publish a vacancy for a position for which they already have a candidate in mind, and the "job requirements" are just a reprint of that candidate's resume. Voila! Perfect match, and the HR weenies never know the difference.
Absent is importance placed on "capable of learning", "able to take on new responsibilities", or even just general intelligence
Again, just my opinion, but I think most (99%?) of the time, that's what the requirement for a degree is for: they're not looking necessarily for someone who knows how to write an LR parser or calculate big-Oh, but the fact that you completed your degree shows that a) you are capable of learning, b) are able to take on new responsibilities, and c) aren't retarded.
You're right, I'm sure... just don't forget that "it's not hard" is not equivalent to "it's worth doing". Also, several weak security measures can be combined to form something much greater than the sum of its parts. (Sez I, adding "IANAC".) I.e. the lock on my front door is weak (pitiful.) My burglar alarm is cheap. My neighbors are incurious dolts. My dog is partially deaf. However, all these things, in combination, keep my property reasonably secure. That, plus I have nothing worth stealing. Uh, what was my point now, anyway? Never mind.