Since what you have written can be read in the UK, a libel case against you can still be brought here. That's the first broken part.
The second issue is that UK libel law does not observe the use/mention distinction: so the NYT article linked, although it is quoting what Singh wrote, is also actionable.
The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters (and by extension the state machinery). If they already know, (and you'd be surprised how much they _do_ know by the time the interviews actually happen) and you know they know, the idea is that the information can't be used to blackmail you. For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff.
The other overwrite patterns actually produced results as low as 36.08% (+/- 0.24). Being that the distribution is based on a binomial choice, the chance of guessing the prior value is 50%. That is, if you toss a coin, you have a 50% chance of correctly choosing the value. In many instances, using a MFM to determine the prior value written to the hard drive was less successful than a simple coin toss. ]]]
I hate to say it, but anyone who'd claim this clearly has no clue what they're talking about. Because otherwise "pick the opposite of what the MFM says" is a viable algorithm that's about 60% accurate.
She's the head of state. But she doesn't choose those on the honour roll: there is a lengthy nomination process (which is how so many local councillors wind up with small honours). You can nominate anyone for an honour; the paperwork is extensive and putting together a case is hard work.
European legal parity requirements are a convenient way of getting legislation like this passed (although I was fairly sure that'd been tried and rejected once in the last couple of years - can't find anything about that now).
Not wrong at all... because if firefox just permitted self-signed certs to pass unnoticed, then providers (like Orange, 3, etc) could snoop all your "secure" traffic - and rewrite it on the way through, too. Anyone can generate a self-signed certificate, and doing it on the fly in an environment where response times are typically large and delays taken for granted is trivial.
MITM attacks against quantum crypto cannot be passive - that is, Eve needs to complete the protocol with both Alice and Bob. So against active MITM, QC is as strong (and no stronger) than the classical channel.
What you can't do is record passively and wait for technology to catch up.
I work at a university in the UK. Sad to say, "this is a University, not a business," is no longer true, if it ever were. The whole world is changing. The subcontinent and China are building world-class HE institutions; foreign students are a large source of income for universities. It's getting pretty cut-throat. And, being a university, it's chock full of enthusiastic amateurs who are trying to grapple with that new reality.
Kids these days are looking at five-figure debt on exit from a university career. That's a pretty terrible way to start one's adult life; university is no longer the soft option. Everyone seems more businesslike; there seems to be much less of the adventurous (probably over-entitled) attitude that was prevalent even 20 years ago when I started my undergrad career.
Anyway.
All that is beside the point. University still represents pretty much the last point to make mistakes and learn important life lessons, such as "there are always smarter people," and "you will get caught." And in this case, even, "the urge to tell people how you've outwitted them is not a good one," and, "it doesn't matter how liberal and open-minded people are - if you embarrass them, they'll react badly."
All of which has gone on here.
Our security officer has "the small room" where he typically dresses down students and puts the fear of God back into them. For curious hackers - and a university is still a highly hostile user base - that's enough. For the small but increasing number of students seriously looking to cheat with exams - and this happens, there's economic pressure to do so - sending down is the inevitable result.
I agree (I think this is your position) that the kid deserved a scare. I think it's unfortunate that this escalated out-of-hand.
The truth of the matter is that idle hackery (second sense of the word) has an elevated cost these days - and business doesn't tend to ahve a sense of humour where money is involved. I think the world is poorer for it, but that's just the world we live in.
5. Provide for the availability of civil and injunctive relief against landlords that fail to reasonably exercise their ability to control the infringing conduct of their tenants.
This is clearly targeting those pesky universities.
Agreed. The "makes you wonder" comment makes you wonder about the professional ethics of the submitter.
There are three basic reasons why sysadmins don't snoop, in increasing order of importance:
1. It'd get you fired. 2. There isn't time in the day. 3. Basic bloody professional standards.
My institution recently underwent a long (very long) pay restructure. At about the point where things were finally settling down, the DBAs were hauled in and "reminded" that exposing or snooping through the resulting data would be a Bad Thing. My instant reaction was, "that's a fucking insult;" didn't think much of the middle-managers involved in passing on that message for not standing up for their staff. However, I think the reflection upon the personnel staff who issued the memo in the first place is that they are greasy, underhanded slime balls.
So the question is: were mathematical truths invented by mathematicians, or were they always, platonically true, awaiting discovery?
Why distinguish mathematics in this question? Take any other field of invention. Is it the case that physical principles that a particular realised invention uses were not true prior to their "discovery"? Or was the operation of the invention always so?
Platonism would have all invention as merely "discovery". At that point, the word becomes distorted and devalued. It's pretty much a pointless debate.
Except where Penrose is concerned. As far as his opinion goes, it's extreme mysticism, and he invents (discovers?) an awful lot of hoops to justify his rather odd religion.
This - very entertaining book - explains the process better. The characterisation of traders who blow up is particularly damning.
Curiously, Nick Leeson (the man who sank Barings Bank) supplied a soundbite saying how he didn't believe that the losses in this instance could have reached such a size. And that's the problem: he hasn't learned anything from his experience.
The difference between "trader" and "rogue trader" is simply one of the amount of luck the lucky idiot has.
Have you seen the work Damian Steer put together: a tree provider for xpath that uses RDF graphs? This is a few years old now but permitted xslt, xquery, etc, against RDF sources.
No. It means that any Turing machine is expressible and can be simulated by the UTM. Smith's encoding of the target TM is not finite but doesn't require universality in the encoding process.
Whether you consider that to be a UTM in the strongest sense depends on your definition of universality. Pratt doesn't. I think it's debatable but is a question of semantics. The result is still an interesting one: probably more so because of the semantic question:-)
You're right, those days are gone. We never had any idea of how hard it was supposed to be, so got on and did it. Networking (in our case using Atari 800 joystick ports, basically doing something akin to token ring as invented by 10-year-olds), multitasking (read an article in COMPUTE! about it, built a multitasking kernel in 6502), language implementation (again, inspired by an article in COMPUTE!, started with a logo implementation but pretty much any language was fair game). The Atari BASIC book (ie, the annotated listing) still sits on my bookshelf - what an inspiration! That kind of experimental approach certainly shaped my life; it feels like that kind of hobbyist world is gone forever.
I don't quite understand your jump from economic growth to a better life for everyone. The poverty gap increases; everyone (for the proper meaning of the word) clearly aren't all having a better life; and economic growth is a poor straw man used by politicians, compared to measures of actual welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Since what you have written can be read in the UK, a libel case against you can still be brought here. That's the first broken part.
The second issue is that UK libel law does not observe the use/mention distinction: so the NYT article linked, although it is quoting what Singh wrote, is also actionable.
Our libel law is bloody awful.
The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters (and by extension the state machinery). If they already know, (and you'd be surprised how much they _do_ know by the time the interviews actually happen) and you know they know, the idea is that the information can't be used to blackmail you. For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff.
[[[
What this means
The other overwrite patterns actually produced results as low as 36.08% (+/- 0.24). Being that the distribution is based on a binomial choice, the chance of guessing the prior value is 50%. That is, if you toss a coin, you have a 50% chance of correctly choosing the value. In many instances, using a MFM to determine the prior value written to the hard drive was less successful than a simple coin toss.
]]]
I hate to say it, but anyone who'd claim this clearly has no clue what they're talking about. Because otherwise "pick the opposite of what the MFM says" is a viable algorithm that's about 60% accurate.
She's the head of state. But she doesn't choose those on the honour roll: there is a lengthy nomination process (which is how so many local councillors wind up with small honours). You can nominate anyone for an honour; the paperwork is extensive and putting together a case is hard work.
European legal parity requirements are a convenient way of getting legislation like this passed (although I was fairly sure that'd been tried and rejected once in the last couple of years - can't find anything about that now).
Not wrong at all... because if firefox just permitted self-signed certs to pass unnoticed, then providers (like Orange, 3, etc) could snoop all your "secure" traffic - and rewrite it on the way through, too. Anyone can generate a self-signed certificate, and doing it on the fly in an environment where response times are typically large and delays taken for granted is trivial.
MITM attacks against quantum crypto cannot be passive - that is, Eve needs to complete the protocol with both Alice and Bob. So against active MITM, QC is as strong (and no stronger) than the classical channel.
What you can't do is record passively and wait for technology to catch up.
I work at a university in the UK. Sad to say, "this is a University, not a business," is no longer true, if it ever were. The whole world is changing. The subcontinent and China are building world-class HE institutions; foreign students are a large source of income for universities. It's getting pretty cut-throat. And, being a university, it's chock full of enthusiastic amateurs who are trying to grapple with that new reality.
Kids these days are looking at five-figure debt on exit from a university career. That's a pretty terrible way to start one's adult life; university is no longer the soft option. Everyone seems more businesslike; there seems to be much less of the adventurous (probably over-entitled) attitude that was prevalent even 20 years ago when I started my undergrad career.
Anyway.
All that is beside the point. University still represents pretty much the last point to make mistakes and learn important life lessons, such as "there are always smarter people," and "you will get caught." And in this case, even, "the urge to tell people how you've outwitted them is not a good one," and, "it doesn't matter how liberal and open-minded people are - if you embarrass them, they'll react badly."
All of which has gone on here.
Our security officer has "the small room" where he typically dresses down students and puts the fear of God back into them. For curious hackers - and a university is still a highly hostile user base - that's enough. For the small but increasing number of students seriously looking to cheat with exams - and this happens, there's economic pressure to do so - sending down is the inevitable result.
I agree (I think this is your position) that the kid deserved a scare. I think it's unfortunate that this escalated out-of-hand.
The truth of the matter is that idle hackery (second sense of the word) has an elevated cost these days - and business doesn't tend to ahve a sense of humour where money is involved. I think the world is poorer for it, but that's just the world we live in.
Sudoku is a graph colouring problem. That counts as maths to me :-)
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596526788/toc.html
Perhaps the author intended to write, "...to be very timely", realised that made no sense, but left in the aside?
Hugely inflated claims? From Captain Cyborg? To generate press attention?
Film, as they say, at eleven.
5. Provide for the availability of civil and injunctive relief against landlords that fail to reasonably exercise their ability to control the infringing conduct of their tenants.
This is clearly targeting those pesky universities.
This should be tagged "slashvertisement".
Agreed. The "makes you wonder" comment makes you wonder about the professional ethics of the submitter.
There are three basic reasons why sysadmins don't snoop, in increasing order of importance:
1. It'd get you fired.
2. There isn't time in the day.
3. Basic bloody professional standards.
My institution recently underwent a long (very long) pay restructure. At about the point where things were finally settling down, the DBAs were hauled in and "reminded" that exposing or snooping through the resulting data would be a Bad Thing. My instant reaction was, "that's a fucking insult;" didn't think much of the middle-managers involved in passing on that message for not standing up for their staff. However, I think the reflection upon the personnel staff who issued the memo in the first place is that they are greasy, underhanded slime balls.
So no change there then.
You aren't limited to Java. There are other languages that target the JVM.
So the question is: were mathematical truths invented by mathematicians, or were they always, platonically true, awaiting discovery?
Why distinguish mathematics in this question? Take any other field of invention. Is it the case that physical principles that a particular realised invention uses were not true prior to their "discovery"? Or was the operation of the invention always so?
Platonism would have all invention as merely "discovery". At that point, the word becomes distorted and devalued. It's pretty much a pointless debate.
Except where Penrose is concerned. As far as his opinion goes, it's extreme mysticism, and he invents (discovers?) an awful lot of hoops to justify his rather odd religion.
If they're shipping tapes regularly offsite to external storage, those aren't old reel-to-reel tapes, which is what you appear to have in mind.
LTO4 includes on-tape encryption as part of the spec.
These'll be modern tapes (which are still very much in use).
This - very entertaining book - explains the process better. The characterisation of traders who blow up is particularly damning.
Curiously, Nick Leeson (the man who sank Barings Bank) supplied a soundbite saying how he didn't believe that the losses in this instance could have reached such a size. And that's the problem: he hasn't learned anything from his experience.
The difference between "trader" and "rogue trader" is simply one of the amount of luck the lucky idiot has.
Have you seen the work Damian Steer put together: a tree provider for xpath that uses RDF graphs? This is a few years old now but permitted xslt, xquery, etc, against RDF sources.
Considering the way he spells "optimisation" and other examples, I'd expect you're just failing to recognise someone from the other side of the pond.
Incidentally, your comma after "someone" is superfluous.
This is why you probably don't want to use an exit node run by Verisign :-/
inodes are not blocks. What you've described doesn't sound much like the operation of e2fs.
No. It means that any Turing machine is expressible and can be simulated by the UTM. Smith's encoding of the target TM is not finite but doesn't require universality in the encoding process.
:-)
Whether you consider that to be a UTM in the strongest sense depends on your definition of universality. Pratt doesn't. I think it's debatable but is a question of semantics. The result is still an interesting one: probably more so because of the semantic question
You're right, those days are gone. We never had any idea of how hard it was supposed to be, so got on and did it. Networking (in our case using Atari 800 joystick ports, basically doing something akin to token ring as invented by 10-year-olds), multitasking (read an article in COMPUTE! about it, built a multitasking kernel in 6502), language implementation (again, inspired by an article in COMPUTE!, started with a logo implementation but pretty much any language was fair game). The Atari BASIC book (ie, the annotated listing) still sits on my bookshelf - what an inspiration! That kind of experimental approach certainly shaped my life; it feels like that kind of hobbyist world is gone forever.
Just another old fart,
I don't quite understand your jump from economic growth to a better life for everyone. The poverty gap increases; everyone (for the proper meaning of the word) clearly aren't all having a better life; and economic growth is a poor straw man used by politicians, compared to measures of actual welfare.