The public is wrong for crucifying them for not arresting the 50,000 or so teenagers who, each month, make a crass joke about violence on the Internet.
That doesn't make them justified to arrest this kid, unless we're seriously short on information and he was clear that he owned a bunch of guns and planned to use them.
I don't have a problem if this anonymous Canadian lady perhaps called his parents and told them... nosy as hell, but not life destroying.
To be fair, this does completely eliminate the concept of "inventor".
Researchers, for example, may have some important invention, but who don't have the capital or experience to build a complex system that uses this feature they invented.
Is it wrong for them to try to license their invention?
While i agree with you about trolls, I just thought I would bring up a counter to your question.
Arguably, people are quite bad at handling the circumstance you mentioned.
With the proper road traction sensors, and gyro sensors, the robot can handle that condition cooly within 5% of failure, where a human will fluctuate wildly between 50% under and 20% over failure, causing all sorts of unintended consequences.
But I admit that is an end-state, and the development of this technology will be challenging.
In practice, I think it's usually a bit more obvious who leaked it.
For example. You go to work for a new employer. New employer turns up with this information days later. Case closed. Remember, it's a civil court ("by a preponderance of evidence") rather than a criminal one ("beyond a reasonable doubt").
Haha. I think he's talking about the government sponsored system to distribute grades to hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens being coded with the primary security being... well obfuscation via JavaScript. Win
It's normal for a test to have a distorted curve, or a bimodal curve, due to any number of factors. True Bell curves only happen in statistically random situations, which testing certainly is not.
However, you should note that scores from 93-100 were almost all possible (curves were smooth) and scores below 30 were also smooth curves. Only the ones in the middle were segmented.
I don't attribute this to malice, but rather some quirk of how they score. Perhaps the score *is* actually just doubled from 50, but then those above 92, or those who might be near failing are all analyzed with more detail, or are graded separately.
Yes, extremely lucky. I wouldn't trifle with law enforcement folks like that. They seem to have a hair trigger sometimes, and not always with their guns. Especially if embarrassed publicly. I'm glad you didn't go to the media. You would likely be in the selfsame list of offenders now, if you had.
I agree. The distributions are most likely the result of some doubling of actual scores, combined with a small amount of manipulation.
It's clear that there was some rounding-up done near the pass/fail line. It's also clear that there is some extra or different standard of rounding/normalization for those scoring above 90 (or 93).
The fact that they aren't transparent about it is lame, but very Indian.
They guessed his password. It clearly took several months, meaning they were probably using a hybrid dictionary attack.
Crackers can guess several hundred passwords per second on AES256 encrypted TrueCrypt containers. If his password was a bit dumb (or if it was similar to his Windows login, or some other cached login), it might be easier to guess.
I have mixed feelings on this. Is it analogous to requiring him to tell where the body is buried, or analogous to requiring him to let them enter his house with a search warrant?
But you can't require him to open the door for you. In fact, he has no obligation to do anything at all. He can go turn himself in at the police station, leaving all of the doors locked and sealed. As long as they're not booby-trapped, he's not committed a crime, nor can he be compelled to help unlock them.
There is ample case law regarding a safe, or hidden chamber in a house. The accused cannot be compelled to identify or assist in opening the safe or chamber, partially because doing so demonstrates that he knows how to open/find it, and also because it clearly demonstrates that it is his property, both of which are self-incriminating.
In the US, it was established early on that it was supposed to be difficult to prove these things to prevent judicial and law enforcement abuses and the use of powerful judicial tools with impunity. I support this concept.
They can't force you to do anything. You have a right to remain silent and uninvolved.
If they have a warrant, they can kick the door down and whomever is found guilty of the crime becomes liable for the damages incurred during the warranted search.
Civilized places like Argentina eat about 90 kilograms of meat per year per person,, while uncivilized places like the US eat in excess of 120 kg...
Wait... Argentina is also in the upper quartile of meat consumption. A GOOD target for meat consumption might be a country like Switzerland or Japan or Korea that consume less than 40 kg per year.
There are really no other candidates that occur in any volume in the solar system.
Sure, there are a few elements that are also liquid at comparable temperature and pressure. Kerosene and ethanol, for example. But something that would spontaneously form a long-lasting river on a planetary surface... mostly just water.
Besides, the few times the rovers have attempted to dig into the soil on Mars, they found water ice just under the surface. Pretty good indicator that the area once had substantial amounts of H2O.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait... You think Romney would have been better?
Really??
Big, yet transparent government is different than big and shadily opaque.
More accurately, 11 years 303 days 8 hours and 38 minutes ago.
Didn't say they were bad, just that they're not freedoms. They're restrictions, and possibly sensible ones. But not freedoms.
You'd never know the official langauge of the country was English.
That's probably because it's not....
The US, on principle, never adopted an official language in the way most other countries do.
The public is wrong for crucifying them for not arresting the 50,000 or so teenagers who, each month, make a crass joke about violence on the Internet.
That doesn't make them justified to arrest this kid, unless we're seriously short on information and he was clear that he owned a bunch of guns and planned to use them.
I don't have a problem if this anonymous Canadian lady perhaps called his parents and told them... nosy as hell, but not life destroying.
But phoning police is absurd.
To be fair, this does completely eliminate the concept of "inventor".
Researchers, for example, may have some important invention, but who don't have the capital or experience to build a complex system that uses this feature they invented.
Is it wrong for them to try to license their invention?
While i agree with you about trolls, I just thought I would bring up a counter to your question.
While I agree with your premise, I always dislike this phrasing you're using.
It's not freedom if it's followed by "from" or "to not be".
Freedom FROM something is just a restriction. Unless it's freedom from the government, it's not much of a freedom.
Think carefully how to word your freedoms. Some of them can be worded (or structured) differently and then mean exactly the opposite thing.
For example, "women are free from the shame of having their face exposed". See, that's easy.
Now write one without the "from" and see how it comes out.
Women are free to wear no head coverings.
Women are free to wear head coverings.
Women are free to choose what to wear.
Women are free to have someone tell them what to wear
Women are free to have the government tell them what they cannot wear.
No such thing "freedom from" is just a weaselly of saying "prevention of"
Most of Western Europe (minus the UK), New Zealand, Canada - I might even say Australia, but they have a bit of that surveillance state in them too.
Arguably, people are quite bad at handling the circumstance you mentioned.
With the proper road traction sensors, and gyro sensors, the robot can handle that condition cooly within 5% of failure, where a human will fluctuate wildly between 50% under and 20% over failure, causing all sorts of unintended consequences.
But I admit that is an end-state, and the development of this technology will be challenging.
In theory....
In practice, I think it's usually a bit more obvious who leaked it.
For example. You go to work for a new employer. New employer turns up with this information days later. Case closed. Remember, it's a civil court ("by a preponderance of evidence") rather than a criminal one ("beyond a reasonable doubt").
- Learning a new language like Python or (if you haven't already) Java would be great. -
Or Spanish...
Or Portugese... mmmmm yes.
For 30 staff? With a budget of $20k?
Sure... better than asking the Marketing director or sales admin to do the IT work (which is the other choice, given this budget).
Or do you expect them to hire an elder neckbeard at that salary?
Haha. I think he's talking about the government sponsored system to distribute grades to hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens being coded with the primary security being... well obfuscation via JavaScript. Win
It's normal for a test to have a distorted curve, or a bimodal curve, due to any number of factors. True Bell curves only happen in statistically random situations, which testing certainly is not.
However, you should note that scores from 93-100 were almost all possible (curves were smooth) and scores below 30 were also smooth curves. Only the ones in the middle were segmented.
I don't attribute this to malice, but rather some quirk of how they score. Perhaps the score *is* actually just doubled from 50, but then those above 92, or those who might be near failing are all analyzed with more detail, or are graded separately.
Yes, extremely lucky. I wouldn't trifle with law enforcement folks like that. They seem to have a hair trigger sometimes, and not always with their guns. Especially if embarrassed publicly. I'm glad you didn't go to the media. You would likely be in the selfsame list of offenders now, if you had.
I agree. The distributions are most likely the result of some doubling of actual scores, combined with a small amount of manipulation.
It's clear that there was some rounding-up done near the pass/fail line. It's also clear that there is some extra or different standard of rounding/normalization for those scoring above 90 (or 93).
The fact that they aren't transparent about it is lame, but very Indian.
In the UK, if they can convincingly claim that the encrypted drive was recently in your possession, they can hold you in prison for such forgetting...
They guessed his password. It clearly took several months, meaning they were probably using a hybrid dictionary attack.
Crackers can guess several hundred passwords per second on AES256 encrypted TrueCrypt containers. If his password was a bit dumb (or if it was similar to his Windows login, or some other cached login), it might be easier to guess.
I have mixed feelings on this. Is it analogous to requiring him to tell where the body is buried, or analogous to requiring him to let them enter his house with a search warrant?
But you can't require him to open the door for you. In fact, he has no obligation to do anything at all. He can go turn himself in at the police station, leaving all of the doors locked and sealed. As long as they're not booby-trapped, he's not committed a crime, nor can he be compelled to help unlock them.
There is ample case law regarding a safe, or hidden chamber in a house. The accused cannot be compelled to identify or assist in opening the safe or chamber, partially because doing so demonstrates that he knows how to open/find it, and also because it clearly demonstrates that it is his property, both of which are self-incriminating.
In the US, it was established early on that it was supposed to be difficult to prove these things to prevent judicial and law enforcement abuses and the use of powerful judicial tools with impunity. I support this concept.
They can't force you to do anything. You have a right to remain silent and uninvolved.
If they have a warrant, they can kick the door down and whomever is found guilty of the crime becomes liable for the damages incurred during the warranted search.
There is no practical means (that I know of) to determine when the last time an external drive (that is full-disk encrypted) was accessed.
Do you know something I don't?
Civilized places like Argentina eat about 90 kilograms of meat per year per person,, while uncivilized places like the US eat in excess of 120 kg...
Wait... Argentina is also in the upper quartile of meat consumption. A GOOD target for meat consumption might be a country like Switzerland or Japan or Korea that consume less than 40 kg per year.
There is some subset of business that can operate with bursty bandwidth, moderate latency, moderate reliability. Certainly.
There is some subset of business that cannot.
There are many areas of business where wireless is completely absurd for practical uses.
There are really no other candidates that occur in any volume in the solar system.
Sure, there are a few elements that are also liquid at comparable temperature and pressure. Kerosene and ethanol, for example. But something that would spontaneously form a long-lasting river on a planetary surface... mostly just water.
Besides, the few times the rovers have attempted to dig into the soil on Mars, they found water ice just under the surface. Pretty good indicator that the area once had substantial amounts of H2O.