That's stupid. They don't want to tell the world how they gather information. Sources, names of informants, analysis methods, snooping programs, psychic researchers or whatever the hell. You can't run a spy agency without keeping that shit secret. What they're claiming is that if Dotcom's defense team gets to rummaged through their files on him, they will see enough clues that it will show how they get info.
Life similar to Earth's can't exist near the surface of Venus. It's too hot for the kinds of chemicals we're made of to be stable. (approx 480C). The upper atmosphere is the right temperature but there's too little water (20PPM). In fact, there's too little hydrogen of all forms. You couldn't form many of the molecules that life is made of. Something must have happened to the hydrogen though. I assume it's somehow bound in the surface rocks.
Thus not only proving they didn't read the article, they didn't even properly read the title. "restore GAINS of moores law". Which is perfectly correct.
No, that's still incorrect. It's like saying improvements in corn flake processing improve farm yields.
Allowing the states to collect a tax isn't the same thing as imposing a tax. Not quite. Besides it's either that or the states will have to raise income and property taxes.
As a result, they have nothing to gain by seeing Samsung fail, and they're doing just fine on their own, so this isn't a company who got beat turning patent troll. This is a case of a company outside the handset market who has legitimate patents based on actual engineering innovations having their patents used without proper licensing. There's nothing wrong in demanding that the company using your patents pay the licensing fees that are due, and why people ascribe them ulterior motives when they have nothing to gain is beyond me.
Then why are they seeking an import ban instead of just license fees?
People who opine that a compiler advancement can get Moore's law back on track. clearly have no idea whatsoever what Moore's "law" states.
Moore's law has absolutely nothing to do with compilers or any other sort of software. It's about transistor count in integrated circuits. Specifically, Moore's "law" observed that transistor count of state of the art ICs had doubled every year since the IC was invented and he predicted that it would continue to do so for at least 10 years.
And he was approximately right (the best one can expect for a pseudo-prophetic utterance). But over time, the rate of increase has fallen below what Moore predicted, with an average doubling time of about 2 years. Now tech roadmaps assume more like 3 years. Every step is harder than the last and eventually we will reach a point of diminishing returns where the investment necessary to double IC complexity won't be seen as worthwhile.
I can see the FBI not wanting to waste their time and resources on what was his personal project, and sent him to a private shop.
Good on them if that's how it went down.
But the guy running that private shop might be open to a civil suit by the principal.
I don't see what his claim against the computer shop would be. I think the FBI guy could sue the computer shop though, because they obviously didn't provide HIM the service he paid for.
He worked for the FBI as a special agent (i.e. investigator who asks questions), not a computer specialist. He was in Guam, where the FBI doesn't have a large pool of computer expertise. He presumably didn't want to send a local school's laptop stateside to wipe it so he paid someone to do it. It seems they failed.
Also because shipping it stateside to the FBI computer security people would have been abuse of government resources and gotten him fired. So he asks some office buddy, "Hey Ralph, do you know how to remove this spyware I've been using to monitor my kid's computer?" And Ralph says, "Not sure, but I can give it a try."
The fact that he then took it to a computer shop to have it scrubbed shows you how much confidence he had in Ralph.
You've got it backwards. The Dems generally want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security kept out of the regular budget, and not means tested. Doing those things would make the programs, in essence, just more welfare programs, and thus more easily cut in hard times. You are also mistaken about the "trust fund." The trust fund currently consists of Federal government bonds, because all the money was used at the time it was raised, to make the deficit appear lower. The net effect is that when it's time to make payments from the trust fund, the government must either inflate the currency to make those bonds less expensive in real terms to buy back (thus hurting people who actually save money), raise taxes to get more revenue to pay off the bonds (thus hurting those who will then be paying in to benefit those who are paying in now), sell other bonds to pay off the earlier bonds (thus increasing the national debt/interest on net, and on the assumption that US government bonds haven't gone off a cliff), or not pay the promised benefits. Some combination of these three is most likely. But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.
I agree, and it was wrong ever to make a SS trust fund. But that was all part of structuring it as an "insurance" program. The SS tax rates should always have been kept close to the current cost of the program so the funds wouldn't be borrowed (stolen) to pay for current programs.
/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia#PCSK9 that have very low LDL levels and are apparently perfectly healthy. They lack a gene most of us have and can eat a "modern" diet with a dramatically reduced cardiovascular risk. This is one of the ways in which speciation occurs.
So we'll evolve into obligate vegans and baconovores?
I'm not sure why anybody finds this surprising. For one thing, human population is drastically larger than it was 200 generations ago. Further, genetic variations that appeared more than 200 generations (approx. 5000 years) ago are either going to be extinct or widespread for the reason that anybody who lived thousands of years ago either has no living descendants or many millions of them.
Also, most mutations probably die out quickly. You have to figure a typical genetic variant has no better chance of being reproduced than its normal copy. With an initial condition of one copy in the whole human population, the chance of it being eliminated before it spreads widely is very high. If it is a harmful mutation (by harmful I mean having an even slightly negative effect on the average number of offspring per person who has it) then it stands an even higher chance of elimination because its commonness in the population is attenuated in each generation in comparison to the more normal variants of the gene. Genetic variants that are older than 100 generations or so are likely beneficial to survival and reproduction -- at least as viable as the even older variants.
I think the comments here show something clearly:
While some antropologists may be interested in understanding hacker culture, the interest is not reciprocal.
"Each phone number is hyperlinked, enabling detectives to cross-reference it against phone numbers in other files."
In other words, guilt by association.
Evidence that may eventually lead them to rings of thieves.
Slashdot Mirror
That's stupid. They don't want to tell the world how they gather information. Sources, names of informants, analysis methods, snooping programs, psychic researchers or whatever the hell. You can't run a spy agency without keeping that shit secret. What they're claiming is that if Dotcom's defense team gets to rummaged through their files on him, they will see enough clues that it will show how they get info.
Life similar to Earth's can't exist near the surface of Venus. It's too hot for the kinds of chemicals we're made of to be stable. (approx 480C). The upper atmosphere is the right temperature but there's too little water (20PPM). In fact, there's too little hydrogen of all forms. You couldn't form many of the molecules that life is made of. Something must have happened to the hydrogen though. I assume it's somehow bound in the surface rocks.
Software, design specifications, design documents.
Thus not only proving they didn't read the article, they didn't even properly read the title. "restore GAINS of moores law". Which is perfectly correct.
No, that's still incorrect. It's like saying improvements in corn flake processing improve farm yields.
The federal government has the power to regulate and tax interstate commerce and can direct businesses to pay state taxes.
Tried that once. Didn't work out. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarbattles/Civil_War_Battles.htm
Allowing the states to collect a tax isn't the same thing as imposing a tax. Not quite. Besides it's either that or the states will have to raise income and property taxes.
Can't the Pentagon buy stuff from discounttankoutlet.com?
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
Shows you what Fortune knows.
As a result, they have nothing to gain by seeing Samsung fail, and they're doing just fine on their own, so this isn't a company who got beat turning patent troll. This is a case of a company outside the handset market who has legitimate patents based on actual engineering innovations having their patents used without proper licensing. There's nothing wrong in demanding that the company using your patents pay the licensing fees that are due, and why people ascribe them ulterior motives when they have nothing to gain is beyond me.
Then why are they seeking an import ban instead of just license fees?
People who opine that a compiler advancement can get Moore's law back on track. clearly have no idea whatsoever what Moore's "law" states.
Moore's law has absolutely nothing to do with compilers or any other sort of software. It's about transistor count in integrated circuits. Specifically, Moore's "law" observed that transistor count of state of the art ICs had doubled every year since the IC was invented and he predicted that it would continue to do so for at least 10 years.
And he was approximately right (the best one can expect for a pseudo-prophetic utterance). But over time, the rate of increase has fallen below what Moore predicted, with an average doubling time of about 2 years. Now tech roadmaps assume more like 3 years. Every step is harder than the last and eventually we will reach a point of diminishing returns where the investment necessary to double IC complexity won't be seen as worthwhile.
Suzanne Vega has a daughter. (is there any other Vega?)
I can see the FBI not wanting to waste their time and resources on what was his personal project, and sent him to a private shop. Good on them if that's how it went down.
But the guy running that private shop might be open to a civil suit by the principal.
I don't see what his claim against the computer shop would be. I think the FBI guy could sue the computer shop though, because they obviously didn't provide HIM the service he paid for.
He worked for the FBI as a special agent (i.e. investigator who asks questions), not a computer specialist. He was in Guam, where the FBI doesn't have a large pool of computer expertise. He presumably didn't want to send a local school's laptop stateside to wipe it so he paid someone to do it. It seems they failed.
Also because shipping it stateside to the FBI computer security people would have been abuse of government resources and gotten him fired. So he asks some office buddy, "Hey Ralph, do you know how to remove this spyware I've been using to monitor my kid's computer?" And Ralph says, "Not sure, but I can give it a try."
The fact that he then took it to a computer shop to have it scrubbed shows you how much confidence he had in Ralph.
You've got it backwards. The Dems generally want Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security kept out of the regular budget, and not means tested. Doing those things would make the programs, in essence, just more welfare programs, and thus more easily cut in hard times. You are also mistaken about the "trust fund." The trust fund currently consists of Federal government bonds, because all the money was used at the time it was raised, to make the deficit appear lower. The net effect is that when it's time to make payments from the trust fund, the government must either inflate the currency to make those bonds less expensive in real terms to buy back (thus hurting people who actually save money), raise taxes to get more revenue to pay off the bonds (thus hurting those who will then be paying in to benefit those who are paying in now), sell other bonds to pay off the earlier bonds (thus increasing the national debt/interest on net, and on the assumption that US government bonds haven't gone off a cliff), or not pay the promised benefits. Some combination of these three is most likely. But the reality is that there is no trust fund in any meaningful sense; there is a set of promises that will have to be redeemed by hurting someone or everyone at some point in the future.
I agree, and it was wrong ever to make a SS trust fund. But that was all part of structuring it as an "insurance" program. The SS tax rates should always have been kept close to the current cost of the program so the funds wouldn't be borrowed (stolen) to pay for current programs.
/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia#PCSK9 that have very low LDL levels and are apparently perfectly healthy. They lack a gene most of us have and can eat a "modern" diet with a dramatically reduced cardiovascular risk. This is one of the ways in which speciation occurs.
So we'll evolve into obligate vegans and baconovores?
I don't think so. People typically get cancer after they have already had children.
I'm not sure why anybody finds this surprising. For one thing, human population is drastically larger than it was 200 generations ago. Further, genetic variations that appeared more than 200 generations (approx. 5000 years) ago are either going to be extinct or widespread for the reason that anybody who lived thousands of years ago either has no living descendants or many millions of them.
Also, most mutations probably die out quickly. You have to figure a typical genetic variant has no better chance of being reproduced than its normal copy. With an initial condition of one copy in the whole human population, the chance of it being eliminated before it spreads widely is very high. If it is a harmful mutation (by harmful I mean having an even slightly negative effect on the average number of offspring per person who has it) then it stands an even higher chance of elimination because its commonness in the population is attenuated in each generation in comparison to the more normal variants of the gene. Genetic variants that are older than 100 generations or so are likely beneficial to survival and reproduction -- at least as viable as the even older variants.
No, but they can get stuck in useless modes.
I think the comments here show something clearly:
While some antropologists may be interested in understanding hacker culture, the interest is not reciprocal.
I just want to say I'm deeply disturbed by the article using the same word (hackers) to refer to Linux developers and Anonymous.
They're not accounting for the 10 times a day I bail on a page because I DON'T WANT TO WATCH THEIR STUPID VIDEO AT ALL.
"Each phone number is hyperlinked, enabling detectives to cross-reference it against phone numbers in other files." In other words, guilt by association.
Evidence that may eventually lead them to rings of thieves.
It's not that. It just take a LOT of pins to pin these suckers out. BGAs let them do it.