'The FBI's reports to Congress show that the Bureau is unable to find any records in response to two-thirds of its incoming FOIA requests on average over the past four years, when the other major government agencies averaged only a 13% "no records" response to public requests.'
99% of the people who signed the request aren't shareholders, and 99% of shareholders didn't sign the request. The overlap between this third-party group and Facebook shareholders is small. Since there *are* a few people in both groups, they were able to officially file the proposal.
In just the last three months, there have been 23 million purchases of Facebook stock. That's probably fairly close to the number of Facebook stockholders - tens of millions. 1500 are part of this activist group.
I seem to remember reading this story a year or two ago. Maybe a year ago they announced ahead of time that they would stop accepting FOIA emails in q1 2017? Maybe it was a different federal agency that made the same announcement?
In the US, the federal ESIGN act was passed in 2000, giving digital documents full legal recognition. Wow, it's been seventeen years - it doesn't seem that long.
47 states have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which is similar.
For some types of transactions, one party might be concerned that they can't prove the document hasn't been tampered with, if it's not a cryptographic signature. That can be a legitimate concern, in some types of transactions.
As the DNC learned the hard way a few months ago, many emails have a tamper-proof signature called DKIM automatically applied, so your email may have a signature proving it is legitimate without you even knowing it. I don't see this as an issue the FBI would be concerned with for FOIA requests - I don't think there's a big danger of hackers changing your FOIA requests.
A *hint* as to whether your email is actually deleted or not is if the provider delivers 100 spams a day to you (possibly marked with a header for you to use), or if they filter spam out pretty well.
An old-school provider who lets you see *all* of your spam, and maybe marks it with a Spamassassin score, is *less likely* to be retaining it. It takes ten times as much resources to retain if spam isn't filtered out first.
The guy thinks every mundane thought he has is so "deep", and when you and I, and others, point out he's factually incorrect, that's only because we're not on his level of deep meditation.
10 to 1 says he'll come down in a couple hours, after the acid/shrooms/laced weed wears off.
> > This would NOT be an issue in this same way if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email.
> You know you ARE "allowed to retain lhysical possession of your email" - that's POP3
>> Yes I know quite well.
Okay so when you wrote "if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email" and all that crap, you DID know it was bullshit. You just felt like pretending that you have to store your email with Google, even though you know better, for your silly rant.
Now that it's been pointed out that your claims are factually false, you want to pretend your "deep". Maybe if you're a *really* deep thinker, your alternative facts will become real, right? LSD might help too.
Your post didn't indicate one way or the other if you know this already, but until everybody moved to Gmail, most email was stored locally (except for @yahoo and a few minor ones). Your mail program would use a protocol called POP3 to download the new email from the server, then the server would delete it. You can still do it that way.
The disadvantage of local storage is that it's either stored on your laptop or your phone or whatever, so it's not accessible anywhere and everywhere with just POP3. If you want it accessible from multiple devices, you set up your own IMAP server (or get own from a trusted provider).
It seems to me that online services have nothing to worry about here.
The patent has two independent claims. Claim 1 includes "command output device to transfer [data] onto blank media". (The patent envisions burning and mailing custom disks).
Claim 8 includes "command a printer to print a mailing label".
If you have an issue with the list of countries affected, you may want to take up with the adminstration who made the list (in 2015) or the president who signed it (Obama).
Trump put a temporary travel restriction on countries that Barak Hussein Obama identified as sources of terrorists.
I have no opinion on the policy either way, because I'm not FBI and don't have the data in front of me. I *am* of the opinion that we should discuss the facts as they are, not pretend that Trump made the list this month when it was in fact made by Obama's people two years ago.
I've been to an industry conference which included Ron Jeremy shooting a porno at one of the after parties. It's called Internext (formerly IA2000). It's the online porn convention. The booth babes aren't random models hired for the show, they are the porn stars who actually work for (and occasionally own) the companies at the booths. Everybody who was anybody in porn was there. (This was several years ago, I don't know what attendance is like now.)
One year, they had us split between two conference rooms at opposite ends of the casino, so to get from one session to the next 1,000 porn people, including a couple hundred models, would walk in masse through the casino to the other conference room. The looks we got from some of the casino patrons were priceless.
> The idea that Kafka helps you with stream processing in a way that more traditional methods (load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel) can't or don't or that it's easier, is false.
My read was not that Kafka is supposed to *replace* "load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel", but that it's intended to *enable* "load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel". Not that it does something that load balancing doesn't do, but that it provides a proven load balancing solution, or at least some key parts.
Suppose you have some service that produces data. This service might be on one server, or a group of servers.
Some other service receives this data. Perhaps the receiving service transforms the data in some way before passing it along to some other system.
Kafka helps with that. It avoids some simple problems. For example, I once worked on a system in which a cron transferred the data at midnight each day. Each day, it sent over that day's data. Records created right at midnight might get skipped, or might get sent twice. In case of a network glitch, you'd have to manually retry in the morning. Kafka avoids those kinds of problems.
Kafka is built on the idea that both producers and consumers may be groups of partially redundant servers, with the data split up between different servers. Kafka has features to enable load balancing.
So it's appropriate where you want to get data from some group of servers to another group, possibly through a middle group, you want it reliable, load balanced, etc, without inventing and later correcting your own protocols.
What's your definition of recursion? My informal definition:
X is recursive if and only if X is defined / implemented by calling X, directly or indirectly.
One dictionary definition is similar: A routine, function etc in which a part is defined in terms of the whole.
Just because the output of a function X(a) may be, at some later time, be passed to another seperate instance of X(b) doesn't make it recursive, imho, if X(a) TERMINATES before X(b) begins, because X() makes no reference to itself.
Arguments might be avoided by saying it's not a recursive FUNCTION - no function calls itself, can't run out of stack space. It *is* a lot like what happens when you start with a tail-call recursion then remove(?) the recursion. If somebody wants to call it a recursive algorithm I feel no need to really argue about it, though I will ask you a question or two.
> Any time you have an iterative program of the form "first do X, and then repeat the process for the remaining input", that's recursion: one of the steps in the process (the repetition) is defined in terms of the process itself.
Care to point to which step "is defined in terms of the process itself"? I don't see that anywhere.
It's very similar to recursion, but my understanding of the definition of recursion is that the definition/implementation of X must reference X. I don't see that in my code anywhere.
> Without recursion, data structures like trees or graphs are useless. Kind of a problem if you have a directory tree structure, or you want to follows URL links for web scraping.
I would say web scraping is a good example of when you should NOT use a recursive function. My first web scraper looked like this:
Note scrape_page no longer calls itself, it's not a recursive function. It's driven by this main() function:
while (url = get_url_from_queue_database() ) {
scrape_page(url); }
The queue is held in a database which can easily store hundreds of thousands or millions of urls, There is no recursive function and it doesn't die when spidering a forum. It also doesn't lose all its queue when stopped and restarted.
Some people would point out this solves a recursive and say it's therefore a recursive algorithm. The algorithm isn't recursive by definition because no function calls itself, even indirectly.
Oh shit, you called him DAN Bernstein! He's going to be so pissed if he sees that. You didn't call him DOCTOR DANIEL J Bernstein, PhD. Prepare for the wrath of his almighty ego if he sees that!
I've worked with DJB alot in IETF and I think I most IETF members agree the unusual things about DJB are his ego and his contrarianism. Always doing the opposite of well-established best practices doesn't make him smarter than everyone else, it just means he re-invents all the same mistakes that most of us learned to avoid 30 years ago.
Reading my post again, I'm a bit ashamed because that was rude. Of course people are rude on forums all the time, but that doesn't mean I should be. I apologize.
To my understanding, Central America is not a continent. Geographers recognize five to seven continents (Eurasia and the Americas are sometimes considered one continent each). The first two sentences from the Wikipedia entry "Continent" are well written, so I'll quote them:
A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Ordered from largest in size to smallest, they are: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia
Wiki quote this definition of continent:
"continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."
> I know plenty of very competent CCNP and CCIE who haven't read anything near that. You're talking 15-20 books
Just the CCNA official study guide is two books of about 1,300 pages each, as I recall, and they don't cover all of the material on the CCNA. You need to read at least one other 800 page book, I'd say, for the current CCNA. I would say one should have more than CCNA level understanding before they design the configuration of Comcast's routing and shaping. So yeah, I think "at least 5,000 pages" is about right, on that basis. Certainly more than roughly 3,000 pages you need for CCNA, because you need to understand Dash and all that too, which isn't a CCNA topic.
Jumping back a post or two, not 5,000 pages or more just specifically on routing, traffic shaping, and policing, with nothing else, but to optimize those things at the level you should for Comcast's network, you need to understand things like how why and how Netflix uses Dash over TCP, while Webex prefers UDP but will also use TCP. Dash isn't a traffic shaping topic per se, but Comcast damn well better understand it, and figure out how to best shape it. I'm curious about "I know plenty of CCIEs" - in the whole world there are less than 40,000 active CCIEs, I believe, and less than half of those are R&S. There are more professional soccer players than CCIEs. So I'm curious where you work or whatever that you know plenty of them.
I'm getting ready to go to bed so I don't feel like looking it up, but early drafts of the 2015 FCC rule were just a few pages, and seemed to prohibit even blocking known spammers ("must not discriminate by source"). After many comments were submitted, they improved it. I read, partially or completely, a few drafts but I have to admit I haven't studied the final rule. Watching the draft and comment process was enough to see that it was a bit of train wreck. Now I don't have to study it, until the new replacement comes out.
As you indicated, high jitter is fine for a video stream from Netflix, it's really bad for for a stream from Webex. Knowing that, we can provide the flow from Netflix with what it needs, and provide the flow from Webex with what it needs - which are different. Everyone is happier if we treat an audio/video stream from Netflix differently from an audio/video stream from Webex.
Slashdot Mirror
'The FBI's reports to Congress show that the Bureau is unable to find any records in response to two-thirds of its incoming FOIA requests on average over the past four years, when the other major government agencies averaged only a 13% "no records" response to public requests.'
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
99% of the people who signed the request aren't shareholders, and 99% of shareholders didn't sign the request. The overlap between this third-party group and Facebook shareholders is small. Since there *are* a few people in both groups, they were able to officially file the proposal.
In just the last three months, there have been 23 million purchases of Facebook stock. That's probably fairly close to the number of Facebook stockholders - tens of millions. 1500 are part of this activist group.
I seem to remember reading this story a year or two ago. Maybe a year ago they announced ahead of time that they would stop accepting FOIA emails in q1 2017? Maybe it was a different federal agency that made the same announcement?
In the US, the federal ESIGN act was passed in 2000, giving digital documents full legal recognition. Wow, it's been seventeen years - it doesn't seem that long.
47 states have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which is similar.
For some types of transactions, one party might be concerned that they can't prove the document hasn't been tampered with, if it's not a cryptographic signature. That can be a legitimate concern, in some types of transactions.
As the DNC learned the hard way a few months ago, many emails have a tamper-proof signature called DKIM automatically applied, so your email may have a signature proving it is legitimate without you even knowing it. I don't see this as an issue the FBI would be concerned with for FOIA requests - I don't think there's a big danger of hackers changing your FOIA requests.
In his holographic speech, he promised to be the most transparent candidate ever!
Just kidding, he's a socialist - he promised to send guys with guns to take all your shit, unless you send it to him first.
That'sv true.
A *hint* as to whether your email is actually deleted or not is if the provider delivers 100 spams a day to you (possibly marked with a header for you to use), or if they filter spam out pretty well.
An old-school provider who lets you see *all* of your spam, and maybe marks it with a Spamassassin score, is *less likely* to be retaining it. It takes ten times as much resources to retain if spam isn't filtered out first.
The guy thinks every mundane thought he has is so "deep", and when you and I, and others, point out he's factually incorrect, that's only because we're not on his level of deep meditation.
10 to 1 says he'll come down in a couple hours, after the acid/shrooms/laced weed wears off.
> > This would NOT be an issue in this same way if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email.
> You know you ARE "allowed to retain lhysical possession of your email" - that's POP3
>> Yes I know quite well.
Okay so when you wrote "if we were allowed to retrain physical possession of our email" and all that crap, you DID know it was bullshit. You just felt like pretending that you have to store your email with Google, even though you know better, for your silly rant.
Now that it's been pointed out that your claims are factually false, you want to pretend your "deep". Maybe if you're a *really* deep thinker, your alternative facts will become real, right? LSD might help too.
Your post didn't indicate one way or the other if you know this already, but until everybody moved to Gmail, most email was stored locally (except for @yahoo and a few minor ones). Your mail program would use a protocol called POP3 to download the new email from the server, then the server would delete it. You can still do it that way.
The disadvantage of local storage is that it's either stored on your laptop or your phone or whatever, so it's not accessible anywhere and everywhere with just POP3. If you want it accessible from multiple devices, you set up your own IMAP server (or get own from a trusted provider).
It seems to me that online services have nothing to worry about here.
The patent has two independent claims. Claim 1 includes "command output device to transfer [data] onto blank media". (The patent envisions burning and mailing custom disks).
Claim 8 includes "command a printer to print a mailing label".
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi...
If you have an issue with the list of countries affected, you may want to take up with the adminstration who made the list (in 2015) or the president who signed it (Obama).
Trump put a temporary travel restriction on countries that Barak Hussein Obama identified as sources of terrorists.
I have no opinion on the policy either way, because I'm not FBI and don't have the data in front of me. I *am* of the opinion that we should discuss the facts as they are, not pretend that Trump made the list this month when it was in fact made by Obama's people two years ago.
I've been to an industry conference which included Ron Jeremy shooting a porno at one of the after parties. It's called Internext (formerly IA2000). It's the online porn convention. The booth babes aren't random models hired for the show, they are the porn stars who actually work for (and occasionally own) the companies at the booths. Everybody who was anybody in porn was there. (This was several years ago, I don't know what attendance is like now.)
One year, they had us split between two conference rooms at opposite ends of the casino, so to get from one session to the next 1,000 porn people, including a couple hundred models, would walk in masse through the casino to the other conference room. The looks we got from some of the casino patrons were priceless.
> The idea that Kafka helps you with stream processing in a way that more traditional methods (load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel) can't or don't or that it's easier, is false.
My read was not that Kafka is supposed to *replace* "load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel", but that it's intended to *enable* "load balancing, splitting on load, processing in parallel". Not that it does something that load balancing doesn't do, but that it provides a proven load balancing solution, or at least some key parts.
Suppose you have some service that produces data. This service might be on one server, or a group of servers.
Some other service receives this data. Perhaps the receiving service transforms the data in some way before passing it along to some other system.
Kafka helps with that. It avoids some simple problems. For example, I once worked on a system in which a cron transferred the data at midnight each day. Each day, it sent over that day's data. Records created right at midnight might get skipped, or might get sent twice. In case of a network glitch, you'd have to manually retry in the morning. Kafka avoids those kinds of problems.
Kafka is built on the idea that both producers and consumers may be groups of partially redundant servers, with the data split up between different servers. Kafka has features to enable load balancing.
So it's appropriate where you want to get data from some group of servers to another group, possibly through a middle group, you want it reliable, load balanced, etc, without inventing and later correcting your own protocols.
Here' s an alternative definition:
A recursive algorithm is defined as any algorithm which is recursive. ;)
What's your definition of recursion? My informal definition:
X is recursive if and only if X is defined / implemented by calling X, directly or indirectly.
One dictionary definition is similar:
A routine, function etc in which a part is defined in terms of the whole.
Just because the output of a function X(a) may be, at some later time, be passed to another seperate instance of X(b) doesn't make it recursive, imho, if X(a) TERMINATES before X(b) begins, because X() makes no reference to itself.
Arguments might be avoided by saying it's not a recursive FUNCTION - no function calls itself, can't run out of stack space. It *is* a lot like what happens when you start with a tail-call recursion then remove(?) the recursion. If somebody wants to call it a recursive algorithm I feel no need to really argue about it, though I will ask you a question or two.
> Any time you have an iterative program of the form "first do X, and then repeat the process for the remaining input", that's recursion: one of the steps in the process (the repetition) is defined in terms of the process itself.
Care to point to which step "is defined in terms of the process itself"? I don't see that anywhere.
It's very similar to recursion, but my understanding of the definition of recursion is that the definition/implementation of X must reference X. I don't see that in my code anywhere.
> Without recursion, data structures like trees or graphs are useless. Kind of a problem if you have a directory tree structure, or you want to follows URL links for web scraping.
I would say web scraping is a good example of when you should NOT use a recursive function. My first web scraper looked like this:
scrape_page(url) {
links = get_links(url);
foreach(link in links) {
scrape_page(link);
}
}
On a site like Slashdot, which has many pages (on for eaxh comment posted), that fails wonderfully.
My i improved version, which has been running successfully for many years, looks like this:
scrape_page(url) {
links = get_links(url);
foreach(link in links) {
add_to_queue_database(link);
}
}
Note scrape_page no longer calls itself, it's not a recursive function. It's driven by this main() function:
while (url = get_url_from_queue_database() ) {
scrape_page(url);
}
The queue is held in a database which can easily store hundreds of thousands or millions of urls, There is no recursive function and it doesn't die when spidering a forum. It also doesn't lose all its queue when stopped and restarted.
Some people would point out this solves a recursive and say it's therefore a recursive algorithm. The algorithm isn't recursive by definition because no function calls itself, even indirectly.
Oh shit, you called him DAN Bernstein! He's going to be so pissed if he sees that. You didn't call him DOCTOR DANIEL J Bernstein, PhD. Prepare for the wrath of his almighty ego if he sees that!
I've worked with DJB alot in IETF and I think I most IETF members agree the unusual things about DJB are his ego and his contrarianism. Always doing the opposite of well-established best practices doesn't make him smarter than everyone else, it just means he re-invents all the same mistakes that most of us learned to avoid 30 years ago.
Reading my post again, I'm a bit ashamed because that was rude. Of course people are rude on forums all the time, but that doesn't mean I should be. I apologize.
To my understanding, Central America is not a continent. Geographers recognize five to seven continents (Eurasia and the Americas are sometimes considered one continent each). The first two sentences from the Wikipedia entry "Continent" are well written, so I'll quote them:
A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Ordered from largest in size to smallest, they are: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia
Wiki quote this definition of continent:
"continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water."
> I know plenty of very competent CCNP and CCIE who haven't read anything near that. You're talking 15-20 books
Just the CCNA official study guide is two books of about 1,300 pages each, as I recall, and they don't cover all of the material on the CCNA. You need to read at least one other 800 page book, I'd say, for the current CCNA. I would say one should have more than CCNA level understanding before they design the configuration of Comcast's routing and shaping. So yeah, I think "at least 5,000 pages" is about right, on that basis. Certainly more than roughly 3,000 pages you need for CCNA, because you need to understand Dash and all that too, which isn't a CCNA topic.
Jumping back a post or two, not 5,000 pages or more just specifically on routing, traffic shaping, and policing, with nothing else, but to optimize those things at the level you should for Comcast's network, you need to understand things like how why and how Netflix uses Dash over TCP, while Webex prefers UDP but will also use TCP. Dash isn't a traffic shaping topic per se, but Comcast damn well better understand it, and figure out how to best shape it. I'm curious about "I know plenty of CCIEs" - in the whole world there are less than 40,000 active CCIEs, I believe, and less than half of those are R&S. There are more professional soccer players than CCIEs. So I'm curious where you work or whatever that you know plenty of them.
I'm getting ready to go to bed so I don't feel like looking it up, but early drafts of the 2015 FCC rule were just a few pages, and seemed to prohibit even blocking known spammers ("must not discriminate by source"). After many comments were submitted, they improved it. I read, partially or completely, a few drafts but I have to admit I haven't studied the final rule. Watching the draft and comment process was enough to see that it was a bit of train wreck. Now I don't have to study it, until the new replacement comes out.
As you indicated, high jitter is fine for a video stream from Netflix, it's really bad for for a stream from Webex. Knowing that, we can provide the flow from Netflix with what it needs, and provide the flow from Webex with what it needs - which are different. Everyone is happier if we treat an audio/video stream from Netflix differently from an audio/video stream from Webex.
Firefox is open source, are you volunteering to examine the 14 million lines, to find the 14,000+, so they can be iterated out?
> "human's haven't got the brains to write secure code" (from the original post) is dumb.
A posteriori, they don't. We tried that and in my database I have 90,000 examples of their failure to do so.