It is a legitimate argument to say that averaging several pixels together can lower the noise floor, and thus lower the bottom edge of the range. If you then stop down the lens to take advantage of this you can translate this into raising the top end of the range.
However the result is tiny compared to using those pixels with filters above them so each covers it's own range.
This is very simple: they expect that any site allowing publishing of "amateur content" to be illegal. Youtube can easily reject all copyrighted work by rejecting *everything*. You will be unable to place information on the Web in any kind of public form unless you have paid for a license. These license fees will allow the "professionals" to be paid for their art.
Private communication of data will be allowed, but the receiver will only be able to read it as long as your computer is online and able to send the decoding token. Otherwise there is nothing to prevent you from illegally "publishing" (sending to more than one person), and we sure can't have that!
A filesystem corruption bug that allows one to link an arbitrary file somewhere would allow a much quicker root exploit than relying on cron!
I think you are thinking about extremely old bugs where cron itself could be convinced to run a program without root privledges as root (or really as the cron job). That is from about 1980 or earlier I think.
It sounds like if the PDF file can get the PDF reader to overflow the stack (possibly by triggering a bug that causes infinite recursion) then it will write over memory belonging to the X server which the X server will later jump to with root privileges.
I would think the most likely effect is the X server will crash but it seems there is already an example PDF that manages to write the correct data there to get the X server to execute something desired by the hacker, such as running a shell. This is NOT good.
Also it might not be too hard to convince a user to just run a program that is explicitly written to exploit this bug. I doubt it would be much trouble for that to do anything it wanted. Though if the user runs an unknown program that program could write all over his home directory and cause just as much grief, even without this bug.
This is probably obvious, but will it run a printer in a way that all other machines in the house (Linux, Win, Mac) can use it? Would like that rather than requiring the computer the printer is plugged into to be on.
"What's more, if browsers treated self-signed certificates the same way it treated HTTP connections, 90% of users would never realize something was wrong."
What you are failing to explain is WHY this is more "wrong" than plain HTTP. MITM and every other attact against a self-signed site works equally well, if not better, for HTTP, correct? So to be consistent, the browser should pop up a "this site has no signed certificate" warning for *every* HTTP page!
Now I may be mistaken in thinking that a self-signed certificate does help a little by encrypting the traffic to prevent passive sniffing and that it would prevent a MITM as long as that MITM failed to intercept all communications between your machine and the site (I am assuming a big warning if the certificate *changes* over time). But I fail to see any possible way that self-signed is "worse" than plain HTTP and therefore for it to get a big scary warning that plain HTTP does not.
Please try to understand this question and answer it. Comparing self-signed to normal HTTPS is not answering the question. I need a reason why self-signed is "worse than plain HTTP".
The problem is that there is no negatives in the experiment. The monkey has ZERO grapes at first, and afterward will have 2 grapes if they choose from A and either 1 or 3 grapes if they choose from B. Nobody is taking any grapes from them, they are giving the exact same number.
Both of your examples you are failing to come up with TWO pairs to choose from. A single choice is not the same experiment. Maybe your boot-kick example could be restated as:
1. In scenario one, two guys approach wearing steel-toed boots. The guy on the left will remove his boots and kick you in the balls, the guy on the right will not and has a 50% chance of kicking you in the balls. You have to choose.
2. In scenario two, two guys carrying steel-toed boots approach you. They guy on the left will kick you in the balls, The guy on the right will put on the boot and has a 50% chance of kicking you in the balls. You have to choose.
The reason is because the monkeys made OPPOSITE choices in the two scenarios. In both cases A would give 2 grapes always and B would give 1 or 3 grapes. Whether you call one of them "cheating", the choice should be the SAME in both scenarios. However the difference is that initially both are holding 1 grape in one scenario, and holding 3 grapes in the other one. This seems to change the choice (whether that choice is processed by the brain as "cheating" or any other logic) from one to the other, despite the fact that the result is exaclty the same!
I think I am not making it clear what the experiment is showing.
A way to word it so you can see the illogical nature:
Experiment 1: A will give you 2 grapes, or B will randomly either give you 1 or 3 grapes. Which do you choose?
Experiment 2: A will give you 2 grapes, or B will randomly either give you 1 or 3 grapes. Which do you choose?
For some reason both humans and monkeys will choose A in the first case and B in the second. BUT THEY ARE IDENTICAL!!!! The same wording above is not a typo, this is EXACTLY what the choices are. It has nothing to do with risk aversion or anything. A truly risk averse person would choose A in both cases. A person interested in maximum reward would choose B in both cases. It does not matter what the choice is, but any logical person would make the same choice in both, or make the choices completely randomly.
The difference is in the following bit of information, that should be totally irrelevant:
Experiment 1: Initially A and B are holding one grape
Experiment 2: Initially A and B are holding three grapes.
Since this information has NO effect on the results, it should not influence the decision in any way. However it is shown that it outweighs any internal risk-loving/aversion of the brain.
It does not matter if there is any rational basis to choose between the scenarios. What the experiment has chosen is that depending on the initial statement of an otherwise identical choice, both monkeys and humans make a different selection.
For instance if you (rationally or not) were risk-averse, you would choose the predictable guy in both cases. If you (rationally or not) preferred maximum possible reward, you would choose the risky guy in both cases.
But what the experiment showed is that whether the guys were holding 1 or 3 grapes initially had a greater weight in the decision than any (rational or not) risk assessment!
I think this experiment is damn clever, and the fact that people are actually still blind to what it is showing is even more telling as to how much this stuff is built into our heads!
Because you are saying that in one case a guy is "cheating" when in fact he is doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING in both cases. If you think one is "cheating" and the other is not, then you are subject to exactly the same irrationality as the monkeys.
Like the previous poster, you completely ignored the fact that the monkeys (and humans) made the complete OPPOSITE choice based on an actually irrelevant difference: whether the guys were holding 1 or 3 grapes initially. The results and cheating are EXACTLY the same, yet they made the OPPOSITE choice based on what is actually something that has nothing to do with the outcome!
Boy you did not understand a word of that presentation, did you? Or your statement about risk indicates that exactly the mistake she is talking about is infecting your brain at so high a level that you can actually write paragraphs defending your irrationality.
She made no opinion over whether risk for a higher reward is better or worse. If you had paid the slightest bit of attention you would have seen that she presented two IDENTICAL scenarios (ie the choce between 2 grapes and a 50/50 chance of 1 or 3 grapes) and the monkeys and humans both made a DIFFERENT choice because of the completely irrelevant difference of what was in the researcher's hands before the choice was made. If the researchers were both holding 1 grape initially, the monkeys (and humans) were risk-averse. If the researches were holding 3 grapes initially, then the monkeys and humans preferred the risk. This is monumentally irrational but it is certainly deeply imbedded in your and my brain.
That is just stupid. I can assure you that the monkeys will not care one bit if the researchers stopped giving them a piece of gold for the coin, as long as they could still get grapes.
Can somebody knowledgeable about this explain quickly: what makes the real proteins not get "stuck" in the local energy minimums that the program keeps getting stuck in?
The rebuttal [fairtax.org] to that point is several pages, but needless to say you are misinformed.
The rebuttal is hardly one page long and can actually be made much shorter if they were not trying to puff it up to make it more misleading. Basically: a 25% sales tax is equivalent to a 20% income tax, because somebody who makes $125 under a 20% income tax would have $100 left to spend on goods, and somebody spending $125 with a 25% sales tax would result in $100 being left after taxes paying for the goods.
This is all well and true, however they are still lying, because NOBODY considers a sales tax like this. The misleading is that people reading this will think "oh the state sales tax now is 9%, so 20% is only about twice as bad". If these guys were honest they would point out that that it is EQUIVALENT to such-and-such a percentage income tax, rather than claiming blatently that it is some lower-percentage sales tax.
You tell your employer how much to withhold. By default they withhold a standard amount which is correct if you have no deductions, but you can change it. I did this when I was able to claim a mortgage deduction and my company did so with zero proof that I owned a house. The withholding is specified in "points" and I went from 5 to 3, I think.
Though you might think so, this is incorrect. In modern fonts far less information is sent by transmitting the bitmap than the font description and this is how all modern font rendering works including on X with XRender.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a legitimate argument to say that averaging several pixels together can lower the noise floor, and thus lower the bottom edge of the range. If you then stop down the lens to take advantage of this you can translate this into raising the top end of the range.
However the result is tiny compared to using those pixels with filters above them so each covers it's own range.
The problem is you are confusing what is properly called "resolution" with "range".
A 2-bit system that can store the numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3 has a *range* of 3 and a *resolution* of 1.0.
A 16-bit system that can store 65535 fractions between 0 and 1 has a *range* of 1 and a resolution of 1/65536. It is higher *resolution*, not *range*.
Lots of people trying to correct you but I will add my own:
Averaging several adjacent pixels will increase the dynamic *resolution*. It will not increase the dynamic *range*.
If you have 100 samples between the range 0 and 1 and you average them together, the result is still in the 0 to 1 range.
This is very simple: they expect that any site allowing publishing of "amateur content" to be illegal. Youtube can easily reject all copyrighted work by rejecting *everything*. You will be unable to place information on the Web in any kind of public form unless you have paid for a license. These license fees will allow the "professionals" to be paid for their art.
Private communication of data will be allowed, but the receiver will only be able to read it as long as your computer is online and able to send the decoding token. Otherwise there is nothing to prevent you from illegally "publishing" (sending to more than one person), and we sure can't have that!
JFK and Marylin Monroe are living together in the secret moonbase that the Nazi's built but the US aquired after the war.
A filesystem corruption bug that allows one to link an arbitrary file somewhere would allow a much quicker root exploit than relying on cron!
I think you are thinking about extremely old bugs where cron itself could be convinced to run a program without root privledges as root (or really as the cron job). That is from about 1980 or earlier I think.
It sounds like if the PDF file can get the PDF reader to overflow the stack (possibly by triggering a bug that causes infinite recursion) then it will write over memory belonging to the X server which the X server will later jump to with root privileges.
I would think the most likely effect is the X server will crash but it seems there is already an example PDF that manages to write the correct data there to get the X server to execute something desired by the hacker, such as running a shell. This is NOT good.
Also it might not be too hard to convince a user to just run a program that is explicitly written to exploit this bug. I doubt it would be much trouble for that to do anything it wanted. Though if the user runs an unknown program that program could write all over his home directory and cause just as much grief, even without this bug.
This is probably obvious, but will it run a printer in a way that all other machines in the house (Linux, Win, Mac) can use it? Would like that rather than requiring the computer the printer is plugged into to be on.
"What's more, if browsers treated self-signed certificates the same way it treated HTTP connections, 90% of users would never realize something was wrong."
What you are failing to explain is WHY this is more "wrong" than plain HTTP. MITM and every other attact against a self-signed site works equally well, if not better, for HTTP, correct? So to be consistent, the browser should pop up a "this site has no signed certificate" warning for *every* HTTP page!
Now I may be mistaken in thinking that a self-signed certificate does help a little by encrypting the traffic to prevent passive sniffing and that it would prevent a MITM as long as that MITM failed to intercept all communications between your machine and the site (I am assuming a big warning if the certificate *changes* over time). But I fail to see any possible way that self-signed is "worse" than plain HTTP and therefore for it to get a big scary warning that plain HTTP does not.
Please try to understand this question and answer it. Comparing self-signed to normal HTTPS is not answering the question. I need a reason why self-signed is "worse than plain HTTP".
no
The problem is that there is no negatives in the experiment. The monkey has ZERO grapes at first, and afterward will have 2 grapes if they choose from A and either 1 or 3 grapes if they choose from B. Nobody is taking any grapes from them, they are giving the exact same number.
Both of your examples you are failing to come up with TWO pairs to choose from. A single choice is not the same experiment. Maybe your boot-kick example could be restated as:
1. In scenario one, two guys approach wearing steel-toed boots. The guy on the left will remove his boots and kick you in the balls, the guy on the right will not and has a 50% chance of kicking you in the balls. You have to choose.
2. In scenario two, two guys carrying steel-toed boots approach you. They guy on the left will kick you in the balls, The guy on the right will put on the boot and has a 50% chance of kicking you in the balls. You have to choose.
The reason is because the monkeys made OPPOSITE choices in the two scenarios. In both cases A would give 2 grapes always and B would give 1 or 3 grapes. Whether you call one of them "cheating", the choice should be the SAME in both scenarios. However the difference is that initially both are holding 1 grape in one scenario, and holding 3 grapes in the other one. This seems to change the choice (whether that choice is processed by the brain as "cheating" or any other logic) from one to the other, despite the fact that the result is exaclty the same!
I think I am not making it clear what the experiment is showing.
A way to word it so you can see the illogical nature:
Experiment 1: A will give you 2 grapes, or B will randomly either give you 1 or 3 grapes. Which do you choose?
Experiment 2: A will give you 2 grapes, or B will randomly either give you 1 or 3 grapes. Which do you choose?
For some reason both humans and monkeys will choose A in the first case and B in the second. BUT THEY ARE IDENTICAL!!!! The same wording above is not a typo, this is EXACTLY what the choices are. It has nothing to do with risk aversion or anything. A truly risk averse person would choose A in both cases. A person interested in maximum reward would choose B in both cases. It does not matter what the choice is, but any logical person would make the same choice in both, or make the choices completely randomly.
The difference is in the following bit of information, that should be totally irrelevant:
Experiment 1: Initially A and B are holding one grape
Experiment 2: Initially A and B are holding three grapes.
Since this information has NO effect on the results, it should not influence the decision in any way. However it is shown that it outweighs any internal risk-loving/aversion of the brain.
It does not matter if there is any rational basis to choose between the scenarios. What the experiment has chosen is that depending on the initial statement of an otherwise identical choice, both monkeys and humans make a different selection.
For instance if you (rationally or not) were risk-averse, you would choose the predictable guy in both cases. If you (rationally or not) preferred maximum possible reward, you would choose the risky guy in both cases.
But what the experiment showed is that whether the guys were holding 1 or 3 grapes initially had a greater weight in the decision than any (rational or not) risk assessment!
I think this experiment is damn clever, and the fact that people are actually still blind to what it is showing is even more telling as to how much this stuff is built into our heads!
Because you are saying that in one case a guy is "cheating" when in fact he is doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING in both cases. If you think one is "cheating" and the other is not, then you are subject to exactly the same irrationality as the monkeys.
Like the previous poster, you completely ignored the fact that the monkeys (and humans) made the complete OPPOSITE choice based on an actually irrelevant difference: whether the guys were holding 1 or 3 grapes initially. The results and cheating are EXACTLY the same, yet they made the OPPOSITE choice based on what is actually something that has nothing to do with the outcome!
Boy you did not understand a word of that presentation, did you? Or your statement about risk indicates that exactly the mistake she is talking about is infecting your brain at so high a level that you can actually write paragraphs defending your irrationality.
She made no opinion over whether risk for a higher reward is better or worse. If you had paid the slightest bit of attention you would have seen that she presented two IDENTICAL scenarios (ie the choce between 2 grapes and a 50/50 chance of 1 or 3 grapes) and the monkeys and humans both made a DIFFERENT choice because of the completely irrelevant difference of what was in the researcher's hands before the choice was made. If the researchers were both holding 1 grape initially, the monkeys (and humans) were risk-averse. If the researches were holding 3 grapes initially, then the monkeys and humans preferred the risk. This is monumentally irrational but it is certainly deeply imbedded in your and my brain.
That is just stupid. I can assure you that the monkeys will not care one bit if the researchers stopped giving them a piece of gold for the coin, as long as they could still get grapes.
Can somebody knowledgeable about this explain quickly: what makes the real proteins not get "stuck" in the local energy minimums that the program keeps getting stuck in?
I don't think the GP meant RAID when saying "mirroring", he actually meant "make 2 copies of your data, one on each disk".
I agree this does not protect against a disaster that affects both drives because they are in the same box.
Gosh, I have to BOTH buy batteries AND pay for the grid connection! Yea solar really is expensive when you lie.
The rebuttal [fairtax.org] to that point is several pages, but needless to say you are misinformed.
The rebuttal is hardly one page long and can actually be made much shorter if they were not trying to puff it up to make it more misleading. Basically: a 25% sales tax is equivalent to a 20% income tax, because somebody who makes $125 under a 20% income tax would have $100 left to spend on goods, and somebody spending $125 with a 25% sales tax would result in $100 being left after taxes paying for the goods.
This is all well and true, however they are still lying, because NOBODY considers a sales tax like this. The misleading is that people reading this will think "oh the state sales tax now is 9%, so 20% is only about twice as bad". If these guys were honest they would point out that that it is EQUIVALENT to such-and-such a percentage income tax, rather than claiming blatently that it is some lower-percentage sales tax.
You tell your employer how much to withhold. By default they withhold a standard amount which is correct if you have no deductions, but you can change it. I did this when I was able to claim a mortgage deduction and my company did so with zero proof that I owned a house. The withholding is specified in "points" and I went from 5 to 3, I think.
And to make gas turbines you need........
Though you might think so, this is incorrect. In modern fonts far less information is sent by transmitting the bitmap than the font description and this is how all modern font rendering works including on X with XRender.