Also false. representatives are from the house, senators are from the senate, and congress is both. The news may be misrepresenting that, or you may be perceiving it incorrectly, but that is how it is.
Seems fine to me that they want to give us some free apps. Likely someone paid a lot of money to get that in front of your eyes. All Kosher with me. Whatever. But please don't prevent me from removing it or I'll root my phone you fuckers.
There's actually been a lot of research on this topic the last decade. No great solutions imo, but a lot of research. Most of it better than random=trustworthy. Here's the problem. Say you have N users and M are a fake mob. F=M/N is your ratio of fake users. Now select 0.01 of your users at random. F=0.01*M/0.01*N... the ratio is the same, so the mob still works. Of course, I'm assuming you don't know which users are mob users. If you did, why would you bother with randomly selecting some? This isn't even a scholarly argument, it's just a mundanely obvious observation. Here's some actual research: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reputation%20systems
... and nobody in a 15 minute drive (flight?) could figure out how to cut the ends off and tie them together with some electrical tape or some really huge crimpers or something? There's just something fishy about that.
Webos. The pre3 is coming out... HP/Palm supports root shells on the linux computers and the platform is just fun. The downside is that nobody uses webos. I'm not going to quit using webos until the literally make me because the ruin it or it finally dies.
I say this is great news. I would never (ever) buy a Motorola android device anyway. They don't get it. If the device is all locked down so you can't swap the firmware, then it isn't an android device in the most meaningful sense (openness). That's not to say that android doesn't have openness problems. You can make an argument about that if you desire. I don't really care. But what I do care about is this locked down DRM code signing BS. If I can't run what I want on the device, you can fucking keep it.
I'm just saying what the article said. Really, the question isn't that it was an iranian IP, although that certainly seems suspicious to me since there likely isn't a functioning legal system there; the question is, how can someone get a certificate for google.com if they aren't in fact an agent of google.com. To check this properly requires human intervention and so CV certs cost a minimum of $1000... There's really no way aroudn this though.
Ahh, I don't think it says iranians shouldn't be able to get ssl certs. I think it says they shouldn't be able to get ssl certs for google.com, live.com, yahoo.com, and mozilla... Seems logical to me that this would be a problem since they're american companies. Drop nearly any country in for iranian and you have the same exact question.
I'm wondering the same thing. I think that they're looking for the "lightest super partner." Even one such partner would be evidence even if most of the partners were too heavy to show up in the LHC. But I don't really know how heavy any of them are.
My Palm WebOS phone (pre) has a maybe 0.05% market share... but it has some really interesting features. Like the ability to root the phone in a supported fashion and the existence of a repair tool to fix it when you screw it up. I'm not impressed by MS sitting down with phone 7 users. Yeah, users. Sure, they're advanced users, but they're just using their phone. I can't believe "jailbreaking" is a problem, nor that it would ever void a warranty. I wish more manufacturers did it like Palm did.
Blackholes would prob ably get quite bright from time to time and (if nothing else) leave a halo of glowing matter behind. Also, dark matter can be quite spread out and turns into really huge blobs, rather than point masses. I imagine her technique looked for things like that. I don't think the article says anything really useful about the technique. Hopefully they cover it on Naked Astronomy.
I actually have a lot more respect for traditional psychologists than this. I've been to them too. When I was in 5th grade, I really didn't know how to read (although I could technically read, the comprehension was nearly 0).
I like therapists quite a lot, but the advice you get from astrologers is different. It appears to be based on empirical evidence (your chart) delivered with all the religious authority you'd get from a priest or a rabbi.
If I liked the wrapper enough, yes I very probably would. But you're going to need to come up with some really deep fictions to go around it. Bonus points if there are cultures still alive today that give it thousands of years of backstories and "experience" too.
This is mostly incorrect. It's long reference books and geometric shapes they're reading, not the stars. It hasn't been the stars for a very long time. Also, astrology is complicated enough that if something doesn't match up (and this happens quite a lot as you'd imagine); the astrologer can go back to the reference and locate a trine or a square that explains it. "Oh, your moon was in Sagittarius, that explains it" and the like.
They write books with a really authoritative tone and no bibliography or references section. Sometimes they do actually have references, but to other astrology references.
I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times. I don't really think astrology has anything to do with reality or astronomy, not even for a second; but I do enjoy it. It's rather like how I enjoy The Matrix even though it doesn't make any sense at all.
I happened to ask my astrologer about this many years ago (it's not like they just switched a couple days ago) and the astrologer was actually aware that the astrological symbols had changed, but assured me the Zodiac signs did not. It's been totally decoupled for decades and astrologers seem to be aware of it.
It's not like if you learned to precisely measure something (I don't know what it would be); you'd suddenly change all the symbols on your Tarot deck either. Heh. They're all complicated systems of nonsense. They don't really require further adjustments.
I'm sure there'll be TONS of new astrology books coming out because this is suddenly big news for some reason. It may even cause a schism, but it doesn't really matter which system you pick. A really good astrologer reads the man, not the stars.
I think the situation is different. The trademark is mean to protect the consumer, not the company. Personally, I'm glad there's only one *operating system* called Windows. If you wanted to make a set of rubber gloves called Windows, MS wouldn't have anything (legally) to say on the matter.
But as far as App Store goes: I mean, if MS is selling apps in a store,... well, it's a fucking app store.
Slashdot Mirror
I read your comment. The point that you don't seem to get is that you're still wrong. You can argue it any way you like. Congressman refers to either.
Also false. representatives are from the house, senators are from the senate, and congress is both. The news may be misrepresenting that, or you may be perceiving it incorrectly, but that is how it is.
False. Congressmen refers to either. That is a fact.
Seems fine to me that they want to give us some free apps. Likely someone paid a lot of money to get that in front of your eyes. All Kosher with me. Whatever. But please don't prevent me from removing it or I'll root my phone you fuckers.
Surely, but he was using the terms interchangeably. They're really not. Entirely different kind of proofs. Similar, but weaker.
NP-hard is different than NP-complete.
There's actually been a lot of research on this topic the last decade. No great solutions imo, but a lot of research. Most of it better than random=trustworthy. Here's the problem. Say you have N users and M are a fake mob. F=M/N is your ratio of fake users. Now select 0.01 of your users at random. F=0.01*M/0.01*N ... the ratio is the same, so the mob still works. Of course, I'm assuming you don't know which users are mob users. If you did, why would you bother with randomly selecting some? This isn't even a scholarly argument, it's just a mundanely obvious observation. Here's some actual research: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reputation%20systems
... and nobody in a 15 minute drive (flight?) could figure out how to cut the ends off and tie them together with some electrical tape or some really huge crimpers or something? There's just something fishy about that.
I can't see any reason this shouldn't apply to all companies.
Webos. The pre3 is coming out... HP/Palm supports root shells on the linux computers and the platform is just fun. The downside is that nobody uses webos. I'm not going to quit using webos until the literally make me because the ruin it or it finally dies.
I say this is great news. I would never (ever) buy a Motorola android device anyway. They don't get it. If the device is all locked down so you can't swap the firmware, then it isn't an android device in the most meaningful sense (openness). That's not to say that android doesn't have openness problems. You can make an argument about that if you desire. I don't really care. But what I do care about is this locked down DRM code signing BS. If I can't run what I want on the device, you can fucking keep it.
I'm just saying what the article said. Really, the question isn't that it was an iranian IP, although that certainly seems suspicious to me since there likely isn't a functioning legal system there; the question is, how can someone get a certificate for google.com if they aren't in fact an agent of google.com. To check this properly requires human intervention and so CV certs cost a minimum of $1000 ... There's really no way aroudn this though.
Ahh, I don't think it says iranians shouldn't be able to get ssl certs. I think it says they shouldn't be able to get ssl certs for google.com, live.com, yahoo.com, and mozilla ... Seems logical to me that this would be a problem since they're american companies. Drop nearly any country in for iranian and you have the same exact question.
This has happened before. Part of the solution for Congress was to fire massive numbers of judges.
when? who?
I'm wondering the same thing. I think that they're looking for the "lightest super partner." Even one such partner would be evidence even if most of the partners were too heavy to show up in the LHC. But I don't really know how heavy any of them are.
That's not going to get us new episodes though... the show ended early was the point.
My Palm WebOS phone (pre) has a maybe 0.05% market share... but it has some really interesting features. Like the ability to root the phone in a supported fashion and the existence of a repair tool to fix it when you screw it up. I'm not impressed by MS sitting down with phone 7 users. Yeah, users. Sure, they're advanced users, but they're just using their phone. I can't believe "jailbreaking" is a problem, nor that it would ever void a warranty. I wish more manufacturers did it like Palm did.
Remember the olden days when you could [x] kill a domain that didn't ever want to see again?
Why did they ever get rid of that?
I've taken to using this instead, works great. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/33156
Blackholes would prob ably get quite bright from time to time and (if nothing else) leave a halo of glowing matter behind. Also, dark matter can be quite spread out and turns into really huge blobs, rather than point masses. I imagine her technique looked for things like that. I don't think the article says anything really useful about the technique. Hopefully they cover it on Naked Astronomy.
I actually have a lot more respect for traditional psychologists than this. I've been to them too. When I was in 5th grade, I really didn't know how to read (although I could technically read, the comprehension was nearly 0).
I like therapists quite a lot, but the advice you get from astrologers is different. It appears to be based on empirical evidence (your chart) delivered with all the religious authority you'd get from a priest or a rabbi.
If I liked the wrapper enough, yes I very probably would. But you're going to need to come up with some really deep fictions to go around it. Bonus points if there are cultures still alive today that give it thousands of years of backstories and "experience" too.
This is mostly incorrect. It's long reference books and geometric shapes they're reading, not the stars. It hasn't been the stars for a very long time. Also, astrology is complicated enough that if something doesn't match up (and this happens quite a lot as you'd imagine); the astrologer can go back to the reference and locate a trine or a square that explains it. "Oh, your moon was in Sagittarius, that explains it" and the like.
They write books with a really authoritative tone and no bibliography or references section. Sometimes they do actually have references, but to other astrology references.
I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times. I don't really think astrology has anything to do with reality or astronomy, not even for a second; but I do enjoy it. It's rather like how I enjoy The Matrix even though it doesn't make any sense at all.
I happened to ask my astrologer about this many years ago (it's not like they just switched a couple days ago) and the astrologer was actually aware that the astrological symbols had changed, but assured me the Zodiac signs did not. It's been totally decoupled for decades and astrologers seem to be aware of it.
It's not like if you learned to precisely measure something (I don't know what it would be); you'd suddenly change all the symbols on your Tarot deck either. Heh. They're all complicated systems of nonsense. They don't really require further adjustments.
I'm sure there'll be TONS of new astrology books coming out because this is suddenly big news for some reason. It may even cause a schism, but it doesn't really matter which system you pick. A really good astrologer reads the man, not the stars.
I think the situation is different. The trademark is mean to protect the consumer, not the company. Personally, I'm glad there's only one *operating system* called Windows. If you wanted to make a set of rubber gloves called Windows, MS wouldn't have anything (legally) to say on the matter.
But as far as App Store goes: I mean, if MS is selling apps in a store, ... well, it's a fucking app store.
Those situations seem totally different to me.