If this isn't a/. admin doing this to me, either someone has WAY too much time on their hands creating accounts & building up mod points, or there's a real-life (if astoundingly pathetic in scope) conspiracy against me.
Wow, and I just thought more about it... straight to -1? Starting score 1, shoulda been karma modifier +1 (but no sign of that), and two troll mods? How'd that post pull that off?
(Karma bonus intentionally turned off on this post 'cause it's off topic.)
I just have the crippling burden of being a history buff, knowing how often science gives birth to atrocities. Comparing post-1600s science has made religion look tame.
I haven't read your whole post in depth, but this stood out:
Where does he draw the line at "wasting time writing code"? This is exactly the mindset that leads us to buffer overruns, SQL injections, and many other problems which should not make it into production software.
No, rewriting functionality that already exists in stable, tested libraries is the mindset that leads us to buffer overruns, etc.
In what way does "I have no racial biases" equate to "make everyone the same by stamping out difference"?
Racial differences might go away, but the motivation is *the exact opposite* of the motivation you're implying. It is caused by much more tolerance for diversity than normal, not intolerance of it.
All hashes are vulnerable to a simple dictionary attack.
Unsalted hashes are vulnerable to a rainbow table attack (building a table of hashes of all common passwords once, then finding all users with any of those passwords using a simple text match).
Vulnerability to a rainbow table attack is much more serious, particularly since you can download or build up a rainbow table without the password hashes. That means you can immediately apply years of computational time (time you spent generating rainbow tables) to each database of unsalted hashes you come across.
What you're talking about is protected by trademark law. Authors should put "their seal" (some representative name or symbol, which might just be their name) on a franchise.
If every person got a basic income, everyone could afford to purchase the education they wanted from the market.
Or they could pocket most or all of the money and let the kid learn little or nothing. People often don't do a good job of acting in their own best interest.
For example, any of those people could already spend money on their children's education. What makes you think that if they had more money they would spend it differently?
(I apologize for any antagonistic tone; I just really disagree with you about this. I actually had already friended you because I enjoy reading your point of view.)
You should have taught them about the risks, absolutely. Teenagers are still horribly irresponsible, and repeated reminders at appropriate intervals are sensible (and needed).
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
In an area where the political system turns over every couple of years, investments are targets, including infrastructure. When trying to control a group, ruining something they invested a lot of time in and need for day to day life is a very effective threat.
That's what I get for assuming none of the readers were too stupid to get the point.
I have written huffman compression algorithms that were (and still are, for all I know) used in production systems. I recently wrote a Rabin compression system. I know how compression works.
Data is not measured in bytes. Files are measured in bytes.
Lossless compression does not create more data than was in the original dataset, any more than a program that writes out an infinite series of 1s contains an infinite amount of data. It simply represents the input data in a different (more useful) way, that happens to take up more space.
I completely misread your response before your reply. We're arguing the same position:-)
Although I disagree regarding inference - it is inferring the absent data (my my definition of inference), and in some cases that will be useful. However, I suspect if used for medical images it would give confidence to a wrong answer more often than it would give enough information to get the right answer.
It started off with pixels missing; when done the pixels are filled. How is that not creating absent data by inferring it?
Any algorithm that generates more data than was sent in is inferring. That's not to say it isn't useful, but if, for example, all of the pixels of the bile duct blockage (FTFA) were missing, the picture would have to have been reconstituted with no blockage. If the only three pixels in an area were discolored, then that whole area (or some significant portion of it) would be discolored.
The algorithm is very impressive, but when you fill in the blanks, that's pretty much the definition of creating absent data. (Barring examples like e.g. knowing three values of a degree 2 polynomial and inferring the whole polynomial, but in cases like those the data you have really is a complete description.)
I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it. The initial passing of the bill should only have required a simple majority.
It seems that you are presuming that a voice vote would be called down (and a roll call required) if 20% disagreed with the vote. I suspect there are "gentlemen's agreements" to not require a roll call on any vote unless it is very important to the senator in question.
After all, without a voice vote every senator can claim to have voted whatever way is most advantageous to him with the audience he's speaking to.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, my karma is super-duper excellent. If someone with the power to throw that many bad mods at me is after me, I'm screwed regardless.
Seriously, you don't have anything better to do?
If this isn't a /. admin doing this to me, either someone has WAY too much time on their hands creating accounts & building up mod points, or there's a real-life (if astoundingly pathetic in scope) conspiracy against me.
It's nice to know you care, either way.
Wow, and I just thought more about it... straight to -1? Starting score 1, shoulda been karma modifier +1 (but no sign of that), and two troll mods? How'd that post pull that off?
(Karma bonus intentionally turned off on this post 'cause it's off topic.)
Troll. Huh?
This is some scary shit. How long until some celebrity or world leader is abducted, raped, or shot based on this vulnerability?
Citations, please.
I haven't read your whole post in depth, but this stood out:
No, rewriting functionality that already exists in stable, tested libraries is the mindset that leads us to buffer overruns, etc.
In what way does "I have no racial biases" equate to "make everyone the same by stamping out difference"?
Racial differences might go away, but the motivation is *the exact opposite* of the motivation you're implying. It is caused by much more tolerance for diversity than normal, not intolerance of it.
Are they starting to salt their hashes? Because that's a very simple step that would have made this breach much less significant.
All hashes are vulnerable to a simple dictionary attack.
Unsalted hashes are vulnerable to a rainbow table attack (building a table of hashes of all common passwords once, then finding all users with any of those passwords using a simple text match).
Vulnerability to a rainbow table attack is much more serious, particularly since you can download or build up a rainbow table without the password hashes. That means you can immediately apply years of computational time (time you spent generating rainbow tables) to each database of unsalted hashes you come across.
What you're talking about is protected by trademark law. Authors should put "their seal" (some representative name or symbol, which might just be their name) on a franchise.
As far as I know, trademarks do not expire.
Fair enough - I failed at reading comprehension. I had somehow read the AC's quote as being copied from the OP's quote.
(BTW, I have now read the text from the link :-)
However, I don't think the AC's quote supports his position. IMO this snippet of the OP's quote is much more telling:
I see nothing in Jefferson's letter that posits that ideas as property is useful, and that fragment appears to me to clearly state that it is not.
So your reply to a guy quoting Jefferson is your uncited opinion that Jefferson disagrees with the quote?
Citation or STFU.
Or they could pocket most or all of the money and let the kid learn little or nothing. People often don't do a good job of acting in their own best interest.
For example, any of those people could already spend money on their children's education. What makes you think that if they had more money they would spend it differently?
(I apologize for any antagonistic tone; I just really disagree with you about this. I actually had already friended you because I enjoy reading your point of view.)
You should have taught them about the risks, absolutely. Teenagers are still horribly irresponsible, and repeated reminders at appropriate intervals are sensible (and needed).
All MHO, of course.
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
The only thing that could have made that comment better is to use LMGTFY instead of Google in the link.
In an area where the political system turns over every couple of years, investments are targets, including infrastructure. When trying to control a group, ruining something they invested a lot of time in and need for day to day life is a very effective threat.
That's what I get for assuming none of the readers were too stupid to get the point.
I have written huffman compression algorithms that were (and still are, for all I know) used in production systems. I recently wrote a Rabin compression system. I know how compression works.
Data is not measured in bytes. Files are measured in bytes.
Lossless compression does not create more data than was in the original dataset, any more than a program that writes out an infinite series of 1s contains an infinite amount of data. It simply represents the input data in a different (more useful) way, that happens to take up more space.
I completely misread your response before your reply. We're arguing the same position :-)
Although I disagree regarding inference - it is inferring the absent data (my my definition of inference), and in some cases that will be useful. However, I suspect if used for medical images it would give confidence to a wrong answer more often than it would give enough information to get the right answer.
It started off with pixels missing; when done the pixels are filled. How is that not creating absent data by inferring it?
Any algorithm that generates more data than was sent in is inferring. That's not to say it isn't useful, but if, for example, all of the pixels of the bile duct blockage (FTFA) were missing, the picture would have to have been reconstituted with no blockage. If the only three pixels in an area were discolored, then that whole area (or some significant portion of it) would be discolored.
The algorithm is very impressive, but when you fill in the blanks, that's pretty much the definition of creating absent data. (Barring examples like e.g. knowing three values of a degree 2 polynomial and inferring the whole polynomial, but in cases like those the data you have really is a complete description.)
Thanks much for the link. It's nice to hear that there is someone out there trying hard to do actual climate science.
Thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of that.
I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it. The initial passing of the bill should only have required a simple majority.
It seems that you are presuming that a voice vote would be called down (and a roll call required) if 20% disagreed with the vote. I suspect there are "gentlemen's agreements" to not require a roll call on any vote unless it is very important to the senator in question.
After all, without a voice vote every senator can claim to have voted whatever way is most advantageous to him with the audience he's speaking to.
Holy shit, that shouldn't be legal!
We allow bills to pass into law without even recording who voted for them? I could plant some high quality speakers & dictate the law!
Did you mean 51%?