The problem isn't finding the patterns. Finding patterns is easy. Eliminating the majority of patterns which have no significant meaning, that's the hard part.
Among all the other bad things about such a proposal, there's the problem that it would require a mechanism as powerful as the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's _1984_ to pull it off.
You think local news outlets read Slashdot? Really??
Read? No. Copy an entirely wrong piece of information they accidentally came across on Slashdot as if it was pure fact? I wouldn't stake my fortune against it.
(that's "local" as in "local to me, in the US"... not local to Japan)
Listen carefully, those who are for more nuclear power, as am I: you have to understand the greatest enemy of wider use of nuclear power is not tree hugging hippies, but old nuclear reactors, based on technology that requires constant monitoring, in decrepit states. Because when, not if, they fail, all of public opinion moves against nuclear power. We need to shut down the old shoddy Indian Point Nuclear Facility NOW.
And what effect do you think removing 2GW from the grid will have? You liked the NYC blackouts so much you'd like to make them a regular event?
Because in one case, they have a massive, well-funded legal department with which to contend. Can you imagine the uproar if the DoJ tried to seize Google.com?
I wonder if 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 would respect the seizure.
Calculus is more than just continuous derivatives and integrals. Calculus is where you get a lot of the notation and concepts for other university-level math courses. You can do some pure discrete stuff -- e.g. number theory, predicate calculus -- without it, but for a lot of it you will need to understand integrals and derivatives and limits.
I didn't find the math to be difficult or even tiresome. But the nimrod professor criticizing me for exiting subroutines in the middle of loops and conditionals?
Yeah, the math wasn't your problem. It was the shallowness of your knowledge of the classics (that is, the Bugs Bunny cartoons). You should have known that the term "nimrod" is not a general purpose insult; rather, it means "a mighty hunter", after the eponymous Biblical Nimrod. Applied to Mr. Fudd, it was meant sarcastically.
Anyway, if he wanted your code to return at the bottom of the function, you should have just put gotos in at the appropriate places. Would be amusing to see the look on his face when he saw it, anyway.
I have never asked a math question while interviewing a programmer. The average corporate programming job requires basic math and at the very most simple well known formulas.
The average "corporate programming" job requires pulling some data out of a database and turning it into a report. Or running some very simple logic over it and putting that into a report, or back in the database. It's to programming as framing a stud wall is to carpentry. Computer science doesn't even enter into it. That a four-year degree is required for such work is sad.
The problem here is that usually the principle gets back zero feedback as to what you agreed to -- only that you must have agreed because you're using their product. Real contracts involve both parties actually agreeing to something. Clickthroughs are the equivalent of the principle setting up a fruit stand with a gate in front of it with a sign reading "If you open this gate, you agree to the following...."
If someone comes in from the back field or climbs over the fence, they haven't agreed. They might run afoul of copyright, but there is no contract whatsoever. The undisclosed agent argument could be used here. But if they modify the actual agreement and sign the changes, there is already implicit agreement from the principle, or it's not a contract. They can choose to reject the changes, but they have to be there to do that.
All this is true. However, it doesn't matter. The courts will just handwave it away and rule in the other guy's favor, because they want this crap to be valid.
It appears the algorithm wasn't actually determined. Rather, Microsoft essentially left a code generator which took unencrypted parameters available on a web page. Amateur mistake.
Flying is a service you purchase from a private entity, not a human right. Dont like the security (and personally, I think its retarded and ineffective)? Get your own cessna, or dont fly.
This bullshit justification would have a lot more weight if the security wasn't mandated (and now administered) by the government, not a private entity.
My guess is you're not an EE either. Interference doesn't quite work like that; orthogonal frequencies, for instance, do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered.
In the air, no. In your equipment, almost certainly. Intermodulation and cross-modulation happen.
Wow. So this is what due process has come to. Arrest = criminal.
"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -- US Attorney General Edwin Meese, in 1985.
The best strategy is to run your own copy of the computer code with the same algorithm and data; you can then beat it every time unless it has a true random element.
While this is true, it just means that you need to jam a different frequency. Encryption has nothing to do with it as you aren't trying to access it, but DoS it. The reasons that the military runs its own separate GPS are for better accuracy (civilian GPS has inaccuracy built in while military GPS is accurate to within a meter) and so they can shut it down without hurting themselves within a theater.
Better accuracy is part of it, but there's a reason the encryption is called A/S -- it stands for Anti Spoof. It's intended for use against more sophisticated things than simple jamming, though -- "spoofing" is transmitting signals which purport to be legitimate GPS signals, but provide false position readings.
If you can put enough power on L1 and L2 you can still jam GPS with A/S... but I suspect you'll end up with a HARM up your ass in any sort of wartime situation.
How about writing some legitimate political commentary with the key threaded through it?
The Yale Law Blog (linked from summary) included the keys in the blog. In fact, as the title of the article. Which I suppose is the author's way of saying "Go ahead, Sony. Sue us. We're a law school, we've got nothing better to do than respond."
It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.
Except when the libel is libel per se.
That it is "libel per se" does not mean damages will be large; it merely means damage need not be proved for there to be a cause of action at all.
You claimed mere association with pedophilia "is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life". Yet the teacher smeared here is still alive and still employed. Furthermore, the examples you gave contain more than mere association; they contain specific, false, accusations made to the relevant authorities.
The mere accusation or "trash talk" or exercise of free speech in which a person is associated with pedophilia is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life.
So the teacher in question has been fired and blacklisted and/or is dead?
If they had wanted to say "on school grounds" they could have.
They did. They simply said it several sentences before the part you keep quoting at me. The whole paragraph is discussing activities which take place on school grounds. The court enunciates a general rule that when a student is on the school campus "he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects". Then it carves out an exception to that rule, which is the part you quoted. That exception does not exceed the scope of the rule for which is it an exception.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't finding the patterns. Finding patterns is easy. Eliminating the majority of patterns which have no significant meaning, that's the hard part.
Among all the other bad things about such a proposal, there's the problem that it would require a mechanism as powerful as the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's _1984_ to pull it off.
The credit unions mostly remained unscathed because they don't hold their mortgages; they flip them to places like Bank of America.
Read? No. Copy an entirely wrong piece of information they accidentally came across on Slashdot as if it was pure fact? I wouldn't stake my fortune against it. (that's "local" as in "local to me, in the US"... not local to Japan)
And what effect do you think removing 2GW from the grid will have? You liked the NYC blackouts so much you'd like to make them a regular event?
I wonder if 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 would respect the seizure.
Calculus is more than just continuous derivatives and integrals. Calculus is where you get a lot of the notation and concepts for other university-level math courses. You can do some pure discrete stuff -- e.g. number theory, predicate calculus -- without it, but for a lot of it you will need to understand integrals and derivatives and limits.
Yeah, the math wasn't your problem. It was the shallowness of your knowledge of the classics (that is, the Bugs Bunny cartoons). You should have known that the term "nimrod" is not a general purpose insult; rather, it means "a mighty hunter", after the eponymous Biblical Nimrod. Applied to Mr. Fudd, it was meant sarcastically.
Anyway, if he wanted your code to return at the bottom of the function, you should have just put gotos in at the appropriate places. Would be amusing to see the look on his face when he saw it, anyway.
+1, Troll.
The average "corporate programming" job requires pulling some data out of a database and turning it into a report. Or running some very simple logic over it and putting that into a report, or back in the database. It's to programming as framing a stud wall is to carpentry. Computer science doesn't even enter into it. That a four-year degree is required for such work is sad.
All this is true. However, it doesn't matter. The courts will just handwave it away and rule in the other guy's favor, because they want this crap to be valid.
It appears the algorithm wasn't actually determined. Rather, Microsoft essentially left a code generator which took unencrypted parameters available on a web page. Amateur mistake.
Manhattan's not Boston. Not even the real but incompetent Times Square bomber got the city shut down.
This bullshit justification would have a lot more weight if the security wasn't mandated (and now administered) by the government, not a private entity.
In the air, no. In your equipment, almost certainly. Intermodulation and cross-modulation happen.
"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -- US Attorney General Edwin Meese, in 1985.
The best strategy is to run your own copy of the computer code with the same algorithm and data; you can then beat it every time unless it has a true random element.
Better accuracy is part of it, but there's a reason the encryption is called A/S -- it stands for Anti Spoof. It's intended for use against more sophisticated things than simple jamming, though -- "spoofing" is transmitting signals which purport to be legitimate GPS signals, but provide false position readings.
If you can put enough power on L1 and L2 you can still jam GPS with A/S... but I suspect you'll end up with a HARM up your ass in any sort of wartime situation.
The Yale Law Blog (linked from summary) included the keys in the blog. In fact, as the title of the article. Which I suppose is the author's way of saying "Go ahead, Sony. Sue us. We're a law school, we've got nothing better to do than respond."
Ah, the old "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.
That it is "libel per se" does not mean damages will be large; it merely means damage need not be proved for there to be a cause of action at all.
Goes directly to the point I was making. This was an actual accusation, to the authorities, not just trash-talking.
And so was the case study in this one.
You claimed mere association with pedophilia "is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life". Yet the teacher smeared here is still alive and still employed. Furthermore, the examples you gave contain more than mere association; they contain specific, false, accusations made to the relevant authorities.
So the teacher in question has been fired and blacklisted and/or is dead?
They did. They simply said it several sentences before the part you keep quoting at me. The whole paragraph is discussing activities which take place on school grounds. The court enunciates a general rule that when a student is on the school campus "he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects". Then it carves out an exception to that rule, which is the part you quoted. That exception does not exceed the scope of the rule for which is it an exception.
The link below discusses the possibility of any of those nuclear plants going operational in the forseeable future: