Or they could have radio controlled shutoff switches on more air conditioners. I have one on mine, and it's great. I pay less for my power, and it only gets shut off at a time like that
The "time like that" being warm temperatures into the evening -- exactly when you want your air conditioner most.
Real coders write code that you can take a ruler from any given close brace and draw a vertical line right up to the matching open brace, every time. Everybody else gets fired.
Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie and their no-necked associates would like to have a word with you out back.
The FBI says that the chance of any given person matching another unrelated person is 1 in 113 billion. They claim that the reason the Arizona lab tech found as many matches as she did ("dozens") is because she was checking the whole database (6 million entries) against itself. This is a straightforward birthday paradox issue, then.
According to the Wikipedia birthday problem page, the number of collisions expected given d= 113 billion different "birthdays" and n = 6 million "people in the room" is n - d + d((d-1/d)^n). This is about 160 matches! So in fact the FBI may be right.
Note that the chance of a given person matching _anyone_ in the database is about 0.0053%, which is much greater than 1 in 113 billion.
The FBI says that the chance of any given person matching another unrelated person is 1 in 113 billion. They claim that the reason the Arizona lab tech found as many matches as she did ("dozens") is because she was checking the whole database (6 million entries) against itself. This is a straightforward birthday paradox issue, then.
According to the Wikipedia birthday problem page, the number of collisions expected given d= 113 billion different "birthdays" and n = 6 million "people in the room" is n - d + d((d-1/d)^n). This is about 160 matches! So in fact the FBI may be right.
Note that the chance of a given person matching _anyone_ in the database is about 0.0053%, which is much greater than 1 in 113 billion.
How were the photos even relevant? A man does a bit of whistling by the graveyard (and is showing holding a can of Red Bull, which last I checked has no alcohol), and this is reason for harsher sentencing? Going to a Halloween party is sign that one is an unrepentant partier?
Oh, and to Mr. Perlin -- not everyone who drives drunk is an alcoholic. It's quite possible to do stupid things involving alcohol without being an alcoholic.
It's hard to believe that management didn't care that a single employee was the only one who knew anything about critical infrastructure, no matter whether the employee arranged things this way because he thought no-one else was good enough or because this was his was of becoming entrenched.
I find that easy to believe. Even easier to believe that they didn't know this was the case, or knew but did not understand.
According to the original article, one "Dr. Stephen Heppe" testified in writing that the GPS data supported the contention that the defendant was speeding. When he was actually in court, he testified just the opposite.
This raises a few questions
The GPS isn't logging the speed, or if it is it's as secondary, calculated data.
This is a common misconception. GPS devices calculate (and usually log) both instantaneous speed and position. The speed is calculated using the Doppler shifts to the various satellites used in the calculations, along with the known speed of the satellites. The Doppler shifts have to be accounted for to pick up the signal in the first place, so the receiver might as well use them.
However, in this case they had both tracking data AND instantaneous speeds. These should back each other up, to within some margin of error. Of course, it would be possible to create an entirely fictitious and self-consistent log... but it's also possible, and easier, to invent a speed that a radar gun displayed. I don't think the state ever asserted that the logs were faked, in this case.
Sorry, couldn't come up with the traditional car analogy, so I had to resort to sports. We (that is, those of us who may or may not be using deniable file systems) didn't need Bruce Schneier to tell us that information can leak from a mounted encrypted volume to the system volume, nor that the same is true for the existence of a deniable volume. Which doesn't mean he isn't right. Neither Windows nor Linux is intended as a secure compartmented workstation, which is the minimum you'd need to pull this off with no leaks.
Lacking such an OS, it appears the only way to maintain deniability against a sufficiently competent rubber-hose cryptanalyst is to have an entire encrypted OS. A small kernel (with very limited ability to write to anything) would arrange the decryption and booting of the OS from the encrypted volume. Further, while booted within the encrypted OS, writing to the standard volumes would be verboten, at least through normal mechanisms. The same volume-within-a-volume deniable file system would work as now, though you'd need an entire OS in the wrapper to provide deniability.
On the other hand, if you are a project manager looking for contractors, you really do need someone who is not going to spend 6 months learning the tools (not syntax, but the libraries)
No problem; I've never run into a contracting agency which wouldn't swear up and down that their people had 10 years of experience in any skill you could come up with.
This appears to be the "infinite monkeys" argument. Most companies can't afford (relatively) unlimited development resources, and adaptation takes the most scarce resource in technology development: time.
Want to save time? Hire your "Winston the Wolf" now, without concern for whether they know the technology. The time they spend getting up to speed on the technology-of-the-week will be much shorter than the time it takes you to find the ideal already-skilled-now candidate -- particularly since the latter may well be bluffing.
Obviously this doesn't apply to complex and well-established technologies; don't hire a SQL DBA who doesn't know SQL. But for the tech-of-the-week stuff, it's a different story.
Show me research, that nanomaterials are safe. Otherwise we shouldn't allow them based on speculation that they are safe.
Take your Precautionary Principle, fold it until it is all corners, and shove it where the sun don't shine. That reasoning will lead to absolutely nothing being allowed. You can't prove that something is safe. At best, you can show that a particular hazard has a fairly low chance of occurring. But there's always another possible hazard someone can think of not covered by previous research. So back to square one researching that hazard. By the time you run out of hazards, the heat death of the universe has occurred.
What if I kept a crate of Molotov cocktails and a Zippo on my front lawn? If someone else chooses to do something unpleasant with them it's not my fault...
You're quite correct. If the person who takes them and misuses them is an adult, anyway. If it's a child, attractive nuisance doctrine applies.
I used to work for the now-defunct #2 CT manufacturer. They switched to Windows too. But the article's statement of "I really begin to doubt the intelligence of engineers today whenever I encounter a medical equipment manufacturer that has made the switch to Windows from Unix" is nonsense. It certainly wasn't engineers pushing for it; it was management, over the objection of engineers. And while Windows isn't while the company went under, the same management which pushed it, is.
Are CT scanners networked? You bet they are, for good reasons. On the Internet? That's up to the hospital, not the manufacturer.
As is, China could bring the U.S. to it's knees financially just by cashing in all the bonds it bought; not exporting goods to us and kicking out U.S. businesses that outsourced their labor to China could do almost that, or serve as a finishing stroke.
You can't cash a bond before its maturity date, so that first scenario isn't exactly possible. As for the second part, that would damage the US economy severely, but destroy the Chinese one.
There's no plan, but here's what's going to happen with Social Security: 1) Pay less benefits, 2) Import more social security paying immigrants.
No need for import. Just annex Mexico. As a bonus, this will make many more people available to pick Puerto Rican coffee, which we desparately need more of.
Instead of buying a little solar panel to charge a few batteries you would be much better off replacing your lights with CFs. Putting your TV, DVD, WAP, Consoles, and other gadgets on to a power strip and turn them off at the power strip.
You're straining at gnats. As of 2001, lighting is 8.8% of total residential energy use. And those CFs have a high energy cost to make and to dispose. Television, 2.9%. VCR/DVD, 1%. Desktop computers, 1.5%. And that's TOTAL power. The standby power is a miniscule percentage of that.
Would this system not capture a large amount of radiant heat which would otherwise be reflected back into space (genuine question)?
And that, in a nutshell, is why we might as well stick to fossil fuels. No matter what the solution, environmentalists will object to it.
The answer, of course, is yes. If a plant generates 1 megawatt, and is 33% efficient, it results in 3 megawatts of heat (the megawatt generated as electricity is converted to heat eventually as well, though it may be at a distant point). Subtract from that the amount which would have otherwise been absorbed, which is roughly the 3 megawatts times the inverse of the albedo (40% for desert sand), and you get a net 1.2 megawatts of heat for each megawatt of thermal solar plant in the desert.
This isn't too bad considering that if you burn coal at the same efficiency, you get _all three_ megawatts.
There's lots of things I haven't considered here (like shadowed area not directly involved in generation) but I think it works as a first order estimate.
That would be a short term solution to the problem. If you want a long term solution, we might want to take a look at some other countries and actually stand up and be heard, loud, in person, in a large clump, outside a government building.
But the Free Speech Zone is three miles away, only holds 6, and the media won't cover it anyway.
I don't buy into this theory that everyone's going to move into urban areas because of gas prices. There are too many people, too much existing infrastructure, and too much cultural momentum behind the idea of owning your own home for people pull up their stakes and start living on top of each other in tiny apartments.
You're right, but you don't even need to invoke the cultural momentum argument. Simple supply and demand says such a return won't happen. If gas prices make urban living more desirable, prices for urban living will go up until an equilibrium is reached. It doesn't take much of a rent increase to cancel out a gas price increase.
Slashdot Mirror
The "time like that" being warm temperatures into the evening -- exactly when you want your air conditioner most.
Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie and their no-necked associates would like to have a word with you out back.
(yeah, I suck, forgot "plain old text")
The FBI says that the chance of any given person matching another unrelated person is 1 in 113 billion. They claim that the reason the Arizona lab tech found as many matches as she did ("dozens") is because she was checking the whole database (6 million entries) against itself. This is a straightforward birthday paradox issue, then.
According to the Wikipedia birthday problem page, the number of collisions expected given d= 113 billion different "birthdays" and n = 6 million "people in the room" is n - d + d((d-1/d)^n). This is about 160 matches! So in fact the FBI may be right.
Note that the chance of a given person matching _anyone_ in the database is about 0.0053%, which is much greater than 1 in 113 billion.
The FBI says that the chance of any given person matching another unrelated person is 1 in 113 billion. They claim that the reason the Arizona lab tech found as many matches as she did ("dozens") is because she was checking the whole database (6 million entries) against itself. This is a straightforward birthday paradox issue, then. According to the Wikipedia birthday problem page, the number of collisions expected given d= 113 billion different "birthdays" and n = 6 million "people in the room" is n - d + d((d-1/d)^n). This is about 160 matches! So in fact the FBI may be right. Note that the chance of a given person matching _anyone_ in the database is about 0.0053%, which is much greater than 1 in 113 billion.
How were the photos even relevant? A man does a bit of whistling by the graveyard (and is showing holding a can of Red Bull, which last I checked has no alcohol), and this is reason for harsher sentencing? Going to a Halloween party is sign that one is an unrepentant partier?
Oh, and to Mr. Perlin -- not everyone who drives drunk is an alcoholic. It's quite possible to do stupid things involving alcohol without being an alcoholic.
I find that easy to believe. Even easier to believe that they didn't know this was the case, or knew but did not understand.
This is a common misconception. GPS devices calculate (and usually log) both instantaneous speed and position. The speed is calculated using the Doppler shifts to the various satellites used in the calculations, along with the known speed of the satellites. The Doppler shifts have to be accounted for to pick up the signal in the first place, so the receiver might as well use them.
However, in this case they had both tracking data AND instantaneous speeds. These should back each other up, to within some margin of error. Of course, it would be possible to create an entirely fictitious and self-consistent log... but it's also possible, and easier, to invent a speed that a radar gun displayed. I don't think the state ever asserted that the logs were faked, in this case.
I suspect the RIAA and the MPAA are behind this.
(and no, you cannot borrow my tinfoil hat.)
Sorry, couldn't come up with the traditional car analogy, so I had to resort to sports. We (that is, those of us who may or may not be using deniable file systems) didn't need Bruce Schneier to tell us that information can leak from a mounted encrypted volume to the system volume, nor that the same is true for the existence of a deniable volume. Which doesn't mean he isn't right. Neither Windows nor Linux is intended as a secure compartmented workstation, which is the minimum you'd need to pull this off with no leaks.
Lacking such an OS, it appears the only way to maintain deniability against a sufficiently competent rubber-hose cryptanalyst is to have an entire encrypted OS. A small kernel (with very limited ability to write to anything) would arrange the decryption and booting of the OS from the encrypted volume. Further, while booted within the encrypted OS, writing to the standard volumes would be verboten, at least through normal mechanisms. The same volume-within-a-volume deniable file system would work as now, though you'd need an entire OS in the wrapper to provide deniability.
Which is, in fact, the origin of the word (though obviously it was coined from Latin roots). Look up "Defenestration of Prague".
My Zyxel Prestige 314 doesn't need to be rebooted. The only reason it doesn't have an uptime of several years is because of power failures.
No problem; I've never run into a contracting agency which wouldn't swear up and down that their people had 10 years of experience in any skill you could come up with.
Want to save time? Hire your "Winston the Wolf" now, without concern for whether they know the technology. The time they spend getting up to speed on the technology-of-the-week will be much shorter than the time it takes you to find the ideal already-skilled-now candidate -- particularly since the latter may well be bluffing.
Obviously this doesn't apply to complex and well-established technologies; don't hire a SQL DBA who doesn't know SQL. But for the tech-of-the-week stuff, it's a different story.
Take your Precautionary Principle, fold it until it is all corners, and shove it where the sun don't shine. That reasoning will lead to absolutely nothing being allowed. You can't prove that something is safe. At best, you can show that a particular hazard has a fairly low chance of occurring. But there's always another possible hazard someone can think of not covered by previous research. So back to square one researching that hazard. By the time you run out of hazards, the heat death of the universe has occurred.
You're quite correct. If the person who takes them and misuses them is an adult, anyway. If it's a child, attractive nuisance doctrine applies.
Think radiologists. They have no use whatsoever for anything to do with patient care.
I used to work for the now-defunct #2 CT manufacturer. They switched to Windows too. But the article's statement of "I really begin to doubt the intelligence of engineers today whenever I encounter a medical equipment manufacturer that has made the switch to Windows from Unix" is nonsense. It certainly wasn't engineers pushing for it; it was management, over the objection of engineers. And while Windows isn't while the company went under, the same management which pushed it, is.
Are CT scanners networked? You bet they are, for good reasons. On the Internet? That's up to the hospital, not the manufacturer.
You can't cash a bond before its maturity date, so that first scenario isn't exactly possible. As for the second part, that would damage the US economy severely, but destroy the Chinese one.
No need for import. Just annex Mexico. As a bonus, this will make many more people available to pick Puerto Rican coffee, which we desparately need more of.
You're straining at gnats. As of 2001, lighting is 8.8% of total residential energy use. And those CFs have a high energy cost to make and to dispose. Television, 2.9%. VCR/DVD, 1%. Desktop computers, 1.5%. And that's TOTAL power. The standby power is a miniscule percentage of that.
And that, in a nutshell, is why we might as well stick to fossil fuels. No matter what the solution, environmentalists will object to it.
The answer, of course, is yes. If a plant generates 1 megawatt, and is 33% efficient, it results in 3 megawatts of heat (the megawatt generated as electricity is converted to heat eventually as well, though it may be at a distant point). Subtract from that the amount which would have otherwise been absorbed, which is roughly the 3 megawatts times the inverse of the albedo (40% for desert sand), and you get a net 1.2 megawatts of heat for each megawatt of thermal solar plant in the desert.
This isn't too bad considering that if you burn coal at the same efficiency, you get _all three_ megawatts.
There's lots of things I haven't considered here (like shadowed area not directly involved in generation) but I think it works as a first order estimate.
But the Free Speech Zone is three miles away, only holds 6, and the media won't cover it anyway.
Extra points for doing it while the image is running. Double that if it's the running kernel.
You're right, but you don't even need to invoke the cultural momentum argument. Simple supply and demand says such a return won't happen. If gas prices make urban living more desirable, prices for urban living will go up until an equilibrium is reached. It doesn't take much of a rent increase to cancel out a gas price increase.
Look up the numbers. Total oil from oil crop production versus gasoline+diesel consumption.