And how well did interfering with an FBI investigation work for the CURRENT president?
Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but I'm not playing the cagey-question-lilypad game with you. if you have an affirmative point you'd like to make, I'll be happy to discuss.
It'll be interesting to see what the conclusion will be now that there's no longer a predetermined conclusion. The odds that a Democratic administration was going to bring charges against the Democratic nominee for president were statistically zero.
It seemed to me that there were more good shows when I had 3 channels, than there are now with 3000.
Absolutely agree. But having no point of reference, kids will cheerfully keep playing (and replaying) whatever swill is on until you forcibly scrape their eyes off the screen.
So what does the child do once the homework is done but the meter is still refilling?
Well, since the only two meaningful things that children can possibly do outside of school hours are homework and staring at a phone or tablet, the only real choice they have is to sit facing the wall until they go to bed, still crying their eyes out from all the opportunities their parents robbed from them to grow up in a myopic virtual universe and ignore the real one around them.
We were sold on the idea of a Heinz 57 basket of virtual currencies because it's supposedly beneficial for them to be distinct from each other, and now suddenly it's supposed to be beneficial for them to somehow magically morph into each other (which would require, I gather, some level of inherent trust between those competing systems, mutual fraud protection mechanisms, etc.)? Got it.
IMO, this is just the latest example of a bunch of too-smart-by-half tech heads sitting around coming up with a series of poorly planned ad-hoc ideas and finding bubble-seeking investors to throw cash at it. The emperor has no clothes.
Relative wealth probably accounts for lack of total penetration even with this particular story.
Or parents who have drawn a line in the sand. Making my kids borrow one of our devices to watch videos, play games, etc., makes for a much more manageable metering mechanism than them having random access to their own.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a generation or two back the typical lineup on broadcast TV wasn't nearly as conducive to 24x7 consumption by kids.
Data is a bit like wheat, it doesn't give up its curvature easily. Too much applied force creates heat and destroys the end product. The applied force must have exactly the right ratio of compressive to shear stress, which only an expert miller can judge.
Deep, dude... deep. Have you considered writing Slashdot summaries?
They're not. Maybe you should consider actually looking at the patents at issue (here, here, and here) rather than just relying on the sadly oversimplified summary. Some level of understanding of how design patents work might help as well.
I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented? I guess they must not have solved any crimes at all?
More things were written down on paper or communicated over the phone, for starters. Now it's both easy and practical to have a system where any potentially incriminating information can be entered directly into an encrypted ecosystem wherever you happen to be.
Singapore has tightly controlled car volumes for decades in no small part by its utterly oppressive tax scheme. Cars have long been just a luxury for the upper class, and the overall number of vehicles on the island had already been falling across all vehicle categories anyway. This completely theoretical reduction of a non-existent growth rate from 0.25% to zero is on a population of less than a million vehicles (so less than 2.5k/year), and they're going to reevaluate the "reduction" in less than 3 years. I don't see how this changes much if anything in the real world.
This is a really weird response in the midst of a raft of comments castigating the casinos and betting houses for taking whatever measures necessary to keep their intended margins. For them it's "cheating" and for you it's... ?
Online bookmakers have very tight profit margins, so some offer generous odds for very short periods of time on certain matches to lure automated or expert betting systems out into the open, says economist David Forrest at the University of Liverpool, UK. “They will try to trap the robots,” he says. “Anyone who responds has their account closed.”
Some of the researchers’ accounts may have fallen foul of this system. In some cases they found they could not bet at all after signing up with certain bookies. If so, then this suggests their technique really was finding the best odds out there. But the house still always wins in the end.
I didn't have a C64 but I do have extensive experience (and published programs in the type-in magazines of the era) with a similar 8-bit computer, the Atari 800.
Same here.
So it's conceivable that the original poster may be referring to a similar technique on the C64 that prevents straightforward modification of the program source.
That's not what he said -- he said he prevented the BASIC program from altering its own data. That's an entirely different issue.
It seems plausible that you could conceivably find the proper memory location storing the current score (surely only a single byte), change the value with POKE, then esume execution with a "RUN xxx"
He didn't say "RUN xxx" -- he said he "typed in 'run'."
I think you're trying too hard to try to fix his fanciful story.
So we ended up with the lose-lose of banning DDT and still ending up with the outcome she predicted
Umm, no we didn't. Neonicotinoids are almost certainly the cause of this
Looks like I was a bit too subtle. We banned DDT but then created a bunch of replacements that still ended up wiping out the lowest layer of the ecosystem, which if this study is even remotely close to accurate will now shortly end up working its way up the food chain. Birds still eat bugs, last I checked.
I would invite Slashdot readers to check out the sources I have cited in this thread and decide for themselves.
I have not a shred of doubt you would rather not have to actually quote the language from your sources you think proves your point. Going through that exercise (or trying to, anyway) would prove you to be the disingenuous troll you are.
Ironic, isn't it, that in the midst of a discussion about fraudulent information sources you choose to hang your hat on one and then bend over backwards trying to cover it up?
Here are some that do not reference the buzzfeed article.
Did you even read those articles you linked? The second link absolutely does cite the Buzzfeed article -- and only that. The first link just cites the second link. And the third link doesn't say a word about the sign or claim that Posobeic held it up.
There is literally no source that would satisfy you, is there?
Indeed there is -- one that (a) actually states your claim; and (b) doesn't ultimately link back to a single article based on an anonymous source. That's the target, and it hasn't moved. It's not my fault you don't have a source like that.
It is your fault, however, that you're playing dumb about getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Slashdot Mirror
And how well did interfering with an FBI investigation work for the CURRENT president?
Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but I'm not playing the cagey-question-lilypad game with you. if you have an affirmative point you'd like to make, I'll be happy to discuss.
How exactly would a Democratic administration without control of the house or senate prevent it?
Last I checked, both the FBI and DOJ are under the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch.
It'll be interesting to see what the conclusion will be now that there's no longer a predetermined conclusion. The odds that a Democratic administration was going to bring charges against the Democratic nominee for president were statistically zero.
It seemed to me that there were more good shows when I had 3 channels, than there are now with 3000.
Absolutely agree. But having no point of reference, kids will cheerfully keep playing (and replaying) whatever swill is on until you forcibly scrape their eyes off the screen.
So what does the child do once the homework is done but the meter is still refilling?
Well, since the only two meaningful things that children can possibly do outside of school hours are homework and staring at a phone or tablet, the only real choice they have is to sit facing the wall until they go to bed, still crying their eyes out from all the opportunities their parents robbed from them to grow up in a myopic virtual universe and ignore the real one around them.
TL;DR: I really hope you were joking.
We were sold on the idea of a Heinz 57 basket of virtual currencies because it's supposedly beneficial for them to be distinct from each other, and now suddenly it's supposed to be beneficial for them to somehow magically morph into each other (which would require, I gather, some level of inherent trust between those competing systems, mutual fraud protection mechanisms, etc.)? Got it.
IMO, this is just the latest example of a bunch of too-smart-by-half tech heads sitting around coming up with a series of poorly planned ad-hoc ideas and finding bubble-seeking investors to throw cash at it. The emperor has no clothes.
Relative wealth probably accounts for lack of total penetration even with this particular story.
Or parents who have drawn a line in the sand. Making my kids borrow one of our devices to watch videos, play games, etc., makes for a much more manageable metering mechanism than them having random access to their own.
No you didn't, you watched tv.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a generation or two back the typical lineup on broadcast TV wasn't nearly as conducive to 24x7 consumption by kids.
the title is pretty misleading
You must be new here.
Data is a bit like wheat, it doesn't give up its curvature easily. Too much applied force creates heat and destroys the end product. The applied force must have exactly the right ratio of compressive to shear stress, which only an expert miller can judge.
Deep, dude... deep. Have you considered writing Slashdot summaries?
They're not. Maybe you should consider actually looking at the patents at issue (here, here, and here) rather than just relying on the sadly oversimplified summary. Some level of understanding of how design patents work might help as well.
1192 are far too many
There are well less than 200 physical currencies in the world. We're going backwards.
I wonder how the FBI scored prosecutions before mobile devices were invented? I guess they must not have solved any crimes at all?
More things were written down on paper or communicated over the phone, for starters. Now it's both easy and practical to have a system where any potentially incriminating information can be entered directly into an encrypted ecosystem wherever you happen to be.
Singapore has tightly controlled car volumes for decades in no small part by its utterly oppressive tax scheme. Cars have long been just a luxury for the upper class, and the overall number of vehicles on the island had already been falling across all vehicle categories anyway. This completely theoretical reduction of a non-existent growth rate from 0.25% to zero is on a population of less than a million vehicles (so less than 2.5k/year), and they're going to reevaluate the "reduction" in less than 3 years. I don't see how this changes much if anything in the real world.
This is a really weird response in the midst of a raft of comments castigating the casinos and betting houses for taking whatever measures necessary to keep their intended margins. For them it's "cheating" and for you it's... ?
Or did you do your research by reading Clinton Cash?
Of course not. I much prefer just to take the word of random ACs on Slashdot who don't cite a single source.
From TFA:
Online bookmakers have very tight profit margins, so some offer generous odds for very short periods of time on certain matches to lure automated or expert betting systems out into the open, says economist David Forrest at the University of Liverpool, UK. “They will try to trap the robots,” he says. “Anyone who responds has their account closed.”
Some of the researchers’ accounts may have fallen foul of this system. In some cases they found they could not bet at all after signing up with certain bookies. If so, then this suggests their technique really was finding the best odds out there. But the house still always wins in the end.
I didn't have a C64 but I do have extensive experience (and published programs in the type-in magazines of the era) with a similar 8-bit computer, the Atari 800.
Same here.
So it's conceivable that the original poster may be referring to a similar technique on the C64 that prevents straightforward modification of the program source.
That's not what he said -- he said he prevented the BASIC program from altering its own data. That's an entirely different issue.
It seems plausible that you could conceivably find the proper memory location storing the current score (surely only a single byte), change the value with POKE, then esume execution with a "RUN xxx"
He didn't say "RUN xxx" -- he said he "typed in 'run'."
I think you're trying too hard to try to fix his fanciful story.
I was right there with you until this part:
Well, in commodores you could lock the execution memory from any change.
Plausibility went rapidly downhill from there.
Oh wait....
Looks like I was a bit too subtle. We banned DDT but then created a bunch of replacements that still ended up wiping out the lowest layer of the ecosystem, which if this study is even remotely close to accurate will now shortly end up working its way up the food chain. Birds still eat bugs, last I checked.
I would invite Slashdot readers to check out the sources I have cited in this thread and decide for themselves.
I have not a shred of doubt you would rather not have to actually quote the language from your sources you think proves your point. Going through that exercise (or trying to, anyway) would prove you to be the disingenuous troll you are.
Ironic, isn't it, that in the midst of a discussion about fraudulent information sources you choose to hang your hat on one and then bend over backwards trying to cover it up?
So we ended up with the lose-lose of banning DDT and still ending up with the outcome she predicted.
Now what?
They created a model, then tried to validate it with research.
I confess that made me chuckle. Sure glad we're not currently trying to change the entire global economy over anything like that.
Here are some that do not reference the buzzfeed article.
Did you even read those articles you linked? The second link absolutely does cite the Buzzfeed article -- and only that. The first link just cites the second link. And the third link doesn't say a word about the sign or claim that Posobeic held it up.
There is literally no source that would satisfy you, is there?
Indeed there is -- one that (a) actually states your claim; and (b) doesn't ultimately link back to a single article based on an anonymous source. That's the target, and it hasn't moved. It's not my fault you don't have a source like that.
It is your fault, however, that you're playing dumb about getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.