'Ere, we din't have stannard "web palette" colors in them days, and
we din't need 'em. Layout was somethin' whispered about while walkin' ten miles uphill to the server room.
Both ways. Inna snow! An' we liked it! You kids 'ave got it easy these days! You're just havin' a laugh! Now get off my imeccibly pedicured biospheric plantation!
But, since I'm currently being forced to pay into the
bureaucratic monster, I might as well get a bit of it back. You know, getting
back some of the money that I would have had if I wasn't forced to pay these
high taxes.
That's not the point. The point is that if Ayn Rand had acted according to her philosophy, then she would have organized her finances over her lifetime so that taking handouts was not necessary. She failed or refused to do so. That means, she's either a hypocrite, or her philosophical ideas are junk. You pick.
By your definition, any new invention, in any field, is monopoly abuse. After
all, when it first appears, there is no alternative, therefore it's a
monopoly that's being abused.
Not so. An invention is not a market. Merely inventing something isn't
monopoly abuse. Once an actual market forms, then it becomes
possible. But tiny markets don't normally have any impact on the
country, so there's no reason to investigate/prosecute on behalf of
the population of the United States. Big markets that directly affect
millions of citizens are what antitrust laws are all about.
Yes, but how is that going to be useful (aside from having different
encryption for the columns)? You'll have to anticipate the usage for
the columns in your schema design, eg column 1 contains numbers that
can only be added together but not multiplied, column 2 has numbers
that can only be multiplied together but not added, etc.
One reason why full arithmetic is important is that the designer
doesn't have to know what exactly the user will want to do with the
data later on.
Sure, but you can never fully support the 4 arithmetic operations homomorphically, as
then your encryption map would be an isomorphism, ie the "encryption" would be trivial to break.
So something must always give, at best you might have a system where some operations work for
some set of numbers, but will not work for all numbers. If you don't know anything about what
the encrypted dataset contains, you won't be able to know for certain if your homomorphic calculation is
even correct.
And if you restrict to fewer than the 4 operations, your system will be severely limited.
A trillion maybe not, but certainly much, much, much, much slower than
an unencrypted calculation. If you factor in cache effects, CPU
stalls, the need to do a shitload of work just to unencrypt each value
before using it, then performing a simple arithmetic mean over the encrypted
rows of a database table could easily add up to hundreds of thousands
of wasted cycles per item, compared with doing the same calculation on an
unencrypted chunk of memory.
There's just no question about it. It's going to be dog slow any way you look at it.
That's funny. I just heard a slightly different story on talk radio -
Kim Jong Il was found dead at NORTH KOREA UNDERGROUND MEGALAIR
this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in
the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his
work, there's no denying his contributions to SUPER POWER WORLD DEATHMATCH BONUS ROUND 4. Truly a NORTH KOREA icon.
You're absolutely right, up to a small detail. There's no reason that Google
needs to make robot/scripting friendly systems available for DMCA claimants.
Google itself should certainly have an automated system on its end for dealing with the incoming DMCA claims, but the system for reporting an allegedly infringing video should NOT be script or robot friendly. There should be no API for mass reporting ever, no login with predefined preferences, each claim should have its own individual CAPTCHA and there should be an enforced delay of a minute between claims from the same IP address, etc.
Basically, the system should make sure that only a person can submit claims, and that each claim was submitted separately, and no bulk claiming can occur.
The DMCA is a serious business, and those who submit a claim should be inconvenienced in proportion to the gravity of the damage they can do.
That's not so bad. I think the biggest problem will be the language
barrier. Texans have a peculiar version of English that could potentially
lead to millions of dollars wasted when the managers in Cupertino try to
communicate exactly what they want over the phone...
There is saying the the US should remove Saddam, and then there is the method
to go about it.
Iraq wasn't invaded overnight. It took years of beating the drums of war, and more years
of botched "rebuilding" to arrive at today. Hitchens was right in the middle of it, championing
Bush and Blair's crap in a high profile and sustained media campaign to drown out the naysayers.
He was not a fan of Bush's method.
To claim that he didn't approve of the method is revisionist
claptrap. His position was do something at any cost, and deal with the
consequences later. That's implied approval. Ask most people today and they'll *all* tell you they
didn't approve of how Bush handled it. But go back to the archived internet forums
starting with 2002 and you'll see a very different picture.
And he didn't misrepresent any intelligence.
He certainly did. He claimed the received intelligence was true, without a shred of
supporting evidence. Just because it came from the US and UK. That's misrepresentation.
When you don't have
the facts, you simply can't claim you know what's going on. Belief
isn't proof.
And his opinion can't really be called propagandist.
It certainly can. He was an important part of the Bush/Blair media propaganda campaign,
as were other willing journalists and mainstream newspapers.
Your argument needs to be balance against what the regime was doing at the
time... not that you actual think about your argument.
And there we have the crux of it. Even after years of lies being
exposed, the jingoist argument comes down to "yeah, it was all lies,
but the lies were still true and it was the right thing to do!"
There's no logical argument against that kind of moral superiority.
You clearly don't understand the point of the puzzle. There's a fundamental difference between "knowing" (suspecting) that something is true, and knowing thateveryone knows that something is true, and knowing that everyone knows that everyone knows that something is true, etc.
Think about how stable the system in the puzzle is before the stranger arrives, and after the stranger arrives.
Except for the People. Let's make sure the People know, and things will unravel. Here's a well known puzzle to illustrate the point:
In a certain matriarchal town, the women all believe in an old
prophecy that says there will come a time when a stranger will visit
the town and announce whether any of the menfolk are cheating on their
wives. The stranger will simply say "yes" or "no", without announcing
the number of men implicated or their identities. If the stranger
arrives and makes his announcement, the women know that they must
follow a particular rule: If on any day following the stranger's
announcement a woman deduces that her husband is not faithful to her,
she must kick him out into the street at 10am the next day. This
action is immediately observable by every resident in the town. It is
well known that each wife is already observant enough to know whether
any man (except her own husband) is cheating on his wife. However, no
woman can reveal that information to any other. A cheating husband is
also assumed to remain silent about his infidelity.
The time
comes, and a stranger arrives. He announces that there are cheating
men in the town. On the morning of the tenth day following the
stranger's arrival, some unfaithful men are kicked out into the street for the first time.
Being captured is not a problem, in fact it is a lobbying positive
since it means that the Military Industrial Complex now needs more
money to carve out a technological lead. The worst thing that can
happen from a funding perspective is that the US military is
perceived as so far ahead that it can't be technically challenged.
I find this attitude so ignorant. How does a company instantly delete backups on redundant servers? How do they delete
redundant hard copies kept in closets separated by meatspace? Furthermore, if you upload something to Facebook, and someone
ELSE downloads it and saves it to a CD, and you delete it off facebook, should THEY be forced to magically know you deleted
it, and delete their copy as well? Does Google have to delete their caches of your facebook page? Or maybe you are saying
that Facebook, Google, etc should never make backups?
I find that comment very naive. All you're saying is that the existing average backup procedures at most companies are extremely basic, all or nothing, with no organization of the data to speak of. So what? Privacy is an important problem, and deserves the development of more sophisticated backup systems. Especially in the case of a company like Facebook or Google.
What the OP is objviously suggesting is that companies should design more intelligent backup systems that take into account the current status
of their customers at all times. If a customer leaves, then this should trigger an immediate clearout order of all their information from the backup system as well as the main system. Obviously, that means backups should be organized so that all the data for a customer is easily grouped and removed at a moment's notice. It's not rocket science, just database theory.
Experimenter: Ghastly, isn't it? All the doors on this experiment have been programmed
to have a cheery and sunny disposition. Now, how many objects in your backpack?
Slashdot Mirror
'Ere, we din't have stannard "web palette" colors in them days, and we din't need 'em. Layout was somethin' whispered about while walkin' ten miles uphill to the server room. Both ways. Inna snow! An' we liked it! You kids 'ave got it easy these days! You're just havin' a laugh! Now get off my imeccibly pedicured biospheric plantation!
Exactly. It's what Google's competitors do!
That's not the point. The point is that if Ayn Rand had acted according to her philosophy, then she would have organized her finances over her lifetime so that taking handouts was not necessary. She failed or refused to do so. That means, she's either a hypocrite, or her philosophical ideas are junk. You pick.
Not so. An invention is not a market. Merely inventing something isn't monopoly abuse. Once an actual market forms, then it becomes possible. But tiny markets don't normally have any impact on the country, so there's no reason to investigate/prosecute on behalf of the population of the United States. Big markets that directly affect millions of citizens are what antitrust laws are all about.
That's ok. If he didn't mean it like that, maybe Eric Schmidt shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
One reason why full arithmetic is important is that the designer doesn't have to know what exactly the user will want to do with the data later on.
(*) there's never any proof of course, but it's fascinating.
So something must always give, at best you might have a system where some operations work for some set of numbers, but will not work for all numbers. If you don't know anything about what the encrypted dataset contains, you won't be able to know for certain if your homomorphic calculation is even correct. And if you restrict to fewer than the 4 operations, your system will be severely limited.
There's just no question about it. It's going to be dog slow any way you look at it.
That headline is terrible. How about "Man Zuckerbergs himself while getting Zuckerberged" ?
It's not lying when you type in your age in dog years. You..... speciesist!
No need. There's an app for that.
Google itself should certainly have an automated system on its end for dealing with the incoming DMCA claims, but the system for reporting an allegedly infringing video should NOT be script or robot friendly. There should be no API for mass reporting ever, no login with predefined preferences, each claim should have its own individual CAPTCHA and there should be an enforced delay of a minute between claims from the same IP address, etc.
Basically, the system should make sure that only a person can submit claims, and that each claim was submitted separately, and no bulk claiming can occur.
The DMCA is a serious business, and those who submit a claim should be inconvenienced in proportion to the gravity of the damage they can do.
That's not so bad. I think the biggest problem will be the language barrier. Texans have a peculiar version of English that could potentially lead to millions of dollars wasted when the managers in Cupertino try to communicate exactly what they want over the phone...
Iraq wasn't invaded overnight. It took years of beating the drums of war, and more years of botched "rebuilding" to arrive at today. Hitchens was right in the middle of it, championing Bush and Blair's crap in a high profile and sustained media campaign to drown out the naysayers.
To claim that he didn't approve of the method is revisionist claptrap. His position was do something at any cost, and deal with the consequences later. That's implied approval. Ask most people today and they'll *all* tell you they didn't approve of how Bush handled it. But go back to the archived internet forums starting with 2002 and you'll see a very different picture.
He certainly did. He claimed the received intelligence was true, without a shred of supporting evidence. Just because it came from the US and UK. That's misrepresentation. When you don't have the facts, you simply can't claim you know what's going on. Belief isn't proof.
It certainly can. He was an important part of the Bush/Blair media propaganda campaign, as were other willing journalists and mainstream newspapers.
And there we have the crux of it. Even after years of lies being exposed, the jingoist argument comes down to "yeah, it was all lies, but the lies were still true and it was the right thing to do!"
There's no logical argument against that kind of moral superiority.
Let's do the experiment, shall we?
*Lights match*
*sticks flaming match into business end of pellet gun*
*phew*phew*phew*phew*phew*
Damn! The @#&!#*^ match got blown out again!
*Lights match*
It's rot32 encrypted.
*twice*.
'Cause it's the only way to be sure...
Think about how stable the system in the puzzle is before the stranger arrives, and after the stranger arrives.
In a certain matriarchal town, the women all believe in an old prophecy that says there will come a time when a stranger will visit the town and announce whether any of the menfolk are cheating on their wives. The stranger will simply say "yes" or "no", without announcing the number of men implicated or their identities. If the stranger arrives and makes his announcement, the women know that they must follow a particular rule: If on any day following the stranger's announcement a woman deduces that her husband is not faithful to her, she must kick him out into the street at 10am the next day. This action is immediately observable by every resident in the town. It is well known that each wife is already observant enough to know whether any man (except her own husband) is cheating on his wife. However, no woman can reveal that information to any other. A cheating husband is also assumed to remain silent about his infidelity.
The time comes, and a stranger arrives. He announces that there are cheating men in the town. On the morning of the tenth day following the stranger's arrival, some unfaithful men are kicked out into the street for the first time.
Question: How many of them are there?
Being captured is not a problem, in fact it is a lobbying positive since it means that the Military Industrial Complex now needs more money to carve out a technological lead. The worst thing that can happen from a funding perspective is that the US military is perceived as so far ahead that it can't be technically challenged.
Thank you! I was going to mention that. Bloody whippersnappers with their DLLs and SOs these days! 64 bit? 64 bit? They can't HANDLE 64 bit!
Depends. If it's a recursive template metaprogramming style 'Hello World' program, it might :)
I find that comment very naive. All you're saying is that the existing average backup procedures at most companies are extremely basic, all or nothing, with no organization of the data to speak of. So what? Privacy is an important problem, and deserves the development of more sophisticated backup systems. Especially in the case of a company like Facebook or Google.
What the OP is objviously suggesting is that companies should design more intelligent backup systems that take into account the current status of their customers at all times. If a customer leaves, then this should trigger an immediate clearout order of all their information from the backup system as well as the main system. Obviously, that means backups should be organized so that all the data for a customer is easily grouped and removed at a moment's notice. It's not rocket science, just database theory.
Subject: I think that door just sighed.
Experimenter: Ghastly, isn't it? All the doors on this experiment have been programmed to have a cheery and sunny disposition. Now, how many objects in your backpack?
Subject: Uh, really? That's, uh ... I'm sorry, what? Ah, I forget... what?
Experimenter: *scribbles on clibpoard*