Hedy Lamarr -- Frequency hopping and spread spectrum
Agnes Meyer Driscoll -- developed the "Communications Machine" or "CM", the standard cypher machine used by the U.S. Navy for a time; she also broke JN-25, the post Perl Harbor Japanese fleet operational code.
Elizebeth Friedman -- sometimes credited as the first female American codebreaker -- broke a Mandarin Chinese code used in the opium trade, as well as a number of codes used by bootleggers in the prohibition era, and went on to design some of the security measuers still in place at the IMF (International Monetary Fund).
Maureen Baginski -- Signals Intelligence Director during the 2011 attacks on the U.S.; worked at the NSA
Mary "Polly" Budenbach -- directed the NSA's "Technical Consultants organization.
Wilma Davis -- mathematician who broke Italian diplomatic codes in the 1930's, Japanese Army code messages in WWII, worked on the Chinese team for a while, and then moved on to "Venoa", a covert group tasked with breaking Soviet messages.
Minnie Kenny -- Directed the National Cryptologic School for the DoD and NSA; if you think the fact of her genetalia is significant (you shouldn't), you will also be surprised that she was black.
Ann Caracristi -- one of the people responsible for applying the (then new) computational technology to signals intelligence within the NSA; established the first laboratory for doing so.
Genevieve Grotjan Feinstein -- worked with the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) as a cryptanalyst reading Japanese diplomatic messages; make the breakthrough that resulted in the creation of an analog computer to read the Japanese "Purple" code.
Joan Daemen -- Rijndael
Shafi Goldwasser -- zero knowledge proofs used in asymmetric key algorithms...
That's doing about 5 minutes worth of looking, and omitting about half of what I found.
Having the overall.NET framework available and all is nice, but you need a lot more than that in order to make a functional cross-platform program. The other components are under the license I originally referenced. Specifically, it's pretty useless without things like the Microsoft HTTP Client Libraries, Microsoft.Bcl.Compression, Microsoft BCL Portability Pack, Microsoft Async, Microsoft BCL Build Components,
In general, this is about as useful as having a C compiler without a libc.
Also, having something available as source, doesn't magically port it to your platform.
When Microsoft open sourced.NET, they did so under an MIT licence.
I have no idea what you are smoking... here is the.NET library license, and it's *DEFINITELY NOT* the MIT license, and it's *definitely* incompatible with the GPLv2 and GPLv3:
Call me when the train can take the next left. Until then, trains can kind of go screw themselves for everything by dense urban people movement, in areas where you don't have to buy up insanely expensive real estate to lay down new tracks. This is not a socialist utopia, as in Sim City, where you can tear down a stadium because Skywatch One is reporting heavy traffic, in order to improve traffic flow.
Especially in the event that there is some probability effect that the gunner is able to take advantage from, which a computer can not; for example: the gunner may be a main character, in which case, they can't die, which means if a preternatural aim is necessary to their survival, they will of necessity have a preternatural aim. But there's actually no reason to step past the fourth wall in this case, if we posit psychic capabilities, or very long distances relative to the speed of light vs. the speed of the craft: you will need to shoot where the enemy will be when the weapon passes through their location, rather than where the enemy currently is, and you can't depend on them to not be taking bridge-lurching evasive maneuvers.
(2) Science officers with Ph.D. levels of expertise in dozens of fields.
This isn't that unbelievable, although most of the people I know in the "science officer" range tend to be struggling somewhere early in their second dozen...
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and at -240 degrees Celcius, that means Pluto.”
If it were possible, I would program my A/C to raise (or the furnace to lower) the thermostat by a degree or two when rates are high, and to lock out the washer and dryer and dishwasher until rates fall, and likewise lower the water heater temperature slightly. Maybe even program the lights to dim and the computers to go into power saving mode. What's so controversial about that?
You're holding it wrong...
Program your Tesla PowerWall(tm) to charge from the grid when the rates are low, and then feed the electricity back into the grid when rates are high.
Alternately, program it to charge from the grid when rates are low, and then operate your household off the grid when rates are low, and off the PowerWall(tm) instead of the grid when rates are high, until rates go back down.
In other words: game the power company the same way the power company wants to game you.
If you can prevent yourself from reacting emotionally to it (which with dead bodies, grieving families, and the injustice, is quite understandable) you realize that in any other context, the word "mass" or "massive" is used to describe a quantity much larger than 14.
A meteorite weighing a massive number of kilograms, caused the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That, and ignorance of the legal definition of a mass murder (3 or more bodies) are the only reasons anyone would question the use of that word.
Except that the legal definition was changed in 2015 to facilitate throwing the book at people who killed in smaller numbers.
(2) Find an adorable blond little girl or baby who was horribly burned and scarred (living is required, as that means they can appear on camera a lot), preferrably on one side, so you can pan around from the "isn't she cute" to the "OMG!" side at any photo op, on 20/20, on 60 Minutes, and so on
(3) Get the parents to sue the shit out of the company that made whatever product was the culprit in the fire for not including your safety device (doesn't matter if it wasn't invented at the time)
(4) Get it written into the regulations that your device is required
By your logic I could shoot a single morbidly obese person at sea level and be labelled a mass shooter, or shoot 50 people in Low-earth orbit and potentially not be. Or did you mean by total mass? Then again that becomes dangerously tautological.
I was attempting irony.
If 3 people equals a mass, then any time 3 people show up at a zoning meeting to complain about a proposed speed bump on a street where they commute to work, that's a "mass protest", and the Supreme Court has ruled that you can relegate any "mass protest" to a "free speech zone", meaning "not the zoning hearing".
So if we accept this definition of a "mass", then we can easily suppress any dissent over any public policy whatsoever, simply by declaring any opposition by three or more people something that should take place in a "free speech zone" for the duration of the "protest", and relegate them to the boiler room in the subbasement while we decide whatever the hell we want to decide, and no one says anything when we ask "Is there any opposition to this going through?", because they're all in the boiler room, and don't get to hear or answer the question.
So it's kind of annoying that we tend to inflate things out of all proportion for political purposes.
Hence my use of irony to draw attention to the stupidity of doing so.
On one side, we have Smart Meters, which are evil, and intended to provide differential rates do that the electric utility can pay you less for the solar you generate than the non-solar you consume, so they get paid the same amount, as when you didn't have solar, and it saves their antique business model...
On the other side, it's a patent troll, engaging in rent seeking on something they pobably acquired in a bankruptcy, and who produces nothing useful to society at all, and is just a drag on innovation in general...
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled to be ineligible for carry permits, there is a significant chance that looser carry policies might have resulted in a different outcome.
I would expect that the firearms might not be carried within such a facility, in the same way I'd expect them to not be carried in other facilities with people who have cognitive deficits, such as mental institutions.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
In an enclosed space, range is not a significant discriminator, the ability to direct fire is. Yes, rate of fire does matter, but your claim that longer range wins out is incorrect.
There's "range", "effective range", "accuracy", and "combat accuracy".
Most police firefights with handguns take place within the effective range of the police handgun -- yet most bullets end up missing the suspect. Similarly, if the suspect is firing back, most of their bullets end up missing the officer.
This is the difference between "effective range" and "combat accuracy". The effective range of a weapon is determined by the ability to hit a stationary target on a firing range with a high degree of accuracy. It's not moving, it's not shooting back, and it's not likely to be shooting back. The combat accuracy is a combination of both the shooter and the effective range, and is much much shorter -- on the order of a few meters.
In this case, a long gun enables much better accuracy than a handgun, and we have to presume that the distance from the shooters to the victims was likely more than a few meters, to allow the use of a long barrel weapon in the first place (long weapons are less accurate in short range firefights, due to carry, travel, and inertia of the barrel of the weapon itself -- the same things that make them more accurate over distances short of sniper distance).
Additionally, the reports have the victims being centrally massed, and the general reaction of humans (as with most animals) is increased clumping in the presence of danger; if you are firing from outside the clump, at a remove of several meters or more, it's hard not to hit something.
This seems like uSoft trying to have their cake and eat it to.
THIS.
Trade secrets, once disclosed, are no longer secret. If your idea does not merit patent protection, then use a trade secret as long as it holds -- but no longer. If your idea merits patent protection patent it -- *and disclose it*, in exchange for federal protection *for a limited time*.
Do *NOT* under any circumstances, make legal changes to allow trade secrets to become the moral equivalent of a patent in perpetuity.
I've thought about this many times myself over the years. At worst, it seems to be bait-and-switch.
You're right, it's bait-and-switch.
There's a similar bait-and-switch that happens with the terms "use" and "utilize".
If you are a layman, the terms are the same: "I am utilizing Microsoft Word to make a brochure"/"I am using Microsoft Word for my business cards".
For a software engineer, the distinction is important, when referring to source code: "I am utilizing emacs to take a portion of the source code of emacs and use it in a derivative work".
And no, this is not accidental. It's amazing how many people apply the GPL to their code, without the understanding that the GPL is an instrumentality of a political agenda, and thus have never read "The GNU Manifesto" to understand the emergent properties that the GPL is designed to cause to come to fruition from its use.
Australia used to have the same problem, but a conservative government managed to introduce gun restricts at the cost of the next election, and gun violence and accidents dropped sharply.
Are we certain that the gun violence didn't drop, merely because the conservative government had lost power, and therefore there was less motivation for violence? In other words, could they have just peacefully turned over power, and avoided the violence in the first place?
No, it's another reason to relax gun laws. Making it easier for non-criminals to own and carry firearms would make the country a safer place.
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
So in this specific instance, relaxed gun laws would have had zero effect.
Which is perhaps the point of the attack.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
Or perhaps the point is that it's ridiculous to ban so-called "assault weapons" just because they look more dangerous, like red cards look faster, and therefore get stopped more often for speeding tickets.
Or perhaps there was no point to the attack... which would be impossible for some to accept, I know: many people have a deep need to blame something or someone other than the perpetrator.
Good luck on buying that "conflict lithium" from countries in the middle of a civil war, thereby providing funding for atrocities in exchange for the warlords giving you the lithium.
Slashdot Mirror
Hedy Lamarr -- Frequency hopping and spread spectrum
Agnes Meyer Driscoll -- developed the "Communications Machine" or "CM", the standard cypher machine used by the U.S. Navy for a time; she also broke JN-25, the post Perl Harbor Japanese fleet operational code.
Elizebeth Friedman -- sometimes credited as the first female American codebreaker -- broke a Mandarin Chinese code used in the opium trade, as well as a number of codes used by bootleggers in the prohibition era, and went on to design some of the security measuers still in place at the IMF (International Monetary Fund).
Maureen Baginski -- Signals Intelligence Director during the 2011 attacks on the U.S.; worked at the NSA
Mary "Polly" Budenbach -- directed the NSA's "Technical Consultants organization.
Wilma Davis -- mathematician who broke Italian diplomatic codes in the 1930's, Japanese Army code messages in WWII, worked on the Chinese team for a while, and then moved on to "Venoa", a covert group tasked with breaking Soviet messages.
Minnie Kenny -- Directed the National Cryptologic School for the DoD and NSA; if you think the fact of her genetalia is significant (you shouldn't), you will also be surprised that she was black.
Ann Caracristi -- one of the people responsible for applying the (then new) computational technology to signals intelligence within the NSA; established the first laboratory for doing so.
Genevieve Grotjan Feinstein -- worked with the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) as a cryptanalyst reading Japanese diplomatic messages; make the breakthrough that resulted in the creation of an analog computer to read the Japanese "Purple" code.
Joan Daemen -- Rijndael
Shafi Goldwasser -- zero knowledge proofs used in asymmetric key algorithms ...
That's doing about 5 minutes worth of looking, and omitting about half of what I found.
You are aware that you need more than just that?
Having the overall .NET framework available and all is nice, but you need a lot more than that in order to make a functional cross-platform program. The other components are under the license I originally referenced. Specifically, it's pretty useless without things like the Microsoft HTTP Client Libraries, Microsoft.Bcl.Compression, Microsoft BCL Portability Pack, Microsoft Async, Microsoft BCL Build Components,
In general, this is about as useful as having a C compiler without a libc.
Also, having something available as source, doesn't magically port it to your platform.
Fixed that headline for you...
"Porsche Is Building a car which it hopes will be a Tesla Competitor"
When Microsoft open sourced .NET, they did so under an MIT licence.
I have no idea what you are smoking... here is the .NET library license, and it's *DEFINITELY NOT* the MIT license, and it's *definitely* incompatible with the GPLv2 and GPLv3:
http://www.microsoft.com/net/d...
"movement capacity is only half that of a train"
Call me when the train can take the next left. Until then, trains can kind of go screw themselves for everything by dense urban people movement, in areas where you don't have to buy up insanely expensive real estate to lay down new tracks. This is not a socialist utopia, as in Sim City, where you can tear down a stadium because Skywatch One is reporting heavy traffic, in order to improve traffic flow.
Two of those actually seem reasonable...
(1) The manually aimed weapons.
Especially in the event that there is some probability effect that the gunner is able to take advantage from, which a computer can not; for example: the gunner may be a main character, in which case, they can't die, which means if a preternatural aim is necessary to their survival, they will of necessity have a preternatural aim. But there's actually no reason to step past the fourth wall in this case, if we posit psychic capabilities, or very long distances relative to the speed of light vs. the speed of the craft: you will need to shoot where the enemy will be when the weapon passes through their location, rather than where the enemy currently is, and you can't depend on them to not be taking bridge-lurching evasive maneuvers.
(2) Science officers with Ph.D. levels of expertise in dozens of fields.
This isn't that unbelievable, although most of the people I know in the "science officer" range tend to be struggling somewhere early in their second dozen...
“In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and at -240 degrees Celcius, that means Pluto.”
Anyone else see the Hobbit door at 0:31?
Just wondering...
any out-of-State firearm must also be registered with the State.
California tried that with cars, with regard to pollution controls.
They lost in Federal court, since it's an attempt by a state to regulate interstate commerce, which is a violation of the commerce clause.
If it's currently "illegal in California", it's only because California has passed another unconstitutional law, and it has yet to be tested on court.
If it were possible, I would program my A/C to raise (or the furnace to lower) the thermostat by a degree or two when rates are high, and to lock out the washer and dryer and dishwasher until rates fall, and likewise lower the water heater temperature slightly. Maybe even program the lights to dim and the computers to go into power saving mode. What's so controversial about that?
You're holding it wrong...
Program your Tesla PowerWall(tm) to charge from the grid when the rates are low, and then feed the electricity back into the grid when rates are high.
Alternately, program it to charge from the grid when rates are low, and then operate your household off the grid when rates are low, and off the PowerWall(tm) instead of the grid when rates are high, until rates go back down.
In other words: game the power company the same way the power company wants to game you.
If you can prevent yourself from reacting emotionally to it (which with dead bodies, grieving families, and the injustice, is quite understandable) you realize that in any other context, the word "mass" or "massive" is used to describe a quantity much larger than 14.
A meteorite weighing a massive number of kilograms, caused the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs.
That, and ignorance of the legal definition of a mass murder (3 or more bodies) are the only reasons anyone would question the use of that word.
Except that the legal definition was changed in 2015 to facilitate throwing the book at people who killed in smaller numbers.
Five steps will do you.
(1) Get a patent
(2) Find an adorable blond little girl or baby who was horribly burned and scarred (living is required, as that means they can appear on camera a lot), preferrably on one side, so you can pan around from the "isn't she cute" to the "OMG!" side at any photo op, on 20/20, on 60 Minutes, and so on
(3) Get the parents to sue the shit out of the company that made whatever product was the culprit in the fire for not including your safety device (doesn't matter if it wasn't invented at the time)
(4) Get it written into the regulations that your device is required
(5) Profit!
Sorry, no mod points right now... but this one is freaking brilliant!
Microsoft Angers Legal Experts With This One Weird Trick
By your logic I could shoot a single morbidly obese person at sea level and be labelled a mass shooter, or shoot 50 people in Low-earth orbit and potentially not be. Or did you mean by total mass? Then again that becomes dangerously tautological.
I was attempting irony.
If 3 people equals a mass, then any time 3 people show up at a zoning meeting to complain about a proposed speed bump on a street where they commute to work, that's a "mass protest", and the Supreme Court has ruled that you can relegate any "mass protest" to a "free speech zone", meaning "not the zoning hearing".
So if we accept this definition of a "mass", then we can easily suppress any dissent over any public policy whatsoever, simply by declaring any opposition by three or more people something that should take place in a "free speech zone" for the duration of the "protest", and relegate them to the boiler room in the subbasement while we decide whatever the hell we want to decide, and no one says anything when we ask "Is there any opposition to this going through?", because they're all in the boiler room, and don't get to hear or answer the question.
So it's kind of annoying that we tend to inflate things out of all proportion for political purposes.
Hence my use of irony to draw attention to the stupidity of doing so.
Which side am I supposed to be on?!?
On one side, we have Smart Meters, which are evil, and intended to provide differential rates do that the electric utility can pay you less for the solar you generate than the non-solar you consume, so they get paid the same amount, as when you didn't have solar, and it saves their antique business model...
On the other side, it's a patent troll, engaging in rent seeking on something they pobably acquired in a bankruptcy, and who produces nothing useful to society at all, and is just a drag on innovation in general...
WHICH SIDE?!?!?!?!
I'm so confused....
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled to be ineligible for carry permits, there is a significant chance that looser carry policies might have resulted in a different outcome.
I would expect that the firearms might not be carried within such a facility, in the same way I'd expect them to not be carried in other facilities with people who have cognitive deficits, such as mental institutions.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
In an enclosed space, range is not a significant discriminator, the ability to direct fire is. Yes, rate of fire does matter, but your claim that longer range wins out is incorrect.
There's "range", "effective range", "accuracy", and "combat accuracy".
Most police firefights with handguns take place within the effective range of the police handgun -- yet most bullets end up missing the suspect. Similarly, if the suspect is firing back, most of their bullets end up missing the officer.
This is the difference between "effective range" and "combat accuracy". The effective range of a weapon is determined by the ability to hit a stationary target on a firing range with a high degree of accuracy. It's not moving, it's not shooting back, and it's not likely to be shooting back. The combat accuracy is a combination of both the shooter and the effective range, and is much much shorter -- on the order of a few meters.
In this case, a long gun enables much better accuracy than a handgun, and we have to presume that the distance from the shooters to the victims was likely more than a few meters, to allow the use of a long barrel weapon in the first place (long weapons are less accurate in short range firefights, due to carry, travel, and inertia of the barrel of the weapon itself -- the same things that make them more accurate over distances short of sniper distance).
Additionally, the reports have the victims being centrally massed, and the general reaction of humans (as with most animals) is increased clumping in the presence of danger; if you are firing from outside the clump, at a remove of several meters or more, it's hard not to hit something.
So yes, it's an important discriminator.
This seems like uSoft trying to have their cake and eat it to.
THIS.
Trade secrets, once disclosed, are no longer secret. If your idea does not merit patent protection, then use a trade secret as long as it holds -- but no longer. If your idea merits patent protection patent it -- *and disclose it*, in exchange for federal protection *for a limited time*.
Do *NOT* under any circumstances, make legal changes to allow trade secrets to become the moral equivalent of a patent in perpetuity.
I've thought about this many times myself over the years. At worst, it seems to be bait-and-switch.
You're right, it's bait-and-switch.
There's a similar bait-and-switch that happens with the terms "use" and "utilize".
If you are a layman, the terms are the same: "I am utilizing Microsoft Word to make a brochure"/"I am using Microsoft Word for my business cards".
For a software engineer, the distinction is important, when referring to source code: "I am utilizing emacs to take a portion of the source code of emacs and use it in a derivative work".
And no, this is not accidental. It's amazing how many people apply the GPL to their code, without the understanding that the GPL is an instrumentality of a political agenda, and thus have never read "The GNU Manifesto" to understand the emergent properties that the GPL is designed to cause to come to fruition from its use.
The GNU Manifesto: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifes...
The definition of a mass shooting is an event where 3 or more people are shot.
We should do it by total weight, instead.
Australia used to have the same problem, but a conservative government managed to introduce gun restricts at the cost of the next election, and gun violence and accidents dropped sharply.
Are we certain that the gun violence didn't drop, merely because the conservative government had lost power, and therefore there was less motivation for violence? In other words, could they have just peacefully turned over power, and avoided the violence in the first place?
Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack: "1 to 3 suspects on loose"
Well then clearly, we should get an international coalition together, and begin bombing strategic targets in San Bernardino.
No, it's another reason to relax gun laws. Making it easier for non-criminals to own and carry firearms would make the country a safer place.
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
So in this specific instance, relaxed gun laws would have had zero effect.
Which is perhaps the point of the attack.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
Or perhaps the point is that it's ridiculous to ban so-called "assault weapons" just because they look more dangerous, like red cards look faster, and therefore get stopped more often for speeding tickets.
Or perhaps there was no point to the attack... which would be impossible for some to accept, I know: many people have a deep need to blame something or someone other than the perpetrator.
"Long guns."
How weirdly vague.
I'm pretty sure it must have been flintlocks and Kentucky long rifles.
You where wrong in that regard, why jumping to lithium selling war lords (are there any?)?
Because wind and solar rely on substantial storage capability when the sun is not shining, or the wind is not blowing.
Right now, and for at least the next decade, "substantial storage capability" is code for "lithium batteries".
And yes, there are warlords involved:
Tesla Motors, and Conflict Lithium from the Democratic Republic of Congo:
http://www.ibtimes.com/tesla-m...
Good luck on buying that "conflict lithium" from countries in the middle of a civil war, thereby providing funding for atrocities in exchange for the warlords giving you the lithium.