A corporate spy / saboteur working for your employer's competitor,
then you should be worried about your maid supplanting your bootloader. Remember, this isn't the maid in your house, this is the maid in a hotel.
Another one: if you check your laptop at an airport, there's plenty of time for these sorts of shenanigans. If you fly frequently, the fed could quite easily snoop your password after two flights. So, if TSA reads xkcd, it's game over for anybody who wants to fly with physical security for their laptop.
Ok, tell you what. Go into a restaurant that's got sugar or Parmesan cheese in the big pour-jars. Now, dump that sugar / cheese onto the table and pour your water onto it. Maybe toss the salt and pepper in for good measure, and the ketchup, tabasco, or whatever else they have. Are you "stealing" from the restaurant? No, they provide the condiments and water free of charge, as well as the busing service. And yet, they'll almost certainly tell you to GTFO and never come back.
Reason: they can't profit if customers do that shit. Similarly, the casino needs to make a profit to stay in business. If a customer doesn't pay, they don't make money. A card-counter has a better than 50% chance to make a profit, and therefore that customer isn't worth having in the casino. And as long as they make an example out of card-counters whenever they find them, they'll never have to face the risk that it will catch on -- if blackjack wasn't profitable, they wouldn't have blackjack tables, plain and simple. People like to play blackjack, so the casino makes sure that it's profitable for them to do so, to better serve 99.9% of their customers.
Similarly, it makes sense that you can't "kick out people who win using no unnatural aid".
Yeah... about that. No. If you're an expert at slight-of-hand, it's conceivable that you could cheat with cards up your sleeve in a casino. That's also "winning using no unnatural aid". Card-counting can be used to win, yes, but it's considered cheating.
Private companies have the right to refuse service to anybody. And if you're asked to leave, you're trespassing on private property if you don't vacate immediately.
Seriously, dosbox is awesome. Not too long ago, I dusted off Quest For Glory 3, and had a blast. Unfortunately, I had to "pirate" it because my original copy was on floppies. I've never been a fan of the newer style games or console games, so dosbox keeps me happy. But if you're into the old-school console games, I hear MAME is where it's at.
I'm wondering why this isn't a criminal case. They broke your shit, and now they're charging you to fix it? Sounds like a clear case of extortion to me. Screw the lawsuit, let's put some people in jail -- oh wait -- prison, because they did it across state lines.
Nearly 60 percent of the respondents in the survey ranked tellers and traders as the highest risk of insider fraud, followed by administrative/back office (55.74 percent), technology (34.43 percent), executive/senior management (29.51 percent), call center (29.51 percent), and line of business (26.63) employees.
Now, this strikes me a little odd. What do these percentages even mean? if 60% of respondents ranked tellers and traders as highest and 55.74 percent ranked admin/back office as highest, then 15% of the respondents don't know what "highest" means. A little arithmetic indicates that some 235% is accounted for here. Sounds like a case of ZOMG 235% OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE STEELING! to me.
I realized this some time after I posted that (that'll teach me to post pre-coffee). While my argument is in error, my thesis may stand: some people feel morally obliged to view ads -- for them, ad-blocking is a moral issue. Therefore, ad-blocking is not amoral.
I challenge your assertion that ad-blocking is amoral. I block ads because I use 64-bit linux and my flash player sends CPU usage to 100% and burns up my battery. Also, ad-blocking is no more amoral than changing the channel on your TV during ad breaks, or flipping past the ads in a magazine.
They've done a lot of that, too. For example, they cut the University of Washington's budget by 13%, which resulted in a 14% increase in tuition rates, and severe cuts to many graduate departments, etc., which necessitates a reduction in the number of classes taught. So, we're accepting fewer students and depressing the graduation rates of those who are already here. That provided the state with an extra $73M for their budget.
Similarly, King County is cutting almost all of the fat. County health is getting cut, county parks are getting cut, etc. So, in the impoverished unincorporated areas, we're cutting all public service, except for courts and police. I can't recall what that cut netted us, but it was on the order of a few million, and the County is still coming up short.
And we've got a case of blatant tax evasion to the tune of $700M. Yeah -- let's stick it to the poor people and the college kids and protect our holy corporations who do no wrong...
Most of the code you'd want is in FLINT and MPIR. Every single author of the paper (with the possible exception of Mark Watkins) is a developer of open source software. You can find the disk-multiplication code here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/robertwb/disk_mul/, published under what looks like a BSD-like license. Their email addresses are public, and I'm sure they'd happily send you the source.
Caveat: I am not an expert on BSD, but my advisor is.
First place to look is here: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Birch_and_Swinnerton-Dyer_Conjecture/. For one thing, the BSD conjecture implies that the title of this story is accurate. But, we don't even know that. Consider Fermat's last "theorem" -- the linchpin was a theorem "All Elliptic Curves are Modular" -- before that, we knew that modular elliptic curves behaved quite nicely, but we didn't know if there were other elliptic curves. To this day, we can prove remarkably little about very obvious-looking trends that we see in data about elliptic curves. Assuming BSD, many computations about elliptic curves are suddenly tractable.
Ok, but what does this have to do with the country's bottom line? Directly, I'd say "nothing". Indirectly, though, this is providing a lot of interest to American mathematicians. The current thinking is (hah) a bit of a trickle-down effect. As undergrads study, they gravitate towards the more interesting fields -- if math looks sexy, we get more mathematicians. The more mathematicians graduate, the more funding mathematics departments will get in a very direct way -- this gives us better teaching budgets, which should effect an increase in the number of good math teachers. The more good math teachers we have, the better our students will learn. That's the hope, anyway.
Seems to me that this article is a thinly-veiled marketing trick. Somebody publishes a paper, "Will Intel product A beat Intel product B?", and presto, we've got buzz about product A which doesn't even come close to competing with product B (which is a market leader, dontchaknow), and increased buzz about product B. Then, people chime in with their arguments and counterarguments about which product is better... and Intel wins no matter what. Both product lines are probably going to succeed independently of one another.
That said, Braidwood sounds awesome to me, especially because my servers talk to a storage box over NFS, and fast onboard cache sounds great to me. But, I want fast local storage too, and 16GB is nothing, so I want large-capacity SSD drives. I really don't see these as competing products. This is just a slashvertizement. Move along, folks.
So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?
I dunno, maybe "open for business?" Those that are designed to remove wealth from as few hands as possible and put it into as many hands as possible usually don't make it very far.
How do you expect a company to work? People open a business for 2 reasons: (a) because they want to do something they enjoy, and (b) they want to make money. Type (a) generally stays pretty small and they quietly succeed or fail and nobody cares. Type (b) gets large, accumulates lots of customers, and pulls in a lot of profit -- and the people at the top make the most -- and the person (or people) at the very top want to give as little possible money to the people below them, because that's less in their pockets. Or in your terms, "remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible".
we should consider the entire organism as infected.
No, we shouldn't, not in all cases at least. The last resort to prevent spread of a disease in an infected host, after all, is amputation.
Ah! See, you just called the host "infected". This is my point. The host contains replicating bacteria, hence the host is infected. If you cut off the infected part of the host, you're merely re-defining "host". I'm curious if you'll agree with this:
John's toe is infected with a virus... say the exceptionally rare and deadly Picornavirus. This means that John is infected with the Picornavirus. If we amputate John at the waist, John's toe is still infected with the Picornavirus. However, John is not infected with the Picornavirus -- we've redefined "John" to be "The upper half of John".
Now, let's say that the affected body part is the head. If we amputate John's head, he is clearly cured of the virus. Here, we've redefined "John" to be "John, except the ugly bits".
In both cases, John still has body parts which are affected. But, since they have been detached, we decide not to keep calling those pieces by the name of John, since they're over here on the table and John is way over there, on the other table. Hence, John is no longer infected with the Picornavirus. Disaster averted!
I'm claiming that in these cases, we wouldn't have to go to such great lengths to combat the Picornavirus unless John was infected with it.
You are claiming that reproduction "outside of an infected host" takes place during the infection of another host. This is a most curious argument. In consideration of the scale, we should consider a single cell to be a "host". Either a cell contains a virus, or it isn't a host. A virus must be inside a cell to reproduce, and at the moment that the virus takes over the cell to the point that it can reproduce, the cell is infected. At the moment that a single cell is infected, we should consider the entire organism as infected.
Aluminum is common on the moon, and water may be abundant on Mars. So, we propel the moon into orbit around mars (or better yet, pull Mars into LEO), and... um... PROFIT!
Why? It wasn't with the old pay meters -- get out, drop your quarters in, and go. When you drive away from the meter with time still on it, somebody else gets a few minutes free. It would be nice, maybe, for the city (or in this case, Morgan Stanley... don't get me started here), but definitely not necessary.
"We are not building a system that needs hundreds of gigawatts of power like those that produce electricity for our cities," says Don Palac, the project manager at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The system needs to be cheap, safe, and robust and "our recent tests demonstrated that we can successfully build that," says Palac.
I read this as, "the system needs to come in at no more than half the cost of a gigawatt power plant". I'm all for space travel, but I can't help but flinch when I hear somebody at NASA say "cheap".
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, if said "maid" is
then you should be worried about your maid supplanting your bootloader. Remember, this isn't the maid in your house, this is the maid in a hotel.
Another one: if you check your laptop at an airport, there's plenty of time for these sorts of shenanigans. If you fly frequently, the fed could quite easily snoop your password after two flights. So, if TSA reads xkcd, it's game over for anybody who wants to fly with physical security for their laptop.
Wow! A clear argument this time! I can accept
It was already found (Uston vs. Resorts) that it's not legal to forbid good players...
because you're citing a source. But with
Yeah... about that. No.
what is this, "proof by repeated statement of the claim?" Invalid argument, thanks for trying a second time.
Meh. You're wrong, that's all. No shame in that.
And here... you're just being smug. I've got no problem being wrong, I'm on the fucking internet -- everybody's wrong around here.
Yeah... about that. No.
Ok, tell you what. Go into a restaurant that's got sugar or Parmesan cheese in the big pour-jars. Now, dump that sugar / cheese onto the table and pour your water onto it. Maybe toss the salt and pepper in for good measure, and the ketchup, tabasco, or whatever else they have. Are you "stealing" from the restaurant? No, they provide the condiments and water free of charge, as well as the busing service. And yet, they'll almost certainly tell you to GTFO and never come back.
Reason: they can't profit if customers do that shit. Similarly, the casino needs to make a profit to stay in business. If a customer doesn't pay, they don't make money. A card-counter has a better than 50% chance to make a profit, and therefore that customer isn't worth having in the casino. And as long as they make an example out of card-counters whenever they find them, they'll never have to face the risk that it will catch on -- if blackjack wasn't profitable, they wouldn't have blackjack tables, plain and simple. People like to play blackjack, so the casino makes sure that it's profitable for them to do so, to better serve 99.9% of their customers.
Similarly, it makes sense that you can't "kick out people who win using no unnatural aid".
Yeah... about that. No. If you're an expert at slight-of-hand, it's conceivable that you could cheat with cards up your sleeve in a casino. That's also "winning using no unnatural aid". Card-counting can be used to win, yes, but it's considered cheating.
Who cares what the community could legally do... the place would get burned down before the legal-minded portion of the community even heard of it.
Private companies have the right to refuse service to anybody. And if you're asked to leave, you're trespassing on private property if you don't vacate immediately.
Seriously, dosbox is awesome. Not too long ago, I dusted off Quest For Glory 3, and had a blast. Unfortunately, I had to "pirate" it because my original copy was on floppies. I've never been a fan of the newer style games or console games, so dosbox keeps me happy. But if you're into the old-school console games, I hear MAME is where it's at.
I'm wondering why this isn't a criminal case. They broke your shit, and now they're charging you to fix it? Sounds like a clear case of extortion to me. Screw the lawsuit, let's put some people in jail -- oh wait -- prison, because they did it across state lines.
Well, TFA says:
Nearly 60 percent of the respondents in the survey ranked tellers and traders as the highest risk of insider fraud, followed by administrative/back office (55.74 percent), technology (34.43 percent), executive/senior management (29.51 percent), call center (29.51 percent), and line of business (26.63) employees.
Now, this strikes me a little odd. What do these percentages even mean? if 60% of respondents ranked tellers and traders as highest and 55.74 percent ranked admin/back office as highest, then 15% of the respondents don't know what "highest" means. A little arithmetic indicates that some 235% is accounted for here. Sounds like a case of ZOMG 235% OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE STEELING! to me.
I realized this some time after I posted that (that'll teach me to post pre-coffee). While my argument is in error, my thesis may stand: some people feel morally obliged to view ads -- for them, ad-blocking is a moral issue. Therefore, ad-blocking is not amoral.
I challenge your assertion that ad-blocking is amoral. I block ads because I use 64-bit linux and my flash player sends CPU usage to 100% and burns up my battery. Also, ad-blocking is no more amoral than changing the channel on your TV during ad breaks, or flipping past the ads in a magazine.
They've done a lot of that, too. For example, they cut the University of Washington's budget by 13%, which resulted in a 14% increase in tuition rates, and severe cuts to many graduate departments, etc., which necessitates a reduction in the number of classes taught. So, we're accepting fewer students and depressing the graduation rates of those who are already here. That provided the state with an extra $73M for their budget.
Similarly, King County is cutting almost all of the fat. County health is getting cut, county parks are getting cut, etc. So, in the impoverished unincorporated areas, we're cutting all public service, except for courts and police. I can't recall what that cut netted us, but it was on the order of a few million, and the County is still coming up short.
And we've got a case of blatant tax evasion to the tune of $700M. Yeah -- let's stick it to the poor people and the college kids and protect our holy corporations who do no wrong...
Most of the code you'd want is in FLINT and MPIR. Every single author of the paper (with the possible exception of Mark Watkins) is a developer of open source software. You can find the disk-multiplication code here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/robertwb/disk_mul/, published under what looks like a BSD-like license. Their email addresses are public, and I'm sure they'd happily send you the source.
Caveat: I am not an expert on BSD, but my advisor is.
First place to look is here: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Birch_and_Swinnerton-Dyer_Conjecture/. For one thing, the BSD conjecture implies that the title of this story is accurate. But, we don't even know that. Consider Fermat's last "theorem" -- the linchpin was a theorem "All Elliptic Curves are Modular" -- before that, we knew that modular elliptic curves behaved quite nicely, but we didn't know if there were other elliptic curves. To this day, we can prove remarkably little about very obvious-looking trends that we see in data about elliptic curves. Assuming BSD, many computations about elliptic curves are suddenly tractable.
Ok, but what does this have to do with the country's bottom line? Directly, I'd say "nothing". Indirectly, though, this is providing a lot of interest to American mathematicians. The current thinking is (hah) a bit of a trickle-down effect. As undergrads study, they gravitate towards the more interesting fields -- if math looks sexy, we get more mathematicians. The more mathematicians graduate, the more funding mathematics departments will get in a very direct way -- this gives us better teaching budgets, which should effect an increase in the number of good math teachers. The more good math teachers we have, the better our students will learn. That's the hope, anyway.
Haiku not for snobs
Grandparent modded funny
Frosty piss twern't
When will this scale up to human size? I wanna play!
Sounds to me like "can't survive an oxygenated environment" is a bit of a boon. It can't really do the "grey goo" thing if it can't survive in oxygen.
You people are missing the point. TFA is about free stuff at PAX that I missed, yet again. I swear, this is the last year that I miss PAX.
Seems to me that this article is a thinly-veiled marketing trick. Somebody publishes a paper, "Will Intel product A beat Intel product B?", and presto, we've got buzz about product A which doesn't even come close to competing with product B (which is a market leader, dontchaknow), and increased buzz about product B. Then, people chime in with their arguments and counterarguments about which product is better... and Intel wins no matter what. Both product lines are probably going to succeed independently of one another.
That said, Braidwood sounds awesome to me, especially because my servers talk to a storage box over NFS, and fast onboard cache sounds great to me. But, I want fast local storage too, and 16GB is nothing, so I want large-capacity SSD drives. I really don't see these as competing products. This is just a slashvertizement. Move along, folks.
So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?
I dunno, maybe "open for business?" Those that are designed to remove wealth from as few hands as possible and put it into as many hands as possible usually don't make it very far.
How do you expect a company to work? People open a business for 2 reasons: (a) because they want to do something they enjoy, and (b) they want to make money. Type (a) generally stays pretty small and they quietly succeed or fail and nobody cares. Type (b) gets large, accumulates lots of customers, and pulls in a lot of profit -- and the people at the top make the most -- and the person (or people) at the very top want to give as little possible money to the people below them, because that's less in their pockets. Or in your terms, "remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible".
... no idea the third sentence there says "bacteria". I'd change that to "virus"... if only I'd actually read the preview.
we should consider the entire organism as infected.
No, we shouldn't, not in all cases at least. The last resort to prevent spread of a disease in an infected host, after all, is amputation.
Ah! See, you just called the host "infected". This is my point. The host contains replicating bacteria, hence the host is infected. If you cut off the infected part of the host, you're merely re-defining "host". I'm curious if you'll agree with this:
John's toe is infected with a virus... say the exceptionally rare and deadly Picornavirus. This means that John is infected with the Picornavirus. If we amputate John at the waist, John's toe is still infected with the Picornavirus. However, John is not infected with the Picornavirus -- we've redefined "John" to be "The upper half of John".
Now, let's say that the affected body part is the head. If we amputate John's head, he is clearly cured of the virus. Here, we've redefined "John" to be "John, except the ugly bits".
In both cases, John still has body parts which are affected. But, since they have been detached, we decide not to keep calling those pieces by the name of John, since they're over here on the table and John is way over there, on the other table. Hence, John is no longer infected with the Picornavirus. Disaster averted!
I'm claiming that in these cases, we wouldn't have to go to such great lengths to combat the Picornavirus unless John was infected with it.
You are claiming that reproduction "outside of an infected host" takes place during the infection of another host. This is a most curious argument. In consideration of the scale, we should consider a single cell to be a "host". Either a cell contains a virus, or it isn't a host. A virus must be inside a cell to reproduce, and at the moment that the virus takes over the cell to the point that it can reproduce, the cell is infected. At the moment that a single cell is infected, we should consider the entire organism as infected.
Aluminum is common on the moon, and water may be abundant on Mars. So, we propel the moon into orbit around mars (or better yet, pull Mars into LEO), and... um... PROFIT!
The car has to be tied to the payment.
Why? It wasn't with the old pay meters -- get out, drop your quarters in, and go. When you drive away from the meter with time still on it, somebody else gets a few minutes free. It would be nice, maybe, for the city (or in this case, Morgan Stanley... don't get me started here), but definitely not necessary.
"We are not building a system that needs hundreds of gigawatts of power like those that produce electricity for our cities," says Don Palac, the project manager at NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, OH. The system needs to be cheap, safe, and robust and "our recent tests demonstrated that we can successfully build that," says Palac.
I read this as, "the system needs to come in at no more than half the cost of a gigawatt power plant". I'm all for space travel, but I can't help but flinch when I hear somebody at NASA say "cheap".