If you set the iPhone to wipe after ten failed tries, then even with a four-digit random passcode there's only a 0.1% chance it can be brute-forced. All of this is in the Secure Enclave for iPhone 5Ss and later, and I find it extremely improbable that the police are reading that. If you want your iPhone to be secure, turn fingerprint recognition off, randomize your code, and set ten-tries-to-wipe. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the 5C and earlier can be cracked.
Wikipedia has a list of available hardware random number generators from $7 on up. The ones that use direct quantum randomness seem to start at about a thousand euros, the cheaper ones using forms of noise. There isn't any way to predict atmospheric noise, since we're talking about a chaotic system that deals with interactions small enough that the uncertainty principle isn't completely swamped.
"Statistically random" means that numbers are not evenly distributed. A series that has too few long sequences of one bit will be rejected by good randomness tests. This doesn't mean we can't have a run that has unusually few long sequences of one bit, given that the statistical analysis needs to have very large amounts of data.
Let's analyze your last sentence. If we take a number of methods with the goal of being X, if we reject the ones that aren't X, we get methods that aren't X. I don't get it.
Bit permutation is from software pseudo-random-number generators. It's not possible to generate real random numbers with software. We're talking about hardware random number generators, and there are physical processes that are either random or chaotic to the point that it makes no difference.
If we're talking about radioactive decay, we'll find that, statistically, intervals between decay get larger over time. This isn't completely unbiased. There is a way to make biased random bits unbiased, if you don't mind slower generation (a minimum of eight times slower, assuming an unbiased source). Divide the stream into pairs. Throw away all "11" and "00". Take "01" to be 0 and "10" to be 1.
It's because we're in the early stages of testing that there's confusion about liability. Once self-driving cars are reasonably common, to the point where people know what to expect, and a dozen people have died, the liability issues will be mostly sorted out.
The I, Robot movie was a clear case of the Three Laws going wrong, and therefore in line with the stories in the book. It did remind me a lot of Williamson's Humanoids, though.
One of the points of the series is that the Galaxy is pretty much one more or less uniform human culture. Significant numbers of aliens would destroy the plot. As far as the sex of the characters goes, Asimov wrote in the world he saw around him (much like the smoking), not meaning any sort of prediction. Changing some of them to female would remove nothing from the story. Science fiction of the period frequently reflected the current society but wasn't often embedded in it.
The psychohistorians of the Second Foundation kept improving the plan, and kept things going. Then the Mule showed up, and screwed things up royally. The book Second Foundation was mostly about how they compensated for that.
In murder mysteries of a certain period, there are a lot of hotel detectives who seem to be primarily devoted to hindering the use of the place for extramarital or premarital sex. Having the house dick (which appears to be period usage, at least in the fiction) presumably meant the hotel couldn't be accused of allowing prostitution (or adultery or whatever...).
No other right in the Bill of Rights has a rationale attached. The Supremes have changed their minds before, and have demonstrably been wrong on the interpretation of the Constitution (I mean, if they change their minds, they were wrong either before or after).
I pay for connectivity. It's not free. Some sites charge for access. I'll either pay or not use them, no biggie. I have no problems with paying for access and possibly paying content providers for content. I don't want my ISP tacking on additional fees arbitrarily.
This is pretty normal for language use. Words and ideas tend to be fuzzy clusters. There's speech that's definitely not hate speech, and speech that definitely is (for any halfway reasonable definition of hate speech, bearing in mind that it isn't a legal category in the US). There's speech that reasonable people could disagree on. With respect to sexual harassment, at least, there's complications. A man might say something a teeny bit off in the direction of harassment, a momentary irritation, nothing more, not worth mentioning. If twenty men say the same thing, it starts feeling pretty hostile. Is that sexual harassment?
Wittgenstein asked about the idea of a "game". Can you define it? Bear in mind that it must cover baseball, role-playing games, board games, solitaire, the Great Game (the conflict between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan in the 19th century), psychological games people play on each other, and probably some stuff I missed. It's hard enough finding anything in common. Role-playing games don't have winners or losers. Solitaire has one player. The Great Game was not for fun, and neither are some of the psychological games. And, yet, I can say with confidence that chess is a game, and filling out my income taxes is not a game.
There's also historical considerations for the name of the Nazi party.
The National Socialist German Worker's Party had socialistic and nationalistic wings at the start. I'm not completely sure how well they got along, but they were in that one party. The socialists were purged in the 1930s, leaving the nationalists.
Somewhere in Mein Kampf, Hitler describes propaganda as an advertisement for the actual principles of the party. He said that the party principles would necessarily change over time, but that it was better to keep the same propaganda, even when it diverged from the new principles. The NSDAP presented itself as a nationalist and a socialist party, but the name was part of the propaganda, so Hitler wouldn't change it after getting rid of the Socialists.
Perhaps hate speech is against the Terms of Service. Facebook is a private corporation. I keep hearing from some free-market types that a corporation has no social obligations, so in at least some people's opinion Facebook can have their own Terms of Service and allow and disallow what they like.
If you don't like how Facebook runs things, start your own internet forum. If Facebook offends enough people, it could fall out of favor pretty fast.
- pointing out that gender is not a social construct
OK, what word do you want to use? I'm a man. I'm comfortable with that, and I'm sexually attracted to women, which means I have a somewhat easier time of it than if either of those were false. I wear certain clothes, and am discouraged from wearing certain others. I act and speak in certain ways that are recognizably masculine. There's actually no reason somebody would need a penis to dress, act, or speak like I do. There's no reason I couldn't wear a nice dress (except that it would be hard to find one in my size), and hang around women enough to speak and act like one.
All of this stuff can change across societies. In another society, I might wear a kilt instead of pants. I'd be expected to do and say different things.
So, there's social differences between men and women, and people can be one or the other without having the appropriate plumbing. What do you call that?
Mainstream journalism is reasonably good about reporting errors about facts. However, "Elizabeth Holmes Is Astounding New Tech Woman" is an opinion, not a fact. Opinions change. There are sections in scientific papers for things that are neither data nor logical conclusions of data, such as "Further Research". If the "Further Research" section turns out to be dumb, do journals issue corrections?
Solyndra had a product that worked, unlike Theranos. Solyndra failed largely because competing technologies got far cheaper, whereas Theranos failed because they didn't have the tech they claimed they had. The cases aren't comparable.
Alternatively, they may be completely aware that the clause is unenforceable, and may sign it anyway because it's more expedient to go along with the farce than to point out the unenforceability to the manager who probably doesn't know the law.
I took a glance at what the Labor Relations folks said. They said he was not just submitting his essay where appropriate, but pushing it to people who didn't want it. He himself distributed it outside what should have been it intended audience.
Slashdot Mirror
If you set the iPhone to wipe after ten failed tries, then even with a four-digit random passcode there's only a 0.1% chance it can be brute-forced. All of this is in the Secure Enclave for iPhone 5Ss and later, and I find it extremely improbable that the police are reading that. If you want your iPhone to be secure, turn fingerprint recognition off, randomize your code, and set ten-tries-to-wipe. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the 5C and earlier can be cracked.
Wikipedia has a list of available hardware random number generators from $7 on up. The ones that use direct quantum randomness seem to start at about a thousand euros, the cheaper ones using forms of noise. There isn't any way to predict atmospheric noise, since we're talking about a chaotic system that deals with interactions small enough that the uncertainty principle isn't completely swamped.
"Statistically random" means that numbers are not evenly distributed. A series that has too few long sequences of one bit will be rejected by good randomness tests. This doesn't mean we can't have a run that has unusually few long sequences of one bit, given that the statistical analysis needs to have very large amounts of data.
Let's analyze your last sentence. If we take a number of methods with the goal of being X, if we reject the ones that aren't X, we get methods that aren't X. I don't get it.
Bit permutation is from software pseudo-random-number generators. It's not possible to generate real random numbers with software. We're talking about hardware random number generators, and there are physical processes that are either random or chaotic to the point that it makes no difference.
If we're talking about radioactive decay, we'll find that, statistically, intervals between decay get larger over time. This isn't completely unbiased. There is a way to make biased random bits unbiased, if you don't mind slower generation (a minimum of eight times slower, assuming an unbiased source). Divide the stream into pairs. Throw away all "11" and "00". Take "01" to be 0 and "10" to be 1.
It's because we're in the early stages of testing that there's confusion about liability. Once self-driving cars are reasonably common, to the point where people know what to expect, and a dozen people have died, the liability issues will be mostly sorted out.
Certainly, if they had the capability, they'd be advertising the capability, not the hardware.
Cruise control measures the car's speed by how fast the tires are going, not by any external measure.
The I, Robot movie was a clear case of the Three Laws going wrong, and therefore in line with the stories in the book. It did remind me a lot of Williamson's Humanoids, though.
One of the points of the series is that the Galaxy is pretty much one more or less uniform human culture. Significant numbers of aliens would destroy the plot. As far as the sex of the characters goes, Asimov wrote in the world he saw around him (much like the smoking), not meaning any sort of prediction. Changing some of them to female would remove nothing from the story. Science fiction of the period frequently reflected the current society but wasn't often embedded in it.
On the other hand, some good special effects can make a good story much more striking.
The psychohistorians of the Second Foundation kept improving the plan, and kept things going. Then the Mule showed up, and screwed things up royally. The book Second Foundation was mostly about how they compensated for that.
In murder mysteries of a certain period, there are a lot of hotel detectives who seem to be primarily devoted to hindering the use of the place for extramarital or premarital sex. Having the house dick (which appears to be period usage, at least in the fiction) presumably meant the hotel couldn't be accused of allowing prostitution (or adultery or whatever...).
I find the claim frighteningly plausible. Of course, I have no idea where to go to get the button in question, or any desire to buy a 12-year-old.
No other right in the Bill of Rights has a rationale attached. The Supremes have changed their minds before, and have demonstrably been wrong on the interpretation of the Constitution (I mean, if they change their minds, they were wrong either before or after).
I pay for connectivity. It's not free. Some sites charge for access. I'll either pay or not use them, no biggie. I have no problems with paying for access and possibly paying content providers for content. I don't want my ISP tacking on additional fees arbitrarily.
This is pretty normal for language use. Words and ideas tend to be fuzzy clusters. There's speech that's definitely not hate speech, and speech that definitely is (for any halfway reasonable definition of hate speech, bearing in mind that it isn't a legal category in the US). There's speech that reasonable people could disagree on. With respect to sexual harassment, at least, there's complications. A man might say something a teeny bit off in the direction of harassment, a momentary irritation, nothing more, not worth mentioning. If twenty men say the same thing, it starts feeling pretty hostile. Is that sexual harassment?
Wittgenstein asked about the idea of a "game". Can you define it? Bear in mind that it must cover baseball, role-playing games, board games, solitaire, the Great Game (the conflict between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan in the 19th century), psychological games people play on each other, and probably some stuff I missed. It's hard enough finding anything in common. Role-playing games don't have winners or losers. Solitaire has one player. The Great Game was not for fun, and neither are some of the psychological games. And, yet, I can say with confidence that chess is a game, and filling out my income taxes is not a game.
There's also historical considerations for the name of the Nazi party.
The National Socialist German Worker's Party had socialistic and nationalistic wings at the start. I'm not completely sure how well they got along, but they were in that one party. The socialists were purged in the 1930s, leaving the nationalists.
Somewhere in Mein Kampf, Hitler describes propaganda as an advertisement for the actual principles of the party. He said that the party principles would necessarily change over time, but that it was better to keep the same propaganda, even when it diverged from the new principles. The NSDAP presented itself as a nationalist and a socialist party, but the name was part of the propaganda, so Hitler wouldn't change it after getting rid of the Socialists.
Perhaps hate speech is against the Terms of Service. Facebook is a private corporation. I keep hearing from some free-market types that a corporation has no social obligations, so in at least some people's opinion Facebook can have their own Terms of Service and allow and disallow what they like.
If you don't like how Facebook runs things, start your own internet forum. If Facebook offends enough people, it could fall out of favor pretty fast.
OK, what word do you want to use? I'm a man. I'm comfortable with that, and I'm sexually attracted to women, which means I have a somewhat easier time of it than if either of those were false. I wear certain clothes, and am discouraged from wearing certain others. I act and speak in certain ways that are recognizably masculine. There's actually no reason somebody would need a penis to dress, act, or speak like I do. There's no reason I couldn't wear a nice dress (except that it would be hard to find one in my size), and hang around women enough to speak and act like one.
All of this stuff can change across societies. In another society, I might wear a kilt instead of pants. I'd be expected to do and say different things.
So, there's social differences between men and women, and people can be one or the other without having the appropriate plumbing. What do you call that?
Mainstream journalism is reasonably good about reporting errors about facts. However, "Elizabeth Holmes Is Astounding New Tech Woman" is an opinion, not a fact. Opinions change. There are sections in scientific papers for things that are neither data nor logical conclusions of data, such as "Further Research". If the "Further Research" section turns out to be dumb, do journals issue corrections?
Solyndra had a product that worked, unlike Theranos. Solyndra failed largely because competing technologies got far cheaper, whereas Theranos failed because they didn't have the tech they claimed they had. The cases aren't comparable.
Alternatively, they may be completely aware that the clause is unenforceable, and may sign it anyway because it's more expedient to go along with the farce than to point out the unenforceability to the manager who probably doesn't know the law.
I took a glance at what the Labor Relations folks said. They said he was not just submitting his essay where appropriate, but pushing it to people who didn't want it. He himself distributed it outside what should have been it intended audience.
When is the Right ever going to take any personal responsibility for their actions?