For a class this semester, Mr. Yermack originally booked a lecture hall that could fit 180 students, but he had to move the course to the largest lecture hall at N.Y.U. when enrollment kept going up. He now has 225 people signed up for the class.
If only there were some means by which colleges could limit the number of students allowed to sign up for a particular course offering... perhaps, someday, they'll come up with one.
Well you could obtain a network of computers and have them all race to solve a mathematical problem, those computers that win the race would be rewarded a seat in the lecture hall. To make sure that the process was transparent, every computer should have a copy of the ledger containing what seats were assigned. You would have to use strong cryptography to ensure that nobody cheated. Since people might want to trade or sell their seats, the ledger would allow transfers of seats from one holder to another. To ensure that a limited number of seats were assigned you would want to have the algorithms stop assigning seats when the limit was hit. As an incentive to continue processing the seat ledger after all the seats are assigned, the system should allow people to offer a transaction incentive to sell a seat...
If you plan to dump more than 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea in a single location, you have to fill out an environmental impact statement. It's better to do it in small groups and spread them out.
VMS (the operating system from DEC) or at least key features from it. I really miss things like automatic file versioning, file level flags for things like backup/nobackup, a distributed lock manager (enabling seamless clustering), the ability for executables to register their syntax with the shell (DCL) and have the shell parse and enforce command syntax, and software development things like trivially simple cross language library linking.
glitch? or subtle 'warning' to potential cord-cutters that cable service is 'more reliable' than that nasty old internet?/tin-foil hat
Subtle warning? Rather ironic when you can buy a $10 antenna to watch this free OTA broadcast, bypassing both cable and internet...
Glitch occurred over the air as well. It wasn't static or loss of transmission, it was transmission of a black picture and no audio - even in the OTA broadcast. It appeared that someone / something forgot to insert a commercial. Probably a 5 million dollar mistake.
I fly on United regularly and one of my frustrations is that the airline is slow to update the status of flights that they should know are going to be late. Using their own smartphone app (or website) you can see the status of a given flight and can also easily navigate to the previous flight leg for where your plane is coming from. I have observed that it is very common for my flight to be listed as "on time" when the the app shows that the plane I am scheduled to be on is going to be late in arriving to the airport (making it physically impossible for my flight to be on time.) I get that the schedules have quite a bit of padding and that a short delay in an inbound flight doesn't necessarily mean that the outbound flight will end up be late in its ultimate destination, but when the airline knows that the inbound flight is going to be an hour late, it's shouldn't take half an hour for it to update the status of all the cascading delays. Perhaps Google can be more aggressive at prediction or maybe at least create some prediction competition so that United gets more timely with its updates.
Planes are pretty full these days and knowing 15 minutes earlier that you are going to miss a connection can easily make the difference as to if you can make other arrangements or not.
So, would that mean that if the US Government build/controlled the network, then leased it out, they wouldn't need to notify the companies when they were mirroring and monitoring traffic, right?
Correct. The US government would also have pretty darn good tracking information on every cell phone and other device on the network. Sure as citizens we could end to end encrypt the data, but I bet each IEMI (or whatever 5g uses) will be legally required to be "owned" or attached to someone. Is the trade off worth it? Maybe, maybe not - but we should forget the ease of tracking this would allow. Pretty much every person carries a cell phone. With 5g most every tablet or other mobile device will be online, every motor vehicle will be online. The tracking opportunities of a such a large and centralized network are fantastic and terrifying.
If you are in a sensitive area and you have a smart phone turned on then you aren't smart enough to be allowed in a sensitive area. If we are near people who potentially want to kill me and you turn your fucking position broadcasting device on beside me, I will turn it off after I take it off of your recently deceased body.
True. I would amend the above to say "phone" instead of "smart phone" to be even more accurate. If the area is that sensitive, your probably don't want the cellular provider tracking you either. Even a non-smart cellular phone with no applications is giving up your location constantly.
Poverty, famine, dirty drinking water, most disease, are all *political* problems that could rapidly be eliminated if you removed the political barriers. In many cases, solving the problem would simply mean killing off brutal dictatorships and tribal leaders that cause the vast majority of pain in the world while trying to grab power. Unless you are willing to do that, all the money in the world will not solve the issue, in fact, sending more money to areas where problems exist would certainly make the problem much worse.
You also have to be willing to lower your standard of living. In order to raise the standard of living in the third world, the standard of living in the first world will need to decline. It doesn't have to decline much, but it has to decline. It might be as trivial as taking a 15 minute shower instead of a 20 minute one or only having only four Starbucks (or any "brand name" cups of coffee) a day instead of five, but something would have to change. Point being that in the first world (or at least in the US) where we have a culture of excess, it is difficult to do anything perceived as giving up what we currently have. If solving world problems means giving up what we have or it means paying more taxes, it is a hard sell.
Is what I am adding another case of a "political" problem? Yes it is.
If the no phone policy was made clear prior to ticket purchase then so be it, the market can decide if people want to to take the deal with the given restrictions. On the other hand if the policy was not clear, they had better have a real refund policy. I say this because it is notoriously hard to get refunds on concert tickets and it seems pretty underhanded to change the terms of the deal after it is made. (Cue an evil voice talking about making the deal even worse...)
Insider trading isn't the problem they need to worry about. "Materially misleading statements to shareholders" is what will hang them up. They've known about this problem for months, yet never disclosed it, even vaguely, as a concern going forward in any of their SEC filings. That, my friend, is fraud, and they will have to make the shareholders whole again.
Since the shareholders *are* the owners of the company, where would funds to make the shareholders whole come from? It would come from the value of the company (which is distributed across shareholders). Making the shareholders "whole" sounds like a zero sum game.
Since there are zero cases where the flaw has been exploited to cause any problems, no one has suffered any economic harm. You need to have been harmed in some way to have standing to sue.
If your processor performs even 1% slower because of a bug in the hardware itself, you can easily call that being harmed, especially if you're a business that relies on that performance in any way.
Intel is not making your existing processor run 1% (or any percentage) slower. Your processor runs the same speed as the day you purchased it. If you or on your behalf Microsoft or some other operating system vendor plan on changing / patching your operating system with a version that runs slower than a previous version, how is this Intel's fault? Machines will only run slower if you change the software that runs on them.
The computing industry makes security vs. performance and usability design decisions all the time. Intel made such a decision when they designed the cache behavior during speculative execution. Operating system vendors are making such a decision with the patches that are being / have been written. With respect to case of this specific patch that decreases performance in favor of security, if you want to sue someone sue your operating system vendor for forcing a patch on you that you don't want. That is if you actually don't want the patch. My guess is that you do want the patch and if you do want the patch it means you would rather have security over performance. If you do want security over performance, you don't really have a law suit. Just because you want both security and performance doesn't mean that you can have both.
This is such a knee-jerk reaction from people who don't understand tech.
Why not simply..
1/ Stop the ability for having physical access to the inner computer, NO USB ports, no wifi, Ethernet module inside the case so you only have one cable trailing (POE) - or two if AC is required to power a small touch screen (really?), go all Apple with custom torque screw drives and lots of them to open these machines.
2/ No internet access for these devices or the server ever, voter lists are loaded into an onsite server which provides DHCP for the voting machines (anything with an incorrect MAC address gets dropped on to a blackhole VLAN).
If I've missed anything...
You have missed the point that the people that operate elections in the field rarely understand tech. It is very common for volunteers who have no knowledge of computers to be election officials. Because of this you cannot rely on a secure configuration at the polling places.
Using technology to assist the voter in generating a machine (and human) readable anonymous paper ballot and then using technology to tabulate that same ballot is the way to go. Actually vote by mail is the way to go, but that is a different discussion...
When I'd say "I struggle to see the purpose of using a language where a semicolon is significant" you'll scream and berate me for heracy. It's just another key. If you think the whole niche of python and its popularity is solely based on this one single feature you're ignorant.
Semicolons are a visible character and can be distinguished between other visible characters without regard to if the font used is fixed width or proportional. Spaces can't reliably be distinguished between other non visible characters (such as tab). Yes, spaces and tabs have a "visible" effect, but the characters themselves are not visible and how they are rendered on various display and print devices does not guarantee that you can visually determine the indent level (and consequently the scope or program flow of what you are looking at.)
With the Bitcoin blockchain there is a reward for helping to maintain the ledger (chain) -- that reward being coins and transaction fees granted to the person successfully adding a block to the chain. Security is created by having lots of distributed computing power owned by different people that all have the common goal of maintaining the integrity of the system. The system can be compromised if a single actor controls more than half of the computing power, but since lots of different people are financially incentivized to prevent this Bitcoin has worked so far.
Why would lots of people work together to maintain a birth registry blockchain? What financial incentive would they have? If a single entity (say the government) controls over half the the "proof of work" power, then the registry is essentially centralized and really no different than a regular database.
In the case of a birth registry, it may be okay to be centralized. Having a chain of signatures which starts with a well known public key and is then used to incrementally validate transactions is a decent way to validate a data set. However you could just sign the whole data set with the initial key and be done with it, blockchain not required.
A slight word order change will make it more obvious
I agree -- your wording is clearer and not sloppy as is the actual title. It's not that I couldn't figure out the implied intent of the title, it's that I find it annoying that reporting and writing has gotten really sloppy. While someone with reasonable command of the English language can determine the intent, there are other readers who might not. A new speaker to the language may not parse an ambiguous or imprecise statement as intended. On a sarcastic note, I am kind of surprised that given the trend of news reporting the title wasn't written as: "You will be shocked at what this reporter was arrested for allegedly doing in a field."
Slashdot Mirror
For a class this semester, Mr. Yermack originally booked a lecture hall that could fit 180 students, but he had to move the course to the largest lecture hall at N.Y.U. when enrollment kept going up. He now has 225 people signed up for the class.
If only there were some means by which colleges could limit the number of students allowed to sign up for a particular course offering... perhaps, someday, they'll come up with one.
Well you could obtain a network of computers and have them all race to solve a mathematical problem, those computers that win the race would be rewarded a seat in the lecture hall. To make sure that the process was transparent, every computer should have a copy of the ledger containing what seats were assigned. You would have to use strong cryptography to ensure that nobody cheated. Since people might want to trade or sell their seats, the ledger would allow transfers of seats from one holder to another. To ensure that a limited number of seats were assigned you would want to have the algorithms stop assigning seats when the limit was hit. As an incentive to continue processing the seat ledger after all the seats are assigned, the system should allow people to offer a transaction incentive to sell a seat...
Only 1000 lawyers? Not enough
If you plan to dump more than 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea in a single location, you have to fill out an environmental impact statement. It's better to do it in small groups and spread them out.
pfsense?
VMS (the operating system from DEC) or at least key features from it. I really miss things like automatic file versioning, file level flags for things like backup/nobackup, a distributed lock manager (enabling seamless clustering), the ability for executables to register their syntax with the shell (DCL) and have the shell parse and enforce command syntax, and software development things like trivially simple cross language library linking.
glitch? or subtle 'warning' to potential cord-cutters that cable service is 'more reliable' than that nasty old internet? /tin-foil hat
Subtle warning? Rather ironic when you can buy a $10 antenna to watch this free OTA broadcast, bypassing both cable and internet...
Glitch occurred over the air as well. It wasn't static or loss of transmission, it was transmission of a black picture and no audio - even in the OTA broadcast. It appeared that someone / something forgot to insert a commercial. Probably a 5 million dollar mistake.
I fly on United regularly and one of my frustrations is that the airline is slow to update the status of flights that they should know are going to be late. Using their own smartphone app (or website) you can see the status of a given flight and can also easily navigate to the previous flight leg for where your plane is coming from. I have observed that it is very common for my flight to be listed as "on time" when the the app shows that the plane I am scheduled to be on is going to be late in arriving to the airport (making it physically impossible for my flight to be on time.) I get that the schedules have quite a bit of padding and that a short delay in an inbound flight doesn't necessarily mean that the outbound flight will end up be late in its ultimate destination, but when the airline knows that the inbound flight is going to be an hour late, it's shouldn't take half an hour for it to update the status of all the cascading delays. Perhaps Google can be more aggressive at prediction or maybe at least create some prediction competition so that United gets more timely with its updates.
Planes are pretty full these days and knowing 15 minutes earlier that you are going to miss a connection can easily make the difference as to if you can make other arrangements or not.
So, would that mean that if the US Government build/controlled the network, then leased it out, they wouldn't need to notify the companies when they were mirroring and monitoring traffic, right?
Correct. The US government would also have pretty darn good tracking information on every cell phone and other device on the network. Sure as citizens we could end to end encrypt the data, but I bet each IEMI (or whatever 5g uses) will be legally required to be "owned" or attached to someone. Is the trade off worth it? Maybe, maybe not - but we should forget the ease of tracking this would allow. Pretty much every person carries a cell phone. With 5g most every tablet or other mobile device will be online, every motor vehicle will be online. The tracking opportunities of a such a large and centralized network are fantastic and terrifying.
If you are in a sensitive area and you have a smart phone turned on then you aren't smart enough to be allowed in a sensitive area. If we are near people who potentially want to kill me and you turn your fucking position broadcasting device on beside me, I will turn it off after I take it off of your recently deceased body.
True. I would amend the above to say "phone" instead of "smart phone" to be even more accurate. If the area is that sensitive, your probably don't want the cellular provider tracking you either. Even a non-smart cellular phone with no applications is giving up your location constantly.
Poverty, famine, dirty drinking water, most disease, are all *political* problems that could rapidly be eliminated if you removed the political barriers. In many cases, solving the problem would simply mean killing off brutal dictatorships and tribal leaders that cause the vast majority of pain in the world while trying to grab power. Unless you are willing to do that, all the money in the world will not solve the issue, in fact, sending more money to areas where problems exist would certainly make the problem much worse.
You also have to be willing to lower your standard of living. In order to raise the standard of living in the third world, the standard of living in the first world will need to decline. It doesn't have to decline much, but it has to decline. It might be as trivial as taking a 15 minute shower instead of a 20 minute one or only having only four Starbucks (or any "brand name" cups of coffee) a day instead of five, but something would have to change. Point being that in the first world (or at least in the US) where we have a culture of excess, it is difficult to do anything perceived as giving up what we currently have. If solving world problems means giving up what we have or it means paying more taxes, it is a hard sell.
Is what I am adding another case of a "political" problem? Yes it is.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
And atom bombs...
Also slow dancing
If the no phone policy was made clear prior to ticket purchase then so be it, the market can decide if people want to to take the deal with the given restrictions. On the other hand if the policy was not clear, they had better have a real refund policy. I say this because it is notoriously hard to get refunds on concert tickets and it seems pretty underhanded to change the terms of the deal after it is made. (Cue an evil voice talking about making the deal even worse...)
Just killed all my cows and have plenty of those beefcoins!
Sure they aren't medallions instead of coins?
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Insider trading isn't the problem they need to worry about. "Materially misleading statements to shareholders" is what will hang them up. They've known about this problem for months, yet never disclosed it, even vaguely, as a concern going forward in any of their SEC filings. That, my friend, is fraud, and they will have to make the shareholders whole again.
Since the shareholders *are* the owners of the company, where would funds to make the shareholders whole come from? It would come from the value of the company (which is distributed across shareholders). Making the shareholders "whole" sounds like a zero sum game.
Since there are zero cases where the flaw has been exploited to cause any problems, no one has suffered any economic harm. You need to have been harmed in some way to have standing to sue.
If your processor performs even 1% slower because of a bug in the hardware itself, you can easily call that being harmed, especially if you're a business that relies on that performance in any way.
Intel is not making your existing processor run 1% (or any percentage) slower. Your processor runs the same speed as the day you purchased it. If you or on your behalf Microsoft or some other operating system vendor plan on changing / patching your operating system with a version that runs slower than a previous version, how is this Intel's fault? Machines will only run slower if you change the software that runs on them.
The computing industry makes security vs. performance and usability design decisions all the time. Intel made such a decision when they designed the cache behavior during speculative execution. Operating system vendors are making such a decision with the patches that are being / have been written. With respect to case of this specific patch that decreases performance in favor of security, if you want to sue someone sue your operating system vendor for forcing a patch on you that you don't want. That is if you actually don't want the patch. My guess is that you do want the patch and if you do want the patch it means you would rather have security over performance. If you do want security over performance, you don't really have a law suit. Just because you want both security and performance doesn't mean that you can have both.
This is such a knee-jerk reaction from people who don't understand tech. Why not simply.. 1/ Stop the ability for having physical access to the inner computer, NO USB ports, no wifi, Ethernet module inside the case so you only have one cable trailing (POE) - or two if AC is required to power a small touch screen (really?), go all Apple with custom torque screw drives and lots of them to open these machines. 2/ No internet access for these devices or the server ever, voter lists are loaded into an onsite server which provides DHCP for the voting machines (anything with an incorrect MAC address gets dropped on to a blackhole VLAN).
If I've missed anything...
You have missed the point that the people that operate elections in the field rarely understand tech. It is very common for volunteers who have no knowledge of computers to be election officials. Because of this you cannot rely on a secure configuration at the polling places. Using technology to assist the voter in generating a machine (and human) readable anonymous paper ballot and then using technology to tabulate that same ballot is the way to go. Actually vote by mail is the way to go, but that is a different discussion...
Enough said.
When I'd say "I struggle to see the purpose of using a language where a semicolon is significant" you'll scream and berate me for heracy. It's just another key. If you think the whole niche of python and its popularity is solely based on this one single feature you're ignorant.
Semicolons are a visible character and can be distinguished between other visible characters without regard to if the font used is fixed width or proportional. Spaces can't reliably be distinguished between other non visible characters (such as tab). Yes, spaces and tabs have a "visible" effect, but the characters themselves are not visible and how they are rendered on various display and print devices does not guarantee that you can visually determine the indent level (and consequently the scope or program flow of what you are looking at.)
Remember when you'd buy software? With a disc in a cardboard package? From a retail store you'd have to enter? No? Me either.
Pepperidge Farms remembers
it's a drone! Big enough to carry a human being.
If the human being carried is also controlling it, it ain't a drone.
My children's birth will not be registered.
Good luck with that. At least here in the US it is pretty difficult to get though life without a birth certificate (which is a registration).
With the Bitcoin blockchain there is a reward for helping to maintain the ledger (chain) -- that reward being coins and transaction fees granted to the person successfully adding a block to the chain. Security is created by having lots of distributed computing power owned by different people that all have the common goal of maintaining the integrity of the system. The system can be compromised if a single actor controls more than half of the computing power, but since lots of different people are financially incentivized to prevent this Bitcoin has worked so far.
Why would lots of people work together to maintain a birth registry blockchain? What financial incentive would they have? If a single entity (say the government) controls over half the the "proof of work" power, then the registry is essentially centralized and really no different than a regular database.
In the case of a birth registry, it may be okay to be centralized. Having a chain of signatures which starts with a well known public key and is then used to incrementally validate transactions is a decent way to validate a data set. However you could just sign the whole data set with the initial key and be done with it, blockchain not required.
This is the kind of story that is supposed to be on Slashdot - Using a new (or relatively new) technology in a new (or relatively new) way.
Well, so long as he wasn't running through a field, I suppose that's okay.
Depends on whether scissors were involved not.
A slight word order change will make it more obvious
I agree -- your wording is clearer and not sloppy as is the actual title. It's not that I couldn't figure out the implied intent of the title, it's that I find it annoying that reporting and writing has gotten really sloppy. While someone with reasonable command of the English language can determine the intent, there are other readers who might not. A new speaker to the language may not parse an ambiguous or imprecise statement as intended. On a sarcastic note, I am kind of surprised that given the trend of news reporting the title wasn't written as: "You will be shocked at what this reporter was arrested for allegedly doing in a field."