All ciphers can be used as random number generators. The seed is the key, and to get a random number you encrypt zeros. Works with any cipher. If you need to generate a PK pair to exchange a symmetric, revolving session key for a stream or block cipher, you can collect entropy (e.g. urand) and use that to vector the cipher, then use the cipher to generate random numbers for the PK generation.
Encourage employees to use the 20% time to Innovate within the existing projects;
for example, by finding ways to make them better or lower their costs.
This is already part of their regularly scheduled work. It's easy to sell research and enhancements to an existing product, and there's staff to do it. This is a non-issue.
It's also only fair that the benefit of their 20% projects get included in their productivity.
If an employee uses their intellectual resources to do something particularly innovative,
they should be given an opportunity to reduce their required working hours by 50%
with a net increase in pay and benefits, or an opportunity to move from "20% time" to
"40% time" working on their own projects.
This is also already the case. If your 20% project gets internal traction it will likely become your 80% job.
I completely disagree with the notion that the 20% back burner stuff isn't important to Google at this point. In a big organization it's hard to sell ideas without accompanying them with a working prototype. So the 20% research and prototyping new product ideas is more important than ever, or Google will cease to evolve. There's no benefit in large corporations stagnating; in fact, they represent a massive focus of resources. The corporate normal shouldn't be a slow fade into the eternity of history - the normal should be constant product evolution and progress.
Hehehe, have you tried to send a letter with UPS?
At the current rate that prices are increasing on USPS postage (controlled by Congress), it would be centuries before a USPS letter is as expensive as UPS (I believe FedEx is similar).
This is because a business is not allowed to compete with the USPS. You can't compete with a better mail delivery service more than you can compete by printing better money. It by definition has to be something other than mail, which includes charging so much no one will confuse you for the USPS. The USPS is an anachronism in the first world and it's embarrassing that our government still runs our mail service.
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
That's not the problem USPS is facing. The problem they're facing is that when you turn 65 the people who are 30 are paying your pension that was supposedly part of your compensation for 40 years. In effect they owe YOU money. If they do poorly and don't have money you might find that their liability to you is worthless. In effect, the taxpayers end up paying for it. The right thing to do is that when the liability is accrued money is put aside (i.e. invested, or a lien placed on real estate, or some other asset used to balance the liability) so that when it comes time to collect what they owe you there's something there that's yours. This is the state Congress wants to get the USPS to. It's a recognition that it can't keep writing "IOU" on a piece of paper and tell you it's part of your compensation package.
NO other company has to do this and UPS and Fed Ex sure as fuck don't do this,
Actually, every privately owned company by law is required to fully fund their liabilities to be considered solvent. That's why they hate liabilities like unused vacation and go to great lengths to avoid them. This just hit the USPS hard in part because it was a sudden change and in part because Congress overestimated its liabilities. Here's a good rundown: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-office-s-benefits-mess.html
Even if private companies COULD manage to maintain a profit while serving podunk towns and the red sticks, why the hell would they? Why make a $1 in the city and lose $0.50 in the sticks to net $0.50 when they can just make $1 in the city?
Of course they won't, unless the government subsidizes the delivery. Which is no different from what it does now, except 1) it's free to contract with anyone based on an open bidding process, 2) expenses are accounted for as they're accrued. In other words, it will become clear exactly how much it costs to deliver mail to Podunk. Government can then make a proper cost-benefit calculation and determine if it's worth delivery once a week, twice a week, once or day, or on weekends. There's no point having daily mail delivery to a crossroads with 7 residents. For a small place like that once per week might be perfectly adequate. Unless they wish to make up the difference out of pocket, obviously.
The only perk is that you get Saturday delivery (for now).
A much greater factor is that the USPS has a key to your mailbox and possible front gate, and will leave mail for you regardless of whether you're home or not.
How is traversing the whole directory tree with find different from what rsync does?
It's different in that you don't have to sit and wait for it and doing the backup will consist of only the actual copying. That said, updatedb already scans (for locate), so modifying this to spit out a list of actual state changes (atime,ctime,mtime) since the last run, and using this to construct one or more rsync commands might be the easiest approach. Updatedb also notices when things are removed, permitting these to be removed from the clone as well (and perhaps moved into an archive for later time travel, making it useful as an actual backup).
Privacy really requires an attempt to keep something private. If you send a letter, the fact that you sent it is obvious to any mail carrier or mail handler. Only the contents are protected. Similarly if you use a third-party MTA you're clearly handing off your correspondence to someone else and it's quite a stretch to imagine it's private. If you do things in public, visible to others, it's not private. Go home, pull down and close the blinds, and you have a right to privacy. Go out and do the same in public, or in a privately owned public arena, no matter how embarrassing or compromising, and it's public. The protections against illegal searches and seizures aren't just there for privacy, but also to prevent the government from harassing people and their businesses. A warrant is needed to get information about email from a provider like gmail not because of privacy concerns but because it adds operational costs. If you want to keep your email private, run your own server. This way no SRE techie at google will ever know who you exchange email with (unless it's someone using their services).
I can't imagine anyone having the technical prowess and educational background necessary to write intelligently about such subjects being interested in making $0.75 to do so, but maybe that's enough money to inspire someone in Bangladesh to write meaningless positive reviews peppered with jargon, and small enough change to inspire someone in America to outsource a large number of reviews in order to increase their Vine ratings.
Perhaps someone out there has a review generator, and they've found a means to automate the site interaction. That could well be worthwhile, or an interesting experiment at least.
Impeachment. This is why it was provided for by the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, it helps that we're not a euro-style party system (we're a no-party system since the USC contains no mention or recognition of political parties, and we elect individuals who may or may not be loosely affiliated with parties) and our President isn't elected by parliament. Our "parties" are more like blocks of individuals - just like european parties organize themselves in typically two blocks. If Obama were to start arming the U.S. for a war of conquest against our neighbors similar to Nazi Germany or Iran (for a more modern example), Congress would give him a swift kick out the door regardless of party/block affiliation.
As Bitcoin grows more successful, there will be increasing interest in subjecting it to regulation, just like any other financial instrument.
The thing is it's not positioned as a financial instrument, but a currency. Financial instruments - their issue, trading, and reporting - is quite regulated as well. The whole anonymity aspect isn't going to play well no matter how it's dressed up.
Back in college, a friend of mine and I wrote an 8080 simulator in MACRO-11. Because the 8080 opcodes weren't structured as cleanly as the PDP-11's, we ultimately wound up handling the step that read the 8080 opcode and passed execution to the interpreter function for that opcode as a 256-way branch -- ASL the 8080 opcode and use it as an offset into a jump table of pointers to the interpreter functions.
I designed and wire wrapped an NS16016 (later relabeled NS32016) board but didn't have a toolchain. So I ported xlisp to DECUS C (I had previously ported it to Lattice C for DOS) and wrote a simple assembler in elementary Lisp to run it on a pdp-11/40 I had within easy reach - a PC would have been harder. (And I couldn't afford buying a PC myself.) This was the simplest way for me to get a cross-assembler. Macros were just lisp expressions, and I used lisp token syntax so I could use the stock reader. Having my own assembler I could make it do useful tricks like spit out odd-even EPROM banks (the CPU was strictly 16 bit) in a ready-to-burn Intel Hex (ITH) format. I also tried to make it do branch offset optimizations but ran out of address space, and it wasn't strictly necessary anyway. This got me up and testing the FPU, MMU, etc. The idea was to add a drive interface and port BSD to it, but not being affiliated with any academical institution I couldn't get the source (plus I'd need a proper toolchain at that point), so it ended up in a drawer where it has sat for some 25 years now...
The design of the PDP-11 was quite elegant. It should be feasible to implement it in a single chip these days, including memory and I/O...:-)
It was indeed elegant, often in very clever ways. For instance, most OS installs came on tape. The boot loader for tape was supremely simple, and consisted essentially of "tell the tape controller to read one block", "jmp.". I forget if it was 2 or 3 instructions, but it took only a few seconds to enter them on the front panel switches. After a full reset the block would the first on the tape, DMA to location 0, caches disabled, I/D space unified, etc. This then caused 256 words (512 bytes) from the first block on the tape to overwrite the code entered, and in particular the "jmp.". And so the secondary boot loader from the tape would start at that location (4 or 6 or something like that).
I had a pdp-11/05, a nice little toy useful for training. It came with a microcode dump, and extender boards permitted single-stepping the microcode. It basically took the source addressing mode, shifted it, jumped to that location in the microcode and computed the source address. The exact same code was then used for the destination address. It would then proceed to the instruction implementation. I forget off hand but I think the entire instruction set fit in 256 words of microcode. It was supremely elegant, clever, neat, and to me as a young kid interesting in all things computer architecture, positively brilliant. Of course, microcode is inherently inefficient. But it was an amazingly elegant exercise in factoring.
Except that a modern assembler will accept lower-case as well as upper-case.:P
I'm pretty sure the pdp-11 unix toolchain was case sensitive. The DEC ones universally used Radix-50 (three characters per 16 bits, 6 chars in 32 bits) and weren't case sensitive. Same as their OS'es used for file systems, task names, etc. Devices only got three chars (one word) plus a LUN sequential index. This is where 6.3 file names, 3 char device names, etc comes from.
I strongly recommend the first year of calculus because of this. It teaches you a different view of symbolic algebra - not just how to use an equation as a tool to solve a problem, but how to view an equation as an abstract object that can be manipulated by a set of rules to solve a problem.
I think the usefulness of calculus is even more basic than this - it teaches the student to think in terms of change. And since everything is always in a changing state it's a pretty basic low hanging fruit when it comes to training practical everyday intelligence. It's not advanced math... It's pretty basic thinking skills. The notation can be daunting, admittedly, but there's no way of discussing these abstract concepts in plain english.
Any work with discrete samples deals with approximations. Calculus expresses the real thing. For instance, to understand the difference between adding samples and integration, where integration is the perfect solution and accumulation an approximation, requires understanding the concept of integration. In many cases feedback loops are created either explicitly or implicitly when code makes use of previous calculations (recursion in the mathematical sense), and understanding control theory gives a gut feel for when these are likely a risk and need damping. Control theory deals with recursive change, and without understanding change there's no understanding of control theory. IMO good education teaches understanding, and someone with an academical degree needs an understanding beyond plugging numbers into formulas.
Calculus is hard because we have no natural senses that express the world that way. It's typically the first exposure a student has to considering reality in a way that's orthogonal to their natural human senses. It's hard because it's different and it is a challenge, no doubt about it. It takes everyone a while to get it, but then the next abstraction will be easier (often linear algebra).
To be accorded full POW status you also have to reveal your name and rank, and obviously identify yourself as an enemy partisan. If you respond "al-Qaeda, what's that?" you really have no rights under the Geneva conventions. We can decide you're an enemy clandestine operator - which means as far as the Geneva conventions are concerned we could execute you on the spot.
I don't know where they got those numbers from. Photoshop CS6 alone is $627 on Amazon and Design Standard is $1127.98. That makes the $49.99 take more than 2 years to be more than the cost of outright purchasing it.
Most buyers of the big suite packages are without doubt businesses where people use the tools for work. And from a business perspective a one-time purchase is an investment which in the U.S. is paid for with taxed money (at a 40-50% rate depending on state), and then depreciated over a number of years as determined by the IRS. A monthly recurring fee however is an expense. It's the same reason airlines sell their plane engines to financing groups, which then lease them back to the airline - a pure paper arrangement to reduce profit and taxation. (Paying interest at 10-15% is cheaper than paying corporate taxes at almost 40%; then try to recover value from the fixed-schedule depreciation.) For the same reason, leasing software is cheaper than buying it; Adobe understands this and wants a cut.
Most people use automated tools to generate the required code - makes no difference to them how it is finally presented to the web browser. And those people who do write by hand are the same people who can write a script to extract, convert, then replace their TeX code with MathML.
Eh. A math tag would have allowed me to type math in my response to you right here, in postings to facebook, email, or anywhere HTML is used. Requiring a site to source scripts guarantees it'll never be more than peripheral and utterly irrelevant.
Inertial mass and gravitational mass are observed - for normal matter - to be exactly equivalent. There's no actual reason they should be though, since they're the product of very different interactions - it's perfectly logical to have something which "weighs" a 1000kg when experiencing electromagnetic acceleration, and only 10kg when experiencing gravitational acceleration.
The discussion is about mass, not weight. Weighing something is a very indirect way to determine mass; but regardless, it's about mass, not weight. If it were about weighing schemes a term other than mass would have been used.
That is a case I would love to take to court, and see the jury try to keep from laughing. I would be totally willing to testify in my own defense, and watch the other party try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.
Depending on where you live, exposing yourself to even the risk of being prosecuted and convicted of negligently discharging a firearm is a really poor idea. In CA a misdemeanor conviction will result in a fine of up $1000, up to 12 months in county jail, and a ten year ban on gun ownership. A felony conviction is a strike on your criminal record (resulting in a doubling of your sentence should you do something similarly foolish again), up to a $10000 fine, up to 3 years in a state correctional institution, a permanent revocation of your second amendment right to bear arms, and your registration as a convicted felon.
Basically, if someone flies a drone over your property you reach for the phone and call 911. Not your gun.
The 500 ft/1000 over urban applies to FAR Pt 103 Ultralights - not drones. If they are not manned, they do not need to meet these reqs. They are treated the same as R/C aircraft, in which case, the only law is "Don't fly it into people or things, or you'll have a bad day."
I fly lots of RC aircraft, both heli and fixed-wing, and can tell you it's not easy to find a decent flying field. You can't fly above 400 ft, out of visual sight (not that you'd want to without a first-person-view link), over people's property, over roads and highways (including waterways, marinas, etc), or anywhere it's banned. And you'd be amazed how just about every piddly town has an ordinance prohibiting all forms of unmanned model aircraft. This is why it's so hard to find anywhere to fly. Unless you live out in the NV desert the issue of private surveillance drones just doesn't exist. And if you do live in the middle of nowhere you might have a fair amount of acreage to keep tabs on, in which case having one is justifiable. Basically, the whole thing is a complete non-issue for private users. It's really only government and some limited commercial uses, like law enforcement, coast guard/search and rescue, high-acreage businesses like farming and ski areas etc, BLM/Forest Dept, and such where regulation is relevant. The reality is that flying model aircraft today's is almost (though not quite) as difficult as finding someplace to go shoot guns. Private small drones don't really require any additional regulation.
It's not illegal for a service provider to read email they've stored for you. The only thing preventing them is internal policy - a google employee found reading email would likely be fired. But there's no criminal act there. By comparison, a postal worker who opens letters and reads them will go to prison. A telco worker who taps your phone likewise. Email isn't considered more private then you make it, so doesn't have legal protections.
Slashdot Mirror
All ciphers can be used as random number generators. The seed is the key, and to get a random number you encrypt zeros. Works with any cipher. If you need to generate a PK pair to exchange a symmetric, revolving session key for a stream or block cipher, you can collect entropy (e.g. urand) and use that to vector the cipher, then use the cipher to generate random numbers for the PK generation.
- Doesn't meet the 'reliable' standard as adopted by the nuclear industry
Encourage employees to use the 20% time to Innovate within the existing projects; for example, by finding ways to make them better or lower their costs.
This is already part of their regularly scheduled work. It's easy to sell research and enhancements to an existing product, and there's staff to do it. This is a non-issue.
It's also only fair that the benefit of their 20% projects get included in their productivity. If an employee uses their intellectual resources to do something particularly innovative, they should be given an opportunity to reduce their required working hours by 50% with a net increase in pay and benefits, or an opportunity to move from "20% time" to "40% time" working on their own projects.
This is also already the case. If your 20% project gets internal traction it will likely become your 80% job.
I completely disagree with the notion that the 20% back burner stuff isn't important to Google at this point. In a big organization it's hard to sell ideas without accompanying them with a working prototype. So the 20% research and prototyping new product ideas is more important than ever, or Google will cease to evolve. There's no benefit in large corporations stagnating; in fact, they represent a massive focus of resources. The corporate normal shouldn't be a slow fade into the eternity of history - the normal should be constant product evolution and progress.
Hehehe, have you tried to send a letter with UPS? At the current rate that prices are increasing on USPS postage (controlled by Congress), it would be centuries before a USPS letter is as expensive as UPS (I believe FedEx is similar).
This is because a business is not allowed to compete with the USPS. You can't compete with a better mail delivery service more than you can compete by printing better money. It by definition has to be something other than mail, which includes charging so much no one will confuse you for the USPS. The USPS is an anachronism in the first world and it's embarrassing that our government still runs our mail service.
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
That's not the problem USPS is facing. The problem they're facing is that when you turn 65 the people who are 30 are paying your pension that was supposedly part of your compensation for 40 years. In effect they owe YOU money. If they do poorly and don't have money you might find that their liability to you is worthless. In effect, the taxpayers end up paying for it. The right thing to do is that when the liability is accrued money is put aside (i.e. invested, or a lien placed on real estate, or some other asset used to balance the liability) so that when it comes time to collect what they owe you there's something there that's yours. This is the state Congress wants to get the USPS to. It's a recognition that it can't keep writing "IOU" on a piece of paper and tell you it's part of your compensation package.
NO other company has to do this and UPS and Fed Ex sure as fuck don't do this,
Actually, every privately owned company by law is required to fully fund their liabilities to be considered solvent. That's why they hate liabilities like unused vacation and go to great lengths to avoid them. This just hit the USPS hard in part because it was a sudden change and in part because Congress overestimated its liabilities. Here's a good rundown: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-office-s-benefits-mess.html
Even if private companies COULD manage to maintain a profit while serving podunk towns and the red sticks, why the hell would they? Why make a $1 in the city and lose $0.50 in the sticks to net $0.50 when they can just make $1 in the city?
Of course they won't, unless the government subsidizes the delivery. Which is no different from what it does now, except 1) it's free to contract with anyone based on an open bidding process, 2) expenses are accounted for as they're accrued. In other words, it will become clear exactly how much it costs to deliver mail to Podunk. Government can then make a proper cost-benefit calculation and determine if it's worth delivery once a week, twice a week, once or day, or on weekends. There's no point having daily mail delivery to a crossroads with 7 residents. For a small place like that once per week might be perfectly adequate. Unless they wish to make up the difference out of pocket, obviously.
The only perk is that you get Saturday delivery (for now).
A much greater factor is that the USPS has a key to your mailbox and possible front gate, and will leave mail for you regardless of whether you're home or not.
How is traversing the whole directory tree with find different from what rsync does?
It's different in that you don't have to sit and wait for it and doing the backup will consist of only the actual copying. That said, updatedb already scans (for locate), so modifying this to spit out a list of actual state changes (atime,ctime,mtime) since the last run, and using this to construct one or more rsync commands might be the easiest approach. Updatedb also notices when things are removed, permitting these to be removed from the clone as well (and perhaps moved into an archive for later time travel, making it useful as an actual backup).
Privacy really requires an attempt to keep something private. If you send a letter, the fact that you sent it is obvious to any mail carrier or mail handler. Only the contents are protected. Similarly if you use a third-party MTA you're clearly handing off your correspondence to someone else and it's quite a stretch to imagine it's private. If you do things in public, visible to others, it's not private. Go home, pull down and close the blinds, and you have a right to privacy. Go out and do the same in public, or in a privately owned public arena, no matter how embarrassing or compromising, and it's public. The protections against illegal searches and seizures aren't just there for privacy, but also to prevent the government from harassing people and their businesses. A warrant is needed to get information about email from a provider like gmail not because of privacy concerns but because it adds operational costs. If you want to keep your email private, run your own server. This way no SRE techie at google will ever know who you exchange email with (unless it's someone using their services).
I can't imagine anyone having the technical prowess and educational background necessary to write intelligently about such subjects being interested in making $0.75 to do so, but maybe that's enough money to inspire someone in Bangladesh to write meaningless positive reviews peppered with jargon, and small enough change to inspire someone in America to outsource a large number of reviews in order to increase their Vine ratings.
Perhaps someone out there has a review generator, and they've found a means to automate the site interaction. That could well be worthwhile, or an interesting experiment at least.
So, what do we do?
Impeachment. This is why it was provided for by the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, it helps that we're not a euro-style party system (we're a no-party system since the USC contains no mention or recognition of political parties, and we elect individuals who may or may not be loosely affiliated with parties) and our President isn't elected by parliament. Our "parties" are more like blocks of individuals - just like european parties organize themselves in typically two blocks. If Obama were to start arming the U.S. for a war of conquest against our neighbors similar to Nazi Germany or Iran (for a more modern example), Congress would give him a swift kick out the door regardless of party/block affiliation.
As Bitcoin grows more successful, there will be increasing interest in subjecting it to regulation, just like any other financial instrument.
The thing is it's not positioned as a financial instrument, but a currency. Financial instruments - their issue, trading, and reporting - is quite regulated as well. The whole anonymity aspect isn't going to play well no matter how it's dressed up.
Back in college, a friend of mine and I wrote an 8080 simulator in MACRO-11. Because the 8080 opcodes weren't structured as cleanly as the PDP-11's, we ultimately wound up handling the step that read the 8080 opcode and passed execution to the interpreter function for that opcode as a 256-way branch -- ASL the 8080 opcode and use it as an offset into a jump table of pointers to the interpreter functions.
I designed and wire wrapped an NS16016 (later relabeled NS32016) board but didn't have a toolchain. So I ported xlisp to DECUS C (I had previously ported it to Lattice C for DOS) and wrote a simple assembler in elementary Lisp to run it on a pdp-11/40 I had within easy reach - a PC would have been harder. (And I couldn't afford buying a PC myself.) This was the simplest way for me to get a cross-assembler. Macros were just lisp expressions, and I used lisp token syntax so I could use the stock reader. Having my own assembler I could make it do useful tricks like spit out odd-even EPROM banks (the CPU was strictly 16 bit) in a ready-to-burn Intel Hex (ITH) format. I also tried to make it do branch offset optimizations but ran out of address space, and it wasn't strictly necessary anyway. This got me up and testing the FPU, MMU, etc. The idea was to add a drive interface and port BSD to it, but not being affiliated with any academical institution I couldn't get the source (plus I'd need a proper toolchain at that point), so it ended up in a drawer where it has sat for some 25 years now...
The design of the PDP-11 was quite elegant. It should be feasible to implement it in a single chip these days, including memory and I/O... :-)
It was indeed elegant, often in very clever ways. For instance, most OS installs came on tape. The boot loader for tape was supremely simple, and consisted essentially of "tell the tape controller to read one block", "jmp .". I forget if it was 2 or 3 instructions, but it took only a few seconds to enter them on the front panel switches. After a full reset the block would the first on the tape, DMA to location 0, caches disabled, I/D space unified, etc. This then caused 256 words (512 bytes) from the first block on the tape to overwrite the code entered, and in particular the "jmp .". And so the secondary boot loader from the tape would start at that location (4 or 6 or something like that).
I had a pdp-11/05, a nice little toy useful for training. It came with a microcode dump, and extender boards permitted single-stepping the microcode. It basically took the source addressing mode, shifted it, jumped to that location in the microcode and computed the source address. The exact same code was then used for the destination address. It would then proceed to the instruction implementation. I forget off hand but I think the entire instruction set fit in 256 words of microcode. It was supremely elegant, clever, neat, and to me as a young kid interesting in all things computer architecture, positively brilliant. Of course, microcode is inherently inefficient. But it was an amazingly elegant exercise in factoring.
Except that a modern assembler will accept lower-case as well as upper-case. :P
I'm pretty sure the pdp-11 unix toolchain was case sensitive. The DEC ones universally used Radix-50 (three characters per 16 bits, 6 chars in 32 bits) and weren't case sensitive. Same as their OS'es used for file systems, task names, etc. Devices only got three chars (one word) plus a LUN sequential index. This is where 6.3 file names, 3 char device names, etc comes from.
I strongly recommend the first year of calculus because of this. It teaches you a different view of symbolic algebra - not just how to use an equation as a tool to solve a problem, but how to view an equation as an abstract object that can be manipulated by a set of rules to solve a problem.
I think the usefulness of calculus is even more basic than this - it teaches the student to think in terms of change. And since everything is always in a changing state it's a pretty basic low hanging fruit when it comes to training practical everyday intelligence. It's not advanced math... It's pretty basic thinking skills. The notation can be daunting, admittedly, but there's no way of discussing these abstract concepts in plain english.
Any work with discrete samples deals with approximations. Calculus expresses the real thing. For instance, to understand the difference between adding samples and integration, where integration is the perfect solution and accumulation an approximation, requires understanding the concept of integration. In many cases feedback loops are created either explicitly or implicitly when code makes use of previous calculations (recursion in the mathematical sense), and understanding control theory gives a gut feel for when these are likely a risk and need damping. Control theory deals with recursive change, and without understanding change there's no understanding of control theory. IMO good education teaches understanding, and someone with an academical degree needs an understanding beyond plugging numbers into formulas.
Calculus is hard because we have no natural senses that express the world that way. It's typically the first exposure a student has to considering reality in a way that's orthogonal to their natural human senses. It's hard because it's different and it is a challenge, no doubt about it. It takes everyone a while to get it, but then the next abstraction will be easier (often linear algebra).
To be accorded full POW status you also have to reveal your name and rank, and obviously identify yourself as an enemy partisan. If you respond "al-Qaeda, what's that?" you really have no rights under the Geneva conventions. We can decide you're an enemy clandestine operator - which means as far as the Geneva conventions are concerned we could execute you on the spot.
I don't know where they got those numbers from. Photoshop CS6 alone is $627 on Amazon and Design Standard is $1127.98. That makes the $49.99 take more than 2 years to be more than the cost of outright purchasing it.
Most buyers of the big suite packages are without doubt businesses where people use the tools for work. And from a business perspective a one-time purchase is an investment which in the U.S. is paid for with taxed money (at a 40-50% rate depending on state), and then depreciated over a number of years as determined by the IRS. A monthly recurring fee however is an expense. It's the same reason airlines sell their plane engines to financing groups, which then lease them back to the airline - a pure paper arrangement to reduce profit and taxation. (Paying interest at 10-15% is cheaper than paying corporate taxes at almost 40%; then try to recover value from the fixed-schedule depreciation.) For the same reason, leasing software is cheaper than buying it; Adobe understands this and wants a cut.
Most people use automated tools to generate the required code - makes no difference to them how it is finally presented to the web browser. And those people who do write by hand are the same people who can write a script to extract, convert, then replace their TeX code with MathML.
Eh. A math tag would have allowed me to type math in my response to you right here, in postings to facebook, email, or anywhere HTML is used. Requiring a site to source scripts guarantees it'll never be more than peripheral and utterly irrelevant.
At least the tools of the fifth column are kept busy with an imaginary problem...
Inertial mass and gravitational mass are observed - for normal matter - to be exactly equivalent. There's no actual reason they should be though, since they're the product of very different interactions - it's perfectly logical to have something which "weighs" a 1000kg when experiencing electromagnetic acceleration, and only 10kg when experiencing gravitational acceleration.
The discussion is about mass, not weight. Weighing something is a very indirect way to determine mass; but regardless, it's about mass, not weight. If it were about weighing schemes a term other than mass would have been used.
That is a case I would love to take to court, and see the jury try to keep from laughing. I would be totally willing to testify in my own defense, and watch the other party try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.
Depending on where you live, exposing yourself to even the risk of being prosecuted and convicted of negligently discharging a firearm is a really poor idea. In CA a misdemeanor conviction will result in a fine of up $1000, up to 12 months in county jail, and a ten year ban on gun ownership. A felony conviction is a strike on your criminal record (resulting in a doubling of your sentence should you do something similarly foolish again), up to a $10000 fine, up to 3 years in a state correctional institution, a permanent revocation of your second amendment right to bear arms, and your registration as a convicted felon.
Basically, if someone flies a drone over your property you reach for the phone and call 911. Not your gun.
The 500 ft/1000 over urban applies to FAR Pt 103 Ultralights - not drones. If they are not manned, they do not need to meet these reqs. They are treated the same as R/C aircraft, in which case, the only law is "Don't fly it into people or things, or you'll have a bad day."
I fly lots of RC aircraft, both heli and fixed-wing, and can tell you it's not easy to find a decent flying field. You can't fly above 400 ft, out of visual sight (not that you'd want to without a first-person-view link), over people's property, over roads and highways (including waterways, marinas, etc), or anywhere it's banned. And you'd be amazed how just about every piddly town has an ordinance prohibiting all forms of unmanned model aircraft. This is why it's so hard to find anywhere to fly. Unless you live out in the NV desert the issue of private surveillance drones just doesn't exist. And if you do live in the middle of nowhere you might have a fair amount of acreage to keep tabs on, in which case having one is justifiable. Basically, the whole thing is a complete non-issue for private users. It's really only government and some limited commercial uses, like law enforcement, coast guard/search and rescue, high-acreage businesses like farming and ski areas etc, BLM/Forest Dept, and such where regulation is relevant. The reality is that flying model aircraft today's is almost (though not quite) as difficult as finding someplace to go shoot guns. Private small drones don't really require any additional regulation.
It's not illegal for a service provider to read email they've stored for you. The only thing preventing them is internal policy - a google employee found reading email would likely be fired. But there's no criminal act there. By comparison, a postal worker who opens letters and reads them will go to prison. A telco worker who taps your phone likewise. Email isn't considered more private then you make it, so doesn't have legal protections.