30% isn't usurious. It's a pretty common cut for retail in general. It's how you make money selling stuff. Many specialty markets have higher margins; many commodity markets lower. But 30% is pretty much smack dab normal.
The biggest problem was that HP didn't spin off their Corvallis calculator group to Agilent. HP management never understood the fact that HP calculators were predominantly used by the same technical customers as their other instruments - hence HP-IB, HP-IL calculator interfaces, the huge popularity of their EE software packs, etc - and shouldn't have been left to rot with the office equipment business.
A petition and a vote are two different things and the only one confused over the difference is the author of this pointless tirade. Words have meaning.
Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?
Umm, no. Loudspeakers and giant horns is the form of expression while prayer is what's expressed. In this case, the form of expression is banned, not prayer itself. The Pakistanis ban the expression (blasphemy), not the form (youtube). So it's not at all similar - it's in fact the exact opposite.
An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.
Now I had several problems with this. First, to avoid blacklisting, I had to remove this helpful service. Now those messages go to/dev/null. second, I didn't actually send the email, but we got blacklisted simply because our IP adress was in the chain of Received headers in the email header.
You got blacklisted because you sent bounce messages. You shouldn't. It's not a helpful service. If your server isn't going to accept a message, then it should say so during the ESMTP exchange and flat out reject it with an error. The submitting MTA (that the client used to send the message) sees the error and *IT* then sends a bounce message or notifies the client however it wishes that the message can't be sent. You should never, ever send a message based on the From: header, the from envelope, the Sender: or any other part; the first time some spammer uses your email address and you get 20000 bounce messages you'll understand why. (Actually, you won't anymore, because the default config for MTAs like postfix these days is not to send them.) The reason your IP address was in the received chain is that you sent the unsolicited message.
Yes and no; it's a measurement of the temperature of the ice sheet, not air temperature. It stands to reason that if thinning of the sheet is localized, so is warming since the two go hand in hand.
If people in germany want to use fake names, just do it, facebook clearly doesn't care.
The issue though isn't whether FB is aggressive enough at terminating fake accounts, since they're clearly not enforcing the issue - but what they can put in their terms of service. Just stating it in the TOS is enough for legit people with honest intentions to use their real names. But I agree they should be much more aggressive in enforcing it.
With your real name you can have people know everything about you, while you don't even know that exists. May pull other data from other sources, like your taxes, where you live, who is your family. Is unhealty and a big risk, probably the motives has ben made a law in germany (making it a law is a bit excesive, I think). Revealing your real name open the floodgates for anyone to easy reveal all other data, and start connecting the dots.
Here's a tip: they already do. Especially the German government. They cross-reference your tax records with your bank data, with your utility bills, and anything else kept online in a DB someplace about you. The Germany government does this more than just about any other government. They're anal about keeping records and audit trails and are very good at mining it.
If you don't want the whole world to know you drank too much wine last night, don't post it on the Internet, including FB, with or without pseudonym. As simple as this. Keep it to yourself. Your right to privacy means you're not required to tell anyone.
No one said people need to be able to change their account name a hundred thousand times after creating the account. If you can't associate a single nickname with a single person, then I'd be surprised if you could actually associate regular names with individual people either.
But how are you going to connect with someone you haven't talked to in 20 years if they don't use their name?
People think FB is doing this for advertising and that's to some extent true. But FB really only has two assets: the size of the graph (number of nodes), and the density of links in the graph. This in turn determines the value of everything FB has to sell: game/app virals, ads, paid promotions, etc. People focus too much on the number of nodes, what's far more important is the density of the graph - the number of links between nodes. Because if you have high density you have a healthy social network, and more nodes join in on their own. And the absolutely #1 factor in link density is discoverability, of being able to replicate real-world connections. This is far healthier and 'real' than some sort of virtual cyberfantasy thingie that only appeals to the 15-25 set you find on Myspace. The rest of the adult population lives in the real world. They need their online social stuff to match real-world social needs, not the other way around, or as some sort of separate existence - which really holds no appeal to them. Augmentation and enhancement, not replacement.
I'm sure FB can put a value in fractions of cents to each link and node. Both in the short term (recurring monetization) and long term (strategic positioning). They can break it up by DAU/MAU, or slice and dice it other ways. Hence, they can assign a cost to each node that uses a pseudonym and isn't discoverable. In fact, they can probably identify fake accounts (like developers often use; I have one myself for that purpose) simply by their lack of links and activity pattern. Since FB can put a loss figure on each German pseudonym, they can do a cost-benefit analysis of when it's cheaper to cut off service in Germany compared the cost of providing it minus the graph monetized value. However, as long as there is some graph value they're unlikely to cut it off. But the use of pseudonyms really isn't good for FB - or those of us who use it to augment our real lives.
More importantly, I've reconnected with friends and former coworkers on FB that I haven't seen in 20-30 years. Some are childhood friends. This is the real attraction of Facebook, otherwise for all I care it could just as well be G+ (which I don't use since the only people who use it are the ones I tend to see frequently anyway), Twitter (I don't care about Tom Cruise's latest project), Myspace (I don't care about the latest bands or find blinky red text on black c00l), or any of the other social apps with no greater real-world purpose than a box of crayons. Facebook's real-name policy actually provides genuine value.
I don't get why Facebook is so against it? Theoretically at least they shouldn't be selling personally identifiable data, just aggregate data, so an individual identification won't affect their product.
Really? Have you ever visited a public unmoderated forum or comment section on a site where people are permitted to be anonymous? It's like the total pit of the worst of humanity. If people can't put their name on what they say, then they should probably STFU. Of course, this assumes a democracy, but most of Germany has been a democracy for at least 50 years now. In non-democracies it's a different issue and if discussing the merits of allowing anyone to become a member of the Party (which of course is tantamount to discussing pluralism) gets you the same treatment as a child pornographer, then some means of anonymity is warranted. Perhaps in conjunction with moderation of language and to keep the trolls at bay.
And, yes, I would love for slashdot to enforce real identities to be used. It would immediately eliminate the n******r trolls, the imbeciles, and the paranoids. It would reduce the volume posted by half while increasing the quality by a magnitude.
Same here. I use Mathematica 8 Home edition (although on OSX) and always keep a worksheet open on a virtual screen. There are some nice third-party additions for things like bra*ket notation (if you have an interest in physics), various EE tools, and the online data is often handy. The documentation is good as well.
I'm a big fan of HP calculators, having relied heavily in the past on the HP-67, HP-41 (overclocked and with a PPC ROM soldered on), and HP-48, and still have various others in my collection (like a mint HP-16, an HP-32S anniversary, HP42S, HP-50G), and as much as I like a good calculator it has really long been bypassed by even very basic tools on a laptop and is more of a curiosity these days. Kinda sad given HP was among the first to do portable computers... HP-200LX anyone? I always envisioned the calculator evolving to become something like an iPad mini built to run something like Mathematica, but instead it became irrelevant. Of course, now Wolfram has Mathematica in the pipeline for the iPad...
Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site. If the British went around calling the English language their own, the world would juse use esperanto for good.
The U.S. should trademark the word "Internet". If one tuple isn't in the U.S. it shouldn't be called the Internet. It should be called "Internet-like", or "Internet-compatible", or "using the Internet method". Especially in France. They can call it Telepac-Plus or whatever. There's no reason they should be able to just take what we've created and popularized. It's OUR heritage, not theirs. OUR language, not theirs. The French should stop stealing our refined and superior culture.
If you're a competent programmer and live in the SF Bay Area, wages are definitely not flat, to the point of absurdity. There are kids just coming out of college making $80k or more as a starting salary, and quickly rising up to $120k+ within only a few years of experience.
If you're a competent programmer in the Bay Area you work in product development, not IT.
If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?
You have to provide ID to ship, and FedEx will x-ray or otherwise examine the package. If they see what looks like contraband they'll contact the appropriate law enforcement organization (ATF etc). If a TOR operator took similar precautions they'd likely avoid prosecution as well.
One time pads are not impossible to crack, provided you have some clues about detecting a successful decoding.
For any plaintext message of the same length you can construct a pad. This makes the cipher impossible to break. One pad will yield "attack at dawn", another "hello kitty". For any message there is a pad. A brute-force iteration of all possible pads will only yield all possible messages. The only angle of attack is to see how the pad might have been created in the first place (like seeds and sequences used) and attempt to reconstruct it.
Angular momentum (rotational energy if you like) causes frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging), which produces orbital precession. A massive rotating body also induces AM in smaller objects orbiting it. Objects orbiting in the same direction as the main body rotates have higher inertia (greater rest mass) and they in turn influence other objects more strongly. Objects orbiting with the AM tend to clump up more than those orbiting against the AM. Time dilation is affected by whether you orbit with or against the direction of the AM.
We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge
That's not entirely correct; the header doesn't just apply to cross-site tracking. Even Google analytics should be blocked as it's proposed. Or webalizer, or any other HTTP access log processing used to analyze usage patterns. In fact, as proposed those who include the header should be exempted from analytics, because that is tracking per definition. Of course logging or tracking Referers would be completely verboten. There is also nothing to limit it to personally identifiable information.
I refuse to participate in this stupidity. All my sites honor DNT as proposed - by outputing a TOS page to let you know your wish is granted. If some places make DNT law I will geo block them. I run my stuff on my terms, tough shit.
Never, ever have your devs do ops. Developers need to think further out, work on projects, in a deterministic proactive fashion. Day-to-day Ops is reactive and if you get your devs involved in it it's going to be a huge distraction in the short term and a burn-out factor in the long term. The best devs are very good long-term proactive thinkers that will very quickly burn out when confronted with ops work, not only because it's counter to how they think but also because they still have their project responsibilities. And, the worst possible thing you can do is put your devs on call. They won't say anything, because they will recognize the necessity of someone responding, so they'll suck it up. Then they leave for a job elsewhere where they don't have to.
And you can't even find out if the other end was measured or not. In such a situation it doesn't really matter which of the two particles is measured first.
Are you sure about this? Once collapsed the particle will no longer interfere with itself if you pass it through e.g. a double slit. And I always understood that entanglement meant the two particles shared a common wave function, so would collapse together - basically when you measure one the other will take one a single state as well. Otherwise you'd be claiming the entangled particle is not yet collapsed but you'd know what it will collapse to, which is an impossibility (if you know what it will collapse to, then it's collapsed.)
Slashdot Mirror
Install Chrome as a workaround, then fix the problem by finding a broker with software technology that dates to this century.
30% isn't usurious. It's a pretty common cut for retail in general. It's how you make money selling stuff. Many specialty markets have higher margins; many commodity markets lower. But 30% is pretty much smack dab normal.
The biggest problem was that HP didn't spin off their Corvallis calculator group to Agilent. HP management never understood the fact that HP calculators were predominantly used by the same technical customers as their other instruments - hence HP-IB, HP-IL calculator interfaces, the huge popularity of their EE software packs, etc - and shouldn't have been left to rot with the office equipment business.
A petition and a vote are two different things and the only one confused over the difference is the author of this pointless tirade. Words have meaning.
Imagine if America set up a law banning open prayer due to "noise pollution" - that would certainly makes the lives of many Muslims that bit tougher, wouldn't it?
Umm, no. Loudspeakers and giant horns is the form of expression while prayer is what's expressed. In this case, the form of expression is banned, not prayer itself. The Pakistanis ban the expression (blasphemy), not the form (youtube). So it's not at all similar - it's in fact the exact opposite.
An expression we DO ban here in the U.S. is child pornography; the form doesn't matter. It can be on youtube, anime, photos, videotron, drawings, etc. This is a better analogy to Pakistan's ban on blasphemy.
Now I had several problems with this. First, to avoid blacklisting, I had to remove this helpful service. Now those messages go to /dev/null. second, I didn't actually send the email, but we got blacklisted simply because our IP adress was in the chain of Received headers in the email header.
You got blacklisted because you sent bounce messages. You shouldn't. It's not a helpful service. If your server isn't going to accept a message, then it should say so during the ESMTP exchange and flat out reject it with an error. The submitting MTA (that the client used to send the message) sees the error and *IT* then sends a bounce message or notifies the client however it wishes that the message can't be sent. You should never, ever send a message based on the From: header, the from envelope, the Sender: or any other part; the first time some spammer uses your email address and you get 20000 bounce messages you'll understand why. (Actually, you won't anymore, because the default config for MTAs like postfix these days is not to send them.) The reason your IP address was in the received chain is that you sent the unsolicited message.
Yes and no; it's a measurement of the temperature of the ice sheet, not air temperature. It stands to reason that if thinning of the sheet is localized, so is warming since the two go hand in hand.
If people in germany want to use fake names, just do it, facebook clearly doesn't care.
The issue though isn't whether FB is aggressive enough at terminating fake accounts, since they're clearly not enforcing the issue - but what they can put in their terms of service. Just stating it in the TOS is enough for legit people with honest intentions to use their real names. But I agree they should be much more aggressive in enforcing it.
With your real name you can have people know everything about you, while you don't even know that exists. May pull other data from other sources, like your taxes, where you live, who is your family. Is unhealty and a big risk, probably the motives has ben made a law in germany (making it a law is a bit excesive, I think). Revealing your real name open the floodgates for anyone to easy reveal all other data, and start connecting the dots.
Here's a tip: they already do. Especially the German government. They cross-reference your tax records with your bank data, with your utility bills, and anything else kept online in a DB someplace about you. The Germany government does this more than just about any other government. They're anal about keeping records and audit trails and are very good at mining it.
If you don't want the whole world to know you drank too much wine last night, don't post it on the Internet, including FB, with or without pseudonym. As simple as this. Keep it to yourself. Your right to privacy means you're not required to tell anyone.
No one said people need to be able to change their account name a hundred thousand times after creating the account. If you can't associate a single nickname with a single person, then I'd be surprised if you could actually associate regular names with individual people either.
But how are you going to connect with someone you haven't talked to in 20 years if they don't use their name?
People think FB is doing this for advertising and that's to some extent true. But FB really only has two assets: the size of the graph (number of nodes), and the density of links in the graph. This in turn determines the value of everything FB has to sell: game/app virals, ads, paid promotions, etc. People focus too much on the number of nodes, what's far more important is the density of the graph - the number of links between nodes. Because if you have high density you have a healthy social network, and more nodes join in on their own. And the absolutely #1 factor in link density is discoverability, of being able to replicate real-world connections. This is far healthier and 'real' than some sort of virtual cyberfantasy thingie that only appeals to the 15-25 set you find on Myspace. The rest of the adult population lives in the real world. They need their online social stuff to match real-world social needs, not the other way around, or as some sort of separate existence - which really holds no appeal to them. Augmentation and enhancement, not replacement.
I'm sure FB can put a value in fractions of cents to each link and node. Both in the short term (recurring monetization) and long term (strategic positioning). They can break it up by DAU/MAU, or slice and dice it other ways. Hence, they can assign a cost to each node that uses a pseudonym and isn't discoverable. In fact, they can probably identify fake accounts (like developers often use; I have one myself for that purpose) simply by their lack of links and activity pattern. Since FB can put a loss figure on each German pseudonym, they can do a cost-benefit analysis of when it's cheaper to cut off service in Germany compared the cost of providing it minus the graph monetized value. However, as long as there is some graph value they're unlikely to cut it off. But the use of pseudonyms really isn't good for FB - or those of us who use it to augment our real lives.
More importantly, I've reconnected with friends and former coworkers on FB that I haven't seen in 20-30 years. Some are childhood friends. This is the real attraction of Facebook, otherwise for all I care it could just as well be G+ (which I don't use since the only people who use it are the ones I tend to see frequently anyway), Twitter (I don't care about Tom Cruise's latest project), Myspace (I don't care about the latest bands or find blinky red text on black c00l), or any of the other social apps with no greater real-world purpose than a box of crayons. Facebook's real-name policy actually provides genuine value.
I don't get why Facebook is so against it? Theoretically at least they shouldn't be selling personally identifiable data, just aggregate data, so an individual identification won't affect their product.
Really? Have you ever visited a public unmoderated forum or comment section on a site where people are permitted to be anonymous? It's like the total pit of the worst of humanity. If people can't put their name on what they say, then they should probably STFU. Of course, this assumes a democracy, but most of Germany has been a democracy for at least 50 years now. In non-democracies it's a different issue and if discussing the merits of allowing anyone to become a member of the Party (which of course is tantamount to discussing pluralism) gets you the same treatment as a child pornographer, then some means of anonymity is warranted. Perhaps in conjunction with moderation of language and to keep the trolls at bay.
And, yes, I would love for slashdot to enforce real identities to be used. It would immediately eliminate the n******r trolls, the imbeciles, and the paranoids. It would reduce the volume posted by half while increasing the quality by a magnitude.
Same here. I use Mathematica 8 Home edition (although on OSX) and always keep a worksheet open on a virtual screen. There are some nice third-party additions for things like bra*ket notation (if you have an interest in physics), various EE tools, and the online data is often handy. The documentation is good as well.
I'm a big fan of HP calculators, having relied heavily in the past on the HP-67, HP-41 (overclocked and with a PPC ROM soldered on), and HP-48, and still have various others in my collection (like a mint HP-16, an HP-32S anniversary, HP42S, HP-50G), and as much as I like a good calculator it has really long been bypassed by even very basic tools on a laptop and is more of a curiosity these days. Kinda sad given HP was among the first to do portable computers... HP-200LX anyone? I always envisioned the calculator evolving to become something like an iPad mini built to run something like Mathematica, but instead it became irrelevant. Of course, now Wolfram has Mathematica in the pipeline for the iPad...
Come on, the Internet is not a thing "paid for, developed and a thriving platform", it's a fucking convention. It's a protocol, like a language if you prefer. It's not a "thing". There are several other network protocols and there has been several other protocols since way before the internet. In France we were surfing on transpac and X25 before we joined the internet. The world now uses the Internet, precisely because it is very simple and open. If you really wanted to call it your own, then have fun surfing on your own web site. If the British went around calling the English language their own, the world would juse use esperanto for good.
The U.S. should trademark the word "Internet". If one tuple isn't in the U.S. it shouldn't be called the Internet. It should be called "Internet-like", or "Internet-compatible", or "using the Internet method". Especially in France. They can call it Telepac-Plus or whatever. There's no reason they should be able to just take what we've created and popularized. It's OUR heritage, not theirs. OUR language, not theirs. The French should stop stealing our refined and superior culture.
If you're a competent programmer and live in the SF Bay Area, wages are definitely not flat, to the point of absurdity. There are kids just coming out of college making $80k or more as a starting salary, and quickly rising up to $120k+ within only a few years of experience.
If you're a competent programmer in the Bay Area you work in product development, not IT.
If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?
You have to provide ID to ship, and FedEx will x-ray or otherwise examine the package. If they see what looks like contraband they'll contact the appropriate law enforcement organization (ATF etc). If a TOR operator took similar precautions they'd likely avoid prosecution as well.
Could they not just heat the 'combustion' chamber itself?
This would probably give poor timing control over the vapor explosion.
The boat has practically no resemblance to any other sailing vessel.
This might have something to do with the fact that it's a land vessel with wheels...
...can it go straight downwind faster than the wind?
Not downwind, but it can at various sideways angles to the wind (on the reach) where the sail acts as an airfoil.
Exactly.
One time pads are not impossible to crack, provided you have some clues about detecting a successful decoding.
For any plaintext message of the same length you can construct a pad. This makes the cipher impossible to break. One pad will yield "attack at dawn", another "hello kitty". For any message there is a pad. A brute-force iteration of all possible pads will only yield all possible messages. The only angle of attack is to see how the pad might have been created in the first place (like seeds and sequences used) and attempt to reconstruct it.
Angular momentum (rotational energy if you like) causes frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging), which produces orbital precession. A massive rotating body also induces AM in smaller objects orbiting it. Objects orbiting in the same direction as the main body rotates have higher inertia (greater rest mass) and they in turn influence other objects more strongly. Objects orbiting with the AM tend to clump up more than those orbiting against the AM. Time dilation is affected by whether you orbit with or against the direction of the AM.
We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge
That's not entirely correct; the header doesn't just apply to cross-site tracking. Even Google analytics should be blocked as it's proposed. Or webalizer, or any other HTTP access log processing used to analyze usage patterns. In fact, as proposed those who include the header should be exempted from analytics, because that is tracking per definition. Of course logging or tracking Referers would be completely verboten. There is also nothing to limit it to personally identifiable information.
I refuse to participate in this stupidity. All my sites honor DNT as proposed - by outputing a TOS page to let you know your wish is granted. If some places make DNT law I will geo block them. I run my stuff on my terms, tough shit.
Never, ever have your devs do ops. Developers need to think further out, work on projects, in a deterministic proactive fashion. Day-to-day Ops is reactive and if you get your devs involved in it it's going to be a huge distraction in the short term and a burn-out factor in the long term. The best devs are very good long-term proactive thinkers that will very quickly burn out when confronted with ops work, not only because it's counter to how they think but also because they still have their project responsibilities. And, the worst possible thing you can do is put your devs on call. They won't say anything, because they will recognize the necessity of someone responding, so they'll suck it up. Then they leave for a job elsewhere where they don't have to.
But, this is the same as having a sheet of paper with the same word written on it.
That's what key exchange is all about.
And you can't even find out if the other end was measured or not. In such a situation it doesn't really matter which of the two particles is measured first.
Are you sure about this? Once collapsed the particle will no longer interfere with itself if you pass it through e.g. a double slit. And I always understood that entanglement meant the two particles shared a common wave function, so would collapse together - basically when you measure one the other will take one a single state as well. Otherwise you'd be claiming the entangled particle is not yet collapsed but you'd know what it will collapse to, which is an impossibility (if you know what it will collapse to, then it's collapsed.)