Then provide an app. If so much data needs to be stored locally then you probably wanted to deploy an app, not a web site. IMHO the web should have been stateless all along. Cookies made some things easier but were never actually required (creative solutions are required without them).
I've been learning a fantastic interview technique from one of our manages. Somehow the company hired an unusually high percentage of really good technical people - unfortunately we didn't do the same for management. But it is possible to identify good people. No, I'm not telling how;-)
Yes, yes it is. They are the phone companies records, not yours. Though one could argue they are your records but being kept in the custody of the phone company, I think that argument needs to be fleshed out more.
One should pay these new taxes in virtual currency. Otherwise the government must establish an official means of determining an exchange rate which in turn legitimizes the virtual currency.
No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested, had been freely answering other questions, but refused to answer one that concerned shotgun shells found at the murder scene.
The problem with that is they should have read him his rights prior to a question like that. So they failed to read him his rights before questioning and then questioned him and use his response against him. On top of all this stupid logic about when you do and do not have rights.
From what I read, on the surface it seems quite likely he was guilty and ruling in his favor may change that outcome, but that is not supposed to be a consideration when dealing with constitutional issues. If the ruling on constitutional rights ruins the case one guy walks, but if the ruling erodes our constitutional rights, we all lose. One hopes the outcome of the case doesn't influence the decisions about the rules used to decide the case.
Transparency isn't the only problem. Freedom and privacy are simply more important than security. If freedom or privacy must be sacrificed (and that's a dubious claim), I don't want whatever you offer.
If you take them at their word, no freedom or privacy is being lost. Just remember the phone company already has these records and if it's legal they're trying to monetize the data already. The issue is that such a system has enormous potential for abuse. I'm actually more interested in how they control use of the system and mitigate corruption than what activities they actually carry out. Without proper protections (and I don't really know what that means) such a system will certainly evolve into everything people worry about.
Going out on a limb here, to what extent would the accidentally superior cement in that area lead to the establishment of an empire? All those structures would be stronger than the other guys, which would have to count for something. I find it interesting to think that they dominated the time in part due to naturally occurring ash and such.
Makes you wonder what subtle things in the modern world lead to success - the US in particular. Are we strong due to our laws? Our constitution? The wide open land full of resources? Peoples attitudes toward any number of things? The diversity? Who knows, certainly some of those things could be as subtle as a different composition of volcanic ash.
There's no particular reason why that hypothesis would be true. And I say that as someone who enjoys walking around in the woods. In fact, for those with nasty allergies, trees can be positively bad for your health.
Wow you're stupid.
Even if you don't want to sift through all those results and evaluate their validity, that widely held belief should be reason enough to start with that hypothesis.
You have to control for human behavior in this, or your analysis is broken.
Not so much. The data was taken by county. Not sure how many were used but there are over 3000 in the US. The affected states contain people of diverse types and so do the unaffected states. They also included data from before and after the ash borer invasion. So unless there is some interesting human behavior that changed in those states over those years, it should not contribute to the conclusion (meaning it is ruled out).
The data they collected is by county. There are 3143 counties in the US. The Ash borer problem only affected about 15 states over a known period of time. This has the potential to have very good data (I have not seen the actual study but did follow the link to summary). The time period they were looking at included the time Vioxx was on the market, so there's one interesting thing they must have seen - but that didn't correlate with which state had ash trees dying. No doubt there were other things present in the data, but that didn't correlate with the bug-affected areas. Remember, you can pull some bullshit thing out of your ass and say "not accounted for" but unless your bullshit correlates with the areas affected by the bugs and trees then it probably HAS been accounted for by the correlation statistics.
Science is increasingly being used like a religion - even on slashdot. Use it to support the things you like and complain about it when it suggests something you disagree with, and either way don't bother to RTFA.
Why you shouldn't talk to the police.
The OP acts like the law is interpreted like a computer program and that everything has to follow the rules of logic. The above linked video shows how this is not the case and why this protection is important - even for innocent people. Is it important for innocent people with "honest and truth seeking prosecutors"? Doesn't matter because (while I'd like to say "there are none") there are plenty of bad apples out there - or maybe just prosecutors with the wrong job incentives. Remember, the constitution exists to define and limit the reach of government. There is an implicit assumption that government is not to be trusted, or needs to be restrained at the very least. No regular citizen has ever violated the constitution because it doesn't apply to them - it applies to the government specifically because they need to have limits.
In the Feldman case - or in any case - it seems clear that they should be able to make a compelling case without the help of the accused. If not, then they really don't have much do they? Apparently they found some other evidence which might be construed as probable cause, which might be fine for getting a warrant to search, and they did and they got a hard drive. Now they're asking for his help in convicting himself. What if possession of the porn wasn't the crime, but viewing it instead? Say he viewed it online but there was no longer evidence on the hard drive, should he be compelled to confess to having seen it? It's really tough for the prosecutor because the hard drive is right there in front of them and they can't see what's on it without the defendants help. But it's not the job of the accused to help them.
But then I realized that with such a long question, the author already has an agenda and already knows his answer. You really can't argue or make a counter point with someone willing to START a debate from such a fortified position. Not that it's valid, but that he's so entrenched in it that there's not much point in arguing unless you've got a specific obvious case. This rule is more subtle than that - it's based on principles not necessarily specific scenarios that assume perfect behavior and consistent application of logic by all parties.
Perhaps OP should go live in a country that does not have this protection that he doesn't like so much.
In the above, the assumption of FLT is that the exponents are the same. This allows the division of the equation by F^n which reduces the size of the numbers involved. The Beal Conjecture allows the exponents to be different so this division is not always possible and this same method doesn't prove Beal. Just wanted to clarify that point.
If we assume the Beal Conjecture is true it implies FLT is true. FLT would require A^n+B^n = C^n with n>2. Beal says that in such a case A,B, and C must have a common factor (F). We could then divide through by F^n and get a smaller triple a,b,c that also satisfy the equation. Under Beal this could be repeated until the only common factor is 1 and then we'd have 1^n+1^n=1^n which is impossible.
So if you can prove the Beal conjecture, you also get a proof of FLT by infinite descent. This would make Fermat proud.
Fermat's last theorem is easy to prove if one takes this conjecture as true. I don't recall the logic ATM but my limited number theory was able to figure it out all by itself.
How naive. We're talking about government espionage. You know, stuff governments do. The reason you don't hear foreign countries talking about the US stealing military tech secrets is because at the moment our stuff is better than anyone elses. But we did hear about Stuxnet. China has been playing catch-up for a while now and they've made tons of progress - by innovating, buying, copying, and probably by stealing. When you're inventing you have no choice. When you're playing catch-up you have all these other options to get there faster, and with over a billion people someone is going to try each of those options.
They are correct. And should some country or group that hates the US cause major havoc because critical infrastructure is connected to the internet what is your response going to be? that's not fair? How about if you're dead and they're not? Then what's your response? You gonna cry foul?
Unfortunately international relations aren't just a game played by some rule book. It's for real in a world of limited resources, and when all else fails we actually resort to military force and fucking kill people. That's why every country has an army. In such a world espionage is a reality and your sensitive shit has no business being attached to the internet no mater how much software security you put in front of it. There is also the possibility that they got exactly what someone wanted them to get - remember that Russian pipeline explosion? Gotta be careful when you steal secrets...
Seriously. I think it was a comic strip (possibly xkcd) that pointed out that an exploit that had user level privileges could impersonate someone on web sites, do money transfers at their banks, etc... While a system level exploit would all it to install drivers. Whohooo!
Why isn't there a co-operative set up around the idea of these machines self-replicating?
There is. The RepRap was supposed to be a self replicating 3D printer and seems to be at the epicenter of all these cheap 3d printers. The problem is that they can only replicate certain kinds of parts, and not by any means the most difficult parts.
Putting a cutting head on them - instead of a plastic extruder - would give you a 3-axis mill that could cut metal (structural) or wood parts, as well as laminations used to make motors. Of course you probably want both types of capability and that would allow you to make say 90 percent of the machine sans circuit board. And a mill can also cut basic circuit boards from copper-clad if you want to go really hard core.
Governments apparently deem everything "classified" simply so people don't know what they're doing. It seems like there should be more specific justification than just an overall secrecy blanket. eh?
I've been thinking patent trolls are more a symptom of the problems. I see as reasonable:
1) You don't need to produce a product to have a patent (think small inventors looking for partners).
2) Patents should be transferable (can sell them)
3) You can sue for infringement
Simple as that you can now have companies that buy patents and sue for infringement. I suspect the real issue is #2 - if they are non-transferable then the inventor will have to license them. I think there would still be some troll law firms that represent a pool of inventors, but they'd have to share the "profits" and I suspect it would be less of a problem.
Another issue is probably the duration - 20 years is a long time for a patent, but primarily they should not be transferable.
I would argue that they should not be transferable from inventor to employer either, but that's a bit off topic - short version: your employment papers might include automatic licensing of inventions to the company under some terms. The US does not recognize companies as inventors - and rightly so IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Then provide an app. If so much data needs to be stored locally then you probably wanted to deploy an app, not a web site. IMHO the web should have been stateless all along. Cookies made some things easier but were never actually required (creative solutions are required without them).
I've been learning a fantastic interview technique from one of our manages. Somehow the company hired an unusually high percentage of really good technical people - unfortunately we didn't do the same for management. But it is possible to identify good people. No, I'm not telling how ;-)
Yes, yes it is. They are the phone companies records, not yours. Though one could argue they are your records but being kept in the custody of the phone company, I think that argument needs to be fleshed out more.
One should pay these new taxes in virtual currency. Otherwise the government must establish an official means of determining an exchange rate which in turn legitimizes the virtual currency.
The problem with that is they should have read him his rights prior to a question like that. So they failed to read him his rights before questioning and then questioned him and use his response against him. On top of all this stupid logic about when you do and do not have rights.
From what I read, on the surface it seems quite likely he was guilty and ruling in his favor may change that outcome, but that is not supposed to be a consideration when dealing with constitutional issues. If the ruling on constitutional rights ruins the case one guy walks, but if the ruling erodes our constitutional rights, we all lose. One hopes the outcome of the case doesn't influence the decisions about the rules used to decide the case.
We should leave twitter off such a list - it's explicitly public anyway. Anyone on earth could create a database of tweets.
If you take them at their word, no freedom or privacy is being lost. Just remember the phone company already has these records and if it's legal they're trying to monetize the data already. The issue is that such a system has enormous potential for abuse. I'm actually more interested in how they control use of the system and mitigate corruption than what activities they actually carry out. Without proper protections (and I don't really know what that means) such a system will certainly evolve into everything people worry about.
Going out on a limb here, to what extent would the accidentally superior cement in that area lead to the establishment of an empire? All those structures would be stronger than the other guys, which would have to count for something. I find it interesting to think that they dominated the time in part due to naturally occurring ash and such.
Makes you wonder what subtle things in the modern world lead to success - the US in particular. Are we strong due to our laws? Our constitution? The wide open land full of resources? Peoples attitudes toward any number of things? The diversity? Who knows, certainly some of those things could be as subtle as a different composition of volcanic ash.
Wow you're stupid. Even if you don't want to sift through all those results and evaluate their validity, that widely held belief should be reason enough to start with that hypothesis.
Not so much. The data was taken by county. Not sure how many were used but there are over 3000 in the US. The affected states contain people of diverse types and so do the unaffected states. They also included data from before and after the ash borer invasion. So unless there is some interesting human behavior that changed in those states over those years, it should not contribute to the conclusion (meaning it is ruled out).
The data they collected is by county. There are 3143 counties in the US. The Ash borer problem only affected about 15 states over a known period of time. This has the potential to have very good data (I have not seen the actual study but did follow the link to summary). The time period they were looking at included the time Vioxx was on the market, so there's one interesting thing they must have seen - but that didn't correlate with which state had ash trees dying. No doubt there were other things present in the data, but that didn't correlate with the bug-affected areas. Remember, you can pull some bullshit thing out of your ass and say "not accounted for" but unless your bullshit correlates with the areas affected by the bugs and trees then it probably HAS been accounted for by the correlation statistics.
Science is increasingly being used like a religion - even on slashdot. Use it to support the things you like and complain about it when it suggests something you disagree with, and either way don't bother to RTFA.
That would look even more suspicious.
In this case people are trying to prevent the place they want to live from turning into something else. So no, that argument doesn't apply.
So now burning coal causes cooling? I thought it was supposed to cause warming.
I think anyone blaming a specific change in regional weather/climate on specific human causes is full of themself.
Why you shouldn't talk to the police.
The OP acts like the law is interpreted like a computer program and that everything has to follow the rules of logic. The above linked video shows how this is not the case and why this protection is important - even for innocent people. Is it important for innocent people with "honest and truth seeking prosecutors"? Doesn't matter because (while I'd like to say "there are none") there are plenty of bad apples out there - or maybe just prosecutors with the wrong job incentives. Remember, the constitution exists to define and limit the reach of government. There is an implicit assumption that government is not to be trusted, or needs to be restrained at the very least. No regular citizen has ever violated the constitution because it doesn't apply to them - it applies to the government specifically because they need to have limits.
In the Feldman case - or in any case - it seems clear that they should be able to make a compelling case without the help of the accused. If not, then they really don't have much do they? Apparently they found some other evidence which might be construed as probable cause, which might be fine for getting a warrant to search, and they did and they got a hard drive. Now they're asking for his help in convicting himself. What if possession of the porn wasn't the crime, but viewing it instead? Say he viewed it online but there was no longer evidence on the hard drive, should he be compelled to confess to having seen it? It's really tough for the prosecutor because the hard drive is right there in front of them and they can't see what's on it without the defendants help. But it's not the job of the accused to help them.
But then I realized that with such a long question, the author already has an agenda and already knows his answer. You really can't argue or make a counter point with someone willing to START a debate from such a fortified position. Not that it's valid, but that he's so entrenched in it that there's not much point in arguing unless you've got a specific obvious case. This rule is more subtle than that - it's based on principles not necessarily specific scenarios that assume perfect behavior and consistent application of logic by all parties.
Perhaps OP should go live in a country that does not have this protection that he doesn't like so much.
In the above, the assumption of FLT is that the exponents are the same. This allows the division of the equation by F^n which reduces the size of the numbers involved. The Beal Conjecture allows the exponents to be different so this division is not always possible and this same method doesn't prove Beal. Just wanted to clarify that point.
If we assume the Beal Conjecture is true it implies FLT is true. FLT would require A^n+B^n = C^n with n>2. Beal says that in such a case A,B, and C must have a common factor (F). We could then divide through by F^n and get a smaller triple a,b,c that also satisfy the equation. Under Beal this could be repeated until the only common factor is 1 and then we'd have 1^n+1^n=1^n which is impossible.
So if you can prove the Beal conjecture, you also get a proof of FLT by infinite descent. This would make Fermat proud.
Not really, this conjecture if true implies FLT fairly easily.
Fermat's last theorem is easy to prove if one takes this conjecture as true. I don't recall the logic ATM but my limited number theory was able to figure it out all by itself.
How naive. We're talking about government espionage. You know, stuff governments do. The reason you don't hear foreign countries talking about the US stealing military tech secrets is because at the moment our stuff is better than anyone elses. But we did hear about Stuxnet. China has been playing catch-up for a while now and they've made tons of progress - by innovating, buying, copying, and probably by stealing. When you're inventing you have no choice. When you're playing catch-up you have all these other options to get there faster, and with over a billion people someone is going to try each of those options.
They are correct. And should some country or group that hates the US cause major havoc because critical infrastructure is connected to the internet what is your response going to be? that's not fair? How about if you're dead and they're not? Then what's your response? You gonna cry foul?
Unfortunately international relations aren't just a game played by some rule book. It's for real in a world of limited resources, and when all else fails we actually resort to military force and fucking kill people. That's why every country has an army. In such a world espionage is a reality and your sensitive shit has no business being attached to the internet no mater how much software security you put in front of it. There is also the possibility that they got exactly what someone wanted them to get - remember that Russian pipeline explosion? Gotta be careful when you steal secrets...
Seriously. I think it was a comic strip (possibly xkcd) that pointed out that an exploit that had user level privileges could impersonate someone on web sites, do money transfers at their banks, etc... While a system level exploit would all it to install drivers. Whohooo!
There is. The RepRap was supposed to be a self replicating 3D printer and seems to be at the epicenter of all these cheap 3d printers. The problem is that they can only replicate certain kinds of parts, and not by any means the most difficult parts.
Putting a cutting head on them - instead of a plastic extruder - would give you a 3-axis mill that could cut metal (structural) or wood parts, as well as laminations used to make motors. Of course you probably want both types of capability and that would allow you to make say 90 percent of the machine sans circuit board. And a mill can also cut basic circuit boards from copper-clad if you want to go really hard core.
Governments apparently deem everything "classified" simply so people don't know what they're doing. It seems like there should be more specific justification than just an overall secrecy blanket. eh?
I've been thinking patent trolls are more a symptom of the problems. I see as reasonable:
1) You don't need to produce a product to have a patent (think small inventors looking for partners).
2) Patents should be transferable (can sell them)
3) You can sue for infringement
Simple as that you can now have companies that buy patents and sue for infringement. I suspect the real issue is #2 - if they are non-transferable then the inventor will have to license them. I think there would still be some troll law firms that represent a pool of inventors, but they'd have to share the "profits" and I suspect it would be less of a problem.
Another issue is probably the duration - 20 years is a long time for a patent, but primarily they should not be transferable.
I would argue that they should not be transferable from inventor to employer either, but that's a bit off topic - short version: your employment papers might include automatic licensing of inventions to the company under some terms. The US does not recognize companies as inventors - and rightly so IMHO.