Your example of success in special ed classrooms is sophistry. While it may work with them, in the end they are weak willed.
Have you ever been in a special ed classroom? Just because someone has difficulty in learning and understanding, doesn't mean they can't be as stubborn and ornery as anyone else. And it can end up being worse, as they may have more trouble than the average person in understanding the other side's point of view!
The alternative is to create a baseline of maximum carbon emissions and then stop anyone else from going into business that couldn't do so without increasing that baseline.
That's an alternative. Other alternatives exist, including making carbon allowances per person. This would get round the issues in both your scenarios (though doubtless it would have other issues of its own - I'm not suggesting it's a panacea, just pointing out that there are many options to consider...)
[...] You agree that all [code, ideas,...] and all other [information] including but not limited to [HTM stuff], that you obtain or learn from Numenta in connection with this Agreement are the confidential property of Numenta (Confidential Information).
I can't read that any other way than agreeing that anything you learn from them is their confidential property (regardless of whether the information is in the public domain, is patented/copyrighted by someone else, etc). That said, IANAL but I would guess that such an overly-broad clause in a contract would be very hard to enforce...
I know you're posting with tongue firmly in cheek, but there is at least one. I can't remember where I first saw it, but here's their website: The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn.
Or, you know, it could just be made to use BLACK AND WHITE
I suspect it's not as easy as that: the reason it's not possible to eavesdrop using the radiation is most likely that the whole screen has a similar luminance value, and it's hard to distinguish (from the radiated signal) bright green from bright red. If you change to black&white, it's easier for everyone to read, including the guy next door with his eavesdropping device:-)
So n is the number of digits in the PIN, not the number of combinations to guess between. And the aim is to work out the number of calls to learn the entire PIN, not just get into the account... (and I think he's assuming you're eavesdropping on calls, rather than attempting to break in remotely...)
Are you sure? If each phone call provides 2 of the n digits, then isn't n/2 the best you can hope for, not the average? The average number of calls will surely be higher, because on some calls you'll get one digit that's been asked for before...
The population of the US is estimated as about 300,000,000. 0.005% of that is 15,000. That's quite a lot of developers producing third-party software for the phone. You're right that most of them will be producing crappy, useless bugware, since Sturgeon's law (90% of anything is crud) applies here as anywhere. But the remaining 1,000 developers producing useful, high-quality killer apps can genuinely make the crucial difference between an expensive phone with a pretty interface, and a genuine leap forward in the mobile phone market...
Good though your point was, I'm pretty sure Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone states that Hogwarts lasts for seven years
Indeed—and this is consistent with how long secondary school usually lasts in England. What's more, OWLs and NEWTs (the exams taken by the characters) correspond, in terms of the age they're usually taken at, to GCSEs and A-levels, as taken by most English schoolchildren. So it's quite natural to assume JKR intended seven book from the start, one for each year of HP's school life.
You pay too much in taxes, regulations, tariffs and other regulatory costs in the UK, so more people are poor. That's a fact that we don't see charts for.
For example, a person records elders telling a traditional story and publishes them as recordings or a transcribed text. The person who did the publishing has the copyright for those recordings, not the original storyteller.
Correct.
Thus, if the storyteller performs that same story in public, he is violating the law.
No, that's not true. The person who made the recording owns copyright in the recording, but not in the story itself. So there's nothing to stop the storyteller telling it again. As you say, however, there is nothing the tribe can do to force the owner of the recording to play it back to them...
Wrong. The usable characters are 0-9, a-z, A-Z, period (.), underscore (_), and dash (-), so 65 characters are usable in DNS entries. I know the 37 number came from TFA, but it's still flat wrong.
At best you're twisting the truth, and you know it:-). Domain names are case-insensitive, so 'A' and 'a' are, for these purposes, the same character. RFC1035 forbids the underscore character in domain names, and many registries follow that practice. The period (.) has a special meaning as a separator/terminator, and so doesn't really count either. So the 37 number is reasonable, even if the definition of what it's counting wasn't made 100% precise...
No, the article's point is valid, if sloppily made. Appeal to authority, slightly more formally, is the step of deriving from
ASSUMPTIONS:
Z speaks the truth about X
Z says that Y(X) is true
the conclusion
DERIVE:
Y(X) is true
i.e. if you have reason to believe that a person knows about a topic and is honest about it, then you can base your assumptions on what they say. Of course, as with all logic, if your assumptions are false your argument falls down—in this case, if there's no reason to believe Z speaks the truth about X ("E=MC^2 is false because my mum said so"), or they didn't say what is claimed ("It's legal to distribute MS Windows for free cos Bill Gates said so") then the conclusion is likely to be false too.
The article is in Australian IT, connected to The Australian newspaper.
The report in question is a draft of a confidential briefing. So it hasn't been published, and so can't be "cited" in the conventional sense, by The Australian or anyone else.
It's quite common for newspapers to mention that they've seen unpublished material that they're writing about, usually with the phrase "seenby"
However, in Australia/NZ the phrase "sighted by" seems to be morecommon in this context.
I'd say there's a very good case for "sighted" being the word that was intended...
Barring any revelations about P and NP that would have consequences far more broad than MS's certificate being broken (many FAR, FAR more dire consequences (as essentially all crypto from the last few decades is based on the assumption that P!=NP) than just MS having to decide whether to revoke its certificate), I think you can sleep well.
You're right, a brute-force attack on the keypair itself is probably a lesser worry than some of the other problems (though it's an interesting thought that 30 processor years is less than 1 botnet-day... I suspect a lot of security planning has been based on the assumption that that sort of computing power is only in the hands of large governments, but that's another story...). But other threats (I'm thinking human mismanagement of keys—eg by storing them on a Windows server;-) are still a concern...
Hmm, I've read the articles people have linked to more closely (should have done that first, rather than trusting the posters;-) and it's possible that that's how it will work (i.e. you sign the driver with your certificate and send it to MS—so they know it's from you—then they sign the driver with their certificate, so Vista PCs will know that MS knows who it's from. Some posters implied that you'd get a certificate from MS with which you'd then sign your own drivers)—but there are still questions. For example, all certificates are required to have an expiration date. What happens when the certificate on your driver expires? I guess MS will put the expiration date 100 years into the future. More worryingly (as always), what if MS's root certificate gets compromised? There's certainly a huge incentive for it to be broken—how many botnets will be set to work on it as soon as Vista is released? And if it is, what could MS do—they'd have to revoke the certificate, causing all drivers released so far to become invalid. And I don't like the possibility that, if MS had a dispute with a hardware vendor, they could threaten to revoke the certificates to the vendor's drivers that were already in the field...
The thing that worries me the most (well, actually, a number of things do, but this one is pretty bad) is about what happens if the company that wrote the driver ceases to exist. This could be a problem, as follows:
The fee for the certificate is, apparently, $500/yr
Presumably the certificate issued to the company expires or is revoked if they don't cough up next year (otherwise a cunning manufacturer could just buy one certificate, and then use that forever)
Therefore, if your manufacturer goes belly-up, it's likely that your (100% genuine, legitimately-purchased) driver software—and the hardware that goes with it—will cease to work.
Either that, or MS will leave the certificate valid (to avoid annoying a huge number of customers), and the company's receivers will find that the certificate has a large value on the black market...
Your proposed "feature freeze" has probably been attempted on some projects, and probably with disastrous results.
It certainly has—and whether you regard the result as disastrous depends on your perspective. Here's a quote from David Thompson, vice president of the Microsoft's Windows Server product group, about what happened when they did this in the early days of Windows NT:
"NT 3.51 was a very unrewarding release. After [NT3.5] was completed, we basically sat around for 9 months fixing bugs while we waited for IBM to finish the Power PC hardware. But because of this, NT 3.51 was a solid release, and our customers loved it."
I think it's rather sad that he found delivering a release that customers loved "unrewarding", and I suspect that this sort of mentality goes a long way to explain why a lot of software sucks...
Slashdot Mirror
The KKK announced their commitment to Civil Rights and lynchings...
I respectfully disagree:
The agreement starts like this:
I can't read that any other way than agreeing that anything you learn from them is their confidential property (regardless of whether the information is in the public domain, is patented/copyrighted by someone else, etc). That said, IANAL but I would guess that such an overly-broad clause in a contract would be very hard to enforce...
Not to mention Saint Ignucius and the Church of Emacs ;-)
Watson Ladd's post said:
So n is the number of digits in the PIN, not the number of combinations to guess between. And the aim is to work out the number of calls to learn the entire PIN, not just get into the account... (and I think he's assuming you're eavesdropping on calls, rather than attempting to break in remotely...)The population of the US is estimated as about 300,000,000. 0.005% of that is 15,000. That's quite a lot of developers producing third-party software for the phone. You're right that most of them will be producing crappy, useless bugware, since Sturgeon's law (90% of anything is crud) applies here as anywhere. But the remaining 1,000 developers producing useful, high-quality killer apps can genuinely make the crucial difference between an expensive phone with a pretty interface, and a genuine leap forward in the mobile phone market...
I'll admit that I haven't conducted a thorough survey, but a quick google for "poverty statistics uk us" would suggest otherwise...
- The article is in Australian IT, connected to The Australian newspaper.
- The report in question is a draft of a confidential briefing. So it hasn't been published, and so can't be "cited" in the conventional sense, by The Australian or anyone else.
- It's quite common for newspapers to mention that they've seen unpublished material that they're writing about, usually with the phrase "seen by"
- However, in Australia/NZ the phrase "sighted by" seems to be more common in this context.
I'd say there's a very good case for "sighted" being the word that was intended...Hmm, I've read the articles people have linked to more closely (should have done that first, rather than trusting the posters ;-) and it's possible that that's how it will work (i.e. you sign the driver with your certificate and send it to MS—so they know it's from you—then they sign the driver with their certificate, so Vista PCs will know that MS knows who it's from. Some posters implied that you'd get a certificate from MS with which you'd then sign your own drivers)—but there are still questions. For example, all certificates are required to have an expiration date. What happens when the certificate on your driver expires? I guess MS will put the expiration date 100 years into the future. More worryingly (as always), what if MS's root certificate gets compromised? There's certainly a huge incentive for it to be broken—how many botnets will be set to work on it as soon as Vista is released? And if it is, what could MS do—they'd have to revoke the certificate, causing all drivers released so far to become invalid. And I don't like the possibility that, if MS had a dispute with a hardware vendor, they could threaten to revoke the certificates to the vendor's drivers that were already in the field...
- The fee for the certificate is, apparently, $500/yr
- Presumably the certificate issued to the company expires or is revoked if they don't cough up next year (otherwise a cunning manufacturer could just buy one certificate, and then use that forever)
- Therefore, if your manufacturer goes belly-up, it's likely that your (100% genuine, legitimately-purchased) driver software—and the hardware that goes with it—will cease to work.
Either that, or MS will leave the certificate valid (to avoid annoying a huge number of customers), and the company's receivers will find that the certificate has a large value on the black market...Quite right—the phrase "benign backdoor" would be far more appropriate...