Hey, I am not the one posting articles trying to vindicate her by appealing to the same keyword signaling (eg., "private email"). I am only the one replying to such a post.
Most of it has been set in motion. Which is quite a bit for 2 months' worth of work in DC. As for this garbage:
Repeal Obamacare - hasn't happened yet and if the current bill does happen it will fuck a lot of Americans.
Fuck you with a cherry on top. Obamacare is a killer. Millions of people are forced to buy insurance which denies coverage and then they don't have enough money to pay for the actual medical treatment when they need it. Oh, and FUCK YOU if you think anyone supporting Obamacare deserves anything but the bottom level of hell. No one who would destroy the system of medical care which consistently produced better and better cures and separated modern society from savages deserves anything but utmost vile visceral derision.
Sessions was accused of lying to Congress. Eric Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress. So with Sessions the case is nowhere near clear. With Eric Holder the facts of contempt are established, indisputable and unappealable. And given that the people accusing Sessions were the same ones who voted against his confirmation, the facts there are hardly indisputable. For now, Sessions recused himself from the investigation and until those conducting the investigation make a recommendation, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Yeah, I am sure the fascist Democratic Party would like that.
at some point you have to move on from the talking points of the election
It hasn't been 2 months and he's practically done with all the campaign promises. You really don't see that you are the monsters, do you? You really think you are on the right side of history. You are defending running criminals for office and making excuses for it. And the man you are so hard to smear is just doing his job. And so far he is doing fairly well. Of course, the media wants to smear him. He doesn't need them as the messengers anymore. They have to figure out how to make a living now without taking his words out of context. Because he can speak to the people directly. The frustration is palpable. Well, you lunatics don't need be handled with kid gloves anymore. You have lost all relevance.
Hey, I figured I'd give you enough rope to show your true colors. The fascist Democratic Party is deep-down xenophobic. Your national socialist roots are showing.
Oh? So this article was not in relation to the Clinton investigation? It was just a mentioning that a CEO of a private company had a non-work email? It had no relation to Clinton and that's why my bringing it up is a non sequitur, right? Just trying to understand what you are implying here.
Did he also do it to avoid FOIA requests while holding "Top Secret" clearance and exposing national secrets to foreign hacking? And did he do it on a private server accessible by a legion of people without such clearance? Or was that just Hillary Clinton?
Boundaries. Both personal and professional. While both ingenuity and good work ethics are essential, they need to know that there are some rules set out by people who are just as smart, but who have a lot more experience.
Most actual coding challenges use project Euler problems as starting point and then scale the problem. Although some of the later project Euler problems are difficult in their own right. But any one of them can be made difficult if you expand the boundaries and narrow the restrictions. It almost immediately becomes a test of not only knowing which optimal algorithms exist, but whether you can apply them to solve problems.
Yet somehow I have _never_ needed to determine if a number is prime, or indeed any of the other circus tricks at Project Euler.
There is a difference between writing low-level library code and application code. Understanding optimal strategies of handling integers very often ends up being an exercise in rudimentary number theory. That makes it useful when figuring out an optimal hashing function, knowing when worse big-O solution will give better real-world performance results because of the real-world boundaries on your number, etc. You are at the very opposite end of the spectrum. Your solutions are heavy on unique situations and light on the number of users. Someone who writes code to be used by other people (a custom db-engine, for example) would have to write code which is light on setting operational boundaries and heavy on number of use-cases. So they would need to think through how performance would change as the boundaries of the problem domain change (because they don't know what their users will need). That's pretty numerical in nature. There is also a whole class of problems which grow in computation time very quickly if you don't cull unnecessary operations. Try something simple for size. What's the big-O size of a common-law legal system? You don't think that's a math problem? Most of breaking-down of programming into tasks is actually a Galois correspondence. Ok, you don't need to know that to code, but if you do know what comes with it, you can't break out of the paradigm of "how things are" and into "how they should be" given a different problem domain and nudge your code in that direction. Shorter story? If you want code optimized for one problem domain, you don't need much math. If you want to hop from one problem domain to another often, you do.
Even if it got as far as passage, it would never survive in courts. First of all, it allows discrimination in compensation based on race. The court arguments will pretty much stop at that. But it also allows discrimination based on yet-to-be-proven-to-be-genetically-caused disabilities. That's going to be enough to get it laughed out of the courts rather than just thrown out.
Children. Yep, having children is the best birth control. And the 2000s had a spike in birth rates. In fact, the underlying cause of the housing bubble (not the finances which allowed it, but the behavior which these finances paid for) was people starting new families. The wedding industry boomed as well. And well, the saying is pretty old, but it still holds true. The best birth control is having children.
These programs will be studied by historians as the modern-day workaround around prohibition of slavery and indentured servitude. The only thing which will be remembered will be the living conditions suffered by many of these visa holders and their delayed rights to participate in political process despite being bona fide immigrants. No one will remember or care about their salary levels. It takes 3x as much money in SF to buy the same life style as one could buy in, let's say, Omaha. The 10-15% difference in salary is simply meaningless in situations where people are living in this "hotel California" (you can check out, but you can never leave).
Either they start taking political positions, or money talks. Gun ownership is legal. So this isn't about a corporation making money off of illegal activity. If you think it's immoral, then you can't expect them to pay for your moral judgements. Otherwise, you should expect them to take a moral stand of their choosing on any issue you may disagree with.
Even though the quoted part was part of a defense against an accusation (the accusation pointed out in the article summary)? Isn't the accusation itself the 1st claim, while the defense is the 2nd claim? And shouldn't it be obvious that I countered by saying that the defense is a non sequitur?
If you have to spend that money within a specific geographic area and you have zero political control over that area (don't have the right to vote), you can't stop those who have more control over the area to overcharge you until you spend all the money you earn and all the money you are able to borrow. If you live in SF and can't vote in SF, you can't vote in politicians who would create policies which enable rapid urban sprawl (to reduce your housing expenses) and make it easier to bring in outside food and clothing (to reduce your daily living expenses). So the people who do have control over it (the home owners, the doctors, lawyers, local store owners) have a vice lock on your life.
Sorry, I am having problems parsing your derision. But, since one of its possible parsing may be illuminating (if true), can I kindly ask you to elaborate?
No, CRC would make a terribly bad content identifier.
Of course, it would. Precisely for the reasons I outlined.
First of all, a usual 32-bit CRC is too short: by birthday paradox
I didn't say anything about 32 bits. You can make it any power of 2. It's effectively just a remainder of dividing by an irreducible polynomial in an extension field of F_2. I wasn't suggesting using it.
I was saying that Linus was being flippant by ignoring a problem with a trivial solution and he doubled down by claiming that the only functionality he was looking for was something which needs less than cryptographic-level randomness. But what he ended up saying was tantamount to saying that the functionality he needed might just as well be achieved with CRC (no, not 32... probably 128, but certainly with 256). He was basically saying he needed a large enough pointer to be unique across all data which we can expect to be conceivably computable in the next X years. And he was completely ignoring the fact that this created a vector of attack on searchability.
Btw, birthday "paradox" collision is not enough to hinder searchability, so they are not a concern.
a longer CRC is not fast.
It scales linearly with the size of the signature. It's just polynomial division. And dividing by a polynomial of a degree that's twice as high would take exactly twice as long. So (a properly implemented) CRC-128 should take 4 time as long as CRC-32.
You don't have to believe me on the following, but (1) I have a math PhD, (2) I do write a lot of code and (3) I've implemented functions based on these algorithms. So just take it easy with the hyperbole.
Don't confuse possible and feasible. It's not proven that the discrete log problem has no linear-time solution. But there is no known linear time solution, so we rely on this problem remaining unsolved in order to trust our encryption.
It's a little harder to say in one sentence why creating simultaneous hashing solutions is not feasible, but (at least at the moment) it is considered to be an unsolved mathematical problem. Or, at least, so claimed the post which announced the sha1 collision experiment (here: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...). To make it easier to understand why that is, a 1-bit will change X bits in sha-1 and Y bits in md5. Where, ideally, X and Y have a mean centered around half the length of the signature and have a high variance. X and Y should also be independent (as random variables). By comparison, a 1-bit change will produce a 100% predictable 1-bit change in CRC.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I am not the one posting articles trying to vindicate her by appealing to the same keyword signaling (eg., "private email"). I am only the one replying to such a post.
Repeal Obamacare - hasn't happened yet and if the current bill does happen it will fuck a lot of Americans.
Fuck you with a cherry on top. Obamacare is a killer. Millions of people are forced to buy insurance which denies coverage and then they don't have enough money to pay for the actual medical treatment when they need it. Oh, and FUCK YOU if you think anyone supporting Obamacare deserves anything but the bottom level of hell. No one who would destroy the system of medical care which consistently produced better and better cures and separated modern society from savages deserves anything but utmost vile visceral derision.
Sessions was accused of lying to Congress. Eric Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress. So with Sessions the case is nowhere near clear. With Eric Holder the facts of contempt are established, indisputable and unappealable. And given that the people accusing Sessions were the same ones who voted against his confirmation, the facts there are hardly indisputable. For now, Sessions recused himself from the investigation and until those conducting the investigation make a recommendation, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Well, at least, you are honest enough to admit that you have no defense. Own it, man. Own it.
Have they disbarred Eric Holder for contempt of Congress, yet? Have they even criminally charged him, as it is customary?
Or just STFU, that's also an option.
Yeah, I am sure the fascist Democratic Party would like that.
at some point you have to move on from the talking points of the election
It hasn't been 2 months and he's practically done with all the campaign promises. You really don't see that you are the monsters, do you? You really think you are on the right side of history. You are defending running criminals for office and making excuses for it. And the man you are so hard to smear is just doing his job. And so far he is doing fairly well. Of course, the media wants to smear him. He doesn't need them as the messengers anymore. They have to figure out how to make a living now without taking his words out of context. Because he can speak to the people directly. The frustration is palpable. Well, you lunatics don't need be handled with kid gloves anymore. You have lost all relevance.
Hey, I figured I'd give you enough rope to show your true colors. The fascist Democratic Party is deep-down xenophobic. Your national socialist roots are showing.
Well, enjoy the consequences of your madness.
Aha. Is that what you crazies tell each other now that you don't run the asylum anymore?
I also speak Russian. I am sure you can make a few stretches with that one, too.
Oh? So this article was not in relation to the Clinton investigation? It was just a mentioning that a CEO of a private company had a non-work email? It had no relation to Clinton and that's why my bringing it up is a non sequitur, right? Just trying to understand what you are implying here.
Did he also do it to avoid FOIA requests while holding "Top Secret" clearance and exposing national secrets to foreign hacking? And did he do it on a private server accessible by a legion of people without such clearance? Or was that just Hillary Clinton?
Boundaries. Both personal and professional. While both ingenuity and good work ethics are essential, they need to know that there are some rules set out by people who are just as smart, but who have a lot more experience.
Most actual coding challenges use project Euler problems as starting point and then scale the problem. Although some of the later project Euler problems are difficult in their own right. But any one of them can be made difficult if you expand the boundaries and narrow the restrictions. It almost immediately becomes a test of not only knowing which optimal algorithms exist, but whether you can apply them to solve problems.
Yet somehow I have _never_ needed to determine if a number is prime, or indeed any of the other circus tricks at Project Euler.
There is a difference between writing low-level library code and application code. Understanding optimal strategies of handling integers very often ends up being an exercise in rudimentary number theory. That makes it useful when figuring out an optimal hashing function, knowing when worse big-O solution will give better real-world performance results because of the real-world boundaries on your number, etc. You are at the very opposite end of the spectrum. Your solutions are heavy on unique situations and light on the number of users. Someone who writes code to be used by other people (a custom db-engine, for example) would have to write code which is light on setting operational boundaries and heavy on number of use-cases. So they would need to think through how performance would change as the boundaries of the problem domain change (because they don't know what their users will need). That's pretty numerical in nature. There is also a whole class of problems which grow in computation time very quickly if you don't cull unnecessary operations. Try something simple for size. What's the big-O size of a common-law legal system? You don't think that's a math problem? Most of breaking-down of programming into tasks is actually a Galois correspondence. Ok, you don't need to know that to code, but if you do know what comes with it, you can't break out of the paradigm of "how things are" and into "how they should be" given a different problem domain and nudge your code in that direction. Shorter story? If you want code optimized for one problem domain, you don't need much math. If you want to hop from one problem domain to another often, you do.
There has been numerous studies done showing that these types of things don't correlate.
Citation, please? Not being obnoxious. I am honestly curious to see a formal study.
Even if it got as far as passage, it would never survive in courts. First of all, it allows discrimination in compensation based on race. The court arguments will pretty much stop at that. But it also allows discrimination based on yet-to-be-proven-to-be-genetically-caused disabilities. That's going to be enough to get it laughed out of the courts rather than just thrown out.
Children. Yep, having children is the best birth control. And the 2000s had a spike in birth rates. In fact, the underlying cause of the housing bubble (not the finances which allowed it, but the behavior which these finances paid for) was people starting new families. The wedding industry boomed as well. And well, the saying is pretty old, but it still holds true. The best birth control is having children.
These programs will be studied by historians as the modern-day workaround around prohibition of slavery and indentured servitude. The only thing which will be remembered will be the living conditions suffered by many of these visa holders and their delayed rights to participate in political process despite being bona fide immigrants. No one will remember or care about their salary levels. It takes 3x as much money in SF to buy the same life style as one could buy in, let's say, Omaha. The 10-15% difference in salary is simply meaningless in situations where people are living in this "hotel California" (you can check out, but you can never leave).
Either they start taking political positions, or money talks. Gun ownership is legal. So this isn't about a corporation making money off of illegal activity. If you think it's immoral, then you can't expect them to pay for your moral judgements. Otherwise, you should expect them to take a moral stand of their choosing on any issue you may disagree with.
Even though the quoted part was part of a defense against an accusation (the accusation pointed out in the article summary)? Isn't the accusation itself the 1st claim, while the defense is the 2nd claim? And shouldn't it be obvious that I countered by saying that the defense is a non sequitur?
My guess is often times they are related to the store owners (who are also property owners unaffected by rising real estate prices).
If you have to spend that money within a specific geographic area and you have zero political control over that area (don't have the right to vote), you can't stop those who have more control over the area to overcharge you until you spend all the money you earn and all the money you are able to borrow. If you live in SF and can't vote in SF, you can't vote in politicians who would create policies which enable rapid urban sprawl (to reduce your housing expenses) and make it easier to bring in outside food and clothing (to reduce your daily living expenses). So the people who do have control over it (the home owners, the doctors, lawyers, local store owners) have a vice lock on your life.
Sorry, I am having problems parsing your derision. But, since one of its possible parsing may be illuminating (if true), can I kindly ask you to elaborate?
No, CRC would make a terribly bad content identifier.
Of course, it would. Precisely for the reasons I outlined.
First of all, a usual 32-bit CRC is too short: by birthday paradox
I didn't say anything about 32 bits. You can make it any power of 2. It's effectively just a remainder of dividing by an irreducible polynomial in an extension field of F_2. I wasn't suggesting using it.
I was saying that Linus was being flippant by ignoring a problem with a trivial solution and he doubled down by claiming that the only functionality he was looking for was something which needs less than cryptographic-level randomness. But what he ended up saying was tantamount to saying that the functionality he needed might just as well be achieved with CRC (no, not 32... probably 128, but certainly with 256). He was basically saying he needed a large enough pointer to be unique across all data which we can expect to be conceivably computable in the next X years. And he was completely ignoring the fact that this created a vector of attack on searchability.
Btw, birthday "paradox" collision is not enough to hinder searchability, so they are not a concern.
a longer CRC is not fast.
It scales linearly with the size of the signature. It's just polynomial division. And dividing by a polynomial of a degree that's twice as high would take exactly twice as long. So (a properly implemented) CRC-128 should take 4 time as long as CRC-32.
You don't have to believe me on the following, but (1) I have a math PhD, (2) I do write a lot of code and (3) I've implemented functions based on these algorithms. So just take it easy with the hyperbole.
Don't confuse possible and feasible. It's not proven that the discrete log problem has no linear-time solution. But there is no known linear time solution, so we rely on this problem remaining unsolved in order to trust our encryption.
It's a little harder to say in one sentence why creating simultaneous hashing solutions is not feasible, but (at least at the moment) it is considered to be an unsolved mathematical problem. Or, at least, so claimed the post which announced the sha1 collision experiment (here: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...). To make it easier to understand why that is, a 1-bit will change X bits in sha-1 and Y bits in md5. Where, ideally, X and Y have a mean centered around half the length of the signature and have a high variance. X and Y should also be independent (as random variables). By comparison, a 1-bit change will produce a 100% predictable 1-bit change in CRC.