How is changing the maximum number of logins considered "rewriting" an operating system?
Because the current operating system doesn't have that ability built into it. Which means that if the chip does allow it, a new capability has to be built into the operating system which would allow to it to access the functionality of the chip which the current operating system cannot access. Chips can have persistent memory counters which are only accessible by chips hardware and are not exposed to any instructions passed to the chip. Think of it as a secure connection handshake which happens between the chip and the rest of the hardware. If the handshake fails after X attempts, the information which the handshake protects (internally stored private key) is erased and any info which was encrypted with it is lost forever.
I don't know about guillotine, but it does seem that any President who signed a law which was later declared unconstitutional or any congressmen (in the house or senate) who voted for such a law should be disqualified from ever holding a public office again. The alternative is what we have now: they spam the system with legislature which is not constitutional all the time and the court can't consider most of it. There is not downside to passing blatantly unconstitutional laws. Having laws struck down is not even a slap on the wrist. They can literally change a few words in the law and voila.... it has to go through the whole process of finding a test case and then getting through all the lower courts in the hopes that the SCOTUS decides that the new law is just like the one they already considered and struck down.
1. Other laws have been passed since then. Timeline-wise this was before even the telecom deregulation, before DMCA, even before the Patriot Act.
2. The last thing you'd want is leave this hanging over as a legislative prerogative. The legislature changes every 2 years. The FBI would just have to wait until the right set of unrelated circumstances gives them a Congress willing to give them this power. This is why you want this to be declared squarely unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Which makes the key nomination so crucial right now.
You can only have data points. That is cross-section of data at different time points. You'll get other contributing factors which will make these less relevant. But the pressure of the cost of reproduction and its influence on economies of scale will always be there in production environments.
This is what you get for all of your beloved "regulation" of the industry. Because Google, MS and most of the other tech giants own federally-regualted properties (cable lines, phone lines, etc.), they have to pretend to agree with the government or they'll be targeted for arbitrary selective enforcement of arcane and poorly worded regulations intended to tie up business of properties which these tech companies bought with borrowed money (so they won't be seeing any return on the money... in fact will take loses, but will still have to service the loans). So Apple is the only company which can afford to take this stand because they, by some accident, managed to make so much money on 1 product line. If they had multiple product lines, they probably would depend on uncle sam's permission to spit as well.
Mechanical engineers cannot make as much as programmers. The cost of replication of the work-product of a programmer is $0. The cost of replication of the work product of a mechanical engineer is the cost of materials (>$0). This difference creates an economic pressure to make programmers' salaries higher.
actually, that's very little. if any PM-level manager is making less than $150k, they should be looking for a new job. The only realistic way to measure a salary is in the multiples of minimal wage (because that's what really determines price levels of everything else in this service economy). If you are making only 15x what the people who are flipping burgers are making and you don't have all the top-level perks that come with being a public servant (pension, best medical insurance in the state, etc.), then you are getting taken for a ride. Your take-home pay may seem high, but you have to put a lot of it away to pay for your retirement (something that people who make half your salary don't have to do). And you will pay close to full-price for you children's college (vs someone making 1/3 of your salary who'll pay nothing for it). And god-forbid you get sick or your kid breaks a hand, you'll get laugh at why you have that medical insurance at all. It'll delay your care and all the money will be paid by you out of pocket to cover deductible. After you've deducted all of these, if you think that $150k will buy you a comfortable life, you are kidding yourself. You are not gonna be taking any luxury vacations anytime soon. If you are lucky, you'll be able to afford one life-long hobby to sink $100 a month into.
The center of said circumscribed circle is the intersection of the bisectors of the three sides of the triangle.
"bisectors" are rays which divide angles in two equal angles. Maybe the place of points equidistant from the endpoints of a line segment? That's a perpendicular bisector of the sides.
Three non aligned points define one circle (the circumcircle of the triangle).
This is not axiomatic. It's a theorem. And you can prove that it's logically equivalent to the theorem proved by the student, but that doesn't prove either one of the two theorems. You need a separate proof of one of the two theorems before they both can be considered as having been proved. In fact, proving the theorem that the student proved is easier than proving that 3 points define a circle. So it presents a more elegant proof of the fact that 3 points define a circle.
That's basic geometry.
The basics are usually the hardest to prove in geometry. It is too easy to mix up what's known and what's hypothesized. That's why it makes it such a good training ground in suspending your intuition when seeing what can be logically deduced.
Well, if you want to see why it's interesting, consider that it's not true for 2 points. And think about why it's not true for 2 points. Notice that it is not the hypothesis that these line segments are radii, but the conclusion of the theorem. Then suspend your belief that it seems intuitively true and try to actually prove it from the postulated properties of lines and points in a euclidean plane.
Circle is all the points equidistant from a given point. The theorem mentions "more than 2" rather than "all". This allows to prove a number of other basic facts.
The Ycombinator is apparently the link with all the info rather than the "news" source. I mistakenly said it was "MIT". Her proof is original. The theorem is not.
As the MIT discussion (linked in the slashdot summary) shows, it's actually in the Elements. But the theorem was not in the textbook used by the school and the student did stumble on it on her own. Good for her.
The linked news article misses the key features of the line segments: "of equal length". The "theorem" as mentioned in the news article is patently false.
Uhm... I don't believe we currently recognize Russian government as legitimate. We recognize it as ruling.
The two are not separable.
Without passing any moral judgement on whether or not it should or should not be that way, I would say that it most certainly is not the case. Case in point: ISIS might be in control of certain Iraqi cities, but we still view those cities as Iraqi and would not honor any passport issued by ISIS as a legal document.
We don't recognize their annexation of certain territories, most notably the Crimean peninsula, but that's a different matter.
Not to RF. They designated Sevastopol a "Federal City" -- a designation which it shares only with the current and previous capitals of Russia (Moscow and Saint Petersburg). Which passports should the governing officials from Sevastopol travel under? If we don't recognize them as RF officials, they can't have diplomatic immunity without Ukrainian request for such designation. The same goes for eastern Ukraine and northern Georgia. Both are de facto Russian territories -- ruled by RF. But even RF does not recognize them as officially governed by RF.
The current Russian ambassador to the US is Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, and the current US ambassador to Russia is John Francis Tefft
I think if the current RF government wanted to enter into treaties which involve territories which they occupy, US would have to recognize the annexations as legitimate first. The less hypothetical situation of US officials travelling to any of those territories on official state business would probably require them to seek permission of both the occupying country and the occupied one.
With the re-establishment of relations with Cuba, there aren't many governments in de facto power we don't recognize.
The nagware is attached to their webbrowser. Which is decoupled from the OS in its European version. It's not attached to components of the OS itself... only to an application (webbrowser) released by the same company. I know it's easy to knee jerk on the side of suspicion when it comes to MS, but they haven't yet crossed the line. You still don't need to write any code or know any internal info in order to disable the upgrade. In fact, task scheduler is a feature which is useful to users (and not just admins) of the OS. So they are using a user-level mechanism to allow users a free upgrade to an operating system. They have left a way to turn it off and to prevent any further checks if you want the upgrade in the user-level os functionality. In fact, disabling functionality will mean improved performance of the OS for most users (because it will turn off resource-intensive telemetry). So one could argue that the nagging is biased towards removing the upgrade-related features.
Well, any solution which doesn't require writing a single line of code and which doesn't require any insider knowledge is a user-level solution. Just because you grandmother choses to have you do all the work for her, doesn't mean that EU should send police after MS. If your grandmother doesn't want to figure out how to use a remote control, does it mean that TV manufacturers should get dragged into court?
if i had even a smallest inkling that you were asking for citation out of intellectual rigor, i would take the time to google it myself. but since i have no doubt that you just want to nitpick the sources, go look it up yourself.
starvation is a much lesser occurance in capitalist countries than in any other system of social arrangement. in fact, over eating is a higher cause of health problems and is more associated with being poor than starvation in capitalist countries.
If you go purely by body count (rather than percentage of the entire human population at the time of the slaughter), all religions combined did not kill as many people as environmentalists.
Christians wiping out civilizations is not the same as Christianity wiping out those civilizations. The root cause of the genocide was empire building rather than following the precepts of Christianity. Which is not to say that Christianity was not root cause of some slaughter both in Europe and in the Western hemisphere. But, if you go purely by body count, Christianity would not rise to the level of murder rate of environmentalism even if you did blame it for the full genocide of the native Americans. The Western Hemisphere population was roughly 10mil at the time because there was no animals usable as work force to create farming societies. Even if you assume that 90% were killed, that would be over centuries and would be far cry from the dozens of millions killed by environmentalists in the 20th century.
Clear to you, maybe. From my reading the title and the content ask different questions. Not sure why. But the again, this is a casual commentary part of the site. The one where people occasionally post coherently. So who cares?
Uhm... I don't believe we currently recognize Russian government as legitimate. We recognize it as ruling. Legitimate? Not quite. It's asserted sovereignty (not the right to occupy... but sovereignty) over a number of territories which we do not recognize as belonging to RF. And neither does the UN.
Slashdot Mirror
How is changing the maximum number of logins considered "rewriting" an operating system?
Because the current operating system doesn't have that ability built into it. Which means that if the chip does allow it, a new capability has to be built into the operating system which would allow to it to access the functionality of the chip which the current operating system cannot access. Chips can have persistent memory counters which are only accessible by chips hardware and are not exposed to any instructions passed to the chip. Think of it as a secure connection handshake which happens between the chip and the rest of the hardware. If the handshake fails after X attempts, the information which the handshake protects (internally stored private key) is erased and any info which was encrypted with it is lost forever.
I don't know about guillotine, but it does seem that any President who signed a law which was later declared unconstitutional or any congressmen (in the house or senate) who voted for such a law should be disqualified from ever holding a public office again. The alternative is what we have now: they spam the system with legislature which is not constitutional all the time and the court can't consider most of it. There is not downside to passing blatantly unconstitutional laws. Having laws struck down is not even a slap on the wrist. They can literally change a few words in the law and voila.... it has to go through the whole process of finding a test case and then getting through all the lower courts in the hopes that the SCOTUS decides that the new law is just like the one they already considered and struck down.
That's problematic for 2 reasons.
1. Other laws have been passed since then. Timeline-wise this was before even the telecom deregulation, before DMCA, even before the Patriot Act.
2. The last thing you'd want is leave this hanging over as a legislative prerogative. The legislature changes every 2 years. The FBI would just have to wait until the right set of unrelated circumstances gives them a Congress willing to give them this power. This is why you want this to be declared squarely unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Which makes the key nomination so crucial right now.
Engineer gets to build MOAB's.
I thought that was physicists?
You can only have data points. That is cross-section of data at different time points. You'll get other contributing factors which will make these less relevant. But the pressure of the cost of reproduction and its influence on economies of scale will always be there in production environments.
This is what you get for all of your beloved "regulation" of the industry. Because Google, MS and most of the other tech giants own federally-regualted properties (cable lines, phone lines, etc.), they have to pretend to agree with the government or they'll be targeted for arbitrary selective enforcement of arcane and poorly worded regulations intended to tie up business of properties which these tech companies bought with borrowed money (so they won't be seeing any return on the money... in fact will take loses, but will still have to service the loans). So Apple is the only company which can afford to take this stand because they, by some accident, managed to make so much money on 1 product line. If they had multiple product lines, they probably would depend on uncle sam's permission to spit as well.
Mechanical engineers cannot make as much as programmers. The cost of replication of the work-product of a programmer is $0. The cost of replication of the work product of a mechanical engineer is the cost of materials (>$0). This difference creates an economic pressure to make programmers' salaries higher.
actually, that's very little. if any PM-level manager is making less than $150k, they should be looking for a new job. The only realistic way to measure a salary is in the multiples of minimal wage (because that's what really determines price levels of everything else in this service economy). If you are making only 15x what the people who are flipping burgers are making and you don't have all the top-level perks that come with being a public servant (pension, best medical insurance in the state, etc.), then you are getting taken for a ride. Your take-home pay may seem high, but you have to put a lot of it away to pay for your retirement (something that people who make half your salary don't have to do). And you will pay close to full-price for you children's college (vs someone making 1/3 of your salary who'll pay nothing for it). And god-forbid you get sick or your kid breaks a hand, you'll get laugh at why you have that medical insurance at all. It'll delay your care and all the money will be paid by you out of pocket to cover deductible. After you've deducted all of these, if you think that $150k will buy you a comfortable life, you are kidding yourself. You are not gonna be taking any luxury vacations anytime soon. If you are lucky, you'll be able to afford one life-long hobby to sink $100 a month into.
The center of said circumscribed circle is the intersection of the bisectors of the three sides of the triangle.
"bisectors" are rays which divide angles in two equal angles. Maybe the place of points equidistant from the endpoints of a line segment? That's a perpendicular bisector of the sides.
Three non aligned points define one circle (the circumcircle of the triangle).
This is not axiomatic. It's a theorem. And you can prove that it's logically equivalent to the theorem proved by the student, but that doesn't prove either one of the two theorems. You need a separate proof of one of the two theorems before they both can be considered as having been proved. In fact, proving the theorem that the student proved is easier than proving that 3 points define a circle. So it presents a more elegant proof of the fact that 3 points define a circle.
That's basic geometry.
The basics are usually the hardest to prove in geometry. It is too easy to mix up what's known and what's hypothesized. That's why it makes it such a good training ground in suspending your intuition when seeing what can be logically deduced.
Well, if you want to see why it's interesting, consider that it's not true for 2 points. And think about why it's not true for 2 points. Notice that it is not the hypothesis that these line segments are radii, but the conclusion of the theorem. Then suspend your belief that it seems intuitively true and try to actually prove it from the postulated properties of lines and points in a euclidean plane.
Circle is all the points equidistant from a given point. The theorem mentions "more than 2" rather than "all". This allows to prove a number of other basic facts.
The Ycombinator is apparently the link with all the info rather than the "news" source. I mistakenly said it was "MIT". Her proof is original. The theorem is not.
As the MIT discussion (linked in the slashdot summary) shows, it's actually in the Elements. But the theorem was not in the textbook used by the school and the student did stumble on it on her own. Good for her.
The linked news article misses the key features of the line segments: "of equal length". The "theorem" as mentioned in the news article is patently false.
Uhm... I don't believe we currently recognize Russian government as legitimate. We recognize it as ruling.
The two are not separable.
Without passing any moral judgement on whether or not it should or should not be that way, I would say that it most certainly is not the case. Case in point: ISIS might be in control of certain Iraqi cities, but we still view those cities as Iraqi and would not honor any passport issued by ISIS as a legal document.
We don't recognize their annexation of certain territories, most notably the Crimean peninsula, but that's a different matter.
Not to RF. They designated Sevastopol a "Federal City" -- a designation which it shares only with the current and previous capitals of Russia (Moscow and Saint Petersburg). Which passports should the governing officials from Sevastopol travel under? If we don't recognize them as RF officials, they can't have diplomatic immunity without Ukrainian request for such designation. The same goes for eastern Ukraine and northern Georgia. Both are de facto Russian territories -- ruled by RF. But even RF does not recognize them as officially governed by RF.
The current Russian ambassador to the US is Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, and the current US ambassador to Russia is John Francis Tefft
I think if the current RF government wanted to enter into treaties which involve territories which they occupy, US would have to recognize the annexations as legitimate first. The less hypothetical situation of US officials travelling to any of those territories on official state business would probably require them to seek permission of both the occupying country and the occupied one.
With the re-establishment of relations with Cuba, there aren't many governments in de facto power we don't recognize.
ISIS
The nagware is attached to their webbrowser. Which is decoupled from the OS in its European version. It's not attached to components of the OS itself... only to an application (webbrowser) released by the same company. I know it's easy to knee jerk on the side of suspicion when it comes to MS, but they haven't yet crossed the line. You still don't need to write any code or know any internal info in order to disable the upgrade. In fact, task scheduler is a feature which is useful to users (and not just admins) of the OS. So they are using a user-level mechanism to allow users a free upgrade to an operating system. They have left a way to turn it off and to prevent any further checks if you want the upgrade in the user-level os functionality. In fact, disabling functionality will mean improved performance of the OS for most users (because it will turn off resource-intensive telemetry). So one could argue that the nagging is biased towards removing the upgrade-related features.
Well, any solution which doesn't require writing a single line of code and which doesn't require any insider knowledge is a user-level solution. Just because you grandmother choses to have you do all the work for her, doesn't mean that EU should send police after MS. If your grandmother doesn't want to figure out how to use a remote control, does it mean that TV manufacturers should get dragged into court?
"Idiot"? I posted the technical solution. In this thread. You can't follow along, but I am the idiot? Fuck you.
if i had even a smallest inkling that you were asking for citation out of intellectual rigor, i would take the time to google it myself. but since i have no doubt that you just want to nitpick the sources, go look it up yourself.
starvation is a much lesser occurance in capitalist countries than in any other system of social arrangement. in fact, over eating is a higher cause of health problems and is more associated with being poor than starvation in capitalist countries.
If you go purely by body count (rather than percentage of the entire human population at the time of the slaughter), all religions combined did not kill as many people as environmentalists.
Christians wiping out civilizations is not the same as Christianity wiping out those civilizations. The root cause of the genocide was empire building rather than following the precepts of Christianity. Which is not to say that Christianity was not root cause of some slaughter both in Europe and in the Western hemisphere. But, if you go purely by body count, Christianity would not rise to the level of murder rate of environmentalism even if you did blame it for the full genocide of the native Americans. The Western Hemisphere population was roughly 10mil at the time because there was no animals usable as work force to create farming societies. Even if you assume that 90% were killed, that would be over centuries and would be far cry from the dozens of millions killed by environmentalists in the 20th century.
There is no religion which has claimed over 40 million victims. Environmentalism has.
Clear to you, maybe. From my reading the title and the content ask different questions. Not sure why. But the again, this is a casual commentary part of the site. The one where people occasionally post coherently. So who cares?
Uhm... I don't believe we currently recognize Russian government as legitimate. We recognize it as ruling. Legitimate? Not quite. It's asserted sovereignty (not the right to occupy... but sovereignty) over a number of territories which we do not recognize as belonging to RF. And neither does the UN.