You can protect registers with ECC, but any CPU that does that is likely to want some (more complicated) scheme to protect data in the execution units as well, and doing that is more costly. You need something like majority voting of 3+ units, or you need logic that updates ECC bits coherently, which I think is not well-researched.
Typical error correcting codes decode correctly wherever the errors occur, as long as the number of errors is within the error-correcting capacity of the code. They would be pretty poor if they failed more often when errors occur in the parity bits.
SECDED codes can detect up to two errored bits per codeword, not per byte. In modern systems, a typical codeword is 64 bits of data plus 8 bits of parity (where multiple parity bits cover each data bit).
Then the problem isn't that the audio recording is "hidden" in the usual sense -- it's that it is insecure. How many smart TVs and other devices have similar security holes? Would they be illegal under the same law?
The problems you outline have nothing to do with the electronics being hidden inside a doll, and everything to do with them having lousy security. Banning it for being hidden when the problem is insecurity is, as I said, boneheaded.
Is the theory that the parents don't know that this doll has these features, or that they might take the doll somewhere outside their house and use it as a question-answering surveillance device there?
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
You know that your summary of the distinctions between the common law and Napoleonic code-like systems is horribly inaccurate, right? For example, this law is a good example of the NYC government saying "here's how we want people to live and we're going to force you to do so", in sharp contrast to how people have already been living.
I should have been clearer; I meant to focus on parking on one's own property. Obviously, where there is an easement like a public street, the government has substantial say over who can park there and when.
I hope you're looking forward to the next eight years, because Donald Trump has some great lines for the community to draw. The community is going to draw a huge line between the US and Mexico, and Mexico is going to pay for it. Maybe after that some poll taxes, maybe some literacy tests before voting -- but don't worry, real Americans won't have to worry about those, because the lines will be drawn by the community so only brown people have to pass those.
You think wrong. Regulatory takings have been recognized by the Supreme Court for more than a century, and lately have been interpreted to protect more rights of property owners, for example this case. (Koontz is not only about takings and compensation, but it clearly illustrates that zoning rules and restrictions can be unconstitutional takings.)
Where do you draw the line? Does your local government have the right to say you can't park a car at your house because they think mass transit is better? That would be a similar form of use restriction as this law.
+ and * mean very different things depending on the ring in question. If OCT 31 = DEC 25, does that mean Halloween is Christmas, or do you need to use context to understand the joke?
I never suggested otherwise, although most of those who were turned away under this executive order were not under US jurisdiction when they were turned away. I was taking issue with this assertion, which AFAIK is plain wrong as a matter of law:
Certainly some forms of visa remove the holder from the classification of alien used here.
For "the classification of alien used here", an individual is either a US national or an alien. Visas do not make someone a US national, and US nationals do not need visas to enter the country.
They never learned one of the most basic data structures.
They learned how it behaves, and how to use it fluently in code. That's certainly important - heck, it's all you need until something mysteriously goes wrong.
Sure, but you can't say you've learned a topic if you only know a nearly trivial example of the topic as a black box.
Maybe you should try programming something more complicated than a web interface.
Why throw ad-hominums into a reasonable discussion - it's because you're a goat fucker, right?
First, calling someone an idiot or a goat fucker is a personal attack or insult, not an ad hominem (note spelling). For it to be an ad hominem argument, the speaker must use the supposedly negative attribute as a basis to discount the target's position -- along the lines of "he is a goat fucker, so he must be wrong".
Second, making claims about the kind of work you does not imply a judgment of you as a person or programmer.
Finally, you suggest later in your comment that my description of your work is broadly correct: "the good jobs seem to be in solving quite simple problems at very large scale". Maybe that's your experience; my experience is that there are interesting, non-academic, good-paying jobs that are not just simple applications at web scale. The fact that my comment seems to have hit a nerve also supports my hunch.
Being familiar with data structures -- how to design them, how to reason about them, and some idea of known structures -- is really important for a lot of programming. One guy I worked with was mostly a self-taught programmer, and he certainly knew the low-level details you say are important. One time we needed a FIFO cache for metadata picked from large files. Accesses had to be fast, because we would extract hundreds or thousands of items to draw a frame on the screen. He spent weeks writing a 5000-line class that was commented to be "PARTIALLY thread-safe" (caps in the original). Mostly because he never learned about data structures as such, and partly because he didn't want to ask -- and thereby admit that those of us who were decades younger than him knew more than he did -- he did not know that a std::deque (protected by a std::mutex for thread safety) solved the problem, was safer, and was faster than his code. That's the kind of result you get when typical programmers try to intuit data structures from learning lower-level details.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, right? Communism never led to any abuses ever! Neither did theocracies, anarchy, or monarchies!
Unless you use ZFS on a ramdisk, no.
It's never lupus, and it's never a radiation-induced bit flip. (Until it is one, or both, of those.)
You can protect registers with ECC, but any CPU that does that is likely to want some (more complicated) scheme to protect data in the execution units as well, and doing that is more costly. You need something like majority voting of 3+ units, or you need logic that updates ECC bits coherently, which I think is not well-researched.
Typical error correcting codes decode correctly wherever the errors occur, as long as the number of errors is within the error-correcting capacity of the code. They would be pretty poor if they failed more often when errors occur in the parity bits.
SECDED codes can detect up to two errored bits per codeword, not per byte. In modern systems, a typical codeword is 64 bits of data plus 8 bits of parity (where multiple parity bits cover each data bit).
Lighten up, Francis.
Then the problem isn't that the audio recording is "hidden" in the usual sense -- it's that it is insecure. How many smart TVs and other devices have similar security holes? Would they be illegal under the same law?
If parents know about the capabilities, they aren't hidden. That's why I was asking about the theory of this thing being a covert surveillance device.
The problems you outline have nothing to do with the electronics being hidden inside a doll, and everything to do with them having lousy security. Banning it for being hidden when the problem is insecurity is, as I said, boneheaded.
Is the theory that the parents don't know that this doll has these features, or that they might take the doll somewhere outside their house and use it as a question-answering surveillance device there?
Frankly, outlawing this seems like a boneheaded decision.
You know that your summary of the distinctions between the common law and Napoleonic code-like systems is horribly inaccurate, right? For example, this law is a good example of the NYC government saying "here's how we want people to live and we're going to force you to do so", in sharp contrast to how people have already been living.
I should have been clearer; I meant to focus on parking on one's own property. Obviously, where there is an easement like a public street, the government has substantial say over who can park there and when.
I hope you're looking forward to the next eight years, because Donald Trump has some great lines for the community to draw. The community is going to draw a huge line between the US and Mexico, and Mexico is going to pay for it. Maybe after that some poll taxes, maybe some literacy tests before voting -- but don't worry, real Americans won't have to worry about those, because the lines will be drawn by the community so only brown people have to pass those.
You think wrong. Regulatory takings have been recognized by the Supreme Court for more than a century, and lately have been interpreted to protect more rights of property owners, for example this case. (Koontz is not only about takings and compensation, but it clearly illustrates that zoning rules and restrictions can be unconstitutional takings.)
If this was already against the zoning laws, why did NYC need this new law?
Where do you draw the line? Does your local government have the right to say you can't park a car at your house because they think mass transit is better? That would be a similar form of use restriction as this law.
It's arguably an unconstitutional law, in that it takes property rights from owners without compensation.
Under anti-miscegenation laws, would you describe inter-racial marriages as illegal or "illegal"?
+ and * mean very different things depending on the ring in question. If OCT 31 = DEC 25, does that mean Halloween is Christmas, or do you need to use context to understand the joke?
That pathetic attempt to change the subject makes you look even stupider than before.
Saying two things are "really nothing [a]like" is a way to express that comparing them is not a useful analogy.
As I said, you misunderstand plain English, and you want to define your own facts to fit your deranged world view.
I never pretended the awful analogy was anything but. That was your sad misunderstanding of plain English, and your desire to have alternative facts.
Poe's Law is still alive, I see.
I suspected that Cmdln Daco missed your point, so thought I would try to make it a little clearer.
I never suggested otherwise, although most of those who were turned away under this executive order were not under US jurisdiction when they were turned away. I was taking issue with this assertion, which AFAIK is plain wrong as a matter of law:
For "the classification of alien used here", an individual is either a US national or an alien. Visas do not make someone a US national, and US nationals do not need visas to enter the country.
Sure, but you can't say you've learned a topic if you only know a nearly trivial example of the topic as a black box.
First, calling someone an idiot or a goat fucker is a personal attack or insult, not an ad hominem (note spelling). For it to be an ad hominem argument, the speaker must use the supposedly negative attribute as a basis to discount the target's position -- along the lines of "he is a goat fucker, so he must be wrong".
Second, making claims about the kind of work you does not imply a judgment of you as a person or programmer.
Finally, you suggest later in your comment that my description of your work is broadly correct: "the good jobs seem to be in solving quite simple problems at very large scale". Maybe that's your experience; my experience is that there are interesting, non-academic, good-paying jobs that are not just simple applications at web scale. The fact that my comment seems to have hit a nerve also supports my hunch.
Being familiar with data structures -- how to design them, how to reason about them, and some idea of known structures -- is really important for a lot of programming. One guy I worked with was mostly a self-taught programmer, and he certainly knew the low-level details you say are important. One time we needed a FIFO cache for metadata picked from large files. Accesses had to be fast, because we would extract hundreds or thousands of items to draw a frame on the screen. He spent weeks writing a 5000-line class that was commented to be "PARTIALLY thread-safe" (caps in the original). Mostly because he never learned about data structures as such, and partly because he didn't want to ask -- and thereby admit that those of us who were decades younger than him knew more than he did -- he did not know that a std::deque (protected by a std::mutex for thread safety) solved the problem, was safer, and was faster than his code. That's the kind of result you get when typical programmers try to intuit data structures from learning lower-level details.