"which of the 12 should have been listed to make it apolitical?"
None of them. All had a right to the data (minus what was erroneously included by the state). Why not a simple "Private data mistakenly handed out by the State of Georgia" headline, focusing blame where it falls? Or mention "12 organizations." If one organization must be chosen, then the Atlanta Journal-Constitution would be a logical choice - the article implies that it was they who noticed the breach.
I'd like to know who they peer with, at what speeds, and how many of these connections they plan to sell. I'm thinking their oversubscription rate will require exponents to express.
As well know , there are hundreds of ways to indirectly pay for stuff...... "Hey here's some money for your sports team", "hey here's some money for your building funds", etc etc etc etc etc
"Here's $1MM of additional grant money to extend your work on breaking onion routing."
That's illogical. Your premise is that every part of a bridge is necessary to hold it up. If you think every rivet is necessary to hold the bridge up, you're wrong. I didn't claim the real bridge wouldn't collapse, only that his explanation was way off. And I'll go further and say that it is not the worst of the given examples, as claimed.
Perhaps, but the deck of that particular bridge looks like a pretty hefty box truss. An analogy is only good when it is at least reasonably comparable to the situation, in this case it's completely wrong. I could give the analogy of a cable supported cantilever to explain why it wouldn't fall. That doesn't make that correct, either.
I read to the end, where his explanation for the "worst" one is just plain wrong. He explains "Imagine stringing a clothesline between two buildings and putting some shirts out to dry. Now, cut the line in the middle. In our world, the line loses all its capacity and the shirts all fall to the ground."
But, what he describes is quite different than a suspension bridge. The bridge deck (the equivalent of which is missing in his analogy) will take some compressive force and has some stiffness. If sufficiently robust, the remaining parts of the bridge could remain standing, as two single tower self anchored suspension bridges (or bridle-chord). A real world suspension bridge design would most certainly not be strong enough, but his analogy is flawed.
The average is much less than that. That's merely a maxima. And, if you're using GPS as an odometer, you're doing it wrong - that's not what it's designed for.
It's up to 20%, based on measurements in a "10m square."
Real world, it's insignificant - especially with regard to what the summary refers to - " It is something that runners and walkers complain about a lot."
Basically, it overestimates because most of the random errors cause the measured distance to be further. Picture an arc with the center at one point, and the arc passing through the other. That's an equal-distance line. The closer the two points, the more over-distance bias there is. The farther between the points, the closer it is to a straight line, and the lower the error bias. By the time you get to useful, real world distances for most applications (hundreds of meters +), there's very little bias. If you're a surveyor, that may be different, but they don't use just simple GPS.
In any case, the bias cannot be more than the GPS positioning error, maybe a couple of meters if you're having a bad day. I'd like to know who these runners/walkers are who are complaining about an extra meter or two.
There is already the long standing and widespread use of the titles "Systems Engineer" and "Sales Engineer" in the IT business, and neither refers to someone with a PE license/certification. Why would "Software Engineer" be any different?
Regarding timing - sometimes it's desired that an event occur x seconds in the future, other times it's desired that an event occur at y time in the future. They're two different things, and need to be handled differently. Either can be handled with proper UTC timekeeping.
But, if time is important, stay far, far away from anything defined by POSIX. Those idiots defined system time as a count of seconds in an epoch (since 1-1-1970), and ALSO defined a day to be 86400 seconds. So, in their own words "in POSIX time (seconds since the Epoch), leap seconds are ignored".
That is the root cause of problems, not the leap second. POSIX simply does not handle UTC, which is a real world need.
And, instead of fixing their mess, they want to redefine UTC and break it, too.
"How close do we need to be to the astronomical time?"
For UTC, within 1 second. That's what it was created for, to follow Sol, just like the other UTx timescales.
For those who don't care, there are timescales which don't have leap seconds - TAI, GPS, etc. Use them instead of trying to redefine UTC to be completely decoupled from its intended purpose.
This issue isn't leap seconds, it's lazy or stupid programmers or committees who don't or won't understand how UTC works.
Symantec re-opened the investigation and uncovered an additional 164 test certificates that it issued for 76 domains it didn't own and 2,458 certificates issued for domains that hadn't been registered.
But, you're also doing it wrong.
.test is the only appropriate TLD (see RFC 6761) aside from one you actually own, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
"which of the 12 should have been listed to make it apolitical?"
None of them. All had a right to the data (minus what was erroneously included by the state). Why not a simple "Private data mistakenly handed out by the State of Georgia" headline, focusing blame where it falls? Or mention "12 organizations." If one organization must be chosen, then the Atlanta Journal-Constitution would be a logical choice - the article implies that it was they who noticed the breach.
"The state should be providing free identity theft insurance to every citizen as a result."
...said by someone who doesn't understand that taking taxpayer money and then handing it back to them doesn't make something "free."
The citizens wouldn't gain anything by doing so, but companies which provide ID theft insurance sure would. Do you work for one?
There were 12 organizations which received the info, which included some mistakenly provided personal info.
Singling out one organization in the headline seems to make this story a politically driven one.
I'd like to know who they peer with, at what speeds, and how many of these connections they plan to sell. I'm thinking their oversubscription rate will require exponents to express.
You don't know what "majority" means, do you?
Denying what you said is no way to win an argument.
"Here's $1MM of additional grant money to extend your work on breaking onion routing."
That's illogical. Your premise is that every part of a bridge is necessary to hold it up. If you think every rivet is necessary to hold the bridge up, you're wrong. I didn't claim the real bridge wouldn't collapse, only that his explanation was way off. And I'll go further and say that it is not the worst of the given examples, as claimed.
"what was the $1 million for? What did the taxpayers get out this?"
I'm thinking Astroglide. You can figure out the rest.
Perhaps, but the deck of that particular bridge looks like a pretty hefty box truss. An analogy is only good when it is at least reasonably comparable to the situation, in this case it's completely wrong. I could give the analogy of a cable supported cantilever to explain why it wouldn't fall. That doesn't make that correct, either.
I read to the end, where his explanation for the "worst" one is just plain wrong. He explains "Imagine stringing a clothesline between two buildings and putting some shirts out to dry. Now, cut the line in the middle. In our world, the line loses all its capacity and the shirts all fall to the ground."
But, what he describes is quite different than a suspension bridge. The bridge deck (the equivalent of which is missing in his analogy) will take some compressive force and has some stiffness. If sufficiently robust, the remaining parts of the bridge could remain standing, as two single tower self anchored suspension bridges (or bridle-chord). A real world suspension bridge design would most certainly not be strong enough, but his analogy is flawed.
The average is much less than that. That's merely a maxima. And, if you're using GPS as an odometer, you're doing it wrong - that's not what it's designed for.
It's up to 20%, based on measurements in a "10m square."
Real world, it's insignificant - especially with regard to what the summary refers to - " It is something that runners and walkers complain about a lot."
Basically, it overestimates because most of the random errors cause the measured distance to be further. Picture an arc with the center at one point, and the arc passing through the other. That's an equal-distance line. The closer the two points, the more over-distance bias there is. The farther between the points, the closer it is to a straight line, and the lower the error bias. By the time you get to useful, real world distances for most applications (hundreds of meters +), there's very little bias. If you're a surveyor, that may be different, but they don't use just simple GPS.
In any case, the bias cannot be more than the GPS positioning error, maybe a couple of meters if you're having a bad day. I'd like to know who these runners/walkers are who are complaining about an extra meter or two.
"Could you at least hint what "Pocket" is?"
Dice has no pants.
There is already the long standing and widespread use of the titles "Systems Engineer" and "Sales Engineer" in the IT business, and neither refers to someone with a PE license/certification. Why would "Software Engineer" be any different?
"The legal definition of Engineer does make those distinctions."
Said without a citation...
I think you'll find that the law (at least in the US), usually refers to "Professional Engineer" when referring to someone who is certified/licensed.
It's like the difference between a Dr. Smith, who holds a PhD in English Literature, and Dr. Jones, MD, who is a licensed medical doctor.
What do you call the guy who drives a train (in US English)?
Perhaps Doctor Happy has a PhD in English Literature, so he's entitled to call himself a Doctor. But, he can't call himself a Medical Doctor (MD).
Likewise, someone calling themselves a Software Engineer doesn't imply that they are a Professional Engineer (PE).
Not cell phones, per se, but which cell phone, and how recently it came to market.
Like a $200 celebrity endorsed basketball shoe vs. a $50 pair of Hush Puppies, to match your analogy.
"* And for the love of fuck, please all stop starting posts in the Subject line.."
Linus, is that you?
Yep. The current HP is a name only. The real HP legacy is Keysight Technologies (via Agilent). What's now called HP is really Compaq/DEC.
Regarding timing - sometimes it's desired that an event occur x seconds in the future, other times it's desired that an event occur at y time in the future. They're two different things, and need to be handled differently. Either can be handled with proper UTC timekeeping.
But, if time is important, stay far, far away from anything defined by POSIX. Those idiots defined system time as a count of seconds in an epoch (since 1-1-1970), and ALSO defined a day to be 86400 seconds. So, in their own words "in POSIX time (seconds since the Epoch), leap seconds are ignored".
That is the root cause of problems, not the leap second. POSIX simply does not handle UTC, which is a real world need.
And, instead of fixing their mess, they want to redefine UTC and break it, too.
"How close do we need to be to the astronomical time?"
For UTC, within 1 second. That's what it was created for, to follow Sol, just like the other UTx timescales.
For those who don't care, there are timescales which don't have leap seconds - TAI, GPS, etc. Use them instead of trying to redefine UTC to be completely decoupled from its intended purpose.
This issue isn't leap seconds, it's lazy or stupid programmers or committees who don't or won't understand how UTC works.
Batman is multimillionaire Bruce Wayne. He can stop demanding, and buy his own damn Bat-RAM.
But, you're also doing it wrong.
.test is the only appropriate TLD (see RFC 6761) aside from one you actually own, of course.
"OK, placing call to 867-5309."