Depends on how they will license this feature. If it's like Remote Desktop, then you can have at most one active SSH session (two for Windows Server) at a given time unless you pay extra.
Other than muon g-2 (which might or might not be there), none of the things you mention actually contradict the standard model because it simply makes no statement about them. It's way too early to send the standard model down the drain because the alternatives either contain more speculative physics than known physics or are conceptually elegant but still wrong (see SU(5)).
The question is, do you have a simpler explanation?
Er, stick to the Standard Model since there is no experimental observation to the contrary? (Okay, there are neutrino oscillations, but it is possible to fix this without supersymmetry or extra dimensions.)
The observation that the electron electric dipole moment is less than 10^-29 e cm (as measured by the ACME experiment in 2013) already places strong constraints on supersymmetric partner masses, making it rather unlikely that the upgraded LHC will see anything.
Well, that's similar to raising awareness among burger flippers so that they negotiate better and refuse offers if necessary. If you want to get your first record deal, then you will have to accept pretty much anything. There are thousands of equally eager and talented musicians round the corner who don't ask such nasty questions. Guess who will get signed in the end? Also, note that the reported sums are averages. This means that a handful of top artists actually get a decent cut, while the huge majority of artists actually gets nothing because they first have to pay back the label for recording costs, marketing, any advances the artists have received, etc.
I think the worse problem when it comes to malware is that on OS X, there's no one-stop solution where you can get all your software from. People therefore usually download their apps from various more or less shady sites. For example, installing VLC is just one apt-get away under GNU/Linux, and it has been built by the same people who built your entire operating system. Under OS X, the standard procedure is to use a binary built by a third party, and the download is unencrypted and therefore easily tampered with.
I just had a brief look at the published version of the paper. Unless you work on fundamental aspects of quantum information theory, the actual implication is that some old debate that took place back in the 90s has been resolved. As others have already pointed out, the relationship between uncertainty relations and wave-particle duality intuitively makes sense, but actually coming up with a mathematical proof that the two concepts are equivalent to each other is certainly a non-trivial amount of work. However, this paper does not significantly change our understanding of quantum physics, nor does it allow us to magically find an efficient way to simulate quantum physics on classical computers. It will also not change the way quantum physics is usually taught, as wave-particle duality basically plays no role there (and uncertainty relations are mostly a side remark).
Also, notice that the paper has been published in Nature Communications. Usually, this means that the paper was rejected by Nature Physics (or any other of the "Nature Something" journals), so the authors sent it there instead (BTDT). So we probably have at least an editor (and maybe some referees) who thought that the paper was not as sexy as the press release seems to imply.
Well, wizards are probably the easiest class to play genoless because Magicbane will absorb almost all the curses from the Ls, and you have more than enough ranged attacks to choose from to deal with the;s.
Nethack needs full multi-user, and an overhaul on the generated story (what there is of it), so that the core process can be daemonized, and users attaching to the system can play against each other.
There's a fork called NetHack 4 that is pretty much identical to vanilla as far as gameplay is concernced, but provides a client-server architecture. While I don't think that NetHack can ever be turned into a massive online game with thousands of players meeting each other, small scale PvP or co-op mode might be doable and actually fun.
I'm all for removing artificial barriers, but once they are down we're gonna have to accept that maybe girls really do want to be princesses
That's the naturalistic fallacy right there. Little kids really want all sorts of things (like lots of candy, for instance), but this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to let them have their way. If the parents believe that their kid shows a behavior that could lead to a disadvantage later in life, then they have to take action. It's called parenting, by the way.
Hilarious. Reminds me of a usenet discussion we had back in 2003, but I never thought about playing this game to claim factorization of absurdly large numbers.
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
Sure, but that runs against the racists' "blacks are genetically stupid" claim.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Some people have even reported average scores for sub-Saharan countries that would qualify as mentally retarded in the Western world. This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Not in the UK. This is a blatant violation of the Data Protection Act and also goes against everything the European Court of Human Rights has decided on that matter.
There is marketing research that shows that people remember words with hard consonants better. So a word like "Nokia" or "Kodak", is in some ways a measurably better brand than a word like "Lumia".
If you only care about people rembering your brand name (and not about the associations that come with it), then "Ebola" would be even better.
Given the new information, then it doesn't matter. AWS is running at some sort of loss, but the question is why are they running at a loss.
Everyone is running cloud services at a huge loss because prices have been driven down so much that it is simply impossible to run a profitable cloud service. Of course, the companies are doing that to drive their competitors out of the market and profit afterwards by using a combination of price hikes and vendor lock-in effects.
I just tried and successfully passed the variable "_BASH_FUNC_thingy" with the value "my_attack" through my apache web server to a CGI script using a url entered into a browser.
No, you get something like QUERY_STRING="_BASH_FUNC_thingy=my_attack", which is harmless because function definitions inside QUERY_STRING are not being evaluated after the last update.
Unless of course the malefactors know this and stick BASH_FUNC_ in front of their exploit strings.
This won't work because an attacker will only be able to manipulate the content of some environment variable, but not its name. And being able to manipulate arbitrary environment variables has always been equivalent to being able to execute arbitrary code. Think LD_PRELOAD or IFS, for example.
How about releasing a version of bash that has function passing disabled.
People are using this feature and taking it away will break stuff. The latest update (not sure whether Apple already ships it) stores all function definitions with a prefix of BASH_FUNC_, and function definitions are disabled for all variables not starting with the prefix. This allows to retain the feature, but prevents the execution of malicious code at the same time.
As I am not a user of the PubPeer platform, I cannot judge if comments meant to attack the reputation of an other due to private disputes commonly occur. Furthermore, such attacks with other motive as pure improvement of scientific publication quality are difficult to spot, because this is what anonymous commenting enables to do.
If somebody presents evidence for image manipulations, then why would you care whether this was posted because someone has an axe to grind?
Anonymous review is usual in the peer-review processes of most journals, but these comments are in general non-public or at least reviewed by an editor before publication. Some reviewers choose to do their peer-review work without the cover of anonymity and I encourage this. If you have constructive criticism on the work of an other and can this criticism is well founded, you can very well do it openly.
No, you can't. Most active scientists do not have tenure and therefore openly criticizing the work of a bigwig in the field would be extremely dangerous, even when perfectly justified.
Something like PubPeer is extremely tricky. It's an open door to abuse and for commenter to wash their dirty linen in public.
Can you provide an example of someone using a service like PubPeer to wash dirty linen? I have a hard time to imagine how this could be done, especially if you want others to take your allegations seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Are M$ getting sensible in their old age?
Depends on how they will license this feature. If it's like Remote Desktop, then you can have at most one active SSH session (two for Windows Server) at a given time unless you pay extra.
If only there was an easy to use end2end encrypted mobile phone application for voice calls that Moxie had been involved in creating.
Too bad that his apps depend on proprietary Google software, so it's clearly not in the same ballpark as GnuPG.
Other than muon g-2 (which might or might not be there), none of the things you mention actually contradict the standard model because it simply makes no statement about them. It's way too early to send the standard model down the drain because the alternatives either contain more speculative physics than known physics or are conceptually elegant but still wrong (see SU(5)).
The question is, do you have a simpler explanation?
Er, stick to the Standard Model since there is no experimental observation to the contrary? (Okay, there are neutrino oscillations, but it is possible to fix this without supersymmetry or extra dimensions.)
The observation that the electron electric dipole moment is less than 10^-29 e cm (as measured by the ACME experiment in 2013) already places strong constraints on supersymmetric partner masses, making it rather unlikely that the upgraded LHC will see anything.
Well, that's similar to raising awareness among burger flippers so that they negotiate better and refuse offers if necessary. If you want to get your first record deal, then you will have to accept pretty much anything. There are thousands of equally eager and talented musicians round the corner who don't ask such nasty questions. Guess who will get signed in the end?
Also, note that the reported sums are averages. This means that a handful of top artists actually get a decent cut, while the huge majority of artists actually gets nothing because they first have to pay back the label for recording costs, marketing, any advances the artists have received, etc.
I think the worse problem when it comes to malware is that on OS X, there's no one-stop solution where you can get all your software from. People therefore usually download their apps from various more or less shady sites. For example, installing VLC is just one apt-get away under GNU/Linux, and it has been built by the same people who built your entire operating system. Under OS X, the standard procedure is to use a binary built by a third party, and the download is unencrypted and therefore easily tampered with.
Because a right not exercised is a right lost .
Does this also apply to the Right to Die?
I just had a brief look at the published version of the paper. Unless you work on fundamental aspects of quantum information theory, the actual implication is that some old debate that took place back in the 90s has been resolved. As others have already pointed out, the relationship between uncertainty relations and wave-particle duality intuitively makes sense, but actually coming up with a mathematical proof that the two concepts are equivalent to each other is certainly a non-trivial amount of work. However, this paper does not significantly change our understanding of quantum physics, nor does it allow us to magically find an efficient way to simulate quantum physics on classical computers. It will also not change the way quantum physics is usually taught, as wave-particle duality basically plays no role there (and uncertainty relations are mostly a side remark).
Also, notice that the paper has been published in Nature Communications. Usually, this means that the paper was rejected by Nature Physics (or any other of the "Nature Something" journals), so the authors sent it there instead (BTDT). So we probably have at least an editor (and maybe some referees) who thought that the paper was not as sexy as the press release seems to imply.
NAO and other public servers start an individual process for each player, there is no NetHack server process in the usual sense.
Well, wizards are probably the easiest class to play genoless because Magicbane will absorb almost all the curses from the Ls, and you have more than enough ranged attacks to choose from to deal with the ;s.
Nethack needs full multi-user, and an overhaul on the generated story (what there is of it), so that the core process can be daemonized, and users attaching to the system can play against each other.
There's a fork called NetHack 4 that is pretty much identical to vanilla as far as gameplay is concernced, but provides a client-server architecture. While I don't think that NetHack can ever be turned into a massive online game with thousands of players meeting each other, small scale PvP or co-op mode might be doable and actually fun.
I'm all for removing artificial barriers, but once they are down we're gonna have to accept that maybe girls really do want to be princesses
That's the naturalistic fallacy right there. Little kids really want all sorts of things (like lots of candy, for instance), but this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to let them have their way. If the parents believe that their kid shows a behavior that could lead to a disadvantage later in life, then they have to take action. It's called parenting, by the way.
Hilarious. Reminds me of a usenet discussion we had back in 2003, but I never thought about playing this game to claim factorization of absurdly large numbers.
There is a 15 to 18 point gap [wikipedia.org] in IQ test scores in America between blacks and whites.
There's an obvious difference between such a gap and being mentally retarded.
It tells me that IQ scores are related to other things besides genetics. Of course children who are educated, raised in a stimulating environment, and have years of practice at critical thinking are going to do better at these tests.
Sure, but that runs against the racists' "blacks are genetically stupid" claim.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence. Some people have even reported average scores for sub-Saharan countries that would qualify as mentally retarded in the Western world. This clearly does not make sense as the same group of people tends to do just fine when being raised in a first world country.
Arrest records are public information
Not in the UK. This is a blatant violation of the Data Protection Act and also goes against everything the European Court of Human Rights has decided on that matter.
There is marketing research that shows that people remember words with hard consonants better. So a word like "Nokia" or "Kodak", is in some ways a measurably better brand than a word like "Lumia".
If you only care about people rembering your brand name (and not about the associations that come with it), then "Ebola" would be even better.
Given the new information, then it doesn't matter. AWS is running at some sort of loss, but the question is why are they running at a loss.
Everyone is running cloud services at a huge loss because prices have been driven down so much that it is simply impossible to run a profitable cloud service. Of course, the companies are doing that to drive their competitors out of the market and profit afterwards by using a combination of price hikes and vendor lock-in effects.
I just tried and successfully passed the variable "_BASH_FUNC_thingy" with the value "my_attack" through my apache web server to a CGI script using a url entered into a browser.
No, you get something like QUERY_STRING="_BASH_FUNC_thingy=my_attack", which is harmless because function definitions inside QUERY_STRING are not being evaluated after the last update.
Unless of course the malefactors know this and stick BASH_FUNC_ in front of their exploit strings.
This won't work because an attacker will only be able to manipulate the content of some environment variable, but not its name. And being able to manipulate arbitrary environment variables has always been equivalent to being able to execute arbitrary code. Think LD_PRELOAD or IFS, for example.
How about releasing a version of bash that has function passing disabled.
People are using this feature and taking it away will break stuff. The latest update (not sure whether Apple already ships it) stores all function definitions with a prefix of BASH_FUNC_, and function definitions are disabled for all variables not starting with the prefix. This allows to retain the feature, but prevents the execution of malicious code at the same time.
As I am not a user of the PubPeer platform, I cannot judge if comments meant to attack the reputation of an other due to private disputes commonly occur. Furthermore, such attacks with other motive as pure improvement of scientific publication quality are difficult to spot, because this is what anonymous commenting enables to do.
If somebody presents evidence for image manipulations, then why would you care whether this was posted because someone has an axe to grind?
Anonymous review is usual in the peer-review processes of most journals, but these comments are in general non-public or at least reviewed by an editor before publication. Some reviewers choose to do their peer-review work without the cover of anonymity and I encourage this. If you have constructive criticism on the work of an other and can this criticism is well founded, you can very well do it openly.
No, you can't. Most active scientists do not have tenure and therefore openly criticizing the work of a bigwig in the field would be extremely dangerous, even when perfectly justified.
Something like PubPeer is extremely tricky. It's an open door to abuse and for commenter to wash their dirty linen in public.
Can you provide an example of someone using a service like PubPeer to wash dirty linen? I have a hard time to imagine how this could be done, especially if you want others to take your allegations seriously.