it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.
You people don't seem to understand that lawyers are hackers exploiting the rules of the legal system. The legal system is not and cannot be airtight; it's not possible. When your girlfriend is loose, she will get fucked by everyone; when your legal system is tight, it will fuck everyone. Unfortunately, a loose legal system also gets fucked by everyone.
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
That depends.
If you have a methodological process for, say, reading your location off a GPS, checking it against a map, and tagging it manually to a piece of data... then with a computer, this is nothing but "a computer program to do what I was doing anyway."
If however you are sighting up things by hand and manually tagging them, the integration of a GPS with the system may be quite novel.
Patents are about novelty. Unfortunately, all novelty is incremental. Small incremental steps are obvious, though, if they come in the common sphere or they package up what's common. Say you take a picture, check your GPS, put the location into the picture... putting a GPS in the camera to tag the picture doesn't suddenly make geotagging photographs a new invention, because you're automating what people did anyway. But if nobody thought to geotag pictures before, or they never thought to use a GPS, or they always tagged with the LOCATION ON A MAP and you integrate a system that tags the GPS coordinates and looks it up on a map as needed, you've done something nobody's thought of yet.
Novelty is subtle. There is a lot of "This is just X done with Y" and "I could have done that..." coming from people who really, really like this idea that nobody seems to have done before. There are also cases of "everyone does this with the exact same fucking tools; you just told a computer to make it user-transparent" going on, which need to be shot down.
Bread machines didn't pioneer the making of bread, or any individual step; but they did provide the novelty of a machine that mixes, rises, and bakes the bread in one sweep, with tools that all existed before. Note that nobody put a paddle in the base of a baking pan, stuck it in the oven, cranked it several times, let it rise, cranked it again, and then heated it up; the actual process was completely different, but using the same tools (a pan, bread ingredients, an agitator, and a heating element similar to those found in an electric oven). This was not "a traditional bread machine, but with a motor instead of a hand crank."
The same goes for a computer: is this a traditional manual process (take picture, enter GPS information into picture) done with two computers, but we put the components together and did it manually? Or is this a traditional manual process done via other means which we recognized was possible to automate by plugging a bunch of other tools together and using a new methodology that correlates to but doesn't strictly automate the original steps?
That's the thing that I've never quite grasped. Notability is really already covered by something being covered by reputable external sources. Having a podcast or a website doesn't qualify someone as a worthy subject of an article. Being mentioned in a magazine, about your podcast or website, does.
By this assertion, if you walk into an EB or a Gamestop and run into a dozen people every fucking day that are talking about the angry gamer guy, but nobody ever writes anything about him in any other media, then he is not notable. Consider it. A massively influential part of an entire subculture, discussed daily by 95% of that subculture amongst themselves, but never covered in any media. Not notable.
A "Sock Puppet" is an alternate account owned by the same person, used to confuse people by pretending to be another person.
A "Meat Puppet" is someone else you toy with. You find a gullible idiot or someone in your cliq who knows little or nothing or just doesn't care about the issue. You have them do your arguing, regardless of their actual opinion, just following your lead. A "Me-too" guy, really.
So pop in #wikipedia and cite the slashdot, page, then note on the restored OMM article that it has been targeted by Ben Schumin due to funny comments at Schumin's expense, and that this caused an internet incident of mass public scale.
Oh, I never took the A+. Studied, but it seemed to broad, unfocused, and anachronistic. Net+ and Security+ seemed more useful. I'm more used to things like setting biases and testing power paths when power supplies are juiced up; also I build my power supplies with a strong ground resistor such that very little power leaks, but they discharge in about 30-45 seconds. Be mindful that the caps fully charge almost instantly (under 1/10 seconds); the whole circuit takes time (3-4 seconds) to come up because it relies on 12V 0.63A heating filaments to first heat up in a vacuum, then transfer their heat to nearby components that act as heat sink plates, but it has stable power almost instantly; not instantly enough to use a fast-blow fuse though, and rather I need a slow-blow fuse that'll last 0.25 seconds at over twice its rated current (the initial spike can be, say, 50 amps on a 5 amp circuit for 1/10 of 1 second; a "slow-blow" might blow for 10 amps for 10 seconds, but at 10 times the rated current anything that's not 0.1 seconds is pretty slow).
I have no faith in humanity. If God came down every decade to wander through churches and change water into wine, 80% of the population would attribute it to government dickery or space aliens, or become satanists just to stick it to "The Man (upstairs)." We would still have a lot of new agers talking about how God is Math or Ogma being a dick and frightening people with occasional appearances, even though the lack of a four-faced mask would quickly rule out Math and of course Ogma is never likely to leave his damned library. The other 20% would quickly assume it MUST be God because that's the only explanation for what you can see, rather than some other being that happens to be powerful and shiny just being a jackass, like that bitch that pissed Picard off.
In 1999 a good home desktop was 200MHz Pentium i586 with 32MB RAM. In 2004, a good home desktop was a dual core 3.2GHz machine with 1GB. 8 CPU 200MHz servers became 4CPU 3.2GHz servers with hyperthreading, or up to 16 CPU with dual core Xeons. These servers cost what a base model home computer used to cost in 1999 ($2000, not the $400 of today), and scale linearly when you use multiple to do the job.
Grounding yourself will make you a good path to ground. Grounding the power supply well won't help, as it would blow before you touch it if it was faulty in a way that that mattered. When working on live electronics, you often do not want a grounding strap.
Hard drives have an analog magnetic waveform on them constructed such that they encode discrete 0s and 1s in the fastest way possible. This means, roughly, that what is on the disk is in some alien language that has no obvious correlation to the data stored on the disk. This is done by varying the magnetic domains on the disk, pointing north/south in some direction or another; although what's actually read from the disk is not directly what's written. It kind of depends on the data already there.
How would you rate the usefulness of having to pee versus, say, playing Go? I'm pretty sure teaching yourself to think carefully about why to do something (i.e. impact, value, future plans) and consider alternative courses of action (i.e. shit that could happen in response, and how you're going to handle that variation) is going to improve the decisions you make more than, say, teaching yourself not to piss in your pants after a 44oz cocacola.
A common misconceptions with SSD's is that their cells 'wear out'; so there is some magic 'hidden space' that only becomes available when other cells 'die'. This is nonsense.. once a cell has worn out it is dead; and the disk capacity is reduced by that amount.
Having worked with flash chips that specifically do not have a controller between me and them... no. This doesn't happen. Also, no, you don't get a 64GB drive and it goes, "Oh, I'm smaller, time to lose data off the end" so when you lose a block you lose 2 blocks of data (the one in the middle of the disk and one off the end)
Sure it's possible (and more expensive) to do a complete magnetic scan of a disk platter and reconstruct that past few layers of content written (and rewritten) to the drive... the kind of thing that the secure wipe utilities are supposed to defeat with multiple layers of white noise.
I bet you believe hard disks have a stream of "1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0..." on them, too...
However, suppose you're using reiserfs and running a VM that also uses reiserfs on its virtual disk, which lives inside a file on your main filesystem. The recovery tools would see those structures, too, and merge them back into your directory structure. This is typically disastrous.
No, it wouldn't, unless your VM is very horribly broken and your host OS is even more broken. Try creating an empty file, lseek(30M), write("\0"), then read in the middle to see what's in the rest of the file.
If you want to wipe a hard disk, dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1
To be fair, unless that girl is a completely worthless cunt, there's probably some pair bonding going on for generosity and helpfulness, you know. So you get a girl that is nice and grateful for the help and likes talking to you and bakes cookies. Maybe somewhere down the line you get laid, maybe not.
Point is it's a good ice breaker and it makes you useful.
PayPal sought [the authorization] to withdraw funds from their account. That's the thing. I seek to enter your house... I stand at the door yelling. Or ring the doorbell. In any case, I don't just walk in. Doesn't mean I'm trying to break in; just means I'm seeking to enter.
I don't see a logical disconnect here. PayPal wants an account to use to draw funds out of, for chargebacks or refunds or whatever. Paypal wants this when you do massive transactional volume and might owe PayPal a lot of money in some forseeable situation. They said, "Link us to an account we can draw money out of in certain situations, and authorize us to do so."
Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect; they said specifically that they wanted an account with withdraw authorization.
Slashdot Mirror
Fox news? All we have on here is CNN and I keep hearing Islamic this Islamic that.
it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.
Bruce Schneier spotted!
I think the fine folks at The Onion would have known that Sake isn't a type of wine.
You people don't seem to understand that lawyers are hackers exploiting the rules of the legal system. The legal system is not and cannot be airtight; it's not possible. When your girlfriend is loose, she will get fucked by everyone; when your legal system is tight, it will fuck everyone. Unfortunately, a loose legal system also gets fucked by everyone.
We need the USPTO to stop giving out obvious patents that aren't really anything more than "with a computer".
That depends.
If you have a methodological process for, say, reading your location off a GPS, checking it against a map, and tagging it manually to a piece of data... then with a computer, this is nothing but "a computer program to do what I was doing anyway."
If however you are sighting up things by hand and manually tagging them, the integration of a GPS with the system may be quite novel.
Patents are about novelty. Unfortunately, all novelty is incremental. Small incremental steps are obvious, though, if they come in the common sphere or they package up what's common. Say you take a picture, check your GPS, put the location into the picture... putting a GPS in the camera to tag the picture doesn't suddenly make geotagging photographs a new invention, because you're automating what people did anyway. But if nobody thought to geotag pictures before, or they never thought to use a GPS, or they always tagged with the LOCATION ON A MAP and you integrate a system that tags the GPS coordinates and looks it up on a map as needed, you've done something nobody's thought of yet.
Novelty is subtle. There is a lot of "This is just X done with Y" and "I could have done that..." coming from people who really, really like this idea that nobody seems to have done before. There are also cases of "everyone does this with the exact same fucking tools; you just told a computer to make it user-transparent" going on, which need to be shot down.
Bread machines didn't pioneer the making of bread, or any individual step; but they did provide the novelty of a machine that mixes, rises, and bakes the bread in one sweep, with tools that all existed before. Note that nobody put a paddle in the base of a baking pan, stuck it in the oven, cranked it several times, let it rise, cranked it again, and then heated it up; the actual process was completely different, but using the same tools (a pan, bread ingredients, an agitator, and a heating element similar to those found in an electric oven). This was not "a traditional bread machine, but with a motor instead of a hand crank."
The same goes for a computer: is this a traditional manual process (take picture, enter GPS information into picture) done with two computers, but we put the components together and did it manually? Or is this a traditional manual process done via other means which we recognized was possible to automate by plugging a bunch of other tools together and using a new methodology that correlates to but doesn't strictly automate the original steps?
That's the thing that I've never quite grasped. Notability is really already covered by something being covered by reputable external sources. Having a podcast or a website doesn't qualify someone as a worthy subject of an article. Being mentioned in a magazine, about your podcast or website, does.
By this assertion, if you walk into an EB or a Gamestop and run into a dozen people every fucking day that are talking about the angry gamer guy, but nobody ever writes anything about him in any other media, then he is not notable. Consider it. A massively influential part of an entire subculture, discussed daily by 95% of that subculture amongst themselves, but never covered in any media. Not notable.
Yes, without public pressure ego-tripping editors could do "suboptimal" AKA wrong things with impunity.
Which is the point here. One editor seems to have a personal vendetta. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is now unhappy with him.
A "Sock Puppet" is an alternate account owned by the same person, used to confuse people by pretending to be another person.
A "Meat Puppet" is someone else you toy with. You find a gullible idiot or someone in your cliq who knows little or nothing or just doesn't care about the issue. You have them do your arguing, regardless of their actual opinion, just following your lead. A "Me-too" guy, really.
So pop in #wikipedia and cite the slashdot, page, then note on the restored OMM article that it has been targeted by Ben Schumin due to funny comments at Schumin's expense, and that this caused an internet incident of mass public scale.
Oh, I never took the A+. Studied, but it seemed to broad, unfocused, and anachronistic. Net+ and Security+ seemed more useful. I'm more used to things like setting biases and testing power paths when power supplies are juiced up; also I build my power supplies with a strong ground resistor such that very little power leaks, but they discharge in about 30-45 seconds. Be mindful that the caps fully charge almost instantly (under 1/10 seconds); the whole circuit takes time (3-4 seconds) to come up because it relies on 12V 0.63A heating filaments to first heat up in a vacuum, then transfer their heat to nearby components that act as heat sink plates, but it has stable power almost instantly; not instantly enough to use a fast-blow fuse though, and rather I need a slow-blow fuse that'll last 0.25 seconds at over twice its rated current (the initial spike can be, say, 50 amps on a 5 amp circuit for 1/10 of 1 second; a "slow-blow" might blow for 10 amps for 10 seconds, but at 10 times the rated current anything that's not 0.1 seconds is pretty slow).
That would also be logically incoherent, as there is much prior art! I mean it's a minority of course, but the minority has done a lot of work....
I have no faith in humanity. If God came down every decade to wander through churches and change water into wine, 80% of the population would attribute it to government dickery or space aliens, or become satanists just to stick it to "The Man (upstairs)." We would still have a lot of new agers talking about how God is Math or Ogma being a dick and frightening people with occasional appearances, even though the lack of a four-faced mask would quickly rule out Math and of course Ogma is never likely to leave his damned library. The other 20% would quickly assume it MUST be God because that's the only explanation for what you can see, rather than some other being that happens to be powerful and shiny just being a jackass, like that bitch that pissed Picard off.
In 1999 a good home desktop was 200MHz Pentium i586 with 32MB RAM. In 2004, a good home desktop was a dual core 3.2GHz machine with 1GB. 8 CPU 200MHz servers became 4CPU 3.2GHz servers with hyperthreading, or up to 16 CPU with dual core Xeons. These servers cost what a base model home computer used to cost in 1999 ($2000, not the $400 of today), and scale linearly when you use multiple to do the job.
Grounding yourself will make you a good path to ground. Grounding the power supply well won't help, as it would blow before you touch it if it was faulty in a way that that mattered. When working on live electronics, you often do not want a grounding strap.
You are stealing my material. I'm the one that's been arguing based on structured logical conventions lately.
Hard drives have an analog magnetic waveform on them constructed such that they encode discrete 0s and 1s in the fastest way possible. This means, roughly, that what is on the disk is in some alien language that has no obvious correlation to the data stored on the disk. This is done by varying the magnetic domains on the disk, pointing north/south in some direction or another; although what's actually read from the disk is not directly what's written. It kind of depends on the data already there.
How would you rate the usefulness of having to pee versus, say, playing Go? I'm pretty sure teaching yourself to think carefully about why to do something (i.e. impact, value, future plans) and consider alternative courses of action (i.e. shit that could happen in response, and how you're going to handle that variation) is going to improve the decisions you make more than, say, teaching yourself not to piss in your pants after a 44oz cocacola.
you're right, although the relevance of the point still stands. Billions vs 1 billion is different from billions vs 10^616. But yeah.
A common misconceptions with SSD's is that their cells 'wear out'; so there is some magic 'hidden space' that only becomes available when other cells 'die'. This is nonsense.. once a cell has worn out it is dead; and the disk capacity is reduced by that amount.
Having worked with flash chips that specifically do not have a controller between me and them... no. This doesn't happen. Also, no, you don't get a 64GB drive and it goes, "Oh, I'm smaller, time to lose data off the end" so when you lose a block you lose 2 blocks of data (the one in the middle of the disk and one off the end)
Sure it's possible (and more expensive) to do a complete magnetic scan of a disk platter and reconstruct that past few layers of content written (and rewritten) to the drive... the kind of thing that the secure wipe utilities are supposed to defeat with multiple layers of white noise.
I bet you believe hard disks have a stream of "1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0..." on them, too...
The expert witness is patently incorrect: Billions is 2^32, but with 2KB that's 2^2048 which is somewhere around a 1 with 616 zeroes after it.
However, suppose you're using reiserfs and running a VM that also uses reiserfs on its virtual disk, which lives inside a file on your main filesystem. The recovery tools would see those structures, too, and merge them back into your directory structure. This is typically disastrous.
No, it wouldn't, unless your VM is very horribly broken and your host OS is even more broken. Try creating an empty file, lseek(30M), write("\0"), then read in the middle to see what's in the rest of the file.
If you want to wipe a hard disk, dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1
To be fair, unless that girl is a completely worthless cunt, there's probably some pair bonding going on for generosity and helpfulness, you know. So you get a girl that is nice and grateful for the help and likes talking to you and bakes cookies. Maybe somewhere down the line you get laid, maybe not.
Point is it's a good ice breaker and it makes you useful.
But no, CTR and slashdots sourceless claims are totally more credible than that.
Three men make a tiger.
PayPal sought [the authorization] to withdraw funds from their account. That's the thing. I seek to enter your house... I stand at the door yelling. Or ring the doorbell. In any case, I don't just walk in. Doesn't mean I'm trying to break in; just means I'm seeking to enter.
I don't see a logical disconnect here. PayPal wants an account to use to draw funds out of, for chargebacks or refunds or whatever. Paypal wants this when you do massive transactional volume and might owe PayPal a lot of money in some forseeable situation. They said, "Link us to an account we can draw money out of in certain situations, and authorize us to do so."
Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect; they said specifically that they wanted an account with withdraw authorization.