There are no "generic symptoms on a healthy person" because by definition a symptom is an abnormality associated with disease. Generic symptoms are merely those that are associated with many possible underlying conditions. Headaches, fatigue, and fever, for example, aren't particularly diagnostically useful.
If this random number is ever used twice with the same private key it can be recovered. This transaction was generated by a hardware bitcoin wallet using a pseudo-random number generator that was returning the same “random” number every time.
If this is true there's a vanishingly small but nonzero chance of recovering any private key, depending on how large the random number is; poorly-written RNGs simply increase that chance spectacularly.
Right. If Bitcoin mistakenly assumed that the RNG "shuffled" numbers and they would not be reused, I don't think that's an Android bug. However given that Bitcoin clients work fine on every other platform I assume that's not the problem and there genuinely is something up with the RNG.
"Arbitrary number generator" might be a more useful name, where the numbers generated follow a given distribution and their selection is arbitrary. Calling them pseudo-random invites mistaken conclusions.
There aren't many details floating around but it looks like the issue is that the RNG can return the same number on two occasions. However the possibility of returning the same random number again in the future is a perfectly expected property of any RNG; presumably they mean that the probability is much higher than normal?
The Nokia Tune predates polyphonic ringtones. You've not really heard it unless you've heard it in its original dentist-drill format, in its preferred setting of "important part of movie you've been waiting to see for months" or "close enough to hear, but too far to reach and silence, while you are attempting to fall asleep".
Or in this case the attention to detail of a sound designer creating a sound effect for a different product that Apple would eventually buy out, and reuse the sound from in another completely different product for a completely different purpose.
Kudos to Apple for picking a sound out of all the possible Apple-owned sound effects that sounds appropriately "messagey", especially in comparison to the specially-composed ring- and message-tones it had to compete with, but the nerdly attention to detail belongs to someone else.
I know that the Slashdot editors get a lot of stick for apparently being asleep at the wheel, but taking the time to add the original source article and not just the blog provided in the original submission is very welcome.
After a bit of Googling, it looks like this is called the "lead time bias" and is a rather significant issue with interpreting the benefits of a diagnostic test. That said, when 70% of sufferers aren't discovered until after metastasis, a better diagnostic method is desperately needed.
Am I reading this right? The NSA think that the issue of mistrust around PRISM is that we worry some whistleblower will leak our information, and not that it's being harvested in the first place? They're deep into cognitive dissonance land over there I see.
It's not even comments. The paper refers to "upvotes" which makes it pretty clear that the study took place on Reddit and involved incrementing/decrementing the score when an article went live, by a single point.
1) The manipulation was a single positive or negative vote applied at random immediately when the article went live. 2) People would tend to correct false negatives, but amplify false positives.
The Hindenberg didn't have any fore warning. I prefer to picture the captain of the Titanic responding to the impending iceberg by having the helmsman maintain his course, then asking the engine room for ramming speed.
Microsoft isn't competing with the original Xbox, it's competing with the PS4. Times change. People started to think Gold wasn't such a good deal when the video apps launched and you had to buy a subscription to access video streaming services you were already paying for; it has gone downhill from there.
I don't know what's funnier, that you basically invented an entire self-consistent philosophy to assign to me on the basis of my smartass one-liner, or that you practically shit yourself with hate raging against it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are no "generic symptoms on a healthy person" because by definition a symptom is an abnormality associated with disease. Generic symptoms are merely those that are associated with many possible underlying conditions. Headaches, fatigue, and fever, for example, aren't particularly diagnostically useful.
If this random number is ever used twice with the same private key it can be recovered. This transaction was generated by a hardware bitcoin wallet using a pseudo-random number generator that was returning the same “random” number every time.
If this is true there's a vanishingly small but nonzero chance of recovering any private key, depending on how large the random number is; poorly-written RNGs simply increase that chance spectacularly.
Right. If Bitcoin mistakenly assumed that the RNG "shuffled" numbers and they would not be reused, I don't think that's an Android bug. However given that Bitcoin clients work fine on every other platform I assume that's not the problem and there genuinely is something up with the RNG.
"Arbitrary number generator" might be a more useful name, where the numbers generated follow a given distribution and their selection is arbitrary. Calling them pseudo-random invites mistaken conclusions.
There aren't many details floating around but it looks like the issue is that the RNG can return the same number on two occasions. However the possibility of returning the same random number again in the future is a perfectly expected property of any RNG; presumably they mean that the probability is much higher than normal?
Depends how often the user washes their hands I suppose.
Honestly, I'm as baffled as you are.
Yes it would be much better if they were properly historicat.
You tempted the fates when you mentioned attention to detail.
The Nokia Tune predates polyphonic ringtones. You've not really heard it unless you've heard it in its original dentist-drill format, in its preferred setting of "important part of movie you've been waiting to see for months" or "close enough to hear, but too far to reach and silence, while you are attempting to fall asleep".
Or in this case the attention to detail of a sound designer creating a sound effect for a different product that Apple would eventually buy out, and reuse the sound from in another completely different product for a completely different purpose.
Kudos to Apple for picking a sound out of all the possible Apple-owned sound effects that sounds appropriately "messagey", especially in comparison to the specially-composed ring- and message-tones it had to compete with, but the nerdly attention to detail belongs to someone else.
I know that the Slashdot editors get a lot of stick for apparently being asleep at the wheel, but taking the time to add the original source article and not just the blog provided in the original submission is very welcome.
People who use "progressive" as a pejorative amuse me. Not progress! Anything but progress!
After a bit of Googling, it looks like this is called the "lead time bias" and is a rather significant issue with interpreting the benefits of a diagnostic test. That said, when 70% of sufferers aren't discovered until after metastasis, a better diagnostic method is desperately needed.
Yes, heaven forbid somebody invent a computer interface because it's interesting to investigate, and not because it's good for doing Microsoft Office.
What precisely would a system administrator do with his administrative priviledges revoked?
I'll let you supply your own punchline.
Am I reading this right? The NSA think that the issue of mistrust around PRISM is that we worry some whistleblower will leak our information, and not that it's being harvested in the first place? They're deep into cognitive dissonance land over there I see.
People would rather risk encountering low quality information, than risk losing high-quality information.
My mistake, it's not even articles, it's just Reddit comments.
It's not about a review site.
It's not even comments. The paper refers to "upvotes" which makes it pretty clear that the study took place on Reddit and involved incrementing/decrementing the score when an article went live, by a single point.
What's interesting about the study is:
1) The manipulation was a single positive or negative vote applied at random immediately when the article went live.
2) People would tend to correct false negatives, but amplify false positives.
Just $100 per year to use the online features of a console which, until recently, was never meant to go offline. By grabthar's hammer, what a savings.
The Hindenberg didn't have any fore warning. I prefer to picture the captain of the Titanic responding to the impending iceberg by having the helmsman maintain his course, then asking the engine room for ramming speed.
Microsoft isn't competing with the original Xbox, it's competing with the PS4. Times change. People started to think Gold wasn't such a good deal when the video apps launched and you had to buy a subscription to access video streaming services you were already paying for; it has gone downhill from there.
Actually it does both; fatty animal tissue contains many delicious compounds, and it also modulates flavour perception.
I don't know what's funnier, that you basically invented an entire self-consistent philosophy to assign to me on the basis of my smartass one-liner, or that you practically shit yourself with hate raging against it.