The US-Mexico border is nearly 2000 miles, and the estimate for complying with the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which builds 700 miles of fence, at $4.1Billion, greater than the budget for the Border Patrol ($3.6Billion). Attempts to extend this to a complete fence have failed multiple times in Congress.
At that rate a complete fence would cost at least $12Billion, and it would be completely useless against drug-smuggling drones that could probably be built for less than a thousand dollars, that could fly lower than radar coverage as for the "Virtual Fence," and would not be easily traceable to the origin or destination of the flights.
Drones that could carry humans would probably cost just a little more. Right now, about 500 migrants per year die crossing the US-Mexico border - drones could most probably be safer than that, but it's hard to speculate what safety features human smugglers would employ in illegal drones.
Not accurate. In order to implement "Full" Java, Oracle wants you to certify it with them, then you can have a "free" license. Not the same as not purchasing a license.
Reading the appellate review, I think you've got a good summary of this decision. Particular attention needs to be given to the fair use issue; the decision clearly states that while the copyrightability analysis wrongly incorporates attention to Google's desire for compatibility, that concern may be very much relevant to the fair use analysis. Since this is a decision that Affirms in part, Reverses in part, and Remands - all this goes back to the trial court, which could follow this decision and still end up in roughly the same place - minimal damages to Oracle. Alternatively, if the fair use issues go against Google (and they could, given that the entire interface files were copied verbatim, the use is for comercial purposes, and that Oracle was attempting to license Java into the smartphone market at the time), it could eventualy be A Big Deal.
There's a lot of attention given to the RangeCheck function - IMHO there aren't very many ways to write this function, and even if you write it differently, the compiler ought to optimize it into essentially the same object code. It's a function that checks three things and throws three exceptions. You could change "if (a [lt] b)" to "if (b [gt] a)", [sorry, but [lt] and [gt] characters would make it look like HTML] but if you change the order of the checks, you'd throw the exceptions in a different order - that would change the function of the code. Code that attempted to parse the exceptions thrown by the RangeCheck function would see a difference if you reordered the checks or if you changed the strings in the exceptions. So, using the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, there's really nothing that is expression versus "idea."
Sure, and it's nice that you can type "echo -n password | md5sum" to a shell if you forget the hex. But it might be better to keep your password secret, unless you intend to google "No one will guess... site:it.slashdot.org" to retrieve it in the future. You might as well tell everyone that a great password is "correct horse battery staple" - no one would guess THAT - and it's easier for a human brain to remember than xkcd.com/936/
I have it on good authority that the LADEE Probe did not impact on the far-side of the moon, though that's what was intended (for reasons of safety to historical sites). According to team member, it actually impacted on the near-side, close to the end of it's traversal of the near side and close to the near-side-far-side boundary (and because it was a full moon, near the terminus, which is the "day/night" boundary). Because it was close to the end of the near-side traversal, they waited until it would have returned to the near-side after the far-side traversal to "officially" call it.
"Imagine, stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles."
Fight Club - yeah, I'm talking 'bout it. Whatchu gotta rule or sompthin'?
...and the guy with the $15 lot doesn't have to work so hard for their money. In theory, the operator could stay in bed until he gets a wake-up call from the guy with the $5 lot, who he could pay $5 for the call. The $5 guy would have every incentive to call just when his lot is filling up, so he could go home. Now consider this (It'll blow your mind for sure...), the $5 guy and the $15 guy could be the same f**king guy! We've just invented variable pricing!
Yep - that's about the logic I was expecting - if he was flying just for "hobby and recreation" it would be OK, but because he's doing it for a beneficial purpose, it doesn't qualify for that automatic exemption. I noticed that the FAA letter said it didn't matter whether he was flying line-of-sight or not.
Under the regulations (or lack of regulations) under which this guy is being shut down, drone package delivery would certainly be considered a commercial activity and ruled to be illegal. Amazon's drone program is clearly dependent upon a change of regulation to be viable.
I'm not at all clear how this is to be considered a commercial activity. It isn't commerce in the sense of money changing hands between the service provider and the beneficial recepient. It isn't commerce in the sense of operating for profit. The only basis I can imagine is that it's because it has a _purpose_, it's not just flying around for the f**k of it. Consequently, if it has a beneficial purpose, it has a reason to be allowed, and therefore it needs to be ruled illegal, so that it won't get in the way of having the FAA make whatever regulations they please. It's my tax dollars being wasted in the worst way.
A five hour wait to exit is not the problem. The problem is a five hour traffic scrum, with cars inching forward and jockeying for position all the time. The "solution" is to bring the scrum to a control point that oscillates between open and closed with a large period, so that traffic comes to a complete stop and people can relax for while, shut off engines, take a pee break, switch cars with a friend, and so forth. Then open the control point, everyone gets back in the cars and the scrum resumes. Since the exit is 1000 cars per hour, it's sufficient to have an oscillating control point that can pass 2000 cars per hour with a 50% duty cycle - or 4000 cars per hour with a 25% duty cycle.
I've not been to BM, but I ski, and this is what naturally happens on Highway 80 when there's heavy snow and multiple spin-outs.
Reading the bug report commentary, it appears there's an error in the specification: http://www.x.org/docs/XKB/XKBp... that Peter Hutterer propagated into the code. The specification should be fixed as well as the code. Peter's comments about the change also discuss a null-pointer dereference problem - I'm not clear how that is related to the change - and therefore whether reverting the change is the complete solution.
The specification appears to be dated 1997-12-15, so all this is blowback from 16-year-old specification error.
Having seen plenty of serious bugs sitting unfixed in bug reports for years and years, I don't think the problem of enormous bugfix latency is particularly related to or limited to acccessibility issues.
Bzzt. http://i1.minus.com/iPcccu2MDL... does not show the factual location of the pings. Read the caption. It shows "Examples" of pings that could have given the tracks that the NTSB released. The actual location of the pings has not been publicly released, even though the ping data must have strongly influenced the NTSB tracks that have been published. This image from minus.com was drawn by Scott Henderson, who has explained that the pings shown in the diagram were drawn to illustrate the process that the NTSB presumably employed. This artifice got some strong negative reactions, such as http://willyloman.wordpress.co...
Knowing the actual ping locations, particularly the 3:11 and 4:11 pings, could help clarify when the turn to the south took place and better pin down the complete track.
TFAbstract says that WPA2 can be cracked with brute force search, and that long passwords are more secure than short ones. Looking up the home pages of these internationally renowned researchers http://www.brunel.ac.uk/bbs/pe...http://issel.ee.auth.gr/people...http://www.research.lancs.ac.u... reveals that these three claim no other security-focused publications. But perhaps I'm too quick to judge. Somebody pay the man and read their paper. Or is this the two-step get-rich-quick scheme?: - (1) Publish Paywalled Article Exposing Security Holes in Commonly-Used Security Protocol (2) Profit! (PPAESHiCUSP-P)
The link is to an article that's a week old, and if you read the article carefully, the plot described ends at 2:15 AM, without knowing whether IGREX was reached. The Inmarsat angle data leads toward the southern Indian Ocean.
You might as well consider the similarities to Oceanic 815 - though that flight was Australia to US, apparently ending up at Wallis Island - or not. Unfortunately for your fantastic theory, the current SAR effort is focused on the southern Indian ocean, not Himilaya. While the 8:11 angle estimate has a northern segment, all attention is leading toward the southern segment, at the extremum of the supposed fuel range of the plane.
The plane might have traveled to the west of Indonesia before turning south. The intermediate satellite angle information could help distinguish when and where the plane turned southward.
Unfortunately, this map has non-factual locations for the circles other than 8:11. The angle information for the earlier pings has not been released, but artwork was drawn up that estimated these earlier pings from the reported estimated tracks attributed to the NTSB. This artwork, drawn by Scott Henderson, was likely the source for the map on theaviationist.com's site. See http://willyloman.wordpress.co... for details.
Inmarsat has been coy about the exact value of the ping angles. They issued a press release that said that the information had been given to the Malaysian government, and that anyone who wanted details should contact Malaysia. See http://www.inmarsat.com/news/i... IMHO, they have been doing this because the earlier ping data may make clearer that the aircraft track takes it over Malaysia, where the lack of detection may be a source of official embarrassment.
The earlier ping data may also indicate whether MH370 overflew Indonesia, or whether it flew west to avoid Indonesia, and that has an effect on the plane's remaining range and the estimate of the flight's bearing when it presumably turned southward toward the 90E/45S region where the SAR operations have been focused lately. It would appear that this data was factored into the NTSB track estimates, but the lack of an official release of the angle data has hampered the armchair/amateur speculation about the location. IMHO, if MH370 avoided overflying Indonesia, it may have been a deliberate attempt to lay a false track in a west or northwest direction.
Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.
In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.
Yes, I understand that when you "deposit" bitcoin to a ledger account, you're not going to get back your original bitcoin on a "withdrawal," but that's not the point. When Mt Gox attempted to send a bitcoin from a Mt Gox wallet, then was told it didn't work, they should have re-sent that same bitcoin that they sent the first time.
It's like if someone told you to hand them a dollar, and you reached into your pocket, grabbed a dollar and hand it to them, then when they say they didn't get it, you don't just reach deeper into your pocket and grab a different dollar - you look at your palm and hand them the dollar that still sticking to your fingers. If it's not in sticking to your fingers, you'd better figure out where the dollar went!
What I fail to understand is how MtGox managed to lose all this money with "transaction malleabiliity." My question is simple and stupid, but I haven't been able to discover the answer from articles discussing this fiasco.
Depositors initiate a transfer of bitcoin, then complain that it didn't go through, then MtGox transfers additional bitcoin.
Why didn't they simply send the original bitcoin again?
The 1/4" jack is embedded in the bottom of the guitar, along with the power button, USB port, and pick connector. There are no pickups because the strings don't even get tuned - the thing on the end, I think, senses the amplitude of the string vibrations so you can play it with your fingers. This means no note bending, etc. The implication is that it figures out what note you've played by sensing which if the segmented frets are connected to which strings.
That what's I've gleaned from the website information. What I don't get it why the frets are segmented, as it should be easy to demultiplex the frets and strings by scanning either of them sequentially, perhaps that would degrade the note timing a little bit, though you can scan which frets are touching which strings in advance so when the string vibration is sensed you know which note to play.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Right. As if no company would think of putting the newly minted ad revenue in their own pocket instead of mine.
That was already tried.Seriously.
The US-Mexico border is nearly 2000 miles, and the estimate for complying with the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which builds 700 miles of fence, at $4.1Billion, greater than the budget for the Border Patrol ($3.6Billion). Attempts to extend this to a complete fence have failed multiple times in Congress.
At that rate a complete fence would cost at least $12Billion, and it would be completely useless against drug-smuggling drones that could probably be built for less than a thousand dollars, that could fly lower than radar coverage as for the "Virtual Fence," and would not be easily traceable to the origin or destination of the flights.
Drones that could carry humans would probably cost just a little more. Right now, about 500 migrants per year die crossing the US-Mexico border - drones could most probably be safer than that, but it's hard to speculate what safety features human smugglers would employ in illegal drones.
Not accurate. In order to implement "Full" Java, Oracle wants you to certify it with them, then you can have a "free" license. Not the same as not purchasing a license.
Reading the appellate review, I think you've got a good summary of this decision. Particular attention needs to be given to the fair use issue; the decision clearly states that while the copyrightability analysis wrongly incorporates attention to Google's desire for compatibility, that concern may be very much relevant to the fair use analysis. Since this is a decision that Affirms in part, Reverses in part, and Remands - all this goes back to the trial court, which could follow this decision and still end up in roughly the same place - minimal damages to Oracle. Alternatively, if the fair use issues go against Google (and they could, given that the entire interface files were copied verbatim, the use is for comercial purposes, and that Oracle was attempting to license Java into the smartphone market at the time), it could eventualy be A Big Deal.
There's a lot of attention given to the RangeCheck function - IMHO there aren't very many ways to write this function, and even if you write it differently, the compiler ought to optimize it into essentially the same object code. It's a function that checks three things and throws three exceptions. You could change "if (a [lt] b)" to "if (b [gt] a)", [sorry, but [lt] and [gt] characters would make it look like HTML] but if you change the order of the checks, you'd throw the exceptions in a different order - that would change the function of the code. Code that attempted to parse the exceptions thrown by the RangeCheck function would see a difference if you reordered the checks or if you changed the strings in the exceptions. So, using the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test, there's really nothing that is expression versus "idea."
Sure, and it's nice that you can type "echo -n password | md5sum" to a shell if you forget the hex. But it might be better to keep your password secret, unless you intend to google "No one will guess... site:it.slashdot.org" to retrieve it in the future. You might as well tell everyone that a great password is "correct horse battery staple" - no one would guess THAT - and it's easier for a human brain to remember than xkcd.com/936/
I have it on good authority that the LADEE Probe did not impact on the far-side of the moon, though that's what was intended (for reasons of safety to historical sites). According to team member, it actually impacted on the near-side, close to the end of it's traversal of the near side and close to the near-side-far-side boundary (and because it was a full moon, near the terminus, which is the "day/night" boundary). Because it was close to the end of the near-side traversal, they waited until it would have returned to the near-side after the far-side traversal to "officially" call it.
"Imagine, stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles."
Fight Club - yeah, I'm talking 'bout it. Whatchu gotta rule or sompthin'?
...and the guy with the $15 lot doesn't have to work so hard for their money. In theory, the operator could stay in bed until he gets a wake-up call from the guy with the $5 lot, who he could pay $5 for the call. The $5 guy would have every incentive to call just when his lot is filling up, so he could go home. Now consider this (It'll blow your mind for sure...), the $5 guy and the $15 guy could be the same f**king guy! We've just invented variable pricing!
Yep - that's about the logic I was expecting - if he was flying just for "hobby and recreation" it would be OK, but because he's doing it for a beneficial purpose, it doesn't qualify for that automatic exemption. I noticed that the FAA letter said it didn't matter whether he was flying line-of-sight or not.
Under the regulations (or lack of regulations) under which this guy is being shut down, drone package delivery would certainly be considered a commercial activity and ruled to be illegal. Amazon's drone program is clearly dependent upon a change of regulation to be viable.
I'm not at all clear how this is to be considered a commercial activity. It isn't commerce in the sense of money changing hands between the service provider and the beneficial recepient. It isn't commerce in the sense of operating for profit. The only basis I can imagine is that it's because it has a _purpose_, it's not just flying around for the f**k of it. Consequently, if it has a beneficial purpose, it has a reason to be allowed, and therefore it needs to be ruled illegal, so that it won't get in the way of having the FAA make whatever regulations they please. It's my tax dollars being wasted in the worst way.
A five hour wait to exit is not the problem. The problem is a five hour traffic scrum, with cars inching forward and jockeying for position all the time. The "solution" is to bring the scrum to a control point that oscillates between open and closed with a large period, so that traffic comes to a complete stop and people can relax for while, shut off engines, take a pee break, switch cars with a friend, and so forth. Then open the control point, everyone gets back in the cars and the scrum resumes. Since the exit is 1000 cars per hour, it's sufficient to have an oscillating control point that can pass 2000 cars per hour with a 50% duty cycle - or 4000 cars per hour with a 25% duty cycle.
I've not been to BM, but I ski, and this is what naturally happens on Highway 80 when there's heavy snow and multiple spin-outs.
Reading the bug report commentary, it appears there's an error in the specification: http://www.x.org/docs/XKB/XKBp... that Peter Hutterer propagated into the code. The specification should be fixed as well as the code. Peter's comments about the change also discuss a null-pointer dereference problem - I'm not clear how that is related to the change - and therefore whether reverting the change is the complete solution.
The specification appears to be dated 1997-12-15, so all this is blowback from 16-year-old specification error.
Having seen plenty of serious bugs sitting unfixed in bug reports for years and years, I don't think the problem of enormous bugfix latency is particularly related to or limited to acccessibility issues.
Tweets from Scott Henderson, who drew the diagram you cite, clarify what information we do and don't have: https://twitter.com/_AntiAlias...
Bzzt. http://i1.minus.com/iPcccu2MDL... does not show the factual location of the pings. Read the caption. It shows "Examples" of pings that could have given the tracks that the NTSB released. The actual location of the pings has not been publicly released, even though the ping data must have strongly influenced the NTSB tracks that have been published. This image from minus.com was drawn by Scott Henderson, who has explained that the pings shown in the diagram were drawn to illustrate the process that the NTSB presumably employed. This artifice got some strong negative reactions, such as http://willyloman.wordpress.co...
Knowing the actual ping locations, particularly the 3:11 and 4:11 pings, could help clarify when the turn to the south took place and better pin down the complete track.
TFAbstract says that WPA2 can be cracked with brute force search, and that long passwords are more secure than short ones. Looking up the home pages of these internationally renowned researchers http://www.brunel.ac.uk/bbs/pe... http://issel.ee.auth.gr/people... http://www.research.lancs.ac.u... reveals that these three claim no other security-focused publications. But perhaps I'm too quick to judge. Somebody pay the man and read their paper. Or is this the two-step get-rich-quick scheme?: - (1) Publish Paywalled Article Exposing Security Holes in Commonly-Used Security Protocol (2) Profit! (PPAESHiCUSP-P)
The link is to an article that's a week old, and if you read the article carefully, the plot described ends at 2:15 AM, without knowing whether IGREX was reached. The Inmarsat angle data leads toward the southern Indian Ocean.
You might as well consider the similarities to Oceanic 815 - though that flight was Australia to US, apparently ending up at Wallis Island - or not. Unfortunately for your fantastic theory, the current SAR effort is focused on the southern Indian ocean, not Himilaya. While the 8:11 angle estimate has a northern segment, all attention is leading toward the southern segment, at the extremum of the supposed fuel range of the plane.
The plane might have traveled to the west of Indonesia before turning south. The intermediate satellite angle information could help distinguish when and where the plane turned southward.
Unfortunately, this map has non-factual locations for the circles other than 8:11. The angle information for the earlier pings has not been released, but artwork was drawn up that estimated these earlier pings from the reported estimated tracks attributed to the NTSB. This artwork, drawn by Scott Henderson, was likely the source for the map on theaviationist.com's site. See http://willyloman.wordpress.co... for details.
Inmarsat has been coy about the exact value of the ping angles. They issued a press release that said that the information had been given to the Malaysian government, and that anyone who wanted details should contact Malaysia. See http://www.inmarsat.com/news/i... IMHO, they have been doing this because the earlier ping data may make clearer that the aircraft track takes it over Malaysia, where the lack of detection may be a source of official embarrassment.
The earlier ping data may also indicate whether MH370 overflew Indonesia, or whether it flew west to avoid Indonesia, and that has an effect on the plane's remaining range and the estimate of the flight's bearing when it presumably turned southward toward the 90E/45S region where the SAR operations have been focused lately. It would appear that this data was factored into the NTSB track estimates, but the lack of an official release of the angle data has hampered the armchair/amateur speculation about the location. IMHO, if MH370 avoided overflying Indonesia, it may have been a deliberate attempt to lay a false track in a west or northwest direction.
That's not true of patents filed prior to mid-1995. They get a seventeen-year term from issue no matter how long it takes to be granted.
Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.
In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.
Yes, I understand that when you "deposit" bitcoin to a ledger account, you're not going to get back your original bitcoin on a "withdrawal," but that's not the point. When Mt Gox attempted to send a bitcoin from a Mt Gox wallet, then was told it didn't work, they should have re-sent that same bitcoin that they sent the first time.
It's like if someone told you to hand them a dollar, and you reached into your pocket, grabbed a dollar and hand it to them, then when they say they didn't get it, you don't just reach deeper into your pocket and grab a different dollar - you look at your palm and hand them the dollar that still sticking to your fingers. If it's not in sticking to your fingers, you'd better figure out where the dollar went!
What I fail to understand is how MtGox managed to lose all this money with "transaction malleabiliity." My question is simple and stupid, but I haven't been able to discover the answer from articles discussing this fiasco.
Depositors initiate a transfer of bitcoin, then complain that it didn't go through, then MtGox transfers additional bitcoin.
Why didn't they simply send the original bitcoin again?
The 1/4" jack is embedded in the bottom of the guitar, along with the power button, USB port, and pick connector.
There are no pickups because the strings don't even get tuned - the thing on the end, I think, senses the amplitude of the string vibrations so you can play it with your fingers. This means no note bending, etc. The implication is that it figures out what note you've played by sensing which if the segmented frets are connected to which strings.
That what's I've gleaned from the website information. What I don't get it why the frets are segmented, as it should be easy to demultiplex the frets and strings by scanning either of them sequentially, perhaps that would degrade the note timing a little bit, though you can scan which frets are touching which strings in advance so when the string vibration is sensed you know which note to play.