Tax free in the sense that there's practically zero probability that the IRS will catch him at it. Especially since the cost of enforcement for something like that far exceeds the recoverable revenue.
Not a good analogy. The HIPAA laws tightly regulate access to medical records. There are no similar laws protecting your cellphone tower data (yet). So currently if a private company, like Verizon, decides to make it a policy to hand over those records on request from the police, that's their business. However if this leads Congress to pass a law regulating that data then it may take it out of their hands.
- how do you make sure that minor changes to the original picture do not produce completely different signatures?
Wavelet transform. Compute hashes in wavelet space.
I'm not sure I understand how wavelets are going to help you with this. It's really not hard at all to modify an image such that the wavelet transform would be markedly different (heck, a brightening/darkening filter would do the trick, especially if you were only hashing the Y-Channel of an image). Unless you're using wavelets in a way I've never heard of before. One of my former jobs was developing image compression software so I have a reasonable working knowledge of how wavelet transforms work and I've personally implemented several variations of them.
It happens that 10^-12 seconds is the average length of time a person on Slashdot spends reading the article and considering a reply before they begin posting about it. It would be much shorter, but people like OP keep skewing up the average.
This is one of those lies that I first heard from Trump and he keeps repeating even though it's false. Amazon does NOT own the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and happens to also be the CEO of Amazon. This does not place WaPo under Amazon's control.
He didn't game the system, he went through a legal permanent residency and then became a naturalized citizen. That's legal immigration. That's working within the system exactly as the laws allow. I don't get where you pulled "illegal immigration" from.
In the bay area, you can be making $105,000 per year (for a family of four) and be considered low income. In other parts of the country that income would rate a friggin' mansion. California has a screwed up real estate market and view of poverty.
One of the defining eye opening experiences of my life with Asperger's was when I started taking anti-anxiety medications. The difference was night and day. All of the ten thousand things I used to worry about faded away into the background and only the really actually significant issues remained to focus on. It helped tremendously with my social interactions because I no longer had a paralyzing fear of doing or saying the wrong thing in new social situations. I'm sure it's not for everyone, but I don't plan on ever going back. It helped me finally feel normal.
You mileage may vary of course, but as life altering as it was for me, I recommend fellow Aspie's to at least look into it. Also, book-wise, Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger's by John Elder Robinson was wonderfully insightful and reflected a great many of my types of experiences.
If you could solve an NP-complete problem in P-time (thus proving that P = NP-complete), it would be the end of modern public key encryption protocols because you could factor out the private key in P-time. This is because factoring, being an NP problem (but not NP-complete, that we know of), is trivially reducible in P-time to an NP-complete algorithm and thus if P = NP-complete then factoring would be possible in P-time.
Well, it is fairly easy to reduce factoring to an NP-complete problem (in P-time), but what you cannot do is reduce an NP-complete problem to factoring (that we know of at least). Thusly factoring has not been proven to be NP-complete. However if you can prove that P != NP-complete you're at least halfway there. If you could prove that P = NP-complete then factoring would be hopelessly broken.
Knowing a little something about this, I have to say that the government doesn't "remove" properties from Section 8 coverage. The tenants seek out a unit to rent with a voucher which entitles them to some number of bedrooms in a unit at a price not to exceed some set amount determined to be reasonable by the local agency. The landlord and the tenant both agree to be bound by contract to certain rules and stipulations protecting their interests (like the landlord can't just kick out a Section 8 tenant for no reason, and the tenant can't move somewhere else for some period of time, usually a year).
But unless the tenant decides to move out after that period expires or if you try to raise the rates too high, or if there's a failed inspection and you refuse to fix the issues found to make it livable, then that Section 8 money isn't going anywhere. It's a good deal overall and it has the benefit of the government keeping an eye on things to prevent either side from completely screwing over the other.
Not exactly. It would remain classified, but USC Title 18 Part I Chapter 37 Section 798 specfically says:
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
So if the president gives the information to someone they cease to be "unauthorized" under the law. Now they can't share the classified information with anyone else, but the president has full authority to give that information to whomever he sees fit. Thus my statement that it is "literally impossible" for the president to be guilty of leaking classified information.
Posting a strobe flashy gif animation on a website? Not a big deal. Kinda douchey, but not a crime (even if someone does get a seizure from it but only because causing a seizure was not the intended result).
Sending a strobe flashy to gif to someone you know who has a seizure disorder and accompanying it with a message that says something to the effect of "I hope you get a seizure from this"? Definitely illegal because the stated intent is to induce a seizure (even if one is *not* induced).
It's kind of the online equivalent of mailing peanut dust to someone with a peanut allergy. Even if they don't get a bad reaction from it (say, because his mom opened it first and cleaned up before it hit him) then you will still be prosecuted for attempted assault because of the intent behind it.
And if his offices WERE tapped Trump has now broken federal law by revealing that his offices were tapped and we have not one but two Presidents with serious crimes marring their histories.
Incorrect. The president, as part of his official duties, can declassify information and disseminate it as he pleases. Of all the things Trump may be doing wrong, this one at least is not illegal. The president cannot be convicted of releasing classified information because he is the ultimate authority on what can be declassified.
The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.
Slashdot Mirror
Grandma and Grandpa with their first new-fangled "smart" phone?
Tax free in the sense that there's practically zero probability that the IRS will catch him at it. Especially since the cost of enforcement for something like that far exceeds the recoverable revenue.
Not a good analogy. The HIPAA laws tightly regulate access to medical records. There are no similar laws protecting your cellphone tower data (yet). So currently if a private company, like Verizon, decides to make it a policy to hand over those records on request from the police, that's their business. However if this leads Congress to pass a law regulating that data then it may take it out of their hands.
- how do you make sure that minor changes to the original picture do not produce completely different signatures?
Wavelet transform. Compute hashes in wavelet space.
I'm not sure I understand how wavelets are going to help you with this. It's really not hard at all to modify an image such that the wavelet transform would be markedly different (heck, a brightening/darkening filter would do the trick, especially if you were only hashing the Y-Channel of an image). Unless you're using wavelets in a way I've never heard of before. One of my former jobs was developing image compression software so I have a reasonable working knowledge of how wavelet transforms work and I've personally implemented several variations of them.
It happens that 10^-12 seconds is the average length of time a person on Slashdot spends reading the article and considering a reply before they begin posting about it. It would be much shorter, but people like OP keep skewing up the average.
Whoah there turbo!
Idiots on Fark.com also misuse the term PSA. Let's not limit the hate to just the biggest players!
This is one of those lies that I first heard from Trump and he keeps repeating even though it's false. Amazon does NOT own the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and happens to also be the CEO of Amazon. This does not place WaPo under Amazon's control.
The Talos Principal is also available on iOS
He didn't game the system, he went through a legal permanent residency and then became a naturalized citizen. That's legal immigration. That's working within the system exactly as the laws allow. I don't get where you pulled "illegal immigration" from.
In the bay area, you can be making $105,000 per year (for a family of four) and be considered low income. In other parts of the country that income would rate a friggin' mansion. California has a screwed up real estate market and view of poverty.
One of the defining eye opening experiences of my life with Asperger's was when I started taking anti-anxiety medications. The difference was night and day. All of the ten thousand things I used to worry about faded away into the background and only the really actually significant issues remained to focus on. It helped tremendously with my social interactions because I no longer had a paralyzing fear of doing or saying the wrong thing in new social situations. I'm sure it's not for everyone, but I don't plan on ever going back. It helped me finally feel normal.
You mileage may vary of course, but as life altering as it was for me, I recommend fellow Aspie's to at least look into it. Also, book-wise, Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger's by John Elder Robinson was wonderfully insightful and reflected a great many of my types of experiences.
If you could solve an NP-complete problem in P-time (thus proving that P = NP-complete), it would be the end of modern public key encryption protocols because you could factor out the private key in P-time. This is because factoring, being an NP problem (but not NP-complete, that we know of), is trivially reducible in P-time to an NP-complete algorithm and thus if P = NP-complete then factoring would be possible in P-time.
Well, it is fairly easy to reduce factoring to an NP-complete problem (in P-time), but what you cannot do is reduce an NP-complete problem to factoring (that we know of at least). Thusly factoring has not been proven to be NP-complete. However if you can prove that P != NP-complete you're at least halfway there. If you could prove that P = NP-complete then factoring would be hopelessly broken.
Voyager 1 is roughly 20 light hours out. Earth is about 8 light minutes from the sun.
I would imagine next Tuesday, like all the other Windows patches for the last 15 years - second Tuesday of the month.
Or better, don't leave this phone touching the screen of your significant other's phone or you'll get a fused screen worthless double brick.
Knowing a little something about this, I have to say that the government doesn't "remove" properties from Section 8 coverage. The tenants seek out a unit to rent with a voucher which entitles them to some number of bedrooms in a unit at a price not to exceed some set amount determined to be reasonable by the local agency. The landlord and the tenant both agree to be bound by contract to certain rules and stipulations protecting their interests (like the landlord can't just kick out a Section 8 tenant for no reason, and the tenant can't move somewhere else for some period of time, usually a year).
But unless the tenant decides to move out after that period expires or if you try to raise the rates too high, or if there's a failed inspection and you refuse to fix the issues found to make it livable, then that Section 8 money isn't going anywhere. It's a good deal overall and it has the benefit of the government keeping an eye on things to prevent either side from completely screwing over the other.
Pun Police violation!"
Wait...why did you even have an office then? What was the point?
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
So if the president gives the information to someone they cease to be "unauthorized" under the law. Now they can't share the classified information with anyone else, but the president has full authority to give that information to whomever he sees fit. Thus my statement that it is "literally impossible" for the president to be guilty of leaking classified information.
Intent being the key difference.
Posting a strobe flashy gif animation on a website? Not a big deal. Kinda douchey, but not a crime (even if someone does get a seizure from it but only because causing a seizure was not the intended result).
Sending a strobe flashy to gif to someone you know who has a seizure disorder and accompanying it with a message that says something to the effect of "I hope you get a seizure from this"? Definitely illegal because the stated intent is to induce a seizure (even if one is *not* induced).
It's kind of the online equivalent of mailing peanut dust to someone with a peanut allergy. Even if they don't get a bad reaction from it (say, because his mom opened it first and cleaned up before it hit him) then you will still be prosecuted for attempted assault because of the intent behind it.
You mean the guy who taxed top income earners at 91% to help pay for World War II? Yeah, we need more conservatives like Eisenhower!
And if his offices WERE tapped Trump has now broken federal law by revealing that his offices were tapped and we have not one but two Presidents with serious crimes marring their histories.
Incorrect. The president, as part of his official duties, can declassify information and disseminate it as he pleases. Of all the things Trump may be doing wrong, this one at least is not illegal. The president cannot be convicted of releasing classified information because he is the ultimate authority on what can be declassified.
The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.
Came in here to say this. Glad somebody was thinking straight.