I agree with you, so I skimmed through the replies. While most are meaningless, I gleaned a tiny fraction of an intelligent reply from one of the ACs, so let me draw upon that to play devil's advocate.
What if only predictable, individual induced diseases are used to vary the insurance rate? So, for example, smokers would pay more for insurance, in proportion to their likelihood of getting lung cancer an. People who eat nothing but donuts and bacon would pay more, in proportion to their likelihood of heart failure and type 2 diabetes. But your family history of cancer is not induced by bad life decisions, so there would be no rate adjustment for that.
So when someone gets chemotherapy for their lung cancer, if they smoked all their lives then the cost would be subsidized largely by the other smokers. But the non-smokers don't have to bear the full burden of it.
In this way, people feel like the system is more fair, using the "capitalistic" definition, while still being truly insurance.
Interesting. I took Comp Sci AP specifically because I wanted to get out of those annoying intro to computer science classes. To me, college was an opportunity to learn real stuff and I didn't want to waste it sitting with 100 other students relearning the basics. Boredom was my undoing in school.
I actually agree, but I removed the whole second half of my post about that. Looking back, the cost of the AP exams was so low I should have taken some minimal time to study for them and try them out. I might have been able to do the English one, although I know I would have failed the History one despite taking an AP course. But there really wasn't much to lose.
Regarding my post, I thought if I tried to make that point too, that it would undermine the main point that measuring AP test takers isn't a valid measure of success or diversity in computer science.
Their apparent motive is just to fuck with you and assert dominance.
It is because they can't ask you questions about your previous projects when you have none. So you try to ascertain the candidate's personality, interests, work ethic, etc.
This is an Advanced Placement exam, so we expect few people will take it. You only take this exam if: - You are going into the field - You went to a school that taught the advanced stuff - You have an interest in that as a major - You think you will pass it - Your intended college will give you something for it
So when very few students take it, that isn't a big problem. I bet the next headline on this topic will be in a few years from now, when some organization has 50% of the population taking the exam and they want to either lower the passing criteria because so few students pass it, or change the test because everyone teaches to the test and colleges stop accepting it because it is a useless measure.
You mostly increase participation in this test by making sure that those students who meet the above criteria are aware of it. I know people who may have passed it, but never knew it was available or were intimidated by it, etc.
No necessarily, because guttentag is really talking about watermarking, not steganography. You can watermark a document in such a way that the reader cannot detect the watermark (unless the compare theirs to the original). The watermark is retained even during (most) modifications. For example, a misspelling can be a watermark. Even if it is modified, so long as one or more misspellings remain, the watermark can be identified.
While the judges are clearly biased, there is value in their point:
the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts
This is true: How can you have an adversarial process when the adversary isn't allowed to know that anything is happening? But there still needs to be some adversary. The problem is bigger than this though.
Since those subsidies are given to all companies, I think it is out-of-scope for this discussion. The grandparent was probably intending to talk about subsidies specific to oil companies only.
Add military defense into your list of subsidies. The US military patrols the middle eastern waters, and also provides military assistance for Saudi Arabia.
It sounds like this is a technicality because the FCC's rules are inconsistent with law. They need to fix them.
I am reposting this comment by "CakeStapler" from GizModo because it explains it well:
As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.
(Emphasis mine)
So, the FCC will remove their exemption from treatment as common carriers, reenact the regulations, and there's nothing to see here. 20 minutes ago
There isn't much we can do until there is end-to-end encryption in the purchasing process. The POS device should never even know your pin or credit card number.
One should not would walk away from that article with the simple conclusion that "charter schools are not better" because the article is much more nuanced than that. Research bias is just one piece of the puzzle.
Even accounting for the research bias, there are some geographic areas where charter schools really are better. There are probably lots of varying reasons. The most disappointing reason may be that the best students are the ones who apply to go to the charter schools. That would be disappointing because it isn't something we can do to make existing public schools better. But overall, it sounds like we need lots more research to see if some of the positive results of the best charter schools can be transferred to poorer performing charter schools, or to public schools.
Agreed. I can't speak for around the world, but the charter schools in Baltimore City, MD meet all of the requirements you listed.
When my family lived in Baltimore City, we started attending charter school meetings. The charter schools got the same amount of money per student as public schools. They had to meet all the same testing requirements. Overall, they ran at a significant disadvantage, since they had to do everything themselves. But everyone there was interested in getting their children a better education. The founders priority in the queue of students who got to go to the school, but the majority of the students were chosen from the public. The charter schools seemed to do much better than the city-run schools, and I suspect it was mainly because it consisted of parents who actually cared enough to take time out of their lives to make the school work.
Maybe.... but only if you spend >$500 on the video card.
According to Tom's Hardware guide in 2006 they were recommending the Radeon X1950 XT in the $270 range. For the $340 range they suggested dual X1950 PROs or dual GeForce 7900 GS. For $460 they recommended the Geforce 8800 GTS.
The 8800 GTS is the minimum requirement for Assassin's Creed Liberation and is below the requirement for Batman Arkham Origins. So, maybe a dual 8800 at $920 would do okay.
The analogy is not fundamentally flawed. The Slashdot summary is. There is nothing wrong with doing this kind of test, it's kind of "mythbusters" semi-science. It's kinda nifty. The problem, as usual, is the over-reporting of science in an attempt to create pithy quotable summaries.
FYI: This is not a security breach. The algorithm is not supposed to be the secret. There are lots of android/iphone apps to do this, and most of them use HOTP or TOTP which is an IETF standard algorithm. The security is in the secret key that is generated when you run the app the first time. This key is synchronized between the server and the key generator when it is setup.
Slashdot Mirror
As a _user_ of GPL software, you can link it to whatever you want, including your butt, without having to care about the license one iota.
GPL advocates disagree. That is why things like GCC has the runtime library exception that explicitly allows proprietary software to link to them.
If I had a bright light, I could blind the driver no matter what.
I agree with you, so I skimmed through the replies. While most are meaningless, I gleaned a tiny fraction of an intelligent reply from one of the ACs, so let me draw upon that to play devil's advocate.
What if only predictable, individual induced diseases are used to vary the insurance rate? So, for example, smokers would pay more for insurance, in proportion to their likelihood of getting lung cancer an. People who eat nothing but donuts and bacon would pay more, in proportion to their likelihood of heart failure and type 2 diabetes. But your family history of cancer is not induced by bad life decisions, so there would be no rate adjustment for that.
So when someone gets chemotherapy for their lung cancer, if they smoked all their lives then the cost would be subsidized largely by the other smokers. But the non-smokers don't have to bear the full burden of it.
In this way, people feel like the system is more fair, using the "capitalistic" definition, while still being truly insurance.
Interesting. I took Comp Sci AP specifically because I wanted to get out of those annoying intro to computer science classes. To me, college was an opportunity to learn real stuff and I didn't want to waste it sitting with 100 other students relearning the basics. Boredom was my undoing in school.
I actually agree, but I removed the whole second half of my post about that. Looking back, the cost of the AP exams was so low I should have taken some minimal time to study for them and try them out. I might have been able to do the English one, although I know I would have failed the History one despite taking an AP course. But there really wasn't much to lose.
Regarding my post, I thought if I tried to make that point too, that it would undermine the main point that measuring AP test takers isn't a valid measure of success or diversity in computer science.
Their apparent motive is just to fuck with you and assert dominance.
It is because they can't ask you questions about your previous projects when you have none. So you try to ascertain the candidate's personality, interests, work ethic, etc.
Also: Yeah, it is fun. :-)
This is an Advanced Placement exam, so we expect few people will take it. You only take this exam if:
- You are going into the field
- You went to a school that taught the advanced stuff
- You have an interest in that as a major
- You think you will pass it
- Your intended college will give you something for it
So when very few students take it, that isn't a big problem. I bet the next headline on this topic will be in a few years from now, when some organization has 50% of the population taking the exam and they want to either lower the passing criteria because so few students pass it, or change the test because everyone teaches to the test and colleges stop accepting it because it is a useless measure.
You mostly increase participation in this test by making sure that those students who meet the above criteria are aware of it. I know people who may have passed it, but never knew it was available or were intimidated by it, etc.
And imagine how much worse it would be if the person was using a cell phone too!
No necessarily, because guttentag is really talking about watermarking, not steganography. You can watermark a document in such a way that the reader cannot detect the watermark (unless the compare theirs to the original). The watermark is retained even during (most) modifications. For example, a misspelling can be a watermark. Even if it is modified, so long as one or more misspellings remain, the watermark can be identified.
With Google Play, if you enter your password for a Play Store purchase, does that authorize in-app purchases too?
We should not ask statisticians to change their terms because people are too stupid to understand them.
The author didn't ask anyone to change any terms. They asked people to stop using the wrong statistic. Ex: Don't use mean if you needed the median.
While the judges are clearly biased, there is value in their point:
the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the courts in assessing the facts
This is true: How can you have an adversarial process when the adversary isn't allowed to know that anything is happening? But there still needs to be some adversary. The problem is bigger than this though.
Ultimately, this court isn't even a court by any modern definition. No adversarial process. The judges are appointed without any confirmation or oversight. There is no appeals court. The NSA lies to the judges anyway. And the department that oversees them ignores complaints by the judges.
How is this a court at all?
Since those subsidies are given to all companies, I think it is out-of-scope for this discussion. The grandparent was probably intending to talk about subsidies specific to oil companies only.
Add military defense into your list of subsidies. The US military patrols the middle eastern waters, and also provides military assistance for Saudi Arabia.
A counter to the subsidies is the gas tax.
It sounds like this is a technicality because the FCC's rules are inconsistent with law. They need to fix them.
I am reposting this comment by "CakeStapler" from GizModo because it explains it well:
As we explain in this opinion, the Commission has established that section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 vests it with affirmative authority to enact measures encouraging the deployment of broadband infrastructure. The Commission, we further hold, has reasonably interpreted section 706 to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the “virtuous circle” of innovation that has driven the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.
(Emphasis mine)
So, the FCC will remove their exemption from treatment as common carriers, reenact the regulations, and there's nothing to see here. 20 minutes ago
That's cutting edge theoretical computer science, not something you find in a POS machine.
The Card Readers they used should have been encrypted making all sensitive data only decipherable to the processor.
It sounds like it was encrypted, and the malware was on the processor.
There would have been no data "in the clear" even if they were RAM Scraping.
The article claimed it had to be decrypted in memory in order to process it. I think this is a fundamental limitation of the credit system.
There isn't much we can do until there is end-to-end encryption in the purchasing process. The POS device should never even know your pin or credit card number.
Buildings. Lunches. Janitors. Electricity. Air conditioning. Security guards. Principals. Bathrooms. Toilet paper. Counselors. Lawn mowing. Drainage. Hot water. School buses. Copiers. Staples. Alarm bells. Curriculum. Receptionists. Telephones. Tests. Grade books. Morning announcements. Mailings. Web sites. Signage. Playgrounds. Landscaping. Sidewalks. Parking lots.
One should not would walk away from that article with the simple conclusion that "charter schools are not better" because the article is much more nuanced than that. Research bias is just one piece of the puzzle.
Even accounting for the research bias, there are some geographic areas where charter schools really are better. There are probably lots of varying reasons. The most disappointing reason may be that the best students are the ones who apply to go to the charter schools. That would be disappointing because it isn't something we can do to make existing public schools better. But overall, it sounds like we need lots more research to see if some of the positive results of the best charter schools can be transferred to poorer performing charter schools, or to public schools.
Agreed. I can't speak for around the world, but the charter schools in Baltimore City, MD meet all of the requirements you listed.
When my family lived in Baltimore City, we started attending charter school meetings. The charter schools got the same amount of money per student as public schools. They had to meet all the same testing requirements. Overall, they ran at a significant disadvantage, since they had to do everything themselves. But everyone there was interested in getting their children a better education. The founders priority in the queue of students who got to go to the school, but the majority of the students were chosen from the public. The charter schools seemed to do much better than the city-run schools, and I suspect it was mainly because it consisted of parents who actually cared enough to take time out of their lives to make the school work.
Maybe.... but only if you spend >$500 on the video card.
According to Tom's Hardware guide in 2006 they were recommending the Radeon X1950 XT in the $270 range. For the $340 range they suggested dual X1950 PROs or dual GeForce 7900 GS. For $460 they recommended the Geforce 8800 GTS.
The 8800 GTS is the minimum requirement for Assassin's Creed Liberation and is below the requirement for Batman Arkham Origins. So, maybe a dual 8800 at $920 would do okay.
So the analogy is fundamentally flawed. Shame!
The analogy is not fundamentally flawed. The Slashdot summary is. There is nothing wrong with doing this kind of test, it's kind of "mythbusters" semi-science. It's kinda nifty. The problem, as usual, is the over-reporting of science in an attempt to create pithy quotable summaries.
Pass on this story until someone more reputable reports with relevant details.
FYI: This is not a security breach. The algorithm is not supposed to be the secret. There are lots of android/iphone apps to do this, and most of them use HOTP or TOTP which is an IETF standard algorithm. The security is in the secret key that is generated when you run the app the first time. This key is synchronized between the server and the key generator when it is setup.