Hell I use it. Google drive. I am in a violently bitter divorce and all the docs are on a google drive so I can pull them up on my phone at a moment's notice, while also being able to actually work on them on my PC.
Risk? yes. Worth it when I can pull up the latest custody order on a moment's notice to demonstrate I do, in fact, have custody of my kids right now? Priceless (and the cops like it too).
Still keep the oblig hardcopy binder like any court system docs, and an offline copy made weekly or when there are big changes.
Well yes... And actually I already have a system I use. Like you I have a friend(relative) who is responsible for my primary computer stuff, but there is one machine that requires a ping at least once a week or it goes dark, after a month it wipes its keys and my CA signed private key as well. I'll notice when it goes dark... and if I don't I have *way* bigger problems.
If the switch happened *after* the ASIC was created then yes. If the algos are all defined then I just build an asic that does the following:
get input switch (input.algo){ case Algo1: { foo();break;} case Algo2: { bar();break;} case AlgoN: { doN();break;} default: {awNuts();} }; put output
Sure the ASIC is bigger (and costlier), but each of those algos is a hardware implementation optimised for nothing else. An ASIC is (basically) a slice of a RISC that does what you want with nothing else.
In fact you can think of a RISC as an ASIC implementation of CISC.
According to an analysis that excludes pensions and social security, the richest 1% of the American population in 2007 owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth
So, if a plurality of the top 20% if they agreed, would decide POTUS... I suppose that matches the empirical data... with each 1%er being equal to some number of 2-20%ers...
sure it has, but even vast botnets of CISC x86 CPUs can't compete with GPU farms, much less ASIC farms. It is so unprofitable to do mining on CPU that botnet operators are making more money just relaying spam or DDOS. Not sure if any botnet ops are doing GPGPU mining.
The answer is No. here's why: Any(one)thing that can be done on a CISC can be done on an ASIC. If you had an algorithm that say used the L1 cache to do some funky physics based transform (nevermind that this is a *bad* idea because new steppings will change the device physics) then you could design an ASIC that had only enough compute to run the L1 cache and devote the rest of the ASIC die to having 40 or 50 L1 cache fields.
The point of an ASIC is to be application specific, and it does that by first dumping all the design bits that don't pertain to the problem; then second, optimising what's left.
It's too easy to circumvent - use private email [from a cellular network connection], pass notes, take a break and talk outside, etc.
It seems more likely that they're using this project as an opportunity for tuning Watson so it can be developed as a replacement for your average stock analyst.
Of course they do, anything you do on your employer's network (including this/. post) is legally inspectable by your employer.
Anything I don't want my employer to know isn't done on their network. If I was a rogue trader and colluding with others you better believe we'd all have burner phones and using something out of band.
do{ do{ if (!foo){break;} }while(somecond1); }while(somecond2);
So, with nested while, how do you exit ???
Actually my statement was more that people *effectively* use goto without even realizing they are. functionally my example is no different than:
//begin block { if (!foo){goto CLEANUP_BLOCK;} }:CLEANUP_BLOCK
^/. is absolutely intent on making my colon prefix collapse up all the whitespace to the curly... no idea why. Now, in my example case there is no condition, as the do-while construct is not actually being used as a loop, thus would not (validly) match your example. in your example case I don't know that I would even want to do a goto escape as you're doing some double loop stuff that might leave things fairly inconsistent... but if I was confident that it was okay (maybe you're walking a pair of trees for something and you break when you find it?) then it would be simple to just use the goto above. not sure if it's just my employer's style or more global, but we *always* lexically scoped our protected block in curlies (even though it's not syntactically required, it sure helps the human brain).
recycling Aluminum is much cheaper than refining new aluminum.
Thus Al is expensive. The more expensive a material is, the more impetus there is to recycle. More specifically, the larger the delta between using raw feedstock vs recycle existing OR the more rare the initial feedstock is, the more impetus to recycle
no, that's not why it was taken out. It shares quite a bit with other disorders on the autism spectrum.
An apt analogy: there is a group of people that don't like lots of little tools in the linux kernel, so they aggregated the stupp into systemd. Now there are those of us who prefer the more granular control (identification) of our systems (neurobehavioral) issues and take exception to that.
Sadly unlike linux, the psych community only supports the systemd version.
Yes I'm an aspie, yes I still identify as such even though DSM-V says I should identify as "autism spectrum"
It's obvious to us because as a group here we were (or still are) these kids. To the average LEO and politard this is very non obvious because (particularly in the politard's case) they can't fathom operating based solely on idealism and not greed.
Seeing as there's a viable recycle market for it even if no redemption value is applied, whereas glass is cheaper to landfill than to sort and transport to recycle I would argue that Al *is* expensive.
Which in fact was the case, and why I don't know the resolution to said cases... The first two are fairly obvious outcomes, but that last doosie... *man* I want to know how that turned out.
Of course another possibility is that the training was fine, but I'm a snoopy BOFH and I read his email via wireshark and hub connected between his computer and the corp LAN...
I was under the impression that the chip signed the transaction with a challenge response.
transaction log: -terminal sends transaction request to bank with card ID, trans amt =bank responds with challenge OR declines if no funds (end of trans) -card chip signs challenge =bank validates signature and sends auth code to terminal OR bank fails signature and sends denial (end of trans)
I have (been affected by a food recall). It's a neat idea, but like you pointed out the same tech is capable of denying service to use other packs.
I admit, I like that the machine could cut me off if it was recalled, and if the vendor seriously never used it negatively that would be a selling point. Alas I am way to cynical to believe they wouldn't use it for nefarious deeds.
IIRC aspartame was initially developed to be a drug for alzheimer's... but it was noticed that it tasted sweet, so it was marketed as an artificial sweetener. which... Kinda lends credence to this story.
Had a co worker Bob L Smith his email was bob.l.smith@ HR Legal had a Bob L Smith who was bob.smith@
My co-worker got so many of these emails it was sad. He actually ended up having to go through HRLegal confidentiality training as that was the only legal way he could receive these e-mails, which he would then FWD and cc back the sender.
Among the interesting ones: * co-workers were dating, caught in conference room gettin it on. * porno (with one of the admins co-staring) being shown in conf room on projector at lunch; said admin was *not* part of the group watching. * boss punched subordinate in face in meeting that got very heated, subordinate proceeded to joint lock boss, tear shoulder, and choke him out with a rear naked choke.
mind blowing, and made my dept. feel rather boring.
I believe that falls under the heading of "Managing your manager". But, keeping your boss up to date and informed is a different (though not quite orthogonal) issue to CC'ing in the boss on what are normally 1:1 emails.
Anytime I've been on a questionable CC of any boss I quietly and discreetly ask the sender (out of band, verbal if possible) why the boss was CC'd, prompting with is it a CYA thing, or is there a reason you need to look like you're applying extra pressure?
At least 80% of the time it's more about that person maintaining visibility to their boss that they're working (over there) than it is about trying to apply pressure to me or my team. Now, this discounts all the times I already know why the boss was copied, like they ask me to do FOO, but FOO is not on my task list and I'm already oversubscribed so I push back, or they ask for BAR, but were super pissy, demanding, and rude, so I said "no", or I already know they work for a micromanaging asshat, so almost certainly are cc'ing in their boss at their boss's request.
Slashdot Mirror
This presumes that the cloud solution doesn't also live sync with your machine, else an accidental delete is not covered...
Hell I use it.
Google drive.
I am in a violently bitter divorce and all the docs are on a google drive so I can pull them up on my phone at a moment's notice, while also being able to actually work on them on my PC.
Risk? yes.
Worth it when I can pull up the latest custody order on a moment's notice to demonstrate I do, in fact, have custody of my kids right now? Priceless (and the cops like it too).
Still keep the oblig hardcopy binder like any court system docs, and an offline copy made weekly or when there are big changes.
Well yes...
And actually I already have a system I use.
Like you I have a friend(relative) who is responsible for my primary computer stuff, but there is one machine that requires a ping at least once a week or it goes dark, after a month it wipes its keys and my CA signed private key as well.
I'll notice when it goes dark... and if I don't I have *way* bigger problems.
If the switch happened *after* the ASIC was created then yes.
If the algos are all defined then I just build an asic that does the following:
get input
switch (input.algo){
case Algo1: { foo();break;}
case Algo2: { bar();break;}
case AlgoN: { doN();break;}
default: {awNuts();}
};
put output
Sure the ASIC is bigger (and costlier), but each of those algos is a hardware implementation optimised for nothing else.
An ASIC is (basically) a slice of a RISC that does what you want with nothing else.
In fact you can think of a RISC as an ASIC implementation of CISC.
According to an analysis that excludes pensions and social security, the richest 1% of the American population in 2007 owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth
So, if a plurality of the top 20% if they agreed, would decide POTUS...
I suppose that matches the empirical data...
with each 1%er being equal to some number of 2-20%ers...
sure it has, but even vast botnets of CISC x86 CPUs can't compete with GPU farms, much less ASIC farms. It is so unprofitable to do mining on CPU that botnet operators are making more money just relaying spam or DDOS. Not sure if any botnet ops are doing GPGPU mining.
The answer is No.
here's why:
Any(one)thing that can be done on a CISC can be done on an ASIC.
If you had an algorithm that say used the L1 cache to do some funky physics based transform (nevermind that this is a *bad* idea because new steppings will change the device physics) then you could design an ASIC that had only enough compute to run the L1 cache and devote the rest of the ASIC die to having 40 or 50 L1 cache fields.
The point of an ASIC is to be application specific, and it does that by first dumping all the design bits that don't pertain to the problem; then second, optimising what's left.
It's too easy to circumvent - use private email [from a cellular network connection], pass notes, take a break and talk outside, etc.
It seems more likely that they're using this project as an opportunity for tuning Watson so it can be developed as a replacement for your average stock analyst.
FTFY
Actually....
Tie fitbit tracker "heartbeat" data with a deadman switch...
Fitbit says you died, time to delete the crypto keys to the computer.
Of course they do, anything you do on your employer's network (including this /. post) is legally inspectable by your employer.
Anything I don't want my employer to know isn't done on their network. If I was a rogue trader and colluding with others you better believe we'd all have burner phones and using something out of band.
do{
if (!foo){break;}
}while(0);
the hidden goto :-)
do{
do{
if (!foo){break;}
}while(somecond1);
}while(somecond2);
So, with nested while, how do you exit ???
Actually my statement was more that people *effectively* use goto without even realizing they are.
functionally my example is no different than:
//begin block :CLEANUP_BLOCK
{
if (!foo){goto CLEANUP_BLOCK;}
}
^/. is absolutely intent on making my colon prefix collapse up all the whitespace to the curly... no idea why.
Now, in my example case there is no condition, as the do-while construct is not actually being used as a loop, thus would not (validly) match your example.
in your example case I don't know that I would even want to do a goto escape as you're doing some double loop stuff that might leave things fairly inconsistent... but if I was confident that it was okay (maybe you're walking a pair of trees for something and you break when you find it?) then it would be simple to just use the goto above.
not sure if it's just my employer's style or more global, but we *always* lexically scoped our protected block in curlies (even though it's not syntactically required, it sure helps the human brain).
do{
if (!foo){break;}
}while(0);
the hidden goto :-)
recycling Aluminum is much cheaper than refining new aluminum.
Thus Al is expensive.
The more expensive a material is, the more impetus there is to recycle. More specifically, the larger the delta between using raw feedstock vs recycle existing OR the more rare the initial feedstock is, the more impetus to recycle
no, that's not why it was taken out.
It shares quite a bit with other disorders on the autism spectrum.
An apt analogy:
there is a group of people that don't like lots of little tools in the linux kernel, so they aggregated the stupp into systemd.
Now there are those of us who prefer the more granular control (identification) of our systems (neurobehavioral) issues and take exception to that.
Sadly unlike linux, the psych community only supports the systemd version.
Yes I'm an aspie, yes I still identify as such even though DSM-V says I should identify as "autism spectrum"
It's obvious to us because as a group here we were (or still are) these kids.
To the average LEO and politard this is very non obvious because (particularly in the politard's case) they can't fathom operating based solely on idealism and not greed.
politard: *any* career politician.
Aluminum isn't exactly expensive.
Seeing as there's a viable recycle market for it even if no redemption value is applied, whereas glass is cheaper to landfill than to sort and transport to recycle I would argue that Al *is* expensive.
Which in fact was the case, and why I don't know the resolution to said cases...
The first two are fairly obvious outcomes, but that last doosie...
*man* I want to know how that turned out.
Of course another possibility is that the training was fine, but I'm a snoopy BOFH and I read his email via wireshark and hub connected between his computer and the corp LAN...
I was under the impression that the chip signed the transaction with a challenge response.
transaction log:
-terminal sends transaction request to bank with card ID, trans amt
=bank responds with challenge OR declines if no funds (end of trans)
-card chip signs challenge
=bank validates signature and sends auth code to terminal OR bank fails signature and sends denial
(end of trans)
-nB
my recently cloned card was *only* used at swipe terminals, they did not use the chip feature.
True, in other news:
"Plastic executive staff now being used for sniper practice"
Details at 11:00
I have (been affected by a food recall).
It's a neat idea, but like you pointed out the same tech is capable of denying service to use other packs.
I admit, I like that the machine could cut me off if it was recalled, and if the vendor seriously never used it negatively that would be a selling point. Alas I am way to cynical to believe they wouldn't use it for nefarious deeds.
Which sweetener was tested?
IIRC aspartame was initially developed to be a drug for alzheimer's... but it was noticed that it tasted sweet, so it was marketed as an artificial sweetener.
which... Kinda lends credence to this story.
What about sucralose?
Or Sodium saccharin?
-nB
Funny aside (names obviously changed)
Had a co worker Bob L Smith his email was bob.l.smith@
HR Legal had a Bob L Smith who was bob.smith@
My co-worker got so many of these emails it was sad. He actually ended up having to go through HRLegal confidentiality training as that was the only legal way he could receive these e-mails, which he would then FWD and cc back the sender.
Among the interesting ones:
* co-workers were dating, caught in conference room gettin it on.
* porno (with one of the admins co-staring) being shown in conf room on projector at lunch; said admin was *not* part of the group watching.
* boss punched subordinate in face in meeting that got very heated, subordinate proceeded to joint lock boss, tear shoulder, and choke him out with a rear naked choke.
mind blowing, and made my dept. feel rather boring.
I believe that falls under the heading of "Managing your manager".
But, keeping your boss up to date and informed is a different (though not quite orthogonal) issue to CC'ing in the boss on what are normally 1:1 emails.
Anytime I've been on a questionable CC of any boss I quietly and discreetly ask the sender (out of band, verbal if possible) why the boss was CC'd, prompting with is it a CYA thing, or is there a reason you need to look like you're applying extra pressure?
At least 80% of the time it's more about that person maintaining visibility to their boss that they're working (over there) than it is about trying to apply pressure to me or my team.
Now, this discounts all the times I already know why the boss was copied, like they ask me to do FOO, but FOO is not on my task list and I'm already oversubscribed so I push back, or they ask for BAR, but were super pissy, demanding, and rude, so I said "no", or I already know they work for a micromanaging asshat, so almost certainly are cc'ing in their boss at their boss's request.
-nB