And I guess plain text is also a code language for machine behaviour at the presentation level? Or does an ASCII linebreak code not control machine behaviour?
I know they're not the same; that's why they are different words. TFA however, does not seem to recognize anything besides "affirmed" and "reversed", so "vacated" must be categorized as either of these. Since the PDF I linked to grouped "vacated" with "reversed" in some of it's tables, I assumed that must have been what TFA has done, hence my use of the words "assuming vacated counts as a reveral".
Short; it doesn't matter what either of us thinks, it matter how the author of TFA defined these terms.
What guarentee does anybody have these credentials are real and actually belong to ANY site?
They could just as well fabricate some large list of random credentials if their "disclosure" method doesn't actually require disclosing whose the data was.
All you would be paying for is a $120 "Thanks for the money, the credentials aren't from your site" notice.
I did some tallying on table 3 and found the following numbers on total decissions; Reversed: 58.48% Vacated: 12.58% Affirmed: 28.94%
The article doesn't mention whether "vacated" is counted separately or as a reversal. The graph shows only reversed and affirmed, so I'm assuming vacated counts as a reversal. If this is the case, reversed and vacated together is 71.06%. So if you'd guess "Reversed" all the time, you'd be slighly more accurate than the algorithm.
If only he could have made some predictions, travelled to the future to test the predictions, then travelled back and put the results in his blog post. Sadly, testing future predictability can only be done after the future has passed.
Yet when I once tried to remove some text describing a certain type of LCD technology as being lesbian, the editors had reverted my fix within an hour; LCD panels are apparently truely lesbian and I should not have wanted to hide that fact.
More likely, some Wikipedia editors are just very protective of "their" pages and will revert any edit without verification. After several removals of these obvious kinds of jokes, typos and some none-controversial, cited additions were immediately reverted without any reason given, I stopped editing Wikipedia.
- Does SecuROM cause security vulnerabilities on PCs on which it is installed?
Yes. Absolutely. Any additional software, especially ones that embed themselves so deep into the OS, provides additional exploitable bugs. Let he who codes without bugs cast the first stone.
I don't use OCR on a scanner all that often, but last time I did (atleast 5 years ago, probably more), it had no problem recognizing the pages full of text. As far as I've tested it myself, OCR works great on scanners, so why wouldn't it work as well with cameras?
GCC had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests. Linux had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests According to Linus, only one of these two is retarded, can you guess which?
May well be, but nobody is using it to get incorrect information removed. I've only heard of it being used to get correct but unflattering information removed.
Agreed. No more blackmail settlements, no more blanket anonymous lawsuits, no more copyright trolls. Somebody needs to stop those freetard publishers running amok with other people's hard work.
Just to add my 2c. A while ago I was working on a project which could use data in WHOIS records. Ultimately this failed because the data is very unreliable and mostly unavailable, but I did come accross some laws.
Seems the U.S. is pretty much the only country that has a law on this, and it just says that it is illegal to have inaccurate information in a WHOIS record if and only if you're using that inaccurate information to scam people. So basically you can use inaccurate information all you want but if you're conficted of scamming people online, the use of inaccurate WHOIS information can be used to add some additional jailtime.
Slashdot Mirror
And I guess plain text is also a code language for machine behaviour at the presentation level?
Or does an ASCII linebreak code not control machine behaviour?
Except that it's not valid XML but something even worse.
That language just looks horrible.
I know they're not the same; that's why they are different words.
TFA however, does not seem to recognize anything besides "affirmed" and "reversed", so "vacated" must be categorized as either of these.
Since the PDF I linked to grouped "vacated" with "reversed" in some of it's tables, I assumed that must have been what TFA has done, hence my use of the words "assuming vacated counts as a reveral".
Short; it doesn't matter what either of us thinks, it matter how the author of TFA defined these terms.
Overpriced devices sold to people who are not me may result in lower prices for me due to economy of scale.
What guarentee does anybody have these credentials are real and actually belong to ANY site?
They could just as well fabricate some large list of random credentials if their "disclosure" method doesn't actually require disclosing whose the data was.
All you would be paying for is a $120 "Thanks for the money, the credentials aren't from your site" notice.
It would be useful to know how many of the court's decisions are affirm vs reverse.
http://www.americanbar.org/con...
I did some tallying on table 3 and found the following numbers on total decissions;
Reversed: 58.48%
Vacated: 12.58%
Affirmed: 28.94%
The article doesn't mention whether "vacated" is counted separately or as a reversal.
The graph shows only reversed and affirmed, so I'm assuming vacated counts as a reversal.
If this is the case, reversed and vacated together is 71.06%.
So if you'd guess "Reversed" all the time, you'd be slighly more accurate than the algorithm.
if defendant.bank_balance > plaintiff.bank_balance
winner = defendant
else
winner = plaintiff
I'd guess about 90% accurate.
If only he could have made some predictions, travelled to the future to test the predictions, then travelled back and put the results in his blog post.
Sadly, testing future predictability can only be done after the future has passed.
Yes. It would.
Those 330,000 get to vote in the place they live too.
Apparently Oracle has sunk $1.36 mil into lobbying against this because they are using the CFAA to "protect trade secrets."
Sounds like an insane argument. Defending a law because you're using it for something it wasn't intended to be used for.
They might mark conspicuous characters, like when multiple character sets are combined in a single domainname.
Yeah, network attached storage should not be attached to a network.
Yet when I once tried to remove some text describing a certain type of LCD technology as being lesbian, the editors had reverted my fix within an hour; LCD panels are apparently truely lesbian and I should not have wanted to hide that fact.
More likely, some Wikipedia editors are just very protective of "their" pages and will revert any edit without verification. After several removals of these obvious kinds of jokes, typos and some none-controversial, cited additions were immediately reverted without any reason given, I stopped editing Wikipedia.
Other websites: Celebrating the surrepitous distribution of DRM malware.
Slashdot: Angry DRM malware rant.
- Does SecuROM cause security vulnerabilities on PCs on which it is installed?
Yes. Absolutely. Any additional software, especially ones that embed themselves so deep into the OS, provides additional exploitable bugs.
Let he who codes without bugs cast the first stone.
I guess somebody who points out something that is technically correct but unnecessary to point out, could be called an "ethical douche-bag".
One of those standards involves informed consent.
Which instantly makes any kind of unbiassed behavioral research impossible.
I don't use OCR on a scanner all that often, but last time I did (atleast 5 years ago, probably more), it had no problem recognizing the pages full of text.
As far as I've tested it myself, OCR works great on scanners, so why wouldn't it work as well with cameras?
As a side note, take a minute to realize how amazingly good prosthetic limbs have become that using one has become an unfair advantage.
Not a network expert, but wouldn't some sort of internet proxy with caching be a simple way to help?
Other than that, the sad truth is that obsolete hardware is usually most productive when it's not using up valuable energy.
GCC had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests.
Linux had a bug that wasn't covered by their unittests
According to Linus, only one of these two is retarded, can you guess which?
May well be, but nobody is using it to get incorrect information removed.
I've only heard of it being used to get correct but unflattering information removed.
I have yet to hear of a single case where a removal request revolved around incorrect information.
Mostly it's people who see their careers threatened by their own past illegal or immoral actions being known.
Agreed.
No more blackmail settlements, no more blanket anonymous lawsuits, no more copyright trolls.
Somebody needs to stop those freetard publishers running amok with other people's hard work.
Just to add my 2c. A while ago I was working on a project which could use data in WHOIS records. Ultimately this failed because the data is very unreliable and mostly unavailable, but I did come accross some laws.
Seems the U.S. is pretty much the only country that has a law on this, and it just says that it is illegal to have inaccurate information in a WHOIS record if and only if you're using that inaccurate information to scam people. So basically you can use inaccurate information all you want but if you're conficted of scamming people online, the use of inaccurate WHOIS information can be used to add some additional jailtime.