I got a notice from Time Warner about three years ago regarding a movie I was supposedly sharing. They suspended my internet until I clicked a button promising I wouldn't pirate anyone. They also warned me I only had one warning left (i.e. on my third strike they would discontinue my service).
It seems to me that a hub and spoke model would be more efficient and secure than a random net. I believe oligopolies can generally be defeated with some common-sense regulation - perhaps requiring companies to rent out any wires that run under public land?
I bought a game from them last week, and was concerned that it would no longer be supported. This is especially scary when they don't sell you physical media.
That's not how prediction competitions work, obviously.
Everyone is given a "training" dataset, which contains the results. The contestants mine this dataset to determine their algorithm, which is then applied to a "test" dataset that has hidden results (i.e. who won the game). The contestants are judged by how well they do on the test set.
Personally I think they are going to change their service in some way, perhaps add a devoted client (like Steam) and perhaps introduce DRM. If so, I will be angry at the lack of transparency; the whole thing smells like a publicity stunt. If this is the case, the game I bought from them last week will be the last.
There are notable counterexamples. For example, CPU clock speeds have been approaching a limit for years now. The only reason computers get "faster" over time is Moore's Law, which allows the CPU to do more per clock. http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
Chromium is a gift from Google: it is open source under a permissive license. The security of the product, and the prizes Google uses to maintain that security, are the icing on the free cake. We shouldn't complain about it.
Also, the fact that they are finding bugs means people are looking for them, so it seems they found a good price point. Perhaps the prestige of finding a bug in a major piece of software is worth more than 400 dollars.
Touch screens are actually pretty cheap. The iphone's is 10 dollars, but I would imagine you could get a larger, less precise one for the same price or cheaper. Even the 35 dollar Indian tablet has a touch screen.
Actually, almost any bank would hassle you about withdrawing 750,000 dollars unless they know who you are. Most people who deal with these sums of money have already proven to their bank that they are not scamming anyone, so this situation is somewhat unique. Once the developer sends them proof, he will never have to again.
Deposit fraud is a huge problem, and costs banks millions of dollars a year. It can also be used to launder money, which is often attached with more serious organized crime. In the case of Paypal, it can be used to steal money (which has happened to me before)
All banks do what Paypal is doing here. They usually just do it when you are opening an account.
Not really, but it is still copyright infringement and hence you can be sued for it.
IANAL, but Wikipedia, the most reliable legal source known to man, says that plagiarism is not a legal concept, is not the same thing as copyright infringement, and is "concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects
Not really, identifying a user is not the same thing as tracking, it is just the first step. Tracking also involves recording some information in a table that utilizes the user as a key. Big practical difference.
For example, when you are logged into Google they have already identified you, and can avoid logging you by not writing to any of your records.
I'm confused, you say "sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions", but you also say "the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case". So, aren't you somehow applying your notions instead of the evidence? How are you so sure the guy was guilty?
What you are proposing would be breaking the law. Like any law, people will follow it if they think they may be punished for breaking it. It would be up to China to enforce this if they think it is important.
In the case of India, when someone registers a SIM card he can expect a government official to visit his home and verify his identity shortly after the purchase (India is super paranoid after the Mumbai terrorists used cell phones to coordinate their attacks). I believe officials can visit your registered address anytime after that to make sure you haven't sold the card. If India can enforce a law like this, I'm sure China can.
I actually think the way h264 was handled has been great. The group have tons of useful patents (most developed with private money and resources), and have come together to make a useful, organized format that will be ubiquitous for years to come. It is in the interest of many parties that the prices are fair to maximize the usage of the format. Contrast this situation with the way the current generation of disc formats played out, where 100s of millions of dollars were wasted bringing a closed format controlled by a single company.
The fact is, not everything will be free. This is a perfect example of how commercial entities and open source developers (like x264) can come together to maximize utility and profit.
Have you ever visited a place that has poor/no trash pickup or where people leave their trash out all the time? It's not an environmental thing, it's an aesthetic and sanitary issue. Garbage attracts animals and disease. Trash piling up on the streets is ugly.
Also, as the article states, "Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables." Garbage removal is a shared resource, so the costs should be spread fairly. I guess the fairest thing would be to weigh everyone's garbage, but I doubt anyone would be a fan of that.
It's more like he's saying this case isn't worth his time - he'll let the lower courts deal with it. If there was evidence that the school was using the cameras to take photos of naked girls or something I'm fairly certain the federal government would have pursued it, but they didn't find any of the serious crimes they were looking for.
IMO this is not a bad thing... this case is certainly an example of massive stupidity, but I would rather the federal government pursue bigger crimes and let the smaller courts deal with stuff like this.
I bought an Altima Hybrid, for three reasons: 1. Longer range. Instead of filling up every 400-500 miles, I can do 600-700. This is a luxury that not many people think of. 2. More power at lower torque = better acceleration 3. Rebates. Honda and Toyota ran out years ago, but Nissan didn't. My car cost ~1,500 more than the non-Hybrid, but came with more standard options.
You are right, there is no need to get both words right.
But, your 35% * 35% calculation assumes the recognition difficulty of the words is independent, which is a bad assumption in this case; the OCR word is one that is known to be hard to guess. It is probably more like 35% * 5% or something.
"the state of Maryland came out on top with 48 percent more households owning at least one such handset than elsewhere in the country."
What does this mean? I can think of three different interpretations of this which would all result in vastly different distributions throughout the country.
My best guess, based on realistic assumptions, is that it means that the *rate* of ownership in Maryland is 1.48x the rate of the entire country. If so, they worded the article poorly. Taken literally, they make it sound like Maryland has 1.48x as many smart-phone owning households as the rest of the 49 states combined.
I don't know much about them, but perhaps most supercomputers break this rule: "The hardware used should be commercially available (off-the-shelf), and unmodified (e.g. no processor over or under clocking)"
I'd love to hear his explanation of why Apple doesn't resort to such measures but somehow makes billions of dollars a year. I realize that catching up to the market leader is tough, but shouldn't that encourage companies to give their customers a BETTER product/price, not worse?
Slashdot Mirror
I got a notice from Time Warner about three years ago regarding a movie I was supposedly sharing. They suspended my internet until I clicked a button promising I wouldn't pirate anyone. They also warned me I only had one warning left (i.e. on my third strike they would discontinue my service).
It seems to me that a hub and spoke model would be more efficient and secure than a random net. I believe oligopolies can generally be defeated with some common-sense regulation - perhaps requiring companies to rent out any wires that run under public land?
I bought a game from them last week, and was concerned that it would no longer be supported. This is especially scary when they don't sell you physical media.
Yeah... that was my last purchase from them.
That's not how prediction competitions work, obviously.
Everyone is given a "training" dataset, which contains the results. The contestants mine this dataset to determine their algorithm, which is then applied to a "test" dataset that has hidden results (i.e. who won the game). The contestants are judged by how well they do on the test set.
This reddit thread contains more links that indicate GOG is not actually dead: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/dfzhe/rip_gogcom/c0zxgih
Personally I think they are going to change their service in some way, perhaps add a devoted client (like Steam) and perhaps introduce DRM. If so, I will be angry at the lack of transparency; the whole thing smells like a publicity stunt. If this is the case, the game I bought from them last week will be the last.
"However, absolute random noise on a disk isn't all that usual"
Doesn't compressed data look random?
There are notable counterexamples. For example, CPU clock speeds have been approaching a limit for years now. The only reason computers get "faster" over time is Moore's Law, which allows the CPU to do more per clock.
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
Chromium is a gift from Google: it is open source under a permissive license. The security of the product, and the prizes Google uses to maintain that security, are the icing on the free cake. We shouldn't complain about it.
Also, the fact that they are finding bugs means people are looking for them, so it seems they found a good price point. Perhaps the prestige of finding a bug in a major piece of software is worth more than 400 dollars.
Touch screens are actually pretty cheap. The iphone's is 10 dollars, but I would imagine you could get a larger, less precise one for the same price or cheaper. Even the 35 dollar Indian tablet has a touch screen.
Actually, almost any bank would hassle you about withdrawing 750,000 dollars unless they know who you are. Most people who deal with these sums of money have already proven to their bank that they are not scamming anyone, so this situation is somewhat unique. Once the developer sends them proof, he will never have to again.
Deposit fraud is a huge problem, and costs banks millions of dollars a year. It can also be used to launder money, which is often attached with more serious organized crime. In the case of Paypal, it can be used to steal money (which has happened to me before)
All banks do what Paypal is doing here. They usually just do it when you are opening an account.
http://www.techeye.net.nyud.net/business/how-and-why-telephones-are-going-to-get-a-whole-lot-better
Not really, but it is still copyright infringement and hence you can be sued for it.
IANAL, but Wikipedia, the most reliable legal source known to man, says that plagiarism is not a legal concept, is not the same thing as copyright infringement, and is "concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects
Not really, identifying a user is not the same thing as tracking, it is just the first step. Tracking also involves recording some information in a table that utilizes the user as a key. Big practical difference.
For example, when you are logged into Google they have already identified you, and can avoid logging you by not writing to any of your records.
I'm confused, you say "sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions", but you also say "the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case". So, aren't you somehow applying your notions instead of the evidence? How are you so sure the guy was guilty?
What you are proposing would be breaking the law. Like any law, people will follow it if they think they may be punished for breaking it. It would be up to China to enforce this if they think it is important.
In the case of India, when someone registers a SIM card he can expect a government official to visit his home and verify his identity shortly after the purchase (India is super paranoid after the Mumbai terrorists used cell phones to coordinate their attacks). I believe officials can visit your registered address anytime after that to make sure you haven't sold the card. If India can enforce a law like this, I'm sure China can.
They still use more power and cost more than ARM-based competitors like Infineon's chips and Apple's A4.
I actually think the way h264 was handled has been great. The group have tons of useful patents (most developed with private money and resources), and have come together to make a useful, organized format that will be ubiquitous for years to come. It is in the interest of many parties that the prices are fair to maximize the usage of the format. Contrast this situation with the way the current generation of disc formats played out, where 100s of millions of dollars were wasted bringing a closed format controlled by a single company.
The fact is, not everything will be free. This is a perfect example of how commercial entities and open source developers (like x264) can come together to maximize utility and profit.
Have you ever visited a place that has poor/no trash pickup or where people leave their trash out all the time? It's not an environmental thing, it's an aesthetic and sanitary issue. Garbage attracts animals and disease. Trash piling up on the streets is ugly.
Also, as the article states, "Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables." Garbage removal is a shared resource, so the costs should be spread fairly. I guess the fairest thing would be to weigh everyone's garbage, but I doubt anyone would be a fan of that.
Stolen credit cards aren't cheap.
You are both right. It's not a foolproof preventative measure, but it is a small effort that stops petty criminals and hinders large-scale criminals.
It's more like he's saying this case isn't worth his time - he'll let the lower courts deal with it. If there was evidence that the school was using the cameras to take photos of naked girls or something I'm fairly certain the federal government would have pursued it, but they didn't find any of the serious crimes they were looking for.
IMO this is not a bad thing... this case is certainly an example of massive stupidity, but I would rather the federal government pursue bigger crimes and let the smaller courts deal with stuff like this.
I bought an Altima Hybrid, for three reasons:
1. Longer range. Instead of filling up every 400-500 miles, I can do 600-700. This is a luxury that not many people think of.
2. More power at lower torque = better acceleration
3. Rebates. Honda and Toyota ran out years ago, but Nissan didn't. My car cost ~1,500 more than the non-Hybrid, but came with more standard options.
You are right, there is no need to get both words right.
But, your 35% * 35% calculation assumes the recognition difficulty of the words is independent, which is a bad assumption in this case; the OCR word is one that is known to be hard to guess. It is probably more like 35% * 5% or something.
"the state of Maryland came out on top with 48 percent more households owning at least one such handset than elsewhere in the country."
What does this mean? I can think of three different interpretations of this which would all result in vastly different distributions throughout the country.
My best guess, based on realistic assumptions, is that it means that the *rate* of ownership in Maryland is 1.48x the rate of the entire country. If so, they worded the article poorly. Taken literally, they make it sound like Maryland has 1.48x as many smart-phone owning households as the rest of the 49 states combined.
I don't know much about them, but perhaps most supercomputers break this rule: "The hardware used should be commercially available (off-the-shelf), and unmodified (e.g. no processor over or under clocking)"
I'd love to hear his explanation of why Apple doesn't resort to such measures but somehow makes billions of dollars a year. I realize that catching up to the market leader is tough, but shouldn't that encourage companies to give their customers a BETTER product/price, not worse?