Note that PGP has changed its encryption and hashing algos several times. A PGP encrypted message today is safe from prying eyes today; a PGP message sent twenty years ago, with the original BassOmatic cypher, is quite vulnerable given modern hardware.
Seems to cover a wide range of range applications.
Except surround sound. Or any spatialized content aside from L-R. Or synchronization with video, or any other kind of stream.
Also their list of uses are all streaming/interactive, like teleconferencing; the standard does not specify a recommended container format. Vorbis, FLAC and MP3 all have prescribed at-rest file formats.
The bounce is the problem with the IPO market - if the stock was priced correctly, there should be no bounce (and no crash either).
"Correct" is a matter of interpretation. Underpricing the IPO is one of many clever ways of compensating angel/venture capital, stock-compensated employees, and the investment bank in a manner that doesn't have to be costed on an income statement and will be taxed at favorable capital gains rates.
but it's sole job is to enable delivery of Google's ad service to users from it's customers.
Sure there's the ads, but there's also the web usage metrics, app usage metrics, location data stream, QR code metrics, and the friction-free interface with the Google web properties, force-multiplying all of the various data modeling and extraction those use, what with the text-to-speech, the corpus for natural language comprehension, email and spam-guided machine learning, calendar stats aggregation, Google+ relationship maps and content. Let alone guaranteeing integrated and most-favored-nation status for their content services, YouTube, Google Play...
Religion is possible for a reasonable person as long as it makes no falsifiable claims. The existence and nature of God are not factual claims in the same class as "carbon dioxide reflect infrared radiation" or "HIV kills CD4 T cells."
Religions and totalitarian governments manage to sustain lies through force and torture, through monopolization of all public discourse and co-option of all social authority. I have not recently met a climate scientist who put a rifle to my head and demanded a AGW loyalty oath, I'm constantly reminded in the popular press that AGW has "detractors," and many of these detractors are billionaires who shape the public discourse with media, entertainment, endowments to scholarly institutions and overt political campaigns. AGW skeptics are among America's leading citizens.
You may be right in extremis. But AGW and the HIV-AIDS hypothesis are not examples of coercive religious doublethink.
Orwell was a cynic, and frankly Nineteen Eighty-Four, though great literature, has about as much in common with the real world and real human beings as Hansel and Gretel. All of the so-called totalitarian superstates that allegedly control the "truth" disappear remarkably abruptly as soon as their leader dies, and the survivors are quite quick at disavowing the whole rotten business. After Stalin died, Russians, up to the premier himself acknowledged that he was a murderer and a charlatan, and the country settled down into a merely awful dictatorship where everyone knew the state was lying, they just didn't care.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Up-is-down Orwellian mind control is not a social equilibrium, it requires constant and extreme expenditure of energy and force to keep it going. And even if you're right, you don't address my point that if I'm wrong, democracy is pointless.
You must have never heard the tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes" when, in fact, it's the basis of the article.
When a rational person see a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he joins in. When a conspiracy theorist sees a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he arrests him for lese majeste and tortures him to discover his co-conspirators.
The resolution of "The Emperor's New Clothes" affirms the common sense of good people to not be taken in, and the minuscule amount of effort required to topple a fallacy, and the king's inability to change reality through sheer force of will. You can get a man to see five lights in a torture chamber, and in many parts of the world you can bribe someone to look the other way, but that doesn't strike me as compelling evidence for the practicality of what the OP suggests.
It was the only disease in human history to get a bizarre sort of 'rights' attached to it.
Leprosy? Epilepsy? People who contract many kinds of diseases don't get extra rights, but the government must to take action to make sure they are not discriminated against due to a pernicious folk belief that they are "unclean" or immoral.
Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.
And then, granting this is even possible, they're able to recruit entirely new generations of people, people who may not even have been born when the "lie" was originally concocted, to repeat the same lies, over and over, to not ask questions, to not pursue the truth, to simply obey, mindlessly, and to do so for nothing more than the remuneration of the occasional government grant (which they gotta fight like hell for regardless).
The problem is, if you all of this as true, you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate. If conspiracies decide what the popular mind accepts as "fact," we might as well have kings and clerics decide the best course of action, because democracy in such a world is pointless. The people are sheeple, the books are cooked, and votes are a waste of energy, energy that could be more effectively spent by elite, autocratic decision makers.
On the other hand dividends are paid from cash that a company has in the bank, all of which has been taxed prior to being paid out as dividends.
Money is not taxed, entities are. Dollars don't get taxed at some checkpoint somewhere, thus becoming "depleted," tax liability is created when people or companies do things.
Shareholders pay income taxes on dividends because they're nominally arms-length from business decisions of the corporation, their capacity to gain from dividends is independent and severable from the corporation's ability to control its tax liability. Exceptions in the rules are made for capital gains because there is an actual risk of loss of capital; dividends and wages carry no such risk. Shareholders have no control over the size of their dividend, or wether they get it at all, and the amount has nothing to do with how profitable the corporation is, and the corporate management is under no obligation to pay them. Dividends are a pure economic rent, they produce nothing and are given in exchange for nothing, and they exist only because the state has created an artificial legal entity that shields the shareholders from unlimited liability.
Taxes on dividends are the price, and the consequence, of the distinct personality and legal liability of corporations from their shareholders. If corporations and their shareholders were legally indistinguishable, then they wouldn't have to pay "double" taxes, but then they'd also be fully liable for the losses the corporation endured.
Considering that if Obama were hellbent on destroying the country his actions would be indistinguishable from his current policies I'll roll the dice.
I'm beginning to wonder if jmorris42 isn't a real person, but is a rogue AI that's built its entire knowledge of politics out of Jon McNaughton paintings.
When will people (Android, I'm looking at you here) figure out that getting the basics so completely solid that nobody thinks about them is the kind of work that people should expect from their OS/Environment provider?
People who work for handset manufacturers buy pools and Audis with the bonus money they get for developing highly-marketable thingies like "PURE-MOTION-AITCH-DEE-PLUS".
Stuff you assumed was so all your life suddenly ain't so anymore and you end up wondering just how much else you take for granted as true is also bunk.
It might be you were just too credulous before.
His targets were almost all actual commies.
I think you misunderstand what was "bad" about McCarthyism. It's not about people being guilty, it's about denouncing them in show trials without Constitutional rights or dignities. Who cares if you've got the right man if you go after him in a way in an unjust and despicable way that discredits the entire process? Had Joe McCarthy been a Communist plant himself, he could not have done more damage to the cause of Anti-Communism. He turned all of his victims into martyrs, wether they were actual spies, or (as was usually the case) were simply members of the CP in the 30s and 40s.
even if just to flog the ghost of McCarthy and do a standard issue rerun of the ritiual flogging of all Republicans as 'McCarthyites?
I see. Someone called you "McCarthyite" and it hurt your feelings. Well, Republicans can be right even if McCarthy was wrong; only an Ann Coulter would have the nutso idea that exonerating Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn would somehow validate anything a Republican says of believes today. I assure you I do not spend my time researching alternative history in order to prove that the Japanese Internment wasn't really Franklin Roosevelt's idea, or that JFK was actually going to end the Vietnam War, because these issues are irrelevant to Democratic party politics. Just as McCarthy is irrelevant to the modern Republican Party.
I'm not sure how exculpatory Venona is to Joe McCarthy, considering the Venona decrypts weren't available to him at the time of his prosecutions. He might have guessed right with Algier Hiss, but it was just a guess -- and the man ruined the careers of dozens of civil servants, from undersecretaries to career Army officers to night janitors; while his drunken, paranoid accusations pushed the United States closer to a police state than it had ever come in the 20th century.
His prosecutions were appropriate in the way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The fact that we found out he was right in a few cases out of hundreds, long in retrospect, is absolutely no defense. Destroying people's lives with rumor and secret evidence is the sort of things communists did, not Americans, regardless of the justice of the ends.
Mormons would definitely be hostile to one theocracy, but I suspect they'd be quite satisfied to tolerate openly sectarian lawmaking in Kansas or Louisiana as long as their church gets to keep its monopoly on all public offices and civic leadership in Utah. "Leave us alone to oppress our folk as we see fit" is the original sin of Federalism.
Romney isn't a theocrat, but you get the impression that he, like many Republicans, is pretty casual about church interference in state affairs. They oppose the the concept strictly in principle, but on concrete issues you will generally find them silent as long as the law in question isn't coming after them. There's no question in my mind that many movement Conservatives would acquiesce to a sort of negative theocracy, which is to say they would be satisfied to leave atheists, Muslims, and people of undesirable faith with less rights, as opposed to a positive theocracy, where only one faith is given complete rights. Rubio made this point at the RNC, when he claimed that "faith in out creator" was a foundational American value.
First compare file size (ignoring things like mp3 ID3 tags, or other headers).
I once had to write an audio file de-deuplicator; one of the big problems was you would ignore the metadata and the out-of-band data when you did the comparisons, but you always had to take this stuff into account when you were deciding which version of a file to keep -- you didn't want to delete two copies f a file with all the tags filled out and keep the one that was naked.
My de-duper worked like everyone here is saying -- it cracked open wav and aiff (and Sound Designer 2) files, captured their sample count and sample format into a sqlite db, did a couple of big joins and then did some SHA1 hashes of likely suspects. All of this worked great, but once I had the list I had the epiphany that the real problem of these tools is the resolution and how you make sure you're doing exactly what the user wants.
How do you decide which one to keep? You can just do hard links, but...
The users I was working with were very uncomfortable with hard links, they didn't really understand the concept and were concerned that it made it difficult to know if you were "really" throwing something away when you dragged something to the trash. (It's stupid but it was their box.)
Our existing backup/archival software wouldn't do the right thing with hard links, so it'd save no space on the tapes.
Our audio workstation software wouldn't read audio off of files that were hard links on OS X (because hard links on OSX aren't really hard links, I believe our audio workstation vendor have since resolved this).
But let's say you can do hard links, no problem. How do you decide which instance of the file is to be kept, if you've only compared the "real" content of the file and ignored metadata? You could just give the user a big honking list of every set of files that are duplicates -- two here, three here, six here, and then let them go through and elect which one will be kept, but that's a mess and 99% of the time they're going to select a keeper on the basis of which part of the directory tree it's in. So, you need to do a rule system or a preferential ranking of parts of the directory hierarchy that tell the system "keep files you find here." Now, the files will also have metadata, so you also have to preferentially rank the files on the basis of its presence -- you might also rank files higher if your guy did the metadata tagging, because things like audio descriptions are often done with a specialized jargon that can be specific to a particular house.
Also, it'd be very common to delete a file from a directory containing an editor's personal library, and replacing it with a hard link to a file in the company's main library -- several people would have copies of the same commercial sound, or an editor would be the recordist of a sound that was subsequently sold to a commercial library, or whatever. Is it a good policy to replace his file with a hardlink to a different one, particularly if they differ in the metadata? Directories on a volume are often controlled by different people with different policies and proprietary interest to the files -- maybe the company "owns" everything, but it still can create a lot of internal disputes if files in a division or individual project's library folder starting getting their metadata changed, on account of being replaced with a hard link to a "better" file in the central repository. We can agree not to de-dup these, but it's more rules and exceptions that have to be made.
Once you have to list of duplicates, and maybe the rules, do you just go and delete, or do you give the user a big list to review? And, if upon review, he makes one change to one duplicate instance, it'd be nice to have that change intelligently reflected on the others. The rules have to be applied to the dupe list interactively and changes have to be reflected in the same way, otherwise it becomes a miserable experience for the user to de-dupe 1M files over 7 terabytes. The resolution of duplicates is the hard part, the finding of dupes is relatively easy.
I work in the entertainment industry and am a brother with an IATSE local. Our board of directors are all people who work and have established careers, our organizers and field reps are attentive and always available for questions, the union holds regular meetings and mixers, I have good wages and excellent benefits and even though our health plan's been taking a hit lately, the leadership's been very communicative and always has time to talk to people about the negotiations.
Knobs do take up less screen real estate. When I build layouts for my Kyma I generally prefer knobs if the parameter is specifically not related to the final gain stage
Also, a lot of the time the knob on the screen is mirroring a physical knob on a control surface that's chasing the DAW's focus, so you get better hand-eye coordination from a knob.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that PGP has changed its encryption and hashing algos several times. A PGP encrypted message today is safe from prying eyes today; a PGP message sent twenty years ago, with the original BassOmatic cypher, is quite vulnerable given modern hardware.
Easy come, easy go...
"Chick" is a slightly pejorative term for a young female. "Chic" is a French word meaning "stylish."
(comment withdrawn)
Except surround sound. Or any spatialized content aside from L-R. Or synchronization with video, or any other kind of stream.
Also their list of uses are all streaming/interactive, like teleconferencing; the standard does not specify a recommended container format. Vorbis, FLAC and MP3 all have prescribed at-rest file formats.
"Correct" is a matter of interpretation. Underpricing the IPO is one of many clever ways of compensating angel/venture capital, stock-compensated employees, and the investment bank in a manner that doesn't have to be costed on an income statement and will be taxed at favorable capital gains rates.
Sure there's the ads, but there's also the web usage metrics, app usage metrics, location data stream, QR code metrics, and the friction-free interface with the Google web properties, force-multiplying all of the various data modeling and extraction those use, what with the text-to-speech, the corpus for natural language comprehension, email and spam-guided machine learning, calendar stats aggregation, Google+ relationship maps and content. Let alone guaranteeing integrated and most-favored-nation status for their content services, YouTube, Google Play...
"You will pay for your lack of imagination!" :)
Religion is possible for a reasonable person as long as it makes no falsifiable claims. The existence and nature of God are not factual claims in the same class as "carbon dioxide reflect infrared radiation" or "HIV kills CD4 T cells ."
Religions and totalitarian governments manage to sustain lies through force and torture, through monopolization of all public discourse and co-option of all social authority. I have not recently met a climate scientist who put a rifle to my head and demanded a AGW loyalty oath, I'm constantly reminded in the popular press that AGW has "detractors," and many of these detractors are billionaires who shape the public discourse with media, entertainment, endowments to scholarly institutions and overt political campaigns. AGW skeptics are among America's leading citizens.
You may be right in extremis. But AGW and the HIV-AIDS hypothesis are not examples of coercive religious doublethink.
Orwell was a cynic, and frankly Nineteen Eighty-Four, though great literature, has about as much in common with the real world and real human beings as Hansel and Gretel. All of the so-called totalitarian superstates that allegedly control the "truth" disappear remarkably abruptly as soon as their leader dies, and the survivors are quite quick at disavowing the whole rotten business. After Stalin died, Russians, up to the premier himself acknowledged that he was a murderer and a charlatan, and the country settled down into a merely awful dictatorship where everyone knew the state was lying, they just didn't care.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Up-is-down Orwellian mind control is not a social equilibrium, it requires constant and extreme expenditure of energy and force to keep it going. And even if you're right, you don't address my point that if I'm wrong, democracy is pointless.
Dey took ur JERBS! And gave us WERMS!
When a rational person see a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he joins in. When a conspiracy theorist sees a little boy laughing at the king's nakedness, he arrests him for lese majeste and tortures him to discover his co-conspirators.
The resolution of "The Emperor's New Clothes" affirms the common sense of good people to not be taken in, and the minuscule amount of effort required to topple a fallacy, and the king's inability to change reality through sheer force of will. You can get a man to see five lights in a torture chamber, and in many parts of the world you can bribe someone to look the other way, but that doesn't strike me as compelling evidence for the practicality of what the OP suggests.
PS.
Leprosy? Epilepsy? People who contract many kinds of diseases don't get extra rights, but the government must to take action to make sure they are not discriminated against due to a pernicious folk belief that they are "unclean" or immoral.
Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.
And then, granting this is even possible, they're able to recruit entirely new generations of people, people who may not even have been born when the "lie" was originally concocted, to repeat the same lies, over and over, to not ask questions, to not pursue the truth, to simply obey, mindlessly, and to do so for nothing more than the remuneration of the occasional government grant (which they gotta fight like hell for regardless).
The problem is, if you all of this as true, you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate. If conspiracies decide what the popular mind accepts as "fact," we might as well have kings and clerics decide the best course of action, because democracy in such a world is pointless. The people are sheeple, the books are cooked, and votes are a waste of energy, energy that could be more effectively spent by elite, autocratic decision makers.
Money is not taxed, entities are. Dollars don't get taxed at some checkpoint somewhere, thus becoming "depleted," tax liability is created when people or companies do things.
Shareholders pay income taxes on dividends because they're nominally arms-length from business decisions of the corporation, their capacity to gain from dividends is independent and severable from the corporation's ability to control its tax liability. Exceptions in the rules are made for capital gains because there is an actual risk of loss of capital; dividends and wages carry no such risk. Shareholders have no control over the size of their dividend, or wether they get it at all, and the amount has nothing to do with how profitable the corporation is, and the corporate management is under no obligation to pay them. Dividends are a pure economic rent, they produce nothing and are given in exchange for nothing, and they exist only because the state has created an artificial legal entity that shields the shareholders from unlimited liability.
Taxes on dividends are the price, and the consequence, of the distinct personality and legal liability of corporations from their shareholders. If corporations and their shareholders were legally indistinguishable, then they wouldn't have to pay "double" taxes, but then they'd also be fully liable for the losses the corporation endured.
I don't see where you and I disagree.
I'm beginning to wonder if jmorris42 isn't a real person, but is a rogue AI that's built its entire knowledge of politics out of Jon McNaughton paintings.
People who work for handset manufacturers buy pools and Audis with the bonus money they get for developing highly-marketable thingies like "PURE-MOTION-AITCH-DEE-PLUS".
It might be you were just too credulous before.
I think you misunderstand what was "bad" about McCarthyism. It's not about people being guilty, it's about denouncing them in show trials without Constitutional rights or dignities. Who cares if you've got the right man if you go after him in a way in an unjust and despicable way that discredits the entire process? Had Joe McCarthy been a Communist plant himself, he could not have done more damage to the cause of Anti-Communism. He turned all of his victims into martyrs, wether they were actual spies, or (as was usually the case) were simply members of the CP in the 30s and 40s.
I see. Someone called you "McCarthyite" and it hurt your feelings. Well, Republicans can be right even if McCarthy was wrong; only an Ann Coulter would have the nutso idea that exonerating Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn would somehow validate anything a Republican says of believes today. I assure you I do not spend my time researching alternative history in order to prove that the Japanese Internment wasn't really Franklin Roosevelt's idea, or that JFK was actually going to end the Vietnam War, because these issues are irrelevant to Democratic party politics. Just as McCarthy is irrelevant to the modern Republican Party.
I think you mean "Venona" decrypts.
I'm not sure how exculpatory Venona is to Joe McCarthy, considering the Venona decrypts weren't available to him at the time of his prosecutions. He might have guessed right with Algier Hiss, but it was just a guess -- and the man ruined the careers of dozens of civil servants, from undersecretaries to career Army officers to night janitors; while his drunken, paranoid accusations pushed the United States closer to a police state than it had ever come in the 20th century.
His prosecutions were appropriate in the way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The fact that we found out he was right in a few cases out of hundreds, long in retrospect, is absolutely no defense. Destroying people's lives with rumor and secret evidence is the sort of things communists did, not Americans, regardless of the justice of the ends.
Mormons would definitely be hostile to one theocracy, but I suspect they'd be quite satisfied to tolerate openly sectarian lawmaking in Kansas or Louisiana as long as their church gets to keep its monopoly on all public offices and civic leadership in Utah. "Leave us alone to oppress our folk as we see fit" is the original sin of Federalism.
Romney isn't a theocrat, but you get the impression that he, like many Republicans, is pretty casual about church interference in state affairs. They oppose the the concept strictly in principle, but on concrete issues you will generally find them silent as long as the law in question isn't coming after them. There's no question in my mind that many movement Conservatives would acquiesce to a sort of negative theocracy, which is to say they would be satisfied to leave atheists, Muslims, and people of undesirable faith with less rights, as opposed to a positive theocracy, where only one faith is given complete rights. Rubio made this point at the RNC, when he claimed that "faith in out creator" was a foundational American value.
I once had to write an audio file de-deuplicator; one of the big problems was you would ignore the metadata and the out-of-band data when you did the comparisons, but you always had to take this stuff into account when you were deciding which version of a file to keep -- you didn't want to delete two copies f a file with all the tags filled out and keep the one that was naked.
My de-duper worked like everyone here is saying -- it cracked open wav and aiff (and Sound Designer 2) files, captured their sample count and sample format into a sqlite db, did a couple of big joins and then did some SHA1 hashes of likely suspects. All of this worked great, but once I had the list I had the epiphany that the real problem of these tools is the resolution and how you make sure you're doing exactly what the user wants.
How do you decide which one to keep? You can just do hard links, but...
But let's say you can do hard links, no problem. How do you decide which instance of the file is to be kept, if you've only compared the "real" content of the file and ignored metadata? You could just give the user a big honking list of every set of files that are duplicates -- two here, three here, six here, and then let them go through and elect which one will be kept, but that's a mess and 99% of the time they're going to select a keeper on the basis of which part of the directory tree it's in. So, you need to do a rule system or a preferential ranking of parts of the directory hierarchy that tell the system "keep files you find here." Now, the files will also have metadata, so you also have to preferentially rank the files on the basis of its presence -- you might also rank files higher if your guy did the metadata tagging, because things like audio descriptions are often done with a specialized jargon that can be specific to a particular house.
Also, it'd be very common to delete a file from a directory containing an editor's personal library, and replacing it with a hard link to a file in the company's main library -- several people would have copies of the same commercial sound, or an editor would be the recordist of a sound that was subsequently sold to a commercial library, or whatever. Is it a good policy to replace his file with a hardlink to a different one, particularly if they differ in the metadata? Directories on a volume are often controlled by different people with different policies and proprietary interest to the files -- maybe the company "owns" everything, but it still can create a lot of internal disputes if files in a division or individual project's library folder starting getting their metadata changed, on account of being replaced with a hard link to a "better" file in the central repository. We can agree not to de-dup these, but it's more rules and exceptions that have to be made.
Once you have to list of duplicates, and maybe the rules, do you just go and delete, or do you give the user a big list to review? And, if upon review, he makes one change to one duplicate instance, it'd be nice to have that change intelligently reflected on the others. The rules have to be applied to the dupe list interactively and changes have to be reflected in the same way, otherwise it becomes a miserable experience for the user to de-dupe 1M files over 7 terabytes. The resolution of duplicates is the hard part, the finding of dupes is relatively easy.
Well that's one campaign promise down. Haw haw.
I work in the entertainment industry and am a brother with an IATSE local. Our board of directors are all people who work and have established careers, our organizers and field reps are attentive and always available for questions, the union holds regular meetings and mixers, I have good wages and excellent benefits and even though our health plan's been taking a hit lately, the leadership's been very communicative and always has time to talk to people about the negotiations.
To each his own.
Knobs do take up less screen real estate. When I build layouts for my Kyma I generally prefer knobs if the parameter is specifically not related to the final gain stage
Also, a lot of the time the knob on the screen is mirroring a physical knob on a control surface that's chasing the DAW's focus, so you get better hand-eye coordination from a knob.