Community service? The kid didn't harm "the community" he harmed you, any damage he owes he owes to you, not to the community. You should also have the option to punch him in the nose, if he believes its ok to do it, then it must be ok to receive it.
It means google needs to try each salt for each site in the malware table. Suppose that they want to know which site you visited (as opposed to if you visited a site) they'd have to run through all websites (not just the malware list) and all hashes, it makes the task a bit more complicated.
Why not send a hash with a salt ? It makes it fast to check if the url is in the malware blacklist but if Google wants to know the list of websites you visited, they have considerably more work to do. You could also send fake hashes along each request.
- unconstitutional: Where does the constitution grants congress any power to have a say in who can work and live in the US? - unlegitimate: The right to exclude belong solely to the property owners, the US governement has no right in preventing me to invite a poor unskilled - immigrant to work and live in a factory I own - immoral: use of deadly force is made to enforce this etc
I do support an open border policy and I fully realize it's not going to fly politically, but you can at least make a step in the right direction, Ron Paul is taking a step in the wrong one.
On his website he talks about the 9/11 hijackers having expired visa... I can't believe he'd fall to such an absurd level of FUD.
Actually illegal immigrants often pay taxes and don't collect welfare benefits, they are on average more net tax payers than the U.S. citizens. the argument of welfare may hold water in France for example, but certainly not in the US. And why not simply suppress welfare for immigrants? Immigration is also great to bust union mafias.
The illegal immigrants are not *abusing* the system, they're heroes, they can work illegally, under the minimum wage, they work to diminish state power. Even an immigrant collecting welfare is doing his bit to destroy the welfare state.
If you think it is justified to prevent a Mexican to enter the US because he might go on welfare, then you should think it is justified to prevent a single jobless mother to have children, after all they are very likely to go on welfare. According to you, shouldn't we heavily restrict the demographics of the poor in the US until we fix the welfare system? Or i
I think nona better fits my ideal... seriously among all candidates Ron Paul might be the best, but his program should hardly warrant the rejoicement of libertarians.
Oh, I am a Canadian on a TN, so if Ron Paul is elected I'll be on line with millions of people, waiting for a lengthy approval which means I'll have to leave the US. Bad bad Ron Paul.
He wants immigrants from all countries to face (the same) delays and procedures. Currently some country (Canada) don't have delays, you can get a TN in 3 minutes at the border. I highly doubt this is the standard he has in mind when he says immigrants should face (the same) delays and procedures, therefore he plans to toughen procedures on Canadians.
- Ron Paul is an authoritarian power-freak opposed to immigration. Sure he is not an über-authoritarian-power-freak like most candidates but the fact remains that his position on immigration make him despisable.
- Immigration is very important to the tech industry. Recently MS moved a research center to Canada for lack of H1B visas in the US.
The government steals money from the people, sometimes it give money to immigrants. Stealing is bad so... we should restrict immigration ? That sounds reasonable to you ? Muggers buy beer with mugged money, let's outlaw beer ! What about that ?
Who cares if immigration is ILLEGAL (scare caps on). If the law preventing immigration is unjust there's nothing wrong with breaking it. The U.S. government has no right to decide who can stay in my place or who I can hire.
> Quite the contrary: Congress is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) "To establish > an uniform Rule of Naturalization... throughout the United States"
Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't say that they can prevent non naturalized citizens to work and live in the US.
If the price is too high, it's called price gouging If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing
How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty:)
Well the all-else-being-equal impact is not that well known. Yes you can measure infrared absorption of CO2 at given concentrations in a laboratory but absorption isn't the only relevant variable, you need to know the spectrum of the earth radiation at a given temperature, you need to know the partial pressure on different layers of atmosphere of CO2, you need to adjust for the heating of the CO2 itself. It's doable but not that easy, it's far from being "perfectly known".
Science only tells you that *ceteris paribus* an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the average temperature.
This is a rock solid fact but it's absolutely useless to predict anything about the temperature, because increase in CO2 do *not* happen ceteris paribus. There are so many feedback loops involved (growth of vegetation, oceans for example) that short of historical correlation there is little we can know or say about the effect of CO2 on temperature. Even something as simple as the ceteris paribus impact of CO2, while theoretically computable is unknown.
If you think the French revolution was about freedom, think again. True, it did start with good ideals but it soon turned into a bloody experiment in socialism eventually giving rise to Napoleon and modern warfare. Not exactly the kind of example I'd take to make my point.
If the website owner decides to provide you access to his site on the condition you do not block ads, it is immoral to do so. Of course people still will block ads. I think ads are going to be more and more server based rather than included as banners or iframes. At the time the page is dynamically created on the server, it will query the adserver to know what to include. Of course it'll still be possible to block certain parts of the DOM, but this implies detecting ad, which can be tricky, especially if they mutate. An ad could even have an evolution based strategy where ad impressions are detected and the DNA of the ad is passed along to the server, this would automatically tailor fit ads to escape counter-measures. Tricky, tricky indeed. The ultimate way for an ad to sneak in is of course through product placement.
Who the hell modded you funny? This is the only insightful post here. People are crying over tyranny but the only tyrants here are the ones who try to prevent a willing employer and a willing employee to agree on implanting an RFID.
If there is a natural monopoly for this service (we don't know that), then it will be optimally provided by a single vendor. The vendor has an incentive to keep customers happy because any set of dissatisfied customers become a niche market for competitors.
You may be right about public schooling but then again that's a completely different beast, is off-topic and doesn't relate to community broadband at all. Given that, your post was hardly insightful as it didn't provide any insight whatsoever into how government provided community Wi-Fi reduces overall choice. Please give some explanation of that and the other possible negative consequences of it.
My mention of public schooling was just an analogy to explain why a government run ISP would restrict ISP choices. A real choice means you can use your money somewhere else, not that you can buy some additional service. If you pay for gvt provided wifi throught taxes, it means you have less money to spend on a private ISP if you don't like the gvt service.
Imagine you have private ISP X, you pay $20 a month. You realize private ISP X reaaaally sucks and decide to go to private ISP Y, you pay $22 a month. Now imagine ISP X worked like gvt... it means you would need to pay 42$ in total to get the better service ! At that price you might just decide to stick with the governemnt ISP.
Sorry but that's not a "fact of life" that's a fact shove down your throat by power hungry men backed by the full and heavily armed power of the IRS. I'm all for free widespread internet access in cities, but only if it's provided on a voluntary basis ( http://www.fon.com/en/ is a great example ).
Govt provided internet would (among many other bad things) reduce choices. Think of schooling for example, when everyone has to pay for public school regardless of usage, the private schools can only cater to very specific niches (mostly religious and wealthy).
And it's within their right not to fund the local government internet access through taxes. It's illegal though. So you can - pay the local governement for internet access and use it, or - pay the local government for internet access and not use it Whao, that *is* choice!
Too much caffeine in the blog, couldn't sleep... I can't get my hand on the paper but the youtube presentation was extremely clear and I just wrote this C code based on libgd2. Basically it lowers the height of an image by 1 pixel, you can run it multiple time to remove more line.
(yeah my coding sucks but it produces awesome results and I reversed engineered the algorithm from youtube so please grovel...)
I'll improve it soon to remove an arbitrary number of line, horizontally or vertically
- no recalculation of gradient, only the gradient near the line needs to be recomputed
- precomputes a file that store the order of the pixel needing to be removed
I need help with something though, I understand how the algorithm can precompute a file which says in which order pixel should be removed, but I don't see how this can work in *both* direction. Suppose you want to reduce vertically and horizontally at the same time, the horizontal change should completely break the precomputed vertical changes. How would you handle that?
Slashdot Mirror
It's all relative, I'd rather have my nose punched than do community service.
Community service? The kid didn't harm "the community" he harmed you, any damage he owes he owes to you, not to the community. You should also have the option to punch him in the nose, if he believes its ok to do it, then it must be ok to receive it.
It means google needs to try each salt for each site in the malware table. Suppose that they want to know which site you visited (as opposed to if you visited a site) they'd have to run through all websites (not just the malware list) and all hashes, it makes the task a bit more complicated.
Why not send a hash with a salt ? It makes it fast to check if the url is in the malware blacklist but if Google wants to know the list of websites you visited, they have considerably more work to do. You could also send fake hashes along each request.
- unconstitutional: Where does the constitution grants congress any power to have a say in who can work and live in the US?
- unlegitimate: The right to exclude belong solely to the property owners, the US governement has no right in preventing me to invite a poor unskilled - immigrant to work and live in a factory I own
- immoral: use of deadly force is made to enforce this
etc
that's very good to know, it seems a bit inconsistent with what is stated on his campaign web site though
I do support an open border policy and I fully realize it's not going to fly politically, but you can at least make a step in the right direction, Ron Paul is taking a step in the wrong one.
On his website he talks about the 9/11 hijackers having expired visa... I can't believe he'd fall to such an absurd level of FUD.
Actually illegal immigrants often pay taxes and don't collect welfare benefits, they are on average more net tax payers than the U.S. citizens. the argument of welfare may hold water in France for example, but certainly not in the US. And why not simply suppress welfare for immigrants? Immigration is also great to bust union mafias.
The illegal immigrants are not *abusing* the system, they're heroes, they can work illegally, under the minimum wage, they work to diminish state power. Even an immigrant collecting welfare is doing his bit to destroy the welfare state.
If you think it is justified to prevent a Mexican to enter the US because he might go on welfare, then you should think it is justified to prevent a single jobless mother to have children, after all they are very likely to go on welfare. According to you, shouldn't we heavily restrict the demographics of the poor in the US until we fix the welfare system? Or i
I think nona better fits my ideal... seriously among all candidates Ron Paul might be the best, but his program should hardly warrant the rejoicement of libertarians.
Oh, I am a Canadian on a TN, so if Ron Paul is elected I'll be on line with millions of people, waiting for a lengthy approval which means I'll have to leave the US. Bad bad Ron Paul.
> Show me where RP wants to restrict immigration.
easy...
> 2. Enforce existing laws against illegal immigration.
there ya go
check his campaign web site as well:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
He wants immigrants from all countries to face (the same) delays and procedures. Currently some country (Canada) don't have delays, you can get a TN in 3 minutes at the border. I highly doubt this is the standard he has in mind when he says immigrants should face (the same) delays and procedures, therefore he plans to toughen procedures on Canadians.
What do you mean a prank? I am dead serious.
- Ron Paul is an authoritarian power-freak opposed to immigration. Sure he is not an über-authoritarian-power-freak like most candidates but the fact remains that his position on immigration make him despisable.
- Immigration is very important to the tech industry. Recently MS moved a research center to Canada for lack of H1B visas in the US.
The government steals money from the people, sometimes it give money to immigrants. Stealing is bad so... we should restrict immigration ? That sounds reasonable to you ? Muggers buy beer with mugged money, let's outlaw beer ! What about that ?
Who cares if immigration is ILLEGAL (scare caps on). If the law preventing immigration is unjust there's nothing wrong with breaking it. The U.S. government has no right to decide who can stay in my place or who I can hire.
... throughout the United States"
> Quite the contrary: Congress is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) "To establish
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't say that they can prevent non naturalized citizens to work and live in the US.
If the price is too high, it's called price gouging
:)
If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing
It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing
How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty
Ron Paul is anti-immigration, bad bad bad for tech. (as well as unconstitutional, unlegitimate, immoral, unethical, etc)
Well the all-else-being-equal impact is not that well known. Yes you can measure infrared absorption of CO2 at given concentrations in a laboratory but absorption isn't the only relevant variable, you need to know the spectrum of the earth radiation at a given temperature, you need to know the partial pressure on different layers of atmosphere of CO2, you need to adjust for the heating of the CO2 itself. It's doable but not that easy, it's far from being "perfectly known".
Science only tells you that *ceteris paribus* an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the average temperature.
This is a rock solid fact but it's absolutely useless to predict anything about the temperature, because increase in CO2 do *not* happen ceteris paribus. There are so many feedback loops involved (growth of vegetation, oceans for example) that short of historical correlation there is little we can know or say about the effect of CO2 on temperature. Even something as simple as the ceteris paribus impact of CO2, while theoretically computable is unknown.
If you think the French revolution was about freedom, think again. True, it did start with good ideals but it soon turned into a bloody experiment in socialism eventually giving rise to Napoleon and modern warfare. Not exactly the kind of example I'd take to make my point.
If the website owner decides to provide you access to his site on the condition you do not block ads, it is immoral to do so. Of course people still will block ads. I think ads are going to be more and more server based rather than included as banners or iframes. At the time the page is dynamically created on the server, it will query the adserver to know what to include. Of course it'll still be possible to block certain parts of the DOM, but this implies detecting ad, which can be tricky, especially if they mutate. An ad could even have an evolution based strategy where ad impressions are detected and the DNA of the ad is passed along to the server, this would automatically tailor fit ads to escape counter-measures. Tricky, tricky indeed. The ultimate way for an ad to sneak in is of course through product placement.
Who the hell modded you funny? This is the only insightful post here. People are crying over tyranny but the only tyrants here are the ones who try to prevent a willing employer and a willing employee to agree on implanting an RFID.
If there is a natural monopoly for this service (we don't know that), then it will be optimally provided by a single vendor. The vendor has an incentive to keep customers happy because any set of dissatisfied customers become a niche market for competitors.
(and liberal democracy is an oxymoron)
You may be right about public schooling but then again that's a completely different beast, is off-topic and doesn't relate to community broadband at all. Given that, your post was hardly insightful as it didn't provide any insight whatsoever into how government provided community Wi-Fi reduces overall choice. Please give some explanation of that and the other possible negative consequences of it.
My mention of public schooling was just an analogy to explain why a government run ISP would restrict ISP choices. A real choice means you can use your money somewhere else, not that you can buy some additional service. If you pay for gvt provided wifi throught taxes, it means you have less money to spend on a private ISP if you don't like the gvt service.
Imagine you have private ISP X, you pay $20 a month. You realize private ISP X reaaaally sucks and decide to go to private ISP Y, you pay $22 a month. Now imagine ISP X worked like gvt... it means you would need to pay 42$ in total to get the better service ! At that price you might just decide to stick with the governemnt ISP.
Sorry but that's not a "fact of life" that's a fact shove down your throat by power hungry men backed by the full and heavily armed power of the IRS. I'm all for free widespread internet access in cities, but only if it's provided on a voluntary basis ( http://www.fon.com/en/ is a great example ).
Govt provided internet would (among many other bad things) reduce choices. Think of schooling for example, when everyone has to pay for public school regardless of usage, the private schools can only cater to very specific niches (mostly religious and wealthy).
And it's within their right not to fund the local government internet access through taxes. It's illegal though. So you can
- pay the local governement for internet access and use it, or
- pay the local government for internet access and not use it
Whao, that *is* choice!
Given enough eyeball every dirty code edit is shallow :)
here's an example produced by that code (this is Maine)
p g
n g
n g
original
http://img96.imageshack.us/my.php?image=testxq4.j
somewhat reduced
http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outew8.p
very reduced
http://img484.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outas2.p
Too much caffeine in the blog, couldn't sleep... I can't get my hand on the paper but the youtube presentation was extremely clear and I just wrote this C code based on libgd2. Basically it lowers the height of an image by 1 pixel, you can run it multiple time to remove more line.
http://rafb.net/p/jinioy45.html
(yeah my coding sucks but it produces awesome results and I reversed engineered the algorithm from youtube so please grovel...)
I'll improve it soon to remove an arbitrary number of line, horizontally or vertically
- no recalculation of gradient, only the gradient near the line needs to be recomputed
- precomputes a file that store the order of the pixel needing to be removed
I need help with something though, I understand how the algorithm can precompute a file which says in which order pixel should be removed, but I don't see how this can work in *both* direction. Suppose you want to reduce vertically and horizontally at the same time, the horizontal change should completely break the precomputed vertical changes. How would you handle that?