Forcing a vehicle to slow down and speed up again wastes fuel. If I'm going 45 MPH (already an efficient speed) and have to slow down to 15 MPH because of some cyclists riding 3 abreast, and then speed back up to 45 MPH after I've passed them 15 seconds later, that kinetic energy difference is made up by the burning of more gasoline (yes, even with regenerative braking -- I drive a hybrid, and I've done the math). Maintaining 45 MPH for the same amount of time burns *less* fuel.
That sounds untenable. Server has to perform some operation on a message X, and the identity of the operation is encrypted in the message. How does the server know what to do?
I thought the principle was that the server performs known operations on the ciphertext that correspond to operations on the plaintext (analogous to adding logarithms to get the log of a product, but with the added condition that the relation between cipher and plaintext is not an easily reversible operation like logarithm but a "one-way" operation).
You can create an "edition" of music that's in the public domain (which may be characterized by things such as your own tempo and dynamic markings, or a particular page layout), and you can copyright *that*, but that doesn't give you copyright over the composition of the piece, which remains in the public domain.
So if the answer to "how many times does 'and' occur" is 3, then they can try the analysis on a file encrypted with client's public key that they know has 3 occurrences of "and", and if it matches the (encrypted) result sent to the client, then they know that about the client's file.
OK, I know that's probably wrong; I would imagine that the answer is salted somehow so that two output files with the same result from different inputs won't match.
First, "whoosh", since my post was intended as a cultural reference and apparently you didn't get that from the "Oblig. Rush lyric" (i.e., it didn't really merit a pedantic response).
Second, as pedantic responses go, yours fails. If you *choose* not to decide, that is definitely a choice. If you simply *fail* to decide, then that is not a choice. The two are not the same thing.
If you have a lamp plugged into a switched outlet, and the lamp is not shining, it's nice to know if the problem is the wall switch or the lamp switch. If you can tell the wall switch is on or off just by looking, then it's easier. Otherwise you may have to try one, then the other, then back to the first one.
Well, I think of the computer usage of "default" as perhaps originating from switch statements (or at least, switch statements provide a suitable analogy). If none of the expressed conditionals in the switch statement is matched, then you execute the default case. It's not so much a question of expectations because there is no implied expectation that a particular case condition will be met. Here it's clear how the term "default" came to be applied: "Failing W, X, and Y, do Z." Same thing with user preferences: "Failing the detection of a user override, do this."
If it consumes so many medical resources that it costs $150 million to treat a single case, then perhaps *nobody* deserves it. Those resources could probably be put to use treating one thousand cases of *other* illnesses.
If a city owns a citywide network it's a short step to implementing redlight cameras, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, automobile tracking, etc.
Ah, so none of those things will happen if we nip this municipal ISP thing in the bud, right?
I don't think muni internet falls into any of the Constitutional requirements or powers granted to the gov't by the people.
I don't think muni *anything* falls under the Constitution, which only outlines powers and restraints for Federal (and to some extent State) governments.
Sun kills rock, rock smashes scissors, scissors cut paper, paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes rock, rock smashes lizard, lizard poisons Spock, Spock shorts Sun,...
Slashdot Mirror
Forcing a vehicle to slow down and speed up again wastes fuel. If I'm going 45 MPH (already an efficient speed) and have to slow down to 15 MPH because of some cyclists riding 3 abreast, and then speed back up to 45 MPH after I've passed them 15 seconds later, that kinetic energy difference is made up by the burning of more gasoline (yes, even with regenerative braking -- I drive a hybrid, and I've done the math). Maintaining 45 MPH for the same amount of time burns *less* fuel.
Thanks, every little bit of information I can get about you helps answer the question in my sig.
No, RobVB was parodying tjstork's comment; I don't consider the parody an ad hominem.
not to mention the misused apostrophe
That sounds untenable. Server has to perform some operation on a message X, and the identity of the operation is encrypted in the message. How does the server know what to do?
I thought the principle was that the server performs known operations on the ciphertext that correspond to operations on the plaintext (analogous to adding logarithms to get the log of a product, but with the added condition that the relation between cipher and plaintext is not an easily reversible operation like logarithm but a "one-way" operation).
Now I feel like a Luddite.
The story is about fraudulent copyright claims on public domain material; if it's public domain then fair use doesn't apply.
You can create an "edition" of music that's in the public domain (which may be characterized by things such as your own tempo and dynamic markings, or a particular page layout), and you can copyright *that*, but that doesn't give you copyright over the composition of the piece, which remains in the public domain.
So if the answer to "how many times does 'and' occur" is 3, then they can try the analysis on a file encrypted with client's public key that they know has 3 occurrences of "and", and if it matches the (encrypted) result sent to the client, then they know that about the client's file.
OK, I know that's probably wrong; I would imagine that the answer is salted somehow so that two output files with the same result from different inputs won't match.
First, "whoosh", since my post was intended as a cultural reference and apparently you didn't get that from the "Oblig. Rush lyric" (i.e., it didn't really merit a pedantic response).
Second, as pedantic responses go, yours fails. If you *choose* not to decide, that is definitely a choice. If you simply *fail* to decide, then that is not a choice. The two are not the same thing.
I never saw it published in that form, I had (still have, I think) the paperback containing all three sections.
An example of a short story later novelized was "Nightfall".
Because "standard" implies something more?
"Standard" implies there was a deliberative process involved, which isn't always the case with "defaults".
"Default" could have just been what made sense to the programmer on one particular day, and he or she just left it at that.
But everyone should have expected many replies to be modded as Redundant.
Thanks, that helped a lot; I'm in now!
If you have a lamp plugged into a switched outlet, and the lamp is not shining, it's nice to know if the problem is the wall switch or the lamp switch. If you can tell the wall switch is on or off just by looking, then it's easier. Otherwise you may have to try one, then the other, then back to the first one.
Oblig. Rush lyric:
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Well, I think of the computer usage of "default" as perhaps originating from switch statements (or at least, switch statements provide a suitable analogy). If none of the expressed conditionals in the switch statement is matched, then you execute the default case. It's not so much a question of expectations because there is no implied expectation that a particular case condition will be met. Here it's clear how the term "default" came to be applied: "Failing W, X, and Y, do Z." Same thing with user preferences: "Failing the detection of a user override, do this."
I haven't read it, but that sounds a bit like the plot from Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".
If it consumes so many medical resources that it costs $150 million to treat a single case, then perhaps *nobody* deserves it. Those resources could probably be put to use treating one thousand cases of *other* illnesses.
If a city owns a citywide network it's a short step to implementing redlight cameras, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, automobile tracking, etc.
Ah, so none of those things will happen if we nip this municipal ISP thing in the bud, right?
I don't think muni internet falls into any of the Constitutional requirements or powers granted to the gov't by the people.
I don't think muni *anything* falls under the Constitution, which only outlines powers and restraints for Federal (and to some extent State) governments.
And his math is bad. 8 months after November is July.
I can't figure out why you were modded Troll while GP was modded +5 insightful.
Scalia a liberal?
BTW I'm quite liberal and I don't stand for "expansive federal government".
Sun kills rock, rock smashes scissors, scissors cut paper, paper disproves Spock, Spock vaporizes rock, rock smashes lizard, lizard poisons Spock, Spock shorts Sun, ...