A brief answer: it's hard to fake a database with hundreds of thousands of emails, but in this instance, the emails came from another hack and had nothing to do with what was claimed.
As for this:
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
I would like to point out your original statement (the emphasis on the last two words is from me):
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
I understand that you intended it to mean something else, but it just didn't come out that way. Hence my questions.
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
What makes you think any evidence you find is actually true? It is a fake datadump after all... even if the evidence was 100% solid, you'd still want at least several other sources before trusting anything you find in here.
Also, the reason this is considered "tampering with the election" is that Guccifer is considered by numerous people to be an intelligence service, most probably Russia's FSB (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack). Whether it's true is hard to tell, but the indications do point in that direction. So tell me: do you really want to look for evidence in a collection of garbage provided by a hostile intelligence agency? Would you like to publish that evidence under your own name? If no, why do you think anyone else would do so?
Well, these guys (http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-interstellar-precursors) seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.
"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "
Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.
You mean no one who actually worked on the Y2K issue will be alive, and everyone will just think it was media hype
Yep.
You mean no one who actually worked on the Y2K issue will be alive, and everyone will just think it was media hype. I worked for a major bank at the time, we had to work night shifts towards the end for testing, we started making changes about 4 years before Y2K, millions was spent on contractors, people came out of fucking retirement to work on Y2K. But ask anyone who wasn't involved (even other programmers) and they all think it was much ado about nothing.
This illustrates what is often said: the person that creates crisis after crisis and then fixes them (just in time to avoid serious disaster) will be appreciated more than the unsung hero who prevents the problems from developing in the first place. Sometimes I think we should have just let Y2K happen and then fixed things. But meh, what's done is done and besides it is our job to keep things running. Leave it to the amateurs to run from one fire to another - engineers are proud to run things so there are no problems.
Y2K was a big deal. That most people didn't notice much is a testament to what happens when you take something seriously, and get a lot of skilled people to work on a problem with a non-negotiable deadline.
This is absolutely true. The reason Y2K wasn't a big deal is because thousands of programmers sat down and fixed stuff. Otherwise, we would have seen all sorts of shit go belly up at the stroke of midnight on December 31st 1999.
Hell yeah. In our first tests after the bugs were fixed, literally NOTHING worked. They had forgotten to patch the login module and every password valid date was now suddenly in the past. 50 testers went home again that day, after an hour, on a saturday. Much grumbling ensued.
But... you know, at some point noone who was present at Y2K will be alive, but the people who denied that there ever was a problem will still be in abundant supply. It's saddening to see that if you just deny something happened, no matter what it is and no matter the documentation and witnesses, eventually sheer stupidity and mental inertia will bring you victory. Fighting entropy is *hard*.
That's not because of overregulation, but because of a pricing strategy called "what the market will bear". This is quite a bit more for critical drugs and gear than for toys, as pharmaceutical companies have discovered.
If it was overregulation the price would have gone up everywhere, since pharmacovigilance regulations are pretty similar across the board. Okay, maybe some price disparity would have been there because some regulators require less proof. But still, this can never explain a 30x price differential.
The only reason it sucks to use a solar-electric spacecraft to go to Mars is the sunlight incidence per square meter plummets to 44% out there.
I know folks are working very hard on space based lasers. They've become a lot more powerful and cheaper over the past decade. Of course, they have to be careful with the wavelength or suddenly they have an orbital weapons platform, rather than a propulsion, but... it could be a nice combination with the solar sails.
A lot of software isn't critical. Most programmers can do that fine. Things get different when you write the code for autonomous vehicles, space probes or for instance, a dam protecting critical infrastructure. These programs tend to get verified formally because time to market isn't the issue, and the cost of failure is so much greater than the cost of doing it right.
Apart from that: "Anything that makes writing programs harder is absolutely fine with me" - not with me. It needs to be much easier to write safe, functional code. Because the amount of code required in daily life is going up, not down, and anything that makes it harder will not remove programmers from the workforce, it will just necessitate more people programming. I want to be more productive, not less, because there's already more work to do than I can ever handle during my life.
Oooh that's a very nice little cartridge! I don't have the C64 anymore though, but I do still have my A500 with 512KB expansion pack, 10MB harddisk and original monitor (and 1 joystick, the 2nd having died) and an external floppydrive.
I'm thinking of buying a raspberry pi to replace the whole shebang, because it's taking up rather a lot of space and the 3,5" disks are becoming difficult to read.
A lot of the music in the charts is horrible. However, there's also loads of bands making great music right now. For every 10 crap songs I hear, there's also that one band that suddenly pops up with a great song. Twenty One Pilots recently.
99% of everything is crap. But with hindsight we forget Rick Astley and... well, maybe not. But we overcame Wham. And Vanilla Ice. And the lambada.
Yes, I agree. I really don't see why all these users are complaining about bonus content. There are lots of people in the world that still have to pay for it!
If you have a job and a mortage and only standard financial issues, spending 30 bucks is more than enough effort. If you have an "interesting" financial situation, it might be wise to spend some money.
A co-worker had a wife with a trustfund in another country. As it turns out, due to the laws being what they are she's not liable for taxes in *either* country. They spent about 1000 euro and in exchange saved around 15000 in taxes. Each year.
I recently changed my "company" from "self employed" to "limited liability". Somehow, this gives me a 100000 euro waiver on my income that I don't have to pay income tax over (but I have to pay myself income that is then taxed, over 15 years). That 1800 euro was well spent because what would have been 50% tax over a lump sum is now 38% tax over that amount divided by 15. Saves me 12000 euro in taxes in total and a bit less in interest.
..because the scathing replies and the fact they're now the laughingstock of the entire world show they had to have real "courage" to do this. What was that saying that equated courage with stupidity? Somehow, it seems to apply here in spades.
It may be true that no other company had done this. But I don't know whether that can qualify as anti-competitiveness since they'd have to show other companies being denied such a blessing.
That won't be hard - how many companies had to pay 0.005% tax? Oh, noone except Apple. How many would have wanted this had they been told it was possible? All of them. Microsoft is in Ireland too, and not for the scenery. The fact they didn't get this ruling is quite telling.
It's called IVF and if you have IVF/ICSI it's already being done just to increase the chance of actually getting pregnant. They also screen the embryo for nasty inherited diseases if they run in the family. No reason why this cannot be extended, but the procedure is not exactly pleasant for women.
What will happen is that the most obvious diseases will be targeted, leading to a whole slew of initial successes and then quite a long stall as it turns out that the remainder of what makes us, us, is extremely complex, interacts with itself in loads of unexpected ways and generally is still very poorly understood. Junk dna, methylization, gut bacteria, and the recent discovery of even more inhabitants in the gut, bacteriofages, that interact with everything as well, all show that there is still a whole world out there we know nothing about.
Much more attainable and more sensible too is prediagnostic screening of embryos. Just remove the ones with the most obvious diseases and you're good to go with none of the risks attached to "templated DNA".
I've checked and the gene is "autosomal dominant" so if your spouse does not have the gene, all you need to do is make sure you use IVF and select the right embryo(s). Googling "ivf and embryo testing for cancer" immediately brought up loads of clinics that provide this, like http://www.fertility-docs.com/...
So if you find the right partner who agrees with you on this, it's not hard to have genetic screening *right now*. No need for a vasectomy at all.
I know it's not done to actually look at the article in question, but you might have checked hackerrank.com and seen that it is a very simple testing site, with questions ranging from the laughably easy to the ridiculously obstruse, and that you can just google every answer. I spent an hour answering questions and they could really use a lot of improvement.
My take? This whole press release was designed to get attention for the site. No need to actually take it serious enough to think about it. If you want to have a ranking that means something, ignore hackerrank and start contributing on stackoverflow.com.
The alternative is that the peer-reviewed paper describes a new phenomenon which cannot AT THIS TIME be explained easily by applying the basic laws of physics.
That doesn't mean the basic laws of physics are wrong, it may just mean that there is something going on we cannot easily detect or haven't considered looking for, that if detected would explain the whole thing. Or some of the basic laws of physics have loopholes that are exploited in this instance. Or they need refinement.
As an example, the motion of planets is explained by Newton based on basic laws of physics. However, until Einstein refined the whole explanation a bit with his theory of relativity, we had unexplained deviations between theory and practice - like we have now.
The US government is fine with complaining to EU countries that they shouldn't behave like tax havens, but it protests when the EU decides that they shouldn't. I suppose they wanted both the earnings to stay in the US, and not go to the EU at the same time.
I think Tim Cook theatened to shut down someone's iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
A brief answer: it's hard to fake a database with hundreds of thousands of emails, but in this instance, the emails came from another hack and had nothing to do with what was claimed.
As for this:
No I was talking about looking for nefarious activities within the Clinton foundation in general, not these specific fake data dumps.
I would like to point out your original statement (the emphasis on the last two words is from me):
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
I understand that you intended it to mean something else, but it just didn't come out that way. Hence my questions.
Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it.
What makes you think any evidence you find is actually true? It is a fake datadump after all... even if the evidence was 100% solid, you'd still want at least several other sources before trusting anything you find in here.
Also, the reason this is considered "tampering with the election" is that Guccifer is considered by numerous people to be an intelligence service, most probably Russia's FSB (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guccifer-20-is-likely-a-russian-government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack). Whether it's true is hard to tell, but the indications do point in that direction. So tell me: do you really want to look for evidence in a collection of garbage provided by a hostile intelligence agency? Would you like to publish that evidence under your own name? If no, why do you think anyone else would do so?
Well, these guys (http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-interstellar-precursors) seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.
"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "
Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.
Original article: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...
Here's the calculator: http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...
A russian billionaire is funding this: http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
I've a picture of him at the press conference here: http://i33.photobucket.com/alb...
You mean no one who actually worked on the Y2K issue will be alive, and everyone will just think it was media hype
Yep.
You mean no one who actually worked on the Y2K issue will be alive, and everyone will just think it was media hype.
I worked for a major bank at the time, we had to work night shifts towards the end for testing, we started making changes about 4 years before Y2K, millions was spent on contractors, people came out of fucking retirement to work on Y2K. But ask anyone who wasn't involved (even other programmers) and they all think it was much ado about nothing.
This illustrates what is often said: the person that creates crisis after crisis and then fixes them (just in time to avoid serious disaster) will be appreciated more than the unsung hero who prevents the problems from developing in the first place. Sometimes I think we should have just let Y2K happen and then fixed things. But meh, what's done is done and besides it is our job to keep things running. Leave it to the amateurs to run from one fire to another - engineers are proud to run things so there are no problems.
Y2K was a big deal. That most people didn't notice much is a testament to what happens when you take something seriously, and get a lot of skilled people to work on a problem with a non-negotiable deadline.
This is absolutely true. The reason Y2K wasn't a big deal is because thousands of programmers sat down and fixed stuff. Otherwise, we would have seen all sorts of shit go belly up at the stroke of midnight on December 31st 1999.
Hell yeah. In our first tests after the bugs were fixed, literally NOTHING worked. They had forgotten to patch the login module and every password valid date was now suddenly in the past. 50 testers went home again that day, after an hour, on a saturday. Much grumbling ensued.
But... you know, at some point noone who was present at Y2K will be alive, but the people who denied that there ever was a problem will still be in abundant supply. It's saddening to see that if you just deny something happened, no matter what it is and no matter the documentation and witnesses, eventually sheer stupidity and mental inertia will bring you victory. Fighting entropy is *hard*.
That's not because of overregulation, but because of a pricing strategy called "what the market will bear". This is quite a bit more for critical drugs and gear than for toys, as pharmaceutical companies have discovered.
If it was overregulation the price would have gone up everywhere, since pharmacovigilance regulations are pretty similar across the board. Okay, maybe some price disparity would have been there because some regulators require less proof. But still, this can never explain a 30x price differential.
The only reason it sucks to use a solar-electric spacecraft to go to Mars is the sunlight incidence per square meter plummets to 44% out there.
I know folks are working very hard on space based lasers. They've become a lot more powerful and cheaper over the past decade. Of course, they have to be careful with the wavelength or suddenly they have an orbital weapons platform, rather than a propulsion, but... it could be a nice combination with the solar sails.
A lot of software isn't critical. Most programmers can do that fine. Things get different when you write the code for autonomous vehicles, space probes or for instance, a dam protecting critical infrastructure. These programs tend to get verified formally because time to market isn't the issue, and the cost of failure is so much greater than the cost of doing it right.
Apart from that: "Anything that makes writing programs harder is absolutely fine with me" - not with me. It needs to be much easier to write safe, functional code. Because the amount of code required in daily life is going up, not down, and anything that makes it harder will not remove programmers from the workforce, it will just necessitate more people programming. I want to be more productive, not less, because there's already more work to do than I can ever handle during my life.
... So a positively charged tower would make a better tesla coil than lightning rod. (In the Red Alert 2 sense...)
Where do I order my 7 meter high Tesla coil? I think I want one on my lawn. Fer duckhuntin'...
Oooh that's a very nice little cartridge! I don't have the C64 anymore though, but I do still have my A500 with 512KB expansion pack, 10MB harddisk and original monitor (and 1 joystick, the 2nd having died) and an external floppydrive.
I'm thinking of buying a raspberry pi to replace the whole shebang, because it's taking up rather a lot of space and the 3,5" disks are becoming difficult to read.
A lot of the music in the charts is horrible. However, there's also loads of bands making great music right now. For every 10 crap songs I hear, there's also that one band that suddenly pops up with a great song. Twenty One Pilots recently.
99% of everything is crap. But with hindsight we forget Rick Astley and... well, maybe not. But we overcame Wham. And Vanilla Ice. And the lambada.
Can we teach them that language changes over time? That it evolves? Or is that not allowed either?
BZZZT! You said the E-word. I really H-word that.
What about H-bomb? Similar to F-bomb. Oh wait...
Yes, I agree. I really don't see why all these users are complaining about bonus content. There are lots of people in the world that still have to pay for it!
They are already planning for that. The codename for the AI has just been published, it's "Christine".
Sounds really nice!
If you have a job and a mortage and only standard financial issues, spending 30 bucks is more than enough effort. If you have an "interesting" financial situation, it might be wise to spend some money.
A co-worker had a wife with a trustfund in another country. As it turns out, due to the laws being what they are she's not liable for taxes in *either* country. They spent about 1000 euro and in exchange saved around 15000 in taxes. Each year.
I recently changed my "company" from "self employed" to "limited liability". Somehow, this gives me a 100000 euro waiver on my income that I don't have to pay income tax over (but I have to pay myself income that is then taxed, over 15 years). That 1800 euro was well spent because what would have been 50% tax over a lump sum is now 38% tax over that amount divided by 15. Saves me 12000 euro in taxes in total and a bit less in interest.
..because the scathing replies and the fact they're now the laughingstock of the entire world show they had to have real "courage" to do this. What was that saying that equated courage with stupidity? Somehow, it seems to apply here in spades.
It may be true that no other company had done this. But I don't know whether that can qualify as anti-competitiveness since they'd have to show other companies being denied such a blessing.
That won't be hard - how many companies had to pay 0.005% tax? Oh, noone except Apple. How many would have wanted this had they been told it was possible? All of them. Microsoft is in Ireland too, and not for the scenery. The fact they didn't get this ruling is quite telling.
Wow, this really is comedy gold :)
Can you tell me what you're having? 'cause I'd like some too!
It's called IVF and if you have IVF/ICSI it's already being done just to increase the chance of actually getting pregnant. They also screen the embryo for nasty inherited diseases if they run in the family. No reason why this cannot be extended, but the procedure is not exactly pleasant for women.
What will happen is that the most obvious diseases will be targeted, leading to a whole slew of initial successes and then quite a long stall as it turns out that the remainder of what makes us, us, is extremely complex, interacts with itself in loads of unexpected ways and generally is still very poorly understood. Junk dna, methylization, gut bacteria, and the recent discovery of even more inhabitants in the gut, bacteriofages, that interact with everything as well, all show that there is still a whole world out there we know nothing about.
Much more attainable and more sensible too is prediagnostic screening of embryos. Just remove the ones with the most obvious diseases and you're good to go with none of the risks attached to "templated DNA".
I've checked and the gene is "autosomal dominant" so if your spouse does not have the gene, all you need to do is make sure you use IVF and select the right embryo(s). Googling "ivf and embryo testing for cancer" immediately brought up loads of clinics that provide this, like http://www.fertility-docs.com/...
So if you find the right partner who agrees with you on this, it's not hard to have genetic screening *right now*. No need for a vasectomy at all.
I know it's not done to actually look at the article in question, but you might have checked hackerrank.com and seen that it is a very simple testing site, with questions ranging from the laughably easy to the ridiculously obstruse, and that you can just google every answer. I spent an hour answering questions and they could really use a lot of improvement.
My take? This whole press release was designed to get attention for the site. No need to actually take it serious enough to think about it. If you want to have a ranking that means something, ignore hackerrank and start contributing on stackoverflow.com.
The alternative is that the peer-reviewed paper describes a new phenomenon which cannot AT THIS TIME be explained easily by applying the basic laws of physics.
That doesn't mean the basic laws of physics are wrong, it may just mean that there is something going on we cannot easily detect or haven't considered looking for, that if detected would explain the whole thing. Or some of the basic laws of physics have loopholes that are exploited in this instance. Or they need refinement.
As an example, the motion of planets is explained by Newton based on basic laws of physics. However, until Einstein refined the whole explanation a bit with his theory of relativity, we had unexplained deviations between theory and practice - like we have now.
The US government is fine with complaining to EU countries that they shouldn't behave like tax havens, but it protests when the EU decides that they shouldn't. I suppose they wanted both the earnings to stay in the US, and not go to the EU at the same time.
I think Tim Cook theatened to shut down someone's iPhone.