You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved?
Last book about evolution (and strongly against retards like those that seem to be on the loose in Texas) remarked "they will always tell you there is no proof for evolution. But if they say that, they are either lying or clueless. Here's a few examples..."
Yes, annoying them is good, but the main thing is you need to keep them on the phone as long as possible while annoying them.
You need the "Talking Tom" app for the iPad. Start it and hold the phone's speaker to the iPad. The app listens to everything and repeats it in a high-pitched voice.
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
Bloody html!!! I'll use FORTRAN (.le.) instead of less-equal:-(
It's not just about the precision, it is about getting reasonable results.
For example, if a*b >= c*d, is it guaranteed that sort (a*b - c*d) won't fail because of a negative argument? (It's not if the difference is calculated in higher than double precision). Is it guaranteed that -1.le. sin (x), cos (x).le. 1? This has nothing to do with the actual precision. If you use 500 bit precision, I still wouldn't want sin (x) = 1 + 2^(-500) for any input value.
A simple situation: If -pi/2.le. x.le. y.le. pi / 2, is it guaranteed that sin (x).le. sin (y)? The implementation has to be just slightly clever to guarantee this.
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
It's not just about the precision, it is about getting reasonable results.
For example, if a*b >= c*d, is it guaranteed that sort (a*b - c*d) won't fail because of a negative argument? (It's not if the difference is calculated in higher than double precision). Is it guaranteed that -1
A simple situation: If -pi/2 = x = y = pi / 2, is it guaranteed that sin (x) = sin (y)? The implementation has to be just slightly clever to guarantee this.
So if you do some math on a float or a double, the results can vary depending on if it was done as 80-bit or if the intermediaries were spilled and truncated back to 64/32 bit.
Google for FP_CONTRACT. Quote from the C Standard:
A floating expression may be contracted, that is, evaluated as though it were a single operation, thereby omitting rounding errors implied by the source code and the expression evaluation method. The FP_CONTRACT pragma in provides a way to disallow contracted expressions. Otherwise, whether and how expressions are contracted is implementation-defined.
The problem of inconsistent floating point calculations between machines has been solved since 1985. I'm sure moving your app into the cloud doesn't suddenly undo 28 years of computing history.
Except it hasn't. On a PowerPC or Haswell processor, a simple calculation like a*b + c*d can legally give three different results because of the use of fused multiply-add. In the 90's to early 2000's, you would get different results because of inconsistent use of extended precision.
Floating-point arithmetic will produce rounded results. The rounded result of a single operation will depend on the exact hardware, compiler etc. that is used. x86 compilers many years ago sometimes used extended precision instead of double precision, giving slightly different results (usually more precises). PowerPC processors and nowadays Haswell processors have fused multiply-add, which can give slightly different results (usually more precise). So the same code with the same inputs could give slightly different results.
The IEEE floating-point standard requires double precision with a 53 bit mantissa. They might have required a 54 or 52 bit mantissa, which would give slightly different rounding errors.
Now my point: If your code performing all these operations produces almost the same results on different implementations, then it is quite likely that your code is right. If you get vastly different results, then your code is likely wrong or the problem is very hard.
Some developers think that getting identical answers means that the answers are good. That's not true at all. If you have small differences due to slightly different rounding then there is a good chance that your results are good. Identical results guarentee nothing.
Mostly as a reaction to the Lavabit case. Which had some justification as a protest against what the NSA is up to, but not justified if you are afraid of email surveillance.
Lavabit made the mistake of storing emails in an encrypted form which Lavabit was capable of decrypting. That made legal demands to access the decrypted data possible. To be legally safe, as a service provider you must provide end-to-end decryption where it is impossible for you to read the messages. And the NSA can't break S/MIME with decent encryption.
Originally Samsung was ordered to pay about a billion dollars. Then it turned out that the jury had made mistakes in the calculation of damages. Therefore about $400 million of that billion had to be tried again, while $600 million of the judgment was deemed correct. So in reality Samsung is now ordered to pay $600 plus $290 million.
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
Fucking idiot being modded up as insightful.
You are an imbecile who doesn't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent. Apple has design patents on the design of iPhone and iPad. Design patents are not about innovation. Design patents are about the design, very similar to copyright. So complaining that "rectangles are not innovative" in the context of a design patent is stupid.
Next, you seem to think that Apple got a design patent on rectangles. No, they haven't. They have design patents on designs that involve a complete design, of which _rounded_ rectangular shape is just one component. Everyone is free to make phones or tablets with rounded corners. Everyone is free to copy any single aspect of Apple's design patents. As long as they are different from Apple's design patent in _one_ aspect. They mustn't copy _all_ parts of the design patent at the same time.
Next, you seem to think that Apple is the only one with design patents involving rectangles with rounded corners. I'll tell you another company: Samsung. Samsung has design patents for the Galaxy S3, and guess what: It has rounded corners.
No, the maximum distance grows without bounds. What this proves is that you can always find two more primes that are less than 600 apart, so the minimum distance does not grow without bounds. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distance between one pair of primes and another pair.
A simple proof: If you take a large number n, then n! + 2 is divisible by 2, n! + 3 is divisible by 3, and so on until n! + n which is divisible by n. n! + 1 and n! + n + 1 might be primes, but none of the numbers in between. So we have a gap between prime numbers of at least n.
Their goal is to demonstrate that the same is true for 2 instead of 600.
The _real_ hypothesis is this: Given _any_ pattern, like (p, p+2, p+6, p+8) where it isn't obvious that only a finite number of solutions exist, there will be an infinite number of primes following that pattern.
A case where there is obviously a finite number of solutions is (p, p+4, p+8) because one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3. Or any pattern involving an odd number like (p, p + 1027); either p or p + 1027 must be even so except for p = 2 they can't be both primes.
If N is between 2 and 10^260, then the number of primes less than N is more than N / 600. So in that range the _average_ gap between consecutive primes is less than 600. For N = 10^20 it is actually quite rare that the gap between two consecutive primes is over 600.
So in summary, if a pair of primes is defined by one following the other, it was theorized that we would find an infinite number of such pairs separated by 2. Various people have proven that gap to be from 70m, 60m, 4680, and now 600. Thank you James Maynard.
Here's what it real means: There were conjectures, one of them famous, which stated:
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+2) of consecutive primes.
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+4) of consecutive primes.
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+6) of consecutive primes. ...
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+600) of consecutive primes.
It is now proven that at least one of these conjectures is true.
False. Long standing precedent says that Assange is in the clear, provided that he didn't actively encourage Manning to break the law. Assange had no duty to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, he's essentially in the same legal position as the New York Times when it publishes classified information revealed to it by sources. This is the legal precedent going back at least as far as the Pentagon Papers, and to the best of my knowledge we've never seen a reporter charged (much less convicted) for the publication of classified material.
On the other hand, that's not something that _I_ would like to rely on. Being right is little comfort when you are in jail.
They can't actually arrest him since he is an Australian citizen who leaked information from outside of the USA. He is not subject to the laws of the USA. If the US sends people after him outside of the USA, Assange should kill them because once they step foot outside of their borders, they have no authority any more.
I don't know US law enough. In German law, you are subject to German laws if your actions take effect in Germany. Citizenship doesn't matter at all. Typical situations would be shooting a gun across the border, sending mail bombs, hacking into servers in Germany etc. It doesn't matter where _you_ are, it matters where the crime has an effect.
And if Assange shot any US secret service people while in Germany, that would be murder unless he could prove self defence, so what you suggest is criminally stupid.
So in this particular case it depends if Google was intentionally exploiting the bug, or if Google's code was doing what it always did but because Apple fucked up it resulted in unintentional behaviour. It depends if Google implemented code specifically to exploit this bug.
Google had three different implementations; one specifically for Safari to exploit the bug that when a form was submitted, even though it was invisible, Safari believed the form was submitted by the user and used different rules for cookies based on that false belief. One specifically for Internet Explorer, where they figured out that passing certain malformed information to Internet Explorer made it allow cookies when it shouldn't. And one "normal" one.
hundreds of millions of dollars and apple wanted originally not to pay anything or cross license but they had nothing to cross license. jobs had the jobs opinion that they did have something to license and fight with..("oh have we patented it")..
You are completely wrong. Nokia asked for tons of money and license for Apple patents. (See: Apple _had_ patents that Nokia wanted to license, so when you say "they had nothing to cross license", that's nonsense). Apple never refused to pay for licenses, they refused to pay as much as Nokia wanted, and the refused to cross license. As is usual in these cases, Nokia refused to accept a lower payment (because taking money can be seen as accepting the payment rate and can cost you dearly in court).
The agreement then meant payments of several hundred millions, which was exactly what a fair payment should have been, considering that Apple had to pay back license fees for some years and the iPhone was a runaway success, so a small fee times a huge number of iPhones suddenly became a huge number.
To the GPL or Free Software Foundation folks, they want to write software that is free as in free speech. You can copy it, and distribute it, but you can't restrict other people's rights to copy it and distribute it. Just like I can't hand out a copy of the US Constitution or a speech by Abraham Lincoln and forbid other people from sharing it or publishing a copy. Free as in Freedom of the software
Yes, there is always the "free as in free speech" high horse, but the fact is that (a) you can't legally use GPL licensed code in a BSD project, and (b) when licensed code is moved to a BSD project and modified, you can't legally move the changes back to the BSD project.
So these people's view of "free" is something that I can only call perverted.
Nokia, MS and Apple entered a court case unholy-union a few years back already(after Apple got spanked in the courts by Nokia) - they even moved a large portion of their offensive patents to a holding company....
When exactly did Apple get "spanked" by Nokia in the courts? Aren't we trying to re-write history here? As far as I remember, Nokia asked for insane patent fees, Apple offered to pay much more sane amounts, they finally settled in court, and Nokia published patent revenue that was quite in line with what you would have reasonably expected Apple would pay.
The whole article really reads quite fanboyish / alternatively GCC has hired a marketing department. But it looks really lame when you talk about exiting new features, and you just copied what Clang had before.
A hotel basement location might make them think guests are playing... It also provides a simple way to monetize the service, you "rent a room" and get a connectionâ¦
How sick would a person have to be to rent a hotel room so they can gamble online? How addicted? If you want to get rid of your money, go to the movies, or to some concert, or have a nice dinner, but throwing it away gambling, that's just stupid.
Indeed. The feds may be stupid, but even they can learn from experience, and most of them can read. So if this becomes a standard, they will at some time manage to understand the concept (possibly with outside help) and implement countermeasures. Look at Lavabit: The owner decided to use his whole company as a canary and while it worked, he had to stand up to severe legal threats that may only fail because no respective secret law was in place. It will be by now and triggering your canary could award you life in prison.
The guy had one big problem: He had customers' data in his hand and was capable of decoding it. Never mind that doing so broke any promise that he had made to his customers, or possibly was a breach of contract, but he had the data.
There was the story that Apple's _could_ read messages sent through iMessage. Fact was that if Apple spent time and money to change their software, then broke the laws by hacking into customers' computers, all to read messages they were not interested in, then they could read these messages. So if they get a request from the NSA, they wouldn't be able to decode messages that they have stored in encrypted form. The way they _could_ read messages fixes exactly the definition of computer hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved?
Last book about evolution (and strongly against retards like those that seem to be on the loose in Texas) remarked "they will always tell you there is no proof for evolution. But if they say that, they are either lying or clueless. Here's a few examples..."
Yes, annoying them is good, but the main thing is you need to keep them on the phone as long as possible while annoying them.
You need the "Talking Tom" app for the iPad. Start it and hold the phone's speaker to the iPad. The app listens to everything and repeats it in a high-pitched voice.
My household can easily have a gas car for long trips (seriously, why are people so hung up on range? A LOT of households have more than one car).
How often do you need that, and how much is it to rent a car?
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
Bloody html!!! I'll use FORTRAN (.le.) instead of less-equal :-(
.le. sin (x), cos (x) .le. 1? This has nothing to do with the actual precision. If you use 500 bit precision, I still wouldn't want sin (x) = 1 + 2^(-500) for any input value.
.le. x .le. y .le. pi / 2, is it guaranteed that sin (x) .le. sin (y)? The implementation has to be just slightly clever to guarantee this.
It's not just about the precision, it is about getting reasonable results.
For example, if a*b >= c*d, is it guaranteed that sort (a*b - c*d) won't fail because of a negative argument? (It's not if the difference is calculated in higher than double precision). Is it guaranteed that -1
A simple situation: If -pi/2
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
It's not just about the precision, it is about getting reasonable results.
For example, if a*b >= c*d, is it guaranteed that sort (a*b - c*d) won't fail because of a negative argument? (It's not if the difference is calculated in higher than double precision). Is it guaranteed that -1
A simple situation: If -pi/2 = x = y = pi / 2, is it guaranteed that sin (x) = sin (y)? The implementation has to be just slightly clever to guarantee this.
So if you do some math on a float or a double, the results can vary depending on if it was done as 80-bit or if the intermediaries were spilled and truncated back to 64/32 bit.
Google for FP_CONTRACT. Quote from the C Standard:
A floating expression may be contracted, that is, evaluated as though it were a single operation, thereby omitting rounding errors implied by the source code and the expression evaluation method. The FP_CONTRACT pragma in provides a way to disallow contracted expressions. Otherwise, whether and how expressions are contracted is implementation-defined.
The problem of inconsistent floating point calculations between machines has been solved since 1985. I'm sure moving your app into the cloud doesn't suddenly undo 28 years of computing history.
Except it hasn't. On a PowerPC or Haswell processor, a simple calculation like a*b + c*d can legally give three different results because of the use of fused multiply-add. In the 90's to early 2000's, you would get different results because of inconsistent use of extended precision.
Floating-point arithmetic will produce rounded results. The rounded result of a single operation will depend on the exact hardware, compiler etc. that is used. x86 compilers many years ago sometimes used extended precision instead of double precision, giving slightly different results (usually more precises). PowerPC processors and nowadays Haswell processors have fused multiply-add, which can give slightly different results (usually more precise). So the same code with the same inputs could give slightly different results.
The IEEE floating-point standard requires double precision with a 53 bit mantissa. They might have required a 54 or 52 bit mantissa, which would give slightly different rounding errors.
Now my point: If your code performing all these operations produces almost the same results on different implementations, then it is quite likely that your code is right. If you get vastly different results, then your code is likely wrong or the problem is very hard.
Some developers think that getting identical answers means that the answers are good. That's not true at all. If you have small differences due to slightly different rounding then there is a good chance that your results are good. Identical results guarentee nothing.
The NSA scared them (groklaw) out of business.
Mostly as a reaction to the Lavabit case. Which had some justification as a protest against what the NSA is up to, but not justified if you are afraid of email surveillance.
Lavabit made the mistake of storing emails in an encrypted form which Lavabit was capable of decrypting. That made legal demands to access the decrypted data possible. To be legally safe, as a service provider you must provide end-to-end decryption where it is impossible for you to read the messages. And the NSA can't break S/MIME with decent encryption.
Originally Samsung was ordered to pay about a billion dollars. Then it turned out that the jury had made mistakes in the calculation of damages. Therefore about $400 million of that billion had to be tried again, while $600 million of the judgment was deemed correct. So in reality Samsung is now ordered to pay $600 plus $290 million.
In an age where you can patent a rectangle, is it really about innovation anymore?
Fucking idiot being modded up as insightful.
You are an imbecile who doesn't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent. Apple has design patents on the design of iPhone and iPad. Design patents are not about innovation. Design patents are about the design, very similar to copyright. So complaining that "rectangles are not innovative" in the context of a design patent is stupid.
Next, you seem to think that Apple got a design patent on rectangles. No, they haven't. They have design patents on designs that involve a complete design, of which _rounded_ rectangular shape is just one component. Everyone is free to make phones or tablets with rounded corners. Everyone is free to copy any single aspect of Apple's design patents. As long as they are different from Apple's design patent in _one_ aspect. They mustn't copy _all_ parts of the design patent at the same time.
Next, you seem to think that Apple is the only one with design patents involving rectangles with rounded corners. I'll tell you another company: Samsung. Samsung has design patents for the Galaxy S3, and guess what: It has rounded corners.
That throws them off-script. I say, "If you're telling me my computer has viruses, you must know the IP address of the infected computer."
They'll say "Of course, it is 192.168.1.254".
No, the maximum distance grows without bounds. What this proves is that you can always find two more primes that are less than 600 apart, so the minimum distance does not grow without bounds. It has absolutely nothing to do with the distance between one pair of primes and another pair.
A simple proof: If you take a large number n, then n! + 2 is divisible by 2, n! + 3 is divisible by 3, and so on until n! + n which is divisible by n. n! + 1 and n! + n + 1 might be primes, but none of the numbers in between. So we have a gap between prime numbers of at least n.
Their goal is to demonstrate that the same is true for 2 instead of 600.
The _real_ hypothesis is this: Given _any_ pattern, like (p, p+2, p+6, p+8) where it isn't obvious that only a finite number of solutions exist, there will be an infinite number of primes following that pattern.
A case where there is obviously a finite number of solutions is (p, p+4, p+8) because one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3. Or any pattern involving an odd number like (p, p + 1027); either p or p + 1027 must be even so except for p = 2 they can't be both primes.
If N is between 2 and 10^260, then the number of primes less than N is more than N / 600. So in that range the _average_ gap between consecutive primes is less than 600. For N = 10^20 it is actually quite rare that the gap between two consecutive primes is over 600.
So in summary, if a pair of primes is defined by one following the other, it was theorized that we would find an infinite number of such pairs separated by 2. Various people have proven that gap to be from 70m, 60m, 4680, and now 600. Thank you James Maynard.
Here's what it real means: There were conjectures, one of them famous, which stated:
...
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+2) of consecutive primes.
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+4) of consecutive primes.
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+6) of consecutive primes.
There are infinitely many pairs (p, p+600) of consecutive primes.
It is now proven that at least one of these conjectures is true.
False. Long standing precedent says that Assange is in the clear, provided that he didn't actively encourage Manning to break the law. Assange had no duty to maintain the confidentiality of classified information, he's essentially in the same legal position as the New York Times when it publishes classified information revealed to it by sources. This is the legal precedent going back at least as far as the Pentagon Papers, and to the best of my knowledge we've never seen a reporter charged (much less convicted) for the publication of classified material.
On the other hand, that's not something that _I_ would like to rely on. Being right is little comfort when you are in jail.
They can't actually arrest him since he is an Australian citizen who leaked information from outside of the USA. He is not subject to the laws of the USA. If the US sends people after him outside of the USA, Assange should kill them because once they step foot outside of their borders, they have no authority any more.
I don't know US law enough. In German law, you are subject to German laws if your actions take effect in Germany. Citizenship doesn't matter at all. Typical situations would be shooting a gun across the border, sending mail bombs, hacking into servers in Germany etc. It doesn't matter where _you_ are, it matters where the crime has an effect.
And if Assange shot any US secret service people while in Germany, that would be murder unless he could prove self defence, so what you suggest is criminally stupid.
So in this particular case it depends if Google was intentionally exploiting the bug, or if Google's code was doing what it always did but because Apple fucked up it resulted in unintentional behaviour. It depends if Google implemented code specifically to exploit this bug.
Google had three different implementations; one specifically for Safari to exploit the bug that when a form was submitted, even though it was invisible, Safari believed the form was submitted by the user and used different rules for cookies based on that false belief. One specifically for Internet Explorer, where they figured out that passing certain malformed information to Internet Explorer made it allow cookies when it shouldn't. And one "normal" one.
hundreds of millions of dollars and apple wanted originally not to pay anything or cross license but they had nothing to cross license. jobs had the jobs opinion that they did have something to license and fight with..("oh have we patented it")..
You are completely wrong. Nokia asked for tons of money and license for Apple patents. (See: Apple _had_ patents that Nokia wanted to license, so when you say "they had nothing to cross license", that's nonsense). Apple never refused to pay for licenses, they refused to pay as much as Nokia wanted, and the refused to cross license. As is usual in these cases, Nokia refused to accept a lower payment (because taking money can be seen as accepting the payment rate and can cost you dearly in court).
The agreement then meant payments of several hundred millions, which was exactly what a fair payment should have been, considering that Apple had to pay back license fees for some years and the iPhone was a runaway success, so a small fee times a huge number of iPhones suddenly became a huge number.
To the GPL or Free Software Foundation folks, they want to write software that is free as in free speech. You can copy it, and distribute it, but you can't restrict other people's rights to copy it and distribute it. Just like I can't hand out a copy of the US Constitution or a speech by Abraham Lincoln and forbid other people from sharing it or publishing a copy. Free as in Freedom of the software
Yes, there is always the "free as in free speech" high horse, but the fact is that (a) you can't legally use GPL licensed code in a BSD project, and (b) when licensed code is moved to a BSD project and modified, you can't legally move the changes back to the BSD project.
So these people's view of "free" is something that I can only call perverted.
Nokia, MS and Apple entered a court case unholy-union a few years back already(after Apple got spanked in the courts by Nokia) - they even moved a large portion of their offensive patents to a holding company....
When exactly did Apple get "spanked" by Nokia in the courts? Aren't we trying to re-write history here? As far as I remember, Nokia asked for insane patent fees, Apple offered to pay much more sane amounts, they finally settled in court, and Nokia published patent revenue that was quite in line with what you would have reasonably expected Apple would pay.
The whole article really reads quite fanboyish / alternatively GCC has hired a marketing department. But it looks really lame when you talk about exiting new features, and you just copied what Clang had before.
A hotel basement location might make them think guests are playing... It also provides a simple way to monetize the service, you "rent a room" and get a connectionâ¦
How sick would a person have to be to rent a hotel room so they can gamble online? How addicted? If you want to get rid of your money, go to the movies, or to some concert, or have a nice dinner, but throwing it away gambling, that's just stupid.
Indeed. The feds may be stupid, but even they can learn from experience, and most of them can read. So if this becomes a standard, they will at some time manage to understand the concept (possibly with outside help) and implement countermeasures. Look at Lavabit: The owner decided to use his whole company as a canary and while it worked, he had to stand up to severe legal threats that may only fail because no respective secret law was in place. It will be by now and triggering your canary could award you life in prison.
The guy had one big problem: He had customers' data in his hand and was capable of decoding it. Never mind that doing so broke any promise that he had made to his customers, or possibly was a breach of contract, but he had the data.
There was the story that Apple's _could_ read messages sent through iMessage. Fact was that if Apple spent time and money to change their software, then broke the laws by hacking into customers' computers, all to read messages they were not interested in, then they could read these messages. So if they get a request from the NSA, they wouldn't be able to decode messages that they have stored in encrypted form. The way they _could_ read messages fixes exactly the definition of computer hacking.