Murder would still be illegal if there were no law against it? How so?
And if legality depends on the law (which, I highly suspect, it does), doesn't that mean that "fighting crime" is a blanket statement meaning enforcing any and all laws and regulations? Even those you disagree with, or feel are overstepping?
I'm not saying you are wrong to think that the government is too big, or too overreaching, but I am saying that what you've brought to this discussion is inconsistent and not really helping your point.
It really doesn't. It's already going to be difficult enough for them to build one nuke. If they somehow manage to fire that one nuke at any ally, Iran will glow with the heat of a thousand suns before breakfast.
Since we must have leaders [citation needed], I prefer that we spread their power around so nobody, nor any associated group of leaders, can have full power.
This is why I would like the US to engage in regular state-led Article V conventions. It isn't guaranteed to change much, I'm not even sure I want much to change, but does remove ultimate sovereignty away from Washington if it ever truly gets out of hand.
For this exact thing, I agree with you. But it's hinting at something I definitely want to see: a computer in my pocket that can connect and conform to any screen/input available.
While I'm out and about, I attach it to a tablet-sized dumb touchscreen (that costs much less than tablets do today) and jot down some notes. Then when I get home, I attach it to a 24" monitor (or two) with mouse and keyboard. I start where I left off, and everything is the same except the UI has adapted. Once I'm done with my work, I warm up some food and sit down in the living room to review the work on the TV using the appropriate remote interface (or gestures a la Kinect).
Now, that's cool but that computer stick is probably not very powerful. Let's take it further... when I get home, not only do I attach a large screen with mouse and keyboard input, but I also have addon CPU and GPU cores, memory, and so on to enhance the capabilities from a simple stick to a powerful PC.
Sure, most of what I want is either possible today or will be soon via cloud synchronization. But I think there's still something to be said about having this capability independent of the Internet and a large corporate entity controlling my experience.
I wonder how much headache this will create among web developers. Will Spartan implement things in a new unheard of way or will it actually try to achieve maximum compatibility?
According to WinBeta, interoperability with other browsers is the goal of Spartan. Compatibility (for legacy/enterprise sites) is the goal of IE. IE's Trident engine will not be updated except for security fixes, and Spartan's Edge engine will move forward with modern standard, new features, and improved performance.
Every time someone goes for a piss break, someone else needs to be called in?
When you are actively responsible for the lives of 150 people, then yes, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, this should happen.
Its ridiculous to feel we need new regulations every time something happens...the next tragedy will always happen. It is inevitable.
Good regulations can help people and in this case may have saved lives. What I find abhorrent is your attitude that over a hundred human lives aren't worth a very slight inconvenience.
I assumed each entire string could be read or written in one operation, that's why I used O(n). But that certainly may have been a faulty assumption, considering memory/disk paging and such things that I rarely deal with at my day job.
Specifically, the time measured to write to memory uses the following code:
for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
concatString += addString;
}
The time measured to write to disk uses the following code:
for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
writer.write(addString);
}
writer.flush();
writer.close();
In Java, strings are immutable. Each string concatenation produces a new string on the heap, and the old string is unchanged. So there are numIter strings created in memory, and I assume garbage collection will probably happen at some point once enough memory is used. O(n) reads and O(n) writes to the heap with O(n^2) memory usage plus an unknown number of garbage collections. This can cause considerable slowing of the in-memory algorithm.
That algorithm is then compared with one that does numIter writes to a buffer, which is then flushed to disk at the end. O(n) writes to memory buffer (no need to re-read memory) using O(n) memory space, followed by O(1) writes to disk and O(n) disk space used.
Granted, it's been over a decade since I took algorithms so I wouldn't doubt that someone can show how I am off, but this kind of thing should be simple to spot for anyone who has an undergrad CS degree.
PS - I love how the paper makes this aside as if it doesn't matter tremendously:
Java performance numbers did not change when the concatenation order was reversed in the code in Appendix 1. However, using a mutable data type such as StringBuilder or StringBuffer dramatically improved the results.
If desktops and laptops had such a vast array of apps created by modern-day slave labor, I doubt people would use the inferior, small screen phones or tablets.
Um, what? Are you seriously suggesting that this entire mobile revolution/craze is all about 99-cent and freemium apps made by independent developers?
My experience is different; I only have a couple of apps that aren't made by huge companies. But mainly I use a phone because it is convenient. I have plenty of desktop and laptop screens at my house, but I don't have those in my pocket.
Granted... from a "real security" standpoint, this is probably amongst the most difficult situations to exploit effectively. Heat transfer isn't exactly broadband. I imagine you'd be doing well to get 1 bpm (bit per minute) communications. The exploit code would probably need to include a sophisticated AI just to figure out what is important enough to transmit.
I never stated that no other security breach already existed, but that a new one is being added.
Consider this scenario: government systems, one computer is internet facing, the other computer is completely isolated. Joe Badguy installs each computer before they are put into real use, and adds the exploit to each. The government beefs up physical security, then enables the internal system confident that data added to it cannot leave. But sometime later, Joe Badguy connects to the internet facing computer, then extracts new data from the isolated computer via the exploit.
Maybe now you understand the difference between real security, which can exist in layers and multiple forms simultaneously, and simplistic considerations like BOs.
mov eax, $phantomfive_understands cmp eax, 0x1 jne read
This technique re-establishes communication which provides a mechanism for a malicious user to regain control. It could be used to load new malicious software, download sensitive data, and establish a proxy into other disconnected internal systems.
So I fail to care about which term is used, it is a security breach and one of the worst kind... the kind where you think you're completely safe, but you still aren't.
Parties changed during a time when the nation was young and the parties were relatively weak and had less of an identity. Regardless, it was mostly a two party system the entire time, it's just that the two major parties realigned somewhat.
If the Republican Party were to die out, being replaced by the Tea Party, would you really say that America is not a two-party system? Because that's pretty much the same thing as your claim.
You are missing frank_adrian314159's point. Our voting system, first-past-the-post, inevitably causes the two party system we have, and there's no practical way to fix it without changing the voting system.
CGP Grey has a wonderful set of short videos explaining why first-past-the-post is bad and what alternatives exist.
Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass.
Does it not bother you that the bill was so unpopular as to necessitate such a strategy?
The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing.
Because, perhaps, those bills are unpopular? Because they only succeed in fixing a little while making other things worse for most people?
But now, we can't bring any improvements to the table. Democrats have their victory and will push back against any changes to their wonderful law. Republicans will not vote for a bill that is anything short of completely repealing the ACA.
Congratulations Obama, you have managed to ruin the hopes of real healthcare improvement for a long time.
Except it is not that way. Apple Pay uses the same CC number for every transaction, it's just a different number from your physical CC number.
Apple Pay supposedly responds to authorizations by supplying a one-time token for merchants to store in their systems. That is a positive step and should prevent accounts from being compromised if hackers get access to the merchant's database. But, if the card machines are compromised (such as the Target hack) then the Apple Pay CC number can be read prior to authorization.
Slashdot Mirror
okey doke
okey doax
Murder would still be illegal if there were no law against it? How so?
And if legality depends on the law (which, I highly suspect, it does), doesn't that mean that "fighting crime" is a blanket statement meaning enforcing any and all laws and regulations? Even those you disagree with, or feel are overstepping?
I'm not saying you are wrong to think that the government is too big, or too overreaching, but I am saying that what you've brought to this discussion is inconsistent and not really helping your point.
hokes
hoax
And MAD still applies....
It really doesn't. It's already going to be difficult enough for them to build one nuke. If they somehow manage to fire that one nuke at any ally, Iran will glow with the heat of a thousand suns before breakfast.
Yep, I'd say that Java isn't holding up C# at all.
Since we must have leaders [citation needed], I prefer that we spread their power around so nobody, nor any associated group of leaders, can have full power.
This is why I would like the US to engage in regular state-led Article V conventions. It isn't guaranteed to change much, I'm not even sure I want much to change, but does remove ultimate sovereignty away from Washington if it ever truly gets out of hand.
I guess you're just going to brush aside the whole Alderaan thing, right?
For this exact thing, I agree with you. But it's hinting at something I definitely want to see: a computer in my pocket that can connect and conform to any screen/input available.
While I'm out and about, I attach it to a tablet-sized dumb touchscreen (that costs much less than tablets do today) and jot down some notes. Then when I get home, I attach it to a 24" monitor (or two) with mouse and keyboard. I start where I left off, and everything is the same except the UI has adapted. Once I'm done with my work, I warm up some food and sit down in the living room to review the work on the TV using the appropriate remote interface (or gestures a la Kinect).
Now, that's cool but that computer stick is probably not very powerful. Let's take it further... when I get home, not only do I attach a large screen with mouse and keyboard input, but I also have addon CPU and GPU cores, memory, and so on to enhance the capabilities from a simple stick to a powerful PC.
Sure, most of what I want is either possible today or will be soon via cloud synchronization. But I think there's still something to be said about having this capability independent of the Internet and a large corporate entity controlling my experience.
You are so right. There is absolutely no way to plan around this. We must shut down the whole thing now and forevermore.
I wonder how much headache this will create among web developers. Will Spartan implement things in a new unheard of way or will it actually try to achieve maximum compatibility?
According to WinBeta, interoperability with other browsers is the goal of Spartan. Compatibility (for legacy/enterprise sites) is the goal of IE. IE's Trident engine will not be updated except for security fixes, and Spartan's Edge engine will move forward with modern standard, new features, and improved performance.
Non-compete agreements should work both ways. If I can't work for a competitor, then you can't replace me with another employee.
Every time someone goes for a piss break, someone else needs to be called in?
When you are actively responsible for the lives of 150 people, then yes, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, this should happen.
Its ridiculous to feel we need new regulations every time something happens...the next tragedy will always happen. It is inevitable.
Good regulations can help people and in this case may have saved lives. What I find abhorrent is your attitude that over a hundred human lives aren't worth a very slight inconvenience.
This brings to mind a more literal meaning of "going around the world to scratch your ass".
I assumed each entire string could be read or written in one operation, that's why I used O(n). But that certainly may have been a faulty assumption, considering memory/disk paging and such things that I rarely deal with at my day job.
Specifically, the time measured to write to memory uses the following code:
for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
concatString += addString;
}
The time measured to write to disk uses the following code:
for (int i=0; i < numIter; i++) {
writer.write(addString);
}
writer.flush();
writer.close();
In Java, strings are immutable. Each string concatenation produces a new string on the heap, and the old string is unchanged. So there are numIter strings created in memory, and I assume garbage collection will probably happen at some point once enough memory is used. O(n) reads and O(n) writes to the heap with O(n^2) memory usage plus an unknown number of garbage collections. This can cause considerable slowing of the in-memory algorithm.
That algorithm is then compared with one that does numIter writes to a buffer, which is then flushed to disk at the end. O(n) writes to memory buffer (no need to re-read memory) using O(n) memory space, followed by O(1) writes to disk and O(n) disk space used.
Granted, it's been over a decade since I took algorithms so I wouldn't doubt that someone can show how I am off, but this kind of thing should be simple to spot for anyone who has an undergrad CS degree.
PS - I love how the paper makes this aside as if it doesn't matter tremendously:
Java performance numbers did not change when the concatenation order was reversed in the code in Appendix 1. However, using a mutable data type such as StringBuilder or StringBuffer dramatically improved the results.
If desktops and laptops had such a vast array of apps created by modern-day slave labor, I doubt people would use the inferior, small screen phones or tablets.
Um, what? Are you seriously suggesting that this entire mobile revolution/craze is all about 99-cent and freemium apps made by independent developers?
My experience is different; I only have a couple of apps that aren't made by huge companies. But mainly I use a phone because it is convenient. I have plenty of desktop and laptop screens at my house, but I don't have those in my pocket.
Granted... from a "real security" standpoint, this is probably amongst the most difficult situations to exploit effectively. Heat transfer isn't exactly broadband. I imagine you'd be doing well to get 1 bpm (bit per minute) communications. The exploit code would probably need to include a sophisticated AI just to figure out what is important enough to transmit.
Wow, please pay attention.
read:
I never stated that no other security breach already existed, but that a new one is being added.
Consider this scenario: government systems, one computer is internet facing, the other computer is completely isolated. Joe Badguy installs each computer before they are put into real use, and adds the exploit to each. The government beefs up physical security, then enables the internal system confident that data added to it cannot leave. But sometime later, Joe Badguy connects to the internet facing computer, then extracts new data from the isolated computer via the exploit.
Maybe now you understand the difference between real security, which can exist in layers and multiple forms simultaneously, and simplistic considerations like BOs.
mov eax, $phantomfive_understands
cmp eax, 0x1
jne read
This technique re-establishes communication which provides a mechanism for a malicious user to regain control. It could be used to load new malicious software, download sensitive data, and establish a proxy into other disconnected internal systems.
So I fail to care about which term is used, it is a security breach and one of the worst kind... the kind where you think you're completely safe, but you still aren't.
Parties changed during a time when the nation was young and the parties were relatively weak and had less of an identity. Regardless, it was mostly a two party system the entire time, it's just that the two major parties realigned somewhat.
If the Republican Party were to die out, being replaced by the Tea Party, would you really say that America is not a two-party system? Because that's pretty much the same thing as your claim.
You are missing frank_adrian314159's point. Our voting system, first-past-the-post, inevitably causes the two party system we have, and there's no practical way to fix it without changing the voting system.
CGP Grey has a wonderful set of short videos explaining why first-past-the-post is bad and what alternatives exist.
Exactly! I mean, just imagine what might happen if say Google decided to make an OS that was pretty much just a web browser. Like that would sell!
Due to the so-called "blue dogs", it barely had enough votes to pass.
Does it not bother you that the bill was so unpopular as to necessitate such a strategy?
The long history of failed health-care bills shows that passing such is a very difficult task such that you have to leap on the opportunity when it presents itself or risk getting nothing.
Because, perhaps, those bills are unpopular? Because they only succeed in fixing a little while making other things worse for most people?
But now, we can't bring any improvements to the table. Democrats have their victory and will push back against any changes to their wonderful law. Republicans will not vote for a bill that is anything short of completely repealing the ACA.
Congratulations Obama, you have managed to ruin the hopes of real healthcare improvement for a long time.
Except it is not that way. Apple Pay uses the same CC number for every transaction, it's just a different number from your physical CC number.
Apple Pay supposedly responds to authorizations by supplying a one-time token for merchants to store in their systems. That is a positive step and should prevent accounts from being compromised if hackers get access to the merchant's database. But, if the card machines are compromised (such as the Target hack) then the Apple Pay CC number can be read prior to authorization.
frank_adrian314159:
until the time that third parties can actually win with the amount of time and effort you can put into them
tmosley, quoting:
until everyone else is already voting third party
Those aren't the same thing. Please go back and read.