I've bought precisely ONE lottery ticket my whole life (knowing statistically that my likelihood of winning is the maximum at that point*).
How do you figure? Each ticket has the same chance of winning, the more you buy the more likely you are to win. But the odds are such that the expected return over the long run is less than what you would pay in.
I find it pretty funny that people who never gamble are completely clueless when it comes to statistics and probabilities, while those who waste loads of money gambling know exactly what they're doing.
Patents prevent others from doing the thing outlined in the patent, no more and no less. So, companies other than Google are now prohibited from charging money for balloon wifi during concerts, while Google may or may not charge money for the same? Oh, the horror!
There are heaps of news stories daily that are just first hand accounts. Only when the person telling the story is non-white do we see demands for evidence.
The problem is this: the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, which Bitcoin transactions rely on for security, has three inputs: the transaction, the signerâ(TM)s private key and a random number. The algorithm then outputs two values, denoted r and s, where s is calculated with the formula k-1(z+rd), z being the hash of the message, k the random number and d the private key. r is dependent only on k. Thus, if the owner of an address signs two transactions with the same random number (and of course the same private key, as every address is linked to one private key), one can extract two s values from the two signatures, subtract them to make the rd terms cancel out, and extracting the private key from there becomes a simple division problem (a more detailed writeup can be found here). Normally, this is not a problem; given a true random number generator, the first âoecollisionâ should take place roughly at the same time as the heat death of the universe. As it turned out, however, java.security.SecureRandom proved to be not so random, generating the same âoerandomâ number twice on many occasions.
I just noticed the "found here" link goes to an article from January. That makes me both unsure they've got the right bug and annoyed it hasn't been fixed already.
I'm always amazed when passwords are locked out after just three or five attempts. Allowing a hundred would still protect against brute force, while never being a problem for an actual human being. Even better would be to start with a one second delay, doubling it every time, so a brute force attempt would take ages but a human only gets some time to think.
A law legalizing gay marriage was proposed by 76 (of 201) MPs. The Legal Affairs Committee voted 9 to 8 to not let it go to a vote in the parliament, citing lack of time and low priority due to not being signed by a majority of MPs. There's been talk of citizens' initiatives getting the same treatment; specifically (unsurprisingly) an initiative on gay marriage that got the required 50k signatures in a few hours.
The law on citizens' initiatives requires any that get over 50k signatures to go to a vote in the parliament. However, it can be delayed indefinitely if the relevant committee never decides to bring it to a vote by the full parliament. After the next election, any remaining initiatives are scrapped.
Obviously, this goes against the spirit of the law, so there's a good chance the situation will change.
This link is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?
Also, you can't just just compare "number of deaths." It matters who does the kiling and why. Lethal accidents are slightly acceptable. Lethal malice is not, because by accepting it, you create an incentive for there to be more of it.
Of course the numbers are relevant. A one in ten thousand chance a gun might fail to fire creates no incentive to attack the user. According to Wikipedia, "Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually", "In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.", so a gun fired in self defense would fail about once per eight months. I dare say few of these cases would be fatal. In contrast, one child dies in gun accident every three days. How is that acceptable?
Well with regular guns, you die too in this case with a far higher probability!
>False negative = you die
Only in the case that firing the gun will save you but threatening someone with a gun (which looks to be functional even if it isn't) won't.
Possible but far from 100% of the case.
LIfe and death situations are rare. Given that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member accidentally than an intruder on purpose, a 90% effective smart gun would save more than nine lives for every one it wastes. The only reliability numbers I found with a quick search were for BIOMAC that claims a goal of 99.99%. This would save more than 10 000 lives for every one wasted.
although I haven't had to take a call yet I can imagine you will look a complete idiot.
I called a friend who was testing some 7" tablet as a phone. I couldn't understand why he kept giggling until I met him and he told me he felt stupid talking into something that size in public. It's kinda funny how people worry less about how comfortable it is to use than what others will think.
Whether a phone will fit in one hand is up to its width. The 5 inch Galaxy S4 is 69,8mm wide, the 6,3 inch Galaxy Mega is 88mm. The iPad Mini has an aspect ratio of 4:3 instead of 16:9 so it's 134mm wide although it's only 0,7 inches larger in screen diagonal.
Back around the time the Nokia E90 was launched, I predicted a good smartphone would eventually be around 20x9cm with a slide-out keyboard and a large touchscreen; mainly based on the fact that I wanted something that would fit in a normal inner jacket pocket, thought the keyboard was needed and the idea of two screens (on the E90) was stupid.
I hope we'll be moving past 16:9 aspect ratio to 2:1 or something similar in the near future. The keyboard/cover on the MS Surface seems like a better idea than what I could imagine at the time. Maybe a 2014 smartphone will finally be what I wanted back in 2007.
"The European people have seen the cowardice and the weakness of their governments, which now look like colonies of the United States," the Venezuelan president said.
I do a decent amount of gambling myself. You generally need to do some explicit calculations to evaluate whether your bankroll is large enough for a given risk. Most people just go on intuition when evaluating risk while a gambler is pretty much forced to do the math. (Also deals with simple enough systems that the math is easy) This, along with the money they had, gave the MIT team a very good background for going into business.
"...staying disciplined, playing for the long term, and not taking unnecessary risks..."
You don't need to have tried gambling to know that these things are necessary for long-term success..
If you've actually done these things instead of just knowing they're necessary, you're probably more likely to start a business than the average Joe. The point isn't necessarily that they were successful, just that they chose to go into business.
Yeah, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably not far from the truth. A web giant like Google implementing this on all their sites would probably make an MW worth of profit ($50 an hour?) and waste a GW of electricity worldwide.
Laptops also have reliability needs and there are quite modern laptop HDDs that have been used in millions of laptops for months. Also, the car industry's lack of standardization is irrelevant as the form factors of HDDs have been standardized for ages. Thirdly, (you did mention flash) SSDs have none of the problems of moving parts and cost little compared to a car.
The only problem I can think of is temperature. Don't know what temperature ranges an USB stick can handle and what's normally used for outdoors storage.
2. Except for the possibility that the transaction cost of the user directly paying the software provider is enough to make it inefficient to pay directly, but still efficient to pay for more electricity (a transaction that is already happening, so the transaction cost is sunk) and give the discounted proceeds to the software provider.
You have a point here. For really small transactions, the trouble of paying for something is more than the cost of the money. For a page view of a magazine or something, running your CPU for a few minutes could be a good deal. For stuff like in-game purchases, it could feel like a good deal, but be terribly inefficient in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like an app that shows the arrival predictions for the stop(s) nearest my current location.
That's outdated, since we don't enforce that policy. As long as the feature is opt in, it is acceptable to introduce it in an update.
I've bought precisely ONE lottery ticket my whole life (knowing statistically that my likelihood of winning is the maximum at that point*).
How do you figure? Each ticket has the same chance of winning, the more you buy the more likely you are to win. But the odds are such that the expected return over the long run is less than what you would pay in.
I find it pretty funny that people who never gamble are completely clueless when it comes to statistics and probabilities, while those who waste loads of money gambling know exactly what they're doing.
Patents prevent others from doing the thing outlined in the patent, no more and no less. So, companies other than Google are now prohibited from charging money for balloon wifi during concerts, while Google may or may not charge money for the same? Oh, the horror!
As a poker player, I never release my trump card early in the game.
We miss you guys! Please come back!
A couple hundred years quickly turns into decades if nuclear is ramped up.
welcome our new beer-serving overlords!
Another? Don't mind if I do!
There are heaps of news stories daily that are just first hand accounts. Only when the person telling the story is non-white do we see demands for evidence.
to what people are willing to give up for a good cause.
The problem is this: the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, which Bitcoin transactions rely on for security, has three inputs: the transaction, the signerâ(TM)s private key and a random number. The algorithm then outputs two values, denoted r and s, where s is calculated with the formula k-1(z+rd), z being the hash of the message, k the random number and d the private key. r is dependent only on k. Thus, if the owner of an address signs two transactions with the same random number (and of course the same private key, as every address is linked to one private key), one can extract two s values from the two signatures, subtract them to make the rd terms cancel out, and extracting the private key from there becomes a simple division problem (a more detailed writeup can be found here). Normally, this is not a problem; given a true random number generator, the first âoecollisionâ should take place roughly at the same time as the heat death of the universe. As it turned out, however, java.security.SecureRandom proved to be not so random, generating the same âoerandomâ number twice on many occasions.
I just noticed the "found here" link goes to an article from January. That makes me both unsure they've got the right bug and annoyed it hasn't been fixed already.
I'm always amazed when passwords are locked out after just three or five attempts. Allowing a hundred would still protect against brute force, while never being a problem for an actual human being. Even better would be to start with a one second delay, doubling it every time, so a brute force attempt would take ages but a human only gets some time to think.
A law legalizing gay marriage was proposed by 76 (of 201) MPs. The Legal Affairs Committee voted 9 to 8 to not let it go to a vote in the parliament, citing lack of time and low priority due to not being signed by a majority of MPs. There's been talk of citizens' initiatives getting the same treatment; specifically (unsurprisingly) an initiative on gay marriage that got the required 50k signatures in a few hours.
The law on citizens' initiatives requires any that get over 50k signatures to go to a vote in the parliament. However, it can be delayed indefinitely if the relevant committee never decides to bring it to a vote by the full parliament. After the next election, any remaining initiatives are scrapped.
Obviously, this goes against the spirit of the law, so there's a good chance the situation will change.
This link is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?
Also, you can't just just compare "number of deaths." It matters who does the kiling and why. Lethal accidents are slightly acceptable. Lethal malice is not, because by accepting it, you create an incentive for there to be more of it.
Of course the numbers are relevant. A one in ten thousand chance a gun might fail to fire creates no incentive to attack the user. According to Wikipedia, "Between 1987 and 1990, McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually", "In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims fired the gun at the offender.", so a gun fired in self defense would fail about once per eight months. I dare say few of these cases would be fatal. In contrast, one child dies in gun accident every three days. How is that acceptable?
>False positive = you die
Well with regular guns, you die too in this case with a far higher probability!
>False negative = you die
Only in the case that firing the gun will save you but threatening someone with a gun (which looks to be functional even if it isn't) won't. Possible but far from 100% of the case.
LIfe and death situations are rare. Given that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member accidentally than an intruder on purpose, a 90% effective smart gun would save more than nine lives for every one it wastes. The only reliability numbers I found with a quick search were for BIOMAC that claims a goal of 99.99%. This would save more than 10 000 lives for every one wasted.
although I haven't had to take a call yet I can imagine you will look a complete idiot.
I called a friend who was testing some 7" tablet as a phone. I couldn't understand why he kept giggling until I met him and he told me he felt stupid talking into something that size in public. It's kinda funny how people worry less about how comfortable it is to use than what others will think.
Whether a phone will fit in one hand is up to its width. The 5 inch Galaxy S4 is 69,8mm wide, the 6,3 inch Galaxy Mega is 88mm. The iPad Mini has an aspect ratio of 4:3 instead of 16:9 so it's 134mm wide although it's only 0,7 inches larger in screen diagonal.
Back around the time the Nokia E90 was launched, I predicted a good smartphone would eventually be around 20x9cm with a slide-out keyboard and a large touchscreen; mainly based on the fact that I wanted something that would fit in a normal inner jacket pocket, thought the keyboard was needed and the idea of two screens (on the E90) was stupid.
I hope we'll be moving past 16:9 aspect ratio to 2:1 or something similar in the near future. The keyboard/cover on the MS Surface seems like a better idea than what I could imagine at the time. Maybe a 2014 smartphone will finally be what I wanted back in 2007.
Maduro denounced an attempt to 'colonize' several European Countries
I hope that should read "Maduro denounced an attempt at 'colonizing' by several European Countries,"
From the Huffington Post
"The European people have seen the cowardice and the weakness of their governments, which now look like colonies of the United States," the Venezuelan president said.
I do a decent amount of gambling myself. You generally need to do some explicit calculations to evaluate whether your bankroll is large enough for a given risk. Most people just go on intuition when evaluating risk while a gambler is pretty much forced to do the math. (Also deals with simple enough systems that the math is easy) This, along with the money they had, gave the MIT team a very good background for going into business.
"...staying disciplined, playing for the long term, and not taking unnecessary risks..." You don't need to have tried gambling to know that these things are necessary for long-term success..
If you've actually done these things instead of just knowing they're necessary, you're probably more likely to start a business than the average Joe. The point isn't necessarily that they were successful, just that they chose to go into business.
Yeah, what the hell does that server do that makes it not run with a single client and those specs?
Yeah, I pulled that number out of my ass, but it's probably not far from the truth. A web giant like Google implementing this on all their sites would probably make an MW worth of profit ($50 an hour?) and waste a GW of electricity worldwide.
Laptops also have reliability needs and there are quite modern laptop HDDs that have been used in millions of laptops for months. Also, the car industry's lack of standardization is irrelevant as the form factors of HDDs have been standardized for ages. Thirdly, (you did mention flash) SSDs have none of the problems of moving parts and cost little compared to a car.
The only problem I can think of is temperature. Don't know what temperature ranges an USB stick can handle and what's normally used for outdoors storage.
Patching one hole in a boat that leaks everywhere is not going to keep it from sinking
So, we should not patch a hole in a sinking boat? That's so absurd only Congress would fall for it. WTF are you proposing we do, swim?
2. Except for the possibility that the transaction cost of the user directly paying the software provider is enough to make it inefficient to pay directly, but still efficient to pay for more electricity (a transaction that is already happening, so the transaction cost is sunk) and give the discounted proceeds to the software provider.
You have a point here. For really small transactions, the trouble of paying for something is more than the cost of the money. For a page view of a magazine or something, running your CPU for a few minutes could be a good deal. For stuff like in-game purchases, it could feel like a good deal, but be terribly inefficient in the long run.