> Hell, the EPA might even be able to do it. But this is what really frosts me about the current state of affairs. Even if industry and government should have similar goals (keeping the screw ups and cheaters out of the game), they can't seem to get together and put up some fairly simple regulatory frameworks.
As I understand, a large part of the problem is that regulatory bodies are often underfunded to the point of dysfunction. It is done intentionally, under the heading of "starving/shrinking the government", arguing that the government would be (is) inefficient anyway. The second related major issue is that nominees heading agencies are often cannot be confirmed due to (even) a single senator holding up the vote.
I really have no clue what you guys argue about above. To clarify: when I used the word "stupid" I did not evaluate the experiment from a scientific point of view. I just wanted to emphasize that I love cats...
I have a cat. I think the above is stupid even for a thought experiment.
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Assuming NP != P your first sentence is correct. And maybe this is what laymen should know about it. However for completeness...
In general a problem is presented as a string of n bits and the algorithm (Turing Machine) has to decide whether it is acceptable or not (good or bad etc.) For example, take the graph coloring problem. This involves a graph on m vertices and you have to color it using k colors such that neighboring vertices have different colors. The input to the algorithm is a description of the graph and k as a bit-string. And the bit-string is acceptable if there is a proper coloring.
If the Turing machine can decide whether the bit-string with n bits is acceptable in less than p(n) steps where n is a polynomial, then the problem is in P.
NP does *not* stand for Not P.
NP means that there is a witness to the acceptability of a bit-string that can be verified in p(n) steps. For example, the witness for the graph coloring is an actual assignment of the colors to the vertices. It is quite straightforward to verify that the coloring is proper (no neighboring vertices have the same color, it takes less than n^2 color comparisons. NP stands for Nondeterministic Polynomial, I am not a fan of the name.
NP-Hard means that the problem is such that any NP problem can be reduced to it (with a polynomial correspondance). Therefore, if you had a polynomial algorithm for it than you had one for *all* NP problems. This would imply P=NP and is doubtful to be true. In other words a proof of NP-hardness means: Yes, it is harder than P, at least most scientists think so.
I have no idea yet how the Pac-Man problem is represented as a bit-string. I will find out tomorrow on a lecture...
It is worth mentioning the class co-NP. This is a the class of problems for which there is a witness that the input is *not* acceptable. Think what witness could easily verify that a graph is not k colorable... For example existence of a full k+1 subgraph would suffice but other constructions also prohibit k coloring which have no full k subgraph in them. I do not recall from the top of my head whether k coloring is co-NP or not. But I think it is not, here is why:
There is a conjecture that may have more chance than P = NP. And that is: P = NP intersect co-NP. That is if both acceptability and non-acceptibility can be polynomially verified then there would be a guaranteed polynomial algorithm. So far this appears to be the case. The last famous problem that is NP and co-NP at the same time and was found to be in P was prime testing.
And of course there are many, many other complexity classes...
It seems Trycrypt can host a volume in a file, in which case the user only needs an explanation for the existence of a file with apparently random data. A hidden volume is also supported. Note however that operating systems do make copies (swap, hibernation etc.) of data and so data leakage has to be considered.
Of course this is all interesting from a technical and legal point. One hopes that those committing mortgage fraud will not be smart enough to hide their data from the law.
I agree in theory. The relevant earlier court decision mentioned in the article:
"A year earlier, a Vermont federal judge concluded that Sebastien Boucher, who a border guard claims had child porn on his Alienware laptop, did not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted. Boucher eventually complied and was convicted.
Prosecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself, and today's order appears to permit Fricosu to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding "the password to the drive, either orally or in written form."
In practice however, it would be a challenge to keep grandma's recipe collection up-to-date with modification and access times recent so that it would *look* like that the drive is used every day.
The solution is obvious, still I am not aware Truecrypt implementing it yet: the hidden and "public" volumes should largely overlap and there should be hidden files (directory) instead. Whether this is implemented by the public data written twice (to both volumes) or by a more sophisticated method is somewhat irrelevant (but can be a matter of efficiency). Now, in that case the user could claim with real "plausible" deniability the lack of existence of *some* data.
*** More details: 1. Say original drive is 300GB, and dedicate 50GB to secret data. 2. Regular password login shows a filesystem without the secret data showing (a missing directory or individual files). Still care must be taken that presence of the secret files cannot be inferred, for example through symlinks. 3. Secret volume password shows all data. 4. Additional feature: the 50GB secret data is still tied to the existence of some otherwise harmless looking file in the regular volume. Removing that file will destroy the secret data without the need to log in with the secret volume password. 5. An efficient solution may need dedicated filesystem support. An additional feature that comes to mind could be the
If they made signs, commercials, or hold rallys in support of SOPA, I bet 99% of posters here would have no problem at all.
On the other hand, *if* they spent the money to buy politicians and congressional votes, now that is repulsive. "More money should not *buy* more democracy."
You see, it is not a question of limits on spending by corporations. I always thought that is not the important issue at all. The question is what the money is spent on (speech or bribe?) and disclosure.
You see if you picket in front of the police headquarters with signs saying the speed limits are too low, that on its own will not get you in trouble. On the other hand, if you offer money to a police officer to not give you a speeding ticket, that will. So if we decided to treat corporations as people, then these corporations should be punished if they attempt bribes; the equivalent of prison for them is prison for the execs and confiscation of ill gotten gains (say those due to political influence) or suspension of business activities for a time period...
If I buy an advertisement in a paper to spread my message, it could be traced back to me. I expect that corporations, political action committees etc. should act with the same transparency.
Simply put: corporations should not get the benefits of "personhood" without any of the responsibilities/consequences.
I do not want to sound jealous. But I probably am. She must be very smart and clearly stand out from her peers. However...
I have seen the projects at our university for the Siemens competition and I got a feeling of... but enough of that. Instead, I would really love to hear comments by the authors of the following paper submitted in 2007:
Multi-Functional Nanoparticles and Their Role in Cancer Drug Delivery – A Review Priya Pathak and V. K. Katiyar
Note the operative word "review" in the title, indicating substantial earlier work. It would be great to understand how this new contribution fits into the picture.
I am fortunate that in my field I did not have to add "extra" citations. But, I have heard about the practice and it is a serious problem along with the fact that many papers simply use references from other papers without checking them first. I still think that citations are better (if rigid measure is needed). And obviously any attempt of a measure that does not account for differences between the fields will have to be flawed.
I also understand the pressure from funding agencies. However, tenure and promotion decisions are made within academia. I guess, too many key players cave in to the outside pressures, and hail the money bringers. While I do not expect academia to solve all the problems, I do expect academia to internally address this issue and at least talk about it. For example, regarding abuse of citations: a separate review of the references could help (and for such a review you do not need the same level expertise as for the content); maybe an anonymous tipline regarding citation farming could also be implemented. (One could set it up even in the presence of double blind reviews so that a statistics of complaints against a reviewer can be gathered without identifying the papers reviewed. Too many complaints in a given period and the reviewer is simply dropped, but no other consequence.) Etc.
I understand what you are saying. But consider: where does the publish or perish demand come from?
It seems it is perpetuated by academia itself to a great extent. A lot of them got pretty got at the game and it is easier than writing really good papers. People in academia should promote and use "be cited or perish" instead (if a rigid measure is needed).
And I believe that they should not have the "right" to publish without others trying as well. Yes, having a topic and milking it for the rest of your life sounds a wet dream, but it is not in the interest of the society, so why would that approach be encouraged/protected?
So publish your paper and disclose the data. Others after you will reference your work, in fact even those who *just* use the data and otherwise have not much common with your ideas will still have to cite your paper. Sounds great to me. Also remove the quantity thinking in publishing. One paper in 5 years that will be referenced for 50 years coming is way better that 10 papers in 5 years that are reshuffling of the same and instantly forgotten.
I would replace the publish or perish with: be cited or perish.
In fact, too many publications can be taken as warning signs that: 1. There is little new material, but a lot of reuse of text. 2. The paper is not carefully written and so it is not understood by the field and so the same gets republished over and over. 3. Corners were cut regarding the experiments or methods, or reviewing related work etc. to save time.
Of course there are exceptions and just because someone publishes a lot they do not necessarily guilty of the above.
The only fully verifiable fact is that the Guardian is attempting to deceive. That is the number one lesson I took away from the whole story.
On a side note. Someone mentioned that journalists may not understand passwords, GPG, bittorent etc. Well, today's journalists need to understand these concepts to perform their jobs. They also need to have at least an above average understanding of smartphones, the related privacy issues, firewalls, proxies, twitter etc.
"...on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy."
I am sure you did not mean it that way, but it sounds as if the beating happens at the precinct in an interrogation room then the officer has expectation of privacy. Quite the opposite. All police actions should be filmed to protect the rights of ALL parties involved.
Based on what I know about the current state of AI, the essays that computers can grade fairly are NOT worth writing.
Students and professors should try doing something useful... Something that pushes human intellectual boundaries and imagination, explores human emotions, discusses ethics and moral issues. These are not topics that today's artificial intelligence can handle.
This distortion angle reminds me of a similar phenomenon: "film grain". Some like that so much they actually want to mimic it in their digital recording to make it look like classic films. I personally care not much for this blur. I also wish that films would be recorded with 60fps instead of 24fps, because with the latter comes the choppiness when the camera spans. (I admit some people do not notice this at all. I am bothered by it in almost all movies. Maybe I am more sensitive to this. If you do not know what I am talking about, watch a 10fps movie.
I respond to you, because it appears you did not get it. But you were not alone.
Yes, you can sort of achieve the goal stated using existing solutions, however not exactly and not with ease. A dedicated app would still be of value.
When Gandhicam is released it will come pretty close. (My first comment was that there is no app in the stores.)
Here are a few features that would be useful for a dedicated app: 1. The camera records without the picture showing on the phone. Actually, after activation of the stealth recording app the phone behaves like it does not record at all: the lock screen is shown if applicable etc. You cannot turn off the mode without some password authentication or removal of the battery. (So ideally the off button would make the phone pretend its off but keep recording.) 2. No trace is left of the recording on the phone. No directory is set up to be shared etc. 3. Nice option would be if the forensic could reveal only a dummy prerecorded video. 4. Tag the video with the gps data. 5. Use encryption to allow authentication of the recording if wished only. (Do not reveal the id otherwise.) 5. Allow preconfiguration of maximum time to run the recording when no picture or sound is recorded. (Phone locked in drawer etc.) 6. If time limit reached, wipe the phone. etc.
Gandhicam is for android only and not yet available through the marketplace. But thanks I will give it a try! "Currently Gandhicam for Android is a beta version, meaning it is still under active development, and not yet considered ready for widespread use. However, it is installed and working on several project-members' handsets, and has yet to cause a single issue. It also does nothing which could potentially cause data-loss or corruption, so it should be perfectly safe to install and play with, regardless of its beta-development state."
qik appears to be some skype like video chat app. That is not exactly what we need. I meant something preconfigurable that backs up the video off the phone but only available to the owner if so desired.
I wonder how long before there will be iphone and android emergency apps which record a video and instantly upload (stream) it to the internet. I suggest the names: Evidence, Police Check Mate, Truthful Police, Little Brother.
If you develop this app please *do not* credit me with the idea...
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook or Google+ account (and I plan to have neither).
For me this tells that Facebook is being scared. Probably they are right. They do not trust that they would be able to maintain their customer base in the face of Google+ and other competitors if compared service. Face it: they do not offer anything that that others could not. All the power of social networking sites are in the numbers, nothing else. So they are very rational when they do all they can to minimize exposure to competitors. So I think they do everything they can to stop competitors (but stay within the law I hope).
I like your reasoning and suggest that we also elect:
- the FDA - bank and insurance regulators - police officers - members of the military - the fire department - customs officers - airport security personnel - doctors in government run hospitals (like the VA) - teachers in public schools - supreme court justices (done in some states already) - DPS employees - etc.
Or alternatively (if I follow you correctly) we should just do away with all the above in the name of eliminating bribery, inefficiency, waste and abuse of power. The above institutions were necessary only in the middle ages; modern societies consist of enlightened members who can govern themselves without institutional interference and bloat.
I am intrigued. What is this new political ideology that leads to such powerful and splendid ideas? I want to learn more!
To answer the editor's question: Yes, I am too good for code reviews. Other programmers need code reviews, because they are not good enough or outright suck.
I am also much better at self praise than the rest of you losers and I have a much higher self esteem as a result.
P.S.:I also think that there is no other worthwhile response to flame baiting (title) than humor.
According to Sweeney, Marrazzo waived a 3 percent salary increase he was scheduled to receive, agreed to a 2 percent pay cut, and gave up a performance bonus. Marrazzo's voluntary reductions saved WHYY $200,000 in the fiscal year, station spokesman Art Ellis said. In that year, Marrazzo made one donation to WHYY of at least $25,000, and another to the station's $50 million multiyear campaign of at least $50,000, Ellis said.
Actually, this guy could be a role model for many CEO-s and politicians who's 'enterprise' did not prosper...
And by the way, I watch PBS/WHYY programming and I seriously think that several of their top program makers deserve a 400k+ salary (I think that with that salary they still put in more than take out, which cannot be said for many other participants in our society: some CEO-s, lawyers, politicians etc.). Therefore a 500k+ salary at the top is also appropriate. YMMV.
Actually, I believe that it is against the law not helping the injured in an accident when it would be possible to do so. The fact that the victim (who died later) made the 911 call before the surviving one did (if ever) is suspicious. (It is possible that Beas had a concussion etc., but it has to be explained.)
Finally I predict that the following position many will agree to (I do not say I do, it is all hypothetical*) and those who text and drive should pay attention: "If someone who caused the crash sends text, updates facebook, sends twitter etc. at the same time or within 5 minutes of an accident, then that is enough reason to vote guilty."
*I would not wish to see a Slashdot post used against me in a jury selection... We are talking hypothetically here.
Slashdot Mirror
> Hell, the EPA might even be able to do it. But this is what really frosts me about the current state of affairs. Even if industry and government should have similar goals (keeping the screw ups and cheaters out of the game), they can't seem to get together and put up some fairly simple regulatory frameworks.
As I understand, a large part of the problem is that regulatory bodies are often underfunded to the point of dysfunction. It is done intentionally, under the heading of "starving/shrinking the government", arguing that the government would be (is) inefficient anyway. The second related major issue is that nominees heading agencies are often cannot be confirmed due to (even) a single senator holding up the vote.
I really have no clue what you guys argue about above. To clarify: when I used the word "stupid" I did not evaluate the experiment from a scientific point of view. I just wanted to emphasize that I love cats...
I have a cat. I think the above is stupid even for a thought experiment.
Assuming NP != P your first sentence is correct. And maybe this is what laymen should know about it. However for completeness...
In general a problem is presented as a string of n bits and the algorithm (Turing Machine) has to decide whether it is acceptable or not (good or bad etc.) For example, take the graph coloring problem. This involves a graph on m vertices and you have to color it using k colors such that neighboring vertices have different colors. The input to the algorithm is a description of the graph and k as a bit-string. And the bit-string is acceptable if there is a proper coloring.
If the Turing machine can decide whether the bit-string with n bits is acceptable in less than p(n) steps where n is a polynomial, then the problem is in P.
NP does *not* stand for Not P.
NP means that there is a witness to the acceptability of a bit-string that can be verified in p(n) steps. For example, the witness for the graph coloring is an actual assignment of the colors to the vertices. It is quite straightforward to verify that the coloring is proper (no neighboring vertices have the same color, it takes less than n^2 color comparisons. NP stands for Nondeterministic Polynomial, I am
not a fan of the name.
NP-Hard means that the problem is such that any NP problem can be reduced to it (with a polynomial correspondance). Therefore, if you had a polynomial algorithm for it than you had one for *all* NP problems. This would imply P=NP and is doubtful to be true. In other words a proof of NP-hardness means: Yes, it is harder than P, at least most scientists think so.
I have no idea yet how the Pac-Man problem is represented as a bit-string. I will find out tomorrow on a lecture...
It is worth mentioning the class co-NP. This is a the class of problems for which there is a witness that the input is *not* acceptable. Think what witness could easily verify that a graph is not k colorable... For example existence of a full k+1 subgraph would suffice but other constructions also prohibit k coloring which have no full k subgraph in them. I do not recall from the top of my head whether k coloring is co-NP or not. But I think it is not, here is why:
There is a conjecture that may have more chance than P = NP. And that is: P = NP intersect co-NP. That is if both acceptability and non-acceptibility can be polynomially verified then there would be a guaranteed polynomial algorithm. So far this appears to be the case.
The last famous problem that is NP and co-NP at the same time and was found to be in P was prime testing.
And of course there are many, many other complexity classes...
Replying to my own post...
It seems Trycrypt can host a volume in a file, in which case the user only needs an explanation for the existence of a file with apparently random data. A hidden volume is also supported. Note however that operating systems do make copies
(swap, hibernation etc.) of data and so data leakage has to be considered.
Of course this is all interesting from a technical and legal point. One hopes that those committing mortgage fraud will not be smart enough to hide their data from the law.
I agree in theory. The relevant earlier court decision mentioned in the article:
"A year earlier, a Vermont federal judge concluded that Sebastien Boucher, who a border guard claims had child porn on his Alienware laptop, did not have a Fifth Amendment right to keep the files encrypted. Boucher eventually complied and was convicted.
Prosecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself, and today's order appears to permit Fricosu to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding "the password to the drive, either orally or in written form."
In practice however, it would be a challenge to keep grandma's recipe collection up-to-date with modification and access times recent so that it would *look* like that the drive is used every day.
The solution is obvious, still I am not aware Truecrypt implementing it yet: the hidden and "public" volumes should largely overlap and there should be hidden files (directory) instead. Whether this is implemented by the public data written twice (to both volumes) or by a more sophisticated method is somewhat irrelevant (but can be a matter of efficiency). Now, in that case the user could claim with real "plausible" deniability the lack of existence of *some* data.
***
More details:
1. Say original drive is 300GB, and dedicate 50GB to secret data.
2. Regular password login shows a filesystem without the secret data showing (a missing directory or individual files). Still care must be taken that presence of the secret files cannot be inferred, for example through symlinks.
3. Secret volume password shows all data.
4. Additional feature: the 50GB secret data is still tied to the existence of some otherwise harmless looking file in the regular volume. Removing that file will destroy the secret data without the need to log in with the secret volume password.
5. An efficient solution may need dedicated filesystem support.
An additional feature that comes to mind could be the
If they made signs, commercials, or hold rallys in support of SOPA, I bet 99% of posters here would have no problem at all.
On the other hand, *if* they spent the money to buy politicians and congressional votes, now that is repulsive. "More money should not *buy* more democracy."
You see, it is not a question of limits on spending by corporations. I always thought that is not the important issue at all. The question is what the money is spent on (speech or bribe?) and disclosure.
You see if you picket in front of the police headquarters with signs saying the speed limits are too low, that on its own will not get you in trouble. On the other hand, if you offer money to a police officer to not give you a speeding ticket, that will. So if we decided to treat corporations as people, then these corporations should be punished if they attempt bribes; the equivalent of prison for them is prison for the execs and confiscation of ill gotten gains (say those due to political influence) or suspension of business activities for a time period...
If I buy an advertisement in a paper to spread my message, it could be traced back to me. I expect that corporations, political action committees etc. should act with the same transparency.
Simply put: corporations should not get the benefits of "personhood" without any of the responsibilities/consequences.
I do not want to sound jealous. But I probably am. She must be very smart and clearly stand out from her peers. However...
I have seen the projects at our university for the Siemens competition and I got a feeling of... but enough of that. Instead, I would really love to hear comments by the authors of the following paper submitted in 2007:
Multi-Functional Nanoparticles and Their Role in Cancer Drug Delivery – A Review
Priya Pathak and V. K. Katiyar
Note the operative word "review" in the title, indicating substantial earlier work. It would be great to understand how this new contribution fits into the picture.
I am fortunate that in my field I did not have to add "extra" citations. But, I have heard about the practice and it is a serious problem along with the fact that many papers simply use references from other papers without checking them first. I still think that citations are better (if rigid measure is needed). And obviously any attempt of a measure that does not account for differences between the fields will have to be flawed.
I also understand the pressure from funding agencies. However, tenure and promotion decisions are made within academia. I guess, too many key players cave in to the outside pressures, and hail the money bringers. While I do not expect academia to solve all the problems, I do expect academia to internally address this issue and at least talk about it. For example, regarding abuse of citations: a separate review of the references could help (and for such a review you do not need the same level expertise as for the content); maybe an anonymous tipline regarding citation farming could also be implemented. (One could set it up even in the presence of double blind reviews so that a statistics of complaints against a reviewer can be gathered without identifying the papers reviewed. Too many complaints in a given period and the reviewer is simply dropped, but no other consequence.) Etc.
I understand what you are saying. But consider: where does the publish or perish demand come from?
It seems it is perpetuated by academia itself to a great extent. A lot of them got pretty got at the game and it is easier than writing really good papers. People in academia should promote and use "be cited or perish" instead (if a rigid measure is needed).
And I believe that they should not have the "right" to publish without others trying as well. Yes, having a topic and milking it for the rest of your life sounds a wet dream, but it is not in the interest of the society, so why would that approach be encouraged/protected?
So publish your paper and disclose the data. Others after you will reference your work, in fact even those who *just* use the data and otherwise have not much common with your ideas will still have to cite your paper. Sounds great to me. Also remove the quantity thinking in publishing. One paper in 5 years that will be referenced for 50 years coming is way better that 10 papers in 5 years that are reshuffling of the same and instantly forgotten.
I would replace the publish or perish with: be cited or perish.
In fact, too many publications can be taken as warning signs that:
1. There is little new material, but a lot of reuse of text.
2. The paper is not carefully written and so it is not understood by the field and so the same gets republished over and over.
3. Corners were cut regarding the experiments or methods, or reviewing related work etc. to save time.
Of course there are exceptions and just because someone publishes a lot they do not necessarily guilty of the above.
Well put.
The only fully verifiable fact is that the Guardian is attempting to deceive. That is the number one lesson I took away from the whole story.
On a side note. Someone mentioned that journalists may not understand passwords, GPG, bittorent etc. Well, today's journalists need to understand these concepts to perform their jobs. They also need to have at least an above average understanding of smartphones, the related privacy issues, firewalls, proxies, twitter etc.
"...on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy."
I am sure you did not mean it that way, but it sounds as if the beating happens at the precinct in
an interrogation room then the officer has expectation of privacy. Quite the opposite.
All police actions should be filmed to protect the rights of ALL parties involved.
Based on what I know about the current state of AI, the essays that computers can grade fairly are NOT worth writing.
Students and professors should try doing something useful... Something that pushes human intellectual boundaries and imagination, explores human emotions, discusses ethics and moral issues. These are not topics that today's artificial intelligence can handle.
This distortion angle reminds me of a similar phenomenon: "film grain". Some like that so much they
actually want to mimic it in their digital recording to make it look like classic films. I personally care not much for this blur. I also wish that films would be recorded with 60fps instead of 24fps, because with the latter comes the choppiness when the camera spans. (I admit some people do not notice this at all. I am bothered by it in almost all movies. Maybe I am more sensitive to this. If you do not know what I am talking about, watch a 10fps movie.
Reading a lot of classics lately?
I respond to you, because it appears you did not get it. But you were not alone.
Yes, you can sort of achieve the goal stated using existing solutions, however not exactly and not with ease. A dedicated app would still be of value.
When Gandhicam is released it will come pretty close. (My first comment was that there is no app in the stores.)
Here are a few features that would be useful for a dedicated app:
1. The camera records without the picture showing on the phone. Actually, after activation of the stealth recording app the phone behaves like it does not record at all: the lock screen is shown if applicable etc. You cannot turn off the mode without some password authentication or removal of the battery. (So ideally the off button would make the phone pretend its off but keep recording.)
2. No trace is left of the recording on the phone. No directory is set up to be shared etc.
3. Nice option would be if the forensic could reveal only a dummy prerecorded video.
4. Tag the video with the gps data.
5. Use encryption to allow authentication of the recording if wished only. (Do not reveal the id otherwise.)
5. Allow preconfiguration of maximum time to run the recording when no picture or sound is recorded. (Phone locked in drawer etc.)
6. If time limit reached, wipe the phone.
etc.
Gandhicam is for android only and not yet available through the marketplace. But thanks I will give it a try!
"Currently Gandhicam for Android is a beta version, meaning it is still under active development, and not yet considered ready for widespread use. However, it is installed and working on several project-members' handsets, and has yet to cause a single issue. It also does nothing which could potentially cause data-loss or corruption, so it should be perfectly safe to install and play with, regardless of its beta-development state."
qik appears to be some skype like video chat app. That is not exactly what we need. I meant something preconfigurable that backs up the video off the phone but only available to the owner if so desired.
And my names are way cooler!
I wonder how long before there will be iphone and android emergency apps which record a video
and instantly upload (stream) it to the internet. I suggest the names: Evidence, Police Check Mate, Truthful
Police, Little Brother.
If you develop this app please *do not* credit me with the idea...
Neither you. English is my second language and needs improvement.
(But my MS in Math was in the field of logic.)
Btw, no offense taken, we all err.
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook or Google+ account (and I plan to have neither).
For me this tells that Facebook is being scared. Probably they are right. They
do not trust that they would be able to maintain their customer base in the face of Google+
and other competitors if compared service. Face it: they do not offer anything that that
others could not. All the power of social networking sites are in the numbers, nothing else.
So they are very rational when they do all they can to minimize exposure to competitors.
So I think they do everything they can to stop competitors (but stay within the law I hope).
I like your reasoning and suggest that we also elect:
- the FDA
- bank and insurance regulators
- police officers
- members of the military
- the fire department
- customs officers
- airport security personnel
- doctors in government run hospitals (like the VA)
- teachers in public schools
- supreme court justices (done in some states already)
- DPS employees
- etc.
Or alternatively (if I follow you correctly) we should just do away with all the above in the name of
eliminating bribery, inefficiency, waste and abuse of power. The above institutions were necessary
only in the middle ages; modern societies consist of enlightened members who can govern themselves
without institutional interference and bloat.
I am intrigued. What is this new political ideology that leads to such powerful and splendid ideas?
I want to learn more!
To answer the editor's question: Yes, I am too good for code reviews.
Other programmers need code reviews, because they are not good enough or outright suck.
I am also much better at self praise than the rest of you losers and I have a much higher self esteem as a
result.
P.S.:I also think that there is no other worthwhile response to flame baiting (title) than humor.
From the article you linked:
According to Sweeney, Marrazzo waived a 3 percent salary increase he was scheduled to receive, agreed to a 2 percent pay cut, and gave up a performance bonus. Marrazzo's voluntary reductions saved WHYY $200,000 in the fiscal year, station spokesman Art Ellis said. In that year, Marrazzo made one donation to WHYY of at least $25,000, and another to the station's $50 million multiyear campaign of at least $50,000, Ellis said.
Actually, this guy could be a role model for many CEO-s and politicians who's 'enterprise' did not prosper...
And by the way, I watch PBS/WHYY programming and I seriously think that several of their top program makers deserve a 400k+ salary (I think that with that salary they still put in more than take out, which cannot be said for many other participants in our society: some CEO-s, lawyers, politicians etc.). Therefore a 500k+ salary at the top is also appropriate. YMMV.
Actually, I believe that it is against the law not helping the injured in an accident when it would be possible to do so. The fact that the victim (who died later) made the 911 call before the surviving one did (if ever) is suspicious. (It is possible that Beas had a concussion etc., but it has to be explained.)
Finally I predict that the following position many will agree to (I do not say I do, it is all hypothetical*) and those who text and drive should pay attention:
"If someone who caused the crash sends text, updates facebook, sends twitter etc. at the same time or within 5 minutes of an accident, then that is enough reason to vote guilty."
*I would not wish to see a Slashdot post used against me in a jury selection... We are talking hypothetically here.