Actually, good security relies upon multiple layers. While this is no substitute for designing and writing secure code, the fact is bugs get through any development process. Therefore, having defenses that can catch/stop programs from exploiting those bugs is another level of defense. The more layers you have to security without getting the the way of performing work, the harder it is for any bug to be converted into a working exploit. Bugs still need to be fixed as quickly as practical, but additional layers shrink the exposure window.
All joking aside, that is one of the defaults that I really hate on Windows. It's completely useless. It doesn't make things any clearer for non-technical users, in fact, it leaves them uninformed and oblivious, while at the same time, it makes extra work for more technical users and tech support.
No, that approach fails to meet the contest terms. Use Windows, but only allow it to connect to a network (any network) through a proxy. The proxy is an *nix box running Windows in a VM, and each VM is only allowed to run a single Windows application. Multiple VMs can not communicate with each other, but they can share specific directories stored on the host (and of course, the host is performing malware scanning on those any files in those directories).
Think of the benefits. No more DLL hell (no apps fighting over incompatible DLLs), no access to other apps info. No direct network access, inbound or outbound. No spreading infected files or email to other machines. No zombies. No access to the MBR or BIOS.
You can disable (as I have) the prefetch in Chrome 13. Visit chrome://settings/advanced and deselect "Predict network actions to improve page load performance".
Due to security, tracking, bandwidth usage, etc. concerns, it's just a bad idea for 95+% of the population. If you have metered performance, it wastes your bandwidth and/or costs you money. If you have a high speed link, the time savings are marginal. If the site has malware, you could get infected, possibly without even clicking the link. If it's a porn site, the URL, pics, and text might appear in your cache or history, which could cause you some marital or legal problems. The site may create cookies on your machine, possibly even an ever-cookie. If the site uses Flash or Flash based ads, it may use additional CPU and reduce your battery life on mobile devices. Does it even help if you're in the habit of opening links in a new tab/window (probably, but I don't know)? What if the site pops up other windows (popup or popunder), will those execute (I suspect not, but again I don't know)? I'm sure I've missed a number of other concerns.
The funny part is, IE was once the best browser, for the Mac. IE 3.x was faster and far more stable than Netscape 4.x on the Mac. I don't think it was ever the best on Windows.
The major issues with IE are: security, javascript speed (excluding IE 9), non-compliant rendering, and that everything wants to install a new IE toolbar and/or activeX control. Therefore, I reserve IE for use exclusively with Windows Update. Even though MS has some IE only features on their web site, I refuse to use IE when visiting microsoft.com (I also use google to search for information on MS web sites)
The ribbon would be fine if it didn't replace traditional menus. It takes getting used to, and once you're used to it, it has some advantages, but on the whole, I don't find it faster, or notably better than the old toolbars. I like many of the under the hood changes to Excel 2007, but the Ribbon isn't a notable improvement in UI.
Money supply and inflation can grow indefinitely, because those are artificial constructs, not real systems (assuming the money isn't "hard currency"). However, economic activity/productivity can not grow indefinitely, there are limited resources (natural resources, labor resources, and consumption levels). When you look only at the monetary situation, you can be mislead into believing it can be sustained, however, when you look at the overall economic environment, it's obvious that it can't be sustained indefinitely.
Exponential growth in any real (not imaginary/virtual) system must slow down when it exceeds some percentage of it's total environment. Eventually, it hits a saturation point and must slow down. While the exact percentage that defines saturation varies with the growth rate and environment, typically exponential growth can't continue once it reaches 50% of it's environment. So, on a very basic level, he has simply stated the obvious.
However, as heat can be converted to other forms of energy, there are ways to dissipate and/or use the surplus heat. Also, higher efficiency methods of converting heat into electricity or other useful forms of energy will delay the saturation point. So, he's correct in theory, and his details are probably not an accurate prediction.
Oracle was already demanding that they pay for a license. They didn't just file the lawsuit without discussing licensing with Google first. Google said "we don't need a license", Oracle said "Yes you do." Google initiated a search for alternatives as a precaution. Since this document is a technical evaluation of the suitability of the alternatives for their specific use and not a legal opinion about whether or not they actually need a license, this document is not incriminating at all once you spend 2 minutes to examine the situation.
And there will be more small players on a rolldown week, just as there are anytime jackpots get large. That's not manipulating the game, those people are still gambling. They're risking a small amount of money, with a high probability of losing, a small chance of coming out slightly ahead, and a very small chance of coming out way ahead.
The player who purchased 100k+ tickets isn't gambling, they're investing. With the way this game is structured, buying a large number of tickets makes this a better investment than the stock market or real estate, low risk of any loss, almost no risk of significant loss, and an almost guaranteed 20% or better return, for a few days of invested time and money. That's not gambling, it's investing. I have no problem with investing, but that's not the design of a lottery, this game is broken.
And, it's not a legal opinion on whether they actually need to license Java (which Oracle was already asserting), but rather a technical opinion about Java vs the alternatives. It's not damaging if you bother to examine it at all.
A typo, the percentage Y should be ((regular players winning tickets + "sharps" winning tickets")/regular players winning tickets).
The fundamental problem with this particular game is that on rolldown weeks, the prize pool exceeds 100% of that week's sales, thus anyone who plays a large number of tickets is likely to make make money. If the rolldown were handled properly, The prize pool would be less than 100% of the week's sales, thereby making it too risky for these people with money to take advantage of it,
I'll say this one more time. ALL non-fixed prize amounts are a percentage of the prize pool, and are split among all winning tickets. That applies to all prizes except the trivial amounts. That's how lotteries work.
More people playing the game does not change your odds of winning, but it does change the amount you can win on the non-fixed prizes.
Since the prize pool consists of more than just this drawing's sales, (it includes an accrued amount from previous drawings, thus the rolldown), the additional players increase the size of the prize pool by a percentage X ((regular players sales + "shaps" sales)/(residual prize pool + this week's prize pool), while they increase the number of winning tickets by a larger percentage Y ("sharps" winning tickets/regular players winning tickets). As long as there is a residual prize pool, Y will be larger than X and all non-fixed prize winning ticket are worth less. Therefore, these players are reducing the amount of money the regular players winning tickets will be paid. If you think about it, it couldn't be any other way. The state is getting their ~40%, the retailers are getting their 5%, the lottery operator is getting their admin fee, and the rest is the prize pool. If these players are consistently getting out more than they're putting in, it must be coming from the prize pool, therefore, reducing payouts to other players. The money isn't magically appearing from nowhere. If you can't understand that, it's your problem.
No, their expected payout is lower because of the "sharps" playing. And the fixed payout of the minor prizes reduces the remaining purse size for the larger prizes. Anyway you cut it, these guys are lowering the payout to the people who play regularly. Any lottery that is designed to pay out more than 100% of weekly revenue is subject to this type of manipulation.
Apparently, you need to read up on lotteries and paramutual betting. The more winning tickets at each level, the lower the payout for each ticket. x% of the total purse goes to each level of payout. The more winning tickets, the less each winner gets. The lower value prizes (typically prizes under about $50 in a lottery) are fixed per ticket, but an excess of winning tickets at those lower values decreases the prize pool for the bigger prizes, so the total payout is approximately x% of the total revenue (jackpots and guaranteed minimums can affect that on a given week, but average out over time).
During roll-down weeks, they deliberately pay out more than that week's estimated revenue to lower the size of the purse. That's what these players are taking advantage of. It's not illegal, but if the lottery rules were designed properly, they wouldn't be able to have an almost guaranteed ROI, which is completely contrary to the design/intent of a lottery.
In fact, the average player should be happy these people come in and pour money into the system. They just made the jackpot bigger, and didn't decrease your odds of winning an iota.
Did you even RTFA? Do you understand what a roll-down is? They're not increasing the jackpot, the roll-down is to lower it by paying out bigger prizes on non-jackpot winnings. These players are (net) taking money out of the prize pool, not adding to it. And while they're not decreasing the odds that any given ticket could win, by buying many more winning tickets, they're decreasing the amount any given ticket is likely to win. So, they're not lowering your odds, but they are lowering your return on any given ticket. Now, tell me how that should make the average player happy?
A: I'm not getting poorer. I don't live in MA, and I don't play the lottery.
The problem is that rich people play the lottery less (or not at all), because they're not particularly enticed by the prospect of winning $20k, $50k, $100k, only a jackpot is a notable win for people who already have several hundred thousand dollars in liquid assets. In this particular instance, people who can afford it, can (and are) coming in to play only when there is a high chance that they'll come out ahead, taking prize money "invested" by those who played all along. The people who played all along generally can't afford to buy 100k+ tickets, much less risk losing any significant portion of that. And if you RTFA, even buying 10k tickets (still way beyond most people's ability) is still likely to lose. So, the non-rich put in almost all the money weekly, and 4x a year, the already rich cash out because they can afford to buy 100k+ tickets during roll-down weeks when the structure of the game makes it suddenly favorable to do so. If you don't see that as a problem, then you're not paying attention.
It's not a paywall. You can read the article for free for at least 7 days after it's published. Even if if requires an NYT account (it doesn't appear to), you can get a free NYT account. And since almost no one reads/. articles over 3 days old, the 7 day window is plenty for the 99+% of readers who will see this.
while those who can't afford to risk several hundred thousand dollars get poorer. The lottery is already a regressive tax (e.g. it's more likely to take money from those who earn less, and it takes a higher percentage of their income) without such manipulation. Now, those who can risk several hundred thousand dollars are almost (but not quite) guaranteed a significant net gain 4x a year. Good job at once again screwing the masses Massachusetts lawmakers.
If they won't accept the purchase order/invoice for you PC showing included software, ask to have the suit amended to include your computer vendor (HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc.) as a co-defendent for selling unlicensed software to you. If you can't get the suit amended, file a separate suit against your computer vendor. The point is to get the computer vendors, who are the biggest sellers of software involved fighting the BSA with you. As the biggest sellers of software, they have a lot of influence with the software vendors, and they have teams of lawyers who won't appreciate being named in a suit because the BSA won't accept their invoice as proof of purchase.
All attempt to bully you into complying with their illegal claims. Refuse to be bullied, and that may require hiring a lawyer to defend yourself and/or countersue.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, good security relies upon multiple layers. While this is no substitute for designing and writing secure code, the fact is bugs get through any development process. Therefore, having defenses that can catch/stop programs from exploiting those bugs is another level of defense. The more layers you have to security without getting the the way of performing work, the harder it is for any bug to be converted into a working exploit. Bugs still need to be fixed as quickly as practical, but additional layers shrink the exposure window.
Wait, you think users will even notice?
All joking aside, that is one of the defaults that I really hate on Windows. It's completely useless. It doesn't make things any clearer for non-technical users, in fact, it leaves them uninformed and oblivious, while at the same time, it makes extra work for more technical users and tech support.
No, that approach fails to meet the contest terms. Use Windows, but only allow it to connect to a network (any network) through a proxy. The proxy is an *nix box running Windows in a VM, and each VM is only allowed to run a single Windows application. Multiple VMs can not communicate with each other, but they can share specific directories stored on the host (and of course, the host is performing malware scanning on those any files in those directories).
Think of the benefits. No more DLL hell (no apps fighting over incompatible DLLs), no access to other apps info. No direct network access, inbound or outbound. No spreading infected files or email to other machines. No zombies. No access to the MBR or BIOS.
You can disable it.
You can disable (as I have) the prefetch in Chrome 13. Visit chrome://settings/advanced and deselect "Predict network actions to improve page load performance".
Due to security, tracking, bandwidth usage, etc. concerns, it's just a bad idea for 95+% of the population. If you have metered performance, it wastes your bandwidth and/or costs you money. If you have a high speed link, the time savings are marginal. If the site has malware, you could get infected, possibly without even clicking the link. If it's a porn site, the URL, pics, and text might appear in your cache or history, which could cause you some marital or legal problems. The site may create cookies on your machine, possibly even an ever-cookie. If the site uses Flash or Flash based ads, it may use additional CPU and reduce your battery life on mobile devices. Does it even help if you're in the habit of opening links in a new tab/window (probably, but I don't know)? What if the site pops up other windows (popup or popunder), will those execute (I suspect not, but again I don't know)? I'm sure I've missed a number of other concerns.
The funny part is, IE was once the best browser, for the Mac. IE 3.x was faster and far more stable than Netscape 4.x on the Mac. I don't think it was ever the best on Windows.
The major issues with IE are: security, javascript speed (excluding IE 9), non-compliant rendering, and that everything wants to install a new IE toolbar and/or activeX control. Therefore, I reserve IE for use exclusively with Windows Update. Even though MS has some IE only features on their web site, I refuse to use IE when visiting microsoft.com (I also use google to search for information on MS web sites)
The ribbon would be fine if it didn't replace traditional menus. It takes getting used to, and once you're used to it, it has some advantages, but on the whole, I don't find it faster, or notably better than the old toolbars. I like many of the under the hood changes to Excel 2007, but the Ribbon isn't a notable improvement in UI.
Money supply and inflation can grow indefinitely, because those are artificial constructs, not real systems (assuming the money isn't "hard currency"). However, economic activity/productivity can not grow indefinitely, there are limited resources (natural resources, labor resources, and consumption levels). When you look only at the monetary situation, you can be mislead into believing it can be sustained, however, when you look at the overall economic environment, it's obvious that it can't be sustained indefinitely.
Exponential growth in any real (not imaginary/virtual) system must slow down when it exceeds some percentage of it's total environment. Eventually, it hits a saturation point and must slow down. While the exact percentage that defines saturation varies with the growth rate and environment, typically exponential growth can't continue once it reaches 50% of it's environment. So, on a very basic level, he has simply stated the obvious.
However, as heat can be converted to other forms of energy, there are ways to dissipate and/or use the surplus heat. Also, higher efficiency methods of converting heat into electricity or other useful forms of energy will delay the saturation point. So, he's correct in theory, and his details are probably not an accurate prediction.
Isn't that the standard reply from developers and tech support?
Oracle was already demanding that they pay for a license. They didn't just file the lawsuit without discussing licensing with Google first. Google said "we don't need a license", Oracle said "Yes you do." Google initiated a search for alternatives as a precaution. Since this document is a technical evaluation of the suitability of the alternatives for their specific use and not a legal opinion about whether or not they actually need a license, this document is not incriminating at all once you spend 2 minutes to examine the situation.
I'm not upset about anything.
And there will be more small players on a rolldown week, just as there are anytime jackpots get large. That's not manipulating the game, those people are still gambling. They're risking a small amount of money, with a high probability of losing, a small chance of coming out slightly ahead, and a very small chance of coming out way ahead.
The player who purchased 100k+ tickets isn't gambling, they're investing. With the way this game is structured, buying a large number of tickets makes this a better investment than the stock market or real estate, low risk of any loss, almost no risk of significant loss, and an almost guaranteed 20% or better return, for a few days of invested time and money. That's not gambling, it's investing. I have no problem with investing, but that's not the design of a lottery, this game is broken.
And, it's not a legal opinion on whether they actually need to license Java (which Oracle was already asserting), but rather a technical opinion about Java vs the alternatives. It's not damaging if you bother to examine it at all.
A typo, the percentage Y should be ((regular players winning tickets + "sharps" winning tickets")/regular players winning tickets).
The fundamental problem with this particular game is that on rolldown weeks, the prize pool exceeds 100% of that week's sales, thus anyone who plays a large number of tickets is likely to make make money. If the rolldown were handled properly, The prize pool would be less than 100% of the week's sales, thereby making it too risky for these people with money to take advantage of it,
I'll say this one more time. ALL non-fixed prize amounts are a percentage of the prize pool, and are split among all winning tickets. That applies to all prizes except the trivial amounts. That's how lotteries work.
More people playing the game does not change your odds of winning, but it does change the amount you can win on the non-fixed prizes.
Since the prize pool consists of more than just this drawing's sales, (it includes an accrued amount from previous drawings, thus the rolldown), the additional players increase the size of the prize pool by a percentage X ((regular players sales + "shaps" sales)/(residual prize pool + this week's prize pool), while they increase the number of winning tickets by a larger percentage Y ("sharps" winning tickets/regular players winning tickets). As long as there is a residual prize pool, Y will be larger than X and all non-fixed prize winning ticket are worth less. Therefore, these players are reducing the amount of money the regular players winning tickets will be paid. If you think about it, it couldn't be any other way. The state is getting their ~40%, the retailers are getting their 5%, the lottery operator is getting their admin fee, and the rest is the prize pool. If these players are consistently getting out more than they're putting in, it must be coming from the prize pool, therefore, reducing payouts to other players. The money isn't magically appearing from nowhere. If you can't understand that, it's your problem.
No, their expected payout is lower because of the "sharps" playing. And the fixed payout of the minor prizes reduces the remaining purse size for the larger prizes. Anyway you cut it, these guys are lowering the payout to the people who play regularly. Any lottery that is designed to pay out more than 100% of weekly revenue is subject to this type of manipulation.
Apparently, you need to read up on lotteries and paramutual betting. The more winning tickets at each level, the lower the payout for each ticket. x% of the total purse goes to each level of payout. The more winning tickets, the less each winner gets. The lower value prizes (typically prizes under about $50 in a lottery) are fixed per ticket, but an excess of winning tickets at those lower values decreases the prize pool for the bigger prizes, so the total payout is approximately x% of the total revenue (jackpots and guaranteed minimums can affect that on a given week, but average out over time).
During roll-down weeks, they deliberately pay out more than that week's estimated revenue to lower the size of the purse. That's what these players are taking advantage of. It's not illegal, but if the lottery rules were designed properly, they wouldn't be able to have an almost guaranteed ROI, which is completely contrary to the design/intent of a lottery.
In fact, the average player should be happy these people come in and pour money into the system. They just made the jackpot bigger, and didn't decrease your odds of winning an iota.
Did you even RTFA? Do you understand what a roll-down is? They're not increasing the jackpot, the roll-down is to lower it by paying out bigger prizes on non-jackpot winnings. These players are (net) taking money out of the prize pool, not adding to it. And while they're not decreasing the odds that any given ticket could win, by buying many more winning tickets, they're decreasing the amount any given ticket is likely to win. So, they're not lowering your odds, but they are lowering your return on any given ticket. Now, tell me how that should make the average player happy?
A: I'm not getting poorer. I don't live in MA, and I don't play the lottery.
The problem is that rich people play the lottery less (or not at all), because they're not particularly enticed by the prospect of winning $20k, $50k, $100k, only a jackpot is a notable win for people who already have several hundred thousand dollars in liquid assets. In this particular instance, people who can afford it, can (and are) coming in to play only when there is a high chance that they'll come out ahead, taking prize money "invested" by those who played all along. The people who played all along generally can't afford to buy 100k+ tickets, much less risk losing any significant portion of that. And if you RTFA, even buying 10k tickets (still way beyond most people's ability) is still likely to lose. So, the non-rich put in almost all the money weekly, and 4x a year, the already rich cash out because they can afford to buy 100k+ tickets during roll-down weeks when the structure of the game makes it suddenly favorable to do so. If you don't see that as a problem, then you're not paying attention.
It's not a paywall. You can read the article for free for at least 7 days after it's published. Even if if requires an NYT account (it doesn't appear to), you can get a free NYT account. And since almost no one reads /. articles over 3 days old, the 7 day window is plenty for the 99+% of readers who will see this.
while those who can't afford to risk several hundred thousand dollars get poorer. The lottery is already a regressive tax (e.g. it's more likely to take money from those who earn less, and it takes a higher percentage of their income) without such manipulation. Now, those who can risk several hundred thousand dollars are almost (but not quite) guaranteed a significant net gain 4x a year. Good job at once again screwing the masses Massachusetts lawmakers.
137Cs is dangerous, however, the amount you're likely to be exposed to after a reactor meltdown is significantly lower than previously thought.
If they won't accept the purchase order/invoice for you PC showing included software, ask to have the suit amended to include your computer vendor (HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc.) as a co-defendent for selling unlicensed software to you. If you can't get the suit amended, file a separate suit against your computer vendor. The point is to get the computer vendors, who are the biggest sellers of software involved fighting the BSA with you. As the biggest sellers of software, they have a lot of influence with the software vendors, and they have teams of lawyers who won't appreciate being named in a suit because the BSA won't accept their invoice as proof of purchase.
All attempt to bully you into complying with their illegal claims. Refuse to be bullied, and that may require hiring a lawyer to defend yourself and/or countersue.
That'll work about as well as outlawing prostitution has worked for the last several thousand years.