I was thinking what GREAT news this is for the young computer science majors.
"A Job" is not the place to be. I doubt that there's another field, or another time in history, with such low barriers of entry to starting your own business. It used to cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or pounds to be able to launch a successful business.
Now you can sit in Starbucks, and using your laptop, set up a business on Google-Killer-App Engine, and you're all set. Or crank out a phone app.
---
If you are one of the unfortunate un(der)-employed, approach business and your career search as an engineering problem - it's an approach that you're likely to be familiar with. Design your career as you would design a complicated software product. Determine the overall objective, check what resources and components you have available, design a schematic (along with a test suite), build your career,..., profit!
If I were in the paper-selling business, I'd go find a large stash of term papers, and crack the security on the site.
Given that Turd-it-in has had numerous documented security flaws, this would be my site of choice. Ironically, the site that purports to protect the rights of students, has had obvious holes that made it trivial to shop for the paper of your choice, and submit it as your own, and not get caught by the same service.
Yet school administrators and teachers alike continue to force their students to use that piece of crap.
Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.
Except that they don't. At least, no more than anybody else. Possibly less, actually.
In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.
Hmm... Does a statistic that Christians are more likely to be convicted prove that they are more likely to commit crimes? Or just more likely to be charged? Or perhaps more likely to confess?
And churches pay no taxes. Those who give money to churches get tax breaks for doing so. Assuming Christians also give to actual charities as much as everybody else does, that would mean they actually pay less taxes.
I am not following your logic here, unless you are saying that churches are not "actual charities", or that "actual charities" are not tax deductible.
Whored out my privacy? I traded my card the first day with someone else. So the store has no idea who is buying what!
Pretty clever, eh? While I conduct my normal shopping routine, getting discounts and protecting my privacy, someone else uses my card. And then the store sends me coupons for more fertilizer and pseudoephedrine!
- Knuth now has his secretary sending tweets for him. - Knuth got a Facebook account. It's literally a book of faces. - Knuth has convinced his secretary to view the most popular YouTube videos on a daily basis, and then act them out. (Her kitten impressions are awesome.)
But seriously, I'm hoping that he's releasing his works under creative commons. Bibles are free in hotels, but if you want the bible of programming and algorithms, you have to pay $70 per volume!
so... you're saying Knuth finished calculating every digit of Pi?
duh. There are only ten of them.
And I figured out a way to get it down to just two different digits. I'll release this information as an Earthshaking Announcement on Thursday, after this Knuth guy says his stuff.
Meaningless debate over trivial nonsense is getting tiresome?
I thought that's what Slashdot was for! To practice debate skills on things you don't really give a rats ass about, just to see if you can get the other guy to crack (or crack a smile).
Don't take it too seriously. I'm just messin' with ya.
[The divorce attorneys] spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:
— Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.
And you posted:
"-- Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children."
And THAT amounts to some degree of 'evidence' in court? Really, WTF?
YOU drew the conclusion that what was labeled as a "goof" was somehow evidence.
You used your false interpretation of something that you found on the internet as evidence of a faulty court system. Then you proceeded to say that one who uses internet findings as evidence is a clueless.
Sorry, but no. It doesn't even do that. It's the same false reasoning as assuming that playing war-games supports a theory that somebody is a violent person. It's even far worse than that, and comes IMHO more to the level of confusing the character an actor plays with the actual person. Online profiles are *riddled* with 'funny', witty and over-exaggerated remarks. Using those as even the remotest idea of 'evidence' proves only one thing: The one using them as such doesn't have even a beginning of a clue.
If even half of what's mentioned in the article is really true, and the 'evidence' taken at the face value the article leads you to believe, then the legal system in the USA is in a far worse shape than I could possibly imagine.
That's pretty funny.
Your first paragraph says that using information gathered online to support a theory proves only one thing: that the person using them "doesn't have even the beginning of a clue".
Then your second paragraph proceeds to do just that.
I hope I didn't just fall for a well-played troll. Good job.
I looked at a roster of my son's high school, and found all of the families that contained exactly 2 children, both of whom are students at the school.
a) I randomly selected one of these families. Their first child is a boy. What is the probability that the second one is a boy?
b) I randomly selected another of these families, and randomly selected a child from that family. He is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a boy?
This problem demonstrates that the motive and methods of the chooser may have a great deal to do with the resulting probability. The answer to a and b are identical. Know why?
[The answer is in Rot13. Click to decode.] Zl fba tbrf gb na nyy oblf fpubby. Gurersber, gur punapr bs fryrpgvat n obl ner bar uhaqerq creprag.
We can say that the boy, who was born on a tuesday, was also a Gemini. Does this change the ratio? No, the probability of having two boys is still 50-50%, because the unknown only has two possible outcomes: boy or girl.
Did I win the lottery last week? The unknown only has two possible outcomes: I won or I lost. Therefore, based on your math, my odds are 50-50%.
University of Phoenix online wants their diploma back.:-)
Second, the probability that the other child is a boy is either 1 or 0, it's something that has already occurred...
...snip...
The probability of guessing correctly by saying the second child is a boy would therefore be 1/2(6), or 3, divided by 6 and a half, which gives you 6 out of 12 and 1/2 odds.
Using this logic, what's the probability that I won the lottery last week? 50/50?
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." " If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.
There's a HUGE difference between "evidence of" and "conclusive evidence of".
"Evidence of" simply means that it supports the theory. Not that it proves the theory.
According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.
Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.
If only there were a book where we could look up the definition of words that are within quotes.
Flow of the Patent Meme: 1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent 2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents. 3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented.
Flow of the Patented patent idea Meta-Meme: 1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent 2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents. 3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented. 4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts.
Flow of the "Patented patent idea Meta-Meme" Meta-meta-Meme: 1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent 2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents. 3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented. 4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts. 5. Yet another person says "wow, you're following the meta-meme exactly."
Flow of the "Meta-Meta-Meme" Meta-Meta-Meta-Meme: 1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent 2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents. 3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented. 4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts. 5. Yet another person says "wow, you're following the meta-meme exactly." 6. Some dork like me documents step-by-step how this could go on infinitely.
Flying is easy if you're the only bird in the air.
Flocking is not easy. Thousands of flamingoes can fly together and land together without killing or maiming each other. I doubt that many humans can "flock" like that.
It's more like formation flying.
OK, you Slashdot folks are a smart group. Answer this simple question:
When ducks fly in formation, it's often a V pattern, with one side of the V slightly longer than the other side.
1)present value is simply future discounted value.
2)companies figured out that buying back their own shares, functionally equivalent to dividends, is a more tax efficient way to pay you. Dividends are taxed when distributed, although those earnings were taxed when earned by the company you own. Dividends are subject to double taxation.
You make some excellent points. Also consider this: When a company pays a dividend, in a way, they are saying "Here's some money - you can get a better return elsewhere than we're able to provide." That was a point my graduate-level finance instructor made.
It's especially contradictory if the company is paying dividends while they are raising money in other ways (such as issuing additional shares, borrowing money, issuing bonds, etc).
Good luck. I can encrypt something in polynomial time (quadratic, isn't it?) that it takes you exponential time to encrypt.
Encrypt, decrypt, what's the difference, when you're talking out your ass?
How the fuck is this "informative"? Who does it "inform"? What does it "inform" them of? That the poster doesn't know the difference between encryption and decryption?
You want "informative"? Here ya go:
From Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography":
The process of disguising a message in such a way as to hide its substance is encryption. An encrypted message is ciphertext. The process of turning ciphertext back into plaintext is decryption.
But my favorite part....
(If you wanto to follow the ISO 7498-2 standard, use the terms "encipher" and "decipher." It seems that some cultures find the terms "encrypt" and "decrypt" offensive, as they refer to dead bodies.)
So the original poster could prepare a dead body in polynomial time. Especially if the name of the deceased was Polly....
Slashdot Mirror
IBecause it's an iPhone people are willing to ignore these issues that should honestly result in a class action lawsuit
But there is a class action lawsuit.
I was thinking what GREAT news this is for the young computer science majors.
"A Job" is not the place to be.
I doubt that there's another field, or another time in history, with such low barriers of entry to starting your own business. It used to cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars or pounds to be able to launch a successful business.
Now you can sit in Starbucks, and using your laptop, set up a business on Google-Killer-App Engine, and you're all set. Or crank out a phone app.
---
If you are one of the unfortunate un(der)-employed, approach business and your career search as an engineering problem - it's an approach that you're likely to be familiar with. Design your career as you would design a complicated software product. Determine the overall objective, check what resources and components you have available, design a schematic (along with a test suite), build your career, ..., profit!
(that's how I did it.)
If I were in the paper-selling business, I'd go find a large stash of term papers, and crack the security on the site.
Given that Turd-it-in has had numerous documented security flaws, this would be my site of choice. Ironically, the site that purports to protect the rights of students, has had obvious holes that made it trivial to shop for the paper of your choice, and submit it as your own, and not get caught by the same service.
Yet school administrators and teachers alike continue to force their students to use that piece of crap.
Except that they don't. At least, no more than anybody else. Possibly less, actually.
In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.
Hmm... Does a statistic that Christians are more likely to be convicted prove that they are more likely to commit crimes? Or just more likely to be charged? Or perhaps more likely to confess?
And churches pay no taxes. Those who give money to churches get tax breaks for doing so. Assuming Christians also give to actual charities as much as everybody else does, that would mean they actually pay less taxes.
I am not following your logic here, unless you are saying that churches are not "actual charities", or that "actual charities" are not tax deductible.
Whored out my privacy?
I traded my card the first day with someone else. So the store has no idea who is buying what!
Pretty clever, eh? While I conduct my normal shopping routine, getting discounts and protecting my privacy, someone else uses my card.
And then the store sends me coupons for more fertilizer and pseudoephedrine!
ha ha the joke's on them!
Given that Knuth doesn't have an email account, I'm betting it's one of these:
- Knuth now has his secretary sending tweets for him.
- Knuth got a Facebook account. It's literally a book of faces.
- Knuth has convinced his secretary to view the most popular YouTube videos on a daily basis, and then act them out. (Her kitten impressions are awesome.)
But seriously, I'm hoping that he's releasing his works under creative commons. Bibles are free in hotels, but if you want the bible of programming and algorithms, you have to pay $70 per volume!
so ... you're saying Knuth finished calculating every digit of Pi?
duh. There are only ten of them.
And I figured out a way to get it down to just two different digits. I'll release this information as an Earthshaking Announcement on Thursday, after this Knuth guy says his stuff.
I believe the statistic that you are looking for is 87.
Meaningless debate over trivial nonsense is getting tiresome?
I thought that's what Slashdot was for! To practice debate skills on things you don't really give a rats ass about, just to see if you can get the other guy to crack (or crack a smile).
Don't take it too seriously. I'm just messin' with ya.
But you still got a +5 Insightful. So in the end, really, you won.
Nice backpedal.
Let me help you out. The article said:
And you posted:
YOU drew the conclusion that what was labeled as a "goof" was somehow evidence.
You used your false interpretation of something that you found on the internet as evidence of a faulty court system. Then you proceeded to say that one who uses internet findings as evidence is a clueless.
Game. Set. Match.
Sorry, but no. It doesn't even do that. It's the same false reasoning as assuming that playing war-games supports a theory that somebody is a violent person. It's even far worse than that, and comes IMHO more to the level of confusing the character an actor plays with the actual person. Online profiles are *riddled* with 'funny', witty and over-exaggerated remarks. Using those as even the remotest idea of 'evidence' proves only one thing: The one using them as such doesn't have even a beginning of a clue.
If even half of what's mentioned in the article is really true, and the 'evidence' taken at the face value the article leads you to believe, then the legal system in the USA is in a far worse shape than I could possibly imagine.
That's pretty funny.
Your first paragraph says that using information gathered online to support a theory proves only one thing: that the person using them "doesn't have even the beginning of a clue".
Then your second paragraph proceeds to do just that.
I hope I didn't just fall for a well-played troll. Good job.
I'll counter that with this:
I looked at a roster of my son's high school, and found all of the families that contained exactly 2 children, both of whom are students at the school.
a) I randomly selected one of these families. Their first child is a boy. What is the probability that the second one is a boy?
b) I randomly selected another of these families, and randomly selected a child from that family. He is a boy. What is the probability that the other is a boy?
This problem demonstrates that the motive and methods of the chooser may have a great deal to do with the resulting probability. The answer to a and b are identical. Know why?
[The answer is in Rot13. Click to decode.]
Zl fba tbrf gb na nyy oblf fpubby. Gurersber, gur punapr bs fryrpgvat n obl ner bar uhaqerq creprag.
Math and logic problems don't follow normal implied rules of common English.
Which is precisely why I speak Lojban.
.
obligatory wikipedia link, to beg for "+1 Informative"
Did I win the lottery last week? The unknown only has two possible outcomes: I won or I lost.
Therefore, based on your math, my odds are 50-50%.
University of Phoenix online wants their diploma back. :-)
Indeed, is everyone drunk or something...
Second, the probability that the other child is a boy is either 1 or 0, it's something that has already occurred...
...snip...
The probability of guessing correctly by saying the second child is a boy would therefore be 1/2(6), or 3, divided by 6 and a half, which gives you 6 out of 12 and 1/2 odds.
Using this logic, what's the probability that I won the lottery last week? 50/50?
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." "
If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.
There's a HUGE difference between "evidence of" and "conclusive evidence of".
"Evidence of" simply means that it supports the theory. Not that it proves the theory.
From TFA:
According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.
Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.
If only there were a book where we could look up the definition of words that are within quotes.
Flow of the Patent Meme:
1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent
2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents.
3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented.
Flow of the Patented patent idea Meta-Meme:
1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent
2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents.
3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented.
4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts.
Flow of the "Patented patent idea Meta-Meme" Meta-meta-Meme:
1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent
2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents.
3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented.
4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts.
5. Yet another person says "wow, you're following the meta-meme exactly."
Flow of the "Meta-Meta-Meme" Meta-Meta-Meta-Meme:
1. Article appears on Slashdot about a patent
2. People post solutions to avoiding ridiculous patents.
3. Somebody says that the idea has already been patented.
4. Another poster complains about the inevitable patented-patent idea posts.
5. Yet another person says "wow, you're following the meta-meme exactly."
6. Some dork like me documents step-by-step how this could go on infinitely.
Flying is easy if you're the only bird in the air.
Flocking is not easy. Thousands of flamingoes can fly together and land together without killing or maiming each other. I doubt that many humans can "flock" like that.
It's more like formation flying.
OK, you Slashdot folks are a smart group. Answer this simple question:
When ducks fly in formation, it's often a V pattern, with one side of the V slightly longer than the other side.
Why is that?
Orpnhfr gurer ner zber qhpxf ba gur ybatre fvqr.
So someone who has never piloted an aircraft before has a better chance of landing it than flying it level? Try again.
Landing a plane is easy. Gravity does it all for you.
Walking away afterward is the hard part.
I should add:
1)present value is simply future discounted value.
2)companies figured out that buying back their own shares, functionally equivalent to dividends, is a more tax efficient way to pay you. Dividends are taxed when distributed, although those earnings were taxed when earned by the company you own. Dividends are subject to double taxation.
You make some excellent points. Also consider this: When a company pays a dividend, in a way, they are saying "Here's some money - you can get a better return elsewhere than we're able to provide." That was a point my graduate-level finance instructor made.
It's especially contradictory if the company is paying dividends while they are raising money in other ways (such as issuing additional shares, borrowing money, issuing bonds, etc).
Encrypt, decrypt, what's the difference, when you're talking out your ass?
How the fuck is this "informative"? Who does it "inform"? What does it "inform" them of? That the poster doesn't know the difference between encryption and decryption?
You want "informative"? Here ya go:
From Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography":
But my favorite part....
So the original poster could prepare a dead body in polynomial time. Especially if the name of the deceased was Polly....
I am pretty sure before we see any of these in production vehicles they will be tested to death and regulated further.
I believe "tested to death" is what the GP is afraid of!
Finally someone on Slashdot gets the patent game.