I disagree. This ruling is very confusing to me. He traded with insider information which makes him guilty under a clause in US law called the Misappropriation theory
anyone who misappropriates (steals) information from their employer and trades on that information in any stock (not just the employer's stock) is guilty of insider trading
Distributed key algorithms do exist, but there is a problem with them. The security of the system depends on the key holders having high levels of distrust for one another. It is very easy to imagine many corporate environments where keys will be shared with another out of convenience which then makes the system essentially a single key system.
In many countries around the globe people are charged based upon the amount of usage, or time of usage and these ISPs are not part of some global media conglomerate conspiracy. Americans are just fortunate to have always had unlimited bandwith from their ISPs. Although I will say in other countries as their infrastructure gets better they are moving to more unlimited policies, it is a shame the US wants to move in the opposite way. I don't believe there is any cable conspiracy, rather cable companies are trying to protect themselves from any outages that will occur once downloading hd content becomes mainstream. A basic understanding of cable internet will tell you that the bandwidth pool is limited and is affected more by high consumption than DSL, and the only solutions are to either throttle speeds or throttle total consumption, i prefer the latter. Notice how we haven't heard anything from DSL companies about charging by usage, because their infrastructure is different. This is just the cable companies trying to protect themselves from outages, no conspiracy, sorry guys.
I take it you are an A1 carrier. Most of us have quickly learned, arguing with women gets you no where and should be avoided at all costs. There are better ways to get what one wants.
I agree with everything the parent said and have to add another thing. GP is arguing for natural selection, which no one really disputes happening, I mean survival of the fittest is an obvious statement. Evolution however involves using natural selection in much broader ways. Speciation is like natural selection to the extreme, and I feel is poorly supported by natural selection. Sure we see bacteria becoming resistant or see other minor genetic mutations but to create an entire different species from this process is a long and extremely difficult one.
Just because you live within a system, does not mean it is impossible to discover anything about the system or even more the system outside it. Consider trying to discover whether or not the earth we live in is flat without leaving the earth and without having to travel all the way around the world. At first this may seem impossible because to an individual living on the surface everything appears 'flat'. Yet geometry tells us that if we can construct a large enough triangle (or have very precise measuring tools) We will know the world is flat if the sum of the angles add up to 180. If the world is round they will add up to more than 180 and if hyperbolic, less than 180. While this is not an easy experiment to perform, it can be done.
It follows then that yes, perhaps there are experiments that exist that can tell us what our universe really is without having to ever leave it. Especially if our universe is run on a computer, something of which the limitations of are well known. To support or disprove his theory one would have to look for phenomenom that contradicts our understanding of computing. Show that there is no halting problem, show that overflow does occur.
Of course now I must say that I don't think this theory is worth anything, from what I can tell there aren't any infinite loops in the universe, overflow doesn't seem to occur and infinity exists in many many places, hell there are even an infinite types of infinity each one 'larger' than the previous. And infinty and overflow are two things computers do not handle well. Unless there are good hacks in place, which still, the universe would need an extraordinary live patching system to fix more problems as they are discovered.
What about social engineering as a hacking tool? Will this make those 'tools' who actually respond to phishing emails illegal? If so, then I fully support this law.
Just to nit pick a bit, the "best" shape of a wheel is not necessarily circular. It just happens to be the best shape for a flat surface. However, there are different types of planes where even square wheels might work best. I refer you to a light wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wheel but the first source on the article is better, but it doesn't have any pictures. So my point is, while the problem remains the same (what shape rolls best?) the world your problem exists in can change which requires one to still keep an open mind to other possible solutions. One real world example of this would be solving problems in a parallel vs sequential processing enviroment. Many of the same problems exist, but different 'best' solutions are required.
It is reasonable to expect privacy, but only under reasonable circumstances, while committing a crime, is not one of them. The line I would draw for everything else would be whether or not what you find was hidden. You can expect no privacy about what you do in front of other people.
In you scenario, would it be legally OK for a tech to reveal your client details to a 3rd party? What if I have medical test results on my computer, would it be legal for a tech to reveal my medical records on his/her blog? I'd say both those things should have some expectation of privacy.
It probably would not be illegal to look at your files, granting someone access to your computer already gives them direct access to some of your files (OS, personal settings and configuration files) but also, I think we can both agree that your unencrypted files on your hard drive are in no way hidden from someone who has access to use your computer. Telling other people about client data however, would be illegal, most likely constituting as theft.
The people who develop your photos are legally obligated to report you to the police if your photos contain child pornography. Because by seeing that you have the photos, they have witnessed a crime and thus must report it. While the CC worker was more than likely snooping around (which is rude, not illegal), it does not change the fact he witnessed a crime and must report it.
I sure hope our government isn't encrypting their information with a RNG with a known backdoor. That seems pretty stupid. It would seem the reasonable explanation is the government is out to get us.
One of the main sticking points on why the Japanese wouldn't surrender was the U.S. would not allow them to retain their emperor. While the emperor had no real political power, it was just a huge symbol of Japanese culture and many inside Japan could not stand to lose that.
I find this story hard to believe, because Blockbuster has been doing well and taking over the online market from Netflix because of the simple advantage of also having brick and mortar stores to exchance your movies at, plus the added coupons you get sent every month. Not to mention, blockbuster will have the larger selection. For those not familiar with the rental industry, the movies blockbuster doesn't manage to sell secondhand after their rental life, just sit in a warehouse waiting for action. I would find it extremely hard to believe that Netflix has a larger selection than someone that has been in the buisness for a long time. Plus Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery are pretty much closing down, leaving Blockbuster the dominate force with brick and mortar, which will not be going away for at least 10 years.
The problem is the moves airlines make don't make sense if they wish to stay in buisness. In a competitive enviroment, buisnesses should be seeking to reduce their costs and increase the value a customer recieves. Charging to get your baggage first lowers the value of the product because while people who pay might get added value, the customer who is still paying the same ticket price gets less value by having their luggage no longer randomly come out. If the airlines were interested in being more competitve the correct move would be to offer flyers a discount if they don't mind their luggage coming out last. Removing meals from planes is the same thing. Reducing costs is only effective if you change the way you act internally and the product the public gets doesn't suffer.
Is the mystery game they are working on Diablo 3? I've heard various stories already that it has been in production for awhile, but they had to take it baack to the drawing board.
There are two situations where fruit of the poisoness tree do not apply. First is Inevitable Discovery where evidence found illegally can still be used if it can be shown that they would have found it inevitably. Second is the Good-faith exception where evidence found in an illegal search can be admissable if it can be shown that the cop believed everything he was doing was legal. As you can tell both of these are very subjective which allows a lot of leway when it comes to 'illegally' obtained evidence
I don't support the RIAA or DRM but I have never really bought into the whole "allowing piracy increases net sales" ideology. Firstly, I doubt it will increase the number albums sold. Why would you buy the album.. if you already have all the songs? It doesn't make any sense. Secondly, if we are to believe that downloading music for free increases a band's exposure, then there should be a corresponging increase in concert attendance and merchandise sales. I'll leave it up to someone to find the actual numbers, but I'm fairly certain concert attendance has been falling.
In the end I see downloading music illegally as something that neither hurts nor helps the music buisness. Sure it may hurt some sales, it might create some sales, but a HUGE, OVERWHELMING, majority of people would never pay for most the songs they download, at least in the current system. I know I wouldn't. Consumers will always choose what costs them the least (actual cost + convience - (risk of getting caught)), rarely do people buy based on ideology. The music industry understood this and could either change its buisness model or start making it hard for people to download (flooding networks with fake songs) and issuing lawsuits. The latter was easier for them, hence it is where we are at today. Is it working? No.
Alright, I'll play along troll. And I'll ignore your religious rhetoric.
Perhaps you never went through sex ed, but it doesn't teach how to have sex. The ability to have sex isn't something you need to teach people, that comes naturally. What people do need is the ability to seperate the truth from the many, many myths about sex. Listen to LoveLine (is that show still on the air?), or Sex with Sue sometime, and you will hear that great amount of disinformation people believe about sex. So yes, parents cannot be trusted with this matter because they themselves were not told the proper things.
since most people here are into evolution and survival of the fittest, doesn't educating them go against that line of thought
No, no one thinks that, if YOU think that, why should we bother teaching kids about anything then?
we have already been instructed to wait until marriage
You can't keep people from having sex, it is a natural function, not a 'privelege for the married', telling people not to have sex makes as much sense as telling people they can't make friends. Humans are social, and we are sexual.
I am not saying I have all the answers, but I believe your logic is flawed. What you said about parents not teaching sex ed is the reason we have the liberals deciding to ban/censor music, video games, and movies (e.g. Hillary Clinton getting Walmart to ban Grand Theft Auto). Do you also agree with that? Should the government be the grand nanny big brother or should the free choice be there and the parents have the responsibility and the power to determine what their children are exposed to?
Let's see where to start on this one.. Firstly, I hope you understand that liberals generally support personal freedoms while conservatives generally try and stay with the status quo (e.g. what can be taught in schools, what kinds of people are allowed to marry). This discussion has nothing to do with a Nanny State, the poster wasn't saying parents shouldn't talk to their kids about sex. YOU just chose to read it that way because you wanted to push your agenda about Evolution, God, Communism, Liberals and a Nanny State. The only way I can make sense of your post is if you are trying to say we shouldn't have schools whatsoever because it goes against survival of the fittest and teaches kids things that their parents might now want them to hear. No one forces your kids to go to school, if you want to completely control everything they hear, you can homeschool them, I think its a terrible idea for you, but you can.
oooh, its pretty bold to be bad mouthing FF7 on slashdot.. we will have to see how the mods will treat you. Although I won't say FF7 was terrible. I agree that it isn't one of the best in the series. PLaying it today you realize a lot of the appeal was the new shiny graphics and fmv's. Not to mention I hate trying to play it because for some reason Circle is the accept button instead of the Cross.. Makes switching between games a pain in the ass.
What if I traded the world stone for 100 soj's?
Alright Diablo 2 humor is way too old now, I know... which reminds me, when is that third one going to come out..
The reason the U.S. only has two main political parties is a result of how they handle elections. I am not sure about the UK government, but I imagine if the UK has 3 parties then parliment seats are awarded based upon what percentage of the vote a party recieves. So if one party gets 30% of the vote they'll be awarded an equivalent number of seats.
The U.S. is different, voting is done on a majority basis, since only one party can win a seat, both parties try to posistion them self as close to 'center' (left-wing ---- center ---- right-wing) as possible so they are able to get the largest majority of votes (this assumes people are distributed in a bell-curve like (unimodal) frequency which the U.S. has, Iraq however, with it three parties does not have a unimodal distribution) Hence the two main parties need to absorb the views of any other 3rd parties in order to assure they remain electable. So this really is just a byproduct of the system the U.S. uses. It has advantages and disadvantages.
I hate this argument 'lets compare two things that work on totally different principles and draw some stupid conclusion', If we can put a man on the moon, why do our planes and helicopters still crash? Why do you assume that in order to accomplish interstellar travel one must have perfected flight? Its seems rather apparent that the two things would work on two very different principles. Similar to comparing boats to planes. And for the humanoid comment, how did you calculate the chances of being close to zero? Perhaps there is just some universal evolutionary benefit for being bipedal, neither one of us has any real support for this either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Distributed key algorithms do exist, but there is a problem with them. The security of the system depends on the key holders having high levels of distrust for one another. It is very easy to imagine many corporate environments where keys will be shared with another out of convenience which then makes the system essentially a single key system.
Given 360's are still having a high failure rate partially due to heat concerns, I doubt we see a slim 360 anytime soon.
In many countries around the globe people are charged based upon the amount of usage, or time of usage and these ISPs are not part of some global media conglomerate conspiracy. Americans are just fortunate to have always had unlimited bandwith from their ISPs. Although I will say in other countries as their infrastructure gets better they are moving to more unlimited policies, it is a shame the US wants to move in the opposite way. I don't believe there is any cable conspiracy, rather cable companies are trying to protect themselves from any outages that will occur once downloading hd content becomes mainstream. A basic understanding of cable internet will tell you that the bandwidth pool is limited and is affected more by high consumption than DSL, and the only solutions are to either throttle speeds or throttle total consumption, i prefer the latter. Notice how we haven't heard anything from DSL companies about charging by usage, because their infrastructure is different. This is just the cable companies trying to protect themselves from outages, no conspiracy, sorry guys.
condoms break.
I take it you are an A1 carrier. Most of us have quickly learned, arguing with women gets you no where and should be avoided at all costs. There are better ways to get what one wants.
I agree with everything the parent said and have to add another thing. GP is arguing for natural selection, which no one really disputes happening, I mean survival of the fittest is an obvious statement. Evolution however involves using natural selection in much broader ways. Speciation is like natural selection to the extreme, and I feel is poorly supported by natural selection. Sure we see bacteria becoming resistant or see other minor genetic mutations but to create an entire different species from this process is a long and extremely difficult one.
It follows then that yes, perhaps there are experiments that exist that can tell us what our universe really is without having to ever leave it. Especially if our universe is run on a computer, something of which the limitations of are well known. To support or disprove his theory one would have to look for phenomenom that contradicts our understanding of computing. Show that there is no halting problem, show that overflow does occur.
Of course now I must say that I don't think this theory is worth anything, from what I can tell there aren't any infinite loops in the universe, overflow doesn't seem to occur and infinity exists in many many places, hell there are even an infinite types of infinity each one 'larger' than the previous. And infinty and overflow are two things computers do not handle well. Unless there are good hacks in place, which still, the universe would need an extraordinary live patching system to fix more problems as they are discovered.
What about social engineering as a hacking tool? Will this make those 'tools' who actually respond to phishing emails illegal? If so, then I fully support this law.
Just to nit pick a bit, the "best" shape of a wheel is not necessarily circular. It just happens to be the best shape for a flat surface. However, there are different types of planes where even square wheels might work best. I refer you to a light wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wheel but the first source on the article is better, but it doesn't have any pictures. So my point is, while the problem remains the same (what shape rolls best?) the world your problem exists in can change which requires one to still keep an open mind to other possible solutions. One real world example of this would be solving problems in a parallel vs sequential processing enviroment. Many of the same problems exist, but different 'best' solutions are required.
In you scenario, would it be legally OK for a tech to reveal your client details to a 3rd party? What if I have medical test results on my computer, would it be legal for a tech to reveal my medical records on his/her blog? I'd say both those things should have some expectation of privacy.
It probably would not be illegal to look at your files, granting someone access to your computer already gives them direct access to some of your files (OS, personal settings and configuration files) but also, I think we can both agree that your unencrypted files on your hard drive are in no way hidden from someone who has access to use your computer. Telling other people about client data however, would be illegal, most likely constituting as theft.
The people who develop your photos are legally obligated to report you to the police if your photos contain child pornography. Because by seeing that you have the photos, they have witnessed a crime and thus must report it. While the CC worker was more than likely snooping around (which is rude, not illegal), it does not change the fact he witnessed a crime and must report it.
I sure hope our government isn't encrypting their information with a RNG with a known backdoor. That seems pretty stupid. It would seem the reasonable explanation is the government is out to get us.
One of the main sticking points on why the Japanese wouldn't surrender was the U.S. would not allow them to retain their emperor. While the emperor had no real political power, it was just a huge symbol of Japanese culture and many inside Japan could not stand to lose that.
I find this story hard to believe, because Blockbuster has been doing well and taking over the online market from Netflix because of the simple advantage of also having brick and mortar stores to exchance your movies at, plus the added coupons you get sent every month. Not to mention, blockbuster will have the larger selection. For those not familiar with the rental industry, the movies blockbuster doesn't manage to sell secondhand after their rental life, just sit in a warehouse waiting for action. I would find it extremely hard to believe that Netflix has a larger selection than someone that has been in the buisness for a long time. Plus Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery are pretty much closing down, leaving Blockbuster the dominate force with brick and mortar, which will not be going away for at least 10 years.
The problem is the moves airlines make don't make sense if they wish to stay in buisness. In a competitive enviroment, buisnesses should be seeking to reduce their costs and increase the value a customer recieves. Charging to get your baggage first lowers the value of the product because while people who pay might get added value, the customer who is still paying the same ticket price gets less value by having their luggage no longer randomly come out. If the airlines were interested in being more competitve the correct move would be to offer flyers a discount if they don't mind their luggage coming out last. Removing meals from planes is the same thing. Reducing costs is only effective if you change the way you act internally and the product the public gets doesn't suffer.
Is the mystery game they are working on Diablo 3? I've heard various stories already that it has been in production for awhile, but they had to take it baack to the drawing board.
There are two situations where fruit of the poisoness tree do not apply. First is Inevitable Discovery where evidence found illegally can still be used if it can be shown that they would have found it inevitably. Second is the Good-faith exception where evidence found in an illegal search can be admissable if it can be shown that the cop believed everything he was doing was legal. As you can tell both of these are very subjective which allows a lot of leway when it comes to 'illegally' obtained evidence
I don't support the RIAA or DRM but I have never really bought into the whole "allowing piracy increases net sales" ideology. Firstly, I doubt it will increase the number albums sold. Why would you buy the album.. if you already have all the songs? It doesn't make any sense. Secondly, if we are to believe that downloading music for free increases a band's exposure, then there should be a corresponging increase in concert attendance and merchandise sales. I'll leave it up to someone to find the actual numbers, but I'm fairly certain concert attendance has been falling.
In the end I see downloading music illegally as something that neither hurts nor helps the music buisness. Sure it may hurt some sales, it might create some sales, but a HUGE, OVERWHELMING, majority of people would never pay for most the songs they download, at least in the current system. I know I wouldn't. Consumers will always choose what costs them the least (actual cost + convience - (risk of getting caught)), rarely do people buy based on ideology. The music industry understood this and could either change its buisness model or start making it hard for people to download (flooding networks with fake songs) and issuing lawsuits. The latter was easier for them, hence it is where we are at today. Is it working? No.
Perhaps you never went through sex ed, but it doesn't teach how to have sex. The ability to have sex isn't something you need to teach people, that comes naturally. What people do need is the ability to seperate the truth from the many, many myths about sex. Listen to LoveLine (is that show still on the air?), or Sex with Sue sometime, and you will hear that great amount of disinformation people believe about sex. So yes, parents cannot be trusted with this matter because they themselves were not told the proper things. No, no one thinks that, if YOU think that, why should we bother teaching kids about anything then? You can't keep people from having sex, it is a natural function, not a 'privelege for the married', telling people not to have sex makes as much sense as telling people they can't make friends. Humans are social, and we are sexual. Let's see where to start on this one.. Firstly, I hope you understand that liberals generally support personal freedoms while conservatives generally try and stay with the status quo (e.g. what can be taught in schools, what kinds of people are allowed to marry). This discussion has nothing to do with a Nanny State, the poster wasn't saying parents shouldn't talk to their kids about sex. YOU just chose to read it that way because you wanted to push your agenda about Evolution, God, Communism, Liberals and a Nanny State. The only way I can make sense of your post is if you are trying to say we shouldn't have schools whatsoever because it goes against survival of the fittest and teaches kids things that their parents might now want them to hear. No one forces your kids to go to school, if you want to completely control everything they hear, you can homeschool them, I think its a terrible idea for you, but you can.
Very misleading headline.
oooh, its pretty bold to be bad mouthing FF7 on slashdot.. we will have to see how the mods will treat you. Although I won't say FF7 was terrible. I agree that it isn't one of the best in the series. PLaying it today you realize a lot of the appeal was the new shiny graphics and fmv's. Not to mention I hate trying to play it because for some reason Circle is the accept button instead of the Cross.. Makes switching between games a pain in the ass.
What if I traded the world stone for 100 soj's? Alright Diablo 2 humor is way too old now, I know... which reminds me, when is that third one going to come out..
Walmart could sell a computer running linux.. except.. they actually want their customers to be able to use it.
I suggest you read the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system I will quickly summarize though.
The reason the U.S. only has two main political parties is a result of how they handle elections. I am not sure about the UK government, but I imagine if the UK has 3 parties then parliment seats are awarded based upon what percentage of the vote a party recieves. So if one party gets 30% of the vote they'll be awarded an equivalent number of seats.
The U.S. is different, voting is done on a majority basis, since only one party can win a seat, both parties try to posistion them self as close to 'center' (left-wing ---- center ---- right-wing) as possible so they are able to get the largest majority of votes (this assumes people are distributed in a bell-curve like (unimodal) frequency which the U.S. has, Iraq however, with it three parties does not have a unimodal distribution) Hence the two main parties need to absorb the views of any other 3rd parties in order to assure they remain electable. So this really is just a byproduct of the system the U.S. uses. It has advantages and disadvantages.
I hate this argument 'lets compare two things that work on totally different principles and draw some stupid conclusion', If we can put a man on the moon, why do our planes and helicopters still crash? Why do you assume that in order to accomplish interstellar travel one must have perfected flight? Its seems rather apparent that the two things would work on two very different principles. Similar to comparing boats to planes. And for the humanoid comment, how did you calculate the chances of being close to zero? Perhaps there is just some universal evolutionary benefit for being bipedal, neither one of us has any real support for this either way.