So you need to sign from the bottom-most layer all the way up.
But that is still defeatable. To root such a system, I just have to install Ubuntu's signed bootloader that lets me run unsigned kernels (as they have stated they will allow). Then I can modify your signed kernel however I want before loading and running that. How is UEFI supposed to protect against that?
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve
Sort answer: It isn't beyond the point a human eye can resolve if by that we mean the resolution beyond which there is no perceptable improvement.
Long answer: Apple's display has pixels that are 1 minute of arc in size when the screen is held 18 inches from the eye. Apple's marketing would like you to believe that 1 minute of arc is is the limit of the human eye, but that isn't quite true.
First, the pixels are rectangular and the 1 minute of arc was only on the sort side of the rectangle (at least when they first came out, they may have improved the specs).
Second, if you hold the screen closer than 18 inches (which I think most people do), the pixels are larger than 1 minute of arc.
Third and most importantly, the 1 minute of arc number is determined by how small the parts of a capital letter "E" can be for a person with 20/20 vision to determine what letter it is. (The entire "E" is 5 minutes of arc tall.) For other tasks (e.g. determining if two lines are parallel or where the point of a thin wedge ends), humans can detect features 10 or more (100?) times smaller than 1 minute of arc. Aliasing is easily detectable at 1 minute of arc given the right conditions.
The scale isn't shifted (would have to be a relative scale anyway), the very idea of "left vs right" is broken. Supposedly being pro-tobacco is "right", but being pro-marijuana is "left". Supposedly being anti-death penalty is "left", but being anti-abortion is "right".
"Left" isn't actually center. "Right" isn't actually extreme right. Along one axis (socialist vs capitalist?) maybe they are (even then that doesn't mean "center = good; extreme = bad" as the GP implies.), but on other axises "left" is right and "right" is left.
Political discourse needs to change in the US. Instead of using terms like "left" and "right" in ways that mean no more than brand names or rallying calls, issues need to be discussed on their own merits independent of whether they are a "left" or "right" issue.
Please help make this change and refuse to buy the myth of left vs right.
My religious rights, for example, do not give me the right to dictate your health care options.
By the some token, one person shouldn't be forced to pay for a particular sort of health care for someone else just because one is buying services from the other. (Cases like workers comp that are related to the actual services purchased may still be justified.)
Disclaimer: I am of the opinion that having the employer provide health care instead of the empoyee buying it directly is part of what dug us into the current mess. Short term it lowers insurance costs due to pooling, but long term it raises service costs (i.e. the thing being insured) due to devorcing benefits from costs.
Yep, there is even laws specifically making it a crime to "kill someone you throught was scary but that a reasonable person wouldn't". It's called "voluntary manslaughter". (At least its one kind of voluntary manslaugher, it has a broad definition.)
This is an active area of research because at the quantum level everything is reversable. If the hardware implementation difficulties of quantum computers ever get solved, we need to have both theories and "practical" languages to handle it. (By "practical" I mean one that actually looks like programming versus "programming" in terms of Hilbert spaces.)
My understanding is that to implement a hash function you have one of two choices. The first is to pay the "kT" cost by calling the "erase" operator (i.e. pipe it to/dev/null). The second is to have it generate "garbage" bits. These bits provide enough information for the computation to be reversed and are not hard to define (even for something like hash functions). For example, with a hash function, the data from which the hash was computed can be used as the garbage. By carrying the garbage bits around instead of erasing them, you might be able to (1) use them in some other computation, (2) be able to localize where and when you pay the heat cost of the garbage, or (3) be able to cheaply backtract the computation.
If you are interested in this, James and Sabry ("Information Effects" POPL 2012, "The Two Dualities of Computation", etc.) are actively developing the foundational theories of a language for programming in a reversable language (disclaimer: the authors are both personal friends of mine). Their stuff might still be a bit heavy for Joe Programmer, but it should be accessable to anyone familiar with higher-order, typed languages.
What you've described sounds like modalism, which is regected by Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching says there are three distinct "persons" sharing one "nature". Here the concepts "nature" and "person" are technical terms borrowed from philosophy, but they are not simply facets of one divinity.
If no one had done it before (for emoticons) then why would it be obvious?
Perhaps obviousness should be scrapped for a better condition like "obvious once you've stated the problem you're solving" or something that rules out patents that are simple enough that their title is the answer (e.g. "one-click").
It is good to be able to make this statement, but actually make it unless legally required to do so. You would be giving them evidence that they could twist to use against you. Don't give them that (unless advised by a Lawyer).
it's illegal to copy the database and use it without permission
However, it is perfectly legal to copy the facts from the database since the copyright extends only to the creative aspects of the collection. See Feist v. Rural.
Feist v. Rural is the case you want to look at. Under that rulling the TZDB was free and clear unless the astrologers sould show a "spark" of creativity in the collection of facts. Basically, the facts themselves are not copyrightable, though the arrangement, presentation, or selection of facts may be copyrightable.
If those taxation rates are marginal instead of effective, you adjust the rates to meet the current US budget(*), and you ammend item 4(**), then you've got me sold.
(*) The US government budget is around $1T. Average US wage is $40k. US population is 300M, so total US wages are around $12T. Thus the average effective tax should be 8.3% to meet the current budget. Of course the progressive aspect of the tax rate means that the average doesn't mean much, but plugging in a few sample salaries seems to indicate that those rates are already about right. I'd just want see a proper analysis to be sure.
(**) I'd want to be able to split my income among any group of people (roommates, parents, children, friend I'm putting though graduate school, etc.). A spouse would be only one example of that relationship. Provided the money is truely communal, then the tax code needs to reflect the effective income of the individual.
Translations differ in the wording of verses. Maybe at that church everyone may use the same translation, but that is not always or even often the case.
VAT is not the same as sales tax. Resold items get retaxed under sales tax but not VAT. So 8% sales tax with one middle man is equivalent to 16.64% VAT which no longer looks so low.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so the malware just has to disable Windows Update (or patch it so it looks like its working but actually isn't). That's not hard.
So you need to sign from the bottom-most layer all the way up.
But that is still defeatable. To root such a system, I just have to install Ubuntu's signed bootloader that lets me run unsigned kernels (as they have stated they will allow). Then I can modify your signed kernel however I want before loading and running that. How is UEFI supposed to protect against that?
In a few short paragraphs (I don't have time to read links to essays), why is DNSSEC a joke? (I ask out of ignorance.)
"War is the continuation of Politics by other means" -- Carl von Clausewitz
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve
Sort answer: It isn't beyond the point a human eye can resolve if by that we mean the resolution beyond which there is no perceptable improvement.
Long answer: Apple's display has pixels that are 1 minute of arc in size when the screen is held 18 inches from the eye. Apple's marketing would like you to believe that 1 minute of arc is is the limit of the human eye, but that isn't quite true.
First, the pixels are rectangular and the 1 minute of arc was only on the sort side of the rectangle (at least when they first came out, they may have improved the specs).
Second, if you hold the screen closer than 18 inches (which I think most people do), the pixels are larger than 1 minute of arc.
Third and most importantly, the 1 minute of arc number is determined by how small the parts of a capital letter "E" can be for a person with 20/20 vision to determine what letter it is. (The entire "E" is 5 minutes of arc tall.) For other tasks (e.g. determining if two lines are parallel or where the point of a thin wedge ends), humans can detect features 10 or more (100?) times smaller than 1 minute of arc. Aliasing is easily detectable at 1 minute of arc given the right conditions.
I understand the quarantine and think it was justified, but if this was a simple symptom mixup, then why did it take a couple of hours to clear it up?
CDC's quick response: good. Slow follow through: bad.
However, alcocol dependance requires "heroic" effort to create in the first place.
The scale isn't shifted (would have to be a relative scale anyway), the very idea of "left vs right" is broken. Supposedly being pro-tobacco is "right", but being pro-marijuana is "left". Supposedly being anti-death penalty is "left", but being anti-abortion is "right".
"Left" isn't actually center. "Right" isn't actually extreme right. Along one axis (socialist vs capitalist?) maybe they are (even then that doesn't mean "center = good; extreme = bad" as the GP implies.), but on other axises "left" is right and "right" is left.
Political discourse needs to change in the US. Instead of using terms like "left" and "right" in ways that mean no more than brand names or rallying calls, issues need to be discussed on their own merits independent of whether they are a "left" or "right" issue.
Please help make this change and refuse to buy the myth of left vs right.
I think you mean "(car posts)".
My religious rights, for example, do not give me the right to dictate your health care options.
By the some token, one person shouldn't be forced to pay for a particular sort of health care for someone else just because one is buying services from the other. (Cases like workers comp that are related to the actual services purchased may still be justified.)
Disclaimer: I am of the opinion that having the employer provide health care instead of the empoyee buying it directly is part of what dug us into the current mess. Short term it lowers insurance costs due to pooling, but long term it raises service costs (i.e. the thing being insured) due to devorcing benefits from costs.
Yep, there is even laws specifically making it a crime to "kill someone you throught was scary but that a reasonable person wouldn't". It's called "voluntary manslaughter". (At least its one kind of voluntary manslaugher, it has a broad definition.)
This is an active area of research because at the quantum level everything is reversable. If the hardware implementation difficulties of quantum computers ever get solved, we need to have both theories and "practical" languages to handle it. (By "practical" I mean one that actually looks like programming versus "programming" in terms of Hilbert spaces.)
My understanding is that to implement a hash function you have one of two choices. The first is to pay the "kT" cost by calling the "erase" operator (i.e. pipe it to /dev/null). The second is to have it generate "garbage" bits. These bits provide enough information for the computation to be reversed and are not hard to define (even for something like hash functions). For example, with a hash function, the data from which the hash was computed can be used as the garbage. By carrying the garbage bits around instead of erasing them, you might be able to (1) use them in some other computation, (2) be able to localize where and when you pay the heat cost of the garbage, or (3) be able to cheaply backtract the computation.
If you are interested in this, James and Sabry ("Information Effects" POPL 2012, "The Two Dualities of Computation", etc.) are actively developing the foundational theories of a language for programming in a reversable language (disclaimer: the authors are both personal friends of mine). Their stuff might still be a bit heavy for Joe Programmer, but it should be accessable to anyone familiar with higher-order, typed languages.
What you've described sounds like modalism, which is regected by Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching says there are three distinct "persons" sharing one "nature". Here the concepts "nature" and "person" are technical terms borrowed from philosophy, but they are not simply facets of one divinity.
If no one had done it before (for emoticons) then why would it be obvious?
Perhaps obviousness should be scrapped for a better condition like "obvious once you've stated the problem you're solving" or something that rules out patents that are simple enough that their title is the answer (e.g. "one-click").
It is good to be able to make this statement, but actually make it unless legally required to do so. You would be giving them evidence that they could twist to use against you. Don't give them that (unless advised by a Lawyer).
Except that in the 23rd Century way back then, Pluto was a PLANET!!!
It cost the tax payers a pretty penny to make it big enough to be a planet, but it was worth it.
it's illegal to copy the database and use it without permission
However, it is perfectly legal to copy the facts from the database since the copyright extends only to the creative aspects of the collection. See Feist v. Rural.
Feist v. Rural is the case you want to look at. Under that rulling the TZDB was free and clear unless the astrologers sould show a "spark" of creativity in the collection of facts. Basically, the facts themselves are not copyrightable, though the arrangement, presentation, or selection of facts may be copyrightable.
If those taxation rates are marginal instead of effective, you adjust the rates to meet the current US budget(*), and you ammend item 4(**), then you've got me sold.
(*) The US government budget is around $1T. Average US wage is $40k. US population is 300M, so total US wages are around $12T. Thus the average effective tax should be 8.3% to meet the current budget. Of course the progressive aspect of the tax rate means that the average doesn't mean much, but plugging in a few sample salaries seems to indicate that those rates are already about right. I'd just want see a proper analysis to be sure.
(**) I'd want to be able to split my income among any group of people (roommates, parents, children, friend I'm putting though graduate school, etc.). A spouse would be only one example of that relationship. Provided the money is truely communal, then the tax code needs to reflect the effective income of the individual.
What does "horizontal boring damage" mean? People drilling though the air? Animals that burrow though plastic and copper (but only horizontally)?
Cheap, unarmored and expendable, but small and hard to hit. I think I've heard of that formula before. Oh yeah ... it was how Doug Lenat beat the Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron.
(In fairness, his ships couldn't even move and these things can fly.)
For some reason, their hum sounds ominous to me. It's like something from a distopian future.
Would be fun to play space invaders with swarms of things.
Translations differ in the wording of verses. Maybe at that church everyone may use the same translation, but that is not always or even often the case.
VAT is not the same as sales tax. Resold items get retaxed under sales tax but not VAT. So 8% sales tax with one middle man is equivalent to 16.64% VAT which no longer looks so low.