Re: Anyhow, my conspiracy theory is that maybe /. has reached a tippiong point where whatever corporation currently owns /. doesn't get enough click-referral revenue, so they've stopped bothering to link to the articles?

aha!!! I am inclined to agree with you. Though Timothy's history of bizarre posting behavior may mean it's just the same old same old, you may have hit upon the real truth with your conspiracy theory! I breathe along with you. [look up the meaning of conspiracy...]

Hey Timothy, wake up! How about the link?

Here it is in case you can't find it:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130531131600482

"Innovators, Entrepreneurs and Funds File Amicus in Support of Google in Oracle v. Google Appeal ~pj"

What is a "recombinant turbine"? Wikipedia does not seem to know, since it thinks the word "recombinant" pertains only to DNA.

A general web search yields only references to batteries that are "recombinant gas turbine starting batteries" which does not seem to make much sense to me.

Re: Wikipedia is the only site I know that does [use srcset]

Interestingly enough, searching for "srcset" on wikipedia yields no results on any pages at all anywhere on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=srcset yields:

Did you mean: secret ?

There were no results matching the query.

The page "Srcset" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.

But definitely the concept of "srcset" makes sense for extremely large displays, extremely small displays, and extremely high-resolution high-DPI displays. But what good is a standard if only one organization is using it? It would work better when more people use it or follow it or recognize it. It does sound more like a "browser" error. Or is it a revenue maximization error to force more bandwidth usage, just like all those javascript and flash-based advertisements are? ;>)

The idea of variable resolution images with just one set being requested is a good one; it just has to become more known about, at least enough known about to be worth meriting a mention on some wikipedia page if not a wikipedia page of its own!

You're right that they don't call the plans unlimited in this particular ad. The only mention of "limit" on that page is as "limited-time offer" multiple times and then one time They tell you to "So go ahead and push your devices to their limits and never skip a beat."

They also say

Connect all your devices and push them to their limitsâ"this speed won't let you down.

So they can't complain if you hook up 500 devices if you own 500 devices, right? And since there's no mention of limit, only bandwidth and download and upload speeds, then there is no limit implied. Thus by definition, only limited by capacity.

Atomic Force Microscopy does not visually capture anything. It measures atomic forces with a finer resolution that goes beyond the optical diffraction limit for wavelengths of light visible to the unaided eye.

The rendered images are derived from the force measurements and thus these really are "inferred images" or visual renderings of force measurements. These are definitely not "visual capture" images. These are visual renderings.

Stuxnet Part Deux and add potential eavesdropping capability?

Hmmm... One would think the ability to insert more eavesdropping and spying capabilties ("hidden features? :>) ) may be more the reasoning behind something like this. Perhaps another bonus gift inserted into the software, hardware, or microcode, like Stuxnet did?

No no no. Reread that. I actually gave the real math for it. I'm not claiming that this defendant used a one-time pad. I'm saying it's like the Da Vinci Code, but even better: you can generate a purported one-time pad that would decrypt ANY message of length L into ANY OTHER message of length L. I actually gave the pseudocode for it, using the simplest protocol of all: XORing the message with the one-time pad.

In other words, a claim that someone has "found a one-time pad that decrypts a message" is essentially meaningless. One may generate any claim whatsoever for any message whatsoever by that technique.

Re: You have a problem here. All the feds have to do is go before the judge, start with an archived copy of the original disk which can be proven to be bitwise identical, apply the correct decryption process, and when out pops all the data they claim was there you'll have to explain how they got the original encrypted bytes to decrypt directly into the alleged criminal data.

I can make you a one-time pad that can decrypt any X of length $L_x$ into any Y also of length $L_x$. Just fucking XOR the values of X and Y and call that Z = (X) xor (Y) . Now, Z is the XOR-decryption-encryption key that will transform X into Y. That can be done for every fucking Y possible in the world. Of course, this is charlatanry. You're not going to use a one-time pad of length 1-terabyte, or are you?

But it's trivial. Say that my code is "12345". Say that I want to decode that into "fuxor". Set Z = "12345" xor "fuxor", and say that Z is the encryption key. Now, (Z) xor ("12345") = "fuxor". Tada. La Voila.

But what if instead I wanted to prove that "12345" really encoded "itsCP" ?? Well, claim that Z_2 = "12345" xor "itsCP". Now, (Z_2) xor ("12345") = "itsCP". Ohmifuckinggod, the code "12345" decodes into the obvious claim that "itsCP"!!! There can be no other answer!!! Hang'em!

And that can be done for the noisy chaff that is encrypted data too. It's like the Queen in Alice Wonderland explaining what words mean: "I can make them mean anything I want them to mean!"

in other words, tl;dr: I can make a one-time pad to prove it's anything...

Plus there's an age distribution, and there's been a rather fast tumbling down of other sites.

Tumblr is more popular amongst current high-school kids than facebook is. Facebook is for parents and grandparents. Tumblr is for the current high school kids. Actually, facebook is for the bonus site to make for your parents to see that you're friends with the good kids and the appropriate hoity-toity-clubs like math-club, science-club, model United Nations, scouts of boys and girls, etc. [i do not know where the fight-club members are. no one talks about fight club... ;>) ]

  Two sites that were filled with questions have disappeared (or half-disappeared): formspring.com (i'm on there somewhere, hint hint) was supposed to go dark in april but the web pages are still there. Ask.fm and a similar ask-a-question functionality on facebook supplanted formspring. And vyou.com (pronounced view?) really did go completely dark. Some kids also have gone onto myspace, though who the hell knows why...

Formspring was really popular amongst the Brazilians. If you had a page with a popular name, say teresa or allyson (in all their spelling versions), you'd get bombarded with questions in portugese and threats asking you to get off of their formspring page so that they could have it.

Well, hey, if you can't get FOSS for what you want, at least have the ethics to realize that you have to pay fo rthe software you use. Don't use unlicensed software. FOSS software is licensed too, even if it is or is not free of cost. Freedom in FOSS is the freedom to share and the lack of a bullshit-filled license. Or at least don't keep hiring idiots who think that it's okay to steal. It's not okay to steal in either case, and your employees ought to be aware of that: a - proprietary software copied without paying for the copy or the extra license b - FOSS software that you intend to use without honoring the license If your employees can't stop stealing, perhaps they deserve being fired.

Re:Throwing out high quality people because a 3rd party company bullies you is not really great business practice.

Excellent point. Licensing is key. Go FOSS.

He should have made his password or passphrase be

"I do not have the password"

Then, when asked for the password, he could truthfully state that his answer is "I do not have the password". Of course, a few weasely questions that he may be required to answer truthfully could shake this, but hey, why not for a first step?

Or possibly:

"I don't need no stinkin' password"

"This is not my drive."

"I forgot my password" as the passphrase!

"I assert my fifth amendment rights"

"I respectfully assert my fifth amendment rights"

"Fuck you" (J_1: what is your password? R_1: fuck you J1:Que? Off to jail! R_1: I answered fully and truthfully!)

dude ??? Why are you arguing with me? My original position was that this is really a great hack ("kickass hack!" ) adding on new capabilities.

Someone replied to me and said it was like enablibg capabilities that were "hidden".

  I replied to them and said "nyah. nyet. no. this is truly adding on new capabilities that were not originally designed for."

  So I'm thinking we're on the same side. Am i right?

Ah, indeed you are correct. The hardware was there, but my opinion or reading of it is that it was not "crippled" but never intended to have this functionality. It does not have enough RAM to buffer frames continuously at uncompressed DNG format rates for continuous video recording to SD card, whereas other cameras that were designed specifically for video recording have enough memory to be capable of doing this.

Thus my interpretation is that this camera model's hardware specs were deemed insufficient by the manufacturer for this specific capability, and considering that it can only do burst mode up to $X$ frames before capping out its memory buffer, the manufacturer may have been correct. So my interpretation is not that they "re-enabled a purposely disabled core" but rather that they added functionality which the manufacturer had decided that this hardware was not capable of performing well.