rainforest

I'm not sure where to draw the line, but at what point does revoking rights remove the incentive to comply with society?

You might want to preserve the test case as it's found an interesting code path. You could keep it around so tests generated from it cover similar paths, possibly without reaching the assertion.

I think you're right to point out that the people in the UK deserve what their elected representatives bring upon them. As their manifesto points out, they want to be world leaders at bringing the internet into parity. As you say, prosecutions for publishing silly comments do happen as a consequence of this process.

I don't think anyone's surprised by the proposal, just part of the small minority who would rather not have the government intrude on their space. From a practical standpoint the legislation risks making social networks prohibitive to run, and will make it financially and/or legally intractable to do things like run forums or possibly any website that publishes news or has a comments section.

Any move by a government to regulate the internet will always be viewed through the lens of this minority as an infringement on a space where ideas should be free, controlled by an actor that shouldn't be trusted and can't be removed (i.e. no Second Amendment) if it's caught abusing its powers.

>> They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime. > Could you explain what you mean by this?

Online hate speech has been prosecuted when it was targeted at a dead person.

> I think a lot of people behave as though the discourse they engage in on social media is as if it is in the pub, but it is simply not the case. The existing laws regarding on-line communication encompass anything that is 'published' online and people do get prosecuted.

While true, this is an example where the line isn't concrete. If a pub is full of people being unpleasant or talking about things one doesn't want to hear, one can simply leave. Targeted abuse is different to being uncomfortable about topics one is voluntarily eavesdropping on.

They challenge the long-held idea that people on the internet are capable of dealing with things they don't like or the government wouldn't like them to see. They also remove the need for there to be a victim of a crime.

I see a lot of discourse on the internet in the same way it happens in a pub. There are very little boundaries to the beliefs someone admits to sharing, and presence of a regulator to check that nothing illegal is being discussed doesn't sit right.

In this specific case an IDE could conceivably highlight a check that the compiler will omit, or point at undefined behaviour directly. The general aim is probably unachievable as you suggest - if 3 functions are rewritten to one it'd be hard to point out where the change was applied.

The study is available here[0]. The gist is that an app can launder a request it isn't privileged to make through another app that is privileged and doesn't correctly check the intent sender. There are examples in Section 4.3.

[0] : http://people.cs.vt.edu/danfeng/papers/AsiaCCS-17-Yao.pdf

The undertone certainly seems like they'll be paying a lot of attention to Apple's compliance of their patent portfolio. Given how much of their revenue comes from Apple I wonder if they'll have to become an enforcer of their current IP rather than generator of new IP.

I could be mistaken but on install the Dropbox app adds a few SetUID binaries that probably allow them to put the bit back.

Is there any way you can trust the CPU to tell you what code in the PSP is running though?

I am aware of some work that involves modelling external devices to achieve verification with SAL or HOL: http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/R.Taylor/Spurinna/

My assumption is based on the differences between the Charge (non-HR) and the Alta I was given after 4 Charge replacements. The Alta does text alerts but doesn't do stair counting. Assuming the latter only needs an accelerometer there isn't anything obvious in the hardware that might other be missing to make it impossible.

I'm not so optimistic. FitBit's business model is to distinguish price bands by software features like printer manufacturers. Pebble's is to provide the same experience, enhanced by better hardware to everyone. Pebble still do this at a pricepoint near the entry-level FitBits.

I can't imagine FitBit wanting to continue to keep a competitor that would let third parties de-value the premium features with an open SDK.

My gut feeling is that TDD is just a way to encourage me to actually write tests. I suspect I'd have just as many tests if I had someone prod me every 20 minutes to write a test case or two. Having one or two tests also creates a bit of a wedge to make me write more: once there's some code that can be neglected I can feel guilty when ignoring it.

The use of students in SE research is a hot topic, see, for example Fietelson's review: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08409.

Practitioners have a problem recruiting subjects. There is often a tradeoff between applying more rigorous experiment design and using convenience sampling (students) versus sacrificing controlled environments (so that professionals would actually join the study).

It's easy to condemn work like this but there's no other option. In this case the researchers chose to replicate a study (which often risks similar ire for telling us nothing new) with a commendable level of rigour and have provided more evidence that, for the scope of experiments we can construct that TDD is probably no different to TLD when using a population of relatively unqualified developers (students).

As to the problem being trivial, what else can be done? There's a finite time you can ethically expect participants to give to you, even if you pay them. If anything the criticism of this work is better directed at the limitations academics are forced to bear.

Someone has described using a physical network to solve the shortest-path problem in O(N) time: https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/a1sqb/help_shortes...

Isn't LEA also a quick single instruction multiply-add for fixed scales in the SIB? e.g. `LEA EAX, EAX*4 + 0x3`

1px is all you need: the article cites instances where they track a pixel to a ground-based camera to get a higher res image.

Is there a reason you opted to use Elo rather than other rating systems commonly used in baseball analysis like log5 or Pythagorean (e.g. https://summerofjeff.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/serving-agains...)?

I'd also be interested in knowing a bit more about point 2 as well.

> Should publisher's work be free? I think not.

What value does the publisher's work add to the work the author generated?

At a total guess it's down to the lack of precision in the output at anything other than full power. Most (all?) microwaves just pulse the magnetron to achieve an average delivery of the rated power so the difference between 400W and 425W would be dependent on the time the microwave runs, given most tend to use a fairly long time period.

You can see this effect if you run a microwave on low power for a short period - sometimes the magnetron will be running for the full duration.

There's a tool that does similar to AFL called EvoSuite (http://www.evosuite.org). It uses a genetic algorithm like AFL and generates JUnit suites for the target classes. It doesn't look for crashes like AFL - it's closer to MS's IntelliTest tool but uses metaheuristics instead of SMT to break conditions.

Work in bootstrapping energy consumption exists in academia; for example Pathak et al[0]. The changes in 10.10.4 could be an implementation of something along the same lines, by fitting a model to the measured power consumption.

As comex notes in the comments on the article, there appears to be a table of weights for various features, presumably obtained by regression.

[0]: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012....

I don't think you can boot the machine to login as Guest without a password if you have FileVault enabled.

Given that a lot of computer vision work is based on randomised algorithms, do you think that these standards would be enough? You could demonstrate 100% MC/DC coverage through a neural net implementation, but the weights are where the faults probably exist, for example.

If the tests are crashes and you have existing unit tests, some work out of Virginia on using genetic programming to evolve patches could possibly work: http://dijkstra.cs.virginia.edu/genprog/

That's how genetic programming could work; with a suitable test suite you should be able to evolve an implementation. See FINCH for some early work on GP for Java [1].

[1] : http://finch.cs.bgu.ac.il/pubs/gptp.pdf

The problem with strategy (2) is that the government can take action to stop it. For example, in the UK it's a criminal offence to withhold encryption keys in the face of a warrant.

David Cameron also relatively recently argued that encryption should be banned or controlled to prevent anyone hiding things from the intelligence services.

Widespread deployment of encryption would probably just result in more offensive tactics from intelligence agencies.

The Ariane 5 failure is a little more nuanced than that though. The conversion bug was in the Ariane 4 too, they reused the IRS, so it was almost "proven in use" but Ariane 5's trajectories put it under much higher acceleration (enough to trigger overflow).

It's an embarrassing failure for sure, but it's more nuanced than a "dumb mistake"; the management, testing methodology, and code all failed when it exploded.

I think it's slightly interesting in context of Cameron's recent comments against secure crypto and increasing surveillance. Surveillance can't prevent pretexting attacks like this, nor did crypto enable the perpetrator to carry out the attack.

I suspect that this approach gets far more scalable with larger reserves due to transaction fees. It's probably also safer/easier to risk clients' capital than your own.