talaketu

"the HR lady" - you mean the recruiter.

as it was in algol day. :=

> “Which pages are getting an unusual hit in the last 30 minutes?”

A good statistic for this is an exponentially weighted moving average, which can be computed online by a leaky integrator using a single accumulator register per counted entity.

It's not so much as counting, as estimating a rate.

does PEX still have value?

https://pex.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

A regenerative braking system might make cyclists happier to stop, it's true.

"work" to change velocity is proportional to the square of the change in velocity, proportional to mass, and independent of gearing.

I'd guess it's simply legal hygiene to defend against a phoenix.

> "Normalization’s goal is to eliminate update anomalies. Normalization is not necessary in an immutable data set. The only reason to normalize immutable DataSets may be to reduce the storage necessary."

You can still have an update anomaly in an append-only setting. Teacher changes name (by submitting a change-of-name form) - now you need to replace all the class lists.

maybe written in logo?

Edit: Bruce Cornwell is in the credits as one of the Computer Animation Consultants. More info about him and some other great work here: http://vimeo.com/channels/bkcfilms/videos/rss

> Bruce and Katharine Cornwell produced dozens of highly visual animated educational films between the late 1950s and the late 1970s. They started with traditional paper and cel animation, and moved into using computer animation in its infancy in the late 1960s.

Unless "name" is unique, there could be multiple matches. Asking for the "first" demands an ordering.

Perhaps (a) the user doesn't care what ordering is used, and/or (b) (such as in your example in the preceding post) hasn't specified an order (and apparently PK ordering is defaulted to PK - a model option?). It would be error-prone for ORM to take (b) as implying (a).

"Identity is theft of the self."

It is misleading to sell something as unlimited when that can't actually be fulfilled, and it's unrealistic to believe you can buy something of value that is unlimited.

Setting a price for finite capacity that is to be reserved is a robust user-pays approach.

$5-20B. And the many x86 unix clones... not so much. What's the difference? Was Linux technically superior? Freedom? Community? GNU? Interesting questions indeed.

There is no "JONES" on that list.

> No one ever discusses the implications of a system which is constantly, needlessly, insanely doing nothing but MAKING COPIES OF DATA.

see persistent data structure

(not necessarily symmetric)

"Chargeback risk" is the only theory on the table, isn't it?

Wikipedia leads me to the belief that "omission" will "give rise to liability when the law imposes a duty to act". More specifically:

* "the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or"

* "a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law (for example one must file a tax return)."

I don't know of any such law involving canaries.

> Have any technicalities every held up in court?

(fixed that for you)

of course they have. For example, having corporate "document retention" policies that are actually destruction policies is usual to avoid risks associated with legal discovery.

And actus reus is a fairly critical technical element of the law. If a company has a policy of issuing (true) warrant canaries, the non-act of not issuing a (false) canary would be a significant technical hurdle to prosecution. And the 1st amendment would be a significant hurdle to coercing a person to issue (false) canaries.

this is like a placebo pregnancy test. "oh... you are taking a pregnancy test? then you are probably pregnant."

So, you are evaluating the probability that this drive is encrypted by taking the ratio of E/(E+R), where E and R are frequencies?

This is simple probability, and does not involve Bayes Theorem at all.

But how do you determine the frequencies E and R (or their ratio)?

Perhaps you could sample the population of drives (E+R) and decide which of these are encrypted, and which are just randomized. And how to decide? Oh... you can't.

You should check the "dictionary".

It's a good question.

But this is the story of an engineer using a profiling tool to solve a performance problem, and the solution was to drop resolution in his probabilistic data model. I don't see how BCNF would have avoided this if the system were implemented in RDBMS. The actual solution reminds me of the quantization step in JPEG processing - its lossy of the high-entropy but imperceptible data.

To your question: cost accounting - technology neutral, and brutal in it's power to decide.

Notice that it's a free* service.

* conditions apply - see Little's Law.

Interesting, because, on a marginal basis, it probably saves Australia Post delivery costs, making this another example of the security/convenience trade-off.

Normally, you want the convenience of home delivery - but this allows you to trade that for security.

Incorrect. The consumer-secret and access-token-secret are not transmitted from client to the server during oauth. They are only used to sign requests.

Awesome presentation. Brendan Gregg shows a scary amount of expertise here. Very motivating to start using more advanced tools.

come now... not all depression is clinical.

You're funny! An absolutely unqualified categorical refutation of tiresome internet quackery.

Any qualifications in the area?

> You can try to blame the regime; but really, this is the life that the generation in control during the Korean war chose

You are contradicting yourself.