problemdomain

7 ms·

1.
by problemdomain 14y ago
You've done nothing to explain how the presumption of validity implies the plaintiff will ultimately win, nor how my analogy to the validity of a law is wrong. If the answer were really just "Yes", you shouldn't have felt it necessary to br
2.
by problemdomain 14y ago
1. The numbers you're quoting sure are. Look at the chart and surrounding text again. And all you said was "Plaintiffs were only winning 20-40% of the time.". "Winning" in a patent case hinges on infringement. If you're not talking about in
3.
by problemdomain 14y ago
I wouldn't want a jury of "patent specialists", I want an inquisitorial panel including professional judges, laypersons, and technical (not "patent") specialists with the power to actively seek truth out in the open, and I want it for all c
4.
by problemdomain 14y ago
> propaganda about frivolous lawsuits? Oh please. This isn't about ambulance chasers, I'm not some right-wing nut who thinks corporations need to be protected from the unwashed masses. This is about things like patent and copyright tr
5.
by problemdomain 14y ago
1. That's like saying a law against speeding is valid, so the defendant is probably guilty of speeding. That a patent is valid says absolutely nothing about whether a defendant is infringing it. 2. Sorry, all I can do is laugh. Do you act
6.
by problemdomain 14y ago
james4k just posted a link to the source where the comment by Brad Fitzpatrick actually says it's broken in the manner under discussion. // TODO(bradfitz): the timeout should be pushed down into the // net package's even
7.
by problemdomain 14y ago
This annoyed me when dealing with net/http the other day. Really seems like the Go team hasn't spent much time thinking about problems on the client side of connections yet.
8.
by problemdomain 14y ago
That's the intersection of the following sets: * Small companies. * With some legal or contractual obligation preventing use of a public IRC server. * But not preventing use of a third-party outside-the-firewall solution. * And not having a
9.
by problemdomain 14y ago
You've just done a better job of marketing grove in two sentences than grove has ever done itself. That's really the point. As it stands, grove.io markets itself as $10/month for 5 users to chat. The first two words anyone is going to read
10.
by problemdomain 14y ago
I've never setup that particular ircd, but regardless of what ircd you use, once you add separate services to the mix, you're making life unnecessarily difficult. Separate services daemons are not needed for private IRC servers.
11.
by problemdomain 14y ago
It should take you 30-60 minutes to setup an IRC server depending on how familiar you are with, well, Unix. 0 minutes of maintenance per month. And once it's done, you can have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of users on it for a marginal
12.
by problemdomain 14y ago
A couple years ago I ran tests on an embedded Broadcom platform (7413, clocked at 400MHz IIRC) because I wasn't sure what was reasonable for SSL certificates when a box like that was involved. I ended up using 2048 for both the client and s
13.
by problemdomain 14y ago
Things are hardly so absolute. The United States Constitution is the highest law, and provides for different treatment of foreign and domestic matters, so your statement is obviously false even under the most broad interpretation of "the go
14.
by problemdomain 14y ago
> I'm looking from the user's side From the user's side, proper password storage practices mean your passwords are far less likely to be compromised. > Surely using your regular account Uh, and what "regular account" would that
15.
by problemdomain 14y ago
The question of password hashing does not concern a password, it concerns passwords . This is a textbook case of being unable to see the forest for the trees. I'm actually astounded by how closely the idiom matches this case. A simple MD
16.
by problemdomain 14y ago
My point is that that article is not available to me or the public at large. You can't expect to cite secret evidence and have us just believe everything you say. You're not Dick Cheney. I'm done replying now, since you don't seem to be get
17.
by problemdomain 14y ago
> I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true. I didn't say that at all, and you don't have the excuse of not having access to the entirety of my publicly
18.
by problemdomain 14y ago
It's hard to "take the time" to read a story behind a paywall when you have no desire to give money to the entity owning the wall. Based on the publicly-available information, it's not clear that Google did any such thing. They might have r
19.
by problemdomain 14y ago
Google Maps was not rolled out to a hundred million preexisting devices in an abysmal state to replace a working solution, and for its entire existence has competed in a landscape where it has had major advantages over competitors, either o
20.
by problemdomain 14y ago
> Brute force in hash terms doesn't mean a "search" it means you take a string, hash it and see if the hash matches. A) That is a search, and B) I know this. You are still fundamentally misunderstanding the problem domain. We don't ca
21.
by problemdomain 14y ago
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem domain. At the highest level, you're missing the issue of specialization and parallelization. This misunderstanding is partly alluded to by your surprise at the power of GPUs to hash passwor