minopret

The reports at 6abc (from AP) and at nbcphiladelphia say merely "Philadelphia native". She was born July 23, 1928 in Philadelphia [1] and moved from there to D.C. at age ten [2]. [1]: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/rubin-vera-cooper (which lists a few references that I am not going to look up right now) [2]: http://www.marciabartusiak.com/uploads/8/5/8/9/8589314/spins...

I wouldn't overlook the distinctions between them. This kind of policy against Jews was a "quota", specifically "numerus clausus". Participation from a specific minority is prohibited once it reaches a specific number.

Let's consider which are the hard parts of verifying that remote code is safe.

Useful verifiers exist. Coq is a state-of-the-art verifier for a large class of propositions. It hasn't been easy to create. Its design is not frozen.

We need to create a specification for safe remote code that is trustworthy. This seems difficult when permitting all the remote code capabilities that we want.

We need to demonstrate constructing specification-compliant code for a nontrivial algorithm with a proof of compliance. This seems costly but feasible.

Which wiki engine do you have in mind? There certainly is revision control in MediaWiki, Confluence, and others. Granted, I wouldn't use those in place of a source code revision control system such as git. There are generally no "annotate"/"blame" or "pickaxe" features. I would agree with writing something code-friendly in the first place, examples of which would include DocBook and Restructured Text.

> Who would have guessed

Except for not being a dog, such a spider is anticipated in Goethe's little poem «Annonce» (Advertisement):

    A little dog is sought
    that never barked nor bit
    takes broken glass as feed
    leaves diamonds as - -

(my own translation, but wouldn't be surprised if it has appeared in these words before)

I think there's something relevant going on with search optimization, or if you prefer, marketing and advertising. A Wikipedia user who is somewhat active just now is using mentions of the website to boost the references to a particular consulting firm. This sort of activity is not much beloved by many habitues of Wikipedia, as you can see in the essay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPA

Here I'll leave it to others whether this is smart and laudable or sneaky and regrettable. Perhaps it's normal and unremarkable, but I find it interesting. It is only a guess on my part that this is intentional and coordinated.

You can use 7zip to archive, compress, and AES-256 encrypt.

You can also use GnuPG or openssl to encrypt a file or a disk image.

Lately I took a look at actual filesystems for cross-platform use. I didn't find a great one, but depending on which OS you want to burden with an extra driver, pretty good ones include exFAT, NTFS, and UDF specifically version 2.01. Like you, I am curious whether better answers are available.

I agree. A counterargument is that you're inherently taking advantage of the processor(s) and the operating system, not to mention, ha ha, every single component and factor that you did not personally create, whether or not it is computational in nature...

Another route, my present hobby and something that I know many have done before: Take the Lisp program on page 10 of the Lisp 1.5 User Manual and translate it into C. Write a simple tokenizer/parser (read function) in C and translate that into Lisp. Once the C program can run the equivalent Lisp program, we're on our way.

At the outset I have no garbage collection. I just expect the memory space to fill up pretty soon. I could have `cons` compute a hash for each cell to eliminate common subexpressions, but for a while I suppose I won't bother at all. The C program has a loop to handle evcon (did I write cons? oops), eval, and apply as a trio of mutually tail-recursive operations. That's an obvious place to put a stop-the-world mark-and-sweep operation or some such thing.

To get the C tools out of the loop eventually, hand-disassemble the binary program (C compiler output) just to see what's there. Then write a Lisp program (compiler) that translates the Lisp 1.5 User Manual program into something pretty similar.

Or you can go on to implement all the toy lambdas in all the toy lambdas, simultaneously.

* [The Mystery of the Tower Revealed: A Non-Reflective Description of the Reflective Tower](http://www.cs.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/techreports/TRNNN.cgi?trnu...) [abstract](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/wand/Bibliography.html#WandFried...)

* [Reflection](http://library.readscheme.org/page11.html)

Maybe abstraction is only a means to [expressiveness](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/254867/100375).

Too bad this comes too late to earn a bounty in bitcoin at Proof Market. https://proofmarket.org/problem/view/12

My bad. It's not a lawyer term. I really don't know enough to be clear and accurate about that point.

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office?

Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fairly clear, and it is worth reviewing. Don't take my word for it, but I think if you check your authorities you may get confirmation.

First, no "quid pro quo." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you will provide business advantage in exchange for affectionate acts from a person who is sexually attractive to you. This principle is an excellent reason not to ask an interviewee to go out on a date (slightly simplifying an example from elsewhere in recent Hacker News).

Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.

I applaud your point that harassment is largely a clear violation of norms, not a gradation on a spectrum of relaxed behavior.

May I respectfully take issue though with the turn of phrase "we shouldn't need women to tell us"? Does that wording illustrate a problem by assuming that women are outsiders?

I write "illustrate" because I doubt that you really make that assumption. I don't really mean to single you out. I just felt that this language throws light on one of the problems facing women in our computing workplaces.

I like Common Sense Media. I didn't think I would like any media monitor for parents, but I think this one provides enough depth of information to put decisions into parents' hands. They rate and discuss several factors including not only sex and violence, but also consumerism, "is it any good," and "will kids want it." On the other hand, they also offer simple summaries. A parent who has specific criteria can generally just get a list of current products that meet those criteria.

I agree more would be better, but aren't there several now, such as the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Conservancy, and the Apache Software Foundation?

Can someone explain why GPG in the person of Werner Koch isn't substantially funded under FSFE?

My first thought was the Software Freedom Conservancy. The only reasons I see for them not to take GPG under their wing are lack of will (but why?), sense of funding priorities (but why?), or the possibility that some GPG constituents would be concerned about associating GPG strongly with a US-based organization.

In the Python portfolio I'd mention matplotlib.

Then Sage (sagemath.org) just dazzles me. It's a grand integrated environment using Python with lots of math/stat software built in (including NumPy and R) and lots more optional (including Matlab). You can just go see it and try it at cloud.sagemath.com. If you like it you can continue to use it there or you can download it - it's free open-source software.

I went through this in depth when I spent more time playing at writing a Lisp interpreter.

I appreciate that these two features are crucial.

1. In the Python code of the interpreter, "Instead of making a recursive call that returns a value that is then immediately returned again by the caller, we can instead alter the value of x (and sometimes env) in the original invocation of eval(x, env). We are free to do that whenever the old value of x is no longer needed." That is how we implement proper tail calls. Thus we avoid inflating the call stack needlessly, continually, and hugely.

2. Testing.

The rest seems incremental to me, at least by comparison. I'm not even that excited about the famous Lisp macros. I think I haven't arrived there yet. I do appreciate that backquote reduces contortions just like `%` aka `str.format` does in Python.

Interesting question. I have no idea. I suggest you shop it around as a new "Ask HN" question and as a question on security.stackexchange.com.

There's a very clear exposition and implementation in the book and code library _The Stanford Graphbase_. It's reasonably simple for the computer. It's not so simple for the algorithm designer.

Can someone here explain further how you see the road to obtaining the CEH credential? And how the knowledge helps to assure life and work on the web?

I'm impressed lately with the need for and yet the complexity of security measures for online applications. The CEH credential seems like it covers much of relevant information. It looks versatile in the chart of DOD approved baseline certifications in information assurance. That chart is reproduced in many places -- here is one (https://www.isc2.org/dodmandate/Default.aspx).

I'm also concerned that at first glance the availability of CEH training is "if you have to ask, you can't afford it." I was glad to see this article approaching the CEH process more from the ground up.

Well, that's the point. The specifics make a difference.

In my example, it appeared that a roommate unknowingly permitted a friend of theirs that I never met then or since to run up big charges at billable services on the apartment telephone line that was in my name. (I understand what my mistake was and because it was so long ago it's not a sore issue.)

For sake of comparison and voice of experience, I actually do use fifty-six bit secrets for my various needs, as follows. The following secrets are at least fifty-six bits in size:

* Nine "C isgraph" characters chosen uniformly at random. Those are lowercase, uppercase, digits, and 32 more typewriter symbols. This is the kind of password that I actually use for most systems where I frequently need to type the password myself. I am not making any claims about which kind of password everyone should use.

* Ten alphanumeric characters chosen uniformly at random. Those are lowercase, uppercase, and digits. This is the kind of password that I use for systems where I may need to read someone the password over wired telephone service. That service has the advantage, as I understand, that eavesdropping on it is a Federal crime in the USA.

* Five words chosen uniformly at random from the Diceware list of 7,776 words. This is the kind of password I use to lock each of my AES-encrypted master password files.

In practice I have presumably degraded the security of my passwords despite my efforts. Here are two obvious ways to degrade the bit size of these secrets:

* Failing to choose the elements in entirely unpredictable way. Rolling fair dice is OK. Using something built in a standard way for the purpose of generating passwords, such as KeePass, is OK. Mentally choosing combinations of characters is not OK, no matter how quirky you think your mind is.

* Failing to keep every part of the secret completely concealed from everyone who does not own it. Letting people know that a password is a particular one of the above types is OK. Letting people see over your shoulder is not OK.

I wonder what experiences we have with police in similar situations in recent years. In the USA many years ago I brought a telephone bill dispute to police. They explained, not without kindness and patience, that the legal question involved intent. Consequently it wasn't a matter where they could easily provide assistance.

I can understand how that could happen and what a problem it would be. I had an experience with a telephone bill myself, but the story is not going to help you.

I would suppose your first and best resort is to consult your lawyer, advocate, solicitor, barrister, Anwalt. I wonder what your relevant legal jurisdiction is.

I wonder whether it would help if you can account for your own whereabouts and your own usage of endpoint data services. I wonder if your method of payment to your VPS provider is mediated by a financial service that can help you dispute the bill.

I am not a lawyer.

This other plastic clock with visible mechanism is not in the same league and not 3D printed, but I think it's pleasant. Its dozen or so circular gears and pendulum make a clear contrast with the masterpiece that Manousos has built. http://www.happypuzzle.co.uk/products/the-amazing-clock-kit....

Well, small production runs are sensible with 3D printing.

I suppose what you're noting is that the 3D model is not shared with you.

That web page doesn't mention the mechanism being protected by any current patents. Maybe there's no need. This is a mechanism resulting from substantial engineering work. It has significant tolerances, proportions, and curves. If you're not capable of creating it yourself, then it's also unlikely you'll reverse-engineer it just by looking at it.

Someone could laser-scan it. If using a visible-range laser, that person might have to take the mechanism apart first. Then I would hope that person would give due credit for any results, as well as consider what other legal and ethical barriers may inhibit reproducing this work.