Saturday, April 25, 2020 admin Comments(0)

I hear that a lot, in reference to my book, Crash Proof, where I predicted an and the stock market, in Crash Proof, I also predicted the government reaction. I Crash Proof 2 0 How To Profit From The Economic Collapse - [PDF] [EPUB] Crash (PDF) Globalization and Health: Pathways, Evidence and. Crash-proof syntax and filters Hans Broekhuis & Ralf Vogel Meertens Institute/ University of Bielefeld This article argues that even when it turns out to be possible.

Language:English, Spanish, Hindi
Country:Sri Lanka
Genre:Health & Fitness
Published (Last):26.01.2016
ePub File Size:28.50 MB
PDF File Size:11.22 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Uploaded by: MARGY

Crash proof: how to profit from the coming economic collapse / Peter D. Schiff, John Downes. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN: (cloth). 1. A fully updated follow-up to Peter Schiff's bestselling financial survival guide- Crash Proof, which described the economy as a house of cards on the verge of. Published simultaneously in Canada. The first edition of this book, Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic. Collapse, was published in

Abstract Background Worldwide, over 10 million people are killed or hospitalized because of traumatic brain injury each year. The condition mostly affects young adults, and many experience long lasting or permanent disability. The social and economic burden is considerable. Tranexamic acid TXA is commonly given to surgical patients to reduce bleeding and the need for blood transfusion. It has been shown to reduce the number of patients receiving a blood transfusion by about a third, reduces the volume of blood transfused by about one unit, and halves the need for further surgery to control bleeding in elective surgical patients.

For goal of eliminating the OT-evaluator when all representations generated by example, OT-approaches that do not postulate movement or formal features with crash-proof syntax are well-formed in all languages.

This is, however, obviously the properties attributed to them in the minimalist program will simply have not a property of the Agree-based system that they adopt. Consider the simple nothing to say on the issue. This is different, however, for approaches like the ones structure in 2 , and assume that the unvalued feature on X can be valued by the developed in Dekkers or Broekhuis , which assume that the generator corresponding valued feature on Y, as in 2b.

Given that X and Y agree, the later in Figure 1 is some version of the computational system for human language CHL can be moved into the minimal domain of the former, as in 2c.

X[uF] …. Y[vF] b. X[vF] …. Y[vF] c. Consequently, we need some language-specific means amounts to saying that there can be no such thing as a minimalist OT-approach that may force or block the movement in 2c.

There are at least two ways of doing of the sort developed in, e. Dekkers or Broekhuis In other words: We believe that derivational theories of the sort under discussion should adopt as their understand it.

Chomsky This means that in order to eliminate the OT-evaluator, proposal can be found in Vogel b and Broekhuis The second way the object be moved under the appropriate condition. A third option would be to attribute some right edge of the clause.

The OT-evaluations in Tableaux 1 and 2 show that this language-specific property to the computational system CHL itself, but this should accounts for the fact that object shift is obligatory in 3a , but blocked in 3b. Tableau 1. Thus, we wrongly exclude languages with movements that only apply under certain conditions.

A well-known example of such move- Tableau 2. Broekhuis Example 4b , on the other hand, expresses that it holds for each between the focus and the presupposition reading for the object; cf.

Holmberg of the books individually that they are often taken along by Jan; the contention can , Vikner , and many others. This complexity might be a These examples can be readily accounted for by assuming the constraint scope, problem from the perspective of language acquisition, given that we are again which favors that the relative scope of an argument corresponds to its topmost dealing with a language-specific property; Dutch A-scrambling, for example, does A-position.

The Dutch data will follow when we assume that scope outranks not exhibit this restriction. The difference between Icelandic and Dutch can, how- epp case. Dutch example, claims that this is the result of the order preservation constraint head- complement, which favors preservation of the underlying order of the verb and Scope: In Dutch the constraint head-complement is ranked lower than epp case , and the object will be able to freely cross the main verb in order Tableau 4.

Dutch to satisfy this constraint, but this will go unillustrated here. The Icelandic and Dutch examples in 3 and 4 illustrate nicely how the more atomic nature of the violable OT-constraints does not only make the system more flexible than the language-specific filters postulated by the traditional approach, but also makes the system more transparent by showing what additional conditions are imposed by the performance systems on the optimal candidate.

The discussion of Dutch is simplified here: Note further that, strictly speaking, the appeal to linear order zations of earlier observations that, in some languages, word order is sensitive in the main text cannot be correct given that this is not a syntactic notion: Icelandic object Correspondences Axiom. Icelandic the generator.

Icelandic postulate of the autonomy of syntax: Vogel b and Broekhuis This can readily be accounted for by postulating a constraint that language-specific restrictions on, e. This subsection provides another example that will show that the postulation of It will be clear that it will not be very enlightening or easy to build all these language-specific filters is unavoidable: First, consider the English examples in 6: Order preservation constraints of this sort were first formulated by Edwin Williams cf.

Williams and can also be found in the minimalist literature; cf. Fox and Pesetsky 6 a. John is not satisfied with anybody.

Proof pdf crash

There seems to be someone in the room of the placement of the NPI. Someone seems to be in the room 7 a. Jan is over niemand tevreden. This claim Jan is not satisfied about anybody plays an important role in his account of the contrast in The Dutch and English examples in 6 and 7 show that there are at least two 10 a.

Therei seems [IP ti to be someone in the room] possibilities to obtain this. The first option is selected by Dutch: The second option, which is strongly preferred in English, predicts that both English and Dutch would opt for the NPI-constructions.

[PDF] Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit From the Economic Collapse Popular Colection

Do not move English and Dutch examples in 6 and 7 poses two problems for the tra- b. Do not merge ditional minimalist approaches. However, this is the NPI option is preferred to the movement option.

Their account of the co-occurrence of the examples in 9 is based on the claim that indefinite noun phrases may be either an NP or a DP. Dutch 13 a. English sort. The data discussed in this subsection are not only a problem for the traditional 14 a. In order to see this, it must be noted that Dutch does allow c. Taking such a step is, however, quite unsatisfactory given that there 12 a.

Niemand heeft ook maar iets gezien. Given that data like these as b. Consequently, they can only avoid the use of filters by is indispensible. A good example of this is the pronunciation pattern of relative clauses theory the OT-evaluation about language-specific filters, which, we have argued, in English. It may also mean that CHL must be complicated by wrong for the simple reason that it is very doubtful that ellipsis is part of core syntax attributing novel and thus far unprecedented properties to it, which goes against as it is currently understood.

In order to see this, it must be noted that elision the minimalist goal of reducing the computational system to its absolute minimum. Will Bill be around today? Similarly, we reasons that will become clear later in this section.

swarm POC series

In short, the argument that the reviewer seems to have in mind against literature virtually never appeal to properties of the generator in order to account our modeling of core grammar is based on the wrong premise that we need to for some phenomenon. OT-syntax syntactic derivation. But if it is compatible with this claim, the universal genera- initiated a shift of attention to the representational aspects of grammar cf.

Vogel tor would simply randomly produce candidates with and without elision, and it a , and by doing so provided new means to study empirical domains that would be the language-specific evaluator that selects the optimal candidate. Since at were outside the scope of, ignored by, or developed in only an impressionistic this point we do not have any specific analysis in mind, we will leave the proper manner by the mainstream generative research of the last twenty-five years.

We can treatment of such facts to future research. Costa , for example, has shown that appealing to OT makes it possible to account for certain correlations between the information structure 3. The simple-generator approach, on the other tive violable constraints; Broekhuis has argued that the OT-evaluator can be hand, aims at reducing the role of the generator and places the explanatory burden used to provide a general format for expressing the minimalist interface conditions, on the OT-evaluator by focusing on input-output correspondences akin to what which were so far often formulated in an impressionistic and random way.

The derivation-and-evaluation approach explicitly takes Given this shift in attention and its initial success, it need not surprise us that an intermediate position and claims that the explanatory burden must be placed people soon started to investigate whether certain properties that were previously both on the generator and the evaluator by reducing both components to their attributed to the generator could also be handled by the evaluator: It is our believe that this is not something that the minimalist audience be eliminated when it is possible to account for them by postulating some violable should look upon with suspicion, given that this might make it possible to pursue constraint of sufficient generality; at the same time, the postulated constraints will the minimalist goals with even more success: This elimination of the epp-feature should also be applauded given to eliminate the crashing derivations.

At this point, it seems impossible to predict that it enables us to develop a version of the computational system that is truly whether the fully derivational, the fully representational, or some hybrid approach invariant for all natural languages. Of course, this line of research may eventually will lead to the best results, but this paper has contributed to the discussion of lead to an even further reduction of CHL, that is, lead to a more representational what type of approach is superior by pointing out some, in our view, inherent system like the one hinted at in Vogel a , which, in effect, would lead lin- problems for the fully derivational approach.

The previous paragraph suggests that, at this point, current linguistic theories 5. This is due to the fact that in some OT-approaches and the derivation-and-evaluation approaches developed in Dekkers and to syntax, the notion of convergent derivation does not play a role.

The only Broekhuis occupy some intermediate position. The crash-proof syntax approach aims at reducing determines which candidates from the Candidate Sets produced by the generator are optimal in a given language.

Continuum of syntactic approaches the generator. Koeneman, Olaf. Bresnan, Joan. In Optimality Theory: John Benjamins. Oxford University Press. Moro, Andrea. The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause Broekhuis, Hans. Cambridge University Press. Language and Linguistic Theory In Optimality Theory and A. Hirotani, N. Hall Coetzee and J. Kim eds. Considering the security perspective of Android framework, ICC can be exploited by the attackers to leak sensitive user information.

A recent case for compromise on data security and privacy is reported in [ 27 ], where a gaming application frequently monitored the viewing habits of their users some of them may be children even when the game was not active.

Even worst, the gaming application could match the information about the places people visit and the movies they watch. Research context and challenges Android applications can crash at run time due to intents, i. In an empirical study, Maji et al. In a separate analysis, Chin et al. ICC, in addition, can cause information leak: Li et al. The existing mechanism to protect against such crashes and information leaks is to check explicitly, before invoking an intent, that the intent follow certain security rules: e.

$BOOK^ Crash Proof How to Profit from the Economic Collapse ReadOnline by conorlib9pec - Issuu

To the best of our knowledge, none of these approaches provide formal proofs of guarantee that security rules are indeed followed. These analysis are helpful to investigate and mitigate the security challenges that relate to mobile applications in general but they lack security and reliability analysis targeted towards ICC and in particular intent resolution. The lack of formal reasoning of informal documentation and methods affects their overall acceptance.

The digital forensic used in criminal investigation and evidence, for example, is unproven and is highly criticised in legal proceedings [ 4 ]. Such non-rigorous specifications can cause interpretation issues, most commonly developers often choosing undocumented practices that can lead to applications vulnerable to security and privacy threats [ 1 ]. A typical consequence of misinterpreting the informal documentation may lead to a scenario where an application developer may incautiously expose a component to third party applications [ 23 ].

Furthermore, as the informal specification of ICC do not have a mathematical foundation and hence cannot be used to formally prove correctness of Android applications. The formalism is a simple but careful translation from English to logical notations and formulas. An overview of the proposed solution is provided in Fig.

Android application components and their interaction with each other through ICC is currently viewed through its English documentation. The informal English based documentation for ICC can be intuitive and simple for application developers but it can not be used for formal reasoning. The informal specification of ICC is manually translated to a precise formal Coq specification that is machine readable.

Once a formal specification defined in the logic of Coq is available, the Coq proof facility can be used to formally prove theorems about ICC. Furthermore, as the tools for security analysis normally rely on formal models [ 29 ], the formal model in Coq can provide a foundation for such tools for a rigorous and automated analysis of ICC.


The rest of the paper is organized as the following: In the next section, a brief overview of the Android application framework and ICC is given. Background In this section, we present the background information and technical details about i Android application framework and its components, ii inter component communications along with iii types and iv structure of the intent. The concepts and terminologies introduced in this section are used throughout the paper.

The Android SDK tools compile the application source code into an Android application package APK containing all the contents of Android application which is then used by Android-powered devices to install the application. Android operating system treats each application as a different user and assigns each of them a unique user ID.

Each application is executed in isolation by a separate process using its own virtual machine. By default, Android implements the principle of least privilege, where each application is given permission only to access components required for its work and no more [ 17 ]. Applications with the same user ID e. In Android systems, applications comprise of a number of components that can be classified into four main types namely: activity, service, receiver and provider.

Each of these components provides a different entry point for the Android framework to manage the applications [ 9 ]. Activity is the entry-point for interacting with the user of the device through a single screen.

It supports different types of activities performed in the Android application framework. Specifically, user interface that allows application display and enables user interaction with it is managed by the activity component. A single application can have more than one activity and the user can switch between different activities.

Service component is a general-purpose entry point and supports variety of background or foreground services such as audio and visual notifications, component authentication, or application execution monitoring. Services may run in the background and perform long-running operations without necessarily providing any user interface. Alternatively, services may interact with users and notify them through service notifications.

For example, an anti-spam application can continuously execute in the background and can update the user only when a potential spam is detected. Broadcast receiver is the type of components that depends on other components to receive any activity or service to complete their functionality. For example, the broadcast receivers receive intents from Android application framework.

Intents [ 19 ] are type of messages used by applications to request functionalities from other services or activities. Most of the broadcast messages originate from the system, for example, the system may announce that the battery is low. Applications may also initiate broadcasts to let other applications know about a broadcast event e. Content provider provides services or required functionality to other components through component communication.

In other words, the content providers provide data storage to the applications. Other applications can access the data by querying the storage or even can modify it provided that the content provider allows it. Intents Android is a Linux-based operating system where each application is assigned a unique user ID and is run in an isolated virtual machine to provide better application management and security [ 37 ].

To work as a single entity for better user experience, Android applications uses intents, mediated by Android runtime, to share data and services with each other.

This sharing can be inter-application a component of one application communicate with a component of another or intra-application among components within an application. One component sends an intent including optional name of target component, name of action to be performed, data to operate on and category. The receiving component, likewise, include intent filter with specification of intents that it is interested to receive.

Proof pdf crash

An action is a string that specifies the action to be performed e. In addition, intent includes a possibly empty list of categories, each contains additional information about the component that should handle the intent. The data field of the intent include a uniform resource identifier URI to identify the data to act upon and the multi-purpose internet mail extensions MIME data type. The type of the data can be inferred from the data itself, though, it is important to add the type of data as it helps Android system to locate the most appropriate component for the intent.

There are additional fields to carry extra information as key-value pairs and flags to carry metadata, however, none of them affects the way an intent is resolved to a component.

Based on the way a set of target components are identified, intents are categorized as explicit and implicit. In an explicit intent, a component is addressed explicitly using a fully-qualified name and are normally used in an application to communicate with its own components as they are known to the owner. For explicit intent, the mechanism to find an appropriate component for an action is straight forward: the component is described by a full-qualified name inside the intent which the system can easily locate.

As a running example to understand intents and intent filters, consider an Email and a Browser application are installed on Android device.