Slashdot Mirror

The solution is:

- ask the question one more time.
- link previous "duplicates"
- tell exactly how they don't answer it
- tell what you expect from the answer, that the accepted answer doesn't have.

Example. The original question asked "how to deal with the problem". My question was "Why the problem exists; what are its potential consequences?" - I had to state I'm not looking for solution but for a rationale, not "do it because standard says so" but "what rationale lies behind this entry in the standard?" - it was three close-votes down before I got the point across.

Another one, not on SO but on Arquade, one of SE sites. A Minecraft question, which was at first deemed a duplicate... except the original was about the Creative mode, and mine was about Survival, making the (trivial) answers for the original useless in my context. Again, underlying the difference... made all the difference.

So: Just re-ask the non-duplicate, just make sure to show clearly why and how it's non-duplicate.

Some people ran the numbers and estimated that (non-reusable) Falcon 9 v1.1 could almost reach orbit (7-8 km/s velocity, ~9-10 km/s delta-V) on its own, if it didn't have a second stage or payload attached. Not particularly useful, but still pretty impressive performance.

I'd stop slashdot from automatically reloading the page at random, causing it to suddenly jump away from whatever paragraph I was reading. Drives me crazy. You'll find lots of discussion around the net with people trying to find ways to fix it.

https://webapps.stackexchange....

http://www.kellestine.com/disa...

http://lifehacker.com/5321420/...

Please slashdot, just get rid of this horrible behavior, or at least give a way to turn it off.

Short passwords are easier to remember than longer passwords,

Are you sure?
Short complex password, or long dictionary passphrase?
Until someone points to a study on the topic this will remain a matter of opinion. But I suspect that people find short passwords hard to remember because of the arbitrary and inconsistent rules on character case, symbols, numbers, and length. If it was just a matter of comparing biscuit' to 'I ate biscuits for dinner last Tuesday" then shorter would be better. But when it becomes 'B1scu!t' the scales tip toward the passphrase. More evidence of this is that people take passphrases, and create rules for turning them into short passwords. Ex: 'I ate biscuits for dinner last Tuesday' becomes 'i8bfdlT'

if it is done correctly on your phone, they don't get your phone number

Oh, you are referring to using OTP algorithms. I find most online services don't support that: They just want your cell number and they text you something.

As for the rest of your post: I agree.

Side question: Could you help me understand something that happens with online discussions? I find that people seem to reply to posts, and restate something that I said, but in a way that implies I disagreed with it. Is a debate technique to try and discredit someone? For example, you posted "two-factor capability makes it more secure, not less." That statement implies that I said two-factor capability is less secure. I did not say that, I said short passwords are less secure. I even pointed out, albeit indirectly, that two-factor is more secure when I said "I *might* reconsider for my bank." Another example is your statement that the other factor could be a a phone or a token. Was there something in my post that implied I didn't know that? I specifically mentioned both phone and keyfob. I'm just trying to understand since this seems to happen a lot.

The Plural of Lego is not Legos, It's Lego Bricks.

I cannot find the official link on their web page but the following link points points to a number of discussions and official Lego announcements and requests.
http://english.stackexchange.c...

Now the following is juts my personal reaction to the use of LEGOs.
The Plural of Lego is Lego. In the same way that the plural of a Sheep is Sheep. You don't hear somebody say "I'm going to round up my Sheeps" you hear them saying "I'm going to round up my sheep" (Actually, you probably hear them say "I'm going to round up the flock" But that doesn't help my argument)

The spins that were vertical and opposite were set theory, but the second thing he suggested, with state superposition, were non-set-theory.

The set-theory one can get two lefts or two rights from a left/right detector, but the entanglement one cannot. That's the difference.

BTW, I found this to be a decent explanation about why "superdeterminism" (which is a potential loophole in Bell's Inequality) is considered an unacceptable: http://philosophy.stackexchang.... It basically means the world is deterministic in such as way that we will only decide to look at things when the results will look nondeterministic.

As a *very* rough analogy, like saying that one kid is reciting the alphabet, but always getting exactly 1 letter wrong at random (replacing it with "orange"), and the teacher is always listening to 25 of the 26 letters, and no matter how many times you repeat the experiment the teacher will always choose to fail to listen to the single wrong letter. This continues to occur even if the recital is recorded and the teacher replays it on a different day. Conceivable but kind of like a conspiracy theory about the universe.

ey come from an era of computing where people were actually expected to know what the fuck they were doing.

Later that same night, Adobe Flash Player got locked out of Safari again so I had to update that, and then I landed up spending another 20 minutes trying to disable SIP on a 10.11 install off an external disk drive because apparently OS X doesn't think you need to be able to write to places like /usr anymore (so much for a Unix-like system).

This took all of 2 seconds on Google to find.

Simplified form: Boot to Recovery Partition. Open Terminal. Type csrutil disable. Press Return (Enter). Reboot. No more SIP (until you do the opposite (typing csrutil enable, instead).

So much for you knowing "what the fuck [you] were doing, eh?

It's a reference to this Ken Thompson quote.

The fact than one finds more advertising than explanations already betrays the true nature of that feature. In short, you post a link to an ephemeral resource; but you may further encumber that with DRM-like stuff. More here and here.

In fact, all email is self-destructing, eventually. Just not under the sender's control.

Code tests like these are here to stay for a while at least, anyway. They serve some sort of purpose, and, as a somewhat experienced programmer, sometimes it's fun to tackle an academic problem like these.

But, you go and practice your "kata", now what? You have some code, it does the job, but what will an interviewer actually think?

If you want some feedback on that, take your (working) code over to Code Review http://codereview.stackexchang... and have some objective folk critique it.

Practice without feedback is incomplete.

First: the name "rootless" is misleading, since there's still a root account, and you can still access it (the official name, "System Integrity Protection", is more accurate). What it really does is limit the power of the root account, so that even if you become root, you don't have full control over the system.
Would have been surprising if there was no "root account".
I missed that you specifically asked for OS X 10.11. As I'm only running older Systems, I believe my newest is 10.9 ... the rest are 10.6 ... a the Mac mini has 10.8 ... forgot about that.

The accepted answer here: http://apple.stackexchange.com...
gives a much better explanation than the apple link.

If it's true that the cargo area is not pressurized then you should probably aim to correct this Aviation Stack Exchange page before you correct someone in a random thread on Slashdot.

A proof is a proof, regardless how extraordinary, extravagant or hillarious the claim is.

Well... yes and no. Even a mathematical proof isn't just a proof, because humans are involved in creating and checking it. A complex proof requires considerable work, and occasionally even a fairly sturdy result has to be withdrawn and reconsidered. Some examples.

Real-word experiments are never "proofs" in the mathematical sense. Directly, the only thing you can say about an experiment is "this thing yielded this result on this occasion". Everything else is extrapolation, and there are many different ways to extrapolate. The more you want to extrapolate, the the more work you're going to have to do to rule out the alternatives. When you want to extrapolate to something as big as "a new law of physics", you're going to have to rule out a lot of alternatives.

That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" really means. There are, at this point, a lot of far less extraordinary alternatives to "brand new physics", especially since the effect is such a tiny fraction of the input energy. The clearer you can isolate the effect, the more likely your particular extrapolation is the correct one.

Try posting to the Code Review StackExchange forum.

"There is no relation between a woman's genitals and a coward. The meaning of "coward" comes from something else."

We've never observed evolution yet

Wrong

some scientists only assume it from observed differences in the fossil record.

Not "assume", "infer", and anyway decades of molecular biology, genetics, and genomics have proven at least as useful as fossils. My favorite example here.

With iperf testing, someone in that SE question reported about 94.4Mbit through the onboard LAN interface, under half of that for 802.11n over USB (44.5Mbit), and about 222Mbit over a USB3 gigabit ethernet interface. That roughly matches information that I've read in the past.

are they difficult to build?

Quite easy.

Hacker Spoofs Cell Phone Tower to Intercept Calls - 31 July 2010

Defcon 18 - Practical Cellphone Spying - 17 Mar 2012

How to spoof a cell phone tower (cell site, base station) — homemade IMSI-Catcher - 16 Feb. 2012

A lot of universities teach a one semester class where students build a computer out of TTL logic. That's not unreasonable, and lots of fun.
I say AND/OR/NOT gates, because that's kind of the bottom of the pile. Once you know how to build an AND gate, you can build it out of electronics, or water, or pretty near anything. It's the point where the computer abstraction ends, and materials science begins.

"String theory implies new physics in - and only in - the quantum regime."

Yes... and in the English language, this means some random person on the internet confirmed that string theory says nothing new about the larger scale. Not new compared to Aristotle, but new compared to Einstein.

Here, have a Wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

"String theory implies new physics in - and only in - the quantum regime."

Relativity does not work at the quantum/Planck scale.

Since you are clearly quite clueless about all this, and I have better things to do, I officially exit this "discussion".

Check out the first answer

Your family is Plaid on the internet?

http://movies.stackexchange.co...

Lines of code is not the measure of productivity

I didn't say lines of code is good way to measure productivity. Using it as such a measure is counter productive because programmers find ways to bloat the code. Not only doesn't it increase real productivity, it creates a maintenance nightmare.

What I said was programmers produce the similar lines of code per day, regardless of language. If you are doubt this, you need to go study some more. It's been demonstrated over and over again. There are many things that do effect lines of code delivered of course - the biggest one being project size. Most programmers can deliver a 200 line debugged, working program in a day. Put the same programmer in a large project, and that can drop to 10 lines of code per day, which is far larger effect than language.

You are right in that lines produced per day by a programmer is effected by language - but It's nothing like 20 to 1. This page shows 4 to 1 at the extreme; Smalltalk vs Assembler, with the assembler programmer producing 4 times as many lines of code as the smalltalk programmer. I guess that's to be expected give how much a meaning a smalltalk programmer can put into one line vs an assembler programmer. If you look at languages that are more similar - eg curly brace languages, you see a difference of only 2 to 1.

If you look closely, you notice another odd thing. The less lines the programmers write, the more productive they are in delivering function points in general. Now if I had of said because the C programmer writes code faster than Rust productive, he will be less productive I'm sure you would have jumped on me from an even greater height and you would have managed to be more wrong than you are now. I don't know whether it's true for C and Rust, but "the more code a language lets you write in a day, the less productive you will be in it" is definitely a good rule of thumb. In the smalltalk vs assembler case, the smalltalk programmer delivers 3 times as many function points as the assembler program per unit time, while writing 1/4 of the amount of code! If it is true for C and Rust, it annihilates your suggestion that over the life of a project C would be more productive that a Rust.

Lines of code is not the measure of productivity when two thirds of them require debugging or rewriting because the idiot didn't know what they were doing and used a hammer to drive a screw.

True. Which is why it isn't measured that way. The usual measure is the total non comment lines delivered over the total time it took to deliver the project, divided by the number of people employed to do it - and that doesn't just include programmers. Here "delivered" means debugged and in production. Which is how a large project ends with with abysmal figures like 10 lines per day. If a language encourages buggy code, which is thrown away that counts against it, not for it.

The headline is just right wing extremist propaganda.

Actually, it turns out to be true:
http://skeptics.stackexchange....

Apparently, concatenation isn't as effective as it could be. It will be at least as strong as either MD5 or SHA1, and while it seems that you'd get a 288 bit hash, it's about as strong as if you had 174 bits.

It's probably easier to make a 288 bit hash from the start.

Discussion page: http://crypto.stackexchange.co...

Sorry, Germans do not use "Müüüü" as onomatopoeia . . . at least not commonly.

@Anonymous Coward: "Using GPLv3 will all but ensure no corporate/enterprise support, thus leaving the older, less useful formats in place. Sometimes zealots get in their own way..."

Can GPL licenced software be used in corporate environments?

English isn't exactly a consistent language, especially when it comes to conjugation and pronunciation.

Technically, the -ung conjugations are irregular cases (making their verbs strong):
http://english.stackexchange.c...

One could argue that 'bing' is closer to 'ping' than to 'sing' or 'ring'. When was the last time you pung a box?

NASA-JPL's Mars rovers run on C. Seems that C somehow has gotten the job done for them. Of course, with that sour-grapes sentiment, I very much doubt your ability is anywhere near theirs... :P

LOL! Neither Linux nor BSD are reverse engineered from UNIX, they are UNIX-like.

This is why you use a Mac. You don't understand technology. Literacy doesn't seem to be your strong point either since you don't even understand the definitions of the word "lift".

St. Linus says he was trying to emulate UNIX, or rather, minix. The definition of reverse-engineering is, in essence, to create something that emulates the operation of a prior thing, but without using the actual design documentation (I.e., source code in the case of software). Otherwise, it is simply plagiarism, or, in the case of copyrighted works, copyright infringement. Frankly, I don't know the copyright status of all the UNIX bits that are emulated in Linux; but at the very least, it Linux the very definition of "reverse engineering". Here's a pretty dispassionate discussion on the topic of Linux' heritage. It calls Linux a "UNIX Clone". In my book, that means it must've evolved primarily from either Frank plagiarism, or at the very least, reverse-engineering. Spin all you like; but that's the short and long of it.

As far as "not understanding technology" just because I enjoy using Macs, it seems that I have to "defend myself" against this Slashtard meme on a semi-weekly basis; to the point where I have simply saved-off my by now "canned" response, to wit:

I'm really getting tired of this /. meme. Perhaps I just need to publish my resume as part of my User Profile...

Not to sound big-headed; but the short story is that I am an Embedded designer with almost 40 years of paid hardware and software development experience on a wide variety of microcontroller platforms, from 6502 to ARM9 Cortex (and many others in between), mostly in Assembly and C. Although I have done quite a wide range of applications, my forte and first love lies in real-time process control. So, to say that I have done more than my fair share of fiddle farting around would be an extreme understatement. Oh, and BTW, some of that Development, including software development, CAD for schematic capture and PCB development, some LabView stuff (BTW, LabView was for years a Mac-Only system), and other stuff was done on Macs.

But, because the Embedded market has in recent years devolved into little else besides chasing contract work (which doesn't work well when you have a house and family to drag all over the country), I currently am employed doing Windows Application Development for a small local company. This also means that I do a fair bit of Windows Server admin stuff on pretty much a daily basis. Oh, and BTW, I am also a Certified SQL Server admin.

So with all due respect, you don't know anything about my credentials. Now you do.

Care to retract your fallacious and misinformed generalization regarding Mac Users?

Oh, and does this also mean that the plethora of people who show up at hacker conferences sporting Mac laptops also "Don't understand technology?" Or are you going to claim that they don't count, just because they dual-boot a Linux Distro on their MacBooks?

Oh, and as far as the definition of "lift" in this context? Essentially, it is a synonym for "steal". To take without permission. Much like Linux was "Lifted" from UNIX.

As I said before, Apple "lifted" NOTHING from Linux, nor from any Open Source project. In fact, they have CONTRIBUTED quite a bit back to the F/OSS "Community". Would you like to see a list?

Doing a little more googling, it turns out we're both right. :P Why can't anything in life be easy?

http://english.stackexchange.c...

But it looks like the pejorative version is winning by a landslide so...... I guess I'll drop my point. A shame, really.

> C++ was encouraging or spurring on the acceptance of the OOP paradigm (whatever that is),

Uh, you DO realize Alan Kay _invented_ the term Object-Orientated back in 1967, which is 20 *years* before C++ took off in 1990, right?

"I made up the term object-oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind."

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
* http://programmers.stackexchan...

This disagrees,

http://skeptics.stackexchange....

Highway speeds like this are already routine in Germany

No, they're the exception. On the about 1/3 of the Autobahn where it is legal to speed, you'll find only about one in a (few) hundred cars going 180+ (km/h). One in ~50 goes 160+. The vast majority cruises at around 120-130, many even below that.

And guess why? Not because it isn't *fun* to speed, no. Because it is damn expensive, the non-linear way (note the v^2). And frankly we already have to pay the equivalent of over $6 per gallon on gas. It really makes you think twice.

(I have driven there).

Really. Once?

Drivers are a more select part of the German population than in the US, because the less skilled have alternative transportation.

What a ridiculous statement.

This is just ridiculous.

Yes, you're completely right.

Rrrrright.

A pile of generic performance optimization tricks definitely solves real world problems in real world applications. Or probably it does for you, the whole world is reduced to games and Android.

Try to write some business logic which crunches 100 millions entities, and then come back. Or networking application which serves 10K+/s requests in real-time. But why go so far - an Eclipse-like text editor without C, in pure Java. All that is routinely done in C/C++ - and still generally fails in Java. I know it, because I have tried.

That's like saying "do not use classes or templates in the C++".

No, it's like saying if you want a performant game written in Java then you must avoid doing certain things.

This is just ridiculous.

Yes, you're completely right.

I'd buy an island and make a nation out of it.

Back to the drawing board my friend:

http://worldbuilding.stackexch...
http://www.worldislandinfo.com...

Seeing what you want from life, I'd recommend simply moving to a country with a permissive view on prostitution. It would probably be much less expensive than rolling your own (recommend firing those unworthy instead of "destroying" them, though).

</troll accepted>

Of course your phone used DHCP to assign IP addresses to connected devices, but a DHCP server has nothing to do with NAT. Which NAT daemon do you see running on your Android device? Tethering was introduced in Foryo (2.2) but Froyo was unable to support NAT due to inability to port the required kernel modules. Can it be done in userland? Sure, no reason you can't implement it in DALVIK (Java), but the performance would be shit. Then, there's this discussion. There's plenty more if you Google a bit.

And, again, having spoken with T-Mobile network technicians, the actual people working on the network and not any support tier (hey, it helps to know people), I know I'm right in this instance, at least as far as my carrier is concerned. You aren't going to convince me you know more than they do; especially when you display a complete lack of motivation to research and learn for yourself rather than making the random guesses you think sound most logical.

The still need to support devices not capable of NAT, so they still need the NAT hardware on their end. So, you're getting NAT from your carrier anyway. If your phone is NATing you, too, it's doing you a disservice by killing its own battery faster, passing packets through a slower chain (your device's CPU and RAM), and double-NATing, when the radio chip everythign has to pass through anyway already has the ability to do the routing necessary to simply use the carrier's already-in-place NAT at almost no pwer cost, without delaying packets at all or adding to the load on the device.

You must be an engineer. Not a good one, probably lacking a degree in the field or any practical experience, but an "engineer", for sure.

I guess I was too technical, but it's possible.

http://unix.stackexchange.com/...

A particle falling into a black hole never perceives itself as having moved past an event horizon, as an apparent event horizon recedes before it. The horizon keeps receding in the direction of the "singularity" until it's torn apart on the way in.

This isn't true. Particles do in fact pass the event horizon in finite time (as judged in their own time frame). In fact, for very large black holes (tens of thousands of solar masses), it would easily be possible to pass the event horizon without experiencing tidal forces strong enough to rip you apart... in finite time.

An external observer never perceives a particle falling past the so-called "true" horizon; it perceives the falling object's time as slowing down to a virtual stop at the event horizon.

While this is sort of true, the idea of an external observing viewing an astronaut "frozen in time" just above the event horizon is just not true in any practical sense.

What you'd actually observe if you watched someone fall into a black hole is the light from that person exponentially getting dimmer and fading out basically completely in finite time (i.e., probably within a fraction of a second for reasonable sized black holes). Yes, theoretically you can get a photon emitted and taking years or centuries to reach an external observer, but the amount of emitted light decays exponentially fairly quickly -- so as an external observer you'd actually see someone basically "disappear" at the event horizon in finite time (and fairly quickly actually). (For some details and a sample calculation with explanation, see here.)

Both of these views are logically consistent under a simple constraint: nothing ever passes an event horizon, and there's no such thing as a "true" horizon, only apparent horizons. The outside observer's view of "truth" should be given no more precedence as being reality than the infalling observer's perception.

Well, since both of your "views" are sort of wrong (or, well, at least misleading), I'm not sure the rest of your explanation should be taken as true.

Also, the problem is notions of simultaneity and where time and space is in black holes is quite complex when you try to compare observers in general relativity -- basically, you really can't come up with objective metrics that will satisfy notions of simultaneity for observers except in a local sense. So talking about whether a black hole "has formed" or where the event horizon "is" at a particular moment of time becomes quite complicated when you start to involve "external" observers. (For some details, see here for a bit of an explanation.)

Anyhow, there's lots of debate going on with Hawking about what exactly goes on with black holes (and information), but my point is that trying to apply simple intuition to general relativistic effects around black holes is pretty much destined to fail, or at least lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

Can't they just get a LOT of the stuff and let the plasma use its (w/o an apostrophe, by the way) own gravity for containment?

Sort of -- it's just that they need a gas giant sized lump of the stuff to use gravity for containment. Heck, Mars is too small to maintain containment of carbon dioxide much less hydrogen. And they may need it to be bigger than Jupiter for it to maintain gravity containment while fusing (Jupiter isn't big enough to produce a significant amount of fusion). Note that fusion creates heat which makes the plasma expand. I think they're trying to produce fusion in a plant small enough to be stored on the Earth's surface without catastrophic effects (e.g. global warming).

If you're willing for the plant to be located off Earth, you're in luck. There's already one operating in the center of the solar system. Now just get the power here in some usable form (no, visible light will not cut it) and we're good to go.

More discussion of how big a star needs to be to support fusion: http://physics.stackexchange.c...

If the .band files are audio-only, such as .aiff, then Audacity can play them. If they have MIDI files, you'll need to first export to wav/mp3/aiff/m4a/etc, then play them on anything.

Here is a list of alternatives for composing on Linux.

To everybody who is going to be bitching about how dead COBOL is:
http://skeptics.stackexchange....

I'm glad I'm no longer involved with any COBOL code, but my 10+ years of COBOL programming has left me with the impression that it's not going away any time soon.

Having the compiler for a language written in itself is what pretty much every serious compiler is expected to do. Its called being self-hosted, and a compiler is generally not considered very mature until it does this.

So basically what this is saying is that Go has started to grow up.

See rootless in OS X El Capitan: http://apple.stackexchange.com... http://www.quora.com/Can-someo...

Have you considered using ChaCha20? It is - supposedly - faster than RC4 ( https://security.stackexchange... ) and not broken ( http://www.rc4nomore.com/ ). Of course, please benchmark yourself.

Where can I download the iOS source code? Oh wait you can't. But you can download the Android source code [android.com]

So, can you really expect to compile that and end up with something that you can load into your phone (and have it work?). No. No more than you can download Darwin and expect it to be a fully-functional iOS build.

But actually, you can download some parts of iOS, just like you can download some parts of Android.

Man I'd hate to be someone in the middle of that path without knowing it, perhaps where a fault or something ejects lots of these neutrinos upward through some guys bedroom where he sits idle for hours absorbing them.....

The neutrinos are traveling in a straight line through the Earth's crust. They barely interact with normal matter, so I don't think it's possible for there to be a "fault" that changes their path. For the same reason, neutrinos aren't terribly threatening to humans. Here's a Stack Exchange question with more information.

http://physics.stackexchange.c...

Never buy a PC that doesn't have full hardware Linux ever support again.

I'm interested. What brand of 10" laptop is good for running Xfce now that netbooks have been replaced with detachables? Or should people expect to use an Android tablet with GNURoot and XSDL if they want Linux on a 10" laptop?