'MacHeads is a superb film that will give Apple haters a few cheap laughs, and Apple fans a few cheap thrills. But it'll entertain both equally, while educating everybody else'
I like this quote. It basically says that if you're not a fan and not a hater, it's because you're not educated properly!
The problem being it becomes an arms race in the same way DRM is an arms race. Microsoft would have to keep inventing new obfuscating logarithms, and the crackers would have to keep working out how the current logarithm obfuscates.
I don't think that word means what you think it means:-)
But Rokicki isn't finished there. He is already number-crunching his way to a new bound of 24 moves, a task he thinks will take several CPU months. And presumably after that, 23 beckons.
I can't wait till he gets down to 2 or 3 moves; then perhaps even I will be able to solve it!
Sites offering one content to Google and another to users. This is indeed something that Google frowns on, but not something that seems to be in place to be tested by the spider.
This is definitely tested by "the spider". This link has already been posted in this thread.
Google's fame comes from their PageRank algorithm and unfortunately people now know how to game the results. If Google were to implement multiple algorithms then users could indicate which search type the wish to use. While it certainly makes thing more complicated for Google, it also makes it more complicated for people trying to game the system, since it is harder to know which algorithm to target.
If Google implemented multiple algorithms, there would still be one best target candidate: The default algorithm.
I did the exact same thing recently, only my "Oops" post was moderated down as offtopic! Anyway, I wrote to Rob Malda about the problem, and here is his answer:
yeah adding some sort of undo is on our todo list, but it's not quite
that simple... there has to be a time window where you can undo your
actions... maybe 60 seconds or something... so it's more complicated
than just having an undo button somewhere.... we'll get there
someday..
"Invariant" means unchanging. There's your fifth;)
Yes, and "variational" means pertaining to variance, i.e. change. The prefix "bi" means "twice" or "every two", and "formalism" in this context means a notational system.
All in all, they're talking about an unchanging twice-complex notational system of change.
I hope that makes it more clear for you.
(Note to moderators: If you're thinking of modding this "Informative", please reread my post while thinking "He must be joking".)
1. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892
2. Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb, 1902
(eighteen months before Kitty Hawk.)
3. The aeroplane will never fly. - Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907 (statement made four years after Kitty Hawk.)
That's a nice way to get karma! If you post a comment that you suspect is going to be modded insightful, remember to include some errrors, so you can post a correction and get some more positive moderation for the second comment!;-)
(...waiting for this comment to be modded insightful)
I agree, of course, but if it was a one-time sign-up procedure - like getting an email at hotmail - then I personally would not mind answering a more complicated captcha.
You could just make the user answer more than one of these questions. If you have to answer 5 questions with 4 pictures in each, the probability drops to 1/1024.
With the new moderation system, it's (in my opinion) far too easy to accidentally choose the wrong moderation, and there's no way to undo it, except by posting.
This being/., the stronghold of nerdy bachelors, the question is of course purely theoretical. However, there are a few assumptions in the article that would probably fail in the real world.
For example, the author assumes that John (an appropriate name, btw) visits the toilet as often as Marsha. In my experience, females visit the toilet more frequent than males.
Another thing: It is assumed that John only performs one of the two actions (#1 and #2) when he goes to the toilet. This is not really a problem though; if he has to do both, he would probably do both sitting down, and therefore we could adjust the probability p (of doing #1) to exclude these visits. The author ought to have mentioned this, though.
... for some reason my sig seems oddly appropriate for this discussion:
Slashdot Mirror
Tenure is what you get when your experiments go as planned. The Nobel Prize is when they don't.
In that case I should have had many Nobel Prizes for my physics experiments.
"Unpossible" is a perfectly cromulent word!
I like this quote. It basically says that if you're not a fan and not a hater, it's because you're not educated properly!
Hang on! 64 is not a random number!!
I don't know about 93 though...
Cue lots of silly jokes about ... what was the subject again?
I'll feed the troll today.
Considering your nickname, I would have thought that you had learned to stay away from trolls - or would that be orcs?
Perhaps the author is confusing Procedural Programming with Procedural Generation?
All in all, they're talking about an unchanging twice-complex notational system of change.
I hope that makes it more clear for you.
(Note to moderators: If you're thinking of modding this "Informative", please reread my post while thinking "He must be joking".)
Damn, I hadn't thought about that.
Hmm... maybe if I made the error less obvious? Or more personal?
By the way, did you know that my dog is called Safari?
That's a nice way to get karma! If you post a comment that you suspect is going to be modded insightful, remember to include some errrors, so you can post a correction and get some more positive moderation for the second comment! ;-)
(...waiting for this comment to be modded insightful)
I agree, of course, but if it was a one-time sign-up procedure - like getting an email at hotmail - then I personally would not mind answering a more complicated captcha.
You could just make the user answer more than one of these questions. If you have to answer 5 questions with 4 pictures in each, the probability drops to 1/1024.
Why are they still arguing about the existense of water on Mars?
Definitive proof was found long ago!
The QOTD seems very appropriate for this article: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Posting to void accidental wrong moderation.
With the new moderation system, it's (in my opinion) far too easy to accidentally choose the wrong moderation, and there's no way to undo it, except by posting.
I'm glad to see that
. . someone is paying attention to
. . . . the Live Ink text formatting.
It makes text
. . so much easier
. . . . to read!
This being /., the stronghold of nerdy bachelors, the question is of course purely theoretical. However, there are a few assumptions in the article that would probably fail in the real world.
... for some reason my sig seems oddly appropriate for this discussion:
For example, the author assumes that John (an appropriate name, btw) visits the toilet as often as Marsha. In my experience, females visit the toilet more frequent than males.
Another thing: It is assumed that John only performs one of the two actions (#1 and #2) when he goes to the toilet. This is not really a problem though; if he has to do both, he would probably do both sitting down, and therefore we could adjust the probability p (of doing #1) to exclude these visits. The author ought to have mentioned this, though.
I wish there was an application - sort of like Google Earth - where you could zoom in on the die and do a 3D fly-over.