Every time the price difference is to the advantage of the customer there's not a peep to be heard.
Well aside from that fact that you're making something awfully close to an argument from silence. This is probably because that case it *would* be the lowest advertised price online or in print. That's actually in accordance with their policy. Whereas trying to pass off something that *isn't* the lowest advertised price online or in print as one - is not.
Some other interesting things about the 'price match policy' is that they seem to be able to make exceptions at the stores discretion. The Burlington Ontario store refuses to match TigerDirect unless the difference is small. When you bring in an advert for a product with a large difference in price they claim they have a policy against matching TigerDirect and the manager then made statements implying TD not exactly getting their products on the up-and-up.
First and foremost "Success" is ultimately an abstraction. It's highly subjective. Academia's merit-based system quantifies "success" in a manner which is inconsistent with the real world.
Meh...I'm generally pretty skeptical of anyone claiming to represent 'the real world'. Not to mention that a lot of your statements are logically wierd or untrue. If success is highly subjective why can't mert (even Academic merit) be the primary factor? You kind of shot yourself in the foot there. Then you go on to claim that academic success is inconsistant with the real world - if something is "highly subjective" you would think that the real world wouldn't have that much of an effect on it.
Generally speaking, you can't take a test and as a result, make yourself happy or financially secure or loved in any substantive sense.
Not 'generally' as in 'generally across all career paths' but that's not really necessary to make the point that an academic merit system doesn't result in financial success (throwing in love, etc seems to fog the issue needlessly). For example passing the medical boards is a test that puts you in the top wage earners in the country.
Plus, in the academic world, showing up is a major factor, which won't cut it in the real world if you really want to advance.
Speak for your own educational system here. The others who came from places where showing up isn't the major thing required to succeed aren't amused.
...and this seems to extend beyond the hard drive market. Virtually every computer component I get repaired has some refurbished part. Seagate has recently started labeling their refurbed drive. The branding sticker on the one I most recently replaced had a green border and read "Seagate Reconditioned Drive" at the top. I wonder if this is to stop people from selling them outright.
My Advice:
1) If you can, buy from a store with a good return policy (best buy, etc) - although often I find those stores only carry the boxed drives which tend to have lower warranties. If it dies in a very short period - return it and get a new one. Don't let them scam you into getting a warranty exchange.
2) Before you buy check out the MTBF on the various models of drive. Some differ significantly.
3) Back up religiously and/or use a RAID. My RAID 5 is composed of seven drives and I lose a drive probably every 18 months or so but it's virtually a no-pain situation. Pull the drive - send it out for repair - take the refurbed drive and assign it to the RAID as a hot-spare. RAID rebuilds itself.
But to answer the question: "Are the warantees worthless?". My last drive I exchanged to seagate was 200G they replaced it with a 400G! Not bad IMHO.
See like a lot of things it depends on some other variables. For instance.
1) Not everyone. When my wife was working she would fill up about once per week (around ~$65 CDN). However our groceries were easily $100 CND/wk. So if we could economize on our groceries (overall) it would be more beneficial than searching for cheaper gas. Now that she is on maternity leave we don't even spend $30/wk on gas.
2) Even "Giant Signs" only give you local minima. What would be way more convienent is if the local gas stations in your shopping area sent the information to your door. I don't know what places you all live in but here I am inundated with advertising from all the major food sellers letting me know exactly that.
3) It's a discount not free money. I have a gas card that gives us a $0.02/liter discount. Even so the savings never results to very much.
The closer to the metal you can get while programming, the faster your program will compile -- or so conventional wisdom would have you believe
As others have already mentioned he seems to use the term 'compile' oddly. This sentence would say to me that the time to take program and turn it into object code (assembly, byte-code, etc) is smaller the more similar your language is to the object code. I think it's difficult to disagree with that statement. However since the author seems to spend most of his time talking about program execution speed (and by the look of the comments here on SD that's what everyone else thought too) it seems safe to assume that he meant 'The more similar your language is to object code the faster it will run'.
In this article, I will show you how high-level languages like Java aren't slow by nature, and in fact low level languages may compile less efficiently.
The wierd bit here is he seems to take the idea 'high-level languages are slower than low-level languages' and assume it's being stated in the ABSOLUTE case. In other words that there is no case where a high-level language can be faster than any low-level language. I doubt even the hardest of the hard-core assembly language folk would say that. Now like his mistake above we might be tempted to believe that he isn't saying something so ridiculous. The problem with that POV is that he only provides a few cases where he believes his thesis is true (at least one of which is wrong). The only argument a minority of cases can refute is the absolute one above. So either he doesn't make his case or his he's attacking an argument that could hardly be called common wisdom.
But hey you might just say that he's giving a few examples for the sake of brevity. Except that...
Now consider a slightly higher-level language, FORTRAN (which predates C by more than two decades, incidentally). FORTRAN has a vector datatype, and operations on it.
The problem here is if we take what appears to be his definition of a high-level language. FORTRAN could (AFAIK he's speaking hypothetically) produce faster object code than his C implementation because it implements a abstraction that is close to object code. IOW it is (in that instance) operating at a low level. How does this make his point?
A lot of people complain about the overhead of Java bytecode being interpreted. This argument isn't entirely fair, for two reasons. The first is that Java doesn't have to be interpreted at all
Again this is just odd reasoning. True it doesn't have to be but for the most part it is. So again it seems like he's trying to refute kind of an odd case.
The reason for this improvement is that a virtual machine could perform some categories of optimization that weren't available to a static compiler.
Anyone else amused that his first reason and second reason are mutually exclusive? ( IOW: You can't compile Java AND have JIT optimizations).
Now here at least is something that approaches a useful argument. Sure there are kinds of optimization that can only be done at run time but the question of what is generally faster isnt' really answered. For example an in-lined function can easily cause performace to drop if the inlining also causes a cache miss. I'm also somewhat skeptical of this auto-inlining being 'impossible' to implement in C. It would appear that some people have discussed it at least : http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/chang92profileguided. html
His final idea about compilers becoming more advanced is true. However again we run into the issue of "What argument does this actually refute?". Is it the general case? It's hard to say, it's also hard to say how this aligns with his thesis. One example of a compiler that can produce pretty significant speed increases is Intel's C compiler. So it would seem that 'lower le
I maintain a wireless network of over 40 AP's for a college campus. This article spends much time on nothing.
a) 'default' SSIDS are irrelevant. It doesn't make the networks easier to find. It's not like when I ask windows to "View Wireless Networks" it only shows me the ones called "linksys". Perhaps at one time seeing a router called 'linksys' might have made me think that the user is less likely to be running encryption but under XP it tells me right away which ones are encrypted and which aren't.
b) Warchalking - old hat. Perhaps before it was feasable to simply leave my PDA running as I walk around and report all the AP's it sees this might have been useful.
c) WEP - You've got to be joking. The article mentions the 'newer 128-bit specification' doesn't mention DWEP using 802.1x or WPA. Either make it much harder to crack.
d) IDS - Possibly useful but really only once someone is accessing your system via your wireless.
e) MACs - The article seems to vassilate here, on one hand saying that MAC isn't meant for access control and on the other saying that you should use them for ACLs. MAC authentication is useless, it's trival to find a useful MAC address on any network that's used regularly.
f) DHCP - Stupid. Disabling it stops very little for very long. The vast majority of WLANs are using one of the three non-routable IP ranges. It wouldn't take me long to find one that's accessable. It also introduces a serious pain for the maintainers for the network.
What it should mention are the following:
a) Authentication - 802.1x preferably. I personally don't like web portals as it makes it easier to fool users with "evil twin" attacks.
b) WPA2, using WEP or idealy AES.
c) For corporate WLANs use a system that can use your own wireless networks to detect rogue AP's. I'm using Nortel (now cisco) 2270 (with 2230 aps) and I have SNMP traps which warn me when someone in the WLAN starts up an AP.
d) VLANS - keep the WLAN traffic restricted to particular ports, destinations.
e) Have a written policy for your users. Make them understand that adding their own wireless equipment is forbidden.
f) Using some kind of authentication on your ethernet jacks helps - it's hard to find an AP that will do 802.1x on the WAN side. Even so, it would be tied to a particular user. Using the information from (c) you can just disable their account.
f) Invest in a solution that keeps users OS and Virus software up-to-date.
Ya think? Maybe this represents your proof! I like to call this the "Keystone Cops Method" of scientific inquiry.
You would be wrong. The question is one of mechanism. The mechanism by which ionizing radiation causes cancer can't be the same as the aleged method that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Ergo in order to investigate the cancer causing nature of non-ionizing radiation you would need reason to believe that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Such as a statistical anomaly...oh...hey....that's what we have here.
Given they were working under a tower which is broadcasting radiation, this should probably come as no shock.
Actually to anyone who studies physics it would be a shock. Even if the tower put out huge amounts of non-ionizing radiation there is still no way for it to affect organics the same way ionizing radiation does.
Not to mention that if it's simply radiation then you have to admit that it seems a little suspect. Why only brain tissue? Why no BCC's or pancreatic cancer? The radiation is hitting your body pretty equally.
Compare that to a substance, like inhaling an alpha-emitter or chewing Areca nut. Where the localized application causes a localized effect.
Mind you, this is assuming that the rest of the building doesn't have cancer but we don't really know that.
What I wonder is -- why isn't there shielding protecting the floors below from the radiation from the tower? Answer: then everyone's cell phones would stop working.
Uh...no. You see, a) you could still get signal from other towers, b) metal in other buildings etc will reflect the signal.
This is totally different; those towers are pumping out huge amounts of radiation, to try and make sure you can get a strong signal at great distances. It's not like living inside a nuclear reactor, but its close enough to be a bad idea.
No, it's not remotely like living in a nuclear reactor.
I'm not saying that basking in radio waves of any magnitude or frequency is safe but since we have little in the way of medical evidence for this being the cause ( and questions as to if this can even be a cause ) it is reasonable to be skeptical.
SIZE is not the determining factor. TECHNIQUE is. Regardless of how well your opponent resists, it is, simply put, child's play to defeat an opponent, even one of equal or greater skill, if you adhere to basic principles of technique.
Heard it before and nearly bought the t-shirt. It's pretty easy to see you are overstating your case. "Regardless of how well your oppenent resists" How about s/he resists so well they have the ninja tied up and are hammering their head with their fists. Obviously your ninja isn't going to win there. "Defeat an opponent of greater skill is easy" except what useful measure of 'skill' is there other than by counting who wins and who loses? or did SI release a 'skill' metric when I wasn't looking. So again your ninja loses there.
Once we strip away the retard hyperbole we just have a statement of something ambiguous (technique) being considered better than size, strength or weight.
To make such judgements without knowing the facts is silly.
Except that theres no reason to believe you have 'the facts' either. How do you know that the poster can't kick the ninjas butt? Simply put, you don't. So doesn't that make your statements outrageous? Doesn't your own logic imply that you're not taking your studies seriously?
Anyway, your sillyness aside. I would say that unless you're artificially limiting the situation. A heavier, taller person would ceteris paribus have the advantage. To a point anyway - I'm not sure how well a 500lb person could hurt me but I'm also not that sure I could hurt him that well either.
Yeah I think I know exactly like that...and they're in med school.:)
Seriously though, this is almost as stupid as this guy
Sure clinically you can relate poor attention span with lack of sleep but unless he's done some kind of study this leaves his other factor 'genetics' on shakey ground at best. How would he know that he's seeing something other than the effects of sleep dep? He doesn't. Medical Ass or Geek Ass when it's doing the talking it's still just ass.
The idea that you can train your brain to be unable to stay on task seems odd. Sure I spend the day focused on a myriad of things (sometimes just in writing a single piece of code) but by the end of the day I'm ready to relax. What do I do? I watch TV, read a book, play a game - all pretty much single task things. Even doing chores I find relaxing to a point. Likewise if I've been doing gardening all day then I find writing code relaxing. Perhaps I'm the exception but my mind seems to crave balance more than anything.
Microsoft has been harping on this for ages. Doesn't anyone remember when they were bribing system builders to report clients who put in bids for OS-less pcs?
"So then, is this just one more example of how refereed journals can't be trusted?"
In a word, no.
Why would it be? Science is an itterative process, part of which involves publishing. Then comments on published articles. Then other studies. Then meta-analysis, studying the results of all (or some cross-section) of studies.
EB makes some interesting points in their article. They should have submitted it to Nature and then nature comment on it, etc... but even if they are entirely correct that in and of itself doesn't invalidate refereed journals.
Not to mention if you ever could justify mistrust in the majority of refereed journals....think just how much of the Wiki that would invalidate (ever look at how many journals are cited as sources?)
*sigh* No it's not ADD. It's (at best) a symptom of ADD. You see this is why the DSM-IV says things like:
"6 (or more) of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level"
Look at that! (if you're still paying attention and haven't gone off diagnosing other people). You need a quantity of symptoms, over a prolonged period of time to a degree that interferes seriously with your functioning.
Interestingly enough the edition that they are quoting doesn't mention anything remotely like 'hyperfocus' as a symptom. Even if it had and even if it somehow omitted the fact that you need to display a number of symptoms. You are stil making a directional fallacy. i.e. If some ADHD sufferers have trait X then all people who exhibit trait X have ADHD.
Which if true would imply that everyone who has trouble sleeping has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as the DSM-IV says 'difficulty falling or staying asleep'.
Not to mention you appear to be taking the wiki as gospel which is...well...a whole other internet 'disorder'.
I'm going to guess what the original poster is saying. That because the photon has a low energy it is far, far, far more difficult to interact with chemical systems. Gamma rays are different because they are HIGH energy photons. Gamma rays are not being produced here to any significant degree.
Your study from pubmed demonstrates this point well. They were finding genetic damage at 1.2-2W/kg when exposed at >4h. So for the average american woman say (140lbs) this would be between 76-120W of exposure or somewhere between 3-5W for a newborn.
Wifi runs from 40mW to...well I've seen things in the 120mW range. Consider that the worst case (120mW) is 25x smaller than the energy to have similar effect on a small newborn.
Perhaps you linked the wrong page becase what I see there...
Is somebody arguing what looks like Creatonism - which is only ID in a loose sense. Then a footer article about Bees. There is no actual argument made about ID or anything else in the Bee article.
So there may be some ID proponents that attempted to use the alleged "bee argument" but this isn't one of them. The very mention of ID in the original article was submoronic.
You would have to demonstrate that this is ether intrinsic to ID or at the very least representitive of it's proponents for this to be a useful attribution. Since the former is silly and the later is more research than journalists ever seem capable of doing. The author could have saved the world (and you) from becoming just a little bit stupider by ommiting it.
I think you're right. If you look at the article here:
"The lighter power saving stages just do things like reduce clock speed or gate the clocks to parts of the chip, these types of things can be done independently on each core in Yonah (e.g. one core can be in C1 while the other core is in C0)."
The fact that someone would engineer a system this way implies that - ceteris paribus - a single core is going to be lower in power consumption.
Interesting. Personally I find some aspects of OSX to be somewhat "toy".
Under Panther Server I wrote scripts to update OpenDirectory from an Active Directory dump. I found that eventually schema elements simply stopped getting updated. For example about 20% of our passwords failed to sync.
We've had a number of problems where one patch release would screw over some functionality and then a week later a patch would be released that would fix it. All undocumented. For example I had a machine that was serving an NFS mount break when rebooted. Then I found out that someone had, a week or so ago ran Software Update and that had applied a patch. Running software update again fixed this.
I've had a lot of problems with their sales engineers. The ones we work with often tell us misleading things ("You don't need to get your own print accounting system. Apple is rolling out print accounting in Tiger", "You can split out any portion of the Xraid to two different machines without a Fiber switch or Xsan", "Don't use IP failover" )
We had a number of solutions we rolled out using Xserves as the core technology and had to roll them right back as they simply couldn't handle the load and there wasn't a reasonable upgrade path.
On a number of levels I like Apple and OS X - especially on the desktop. However I'm not convinced of it as a server platform.
Well actually I don't think Ep IV was all that cool (two words: "power converters")....It showed plainly something that a lot of us represed until Ep II...Lucas has absolutely no ability at writing dialogue. I mean come on could you have possibly come up with a more awkward, dispasionate love scene than in Ep II? I think the only line that was even remotely entertianing was 'death sticks' and that was simply redoing a shtick from Ep IV.
In Ep I virtually every line of Jar-Jar's was unfunny and forgettable. Some of Obi-Wan/Qui-gon's stuff was passable but the delivery was pretty stiff. Stupid terminology introductions like metachorions(sp?) which were entirely absent from everyones vocabulary in IV,V,VI is needlessly stupid.
Ep III had all sorts of ridiculous dialogue, like when Palpatine is trying to 'turn' Anikin by telling him about the Sith that could control life. Oh come on, was he born yesterday? Why do people always seem to come from planets where most people have never encountered guile. This doesn't even begin to deal with the lame plot device used in ep I,II & III where the Jedi are reduced to people who can't see through even the mildest of plots. An explanation is attempted in Ep I but it's lame and unsatistfying.
Sure if you want to be blind to dialog, execution, continuity and having to suspend your disbelief with a block and tackel. Sure there were good points to those films but pardon me if I think that focusing entirely on some generally interesting ( but not very original ) plotting and some very nifty special effects isn't much of a metric.
> Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them
Only if you trivially define 'popular' to mean 'good'. If not then you are making the classic ad populum falacy.
More likely....lots of people saw them because they HOPED they would be good. Lots of reviews stated otherwise because they didn't live up to that.
Not really an appropriate comment. As someone can believe that people should get paid for their work but disagree with the much broader principles of AR's exercise in moral fiction.
Also 'go read' comments tent to make you look like you are avoiding the point. Surely there is a more succinct way of expressing the need for people getting paid for their work than going trough AR's 1200 page suma-in-search-of-an-editor.
Finally you seem to misrepresent the poster's view.
"We don't care about the customer's convenience, we want to get paid"
You seem to interpret as "Nobody is justified in wanting to get paid" but it would seem to me that the person is in fact saying "There are people who are willing to exchange customer convienience - which impacts their paychecks for something that ( rationally or not) they percieve as protecting their paychecks."
For example, the principle taken from the first section: Users want products that work but early adopters are willing to cut slack in some areas but not in others. Can that be responded to with much other than "Duh!"?
I couldn't get to the manufacturers site but it seems likely that what this is about is hash collisions as many P2P protocols use them.
Ok, first of all there has ALWAYS been a possibility of creating an arbitrary file with the identical MD5 (and just about any other hashing algorithm that I know of) as another file.
The utility of MD5 (and other hashing algorithms) is that there was no algorithmic way of doing this in a reasonable period of time. IOW if you wanted to create two 1K files with the same MD5 hash, then you would have to generate all possible 1K files compute the MD5 hash and then do a compare. As you can see this becomes more problematic as your file becomes arbitrarily large.
This landscape changed with the arrival of this paper:
Which talked about creating collisions with arbitrary payloads.
Now the good news:
This shortcut attack doesn't work for all hashing algorithms ( SHA-1 for example ).
If this is the approach that the company in question is taking ( and I would figure if they're targeting ANY of the systems that use hashing then they must).
Then the company is being patently stupid. The cost to develop a solution like this is going to be huge compared to the cost of simply rewriting the hash algorithm in P2P clients.
Hands up how many people here have d/led a new P2P client because the tracker said it was obsolete? Just about everyone right?
Compare that with the cost of someone trying to build a system to break SHA-1 hashes....and you see my point!
As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter.
If you read Feynman's account you'll see that O-ring erosion was documented in the Flight Readiness Reviews. Evidence suggests that a number of people on the engineering crew knew that O-Ring failure could be catastrophic.
The problem was with faulty logic and bad use of statistics - essentially assuming that the success of a previous flight implies safety.
Not only do I think that poor logic and math is something that "someone somewhere in a million years" would consider dangerous but that most people do and everyone at NASA should.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time the price difference is to the advantage of the customer there's not a peep to be heard.
Well aside from that fact that you're making something awfully close to an argument from silence.
This is probably because that case it *would* be the lowest advertised price online or in print. That's actually in accordance with their policy. Whereas trying to pass off something that *isn't* the lowest advertised price online or in print as one - is not.
Some other interesting things about the 'price match policy' is that they seem to be able to make exceptions at the stores discretion. The Burlington Ontario store refuses to match TigerDirect unless the difference is small. When you bring in an advert for a product with a large difference in price they claim they have a policy against matching TigerDirect and the manager then made statements implying TD not exactly getting their products on the up-and-up.
First and foremost "Success" is ultimately an abstraction. It's highly subjective. Academia's merit-based system quantifies "success" in a manner which is inconsistent with the real world.
Meh...I'm generally pretty skeptical of anyone claiming to represent 'the real world'. Not to mention that a lot of your statements are logically wierd or untrue. If success is highly subjective why can't mert (even Academic merit) be the primary factor? You kind of shot yourself in the foot there. Then you go on to claim that academic success is inconsistant with the real world - if something is "highly subjective" you would think that the real world wouldn't have that much of an effect on it.
Generally speaking, you can't take a test and as a result, make yourself happy or financially secure or loved in any substantive sense.
Not 'generally' as in 'generally across all career paths' but that's not really necessary to make the point that an academic merit system doesn't result in financial success (throwing in love, etc seems to fog the issue needlessly). For example passing the medical boards is a test that puts you in the top wage earners in the country.
Plus, in the academic world, showing up is a major factor, which won't cut it in the real world if you really want to advance.
Speak for your own educational system here. The others who came from places where showing up isn't the major thing required to succeed aren't amused.
...and this seems to extend beyond the hard drive market. Virtually every computer component I get repaired has some refurbished part. Seagate has recently started labeling their refurbed drive. The branding sticker on the one I most recently replaced had a green border and read "Seagate Reconditioned Drive" at the top. I wonder if this is to stop people from selling them outright.
My Advice:
1) If you can, buy from a store with a good return policy (best buy, etc) - although often I find those stores only carry the boxed drives which tend to have lower warranties. If it dies in a very short period - return it and get a new one. Don't let them scam you into getting a warranty exchange.
2) Before you buy check out the MTBF on the various models of drive. Some differ significantly.
3) Back up religiously and/or use a RAID. My RAID 5 is composed of seven drives and I lose a drive probably every 18 months or so but it's virtually a no-pain situation. Pull the drive - send it out for repair - take the refurbed drive and assign it to the RAID as a hot-spare. RAID rebuilds itself.
But to answer the question: "Are the warantees worthless?". My last drive I exchanged to seagate was 200G they replaced it with a 400G! Not bad IMHO.
See like a lot of things it depends on some other variables. For instance.
1) Not everyone. When my wife was working she would fill up about once per week (around ~$65 CDN). However our groceries were easily $100 CND/wk. So if we could economize on our groceries (overall) it would be more beneficial than searching for cheaper gas. Now that she is on maternity leave we don't even spend $30/wk on gas.
2) Even "Giant Signs" only give you local minima. What would be way more convienent is if the local gas stations in your shopping area sent the information to your door. I don't know what places you all live in but here I am inundated with advertising from all the major food sellers letting me know exactly that.
3) It's a discount not free money. I have a gas card that gives us a $0.02/liter discount. Even so the savings never results to very much.
Take a look at the first sentence:
The closer to the metal you can get while programming, the faster your program will compile -- or so conventional wisdom would have you believe
As others have already mentioned he seems to use the term 'compile' oddly. This sentence would say to me that the time to take program and turn it into object code (assembly, byte-code, etc) is smaller the more similar your language is to the object code. I think it's difficult to disagree with that statement. However since the author seems to spend most of his time talking about program execution speed (and by the look of the comments here on SD that's what everyone else thought too) it seems safe to assume that he meant 'The more similar your language is to object code the faster it will run'.
In this article, I will show you how high-level languages like Java aren't slow by nature, and in fact low level languages may compile less efficiently.
The wierd bit here is he seems to take the idea 'high-level languages are slower than low-level languages' and assume it's being stated in the ABSOLUTE case. In other words that there is no case where a high-level language can be faster than any low-level language. I doubt even the hardest of the hard-core assembly language folk would say that. Now like his mistake above we might be tempted to believe that he isn't saying something so ridiculous. The problem with that POV is that he only provides a few cases where he believes his thesis is true (at least one of which is wrong). The only argument a minority of cases can refute is the absolute one above. So either he doesn't make his case or his he's attacking an argument that could hardly be called common wisdom.
But hey you might just say that he's giving a few examples for the sake of brevity. Except that...
Now consider a slightly higher-level language, FORTRAN (which predates C by more than two decades, incidentally). FORTRAN has a vector datatype, and operations on it.
The problem here is if we take what appears to be his definition of a high-level language. FORTRAN could (AFAIK he's speaking hypothetically) produce faster object code than his C implementation because it implements a abstraction that is close to object code. IOW it is (in that instance) operating at a low level. How does this make his point?
A lot of people complain about the overhead of Java bytecode being interpreted. This argument isn't entirely fair, for two reasons. The first is that Java doesn't have to be interpreted at all
Again this is just odd reasoning. True it doesn't have to be but for the most part it is. So again it seems like he's trying to refute kind of an odd case.
The reason for this improvement is that a virtual machine could perform some categories of optimization that weren't available to a static compiler.
Anyone else amused that his first reason and second reason are mutually exclusive? ( IOW: You can't compile Java AND have JIT optimizations).
Now here at least is something that approaches a useful argument. Sure there are kinds of optimization that can only be done at run time but the question of what is generally faster isnt' really answered. For example an in-lined function can easily cause performace to drop if the inlining also causes a cache miss. I'm also somewhat skeptical of this auto-inlining being 'impossible' to implement in C. It would appear that some people have discussed it at least : http://citeseer.ifi.unizh.ch/chang92profileguided. html
His final idea about compilers becoming more advanced is true. However again we run into the issue of "What argument does this actually refute?". Is it the general case? It's hard to say, it's also hard to say how this aligns with his thesis. One example of a compiler that can produce pretty significant speed increases is Intel's C compiler. So it would seem that 'lower le
it was generated by http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/.
Except in fake papers and speeches by our college president have I heard something simple ( and trivial ) said in so many words.
I'd disagree with your disagreement. :-)
http://coffer.com/mac_find/
Will tell you the make of any WAP just from it's ethernet address. You don't even need to associate with it.
I maintain a wireless network of over 40 AP's for a college campus. This article spends much time on nothing.
a) 'default' SSIDS are irrelevant. It doesn't make the networks easier to find. It's not like when I ask windows to "View Wireless Networks" it only shows me the ones called "linksys". Perhaps at one time seeing a router called 'linksys' might have made me think that the user is less likely to be running encryption but under XP it tells me right away which ones are encrypted and which aren't.
b) Warchalking - old hat. Perhaps before it was feasable to simply leave my PDA running as I walk around and report all the AP's it sees this might have been useful.
c) WEP - You've got to be joking. The article mentions the 'newer 128-bit specification' doesn't mention DWEP using 802.1x or WPA. Either make it much harder to crack.
d) IDS - Possibly useful but really only once someone is accessing your system via your wireless.
e) MACs - The article seems to vassilate here, on one hand saying that MAC isn't meant for access control and on the other saying that you should use them for ACLs. MAC authentication is useless, it's trival to find a useful MAC address on any network that's used regularly.
f) DHCP - Stupid. Disabling it stops very little for very long. The vast majority of WLANs are using one of the three non-routable IP ranges. It wouldn't take me long to find one that's accessable. It also introduces a serious pain for the maintainers for the network.
What it should mention are the following:
a) Authentication - 802.1x preferably. I personally don't like web portals as it makes it easier to fool users with "evil twin" attacks.
b) WPA2, using WEP or idealy AES.
c) For corporate WLANs use a system that can use your own wireless networks to detect rogue AP's. I'm using Nortel (now cisco) 2270 (with 2230 aps) and I have SNMP traps which warn me when someone in the WLAN starts up an AP.
d) VLANS - keep the WLAN traffic restricted to particular ports, destinations.
e) Have a written policy for your users. Make them understand that adding their own wireless equipment is forbidden.
f) Using some kind of authentication on your ethernet jacks helps - it's hard to find an AP that will do 802.1x on the WAN side. Even so, it would be tied to a particular user. Using the information from (c) you can just disable their account.
f) Invest in a solution that keeps users OS and Virus software up-to-date.
*sigh*
Ya think? Maybe this represents your proof! I like to call this the "Keystone Cops Method" of scientific inquiry.
You would be wrong. The question is one of mechanism. The mechanism by which ionizing radiation causes cancer can't be the same as the aleged method that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Ergo in order to investigate the cancer causing nature of non-ionizing radiation you would need reason to believe that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. Such as a statistical anomaly...oh...hey....that's what we have here.
Given they were working under a tower which is broadcasting radiation, this should probably come as no shock.
Actually to anyone who studies physics it would be a shock. Even if the tower put out huge amounts of non-ionizing radiation there is still no way for it to affect organics the same way ionizing radiation does.
Not to mention that if it's simply radiation then you have to admit that it seems a little suspect. Why only brain tissue? Why no BCC's or pancreatic cancer? The radiation is hitting your body pretty equally.
Compare that to a substance, like inhaling an alpha-emitter or chewing Areca nut. Where the localized application causes a localized effect.
Mind you, this is assuming that the rest of the building doesn't have cancer but we don't really know that.
What I wonder is -- why isn't there shielding protecting the floors below from the radiation from the tower? Answer: then everyone's cell phones would stop working.
Uh...no. You see, a) you could still get signal from other towers, b) metal in other buildings etc will reflect the signal.
This is totally different; those towers are pumping out huge amounts of radiation, to try and make sure you can get a strong signal at great distances. It's not like living inside a nuclear reactor, but its close enough to be a bad idea.
No, it's not remotely like living in a nuclear reactor.
I'm not saying that basking in radio waves of any magnitude or frequency is safe but since we have little in the way of medical evidence for this being the cause ( and questions as to if this can even be a cause ) it is reasonable to be skeptical.
SIZE is not the determining factor. TECHNIQUE is. Regardless of how well your opponent resists, it is, simply put, child's play to defeat an opponent, even one of equal or greater skill, if you adhere to basic principles of technique.
Heard it before and nearly bought the t-shirt. It's pretty easy to see you are overstating your case. "Regardless of how well your oppenent resists" How about s/he resists so well they have the ninja tied up and are hammering their head with their fists. Obviously your ninja isn't going to win there. "Defeat an opponent of greater skill is easy" except what useful measure of 'skill' is there other than by counting who wins and who loses? or did SI release a 'skill' metric when I wasn't looking. So again your ninja loses there.
Once we strip away the retard hyperbole we just have a statement of something ambiguous (technique) being considered better than size, strength or weight.
To make such judgements without knowing the facts is silly.
Except that theres no reason to believe you have 'the facts' either.
How do you know that the poster can't kick the ninjas butt? Simply put, you don't. So doesn't that make your statements outrageous? Doesn't your own logic imply that you're not taking your studies seriously?
Anyway, your sillyness aside. I would say that unless you're artificially limiting the situation. A heavier, taller person would ceteris paribus have the advantage. To a point anyway - I'm not sure how well a 500lb person could hurt me but I'm also not that sure I could hurt him that well either.
A combination of de-duplication and calculating and storing only the changes between similar byte streams is apparently the key
Yes, for that and every other compression system.
#1 Horrible Sleep Hygiene
:)
#2 Headaches
#4 Poor Attention Span
Yeah I think I know exactly like that...and they're in med school.
Seriously though, this is almost as stupid as this guy
Sure clinically you can relate poor attention span with lack of sleep but unless he's done some kind of study this leaves his other factor 'genetics' on shakey ground at best. How would he know that he's seeing something other than the effects of sleep dep? He doesn't. Medical Ass or Geek Ass when it's doing the talking it's still just ass.
The idea that you can train your brain to be unable to stay on task seems odd. Sure I spend the day focused on a myriad of things (sometimes just in writing a single piece of code) but by the end of the day I'm ready to relax. What do I do? I watch TV, read a book, play a game - all pretty much single task things. Even doing chores I find relaxing to a point. Likewise if I've been doing gardening all day then I find writing code relaxing. Perhaps I'm the exception but my mind seems to crave balance more than anything.
Microsoft has been harping on this for ages. Doesn't anyone remember when they were bribing system builders to report clients who put in bids for OS-less pcs?
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010425.html
"So then, is this just one more example of how refereed journals can't be trusted?"
In a word, no.
Why would it be? Science is an itterative process, part of which involves publishing. Then comments on published articles. Then other studies. Then meta-analysis, studying the results of all (or some cross-section) of studies.
EB makes some interesting points in their article. They should have submitted it to Nature and then nature comment on it, etc... but even if they are entirely correct that in and of itself doesn't invalidate refereed journals.
Not to mention if you ever could justify mistrust in the majority of refereed journals....think just how much of the Wiki that would invalidate (ever look at how many journals are cited as sources?)
*sigh* No it's not ADD. It's (at best) a symptom of ADD. You see this is why the DSM-IV says things like:
"6 (or more) of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level"
http://add.about.com/cs/addthebasics/a/dsm.htm
Look at that! (if you're still paying attention and haven't gone off diagnosing other people). You need a quantity of symptoms, over a prolonged period of time to a degree that interferes seriously with your functioning.
Interestingly enough the edition that they are quoting doesn't mention anything remotely like 'hyperfocus' as a symptom. Even if it had and even if it somehow omitted the fact that you need to display a number of symptoms. You are stil making a directional fallacy. i.e. If some ADHD sufferers have trait X then all people who exhibit trait X have ADHD.
Which if true would imply that everyone who has trouble sleeping has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as the DSM-IV says 'difficulty falling or staying asleep'.
Not to mention you appear to be taking the wiki as gospel which is...well...a whole other internet 'disorder'.
I'm going to guess what the original poster is saying. That because the photon has a low energy it is far, far, far more difficult to interact with chemical systems. Gamma rays are different because they are HIGH energy photons. Gamma rays are not being produced here to any significant degree.
Your study from pubmed demonstrates this point well. They were finding genetic damage at 1.2-2W/kg when exposed at >4h. So for the average american woman say (140lbs) this would be between 76-120W of exposure or somewhere between 3-5W for a newborn.
Wifi runs from 40mW to...well I've seen things in the 120mW range. Consider that the worst case (120mW) is 25x smaller than the energy to have similar effect on a small newborn.
Perhaps you linked the wrong page becase what I see there...
Is somebody arguing what looks like Creatonism - which is only ID in a loose sense. Then a footer article about Bees. There is no actual argument made about ID or anything else in the Bee article.
So there may be some ID proponents that attempted to use the alleged "bee argument" but this isn't one of them. The very mention of ID in the original article was submoronic.
You would have to demonstrate that this is ether intrinsic to ID or at the very least representitive of it's proponents for this to be a useful attribution. Since the former is silly and the later is more research than journalists ever seem capable of doing. The author could have saved the world (and you) from becoming just a little bit stupider by ommiting it.
I think you're right. If you look at the article here:
"The lighter power saving stages just do things like reduce clock speed or gate the clocks to parts of the chip, these types of things can be done independently on each core in Yonah (e.g. one core can be in C1 while the other core is in C0)."
The fact that someone would engineer a system this way implies that - ceteris paribus - a single core is going to be lower in power consumption.
Interesting. Personally I find some aspects of OSX to be somewhat "toy".
Under Panther Server I wrote scripts to update OpenDirectory from an Active Directory dump. I found that eventually schema elements simply stopped getting updated. For example about 20% of our passwords failed to sync.
We've had a number of problems where one patch release would screw over some functionality and then a week later a patch would be released that would fix it. All undocumented. For example I had a machine that was serving an NFS mount break when rebooted. Then I found out that someone had, a week or so ago ran Software Update and that had applied a patch. Running software update again fixed this.
I've had a lot of problems with their sales engineers. The ones we work with often tell us misleading things ("You don't need to get your own print accounting system. Apple is rolling out print accounting in Tiger", "You can split out any portion of the Xraid to two different machines without a Fiber switch or Xsan", "Don't use IP failover" )
We had a number of solutions we rolled out using Xserves as the core technology and had to roll them right back as they simply couldn't handle the load and there wasn't a reasonable upgrade path.
On a number of levels I like Apple and OS X - especially on the desktop. However I'm not convinced of it as a server platform.
> Sure, but Microsoft does not have a trademark on the word Windows, not in this nor any other domain.
. html
e f3.5.861
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0791/trdp079157700e
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=pas
My quick search of the Austraian TM engine shows WINDOWS being TM'ed by MS.
Now perhaps by 'here' you meant Bolivia or something but you should be careful with your use of the absolute case!
>What do you people have against Star Wars?
Well actually I don't think Ep IV was all that cool (two words: "power converters")....It showed plainly something that a lot of us represed until Ep II...Lucas has absolutely no ability at writing dialogue. I mean come on could you have possibly come up with a more awkward, dispasionate love scene than in Ep II? I think the only line that was even remotely entertianing was 'death sticks' and that was simply redoing a shtick from Ep IV.
In Ep I virtually every line of Jar-Jar's was unfunny and forgettable. Some of Obi-Wan/Qui-gon's stuff was passable but the delivery was pretty stiff. Stupid terminology introductions like metachorions(sp?) which were entirely absent from everyones vocabulary in IV,V,VI is needlessly stupid.
Ep III had all sorts of ridiculous dialogue, like when Palpatine is trying to 'turn' Anikin by telling him about the Sith that could control life. Oh come on, was he born yesterday? Why do people always seem to come from planets where most people have never encountered guile. This doesn't even begin to deal with the lame plot device used in ep I,II & III where the Jedi are reduced to people who can't see through even the mildest of plots. An explanation is attempted in Ep I but it's lame and unsatistfying.
Sure if you want to be blind to dialog, execution, continuity and having to suspend your disbelief with a block and tackel. Sure there were good points to those films but pardon me if I think that focusing entirely on some generally interesting ( but not very original ) plotting and some very nifty special effects isn't much of a metric.
> Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them
Only if you trivially define 'popular' to mean 'good'. If not then you are making the classic ad populum falacy.
More likely....lots of people saw them because they HOPED they would be good. Lots of reviews stated otherwise because they didn't live up to that.
"Go read Atlas Shrugged."
Not really an appropriate comment. As someone can believe that people should get paid for their work but disagree with the much broader principles of AR's exercise in moral fiction.
Also 'go read' comments tent to make you look like you are avoiding the point. Surely there is a more succinct way of expressing the need for people getting paid for their work than going trough AR's 1200 page suma-in-search-of-an-editor.
Finally you seem to misrepresent the poster's view.
"We don't care about the customer's convenience, we want to get paid"
You seem to interpret as "Nobody is justified in wanting to get paid" but it would seem to me that the person is in fact saying "There are people who are willing to exchange customer convienience - which impacts their paychecks for something that ( rationally or not) they percieve as protecting their paychecks."
...they border on useless?
For example, the principle taken from the first section: Users want products that work but early adopters are willing to cut slack in some areas but not in others. Can that be responded to with much other than "Duh!"?
Not at all one of Peter's better articles.
I couldn't get to the manufacturers site but it seems likely that what this is about is hash collisions as many P2P protocols use them.
p df
Ok, first of all there has ALWAYS been a possibility of creating an arbitrary file with the identical MD5 (and just about any other hashing algorithm that I know of) as another file.
The utility of MD5 (and other hashing algorithms) is that there was no algorithmic way of doing this in a reasonable period of time. IOW if you wanted to create two 1K files with the same MD5 hash, then you would have to generate all possible 1K files compute the MD5 hash and then do a compare. As you can see this becomes more problematic as your file becomes arbitrarily large.
This landscape changed with the arrival of this paper:
http://www.infosec.sdu.edu.cn/paper/md5-attack.
and the more famous:
http://www.doxpara.com/md5_someday.pdf
Which talked about creating collisions with arbitrary payloads.
Now the good news:
This shortcut attack doesn't work for all hashing algorithms ( SHA-1 for example ).
If this is the approach that the company in question is taking ( and I would figure if they're targeting ANY of the systems that use hashing then they must).
Then the company is being patently stupid. The cost to develop a solution like this is going to be huge compared to the cost of simply rewriting the hash algorithm in P2P clients.
Hands up how many people here have d/led a new P2P client because the tracker said it was obsolete? Just about everyone right?
Compare that with the cost of someone trying to build a system to break SHA-1 hashes....and you see my point!
As a matter of fact, they both exploded because something seemingly trivial went wrong, something that nobody in a million years would have thought could endanger the orbiter. If you read Feynman's account you'll see that O-ring erosion was documented in the Flight Readiness Reviews. Evidence suggests that a number of people on the engineering crew knew that O-Ring failure could be catastrophic. The problem was with faulty logic and bad use of statistics - essentially assuming that the success of a previous flight implies safety. Not only do I think that poor logic and math is something that "someone somewhere in a million years" would consider dangerous but that most people do and everyone at NASA should.