WINE is a recursive acronym, it stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator"...
Bit of a clue, there.
WINE originally stood for Windows Emulator. WINE is in fact emulating bits of Windows - it is an emulator. The backronym comes later.
It's a shitty name and propagate a shitty belief that it is not an emulator, that an emulator has some strict definition relating to hardware or instruction sets, etc.
I included it on my list for precisely these reasons, and your ignorant post validates those reasons nicely.
I don't know if you're joking or not. LAME is in fact an encoder, and it infringes on tons of the MP3 patents held by Fraunhofer. Originally, LAME was just a set of changes to existing encoders, and you were expected to provider your own copy of the encoder. That scheme went out the window really fucking quickly, though. LAME quickly became a full-fledged encoder in itself, infringing on many patents. I don't give a shit about the patents, but I do give a shit when people claim it isn't an encoder when it is. Shitty fucking name.
WINE emulates bits of Windows, it is an emulator. it does not emulate hardware, an instruction set, or even all of Windows, but it is an emulator nonetheless. In fact, WINE originally stood for "Windows Emulator", before clowns decided to change it to that recursive backronym lie.
To paraphrase Feynman, all accurate science is good science because despite how meaningless you may think your findings are, someone in the future may come along and do something wonderful with them. Keep asking 'why'.
To quote Whitman: That you are here–that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you have to watch this fucking obnoxious iPhone commercial again. That the powerful play goes on and you have to watch this fucking obnoxious iPhone commercial again.
32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you.)
The section is entitled Sexual harassment and assault so you would hope people would be contextually aware that "or other jokes" means of a sexual nature. But it's still a badly worded question. I further assume the reader is supposed to parse "inappropriate or sexual" as prefixes for the other items, but we live in a tightly wound panties world when comments about physical beauty are harassment.
39. Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at an anthropological field site? (If you have had more than one experience, the most notable to you.)
The problem, again, is a terribly worded question. Are we to again assume physical should extend through the commas? Or is unwanted sexual contact just a fat girl asking a handsome dude to get a date after the working day is done. Is all physical contact unwanted sexual contact now?
The math for their statistical distributions is fine.
Their questions suck, lack good wording, and lack examples. [Not limited to but including......excluding FOO, but not limited to BAR.]
The second question also leaves "yes" as a valid response when consent was given for sexual content at an anthropological field site, but the respondent felt it would have been unsafe to fight back (despite having no need or desire to, since the sexual contact was consensual and enjoyed by all). Fighting at a dig site while having sex is unsafe. Hell, everyone in the world could answer that question "yes" as fighting in general is unsafe.
Actually Slashdot is like that about everything. What really gets to some on Slashdot is how people like you act all sanctimonious and incredulous when people disagree about something, and only when it comes to feminism.
Correct. Dipshits like "I kan reed" are always champing at the bit to jump on the next agenda bandwagon so they can scream at everyone else how they're terrible people while ignoring other problems completely because they're not represented by mob of "enlightened" retards.
LAME and WINE are especially terrible since their names are lies - LAME IS an MP3 encoder, and WINE IS an emulator (the word "emulation" is not restricted to emulating hardware or an instruction set).
The Supreme Court is wrong. They may be the authority on the matter, but they're also fucking morons, as are most government authorities on most matters.
If you've been granted immunity, the fifth doesn't apply because it can't be used to convict you;
Horse shit.
Dipshit Prosecutor: The defendant claims he was with you on the night of the 15th. What were you doing on the night of the 15th?
Witness: I plead the 5th.
Jackass Judge: Nonono, you don't have rights because I am a retard! Answer the question or go to jail.
Defense Attorney: WTF? Are you kidding me?
Dipshit Prosecutor: He won't be charged for anything he says because we grant him magical immunity. Promise!
Witness: Okay, well I was busy across town raping children in the basement of that building I shot the President from a few days earlier. I was there for a damned week, just raping a bunch of kids I had stolen earlier to pass time, because I had to wait for the cops to leave.
You can't know what someone will say in their answer before you force them to answer, thus you can't grant them immunity for their answer. Thus, you, and the dumbass judges who "think" like you, are fucking retarded. The 5th amendment does not only apply when you're being asked certain questions or when you're being prosecuted. It applies at all times. The government can't legally force you to say anything against yourself..
id think in even a few hundred years our best encryption would be trivial to break.
Not without huge advances in theoretical mathematics, no. We have encryption that would take longer to crack than the heat death of the Universe, even if every atom in it were a modern computer.
On the other hand, advances in the factoring of large numbers, could, for example, make some modern encryption method a lot more vulnerable. But I am told, by people who do research on that topic at MIT and Caltech, that momentous breakthroughs in that area are unlikely - modest improvements, certainly, earth-shattering advancements, no.
You can model the universe forward or backward in time and everything holds up. Just build a model of your crypto-accelerating hardware (which is actually fairly simple) in a suitably-accurate physics engine. Set the initial state to the end state (where the output is the hash you want to reverse). Run your reverse physics simulation. Wait. Get the inputs.
Whether this modeling approach is computationally feasible (or even just better than other attacks) is beside the point. The idea that there are truly one-way mathematical functions useful for security is absurd. Just because you don't know how to reverse them now doesn't mean you won't know how to reverse them in the future, or that your enemies don't know how to reverse them now. (Useless one-way functions do exist - such as f(x) = 0*x; given just an output of 0 there's no way to determine what x was.)
I do, but that doesn't help when there are 3 different questions questions and their response tells me they clearly didn't read the questions, my suggestions, or my notes explaining why I'm recommending what I'm recommending and what the implications of making that decision are. Inevitably, I'll get a call a month later asking if we can change that shit, and I'll refer to the previous email, only to get a "Oh, well it needs to be the other way." response.
Almost half the calories in a Big Mac are bun. Non-sugar Carbs, via calories, are why we are fat.Chips, bread with everything, buns. Seriously, watch what's on your plate as you eat for several days.
Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions - on a sesame seed bun. What the jingle doesn't tell you is that the Big Mac bun has 3 pieces to it, not just two like the regular bun. The middle section is basically the same as the bottom section in size.
Coke & Pepsi actually do double-blind QA taste tests comparing every batch to at least one other batch, and consider a batch that can reliably be distinguished from the reference batch to be an official failure. They experimented with stevia when it first came out, and almost immediately concluded that no presently-available stevia-based sweetener was capable of giving them the kind of flawless consistency they insist upon.
Bullshit. Individual bottlers do their own thing. Both Coke and Pepsi vary significantly in taste by region due to the different water sources used. On top of that you have the different containers (glass/plastic/aluminum), fountain drinks, real-sugar variants (Mexican Coke), etc. which all drastically alter taste.
Your Stevia claim is also bullshit. Show me where and when both Coke and Pepsi publicly stated they were testing Stevia, then show me where and when they both "almost immediately" gave up on it. Then show me when Stevia "first came out".
Coke & Pepsi, as well as Hersheys and Nabisco and every other major food brand DO go to great lengths to control consistency, but the shit in your post came straight from your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
WINE is a recursive acronym, it stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator"...
Bit of a clue, there.
WINE originally stood for Windows Emulator.
WINE is in fact emulating bits of Windows - it is an emulator.
The backronym comes later.
It's a shitty name and propagate a shitty belief that it is not an emulator, that an emulator has some strict definition relating to hardware or instruction sets, etc.
I included it on my list for precisely these reasons, and your ignorant post validates those reasons nicely.
I don't know if you're joking or not.
LAME is in fact an encoder, and it infringes on tons of the MP3 patents held by Fraunhofer.
Originally, LAME was just a set of changes to existing encoders, and you were expected to provider your own copy of the encoder. That scheme went out the window really fucking quickly, though. LAME quickly became a full-fledged encoder in itself, infringing on many patents. I don't give a shit about the patents, but I do give a shit when people claim it isn't an encoder when it is.
Shitty fucking name.
WINE emulates bits of Windows, it is an emulator. it does not emulate hardware, an instruction set, or even all of Windows, but it is an emulator nonetheless.
In fact, WINE originally stood for "Windows Emulator", before clowns decided to change it to that recursive backronym lie.
Check your facts.
Please define said "horrible bullshit" and please show where I've defended such things.
It's kind of like Dr. Princess. She's not really a Princess, that's just her surname.
" Bono said the new tech "can't be pirated" "
Since when is Bono qualified to have an opinion on this subject?
He should make songs and not talk about things he hasn't got a clue about.
How about he does neither?
To paraphrase Feynman, all accurate science is good science because despite how meaningless you may think your findings are, someone in the future may come along and do something wonderful with them. Keep asking 'why'.
To quote Whitman: That you are here–that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you have to watch this fucking obnoxious iPhone commercial again. That the powerful play goes on and you have to watch this fucking obnoxious iPhone commercial again.
If it isn't mozz, get it the fuck off my pizza!
This man gets it.
Pizza needs one fucking cheese and it's mozzarella. Everything else is pure fucking shit functionally.
That experiment was all wrong. They should have placed the peels flat, not splayed out.
Hard salami is one such fermented sausage.
Infant feces makes your salami hard?
Well, here's the actual questions:
The section is entitled Sexual harassment and assault so you would hope people would be contextually aware that "or other jokes" means of a sexual nature. But it's still a badly worded question. I further assume the reader is supposed to parse "inappropriate or sexual" as prefixes for the other items, but we live in a tightly wound panties world when comments about physical beauty are harassment.
The problem, again, is a terribly worded question. Are we to again assume physical should extend through the commas? Or is unwanted sexual contact just a fat girl asking a handsome dude to get a date after the working day is done. Is all physical contact unwanted sexual contact now?
The math for their statistical distributions is fine.
Their questions suck, lack good wording, and lack examples. [Not limited to but including... ...excluding FOO, but not limited to BAR.]
The second question also leaves "yes" as a valid response when consent was given for sexual content at an anthropological field site, but the respondent felt it would have been unsafe to fight back (despite having no need or desire to, since the sexual contact was consensual and enjoyed by all).
Fighting at a dig site while having sex is unsafe. Hell, everyone in the world could answer that question "yes" as fighting in general is unsafe.
Saying something sexual, is NOT sexual assault.
That was before the PC revolution, and I'm not talking about computers here.
2015 will be the year of Linux on the vagina!
Actually Slashdot is like that about everything. What really gets to some on Slashdot is how people like you act all sanctimonious and incredulous when people disagree about something, and only when it comes to feminism.
Correct.
Dipshits like "I kan reed" are always champing at the bit to jump on the next agenda bandwagon so they can scream at everyone else how they're terrible people while ignoring other problems completely because they're not represented by mob of "enlightened" retards.
LAME
WINE
MAME
etc.
LAME and WINE are especially terrible since their names are lies - LAME IS an MP3 encoder, and WINE IS an emulator (the word "emulation" is not restricted to emulating hardware or an instruction set).
The sillier the name the lower the chances someone will abuse that name for commercial reasons. Saves a lot of money on trademarks.
I'm happy to announce my new FOSS project: CUNTT. It's a universal network tracing tool.
It stands for "CUNTT isn't a Universal Network Tracing Tool".
KFC's secret recipe leaked a while ago, and they're still around.
Chicken, grease, salt.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
They may be the authority on the matter, but they're also fucking morons, as are most government authorities on most matters.
So.... do you admit your post about their actual procedures and their testing and immediate rejection of stevia was pure bullshit?
If you've been granted immunity, the fifth doesn't apply because it can't be used to convict you;
Horse shit.
Dipshit Prosecutor: The defendant claims he was with you on the night of the 15th. What were you doing on the night of the 15th?
Witness: I plead the 5th.
Jackass Judge: Nonono, you don't have rights because I am a retard! Answer the question or go to jail.
Defense Attorney: WTF? Are you kidding me?
Dipshit Prosecutor: He won't be charged for anything he says because we grant him magical immunity. Promise!
Witness: Okay, well I was busy across town raping children in the basement of that building I shot the President from a few days earlier. I was there for a damned week, just raping a bunch of kids I had stolen earlier to pass time, because I had to wait for the cops to leave.
You can't know what someone will say in their answer before you force them to answer, thus you can't grant them immunity for their answer.
Thus, you, and the dumbass judges who "think" like you, are fucking retarded. The 5th amendment does not only apply when you're being asked certain questions or when you're being prosecuted. It applies at all times. The government can't legally force you to say anything against yourself..
you won't brute force 4096-bit encryption. It would take more energy than exists in the universe, go look it up. :)
If you build a computer that does 1 check per second and uses 1 Watt, then how will the universe run out of energy, exactly? Is the energy destroyed?
id think in even a few hundred years our best encryption would be trivial to break.
Not without huge advances in theoretical mathematics, no. We have encryption that would take longer to crack than the heat death of the Universe, even if every atom in it were a modern computer.
On the other hand, advances in the factoring of large numbers, could, for example, make some modern encryption method a lot more vulnerable. But I am told, by people who do research on that topic at MIT and Caltech, that momentous breakthroughs in that area are unlikely - modest improvements, certainly, earth-shattering advancements, no.
You can model the universe forward or backward in time and everything holds up.
Just build a model of your crypto-accelerating hardware (which is actually fairly simple) in a suitably-accurate physics engine.
Set the initial state to the end state (where the output is the hash you want to reverse).
Run your reverse physics simulation.
Wait.
Get the inputs.
Whether this modeling approach is computationally feasible (or even just better than other attacks) is beside the point. The idea that there are truly one-way mathematical functions useful for security is absurd. Just because you don't know how to reverse them now doesn't mean you won't know how to reverse them in the future, or that your enemies don't know how to reverse them now. (Useless one-way functions do exist - such as f(x) = 0*x; given just an output of 0 there's no way to determine what x was.)
I do, but that doesn't help when there are 3 different questions questions and their response tells me they clearly didn't read the questions, my suggestions, or my notes explaining why I'm recommending what I'm recommending and what the implications of making that decision are. Inevitably, I'll get a call a month later asking if we can change that shit, and I'll refer to the previous email, only to get a "Oh, well it needs to be the other way." response.
Almost half the calories in a Big Mac are bun. Non-sugar Carbs, via calories, are why we are fat.Chips, bread with everything, buns. Seriously, watch what's on your plate as you eat for several days.
Not according to these links:
Big Mac bun, 180 cal: http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-mcdonalds-sesame-seed-bun-i53842
Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions - on a sesame seed bun.
What the jingle doesn't tell you is that the Big Mac bun has 3 pieces to it, not just two like the regular bun. The middle section is basically the same as the bottom section in size.
Coke & Pepsi actually do double-blind QA taste tests comparing every batch to at least one other batch, and consider a batch that can reliably be distinguished from the reference batch to be an official failure. They experimented with stevia when it first came out, and almost immediately concluded that no presently-available stevia-based sweetener was capable of giving them the kind of flawless consistency they insist upon.
Bullshit. Individual bottlers do their own thing. Both Coke and Pepsi vary significantly in taste by region due to the different water sources used. On top of that you have the different containers (glass/plastic/aluminum), fountain drinks, real-sugar variants (Mexican Coke), etc. which all drastically alter taste.
Your Stevia claim is also bullshit. Show me where and when both Coke and Pepsi publicly stated they were testing Stevia, then show me where and when they both "almost immediately" gave up on it. Then show me when Stevia "first came out".
Coke & Pepsi, as well as Hersheys and Nabisco and every other major food brand DO go to great lengths to control consistency, but the shit in your post came straight from your ass.
Stevia is really good at hiding the taste of ricin. I heard this from my high-school chemistry teach who recently passed a way.
Have you heard of the popular TV show called Breaking Bad?????