"Ultimately you still need to get the encryption information across securely"
This is provably impossible with an active MITM attacker (Though a solution to passive listeners does exist and is in common use). If it could be done, we wouldn't be messing around with complicated certificate signing systems.
Correct. A MITM beats everything done over the wire. You need to secure your shit before you use the wire. You need a pre-shared key to encrypt the initial communication. A certificate sort of does this, but not really because we still trust them blindly and we initially accept them over the same wire. The proper way to do shit would be for you to go to your bank in person, for example, and generate 2 keys - one for you to use to talk to your bank and one for the bank to use to talk to you. You then use that key when establishing your first communication with the bank, and they use theirs. You can use whatever encryption you want, you can deploy a key-changing scheme, or a certificate scheme like we have now, whatever.
Your initial key exchange must be done securely. Doing it in person is the most secure way possible, but it's also the least convenient. Doing it over the wire is NEVER secure against a MITM.
You could have 100 carriers and they wouldn't have to compete because they control the infrastructure for a necessary service. They'll charge out the ass and people will pay. The minute someone tries to cut prices the others attack, then subsume. This is how we got to the point we're at now. Only regulation keeps this from happening since you and I can't go out and start our own competing telecoms without having billions for infrastructure, spectrum, and bribes.
Right now Deutsche Telekom currently owns 67% of T-mobile USA.
After the deal, Deutsche Telekom will have $32 billion and 15% of the merged company.
Why is this hard?
Because no one fucking mentioned T-Mobile USA, or Deutsche Telekom, or T-Mobile International AG, or T-Mobile US Inc.which is the actual fucking name of the piece of T-Mobile in question.
I would suggest "A report from Forbes says that Sprint buying T-Mobile for $32 billion is almost a done deal.", because this is what they fucking mean (not that it's true). Sprint buying T-Mobile is no where near done in terms of regulatory approval let alone execution. It is, however, a "done deal" since there fat cats have agreed and it's just a matter of time before the government allows some form of the deal through.
Given the context of Sprint/ T-Mobile approving a deal, I assume it ment the Corporate approval of AT&T/ DirectTV, rather than FCC approval.
Wrong. TFS is talking about FCC approval.
Officials of both Sprint and T-Mobile are confident that FCC will approve this deal since AT&T's $48.5 billion acquisition of DirecTV got approved.
Reading is FUNdamental! But so is writing - TFA claims that the AT&T deal must making Sprint confident regarding regulatory approval, yet the AT&T deal hasn't been approved, so there's no fucking reason for Sprint to be confident. I, however, am confident that history will repeat itself and we the people will be screwed over when both deals ultimately are approved.
sadly lots of good games (yeah Valkyria Chronicles 3) never left Japan.
VC2 and VC3 were the reasons I wanted a PSP. I never ended up getting one because VC3 was never localized. I couldn't be assed to deal with the fan translation at http://vc3translationproject.w... .
Subsequent PSP models were not easily hacked (and I believe the later models remain unhacked today).
I don't know about the E1000 (a PAL-region barebones PSP), but the PSP-3000 and (I think) the PSP Go are both hackable without actually flashing new firmware. Some of the software signing keys were discovered about 3 years ago. You can sign custom binaries and use those to open the floodgates to whatever else you want.
If the keys were released 3 years ago that speaks little to the impact on piracy when the revisions were reeleased in 2007 and 2008 - they were moderately successful in preventing piracy because they shipped with the firmware holes plugged. You needed a Pandora battery and Magic Memory Stick as the first step, changing the game from a pure software hack to a hardware + software hack, much like the very first PS3 hacks which required the service mode USB stick.
As far as I know, the modern firmware versions of modern PSPs remain unhacked. If the signing keys were leaked then it's game over, though, unless Sony wants to blacklist the keys and whitelist all prior releases. They did this with the PS3, but that's because people were still making games for it.
Love how my post was modded flamebait. Bring facts to Slashdot get shat on.
The PSP was NOT written off early into its lifespan. Approaching launch, every major media outlet championed it as the obvious victor in the portable space, expecting the DS to get absolutely fucked. The DS didn't take its first significant lead until the end of 2005, and it wasn't until 2007 that the PSP was written off.
Selling 80 million units doesn't mean shit when you're selling below / near cost and you're not selling software.
Subsequent PSP models were not easily hacked (and I believe the later models remain unhacked today). But if you still want to blame the failure on piracy, how are you going to explain the DS? All DS models, including the DSi, are easily hackable, and piracy was (and still is) absolutely rampant.
The later PSP models didn't represent "excellent hardware and featureset updates", they represented haphazard attempts to lower costs while sacrificing build and component quality, while providing only minor improvements. It took 3 years to get the first revision out and it's main claims to fame were the smaller size and shittier quality screen. And what about the abortion that was the PSP Go or the time wasted on PSP Phone attempts? The Go was roundly rejected. I believe there were a few models of phones branded with Playstation, PSN, or "Xperia Play" that actually got released in various markets, but they obviously bombed as well - none of them actually played PSP games despite the hardware ability and obvious design "similarities" between them and the PSP Go. It was just a sub section of stuff available through PSN (but not the real PSN).
Sony's failure with the PSP was due to ridiculous proprietary storage format and the overall price of the system. Because of the costs, they simply could not get an install base worth developing for. Developing a major title for Vita was a huge risk that rarely paid off. On the other hand, the DS had a PS2-like install base - you could release utter trash and expect a profit.
Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science
What the fuck does her gender have to do with anything? Look girls, this woman, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
Further, what the fuck would her success have to do with kids in general? Look kids, this adult, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
You can't choose a role model for your child. A person (such as a child) can either choose to respect / admire / aspire to other people or not. Trying to foist a particular person off as a role model comes across as disingenuous, fake, and stupid to even the dumbest and youngest of kids.
Further, selecting said role models for your kids based on their success, rather than their behavior, ethics, character, etc. will get you poor results, all while speaks volumes about your own priorities. She fabricated data, at the very least, and published. Even if she ends up being right she's a terrible role model.
I enjoy mine, but I rip them myself from Blurays I buy so I have a backup and the rip is far higher quality than the crap out there. And by doing it that way, I use ZERO bandwidth and it takes only 5 minutes of my time to do it.
Note to the morons that think people sit at the computer and watch it run, you dont count the 2 hours the computer is doing something while you are off diving the great barrier reef or racing motorcycles... Normal people have the ability to walk away and let a machine do its job unsupervised.
So you dip shits that reply with "you cant rip a Bluray in 5 minutes" can go stuff your low IQ head in a bucket.
Stop fucking lying, clown. 16x BR read speed is 72 MBps. Assuming 30 GB for the main title (a decent average), you're looking at over 7 minutes of pure read time at max speed. You don't get that max speed over the whole disc, and you've got all the seeking, disc recognition time, title and playlist inspection for DRM removal, etc.
Ripping a typical BR takes 15 to 30 minutes from insert to eject.
So you can fuck off with your 5 minutes AND your 2 hours, and your bullshit about motorcycles.
curious wouldn't it be possible before connecting or uplinking the nural device you had a seperate software that simply maps the patterns that are found on command, In games we use directions for example say left turn left till the pathway is mapped. No storage for advertisers because the developers to the device simply program a pointer in the band look for left -brain command left device trigger left --In game turn left.
This presumes you control the device's output and the software works (and works well) with the "less dimensional" output your privacy layer gives it, and that the privacy layer doesn't hinder the experience by introducing additional delays, removing too much data, etc.
You won't get to control the device's output until the things become so commoditized that you're building your own with Arduino, then there's the whole issue of trusting the software.
Here we propose an integration of a personal neuroinformatics system, Smartphone Brain Scanner, with a general privacy framework openPDS. We show how raw high-dimensionality data can be collected on a mobile device, uploaded to a server, and subsequently operated on and accessed by applications or researchers, without disclosing the raw signal. Those extracted features of the raw signal, called answers, are of significantly lower-dimensionality, and provide the full utility of the data in given context, without the risk of disclosing sensitive raw signal. Such architecture significantly mitigates a very serious privacy risk related to raw EEG recordings floating around and being used and reused for various purposes.
So MIT pisses away cash on research that comes up with "Just anonymize the data, sorta, before shipping it off to advertisers and you'll be protected, sorta."? And of course it's peppered with meaningless shit like "personal neuroinformatics system", "smarthphone", and "privacy framework". Hey MIT, give me a research grant and I'll come up with an actual solution. Hint: Don't let people put EEG sensors on or around your head for a game, a video, etc. in the first place and you won't have the problem of them selling it to nefarious parties who would use it against you. Much more effective than the proposed equivalent of "Do Not Track" for brainwaves.
Though I remember people lapping CPU's back in the day, though again that was more to level and ensure a good mating with the HS. Thought I have seen some that got the metal pretty thin as well almost exposing the core.
However the whole conversation is a bit moot. By Intel "targeting" the OC you pretty much eliminate the purpose for doing so in the first place. The whole idea was you take a cheap chip, and OC it to something much better. Now the chips you can OC are more expensive anyway...
What? "Back in the day" we had exposed cores. Enthusiasts would lap the heatsink to a mirror shine, meticulously apply a thin, even coating of goo to the CPU core, and pray as they clamped/bolted/screwed/whatevered the heatsink on.
Then Intel started putting heat spreaders on their shit. Some people removed the built in heat spreaders in an attempt to get better cooling by removing the middle man. Usually it made no real difference. AMD followed suit a few years later.
Today, only an idiot would remove the IHS from a CPU in an attempt to get better cooling. The installation at the factory is far better than anything you'll do yourself. Intel's last generation of CPUs was an outlier - they did such a shitty job of capping the CPU that people desperately tried to improve the cooling by going back to a decade-old trick. Regardless of what you tried, though, the overclocking capabilities of that generation were pure shit.
I wish Intel/AMD would just offer an SKU with a factory-mounted permanent heatsink. I also wish phone manufacturers would offer an SKU with a factory-installed screen protector. I sure as fuck don't enjoy buying a 3-pack on Amazon and fucking up the first one, getting the second one kind of okay, and then not being able to decide to try to do it better with the third one or not. For heatsinks, I don't enjoy the added cost of 3rd party heatsinks, fans, goo, etc. While installation is simple, I would appreciate the extra efficiency (in cooling and cost) I could get if the manufacturer did that shit at the factory.
The person I replied to said it oculd be done in a few weeks. What you suggest takes months to years. And front-panel switches for RAM? WTF are you even talking about? Why would you even need to do that if you've already done everything by hand?
He is wrong and it was only ever a strong hypothesis on his part. Newer research shows that it is a lot easier to build in a way that excludes compiler backdoors: http://www.dwheeler.com/trusti...
The idea is fascinating. It basically says if you have a really crappy and simple compiler that can compile your code and that you can trust, you can propagate that trust on a really good and complicated compiler. Writing a crappy and simple C compiler can be done in a few weeks.
Yeah but how are you going to compile your compiler?
"Times larger" is not ambiguous. "X is Y times larger than Z" means "X is Y times Z larger than Z. "Y times" is in relation to Z. There is no other correct way to interpret it. It's often used and interpreted incorrectly, but that doesn't make it ambiguous - it makes marketers liars and people morons.
Of course, there's the completely senseless uses as well. "X is Y times smaller than Z" where Y is greater than 1 implies a negative sieze for X, and "DSL is 10 times slower than cable" implies a negative speed for DSL (then there's the whole issue of internet "speed" when we're really talking about bandwidth).
LOL then u dumb. If the Universe is quantum, then:
All of calculus is wrong, there are no spheres, or circles, thus there is no Pi, etc. There would also then be no such thing as irrational numbers.
If the Universe is finite then you'd never be able to fully evaluate an irrational number. Even if the Universe is infinite, a quantum Universe would dictate that you would always be outside the light cone of the full evaluation of an irrational number. If you use the most densely-packed matter/energy possible to write out Pi or the square root of 2, the size of its physical construct would still be infinite, therefore all things are outside the light cone of some of the digits. Even if you wrote out all digits instantly this would still apply.
From a practical point, the conjecture of a normal number containing all works ever created boils down to NOPE because you'd never find them. A 2 minute MP3 at 128 kbps means the song occurs with frequency of 1 / 2^15728640. You'd need to check, on average, 2^15728639 strings of length to find that MP3. You'd need 1.349 * 10 ^ 4734792 bits of storage just to write down your number to have a 50% chance of finding your song.
For any normal number, each digit appears just as frequently as any other, and each pair of digits appears just as equally as any other, etc.
In base 10 (that is, base two, since all bases except base one are base 10): 0 and 1 appear 50% of the time each. 00, 01, 10, and 11 appear 25% of the time each. etc.
So when you've got infinite digits, ALL strings of numbers of length n are uniformly present within the number, and thus all digital works ever created or to be created are present within it. Of course that's all bullshit since irrational numbers don't exist in our quantum Universe.
And I know the smell of bullshit. This is about naming and shaming to get advantageous agreements regarding hosting Google's shit on the ISPs network, in their physical space, on their power, and on their dime. Peering does nothing to reduce bottlenecks, it reduces your bill to your peers. Caching shit closer to the destination reduces bottlenecks, and for Google, costs. Youtube uses TONS of bandwidth, and they don't want to pay for it. It's as simple as that.
The last mile is not the issue. If that were the case my gigabit connection at work would get decent playback on Youtube. My 100 megabit connection at home would get decent playback. No other sites have the issues that Youtube does. It's all about Youtube sucking fat shit with their streaming setup. Remember kids: DASH is TRASH. Want proof? Get an addon that lets you disable DASH playback. Enjoy functional Youtube. I use Youtube Center, though I think it has issues with the latest retard version of Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
You watch far too much Futurama :)
I posit that it is impossible to watch too much Futurama.
"Ultimately you still need to get the encryption information across securely"
This is provably impossible with an active MITM attacker (Though a solution to passive listeners does exist and is in common use). If it could be done, we wouldn't be messing around with complicated certificate signing systems.
Correct. A MITM beats everything done over the wire. You need to secure your shit before you use the wire. You need a pre-shared key to encrypt the initial communication. A certificate sort of does this, but not really because we still trust them blindly and we initially accept them over the same wire. The proper way to do shit would be for you to go to your bank in person, for example, and generate 2 keys - one for you to use to talk to your bank and one for the bank to use to talk to you. You then use that key when establishing your first communication with the bank, and they use theirs. You can use whatever encryption you want, you can deploy a key-changing scheme, or a certificate scheme like we have now, whatever.
Your initial key exchange must be done securely. Doing it in person is the most secure way possible, but it's also the least convenient. Doing it over the wire is NEVER secure against a MITM.
You could have 100 carriers and they wouldn't have to compete because they control the infrastructure for a necessary service. They'll charge out the ass and people will pay. The minute someone tries to cut prices the others attack, then subsume. This is how we got to the point we're at now. Only regulation keeps this from happening since you and I can't go out and start our own competing telecoms without having billions for infrastructure, spectrum, and bribes.
The response to your quip was so weak that you could hear a pin drop.
Right now Deutsche Telekom currently owns 67% of T-mobile USA.
After the deal, Deutsche Telekom will have $32 billion and 15% of the merged company.
Why is this hard?
Because no one fucking mentioned T-Mobile USA, or Deutsche Telekom, or T-Mobile International AG, or T-Mobile US Inc.which is the actual fucking name of the piece of T-Mobile in question.
I would suggest "A report from Forbes says that Sprint buying T-Mobile for $32 billion is almost a done deal.", because this is what they fucking mean (not that it's true). Sprint buying T-Mobile is no where near done in terms of regulatory approval let alone execution. It is, however, a "done deal" since there fat cats have agreed and it's just a matter of time before the government allows some form of the deal through.
Given the context of Sprint/ T-Mobile approving a deal, I assume it ment the Corporate approval of AT&T/ DirectTV, rather than FCC approval.
Wrong. TFS is talking about FCC approval.
Officials of both Sprint and T-Mobile are confident that FCC will approve this deal since AT&T's $48.5 billion acquisition of DirecTV got approved.
Reading is FUNdamental! But so is writing - TFA claims that the AT&T deal must making Sprint confident regarding regulatory approval, yet the AT&T deal hasn't been approved, so there's no fucking reason for Sprint to be confident. I, however, am confident that history will repeat itself and we the people will be screwed over when both deals ultimately are approved.
sadly lots of good games (yeah Valkyria Chronicles 3) never left Japan.
VC2 and VC3 were the reasons I wanted a PSP. I never ended up getting one because VC3 was never localized.
I couldn't be assed to deal with the fan translation at http://vc3translationproject.w... .
Subsequent PSP models were not easily hacked (and I believe the later models remain unhacked today).
I don't know about the E1000 (a PAL-region barebones PSP), but the PSP-3000 and (I think) the PSP Go are both hackable without actually flashing new firmware. Some of the software signing keys were discovered about 3 years ago. You can sign custom binaries and use those to open the floodgates to whatever else you want.
If the keys were released 3 years ago that speaks little to the impact on piracy when the revisions were reeleased in 2007 and 2008 - they were moderately successful in preventing piracy because they shipped with the firmware holes plugged. You needed a Pandora battery and Magic Memory Stick as the first step, changing the game from a pure software hack to a hardware + software hack, much like the very first PS3 hacks which required the service mode USB stick.
As far as I know, the modern firmware versions of modern PSPs remain unhacked. If the signing keys were leaked then it's game over, though, unless Sony wants to blacklist the keys and whitelist all prior releases. They did this with the PS3, but that's because people were still making games for it.
Love how my post was modded flamebait. Bring facts to Slashdot get shat on.
The PSP was NOT written off early into its lifespan. Approaching launch, every major media outlet championed it as the obvious victor in the portable space, expecting the DS to get absolutely fucked. The DS didn't take its first significant lead until the end of 2005, and it wasn't until 2007 that the PSP was written off.
Selling 80 million units doesn't mean shit when you're selling below / near cost and you're not selling software.
Subsequent PSP models were not easily hacked (and I believe the later models remain unhacked today). But if you still want to blame the failure on piracy, how are you going to explain the DS? All DS models, including the DSi, are easily hackable, and piracy was (and still is) absolutely rampant.
The later PSP models didn't represent "excellent hardware and featureset updates", they represented haphazard attempts to lower costs while sacrificing build and component quality, while providing only minor improvements. It took 3 years to get the first revision out and it's main claims to fame were the smaller size and shittier quality screen. And what about the abortion that was the PSP Go or the time wasted on PSP Phone attempts? The Go was roundly rejected. I believe there were a few models of phones branded with Playstation, PSN, or "Xperia Play" that actually got released in various markets, but they obviously bombed as well - none of them actually played PSP games despite the hardware ability and obvious design "similarities" between them and the PSP Go. It was just a sub section of stuff available through PSN (but not the real PSN).
Sony's failure with the PSP was due to ridiculous proprietary storage format and the overall price of the system. Because of the costs, they simply could not get an install base worth developing for. Developing a major title for Vita was a huge risk that rarely paid off. On the other hand, the DS had a PS2-like install base - you could release utter trash and expect a profit.
It also only looks at the data and methodology.
Except they didn't look at the methodology or do a sanity-check on the data.
From academia to congress to joining a gym, no one fucking reads or thinks - they just sign it to get it off their plate.
Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science
What the fuck does her gender have to do with anything?
Look girls, this woman, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
Further, what the fuck would her success have to do with kids in general?
Look kids, this adult, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
You can't choose a role model for your child. A person (such as a child) can either choose to respect / admire / aspire to other people or not.
Trying to foist a particular person off as a role model comes across as disingenuous, fake, and stupid to even the dumbest and youngest of kids.
Further, selecting said role models for your kids based on their success, rather than their behavior, ethics, character, etc. will get you poor results, all while speaks volumes about your own priorities. She fabricated data, at the very least, and published. Even if she ends up being right she's a terrible role model.
Came for this.
I enjoy mine, but I rip them myself from Blurays I buy so I have a backup and the rip is far higher quality than the crap out there.
And by doing it that way, I use ZERO bandwidth and it takes only 5 minutes of my time to do it.
Note to the morons that think people sit at the computer and watch it run, you dont count the 2 hours the computer is doing something while you are off diving the great barrier reef or racing motorcycles... Normal people have the ability to walk away and let a machine do its job unsupervised.
So you dip shits that reply with "you cant rip a Bluray in 5 minutes" can go stuff your low IQ head in a bucket.
Stop fucking lying, clown.
16x BR read speed is 72 MBps.
Assuming 30 GB for the main title (a decent average), you're looking at over 7 minutes of pure read time at max speed. You don't get that max speed over the whole disc, and you've got all the seeking, disc recognition time, title and playlist inspection for DRM removal, etc.
Ripping a typical BR takes 15 to 30 minutes from insert to eject.
So you can fuck off with your 5 minutes AND your 2 hours, and your bullshit about motorcycles.
curious wouldn't it be possible before connecting or uplinking the nural device you had a seperate software that simply maps the patterns that are found on command, In games we use directions for example say left turn left till the pathway is mapped. No storage for advertisers because the developers to the device simply program a pointer in the band look for left -brain command left device trigger left --In game turn left.
This presumes you control the device's output and the software works (and works well) with the "less dimensional" output your privacy layer gives it, and that the privacy layer doesn't hinder the experience by introducing additional delays, removing too much data, etc.
You won't get to control the device's output until the things become so commoditized that you're building your own with Arduino, then there's the whole issue of trusting the software.
Here we propose an integration of a personal neuroinformatics system, Smartphone Brain Scanner, with a general privacy framework openPDS. We show how raw high-dimensionality data can be collected on a mobile device, uploaded to a server, and subsequently operated on and accessed by applications or researchers, without disclosing the raw signal. Those extracted features of the raw signal, called answers, are of significantly lower-dimensionality, and provide the full utility of the data in given context, without the risk of disclosing sensitive raw signal. Such architecture significantly mitigates a very serious privacy risk related to raw EEG recordings floating around and being used and reused for various purposes.
So MIT pisses away cash on research that comes up with "Just anonymize the data, sorta, before shipping it off to advertisers and you'll be protected, sorta."? And of course it's peppered with meaningless shit like "personal neuroinformatics system", "smarthphone", and "privacy framework".
Hey MIT, give me a research grant and I'll come up with an actual solution. Hint: Don't let people put EEG sensors on or around your head for a game, a video, etc. in the first place and you won't have the problem of them selling it to nefarious parties who would use it against you. Much more effective than the proposed equivalent of "Do Not Track" for brainwaves.
The do IT services and consulting
So, nothing?
Ah. Obviously didn't read the article.
Though I remember people lapping CPU's back in the day, though again that was more to level and ensure a good mating with the HS. Thought I have seen some that got the metal pretty thin as well almost exposing the core.
However the whole conversation is a bit moot. By Intel "targeting" the OC you pretty much eliminate the purpose for doing so in the first place. The whole idea was you take a cheap chip, and OC it to something much better. Now the chips you can OC are more expensive anyway...
What? "Back in the day" we had exposed cores. Enthusiasts would lap the heatsink to a mirror shine, meticulously apply a thin, even coating of goo to the CPU core, and pray as they clamped/bolted/screwed/whatevered the heatsink on.
Then Intel started putting heat spreaders on their shit. Some people removed the built in heat spreaders in an attempt to get better cooling by removing the middle man. Usually it made no real difference. AMD followed suit a few years later.
Today, only an idiot would remove the IHS from a CPU in an attempt to get better cooling. The installation at the factory is far better than anything you'll do yourself. Intel's last generation of CPUs was an outlier - they did such a shitty job of capping the CPU that people desperately tried to improve the cooling by going back to a decade-old trick. Regardless of what you tried, though, the overclocking capabilities of that generation were pure shit.
I wish Intel/AMD would just offer an SKU with a factory-mounted permanent heatsink. I also wish phone manufacturers would offer an SKU with a factory-installed screen protector. I sure as fuck don't enjoy buying a 3-pack on Amazon and fucking up the first one, getting the second one kind of okay, and then not being able to decide to try to do it better with the third one or not. For heatsinks, I don't enjoy the added cost of 3rd party heatsinks, fans, goo, etc. While installation is simple, I would appreciate the extra efficiency (in cooling and cost) I could get if the manufacturer did that shit at the factory.
The person I replied to said it oculd be done in a few weeks. What you suggest takes months to years.
And front-panel switches for RAM? WTF are you even talking about? Why would you even need to do that if you've already done everything by hand?
He is wrong and it was only ever a strong hypothesis on his part. Newer research shows that it is a lot easier to build in a way that excludes compiler backdoors: http://www.dwheeler.com/trusti...
The idea is fascinating. It basically says if you have a really crappy and simple compiler that can compile your code and that you can trust, you can propagate that trust on a really good and complicated compiler. Writing a crappy and simple C compiler can be done in a few weeks.
Yeah but how are you going to compile your compiler?
"Times larger" is not ambiguous. "X is Y times larger than Z" means "X is Y times Z larger than Z. "Y times" is in relation to Z. There is no other correct way to interpret it. It's often used and interpreted incorrectly, but that doesn't make it ambiguous - it makes marketers liars and people morons.
Of course, there's the completely senseless uses as well. "X is Y times smaller than Z" where Y is greater than 1 implies a negative sieze for X, and "DSL is 10 times slower than cable" implies a negative speed for DSL (then there's the whole issue of internet "speed" when we're really talking about bandwidth).
LOL then u dumb. If the Universe is quantum, then:
All of calculus is wrong, there are no spheres, or circles, thus there is no Pi, etc. There would also then be no such thing as irrational numbers.
If the Universe is finite then you'd never be able to fully evaluate an irrational number.
Even if the Universe is infinite, a quantum Universe would dictate that you would always be outside the light cone of the full evaluation of an irrational number. If you use the most densely-packed matter/energy possible to write out Pi or the square root of 2, the size of its physical construct would still be infinite, therefore all things are outside the light cone of some of the digits. Even if you wrote out all digits instantly this would still apply.
From a practical point, the conjecture of a normal number containing all works ever created boils down to NOPE because you'd never find them.
A 2 minute MP3 at 128 kbps means the song occurs with frequency of 1 / 2^15728640. You'd need to check, on average, 2^15728639 strings of length to find that MP3. You'd need 1.349 * 10 ^ 4734792 bits of storage just to write down your number to have a 50% chance of finding your song.
For any normal number, each digit appears just as frequently as any other, and each pair of digits appears just as equally as any other, etc.
In base 10 (that is, base two, since all bases except base one are base 10):
0 and 1 appear 50% of the time each.
00, 01, 10, and 11 appear 25% of the time each.
etc.
So when you've got infinite digits, ALL strings of numbers of length n are uniformly present within the number, and thus all digital works ever created or to be created are present within it. Of course that's all bullshit since irrational numbers don't exist in our quantum Universe.
And I know the smell of bullshit.
This is about naming and shaming to get advantageous agreements regarding hosting Google's shit on the ISPs network, in their physical space, on their power, and on their dime. Peering does nothing to reduce bottlenecks, it reduces your bill to your peers. Caching shit closer to the destination reduces bottlenecks, and for Google, costs. Youtube uses TONS of bandwidth, and they don't want to pay for it. It's as simple as that.
The last mile is not the issue. If that were the case my gigabit connection at work would get decent playback on Youtube. My 100 megabit connection at home would get decent playback. No other sites have the issues that Youtube does. It's all about Youtube sucking fat shit with their streaming setup. Remember kids: DASH is TRASH. Want proof? Get an addon that lets you disable DASH playback. Enjoy functional Youtube. I use Youtube Center, though I think it has issues with the latest retard version of Firefox.
Does Google really expect me to believe that:
1: Someone uses Google+
2: Said Google+ "user" "leaked" this feature
3: This feature isn't just "+1" trash built into Chrome?
Stop trying to make Google+ be a thing.