I'm sorry, but I was lead to believe that the tags were meant to convey some useful meaning of what the contents contained... so if it's now okay by your standard to trim my first offering down to:-
<xml> <a> <b>1</b> </a> </xml>
then wonderful, we just cut the bloat by a whopping 66%. But it now doesn't convey any useful meaning, thus defeating the whole point don't you think ?
On that basis, 500 bytes per error probably equates to around 1.152 bits of "useful" error information.
Rather than standardize even more bloated crap, on this occasion I applaud MS for comitting OOXML to the early grave it deserves, by failing to even pass the tests on a standard they effectively created (and paid a lot of money) to get approved.
Just because we are omnivores, that doesn't mean we should eat ONLY plants either.
Some people eat glass, there's one French guy who ate a whole Volkswagon or something... as Chris Rock so succinctly put it... you can drive your car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good f***ing idea.
Your last sentence sums it up, and works both ways... don't simply assume that because we're capable of digesting something that we need to or should eat it.
I respect your choice, but don't try to tell me MY choice is wrong because it doesn't fit with your ideals...
They were however idle during the night and ran on clockwork, elastic bands, and pieces of string which are considerably less prone to radiation problems.
There, fixed that for you:-)
1. Watch the potential mother-in-law sleep for 9 hours. 2. Enquire if the potential father-in-law sleeps in the same room as the mother-in-law. 3.... 4. Profit (at least in terms of not dreaming about chewbacca every night, then waking up to discover its just the wife lying on her back again with her head tucked into her chest).
Look, it's obvious that any captcha type method will eventually be cracked, be it based on audio, video, math, kittens (omg, is that the best we can do in the 21st century ?).
Most "normal" people get a gmail or hotmail to exchange amusing anecdotes and trivia with their friends... they don't get an account and then start mass mailing 1 million people.
Surely gmail, hotmail et al would be better served analyzing the usage on the accounts themselves, and autobanning anyone sending more than say 10 or 20 emails within 24 hours ?
you are taking one possibility and branching it on a variable that has no effect on your outcome: the door that Monty picks if you picked the car to start with. If you pick the car to begin with, the number of the door that Monty picks has no effect on your outcome. To be more precise, the number of the door that Monty picks NEVER affects your outcome.
Okay, I'll bow out gracefully on this one.
I realise now that IF you only have one chance at the game, yes, then it is better to switch.
BUT, if you play the game 24 times, using each of the possible combinations, then there is no advantage.
I guess this is what is so perplexing about this problem, in that when you start talking about odds, and possible outcomes, it then seems illogical to not consider EVERY possibility as equally possible. Play 24 games with my table, and see how much you win or lose. regardless of Monty's choice of door NEVER affecting the outcome, it still remains that they are 2 out of 24 possible scenarios that must be played out and considered in the whole.
I hate to bang on with this...
It is a truth table with every one of the 24 possible states... not 18.
Each set of choices is equally likely.
Just because CGG 1 is repeated twice, this is because Monty has two possible choices for which door to offer you... It means that the chance of me picking the car is 8/24 or 1/3 in absolute terms, but in logical terms it is 12/24...
To evaluate all the possible outcomes, you have to consider all the possible multiplicative steps - switching from logic to odds when it suits you is what throws out your final evaluation.
No but this is the whole point... there are NO repeated entries...
IF I have already chosen the door with the car behind it, Monty has TWO options for which door to choose the goat from...
Example, I choose door 1, and it has the car... monty can open door 2 OR door 3, and I can choose to either stick or change my door after that... that leads to 8 possibilities for each car position, or 24 entries in the truth table...
Please, examine it again, there are no repeated entries I assure you.
The problem is a lot easier if you think about it in an "outcome" based fashion.
In other words, what are the three possible outcomes given that the person always switches their door?
[car] [goat] [goat]
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR.
What are the three results? NO CAR, CAR, and CAR. In other words, always switching your answer results in a 2/3 chance of getting a car.
If we repeat this process but we never switch our door, you get:
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. No switch. NO CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. No switch. NO CAR.
Now we only have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the car.
Except that you didn't complete the truth table !!!
If you have already chosen the door with the car behind it, Host can reveal door 2 OR 3, leading to one extra entry in each of your outcome sets.
[car] [goat] [goat]
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR.
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 3. NO CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR.
If we repeat this process but we never switch our door, you get:
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. No switch. NO CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. No switch. NO CAR.
Therefore whether you switch or not, you still end up with 50:50 chance of winning.
No, No and No... your chances to choose the car are NOT 1/3, because monty will ALWAYS eliminate one goat...
I get so tired of this one, so here's the truth table I always trot out.
We have 3 doors numbered 1,2,3... the car (C) is behind one, and the goats (G) are behind the other two. Whichever one I choose, Monty is constrained to open one of the remaining doors that has a goat behind it. Then I may choose to change or not to change.
I apologise for the font, only way to preserve the formatting.
1 2 3 You Monty Change WIN/LOSE
C G G 1 2 NO WIN C G G 1 2 YES LOSE C G G 1 3 NO WIN C G G 1 3 YES LOSE C G G 2 3 NO LOSE C G G 2 3 YES WIN C G G 3 2 NO LOSE C G G 3 2 YES WIN
G C G 1 3 NO LOSE G C G 1 3 YES WIN G C G 2 1 NO WIN G C G 2 1 YES LOSE G C G 2 3 NO WIN G C G 2 3 YES LOSE G C G 3 1 NO LOSE G C G 3 1 YES WIN
G G C 1 2 NO LOSE G G C 1 2 YES WIN G G C 2 1 NO LOSE G G C 2 1 YES WIN G G C 3 1 NO WIN G G C 3 1 YES LOSE G G C 3 2 NO WIN G G C 3 2 YES LOSE
So, a 24 state truth table... now examine the last two columns.
In 6 cases, you stay with your original choice, and you WIN In 6 cases, you stay with your original choice, and you LOSE In 6 cases, you switch your choice, and you WIN In 6 cases, you switch your choice, and you LOSE
So...
In the 12 cases where you stay with your original choice, 6 are WINS, 6 are LOSE In the 12 cases where you switch your choice, 6 are WINS, 6 are LOSE
This one has been debated over and over, and is a classic example of lies, bloody lies and statistics.
The fallacy lies in stating that before Monty opens the door and shows the goat, your chance of picking the car is 1/3.
It is NOT, because as Monty will always pick a door with a goat behind it, your choices are always going to be two... one with a goat, and one with a car, because the one Monty opens is taken out of the equation - in fact it was never IN the equation in the first place. You only ever had two options... one with a goat and one with a car.
Thus your chance of picking the door with the car are 1/2, they were 1/2 at the start, and they are STILL 1/2 after Monty opened his door. The odds do not change "in your favour", because they simply do not change AT ALL. Ergo, there is no advantage or disadvantage in changing doors.
Anyone who has enough tech savvy to manage to save something and then chmod+x something IS NOT NAIVE !!!
Just as someone who (like myself) will always save and virus scan something before opening it IS NOT NAIVE !!!
So you defeat your own argument... people running Linux are less likely to contract nastys for the simple reason they are more likely to be tech savvy in the first place !!!
But try telling someone who ISN'T computer literate that sorry, "you'll have to save it first and then do x,y,z before you can use it", will reply "fuck that"... why can't I just double click it ?
And THIS is what the Linux fanboiz will not admit - it's not the O/S, it's the users.
Now admittedly, because of the market share (whether you like it or not), more people will get Windows which is by nature open rather than closed by default... but it takes exactly the same time to lock down windows into a relatively safe platform, as it does to unlock linux into a relatively USEFUL platform.
Yes, I can just imagine the investigation into the theft of some office supplies.
Management : "Who did it ?"
Security : "Well, we've narrowed it down to anonymous blobs #1,#245 and #777"
Management : "Your P-45 will be ready in an hour"
No "sensible" person leaves their cheque book open, with 25 presigned cheques... because the bank could hardly be held responsible if someone stole that chequebook and emptied your account.
No "sensible" person leaves their car wide open, with the engine running... because no insurer would ever pay out for the theft of that car.
So why is it okay to leave your PC "wide open" and the banks have to pick up the tab ?
Your security is your own personal responsibility... this culture of "what the hell, someone else can be the scapegoat" make us all too lax...
I like this proposal... maybe if you knew that YOU were going to have to pick up the tab for your losses, you'd take a bit more care about what you do online.
Okay, so the banks are two faced for talking about secure browsing, and then only accepting Internet Explorer... but MSIE, Firefox, any other solution is really academic... ANY solution is only as secure as the PC you are running on, and a keylogger logs keystrokes from ANY application... so be 110% sure you DON'T have a keylogger before using online services... and don't expect someone else to pick up the tab when you screw up. Because let's face it, it ISN'T the bank picking up the tab anyway, it's the rest of us.
Yes, and in a perfect world the sellers of handguns should "educate" gangs not to shoot people, and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.
Just because someone supplies a service doesn't make them responsible for what the masses decide to do with that service, especially not in terms of protecting the interests of a group of sharks in business suits.
This all comes down to the crazy law system (on both sides of the Atlantic), that allows anonymity for the "victims" or crime, and / or valuable witnesses in such cases, but allows the accused to have his name and photo smeared all over the front page of the local rag.
Innocent until proven guilty is one thing, but in the real world, you are innocent only up to the point The Sun or The National Inquirer decides you are not. Once you are identified for the world to see, innocence is no defense against the cynicism and general "I thought there was something shifty about him" mentality that pervades our society.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this classed as deceptive advertising ?
PlaysForAsLongAsWeTellYouItPlaysNowFuckOff would have been more appropriate.
I'm sorry, but I was lead to believe that the tags were meant to convey some useful meaning of what the contents contained ... so if it's now okay by your standard to trim my first offering down to :-
<xml>
<a>
<b>1</b>
</a>
</xml>
then wonderful, we just cut the bloat by a whopping 66%. But it now doesn't convey any useful meaning, thus defeating the whole point don't you think ?
This IS XML we are talking about ... even transmitting a boolean yes or no which should in principle take 1 bit becomes :-
<xml schema="http:fuckingxml.com">
<myboolean>
TRUE
</myboolean>
</xml>
On that basis, 500 bytes per error probably equates to around 1.152 bits of "useful" error information.
Rather than standardize even more bloated crap, on this occasion I applaud MS for comitting OOXML to the early grave it deserves, by failing to even pass the tests on a standard they effectively created (and paid a lot of money) to get approved.
Just because we are omnivores, that doesn't mean we should eat ONLY plants either.
... as Chris Rock so succinctly put it ... you can drive your car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good f***ing idea.
... don't simply assume that because we're capable of digesting something that we need to or should eat it.
...
Some people eat glass, there's one French guy who ate a whole Volkswagon or something
Your last sentence sums it up, and works both ways
I respect your choice, but don't try to tell me MY choice is wrong because it doesn't fit with your ideals
They were however idle during the night and ran on clockwork, elastic bands, and pieces of string which are considerably less prone to radiation problems. There, fixed that for you :-)
1. Watch the potential mother-in-law sleep for 9 hours. ...
2. Enquire if the potential father-in-law sleeps in the same room as the mother-in-law.
3.
4. Profit (at least in terms of not dreaming about chewbacca every night, then waking up to discover its just the wife lying on her back again with her head tucked into her chest).
Offtopic, but like I care ...
Google's REAL Secret Search Algorithm:
SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = '*' ORDER BY SPAM ASC, Adwords ASC;
Look, it's obvious that any captcha type method will eventually be cracked, be it based on audio, video, math, kittens (omg, is that the best we can do in the 21st century ?).
... they don't get an account and then start mass mailing 1 million people.
Most "normal" people get a gmail or hotmail to exchange amusing anecdotes and trivia with their friends
Surely gmail, hotmail et al would be better served analyzing the usage on the accounts themselves, and autobanning anyone sending more than say 10 or 20 emails within 24 hours ?
you are taking one possibility and branching it on a variable that has no effect on your outcome: the door that Monty picks if you picked the car to start with. If you pick the car to begin with, the number of the door that Monty picks has no effect on your outcome. To be more precise, the number of the door that Monty picks NEVER affects your outcome.
Okay, I'll bow out gracefully on this one.
I realise now that IF you only have one chance at the game, yes, then it is better to switch.
BUT, if you play the game 24 times, using each of the possible combinations, then there is no advantage.
I guess this is what is so perplexing about this problem, in that when you start talking about odds, and possible outcomes, it then seems illogical to not consider EVERY possibility as equally possible. Play 24 games with my table, and see how much you win or lose. regardless of Monty's choice of door NEVER affecting the outcome, it still remains that they are 2 out of 24 possible scenarios that must be played out and considered in the whole.
Time for bed.
I hate to bang on with this ...
It is a truth table with every one of the 24 possible states ... not 18.
Each set of choices is equally likely.
Just because CGG 1 is repeated twice, this is because Monty has two possible choices for which door to offer you ... It means that the chance of me picking the car is 8/24 or 1/3 in absolute terms, but in logical terms it is 12/24 ...
To evaluate all the possible outcomes, you have to consider all the possible multiplicative steps - switching from logic to odds when it suits you is what throws out your final evaluation.
No but this is the whole point ... there are NO repeated entries ...
...
... monty can open door 2 OR door 3, and I can choose to either stick or change my door after that ... that leads to 8 possibilities for each car position, or 24 entries in the truth table ...
IF I have already chosen the door with the car behind it, Monty has TWO options for which door to choose the goat from
Example, I choose door 1, and it has the car
Please, examine it again, there are no repeated entries I assure you.
The problem is a lot easier if you think about it in an "outcome" based fashion.
In other words, what are the three possible outcomes given that the person always switches their door?
[car] [goat] [goat]
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR.
What are the three results? NO CAR, CAR, and CAR. In other words, always switching your answer results in a 2/3 chance of getting a car.
If we repeat this process but we never switch our door, you get:
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. No switch. NO CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. No switch. NO CAR.
Now we only have a 1 in 3 chance of getting the car.
Except that you didn't complete the truth table !!!
If you have already chosen the door with the car behind it, Host can reveal door 2 OR 3, leading to one extra entry in each of your outcome sets.
[car] [goat] [goat]
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 2. NO CAR.
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 3. NO CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. Switch to door 1. CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. Switch to door 1. CAR.
If we repeat this process but we never switch our door, you get:
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 3. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 1. Host reveals door 2. No switch. CAR.
Choose door 2. Host reveals door 3. No switch. NO CAR.
Choose door 3. Host reveals door 2. No switch. NO CAR.
Therefore whether you switch or not, you still end up with 50:50 chance of winning.
No, No and No ... your chances to choose the car are NOT 1/3, because monty will ALWAYS eliminate one goat ...
... the car (C) is behind one, and the goats (G) are behind the other two. Whichever one I choose, Monty is constrained to open one of the remaining doors that has a goat behind it. Then I may choose to change or not to change.
... now examine the last two columns.
...
... always was, always will be.
I get so tired of this one, so here's the truth table I always trot out.
We have 3 doors numbered 1,2,3
I apologise for the font, only way to preserve the formatting.
1 2 3 You Monty Change WIN/LOSE
C G G 1 2 NO WIN
C G G 1 2 YES LOSE
C G G 1 3 NO WIN
C G G 1 3 YES LOSE
C G G 2 3 NO LOSE
C G G 2 3 YES WIN
C G G 3 2 NO LOSE
C G G 3 2 YES WIN
G C G 1 3 NO LOSE
G C G 1 3 YES WIN
G C G 2 1 NO WIN
G C G 2 1 YES LOSE
G C G 2 3 NO WIN
G C G 2 3 YES LOSE
G C G 3 1 NO LOSE
G C G 3 1 YES WIN
G G C 1 2 NO LOSE
G G C 1 2 YES WIN
G G C 2 1 NO LOSE
G G C 2 1 YES WIN
G G C 3 1 NO WIN
G G C 3 1 YES LOSE
G G C 3 2 NO WIN
G G C 3 2 YES LOSE
So, a 24 state truth table
In 6 cases, you stay with your original choice, and you WIN
In 6 cases, you stay with your original choice, and you LOSE
In 6 cases, you switch your choice, and you WIN
In 6 cases, you switch your choice, and you LOSE
So
In the 12 cases where you stay with your original choice, 6 are WINS, 6 are LOSE
In the 12 cases where you switch your choice, 6 are WINS, 6 are LOSE
50:50
This one has been debated over and over, and is a classic example of lies, bloody lies and statistics.
... one with a goat, and one with a car, because the one Monty opens is taken out of the equation - in fact it was never IN the equation in the first place. You only ever had two options ... one with a goat and one with a car.
The fallacy lies in stating that before Monty opens the door and shows the goat, your chance of picking the car is 1/3.
It is NOT, because as Monty will always pick a door with a goat behind it, your choices are always going to be two
Thus your chance of picking the door with the car are 1/2, they were 1/2 at the start, and they are STILL 1/2 after Monty opened his door. The odds do not change "in your favour", because they simply do not change AT ALL. Ergo, there is no advantage or disadvantage in changing doors.
No but this is the whole point (I think) ...
... people running Linux are less likely to contract nastys for the simple reason they are more likely to be tech savvy in the first place !!!
... why can't I just double click it ?
... but it takes exactly the same time to lock down windows into a relatively safe platform, as it does to unlock linux into a relatively USEFUL platform.
Anyone who has enough tech savvy to manage to save something and then chmod+x something IS NOT NAIVE !!!
Just as someone who (like myself) will always save and virus scan something before opening it IS NOT NAIVE !!!
So you defeat your own argument
But try telling someone who ISN'T computer literate that sorry, "you'll have to save it first and then do x,y,z before you can use it", will reply "fuck that"
And THIS is what the Linux fanboiz will not admit - it's not the O/S, it's the users.
Now admittedly, because of the market share (whether you like it or not), more people will get Windows which is by nature open rather than closed by default
Yes, I can just imagine the investigation into the theft of some office supplies.
Management : "Who did it ?"
Security : "Well, we've narrowed it down to anonymous blobs #1,#245 and #777"
Management : "Your P-45 will be ready in an hour"
It looks like you are trying to drive the wrong way up a one-way-street - would you like help with that ?
I think the processor speed in a ZX81 was defined in arse-to-elbows per hour ;-)
Nvidia should be next
... some time in 2087.
Yes, just as soon as they get the Vista Drivers sorted out
Gooback : Gan I elp yoo ?
Stan : I want a burger and some fries.
Gooback : Chigen Sahnwish ?
I for one welcome our goo covered fast food order taking overlords.
Microsoft gave them the idea ?
"Automatic Update locks computer"
Half-finished software is the price the world pays for using open source There, fixed that for you :-)
No "sensible" person leaves their cheque book open, with 25 presigned cheques ... because the bank could hardly be held responsible if someone stole that chequebook and emptied your account.
... because no insurer would ever pay out for the theft of that car.
... this culture of "what the hell, someone else can be the scapegoat" make us all too lax ...
... maybe if you knew that YOU were going to have to pick up the tab for your losses, you'd take a bit more care about what you do online.
... but MSIE, Firefox, any other solution is really academic ... ANY solution is only as secure as the PC you are running on, and a keylogger logs keystrokes from ANY application ... so be 110% sure you DON'T have a keylogger before using online services ... and don't expect someone else to pick up the tab when you screw up. Because let's face it, it ISN'T the bank picking up the tab anyway, it's the rest of us.
No "sensible" person leaves their car wide open, with the engine running
So why is it okay to leave your PC "wide open" and the banks have to pick up the tab ?
Your security is your own personal responsibility
I like this proposal
Okay, so the banks are two faced for talking about secure browsing, and then only accepting Internet Explorer
Yes, and in a perfect world the sellers of handguns should "educate" gangs not to shoot people, and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.
Just because someone supplies a service doesn't make them responsible for what the masses decide to do with that service, especially not in terms of protecting the interests of a group of sharks in business suits.
This all comes down to the crazy law system (on both sides of the Atlantic), that allows anonymity for the "victims" or crime, and / or valuable witnesses in such cases, but allows the accused to have his name and photo smeared all over the front page of the local rag.
Innocent until proven guilty is one thing, but in the real world, you are innocent only up to the point The Sun or The National Inquirer decides you are not. Once you are identified for the world to see, innocence is no defense against the cynicism and general "I thought there was something shifty about him" mentality that pervades our society.