I am not familiar with UK laws at the time, but it seems unlikely this was the fastest way of dealing with the problem. It sounds nice when told that way, but one could just as easily state that a third party discovery request would be a known stalemate, yet it was chosen over going directly to the people in charge of regulating imports, drugs, and/or murder and let them deal with it.
In other words, a third party request from police or other Executive players would have likely been granted quickly.
This sounds like one of those TV Tropes where the main character thinks they are the only person who can solve the problem. In fact it might be more likely an example of Idiot Plot. But it might sound rude if I were to assert that to be true, so I merely leave it as a possibility.
Even 1998, Visual Studio had old STL headers which caused memory corruption, data loss, and crashes.
Apparently a legal dispute stopped them from providing STL updates for 6.0, and they pointed users at Dinkumware's site for manual patching. I think these were the same as the 1997 VC 5 STL, so problems around 1995-1998 with STL were to be expected.
It was developed privately and presented as a standard in 1993. HP's 1994 release was the basis for a lot of implementations.
There were bugs, and they were found and fixed, but a lot of bigger compiler companies licensed other STL providers, making an incestuous mess of versions.
I never really embraced the STL from that point, using only the patched VECTOR which I could be relatively confident would work without slicing off entries above the first 64k.
According to wikipedia and supplemental info, here's how the STL spread:
I didn't immediately find info on how much Dinkum or libg++ relied on the original HP implementation, if at all, but Dinkum's STL was out in 1995, which seems like fast turnaround for one guy.
An internship can be beneficial, even if they are just serving time for college credit.
In certain classes, haven't we all just spent time grinding when we could have walked out with an A, in at least one class?
If you have an unpaid internship, the onus is on you to learn what you can, ask questions, demand information where you can. If you are not learning what you want to learn, you are not asking the right questions, or the right people.
You may have majored in slave labor. What did you learn from it? That's what I would put on my C.V. Or did you consider it a waste of time? Because that's how your post reads.
You learned nothing at all, despite being surrounded by people in the business? How utterly ignorant of you, I select the next candidate in your stead.
I call bullshit, because it wasn't in the article, and I can't be arsed to find more info based on a Slashvertisement.
The people who modded you up could have spent their time citing something to support your claim, but did not.
I have a DX, and I prefer it to a tablet/notebook/laptop/phone by about 100%. I prefer it to a book by about 99%. I don't like having to hold pages open, but I do like a physical book to hold. I do not like the tablet LED screen, and I will inflict as much physical damage as I can on anyone who tries to separate me and my Kindle.
This article mentions nothing of e-Ink, nothing pf a page light (whatever the hell that is), and nothing whatsoever to support your claims.
I threw it into Google, and came out with some sort of something, which said it was a 6" screen, not 9" like my DX. "Built in lighting" does not sound like e-Ink to me, even though the article tries painfully to illustrate how this happens.
It it not as big as the DX, which is a true e-Ink reader (as opposed to the Kindle Fire), and I see no evidence that a self-lit e-Ink device is in any way a substitute for the e-Ink experience. Mostly, I do not trust a self-lit book to be more than a traditional LED screen, or some radiation hotbed.
Obviously GP reads in bed with what is equivalent to an LCD (iPad). "This is no longer true" is not only understatement - it is completely false.
If you want to read in the dark, an e-ink reader is completely useless
Apparently you meant to respond to that particular bit. The article does not respond to that, I had to actually search for my own reference. I know you are correct, but I still call bullshit on your post due to lack of citations. Did you expect me to just trust you? You, and those who moderated you? Fuck you, I have better things to do with my time. And because my time is now wasted, I intend to educate you, and your moderators.
A tablet reader will be superior to e-Ink in some ways, and vastly inferior in numerous other ways. "This is no longer true" applies to a small part of the post, and assumes that you are in the market for e-Ink instead of a tablet. How bright is the back-lighting? Will it keep awake someone beside you? I would want to know this before buying, reading with my SO asleep or trying to get there, and being kicked out of the bedroom.
For fuck's sake, please understand the context of a post, and therefore both the reply and the moderation, before replying or moderating.
I was going to be a bit more biting, sarcastic, and insulting, so I'm glad you got here first.
But you missed the part about the question mark at the end. I don't know, was it saved by a toothbrush?
Pretty soon, everyone here will know about "Betteridge's Law of Headlines" and quit clicking on this nonsense. Until then, I intend to inform as much as I can, though I may repeat myself.
The best humor is frequently in stating the truth in an unexpected way. I remember when true comedians were philosophers first, and the delivery was the funny part. So often, the audience things it's so ridiculous... but wait, it's eerily close to reality.
George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison, the whole list of people who said the truth and got laughs.
Take out the laugh track and listen to this, "Bill Hicks on Marketing." If you know it already, listen again and separate out the audience.
It should be understood that any scientific report is to be regarded with suspicion - that is the scientific method. A new report is interesting, and the further it strays from widely held understanding, the more interesting it is. And the more doubt should be granted.
The Times graph clearly indicates at least one competing idea, and the Science report describes the current mainstream view as well as marking this very clearly as a minority view.
At least phantomfive had the courtesy to use the word "suggests", and then samzenpus spooged it all up with the definitive "found".
I would encourage anyone interested to actually read the fucking article.
I wrote my own to do exactly this, thinking it would be vastly superior to anything I could have downloaded.
File size collisions are a lot more common than one would realize. Even the following algorithm takes a very long time to complete on any sizeable data source:
- Find all files, storing directory and filename as separate strings to prevent memory allocation isses (the path will be the same for lots of files, so keep it in memory once - a hashtable or binsearch or similar optimized storage makes this negligable overhead)
- Sort the resulting list by filesize
- Iterate over the list. If the next file has a different size, continue the loop
- Otherwise, for each file with the same size, open the first file. Open the second file and do a byte-wise compare. This will fail faster than doing a hash for different files, usually it takes a single cluster read to find differences
- After going through each filesize match, drop the first file of the bunch and repeat. The OS file cache will retain most of the files you just opened, so compares go quickly
100k files can take several hours, even in fully automatic "just choose one to delete" mode. Even if they are small.
ZIP, test, then Par2 the zip. Even at the worst possible compression level, greater than 100% filezises, you just saved a ton of space.
I got to the point where I rarely copy small files without first zipping on the source drive. It takes so frigging long, when a full zip or tarball takes seconds. Even a flat tar without the gzip step is a vast improvement, since the filesystem doesn't have to be continually updated. But zipping takes so little resource that Windows XP's "zipped folders" actually makes a lot of sense for any computer after maybe 2004, even with the poor implementation.
This is trivial, given examples of - Listing directory information - Initializing and calculating CCITT standard CRC32 values - Sorting any container
All of these examples are on the web, the only caveat you find is in Visual Studio, where the VECTOR (and a few other) header contains bugs they could not fix due to license agreement. Containers over 64k will get sliced during a sort without dinkumware header patching.
Also, on any Linux system, and Windows with a single utility, these can be simple command-line scripts. The only real problem is sybolic linking, which may return two different results for the same file.
In other words, if you pay someone to do this, make sure they are aware of problems like symbolic links, and have patched their compiler or scripting host.
This was theorized by one of the RSA guys (Rivest, if I'm not mistaken). I helped support a system that identified files by CRC32, as a lot of tools did back then. As soon as we got to about 65k files (2^16), we had two files with the same CRC32.
Let me say, CRC32 is a very good algorithm. So good, I'll tell you how good. It is 4 bytes long, which means in theory you can change any 4 bytes of a file and get a CRC32 collision, unless the algorithm distributes them randomly, in which case you will get more or less.
I naively tried to reverse engineer a file from a known CRC32. Optimized and recursive, on a 333 mHz computer, it took 10 minutes to generate the first collision. Then every 10 minutes or so. Every 4 bytes (last 4, last 5 with the original last byte, last 6 with original last 2 bytes, etc) there was a collision.
Compare file sises first, not CRC32. The s^16 estimate is not only mathematically proven, but also in the big boy world. I tried to move the community towards another hash.
CRC32 *and* filesize are a great combination. File size is not included in the 2^16 estimate. I have yet to find two files in the real world, in the same domain (essentially type of file), with the same size and CRC32.
Be smart, use the right tool for the job. First compare file size (ignoring things like mp3 ID3 tags, or other headers). Then do two hashes of the contents - CRC32 and either MD5 or SHA1 (again ignoring well-known headers if possible). Then out of the results, you can do a byte for byte comparison, or let a human decide.
This is solely to dissuade CRC32 based identification. After all, it was designed for error detection, not identification. For a 4-byte file, my experience says CCITT standard CRC32 will work for identification. For 5 byte files, you can have two bytes swapped and possibly have the same result. The longer the file, the less likely it is to be unique.
Be smart, use size and two or more hashes to identify files. And even then, verify the contents. But don't compute hashes on every file - the operating system tells you file size as you traverse the directories, so start there.
Mild?" Sure the permissions are relatively mild, like where the Romney app has access to record audio and control the camera. Writing to storage as well.
One auto-update and it can capture anything you do and upload it to the Romney campaign.
Obama's app does not have audio or camera permissions. But it does give you a list of registered voters in the area so you can go hound people into voting for your candidate. It also reads your phone contacts so it can tell if you have a registered voter in your contacts. It can also read your call history, to see if you have called any numbers that match those people in your contacts.
This might as well apply to any mobile app, but since these are getting a lot of attention, it makes sense to call them out directly. Now I dare you to insist that this is no big deal, without resorting to "other apps are worse so it's okay".
It's not a repost. That story was about predicting solar flares based on the hypothesis presented here.
They were posted out of order, certainly, and this one is about 2 weeks too late, and offers no value over the previous story.
But this is a better article about the underlying experiments, even though the website waited until today to push it out. Slow news day at WaveWatching.net? Or is this just pimping an old story for blog views?
It's worse than a dupe, and you calling it a repost does not properly insult the report.
The story doesn't read like AC submitter knew anything about you, which makes it still a bad idea. And your assurances to the contrary, at this point in time I don't know you, nor does it feel any less in the range of spammy to stupid to do so.
And if you submitted the story anonymously to give an "I don't know anything about this website but it's here in case you're interested later" feel to it, I actually feel dirty replying. Good luck with all of that.
"Flaw" was not used anywhere but the Slashdot headline. Yes it's intentional, paging Captain Obvious to story 3088225. Both the privacy invading features, and the troll-tastic headline. And you fell for at least one.
And I'll keep scripts disabled until this sort of shit improves. I have good enough karma to "disable advertising", but I don't do that. Any interesting story with a well-edited submission and no hyperbole or other misleading wording, and of course slashvertisements are disqualified, get a temporarily enable scripts and reload. There, you got your advertising eyeball. Until then, my visit is no reward.
I'm pretty sure dshk is one of the people driving an automatic, who has to slow down. That's the only way the post makes sense, unless you are narcissistic about your clutch skills and assume everyone else is terrible.
I intentionally shift slowly for people who are too close. If they seem distracted, I tap the brake enough to turn on the light but not make much impact on speed.
I worked in a Fortune 115 company where the VOIP went down, and along with it all incoming calls. Root cause was Squirrel. Yes, the cute furry toothy bitches.
Official explanation was: squirrels had gnawed off the insulation. One particularly unlucky squirrel had successfully penetrated the insulation, fried itself, and everything around it.
Traditional squirrel fry was held, a good time was had by all. Also, 2/3 of this post is true.
Aesthetics is not equivalent to functionality. Making workflow harder is not the same as removing unnecessary metaphors for interaction.
Something you linked to makes sense for someone used to dealing with the physical product, and wanting the same thing in software. It also uses a rather intuitive interface that allows for self-discovery since dials and sliders are natural for anyone who grew up in an analog age.
The problem comes when the original is no longer familiar. In gp's example, the idea of a piece of paper representing an e-mail is archaic at this point, when few people write letters other than bills, bill payments, and postcards. And pen or pencil has nothing to do with typing an e-mail. A paperless office puts food waste in a trash can, not paper.
As time goes on, the interface you linked to may only make sense to people who interacted with software designed to mimic devices they never touched. And the aesthetics may interfere with the workflow instead of helping it.
For my perspective, I think this is a shit design that is too hard to work with because I apparently have to interact with things my clicking to drag a dial around, instead of just entering a value. I think it would be much easier to have a keyboard-friendly interface, with a visual view of the same if you wanted, and you could optionally use that exclusively as well. Hot-keys, shortcuts, and direct entry are my thing, not dials and sliders. But I realize that's only my opinion. Hopefully you will see that aesthetics are not important for functionality unless a user already has that model in mind.
You missed the point. If I don't know what it is, I don't know whether I care enough to click to read the definition. Then if you look at the page, the first half of it is completely unrelated to the contextual usage.
More than half way down they get to the digital part, which is what the summary connotation would be. And then, the digital section starts with
Many music and audio computer programs employ a plugin architecture, and some of the plugins have a skeuomorphic interface
WTF does plugin have to do with anything? Worst encyclopedia page I've seen recently, though there are doubtless many worse I have had no reason to click.
I had to read the wiki page twice to figure out what the point was, and then go back to the summary to understand the point.
So no, "all you had to do" involved a lot more than just clicking. And the comment with actual information is close enough to the top that it pops out immediately. A lot of readers look to the comments to see if it's something they should care about before clicking. It would have saved me time in this case, certainly.
You seem to have a severely myopic view of what is important in the world. Until very recently, even cloud providers could not define cloud computing beyond whatever their implementation was. Not knowing what "the cloud" is does not exemplify in any way anti-intellectualism. I think your rant is a generalized one, way off topic, and pretty much a knee-jerk response to any sign that someone doesn't know about something you consider important.
Reading your post history, you realize that you are part of a small minority of people who are aware of the business behind service offerings, whether it is data mining of social networking or broad categories such as cloud offerings. Based on that reading, it should not surprise you to find that people don't care how their phone works, or what powers their website. And they don't want to know. Not because of anti-intellectualism. They just have no need to know, or don't have any connection to people who do know.
Sure they lack curiosity, but we can only say that about this subject, where they may have interests in mechanics or art or cuisine instead.
So you have rated your opinion of the nation on people who don't need to know about something, being asked about that thing, and making a guess based on the information they already have at hand. Or, you used this as an excuse to jump up on your soapbox.
Either way, you are my example of why someone should pity a culture, not the people who were busy minding their own business when a surveyor gave them a pop quiz.
The actual study has a much less exaggerated title, and as far as I can tell from the actual survey, it was a true random sampling. Ask a random person what "the could" is, given no context, and I'm surprised that only 29% said it related to weather. "51%" is described as "most", and as posted above that bunch of people are technically correct that weather can cause problems, including damage from lightning and flooding or just plain power outage.
The margin of error was +/- 3% meaning it could have been as low as 48%. You can't even claim "majority" with those numbers. And this was an e-mail invitation to an online survey. Automatically, anyone who clicked on an unexpected mail to answer questions is an idiot, but my opinion aside this is self-selection. There is no description of what measure they took to ensure the sample was anything other than "too stupid not to click."
So now you got your panties in a bunch over "People who think it's okay to click on e-mail links don't care how technology works." Which everyone here already knew.
Everyone has a slightly different vocal cord length, and certainly different musculature based on their singing/practice experience. If everyone had the same physical attributes, they would have the same range.
Yes you can start out with exactly the same attributes and develop different ranges, but your musculature changes in response to training, and you can develop nodules and other problems which change the quality and/or range of your voice on top of what you mentioned.
Your argument is absurd, and he can produce a continuous sound and drop down to the claimed note. If you listen, most of his lower range is sung with a lot of glissando, also known as sliding into the note. The definition of a continuous sound that drops down.
You can also look him up on some random ass website like, I don't know, the guinness book of world records. You can see how they verified his claim, and see if you agree. Or you can just post random words on slashdot I suppose, that's my two hundreths of a dollar.
Beyond being schooled by AC here, let me add this.
G superscript 7 is the standard jazz (fake book) notation for a major chord with a minor seventh added. G7 without the superscript is also acceptable, but you will generally see this in music where the presentation is less important than the information conveyed. Discussion forums, as an example, or lead sheets. The superscript is mandatory only in formal music theory, and assists quick reading while improvising so it is effectively mandatory, though variable, there.
"G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F" would be written as "Gm7", traditionally without the superscript, or "G-7" (again without the superscript) in a jazz setting. It is a minor chord with the minor seventh added.
Traditional music theory (Helmholtz) would write C4 as c' with C3 as regular c (with nothing following it). Lower octaves are indicated with capital letters, the next lower being C (again with nothing following). Then commas indicate lower octaves starting with C, as the next example.
It is only a logical extension for the subsubcontra range to use a negative number, since C0 was really quite low and anything below it was pretty much unheard of. Helmholtz allowed for an infinite range, but as you can see the scientific notation system really did not count on notes below C0. C-1 is the lowest I have seen, which is why it is very unnatural to refer to a note as G-7.
So you are correct that G-7 is much more likely to be understood, outside any context, as a chord. But for the wrong reasons. And of course if we are talking about a note, then how would you confuse it for a chord? Unless you wanted to demonstrate a tiny bit of trivia you picked up accidentally?
Every person's voice breaks up as they reach their lowest possible note. When he sings in his deeper pure tone range, I can sing right along with him. As he gets lower, he retains the pure tone, but I start breaking up. Does the fact that my voice is breaking up mean a person can't sing that low?
No, it means that I am bottoming out my range, and I have probably relaxed my muscles enough they are just flopping about. With extra long vocal cords, he can go a lot lower before getting floppy. At his lowest, he does sound floppy. But he also has a larger range of floppy than I have ever heard.
If I go straight down a scale, I can get a good tone down to a low F, then it loses stability. It sounds floppy, but according to a tuner it is just unstable. I can get about half a second of clarity before it loses coherence. Does that mean I can't sing a low F? No, it means I can't sustain it. And if I go for something like steaming up a mirror with my breath, I can get it down to a quiet E. One arrangement requires me to go from low A down to an E. I can't nail an E, but if I relax on the A and then think about a mirror, I can breathlessly get out the E. In tune, sliding down quickly.
If you wish to view my previous reply, it should be available by clicking my username.
Actually, we can all produce something resembling a pure "sound" at 0.189Hz
I'm not entirely sure why I bothered to reply after reading that. Key phrases like "all you have to do" and "I doubt" are probably a large part of the answer, though.
At the very best he is creating harmonics which mathematically 'imply' such a fundamental.
Actually, that would be more impressive. You would have to sing two (or more) discrete pitches, without much in the way of harmonics for either one.
If an ear/nose/throat doctor says he has vocal cords twice as long as normal, and muscles that work differently, I'm more inclined to believe that he can produce a note that low, more than I would believe what you suggest.
In fact, what exactly do you think the Guinness Book of World people are measuring?
The lowest vocal note produced by a male is G -7 (0.189 Hz) and was achieved by Tim Storms (USA) at Citywalk Studios in Branson, Missouri, USA, on 30 March 2012.
Timothy is the bass singer for the vocal group 'Pierce Arrow'. The attempt was witnessed by two college music professors and an acoustician. The frequency output of Timothy's voice was measured using Bruel & Kjaer equipment (low frequency microphone, precision sound analyser and laptop for post analysis).
I can read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Um, you do realize that when you type "Um", which is a filler word, into a form and post it, when you have all the time in the world to consider your post and edit it, the readers think you are an idiot, right?
Oh, gosh, I guess not. Well, maybe if you could remember that in the future I won't have to down-mod you. I apologise for assuming you had enough brain cells to functionally interact with other humans outside of a keyboard over TCP/IP. My fault, entirely.
Also, I missed the point where this firmly puts the carbon in the ground, and does not heat up the surrounding atmosphere enough to cause carbon release. Since this sounds to me like a giant bunch of heaters installed in a cold area, maybe you could show me what obvious detail I have overlooked? Because clearly this plan is well thought through and has no obvious but overlooked side effects?
Also, ending on a rhetorical question only works when you have a really clear point. I figured you might benefit from that information, again apologies if you knew that but ignored it.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not familiar with UK laws at the time, but it seems unlikely this was the fastest way of dealing with the problem. It sounds nice when told that way, but one could just as easily state that a third party discovery request would be a known stalemate, yet it was chosen over going directly to the people in charge of regulating imports, drugs, and/or murder and let them deal with it.
In other words, a third party request from police or other Executive players would have likely been granted quickly.
This sounds like one of those TV Tropes where the main character thinks they are the only person who can solve the problem. In fact it might be more likely an example of Idiot Plot. But it might sound rude if I were to assert that to be true, so I merely leave it as a possibility.
Even 1998, Visual Studio had old STL headers which caused memory corruption, data loss, and crashes.
Apparently a legal dispute stopped them from providing STL updates for 6.0, and they pointed users at Dinkumware's site for manual patching. I think these were the same as the 1997 VC 5 STL, so problems around 1995-1998 with STL were to be expected.
It was developed privately and presented as a standard in 1993. HP's 1994 release was the basis for a lot of implementations.
There were bugs, and they were found and fixed, but a lot of bigger compiler companies licensed other STL providers, making an incestuous mess of versions.
I never really embraced the STL from that point, using only the patched VECTOR which I could be relatively confident would work without slicing off entries above the first 64k.
According to wikipedia and supplemental info, here's how the STL spread:
HP (1994) -> SGI (1997) -> STLPort
+- probably underpinned Rogue Wave -> Apache
libg++ > libstdc++
Dinkum -> Microsoft VC++
I didn't immediately find info on how much Dinkum or libg++ relied on the original HP implementation, if at all, but Dinkum's STL was out in 1995, which seems like fast turnaround for one guy.
An internship can be beneficial, even if they are just serving time for college credit.
In certain classes, haven't we all just spent time grinding when we could have walked out with an A, in at least one class?
If you have an unpaid internship, the onus is on you to learn what you can, ask questions, demand information where you can. If you are not learning what you want to learn, you are not asking the right questions, or the right people.
You may have majored in slave labor. What did you learn from it? That's what I would put on my C.V. Or did you consider it a waste of time? Because that's how your post reads.
You learned nothing at all, despite being surrounded by people in the business? How utterly ignorant of you, I select the next candidate in your stead.
I call bullshit, because it wasn't in the article, and I can't be arsed to find more info based on a Slashvertisement.
The people who modded you up could have spent their time citing something to support your claim, but did not.
I have a DX, and I prefer it to a tablet/notebook/laptop/phone by about 100%. I prefer it to a book by about 99%. I don't like having to hold pages open, but I do like a physical book to hold. I do not like the tablet LED screen, and I will inflict as much physical damage as I can on anyone who tries to separate me and my Kindle.
This article mentions nothing of e-Ink, nothing pf a page light (whatever the hell that is), and nothing whatsoever to support your claims.
I threw it into Google, and came out with some sort of something, which said it was a 6" screen, not 9" like my DX. "Built in lighting" does not sound like e-Ink to me, even though the article tries painfully to illustrate how this happens.
It it not as big as the DX, which is a true e-Ink reader (as opposed to the Kindle Fire), and I see no evidence that a self-lit e-Ink device is in any way a substitute for the e-Ink experience. Mostly, I do not trust a self-lit book to be more than a traditional LED screen, or some radiation hotbed.
Obviously GP reads in bed with what is equivalent to an LCD (iPad). "This is no longer true" is not only understatement - it is completely false.
Apparently you meant to respond to that particular bit. The article does not respond to that, I had to actually search for my own reference. I know you are correct, but I still call bullshit on your post due to lack of citations. Did you expect me to just trust you? You, and those who moderated you? Fuck you, I have better things to do with my time. And because my time is now wasted, I intend to educate you, and your moderators.
A tablet reader will be superior to e-Ink in some ways, and vastly inferior in numerous other ways. "This is no longer true" applies to a small part of the post, and assumes that you are in the market for e-Ink instead of a tablet. How bright is the back-lighting? Will it keep awake someone beside you? I would want to know this before buying, reading with my SO asleep or trying to get there, and being kicked out of the bedroom.
For fuck's sake, please understand the context of a post, and therefore both the reply and the moderation, before replying or moderating.
I rate you -1, would not read again.
I was going to be a bit more biting, sarcastic, and insulting, so I'm glad you got here first.
But you missed the part about the question mark at the end. I don't know, was it saved by a toothbrush?
Pretty soon, everyone here will know about "Betteridge's Law of Headlines" and quit clicking on this nonsense. Until then, I intend to inform as much as I can, though I may repeat myself.
Don't click on a question to find the answer.
The best humor is frequently in stating the truth in an unexpected way. I remember when true comedians were philosophers first, and the delivery was the funny part. So often, the audience things it's so ridiculous... but wait, it's eerily close to reality.
George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison, the whole list of people who said the truth and got laughs.
Take out the laugh track and listen to this, "Bill Hicks on Marketing." If you know it already, listen again and separate out the audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Yes, that was a funny post, or at least as close as the moderation system allows.
It should be understood that any scientific report is to be regarded with suspicion - that is the scientific method. A new report is interesting, and the further it strays from widely held understanding, the more interesting it is. And the more doubt should be granted.
The Times graph clearly indicates at least one competing idea, and the Science report describes the current mainstream view as well as marking this very clearly as a minority view.
At least phantomfive had the courtesy to use the word "suggests", and then samzenpus spooged it all up with the definitive "found".
I would encourage anyone interested to actually read the fucking article.
I wrote my own to do exactly this, thinking it would be vastly superior to anything I could have downloaded.
File size collisions are a lot more common than one would realize. Even the following algorithm takes a very long time to complete on any sizeable data source:
- Find all files, storing directory and filename as separate strings to prevent memory allocation isses (the path will be the same for lots of files, so keep it in memory once - a hashtable or binsearch or similar optimized storage makes this negligable overhead)
- Sort the resulting list by filesize
- Iterate over the list. If the next file has a different size, continue the loop
- Otherwise, for each file with the same size, open the first file. Open the second file and do a byte-wise compare. This will fail faster than doing a hash for different files, usually it takes a single cluster read to find differences
- After going through each filesize match, drop the first file of the bunch and repeat. The OS file cache will retain most of the files you just opened, so compares go quickly
100k files can take several hours, even in fully automatic "just choose one to delete" mode. Even if they are small.
ZIP, test, then Par2 the zip. Even at the worst possible compression level, greater than 100% filezises, you just saved a ton of space.
I got to the point where I rarely copy small files without first zipping on the source drive. It takes so frigging long, when a full zip or tarball takes seconds. Even a flat tar without the gzip step is a vast improvement, since the filesystem doesn't have to be continually updated. But zipping takes so little resource that Windows XP's "zipped folders" actually makes a lot of sense for any computer after maybe 2004, even with the poor implementation.
This is trivial, given examples of
- Listing directory information
- Initializing and calculating CCITT standard CRC32 values
- Sorting any container
All of these examples are on the web, the only caveat you find is in Visual Studio, where the VECTOR (and a few other) header contains bugs they could not fix due to license agreement. Containers over 64k will get sliced during a sort without dinkumware header patching.
Also, on any Linux system, and Windows with a single utility, these can be simple command-line scripts. The only real problem is sybolic linking, which may return two different results for the same file.
In other words, if you pay someone to do this, make sure they are aware of problems like symbolic links, and have patched their compiler or scripting host.
This was theorized by one of the RSA guys (Rivest, if I'm not mistaken). I helped support a system that identified files by CRC32, as a lot of tools did back then. As soon as we got to about 65k files (2^16), we had two files with the same CRC32.
Let me say, CRC32 is a very good algorithm. So good, I'll tell you how good. It is 4 bytes long, which means in theory you can change any 4 bytes of a file and get a CRC32 collision, unless the algorithm distributes them randomly, in which case you will get more or less.
I naively tried to reverse engineer a file from a known CRC32. Optimized and recursive, on a 333 mHz computer, it took 10 minutes to generate the first collision. Then every 10 minutes or so. Every 4 bytes (last 4, last 5 with the original last byte, last 6 with original last 2 bytes, etc) there was a collision.
Compare file sises first, not CRC32. The s^16 estimate is not only mathematically proven, but also in the big boy world. I tried to move the community towards another hash.
CRC32 *and* filesize are a great combination. File size is not included in the 2^16 estimate. I have yet to find two files in the real world, in the same domain (essentially type of file), with the same size and CRC32.
Be smart, use the right tool for the job. First compare file size (ignoring things like mp3 ID3 tags, or other headers). Then do two hashes of the contents - CRC32 and either MD5 or SHA1 (again ignoring well-known headers if possible). Then out of the results, you can do a byte for byte comparison, or let a human decide.
This is solely to dissuade CRC32 based identification. After all, it was designed for error detection, not identification. For a 4-byte file, my experience says CCITT standard CRC32 will work for identification. For 5 byte files, you can have two bytes swapped and possibly have the same result. The longer the file, the less likely it is to be unique.
Be smart, use size and two or more hashes to identify files. And even then, verify the contents. But don't compute hashes on every file - the operating system tells you file size as you traverse the directories, so start there.
Mild?" Sure the permissions are relatively mild, like where the Romney app has access to record audio and control the camera. Writing to storage as well.
One auto-update and it can capture anything you do and upload it to the Romney campaign.
Obama's app does not have audio or camera permissions. But it does give you a list of registered voters in the area so you can go hound people into voting for your candidate. It also reads your phone contacts so it can tell if you have a registered voter in your contacts. It can also read your call history, to see if you have called any numbers that match those people in your contacts.
This might as well apply to any mobile app, but since these are getting a lot of attention, it makes sense to call them out directly. Now I dare you to insist that this is no big deal, without resorting to "other apps are worse so it's okay".
It's not a repost. That story was about predicting solar flares based on the hypothesis presented here.
They were posted out of order, certainly, and this one is about 2 weeks too late, and offers no value over the previous story.
But this is a better article about the underlying experiments, even though the website waited until today to push it out. Slow news day at WaveWatching.net? Or is this just pimping an old story for blog views?
It's worse than a dupe, and you calling it a repost does not properly insult the report.
The story doesn't read like AC submitter knew anything about you, which makes it still a bad idea. And your assurances to the contrary, at this point in time I don't know you, nor does it feel any less in the range of spammy to stupid to do so.
And if you submitted the story anonymously to give an "I don't know anything about this website but it's here in case you're interested later" feel to it, I actually feel dirty replying. Good luck with all of that.
"Flaw" was not used anywhere but the Slashdot headline. Yes it's intentional, paging Captain Obvious to story 3088225. Both the privacy invading features, and the troll-tastic headline. And you fell for at least one.
And I'll keep scripts disabled until this sort of shit improves. I have good enough karma to "disable advertising", but I don't do that. Any interesting story with a well-edited submission and no hyperbole or other misleading wording, and of course slashvertisements are disqualified, get a temporarily enable scripts and reload. There, you got your advertising eyeball. Until then, my visit is no reward.
I'm pretty sure dshk is one of the people driving an automatic, who has to slow down. That's the only way the post makes sense, unless you are narcissistic about your clutch skills and assume everyone else is terrible.
I intentionally shift slowly for people who are too close. If they seem distracted, I tap the brake enough to turn on the light but not make much impact on speed.
dshk , stop tailgating.
I worked in a Fortune 115 company where the VOIP went down, and along with it all incoming calls. Root cause was Squirrel. Yes, the cute furry toothy bitches.
Official explanation was: squirrels had gnawed off the insulation. One particularly unlucky squirrel had successfully penetrated the insulation, fried itself, and everything around it.
Traditional squirrel fry was held, a good time was had by all. Also, 2/3 of this post is true.
Aesthetics is not equivalent to functionality. Making workflow harder is not the same as removing unnecessary metaphors for interaction.
Something you linked to makes sense for someone used to dealing with the physical product, and wanting the same thing in software. It also uses a rather intuitive interface that allows for self-discovery since dials and sliders are natural for anyone who grew up in an analog age.
The problem comes when the original is no longer familiar. In gp's example, the idea of a piece of paper representing an e-mail is archaic at this point, when few people write letters other than bills, bill payments, and postcards. And pen or pencil has nothing to do with typing an e-mail. A paperless office puts food waste in a trash can, not paper.
As time goes on, the interface you linked to may only make sense to people who interacted with software designed to mimic devices they never touched. And the aesthetics may interfere with the workflow instead of helping it.
For my perspective, I think this is a shit design that is too hard to work with because I apparently have to interact with things my clicking to drag a dial around, instead of just entering a value. I think it would be much easier to have a keyboard-friendly interface, with a visual view of the same if you wanted, and you could optionally use that exclusively as well. Hot-keys, shortcuts, and direct entry are my thing, not dials and sliders. But I realize that's only my opinion. Hopefully you will see that aesthetics are not important for functionality unless a user already has that model in mind.
You missed the point. If I don't know what it is, I don't know whether I care enough to click to read the definition. Then if you look at the page, the first half of it is completely unrelated to the contextual usage.
More than half way down they get to the digital part, which is what the summary connotation would be. And then, the digital section starts with
WTF does plugin have to do with anything? Worst encyclopedia page I've seen recently, though there are doubtless many worse I have had no reason to click.
I had to read the wiki page twice to figure out what the point was, and then go back to the summary to understand the point.
So no, "all you had to do" involved a lot more than just clicking. And the comment with actual information is close enough to the top that it pops out immediately. A lot of readers look to the comments to see if it's something they should care about before clicking. It would have saved me time in this case, certainly.
You seem to have a severely myopic view of what is important in the world. Until very recently, even cloud providers could not define cloud computing beyond whatever their implementation was. Not knowing what "the cloud" is does not exemplify in any way anti-intellectualism. I think your rant is a generalized one, way off topic, and pretty much a knee-jerk response to any sign that someone doesn't know about something you consider important.
Reading your post history, you realize that you are part of a small minority of people who are aware of the business behind service offerings, whether it is data mining of social networking or broad categories such as cloud offerings. Based on that reading, it should not surprise you to find that people don't care how their phone works, or what powers their website. And they don't want to know. Not because of anti-intellectualism. They just have no need to know, or don't have any connection to people who do know.
Sure they lack curiosity, but we can only say that about this subject, where they may have interests in mechanics or art or cuisine instead.
So you have rated your opinion of the nation on people who don't need to know about something, being asked about that thing, and making a guess based on the information they already have at hand. Or, you used this as an excuse to jump up on your soapbox.
Either way, you are my example of why someone should pity a culture, not the people who were busy minding their own business when a surveyor gave them a pop quiz.
The actual study has a much less exaggerated title, and as far as I can tell from the actual survey, it was a true random sampling. Ask a random person what "the could" is, given no context, and I'm surprised that only 29% said it related to weather. "51%" is described as "most", and as posted above that bunch of people are technically correct that weather can cause problems, including damage from lightning and flooding or just plain power outage.
The margin of error was +/- 3% meaning it could have been as low as 48%. You can't even claim "majority" with those numbers. And this was an e-mail invitation to an online survey. Automatically, anyone who clicked on an unexpected mail to answer questions is an idiot, but my opinion aside this is self-selection. There is no description of what measure they took to ensure the sample was anything other than "too stupid not to click."
So now you got your panties in a bunch over "People who think it's okay to click on e-mail links don't care how technology works." Which everyone here already knew.
Everyone has a slightly different vocal cord length, and certainly different musculature based on their singing/practice experience. If everyone had the same physical attributes, they would have the same range.
Yes you can start out with exactly the same attributes and develop different ranges, but your musculature changes in response to training, and you can develop nodules and other problems which change the quality and/or range of your voice on top of what you mentioned.
Your argument is absurd, and he can produce a continuous sound and drop down to the claimed note. If you listen, most of his lower range is sung with a lot of glissando, also known as sliding into the note. The definition of a continuous sound that drops down.
You can also look him up on some random ass website like, I don't know, the guinness book of world records. You can see how they verified his claim, and see if you agree. Or you can just post random words on slashdot I suppose, that's my two hundreths of a dollar.
Beyond being schooled by AC here, let me add this.
G superscript 7 is the standard jazz (fake book) notation for a major chord with a minor seventh added. G7 without the superscript is also acceptable, but you will generally see this in music where the presentation is less important than the information conveyed. Discussion forums, as an example, or lead sheets. The superscript is mandatory only in formal music theory, and assists quick reading while improvising so it is effectively mandatory, though variable, there.
"G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F" would be written as "Gm7", traditionally without the superscript, or "G-7" (again without the superscript) in a jazz setting. It is a minor chord with the minor seventh added.
Traditional music theory (Helmholtz) would write C4 as c' with C3 as regular c (with nothing following it). Lower octaves are indicated with capital letters, the next lower being C (again with nothing following). Then commas indicate lower octaves starting with C, as the next example.
It is only a logical extension for the subsubcontra range to use a negative number, since C0 was really quite low and anything below it was pretty much unheard of. Helmholtz allowed for an infinite range, but as you can see the scientific notation system really did not count on notes below C0. C-1 is the lowest I have seen, which is why it is very unnatural to refer to a note as G-7.
So you are correct that G-7 is much more likely to be understood, outside any context, as a chord. But for the wrong reasons. And of course if we are talking about a note, then how would you confuse it for a chord? Unless you wanted to demonstrate a tiny bit of trivia you picked up accidentally?
Every person's voice breaks up as they reach their lowest possible note. When he sings in his deeper pure tone range, I can sing right along with him. As he gets lower, he retains the pure tone, but I start breaking up. Does the fact that my voice is breaking up mean a person can't sing that low?
No, it means that I am bottoming out my range, and I have probably relaxed my muscles enough they are just flopping about. With extra long vocal cords, he can go a lot lower before getting floppy. At his lowest, he does sound floppy. But he also has a larger range of floppy than I have ever heard.
If I go straight down a scale, I can get a good tone down to a low F, then it loses stability. It sounds floppy, but according to a tuner it is just unstable. I can get about half a second of clarity before it loses coherence. Does that mean I can't sing a low F? No, it means I can't sustain it. And if I go for something like steaming up a mirror with my breath, I can get it down to a quiet E. One arrangement requires me to go from low A down to an E. I can't nail an E, but if I relax on the A and then think about a mirror, I can breathlessly get out the E. In tune, sliding down quickly.
If you wish to view my previous reply, it should be available by clicking my username.
I'm not entirely sure why I bothered to reply after reading that. Key phrases like "all you have to do" and "I doubt" are probably a large part of the answer, though.
Actually, that would be more impressive. You would have to sing two (or more) discrete pitches, without much in the way of harmonics for either one.
If an ear/nose/throat doctor says he has vocal cords twice as long as normal, and muscles that work differently, I'm more inclined to believe that he can produce a note that low, more than I would believe what you suggest.
In fact, what exactly do you think the Guinness Book of World people are measuring?
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/lowest-vocal-note-by-a-male/
I can read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Um, you do realize that when you type "Um", which is a filler word, into a form and post it, when you have all the time in the world to consider your post and edit it, the readers think you are an idiot, right?
Oh, gosh, I guess not. Well, maybe if you could remember that in the future I won't have to down-mod you. I apologise for assuming you had enough brain cells to functionally interact with other humans outside of a keyboard over TCP/IP. My fault, entirely.
Also, I missed the point where this firmly puts the carbon in the ground, and does not heat up the surrounding atmosphere enough to cause carbon release. Since this sounds to me like a giant bunch of heaters installed in a cold area, maybe you could show me what obvious detail I have overlooked? Because clearly this plan is well thought through and has no obvious but overlooked side effects?
Also, ending on a rhetorical question only works when you have a really clear point. I figured you might benefit from that information, again apologies if you knew that but ignored it.