All statistical studies are simply a compilation of lots of anecdotal evidence. By your logic, all statistical studies are fallacies. Which I would tend to agree with 85% of the time.
I know far more than 5 console players and not one of us has a pirated console game. Hell, I've never even *seen* a pirated disc or cart for a console and I'm pretty sure most of my friends are in the same boat.
Yes it *sometimes* reduces it. Not always, though. For processor-bound tasks (such as crunching numbers), it would reduce performance as you can only do so much at one time. For normal tasks, it tends to increase performance as most tasks usually are waiting on memory or disk leaving a lot of free CPU time. Also normal tasks tend to have a lot of waste due to things like branch mis-prediction. The hyperthreading concept fills in those gaps with other running threads rather than always flushing the pipeline or causing a stall on the entire thing.
I have a new PB 1.67Ghz 15". No dead pixels here. My old 15" 1Ghz tibook had one, but it was in the menu bar so most of the time I couldn't even see it. My trackpad seems fine, too, although it has a strange feel compared to the old book. The scrolling feature is very handy. And I love the backlit keyboard and auto-dimming.
The wobble thing, though, I understand. Mine does that. I don't really like it, but I'm not sure it bothers me enough to send it in and be without it for so long. I always figured maybe it was just my table or something. It is somewhat concerning to note that this is apparently a common problem. It doesn't seem to affect anything else, though. I frequently use the laptop on... my lap, so I don't notice it very often.
I guess if I was ultra-picky I might be upset about quality issues too, since the 2 powerbooks I have owned have both had 1 problem each (dead pixel in old one, wobble in new one). However, from my point of view, the quality on Apple stuff is already so far superior to basically everything else that these small problems hardly seem like an issue to me.
What is there to talk about with this? The fact that Will Wright came up with a new game idea? I don't find that very shocking since, well, he has a history of them...
There's almost no details here other than Will Wright saying he wants to try to make a very complex game with massive scope--but it is just talk at this point, right? When it comes to talk, I think the game industry is especially well known for it.
Yes, true. I really enjoyed his voice and he made Marvin very real and connected with how I had visualized him in the books. I think Rickman will do a good job too, though. Maybe Moore just didn't want to do it.:-/
Hmm. Good point. I didn't think about the highway systems and such until after I posted. There are certainly some valid parallels there.
I guess what it comes down to, though, is I am not terribly comfortable with the idea of the government effectively controlling everyone's access to the Internet. It seems then it would be only natural to do the types of things they currently do on public roads and such: enforcing speed limits, enforcing the kinds of materials that can be transported (data), the kinds of vehicles (applications), and of course the "reasonable cause" searches (traffic sniffing).
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but that isn't always a bad thing... While companies could just as easily do this as the government, they have a certain self-interest in not sharing what they may know due to sniffing and such which sort of keeps things in check, I'd think. With all this new-found cooperation between the various three letter agencies thanks to Homeland Security, I think having a government-run public infrastructure of the Internet might be a very bad thing indeed.
At least on a public highway system you can speed, haul illegal things, and in general get away with questionably stuff if you're careful and/or lucky. With something like the Internet, though, that isn't true at all because of the way the technology itself works. For instance, let's say you and a bunch of buddies wanted to go protest something the government very much didn't want to be protested. They have no real way to stop you and your busload of friends from getting there because all along the way no one knows where you came from or where you're going. This isn't true on the Internet. So if they don't want your web browser to see something, it is a trivial thing to just not allow your packets to get there and back because of how the entire system works.
I don't think many people would be happy with the idea that every time they got in their cars to go someplace that some government computer would be notified who they were and where they were going. On the Internet that is exactly what could happen--and it'd be pretty easy to do, too.
At first there'd no doubt be commercial carriers that co-exist with a public government network, but I suspect that if people didn't know the implications (which they likely wouldn't because it wouldn't be obvious), almost all of those providers would die due to a lack of funding and customers. At an extreme, government could just outlaw them entirely. And then we become like China.
Hang on... If you give something like this away, does that really promote economic growth? I mean... you'd effectively kill almost all the other wireless providers out there who create jobs and tax income for the government and replace it with a system that just costs the government (and by extension, us people) money. That doesn't seem like it'd help, really. If a private company did this, then you'd have that company paying taxes and hiring people along with all the other competing companies. That's a far better situation in terms of government tax income and economic growth than having all that go away to be replaced by one "free" system.
Since this would be bad for the government and be terribly expensive, I expect it to happen any day now...
Re:Now I get the "Use 2 hash algorithms" comments
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Could you get the same result, by doing this:
m = md5(content) hash = sha1(content + m)
By my thinking, then you wouldn't have to have longer hashes or whatever out there. To verify the data, you'd just md5 what you got, then sha-1 what you got as well as the result of the md5. If the sha-1 operation matches the validation hash you were given, then it'd be pretty darned secure I'd think. IANAM (a mathematician), so it is possible there's some kind of flaw with this logic.
What to use in new apps?
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm actually working on an app that was going to use SHA-1 for integrity verification. I may just stick with SHA-1 because I'm not terribly familiar with the other options out there in this realm. So ideally, what should new apps use these days? What would be the recommended "safe" algorithm? And can I find a nice, tested C library/code for it?:-)
I hated the very first BSG scifi did. That mini series thing. I thought it was lame. No substance and mostly just about how hot the cylon chick was. But the series itself is all together different. Very impressive. Glad to hear it'll be around awhile yet!
I don't deal much with this myself, but I know that where I work at the moment there's all these corporate directives for using certain vendors for this or that. It is stupid because we could be getting hardware and software cheaper elsewhere, but due to corporate mandates and only being allowed to purchase from "approved" vendors, we can't just hop on Froogle and get the cheapest part--even if it is exactly the same one we have to buy from someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the moral and ethical considerations for using and developing peer to peer software? Is it any different from any other software?
All statistical studies are simply a compilation of lots of anecdotal evidence. By your logic, all statistical studies are fallacies. Which I would tend to agree with 85% of the time.
I know far more than 5 console players and not one of us has a pirated console game. Hell, I've never even *seen* a pirated disc or cart for a console and I'm pretty sure most of my friends are in the same boat.
Make a comment and ask a question and get marked as troll.
Go figure.
Yes it *sometimes* reduces it. Not always, though. For processor-bound tasks (such as crunching numbers), it would reduce performance as you can only do so much at one time. For normal tasks, it tends to increase performance as most tasks usually are waiting on memory or disk leaving a lot of free CPU time. Also normal tasks tend to have a lot of waste due to things like branch mis-prediction. The hyperthreading concept fills in those gaps with other running threads rather than always flushing the pipeline or causing a stall on the entire thing.
So Sun has invented Intel's hyperthreading? That's what it looks like to me. I could be missing something and perhaps this is different.
I have a new PB 1.67Ghz 15". No dead pixels here. My old 15" 1Ghz tibook had one, but it was in the menu bar so most of the time I couldn't even see it. My trackpad seems fine, too, although it has a strange feel compared to the old book. The scrolling feature is very handy. And I love the backlit keyboard and auto-dimming.
The wobble thing, though, I understand. Mine does that. I don't really like it, but I'm not sure it bothers me enough to send it in and be without it for so long. I always figured maybe it was just my table or something. It is somewhat concerning to note that this is apparently a common problem. It doesn't seem to affect anything else, though. I frequently use the laptop on... my lap, so I don't notice it very often.
I guess if I was ultra-picky I might be upset about quality issues too, since the 2 powerbooks I have owned have both had 1 problem each (dead pixel in old one, wobble in new one). However, from my point of view, the quality on Apple stuff is already so far superior to basically everything else that these small problems hardly seem like an issue to me.
What is there to talk about with this? The fact that Will Wright came up with a new game idea? I don't find that very shocking since, well, he has a history of them...
There's almost no details here other than Will Wright saying he wants to try to make a very complex game with massive scope--but it is just talk at this point, right? When it comes to talk, I think the game industry is especially well known for it.
Do you mean hyperthreading like some of Intel's CPUs? I think multithreading is already pretty common. :-)
"I'd rather pop a DVD into my player and enjoy it with my wife on a 27" TV..."
Why's your wife on the TV? That's sort of odd... I'd think it'd be much nicer if she was on the couch with you. But whatever floats your boat...
Lunch time, doubly so.
I have to go up stairs to get to my apartment. However, most people I know have stairs in their house--including my parents.
Uhh.. yeah. Can't you?
But can Asimo walk up the stairs backward?
Yes, true. I really enjoyed his voice and he made Marvin very real and connected with how I had visualized him in the books. I think Rickman will do a good job too, though. Maybe Moore just didn't want to do it. :-/
Hmm. Good point. I didn't think about the highway systems and such until after I posted. There are certainly some valid parallels there.
I guess what it comes down to, though, is I am not terribly comfortable with the idea of the government effectively controlling everyone's access to the Internet. It seems then it would be only natural to do the types of things they currently do on public roads and such: enforcing speed limits, enforcing the kinds of materials that can be transported (data), the kinds of vehicles (applications), and of course the "reasonable cause" searches (traffic sniffing).
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but that isn't always a bad thing... While companies could just as easily do this as the government, they have a certain self-interest in not sharing what they may know due to sniffing and such which sort of keeps things in check, I'd think. With all this new-found cooperation between the various three letter agencies thanks to Homeland Security, I think having a government-run public infrastructure of the Internet might be a very bad thing indeed.
At least on a public highway system you can speed, haul illegal things, and in general get away with questionably stuff if you're careful and/or lucky. With something like the Internet, though, that isn't true at all because of the way the technology itself works. For instance, let's say you and a bunch of buddies wanted to go protest something the government very much didn't want to be protested. They have no real way to stop you and your busload of friends from getting there because all along the way no one knows where you came from or where you're going. This isn't true on the Internet. So if they don't want your web browser to see something, it is a trivial thing to just not allow your packets to get there and back because of how the entire system works.
I don't think many people would be happy with the idea that every time they got in their cars to go someplace that some government computer would be notified who they were and where they were going. On the Internet that is exactly what could happen--and it'd be pretty easy to do, too.
At first there'd no doubt be commercial carriers that co-exist with a public government network, but I suspect that if people didn't know the implications (which they likely wouldn't because it wouldn't be obvious), almost all of those providers would die due to a lack of funding and customers. At an extreme, government could just outlaw them entirely. And then we become like China.
Don't forget Rickman in GalaxyQuest, too, which I found to be quite funny--his role especially.
Hang on... If you give something like this away, does that really promote economic growth? I mean... you'd effectively kill almost all the other wireless providers out there who create jobs and tax income for the government and replace it with a system that just costs the government (and by extension, us people) money. That doesn't seem like it'd help, really. If a private company did this, then you'd have that company paying taxes and hiring people along with all the other competing companies. That's a far better situation in terms of government tax income and economic growth than having all that go away to be replaced by one "free" system.
Since this would be bad for the government and be terribly expensive, I expect it to happen any day now...
Could you get the same result, by doing this:
m = md5(content)
hash = sha1(content + m)
By my thinking, then you wouldn't have to have longer hashes or whatever out there. To verify the data, you'd just md5 what you got, then sha-1 what you got as well as the result of the md5. If the sha-1 operation matches the validation hash you were given, then it'd be pretty darned secure I'd think. IANAM (a mathematician), so it is possible there's some kind of flaw with this logic.
I'm actually working on an app that was going to use SHA-1 for integrity verification. I may just stick with SHA-1 because I'm not terribly familiar with the other options out there in this realm. So ideally, what should new apps use these days? What would be the recommended "safe" algorithm? And can I find a nice, tested C library/code for it? :-)
Wow.. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "IPTV? They already exist all over the state... That's not very 'undisclosed'." :-)
I hated the very first BSG scifi did. That mini series thing. I thought it was lame. No substance and mostly just about how hot the cylon chick was. But the series itself is all together different. Very impressive. Glad to hear it'll be around awhile yet!
I don't deal much with this myself, but I know that where I work at the moment there's all these corporate directives for using certain vendors for this or that. It is stupid because we could be getting hardware and software cheaper elsewhere, but due to corporate mandates and only being allowed to purchase from "approved" vendors, we can't just hop on Froogle and get the cheapest part--even if it is exactly the same one we have to buy from someone else.
I was hoping this was a Xen Linux live cd. That'd be fun to play with. But it doesn't appear to be.
Oh, dang. I thought the fast forward would let you skip ahead in time during conversations... :-)