That's nothing. I live in San Diego, and at night it's possible to listen to KGO 810 AM from San Francisco (450 miles away, in a straight line) with reasonable quality.
On the other hand, this (and probably also yours) is a 50kW transmitter so they have a bit more power to work with. In amateur radio I believe they routinely can talk to folks across the world using transmitting power of just a few watts.
That's not so bad. Read 1 cup as 235 ml if you prefer (google it if you want). It's a standard unit of volume; an American kitchen will have a standard measuring cup with this volume.
The context would help too. If it's for banana bread or something, then you would have to mash the banana first, at which point it is a sort of semi-liquid and easy to measure by volume (keep adding more until the cup is full). If you're slicing the banana for a fruit salad, then it doesn't really matter exactly how much you put in; 1 cup is just an order-of-magnitude description. (In that case, the recipe would probably just suggest how many bananas to use, anyway.)
1 cup of butter is nominally 1/2 pound. It's actually easy to measure butter because it comes in individually wrapped 1/4 pound (1/2 cup) sticks, and they usually have marks on the wrapper so you know how much to cut off for smaller increments. But yes, it is to be packed, as are other semi-solids (shortening, for instance, isn't usually sold in sticks, and has to be measured.)
For most dry ingredients, there are conventions about how it is to be measured, so it's not as ambiguous as it might seem.
Flour is not to be packed when measuring. You scoop it out of the bag with a spoon and fluff it a bit to un-pack it. Still not terribly precise, true, but having a standard process for measuring does help considerably.
White sugar is not especially packable, just pour it into your measuring cup.
Brown sugar is to be firmly packed into the measuring cup (most recipes mention this).
As for "chunky" ingredients, well, you just sort of dump them in the measuring cup without worrying too much. Typically these are intended mainly as a ballpark estimate of how much to put in, and for chunky ingredients it doesn't tend to matter exactly how much you get. For instance, does it matter if you are off by 10 or 20 percent on the amount of beef in a stew, or chocolate chips in a cookie?
I can't really argue though, scales are certainly more accurate and repeatable. On the other hand, a set of measuring cups is a lot cheaper than a digital scale (which I assume you would need to be able to conveniently prepare a complicated recipe; tare it again after adding each ingredient.) Also, do you recalibrate your scale periodically?
Clearly you're not a mathematician and are also new to slashdot. Yes, dammit, we know about Fermat, but it's way overused as a joke. It's an old joke now in mathematics, and on slashdot as well. Every time there's an article about any sort of theorem or proof someone posts this damn joke.
Except your machine probably doesn't know that. So traffic for 1.2.3.4 will still go to your ISP, and keep going until it reaches a router that knows. Kind of inefficient, and if your connection is especially slow or expensive, it could be a problem. The advantage of 127.0.0.1 is it's guaranteed not to leave your machine.
What does "99.9% reliability" mean in the backup context? You'll get 99.9% of your bits back? ("Well, we recovered your 200 megs of encrypted data, but couldn't get the 2K key.") They only erase all their tapes 1 day out of every 1000? Or do they just wait until they can't get your data, and say "Well, I guess you're that 0.1%"?
Okay, then, I'll put up. Please see this code. (I tried to post it here but the lameness filter prevented me.)
Notice:
proc1 and proc2 are siblings, not parent and child
/tmp/foobar is never opened by proc2 or its parent
only proc2 writes the message "hello world"
Yet somehow/tmp/foobar gets the message in it anyway.
Credit Kragen Sitaker for the original code which I hacked to be a better demo. (I never claimed I could remember offhand how to do this, and I no longer have my copy of Stevens, but I do know it can be done.) It's at this url if you want to see the original.
Tested on Linux and FreeBSD. On Solaris a couple of changes with respect to the CMSG_* macros are needed; I'm too lazy to figure this out.
They leave out my favorite example of an advanced Unix programming technique, which is file handle passing. You can actually pass an open file handle from one unrelated process to another.
Sure, it's easy to have two processes open the same file. If it's something like a pipe that exists anonymously, you can still give it to a child process by having it open when you fork. But to pass it to a process that isn't a child? Tougher, but not, surprisingly, impossible. (It involves Unix domain sockets, of all things.)
I generally don't find too many people that know about this, but it can be very useful on occasion. I think it definitely qualifies as an important technique, and the fact that this book doesn't appear to mention it is a strike against it. (Stevens discusses the topic, of course.)
My bullshit detector is triggering on this article. Notice that the only source mentioned is the guy himself. The reporter apparently didn't bother to contact the car dealer, the credit agencies, or anybody in law enforcement for additional information on the incident.
If Bin al-Shibh had really stolen this guy's SSN, and used it for something, shouldn't he have used the guy's name too? Then it would be his own name on the blacklist. Conversely, if the authorities somehow discovered a terrorist was using an SSN that wasn't his own, you'd think they would at least investigate the rightful owner -- maybe he'd be involved somehow, huh? They wouldn't just drop it on a blacklist.
Finally, the bit about his birthday being 9/11? That just sounds like a bad joke.
I'm sorry, but I want to see some more verification of this guy's story before I believe it.
That's why they don't tax the purchase. They tax the *use* of the purchased item. Sneaky, yes, but apparently legal -- by the time you use the item, there's no longer any commerce going on.
What makes this different from any other webmail service in that respect? Or your ISP, for that matter? If it goes in cleartext over the internet, someone can read it, and they can store it, too, if they want.
Yeah, but most of the stuff in the kernel.debug binary is just debug symbols -- they live in the file but aren't loaded into memory. If you compare the two with the 'size' command you'll probably find they're much closer. But this Windows thing apparently (article site is down just now) has 483 meg resident -- which is gigantic, and debug symbols would have no effect on this.
A lot of it is "free", if only you can get it. The problem is that it costs agencies (and hence taxpayers) time and money to distribute, so there is no incentive to do so. For instance, government publications cost money, to defray the cost of producing and distributing them to the public. IMHO it makes sense for this cost to be paid by those who use the material, rather than by a lot of taxpayers who have no interest in it.
As for the rest, well, that's why we have the Freedom of Information Act. If you want source code for the accounting system for the Bureau of Public Works, put in an FOIA request and they'll either give it to you (for the cost of distribution, I guess) or give you a good reason why they won't.
NPR is not a government agency, but a private nonprofit organization, so your questions don't apply to it. However, even if it were, the government tends to use "industry standard" formats, and Real could certainly be considered that. As an example, all the forms on the IRS web site are in PDF, and they recommend (free but commercial) Acrobat Reader for viewing. Probably a lot of other files are available as Word documents, since that's how they are produced.
Did anyone notice that memo was signed "Vader"? Is Dell the Empire now? Will there have to be some sort of alliance of rebels, misfits and furry creatures to bring them low? And how many sequels / prequels will it take?
(Or does this raise doubts about the authenticity of the email?)
Don't most chess programs include some measure of non-determinism in their move choice, precisely so this isn't possible? For instance, if two different moves are found to have scores which are "close", the computer could select one at random.
In the simplest case, there must be some random mechanism to choose which opening to play. It would be boring and weak to always use the same one.
Probably Fritz will learn from this game, but I don't think that it's necessary in order to avoid meeting exactly the same defeat.
Um. I rather doubt the people who will be securing the network are the same ones who write the code for the game. The only part of that which I think makes sense is any rewriting they have to do so their security by obscurity remains obscure. And it's conceivable that would take them 4 months, but I doubt the rest would have a significant impact on release date.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing. I live in San Diego, and at night it's possible to listen to KGO 810 AM from San Francisco (450 miles away, in a straight line) with reasonable quality.
On the other hand, this (and probably also yours) is a 50kW transmitter so they have a bit more power to work with. In amateur radio I believe they routinely can talk to folks across the world using transmitting power of just a few watts.
Or, maybe they will be reminded of Clockwork Orange and bludgeon you with it.
That's not so bad. Read 1 cup as 235 ml if you prefer (google it if you want). It's a standard unit of volume; an American kitchen will have a standard measuring cup with this volume.
The context would help too. If it's for banana bread or something, then you would have to mash the banana first, at which point it is a sort of semi-liquid and easy to measure by volume (keep adding more until the cup is full). If you're slicing the banana for a fruit salad, then it doesn't really matter exactly how much you put in; 1 cup is just an order-of-magnitude description. (In that case, the recipe would probably just suggest how many bananas to use, anyway.)
1 cup of butter is nominally 1/2 pound. It's actually easy to measure butter because it comes in individually wrapped 1/4 pound (1/2 cup) sticks, and they usually have marks on the wrapper so you know how much to cut off for smaller increments. But yes, it is to be packed, as are other semi-solids (shortening, for instance, isn't usually sold in sticks, and has to be measured.)
For most dry ingredients, there are conventions about how it is to be measured, so it's not as ambiguous as it might seem.
Flour is not to be packed when measuring. You scoop it out of the bag with a spoon and fluff it a bit to un-pack it. Still not terribly precise, true, but having a standard process for measuring does help considerably.
White sugar is not especially packable, just pour it into your measuring cup.
Brown sugar is to be firmly packed into the measuring cup (most recipes mention this).
As for "chunky" ingredients, well, you just sort of dump them in the measuring cup without worrying too much. Typically these are intended mainly as a ballpark estimate of how much to put in, and for chunky ingredients it doesn't tend to matter exactly how much you get. For instance, does it matter if you are off by 10 or 20 percent on the amount of beef in a stew, or chocolate chips in a cookie?
I can't really argue though, scales are certainly more accurate and repeatable. On the other hand, a set of measuring cups is a lot cheaper than a digital scale (which I assume you would need to be able to conveniently prepare a complicated recipe; tare it again after adding each ingredient.) Also, do you recalibrate your scale periodically?
Clearly you're not a mathematician and are also new to slashdot. Yes, dammit, we know about Fermat, but it's way overused as a joke. It's an old joke now in mathematics, and on slashdot as well. Every time there's an article about any sort of theorem or proof someone posts this damn joke.
Bah.
Except your machine probably doesn't know that. So traffic for 1.2.3.4 will still go to your ISP, and keep going until it reaches a router that knows. Kind of inefficient, and if your connection is especially slow or expensive, it could be a problem. The advantage of 127.0.0.1 is it's guaranteed not to leave your machine.
What does "99.9% reliability" mean in the backup context? You'll get 99.9% of your bits back? ("Well, we recovered your 200 megs of encrypted data, but couldn't get the 2K key.") They only erase all their tapes 1 day out of every 1000? Or do they just wait until they can't get your data, and say "Well, I guess you're that 0.1%"?
In many cases even for X = X.
And what will a 2 port hub do for you that a wire won't?
I'm not sure it's so much because he's a diva as because he works for a university. They tend to be very tolerant of dissent from within.
On the other hand, as a "research affiliate" of MIT, technically he isn't an employee.
I don't think there's any country in the world where attempted fraud is protected by freedom of speech.
Notice:
- proc1 and proc2 are siblings, not parent and child
- /tmp/foobar is never opened by proc2 or its parent
- only proc2 writes the message "hello world"
Yet somehowCredit Kragen Sitaker for the original code which I hacked to be a better demo. (I never claimed I could remember offhand how to do this, and I no longer have my copy of Stevens, but I do know it can be done.) It's at this url if you want to see the original.
Tested on Linux and FreeBSD. On Solaris a couple of changes with respect to the CMSG_* macros are needed; I'm too lazy to figure this out.
They leave out my favorite example of an advanced Unix programming technique, which is file handle passing. You can actually pass an open file handle from one unrelated process to another.
Sure, it's easy to have two processes open the same file. If it's something like a pipe that exists anonymously, you can still give it to a child process by having it open when you fork. But to pass it to a process that isn't a child? Tougher, but not, surprisingly, impossible. (It involves Unix domain sockets, of all things.)
I generally don't find too many people that know about this, but it can be very useful on occasion. I think it definitely qualifies as an important technique, and the fact that this book doesn't appear to mention it is a strike against it. (Stevens discusses the topic, of course.)
There's still hope. Remember RENUM?
bash, strace, lsof, screen, windowmaker, mozilla or firefox, wget, xdiskusage, mplayer, netcat.
Anytime I get an account on a new Unix machine, if any of these programs are missing, I build them myself.
If I have root on the box, it also gets tcpdump and nmap.
My bullshit detector is triggering on this article. Notice that the only source mentioned is the guy himself. The reporter apparently didn't bother to contact the car dealer, the credit agencies, or anybody in law enforcement for additional information on the incident.
If Bin al-Shibh had really stolen this guy's SSN, and used it for something, shouldn't he have used the guy's name too? Then it would be his own name on the blacklist. Conversely, if the authorities somehow discovered a terrorist was using an SSN that wasn't his own, you'd think they would at least investigate the rightful owner -- maybe he'd be involved somehow, huh? They wouldn't just drop it on a blacklist.
Finally, the bit about his birthday being 9/11? That just sounds like a bad joke.
I'm sorry, but I want to see some more verification of this guy's story before I believe it.
Sure, if you can find them. Good luck with that.
That's why they don't tax the purchase. They tax the *use* of the purchased item. Sneaky, yes, but apparently legal -- by the time you use the item, there's no longer any commerce going on.
What makes this different from any other webmail service in that respect? Or your ISP, for that matter? If it goes in cleartext over the internet, someone can read it, and they can store it, too, if they want.
PGP.
Yeah, but most of the stuff in the kernel.debug binary is just debug symbols -- they live in the file but aren't loaded into memory. If you compare the two with the 'size' command you'll probably find they're much closer. But this Windows thing apparently (article site is down just now) has 483 meg resident -- which is gigantic, and debug symbols would have no effect on this.
A lot of it is "free", if only you can get it. The problem is that it costs agencies (and hence taxpayers) time and money to distribute, so there is no incentive to do so. For instance, government publications cost money, to defray the cost of producing and distributing them to the public. IMHO it makes sense for this cost to be paid by those who use the material, rather than by a lot of taxpayers who have no interest in it.
As for the rest, well, that's why we have the Freedom of Information Act. If you want source code for the accounting system for the Bureau of Public Works, put in an FOIA request and they'll either give it to you (for the cost of distribution, I guess) or give you a good reason why they won't.
NPR is not a government agency, but a private nonprofit organization, so your questions don't apply to it. However, even if it were, the government tends to use "industry standard" formats, and Real could certainly be considered that. As an example, all the forms on the IRS web site are in PDF, and they recommend (free but commercial) Acrobat Reader for viewing. Probably a lot of other files are available as Word documents, since that's how they are produced.
The file is slashdotted. Here is a .torrent so all you bittorrent users (that should be all of you by now) can get it.
Did anyone notice that memo was signed "Vader"? Is Dell the Empire now? Will there have to be some sort of alliance of rebels, misfits and furry creatures to bring them low? And how many sequels / prequels will it take?
(Or does this raise doubts about the authenticity of the email?)
Don't most chess programs include some measure of non-determinism in their move choice, precisely so this isn't possible? For instance, if two different moves are found to have scores which are "close", the computer could select one at random.
In the simplest case, there must be some random mechanism to choose which opening to play. It would be boring and weak to always use the same one.
Probably Fritz will learn from this game, but I don't think that it's necessary in order to avoid meeting exactly the same defeat.
Um. I rather doubt the people who will be securing the network are the same ones who write the code for the game. The only part of that which I think makes sense is any rewriting they have to do so their security by obscurity remains obscure. And it's conceivable that would take them 4 months, but I doubt the rest would have a significant impact on release date.