One thing that PHB types need to be made aware of is that the level of use within open source projects does not necessarily imply usage in general.
I know you are trying to stick up for PHP; and that is admirable. However, what C, C#, and C++ have shown here is that PHP has too many letters in it for a fully capitalized name. Either they should drop a letter and make it 'PH'... wait. No that would be too easily confused with pH... or they should just call it the 'P' programming language. And god help the 'PHPBB' language. You'd think they would have learned all this after COBOL and QBASIC.
Do you really think it are the same people? Haven't you realised by now that there are windows-trolls, linux-zealots, apple-masturbationists and sane people?
What about all those insane, masturbating, zealot-trolls that have never heard of Windows, Linux, or Apple?
Tisk, Tisk. Not only does this show a narrow world view, but I'm sure any members of the FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. communities reading this won't be very happy with the implication.
I've wondered for a while why exactly it is a good approach to security to have passwords change frequently? Why not instead have everyone change their password every year or so and allow it to be something reasonably easy (>4 characters, maybe a number or special character in there as well).
My idea (I doubt I am the first to have it though) is that you would just only allow 1 log in attempt per 20 seconds or something and record when many log in attempts are being made (i.e. a brute force/dictionary attack). If there are many log in attempts, then ask the user to answer questions that only a human can answer (i.e. "1 0 - 2 = ?", "what color is the daytime sky?" before any more attempts can be made and restrict log in on the next attempt, for a limited time, to the address where the question(s) were answered correctly.
I'd like to know if there's some reason why this would be a bad setup from a security perspective.
Repositories are cool, but they have their own set of issues. To name a single, rather major issue, who controls it?
This is a non-issue for safety with a repository that puts up open source content together with the source code and specifies which architecture(s) individual programs are compiled for. Each program can be checked byte-for-byte or with a hash of some sort to check that it has not been tampered with regardless of who controls the repository. With enough eyeballs checking the distribution specific code changes, security problems should be minimal.
Before you say "well, ideally the repository would be distributed like YUM is", explain how that isn't "visiting a random website", at least in the eyes of a non-nerd, non-technical user:-)
How can visiting a web-site install a virus/spyware? That's ridiculous!
You can get a variety of viruses from games. At a LAN party I went to, DEP or something else was triggered in about half the games.
However, I have the feeling that just about any proprietary software has some sort of virus, spyware, malware, crapware, (*insert random buzzword here*)+ware and/or easily exploitable hole. Even the uninstaller for the Concise Oxford Dictionary was eventually picked up by AVG on my Windows XP system as having a trojan of some sort. Now, these would be the same issues to plague open source software, were they not easily found in software repositories.
I should say that I'm not a computer security expert, and the arguments presented simply represent my view on this issue.
Yeah, how many animation cycles can my window frame have per second?
Hmm... can you be a bit more specific?
Otherwise you will need Planck time, special relativity, the processor instruction set, the physical distance between you processor and you monitor, as well as your monitor specifications to work out that one in general.
However, judging by what passes for benchmarking around here now I'd say... you will get more animation cycles out of a window frame if your computer is running windows 7 than Vista or XP. No need to thank me.
How often do you need to do unsigned integer division? I've been programming for 20 years without once wanting it.
I have a somewhat obscure usage for you that you might not have thought of.
You can perform optimizations when using products of prime numbers (you can fit more in an unsigned number). For instance, to test if a number is missing from a given set, just see if the remainder is zero. Where this may be useful instead of just using bit operations (and where division comes in) is when you may have the same prime multiplied more than once. You can then check the remainder, if zero, do an unsigned divide of the original product and then check the remainder again (rinse & repeat).
Again, not likely to come up often. But this maybe useful in scenarios where many rows of numbers with some unknowns have to be optimized for space and/or you would like to omit some slower to process 'if' statements.
The way your post is written I thought at first you were suggesting that your mouse was your keyboard, and that you had added a tracking ball or something underneath!
The world is going crazy and I blame too many electronic gadgets. Liek geese getting confused when migrating we're going collectively nuts as a results of too much man-made 'noise'in the world....
The world was probably just as crazy or even worse before widespread use of electronic gadgets. It's just now we get increased exposure to the world than before (darker aspects especially with the mainstream media).
I would like to believe that people in law do have societies' best interests at heart. Sure they effect ridiculous laws from time to time; but, on the whole, they laws themselves are progressive.
Banning animated content that I'm sure many people would not like children they know of to witness seems like a practical way to go. I'm speaking from a general point of view here and not what is tied to writing in the law.
Furthermore, all the legal repercussions that seem unintended can maybe be overcome in other ways without sacrificing this ruling (maybe you can tell I'm not a lawyer by now). Why not in some other case which is similar to this one (in that it involve similar animated content), but different enough so that what is being considered is obviously not child pornography, wait for a judge to make an "opposite" ruling. Thus, satisfying everyone by making it more clear cut what is unlawful content to keep in possession and maybe take into account who you show the content to, etc.
Feel free to point out any deficiencies in my argument.
Corporations will generally screw over any person or entity, government or otherwise, to make a profit and protect any revenue stream. There is a strong case that deregulation would only fuel things like the financial crisis in the USA at the moment.
First fix the mindset of corporate CEO's who care not for the people working in the company who are not directly related or the end customer. They seem to exist to screw companies over and run with large payouts when all the problems that get swept under the carpet eventually emerge.
More government regulation could be beneficial here to check that corporations are really as valuable at any point of time as their own balance sheets say they are.
An IQ of 100 is the 50th percentile. You have exactly half the world stupider than you, and half the world smarter than you.
Correction: what it means is half the world scores worse than you on some random test, and half the world scores better.
Correction to the correction : half of the people in the world that bothers to take some random IQ test possibly score better than others that took a similar test (of possibly different degree of difficultly) in the past.
I doubt as much as half of the world's population has even taken an IQ test.
This doesn't disprove the original issue the GP raised though. What you've done is change the problem definition by restricting it to a linear bounded automata (which a real computer is more like, so of course it will halt, eventually), and not a Turing machine.
I have three responses to this.
Firstly, in my post above the GGP you refer to I specifically mention a possible-to-write program with finite inputs and outputs at every stage.
Secondly, the halting will depend upon the implementation of overflow and is not guaranteed.
Thirdly, as you are writing the program, you may set limits on the inputs. If there are billions or more combinations you aren't likely to try them all.
So whilst it does not disprove the GGP's post, it is important to note that the GGP is considering a different problem.
Turing machines that aren't allowed to have infinite tapes are called finite state machines. FSMs are worthlessly boring. Turing machines are interesting because of the possibility of infinite state.
I put it to you that one could just as easily say that Turing machines are worthless (except to mathematicians) because they cannot be expressed by a real, physical application and set circumstances where it is impossible to make some otherwise useful programs.
I am not whingeing about anything other than that these things were not discussed properly in the CS lectures I attended. Maybe these things should be left to mathematicians or for later on, as one of the earlier posts suggests.
I just wanted to present some food for thought to those who may not have their heads around this stuff yet as well as the put forward the idea of checking as the code is being written (something I have yet to see an IDE do well and has the potential to produce faster code). In the process I may have inadvertently angered those such as yourself.
PS - I do have a lot of time for people studying pure mathematics. Just make sure that people understand that where infinities are involved, you cannot apply a theory to the real world (black holes notwithstanding).
Again, restrict the problem space to what is feasible. This pathological example is one of infinite complexity that is impossible in practice (int cannot be substituted for an infinite precision integer). There will be overflow or there will be a state where n is the same as a state before after a finite number of steps (there are only a finite number of possible values for n). So this program will conditionally halt for different values of n (of which there is a finite number).
I was talking about applying theory to something that is possible. Obviously you can set up a simple system which is impossible to execute and generate an infinite space of inputs and outputs. This is plain cheating in reality, often the mistaken realm of application of the halting problem.
In theory, the halting problem only states that there is no algorithm that can answer the halting question for all programs and inputs, given infinite resources and potentially infinite running time. In practice, no such algorithm exists for most programs and inputs on real machines.
It may stifle their enthusiasm, but it will at least explain why, for example, the only real way to test the control logic for your microprocessor is by writing lots and lots of tests and checking their output.
It may stifle enthusiasm a little, but it does get one thinking about such things.
As I understand it from CS lectures, the halting problem can be briefly summarized by the following argument:
- Assume there is a halting program.
- Now run the halting program on itself. There is no way to tell if it will halt or not, which is a contradiction. Therefore, such a program cannot exist in general.
Whilst it is a logical argument (the full argument being more mathematical), I don't like this very much. You have to be very specific in placing some restrictions on your problem space. Namely, you can't write an infinitely long code and there is only a finite number of possible inputs. These aspects seemed to me to be glossed over too much, especially the part about inputs which should lead to conditional halting.
Furthermore, what is to stop you from assessing your code as you are writing it? Why not just test every possible combination of inputs on the code as it is being generated (making the appropriate assumptions so that this does not actually check every combination of inputs)? Whilst not feasible in practice for all scenarios, shouldn't this be possible in theory. I also note that most of the time I spend coding is idle time for the processor.
Clever checking might then just check for two states where all the dynamic variables are the same (which would probably be easier in practice where methods only contain limited subsets of variables).
I am not knocking the logic of the halting problem, just how it is introduced as being this general statement that construction of such a program is theoretically impossible. Any human can tell whether or not the hello world programs which came before will halt or not halt after a casual glance. Why cannot a machine employ a simple finite state approach to yield a conditional solution (sometimes the actual answer maybe "unknown" in practice due to random numbers or any code which does not yield the same answer every time for the same inputs) for a possible-to-write program for which all the code is visible?
Well, that is the end of my rant. If I have got this the wrong way then please feel free to point out problems in my argument.
Except that it seems to do relativistic calculations in real time of the objects you are viewing and probably has a huge star/object database. So, you would need a fast processor/large storage as well as a fast and high-definition projector.
Probably a bargain if it can get kids to see this stuff in action. It is hard to really conceptualize this sort of thing in your head when you are mechanically doing paper calculations (with only equations or simplified 2D diagrams that look/act nothing like the real thing) for assignments in secondary school/university. More people knowing intuitively what is going on physically when scientific words are tossed around can only be a good thing.
In time, things like this planetarium might even pay for themselves several times over with new discoveries leading to new inventions, etc.
Now I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but I think a lot of problems you raise may be overcome with new/expensive materials (in principle).
When two objects collide, energy and momentum is transfered. It ought to be possible to shape a light weight material with regular molecular structures that will take a shock from a collision (taking into account that the car mostly travels forwards), channel the excess energy (vibrations, sound, etc) away from the passenger, and increase the time it takes to transfer momentum from the one object to the other.
If you can build highly resistant materials to stress under forces such as that a human could exert by accidentally learning on a car, and also readily crumple under higher stress, you will have a safe car that is both light weight and easy to tell if airworthy or not.
I'm not sure what Terrafugia is making this "roadable aircraft" out of, but I think that other attempts in the past would have been limited too much by the materials more than anything else. They would have to be doing some pretty revolutionary designing over there, but over time I can see this thing working as intended.
I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.
What happens when the whether turns sour and you make a landing to continue in car mode (an argument in the article)? I'm sure people would rather press a button and drive off instead of going to the boot and getting drenched whilst attaching the wings.
That's not an acceptable answer for most. Plus, you can get the same fuel efficiency and still drive. You just have to make one or two small compromises.
Essentially, the idea is to only drive downhill by letting go of the brakes and coast the rest of the way. If you run out of sufficient momentum to carry you along, or want to go uphill, you just have to push the car for a bit.
So, you just choose your workplace at a higher elevation than your home and push your car up in the morning after a hearty breakfast. Then, at the end of the day, you just coast down back home. Easy.
i tried typing my random 63 character password for my wpa-aes network into a ninteno wii with the wiimote...
that mother fucker doesnt have internet connectivity. after *twice* getting the key in perfectly, i dont even care anymore what the problem is.
I wrote my own password generating program that generated a long password. The Wii didn't like the pipe character '|', but was fine with all the other characters. Try replacing it with a capital I or something if it is part of your password.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that PHB types need to be made aware of is that the level of use within open source projects does not necessarily imply usage in general.
I know you are trying to stick up for PHP; and that is admirable. However, what C, C#, and C++ have shown here is that PHP has too many letters in it for a fully capitalized name. Either they should drop a letter and make it 'PH'... wait. No that would be too easily confused with pH... or they should just call it the 'P' programming language. And god help the 'PHPBB' language. You'd think they would have learned all this after COBOL and QBASIC.
...OpenOffice always generates a good flameware
The trick is to install an extra fan when you install OpenOffice.
I know that the Slashdot editing has a very low reputation around here...
Yeah. And few people bother to RTFA.
Just pop over to Digg to see how both high quality editing and the selection of only cream-of-the-crop stories are achieved.
Do you really think it are the same people? Haven't you realised by now that there are windows-trolls, linux-zealots, apple-masturbationists and sane people?
What about all those insane, masturbating, zealot-trolls that have never heard of Windows, Linux, or Apple?
Tisk, Tisk. Not only does this show a narrow world view, but I'm sure any members of the FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. communities reading this won't be very happy with the implication.
I've wondered for a while why exactly it is a good approach to security to have passwords change frequently? Why not instead have everyone change their password every year or so and allow it to be something reasonably easy (>4 characters, maybe a number or special character in there as well).
My idea (I doubt I am the first to have it though) is that you would just only allow 1 log in attempt per 20 seconds or something and record when many log in attempts are being made (i.e. a brute force/dictionary attack). If there are many log in attempts, then ask the user to answer questions that only a human can answer (i.e. "1 0 - 2 = ?", "what color is the daytime sky?" before any more attempts can be made and restrict log in on the next attempt, for a limited time, to the address where the question(s) were answered correctly.
I'd like to know if there's some reason why this would be a bad setup from a security perspective.
Repositories are cool, but they have their own set of issues. To name a single, rather major issue, who controls it?
This is a non-issue for safety with a repository that puts up open source content together with the source code and specifies which architecture(s) individual programs are compiled for. Each program can be checked byte-for-byte or with a hash of some sort to check that it has not been tampered with regardless of who controls the repository. With enough eyeballs checking the distribution specific code changes, security problems should be minimal.
Before you say "well, ideally the repository would be distributed like YUM is", explain how that isn't "visiting a random website", at least in the eyes of a non-nerd, non-technical user :-)
How can visiting a web-site install a virus/spyware? That's ridiculous!
You can get a variety of viruses from games. At a LAN party I went to, DEP or something else was triggered in about half the games.
However, I have the feeling that just about any proprietary software has some sort of virus, spyware, malware, crapware, (*insert random buzzword here*)+ware and/or easily exploitable hole. Even the uninstaller for the Concise Oxford Dictionary was eventually picked up by AVG on my Windows XP system as having a trojan of some sort. Now, these would be the same issues to plague open source software, were they not easily found in software repositories.
I should say that I'm not a computer security expert, and the arguments presented simply represent my view on this issue.
Yeah, how many animation cycles can my window frame have per second?
Hmm... can you be a bit more specific?
Otherwise you will need Planck time, special relativity, the processor instruction set, the physical distance between you processor and you monitor, as well as your monitor specifications to work out that one in general.
However, judging by what passes for benchmarking around here now I'd say... you will get more animation cycles out of a window frame if your computer is running windows 7 than Vista or XP. No need to thank me.
I'm sorry, but I didn't read the article, since I didn't get past page one of fifteen.
Sounds like you may need help reading the article. What would you like to do next?
- direct your browser to page 2 of the article
- read a help file
- don't bother with RTFA as you are /.
How often do you need to do unsigned integer division? I've been programming for 20 years without once wanting it.
I have a somewhat obscure usage for you that you might not have thought of.
You can perform optimizations when using products of prime numbers (you can fit more in an unsigned number). For instance, to test if a number is missing from a given set, just see if the remainder is zero. Where this may be useful instead of just using bit operations (and where division comes in) is when you may have the same prime multiplied more than once. You can then check the remainder, if zero, do an unsigned divide of the original product and then check the remainder again (rinse & repeat).
Again, not likely to come up often. But this maybe useful in scenarios where many rows of numbers with some unknowns have to be optimized for space and/or you would like to omit some slower to process 'if' statements.
The way your post is written I thought at first you were suggesting that your mouse was your keyboard, and that you had added a tracking ball or something underneath!
The world is going crazy and I blame too many electronic gadgets. Liek geese getting confused when migrating we're going collectively nuts as a results of too much man-made 'noise'in the world....
The world was probably just as crazy or even worse before widespread use of electronic gadgets. It's just now we get increased exposure to the world than before (darker aspects especially with the mainstream media).
I would like to believe that people in law do have societies' best interests at heart. Sure they effect ridiculous laws from time to time; but, on the whole, they laws themselves are progressive.
Banning animated content that I'm sure many people would not like children they know of to witness seems like a practical way to go. I'm speaking from a general point of view here and not what is tied to writing in the law.
Furthermore, all the legal repercussions that seem unintended can maybe be overcome in other ways without sacrificing this ruling (maybe you can tell I'm not a lawyer by now). Why not in some other case which is similar to this one (in that it involve similar animated content), but different enough so that what is being considered is obviously not child pornography, wait for a judge to make an "opposite" ruling. Thus, satisfying everyone by making it more clear cut what is unlawful content to keep in possession and maybe take into account who you show the content to, etc.
Feel free to point out any deficiencies in my argument.
4GB should be enough for anybody!
It should be.
I think you have failed to appreciate the origins of the (mis)quote.
Why not bookmark your comment so that you can come back in a few years on your next generation computer (with 160GB RAM or something)? :)
Corporations will generally screw over any person or entity, government or otherwise, to make a profit and protect any revenue stream. There is a strong case that deregulation would only fuel things like the financial crisis in the USA at the moment.
First fix the mindset of corporate CEO's who care not for the people working in the company who are not directly related or the end customer. They seem to exist to screw companies over and run with large payouts when all the problems that get swept under the carpet eventually emerge.
More government regulation could be beneficial here to check that corporations are really as valuable at any point of time as their own balance sheets say they are.
An IQ of 100 is the 50th percentile. You have exactly half the world stupider than you, and half the world smarter than you.
Correction: what it means is half the world scores worse than you on some random test, and half the world scores better.
Correction to the correction : half of the people in the world that bothers to take some random IQ test possibly score better than others that took a similar test (of possibly different degree of difficultly) in the past.
I doubt as much as half of the world's population has even taken an IQ test.
This doesn't disprove the original issue the GP raised though. What you've done is change the problem definition by restricting it to a linear bounded automata (which a real computer is more like, so of course it will halt, eventually), and not a Turing machine.
I have three responses to this.
Firstly, in my post above the GGP you refer to I specifically mention a possible-to-write program with finite inputs and outputs at every stage.
Secondly, the halting will depend upon the implementation of overflow and is not guaranteed.
Thirdly, as you are writing the program, you may set limits on the inputs. If there are billions or more combinations you aren't likely to try them all.
So whilst it does not disprove the GGP's post, it is important to note that the GGP is considering a different problem.
Turing machines that aren't allowed to have infinite tapes are called finite state machines. FSMs are worthlessly boring. Turing machines are interesting because of the possibility of infinite state.
I put it to you that one could just as easily say that Turing machines are worthless (except to mathematicians) because they cannot be expressed by a real, physical application and set circumstances where it is impossible to make some otherwise useful programs.
I am not whingeing about anything other than that these things were not discussed properly in the CS lectures I attended. Maybe these things should be left to mathematicians or for later on, as one of the earlier posts suggests.
I just wanted to present some food for thought to those who may not have their heads around this stuff yet as well as the put forward the idea of checking as the code is being written (something I have yet to see an IDE do well and has the potential to produce faster code). In the process I may have inadvertently angered those such as yourself.
PS - I do have a lot of time for people studying pure mathematics. Just make sure that people understand that where infinities are involved, you cannot apply a theory to the real world (black holes notwithstanding).
Again, restrict the problem space to what is feasible. This pathological example is one of infinite complexity that is impossible in practice (int cannot be substituted for an infinite precision integer). There will be overflow or there will be a state where n is the same as a state before after a finite number of steps (there are only a finite number of possible values for n). So this program will conditionally halt for different values of n (of which there is a finite number).
I was talking about applying theory to something that is possible. Obviously you can set up a simple system which is impossible to execute and generate an infinite space of inputs and outputs. This is plain cheating in reality, often the mistaken realm of application of the halting problem.
In theory, the halting problem only states that there is no algorithm that can answer the halting question for all programs and inputs, given infinite resources and potentially infinite running time. In practice, no such algorithm exists for most programs and inputs on real machines.
It may stifle their enthusiasm, but it will at least explain why, for example, the only real way to test the control logic for your microprocessor is by writing lots and lots of tests and checking their output.
It may stifle enthusiasm a little, but it does get one thinking about such things.
As I understand it from CS lectures, the halting problem can be briefly summarized by the following argument:
- Assume there is a halting program.
- Now run the halting program on itself. There is no way to tell if it will halt or not, which is a contradiction. Therefore, such a program cannot exist in general.
Whilst it is a logical argument (the full argument being more mathematical), I don't like this very much. You have to be very specific in placing some restrictions on your problem space. Namely, you can't write an infinitely long code and there is only a finite number of possible inputs. These aspects seemed to me to be glossed over too much, especially the part about inputs which should lead to conditional halting.
Furthermore, what is to stop you from assessing your code as you are writing it? Why not just test every possible combination of inputs on the code as it is being generated (making the appropriate assumptions so that this does not actually check every combination of inputs)? Whilst not feasible in practice for all scenarios, shouldn't this be possible in theory. I also note that most of the time I spend coding is idle time for the processor.
Clever checking might then just check for two states where all the dynamic variables are the same (which would probably be easier in practice where methods only contain limited subsets of variables).
I am not knocking the logic of the halting problem, just how it is introduced as being this general statement that construction of such a program is theoretically impossible. Any human can tell whether or not the hello world programs which came before will halt or not halt after a casual glance. Why cannot a machine employ a simple finite state approach to yield a conditional solution (sometimes the actual answer maybe "unknown" in practice due to random numbers or any code which does not yield the same answer every time for the same inputs) for a possible-to-write program for which all the code is visible?
Well, that is the end of my rant. If I have got this the wrong way then please feel free to point out problems in my argument.
Quantum mechanics you insensitive prick!
That's because you forgot to observe that all the other students added in an extra box to the true or false and multiple choice sections.
Next time you too might want to add in "true and/or false", d.) "some possible combination of (a), (b), and (c)." to all these questions.
Except that it seems to do relativistic calculations in real time of the objects you are viewing and probably has a huge star/object database. So, you would need a fast processor/large storage as well as a fast and high-definition projector.
Probably a bargain if it can get kids to see this stuff in action. It is hard to really conceptualize this sort of thing in your head when you are mechanically doing paper calculations (with only equations or simplified 2D diagrams that look/act nothing like the real thing) for assignments in secondary school/university. More people knowing intuitively what is going on physically when scientific words are tossed around can only be a good thing.
In time, things like this planetarium might even pay for themselves several times over with new discoveries leading to new inventions, etc.
I thought I'd test the accuracy of this method.
I put in Gollum and it gives the result - "McCain matching 53%".
I'm thinking that the software is just making numbers up.
Now I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but I think a lot of problems you raise may be overcome with new/expensive materials (in principle).
When two objects collide, energy and momentum is transfered. It ought to be possible to shape a light weight material with regular molecular structures that will take a shock from a collision (taking into account that the car mostly travels forwards), channel the excess energy (vibrations, sound, etc) away from the passenger, and increase the time it takes to transfer momentum from the one object to the other.
If you can build highly resistant materials to stress under forces such as that a human could exert by accidentally learning on a car, and also readily crumple under higher stress, you will have a safe car that is both light weight and easy to tell if airworthy or not.
I'm not sure what Terrafugia is making this "roadable aircraft" out of, but I think that other attempts in the past would have been limited too much by the materials more than anything else. They would have to be doing some pretty revolutionary designing over there, but over time I can see this thing working as intended.
I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.
What happens when the whether turns sour and you make a landing to continue in car mode (an argument in the article)? I'm sure people would rather press a button and drive off instead of going to the boot and getting drenched whilst attaching the wings.
That's not an acceptable answer for most. Plus, you can get the same fuel efficiency and still drive. You just have to make one or two small compromises.
Essentially, the idea is to only drive downhill by letting go of the brakes and coast the rest of the way. If you run out of sufficient momentum to carry you along, or want to go uphill, you just have to push the car for a bit.
So, you just choose your workplace at a higher elevation than your home and push your car up in the morning after a hearty breakfast. Then, at the end of the day, you just coast down back home. Easy.
i tried typing my random 63 character password for my wpa-aes network into a ninteno wii with the wiimote...
that mother fucker doesnt have internet connectivity. after *twice* getting the key in perfectly, i dont even care anymore what the problem is.
I wrote my own password generating program that generated a long password. The Wii didn't like the pipe character '|', but was fine with all the other characters. Try replacing it with a capital I or something if it is part of your password.
Shouldn't that be cubic centimetres? Y'know... The third dimension.
I thought it was obvious! They have invented an origami machine crossed with a standard printer.
Actually, that sounds quite interesting... Now off to RTFA.