And now Vanish is the trusted third party.. I'll stick with Public Key Crypto.
Whatever the reasons public key encryption hasn't taken off (too much effort, no perceived threat,...), it will be those same exact reasons that will prevent Vanish from taking off.
The intent the information was shared with plays a role here I imagine. If the intent for the contact was to keep in touch with the company, then the information can be transferred. If the intent was to keep in touch at a more personal level, then it can't. Chances are that at least some of the contacts were personal, and that this ruling should have been more nuanced.
Funny given that the universe started out hot during the big bang and that it's our grand grand... grand children that will have to face the heat-death of the universe and will be huddling around event horizons.
I believe you're mixing this up with another hard problem that hasn't been proven yet. You're thinking about the NP = P problem. The difference is that here we don't know what will be the outcome, whereas for the RH most people assume it's true. Having a proof for this wouldn't really change anything (apart from validating large parts of mathematics that assume it is true)
> (On a different note, forgetting to clear an unused reference that pins an object in memory does indeed qualify a memory leak.)
I know... I tried to make the subtle difference between memory that's forgotten, but could still be freed and memory that's irrevocably lost (no pointer to it anywhere in the program, but not freed)... but yeah... it's a memory leak as well.
> If your concern is memory leaks, just use C++ and smart pointers.
_now_ I'm concerned about memory leaks.
Smart pointers don't solve all memory leaks/problems. Most don't detect circular references and even if they do (as Java's garbage collector does) everything still isn't fixed. People often forget to null out pointers no longer needed. While not technically a memory leak, it still eats all your memory.
Clustering provides a backup for software failures, that fault-tolerant servers don't. Also, upgrades without downtime are easier done with a load-balanced cluster.
It can be argued that once we know something can be programmed we stop thinking of it AI. A few years ago many would have claimed that a computer really should have achieved something intelligent when it beats a grandmaster at chess. Now, after the fact, we only think of it as a clever search routine.
It might just be clever programming, but figuring out how to move an as good as random combination of parts so as to make a believable imitation of locomotion has a ring of intelligence to it.
And that's perhaps the most mundane part of the game. If you believe everything that's written about it (large parts of it are probably hype), they're trying to achieve some form of emergent behaviour in many aspects of the game.
I bet you could fill another nice book or two, just describing all the AI algorithms they used, and I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a few clever things in there that haven't been published before.
I just finished reading a preview of Spore, a new game from the creator of the sims, and it seems like AI in games is about to take another leap:)
(messed up my previous post a bit)
It might be more difficult to install software that isn't packaged in the format your distribution requires (be it.rpm,.ebuild,.deb, or something else), but this hardly makes linux more brittle.
If anything, relying on distributions to package software instead of individual developers makes the system more consistent and stable.
I wager it's been a long time since you've last used windows. Installing and uninstalling lots of programs often left unwanted traces in directories and in the registry, making my system not only more brittle, but also more messy.
Besides, even if the quoted statement is true, I'd rather have a system I can tinker with, extend and possibly fix, than a system that lets me choose between this specific binary verion that might not do what I want for 100% or nothing.
I'm not sure I trust the benchmarks. They proudly show their benchmarking code which has a blatant mistake in it. They spotted it, but wrongfilly blamed VB.NET and threads for it and then proudly announced they had to write a super-duper workaround for it to make it work.
"He believed in a door. He must find that door. The door was the way to... to...
The Door was The Way.
Good.
Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to."
-- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Slashdot Mirror
And now Vanish is the trusted third party .. I'll stick with Public Key Crypto.
Whatever the reasons public key encryption hasn't taken off (too much effort, no perceived threat, ...), it will be those same exact reasons that will prevent Vanish from taking off.
You're wrong. It's compression. With a very large (and growing) dictionary on the TinyURL servers.
I'll see your pity post, and I'll raise you:
Post detailing the find (in dutch)
Actual site (also in dutch)
The intent the information was shared with plays a role here I imagine. If the intent for the contact was to keep in touch with the company, then the information can be transferred. If the intent was to keep in touch at a more personal level, then it can't. Chances are that at least some of the contacts were personal, and that this ruling should have been more nuanced.
Funny given that the universe started out hot during the big bang and that it's our grand grand ... grand children that will have to face the heat-death of the universe and will be huddling around event horizons.
I believe you're mixing this up with another hard problem that hasn't been proven yet. You're thinking about the NP = P problem. The difference is that here we don't know what will be the outcome, whereas for the RH most people assume it's true. Having a proof for this wouldn't really change anything (apart from validating large parts of mathematics that assume it is true)
> (On a different note, forgetting to clear an unused reference that pins an object in memory does indeed qualify a memory leak.)
... I tried to make the subtle difference between memory that's forgotten, but could still be freed and memory that's irrevocably lost (no pointer to it anywhere in the program, but not freed) ... but yeah ... it's a memory leak as well.
I know
> If your concern is memory leaks, just use C++ and smart pointers.
_now_ I'm concerned about memory leaks.
Smart pointers don't solve all memory leaks/problems. Most don't detect circular references and even if they do (as Java's garbage collector does) everything still isn't fixed. People often forget to null out pointers no longer needed. While not technically a memory leak, it still eats all your memory.
more like:
Bugger, chap. Not everybody uses windows.
Last name I heard was System i5 They use POWER5 processors The wonky IBM term is Integrated Language Environment
It links to a copy-cat.
Different problems, different solutions, different languages. As always, pick the right tool for the job.
ROR having (more) hyper-enthousiasts only means it's newer.
Clustering provides a backup for software failures, that fault-tolerant servers don't. Also, upgrades without downtime are easier done with a load-balanced cluster.
Even with different lengths for a meter the equation would hold.
The constant you'd add on the right side would be added to the left as well and would cancel out.
It can be argued that once we know something can be programmed we stop thinking of it AI. A few years ago many would have claimed that a computer really should have achieved something intelligent when it beats a grandmaster at chess. Now, after the fact, we only think of it as a clever search routine.
It might just be clever programming, but figuring out how to move an as good as random combination of parts so as to make a believable imitation of locomotion has a ring of intelligence to it.
And that's perhaps the most mundane part of the game. If you believe everything that's written about it (large parts of it are probably hype), they're trying to achieve some form of emergent behaviour in many aspects of the game.
I bet you could fill another nice book or two, just describing all the AI algorithms they used, and I wouldn't be surprised if there would be a few clever things in there that haven't been published before.
I just finished reading a preview of Spore, a new game from the creator of the sims, and it seems like AI in games is about to take another leap :)
(messed up my previous post a bit)
I just finished reading a preview of Spore, a new game from the creator of the sims, and it seems like AI in games is about to take another leap :)
visit http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#to p The image in the article is the reference image.
Then you're probably looking at the reference image.
Not yet, but I'm working on it.
http://router.4th.be/
It might be more difficult to install software that isn't packaged in the format your distribution requires (be it .rpm, .ebuild, .deb, or something else), but this hardly makes linux more brittle.
If anything, relying on distributions to package software instead of individual developers makes the system more consistent and stable.
I wager it's been a long time since you've last used windows. Installing and uninstalling lots of programs often left unwanted traces in directories and in the registry, making my system not only more brittle, but also more messy.
Besides, even if the quoted statement is true, I'd rather have a system I can tinker with, extend and possibly fix, than a system that lets me choose between this specific binary verion that might not do what I want for 100% or nothing.
I did mean a&b|b&c|a&c
:/
...
I guess putting a semicolon at the end made it an html-character
now it wouldn't even compile
int vote(const int a, const int b, const int c)
{
return a&b|b&c|c
}
Is there a shorter answer?
I'm not sure I trust the benchmarks. They proudly show their benchmarking code which has a blatant mistake in it. They spotted it, but wrongfilly blamed VB.NET and threads for it and then proudly announced they had to write a super-duper workaround for it to make it work.
Worthy of a WTF.
If you'd like to see it for yourself: look here
"He believed in a door. He must find that door. The door was the way to... to...
The Door was The Way.
Good.
Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to."
-- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency