Or possibly for the reason that the top kill may be a more expensive solution for BP than to keep on capturing whatever oil they can from the pipe while they keep it alive (and spilling).
Of course it's easy to say afterwards that this should have been the first thing to try, but the point is that many people believed this should have been the first thing to try *before* they finally triedit.
It's not that absurd. Having a widescreen monitor (as is common nowadays), my experience is that there is very little vertical space for web content after subtracting space for tool/status/menu bars. At the same time, there's lots of empty horizontal space. Because of that, I switched to vertical tabs in Firefox recently and am pleased with it.
I believe we were talking about Ubuntu Netbook Remix, not Ubuntu Big Honking Desktop Version.
If we are still talking about the Beagleboard: I've had my hands on one that had a full Ubuntu installed. Not particularly fast, but definitely workable.
To me this is not about fostering widespread adoption of linux (that is something we can all do in our own time), but rather about choosing a stance on patent-encumbered media standards.
There is a debate going on, where big players (Apple, Google, Mozilla Foundation etc) are making up their minds about support for H.264. Deciding not to license H.264 is not introverted belly-button staring by FOSS-lovers, it's a statement in this debate that I would have liked Canonical to make.
heh, and now you get modded up...
but anyway, i disagree with you on fighting the whole world at once. This is about settling a standard video format for the web for the time to come. It's not something you do today and undo tomorrow. If you desire open and license free standards this is not the right time to make a compromise!
There's a huge discrepancy between the Protection saying this is a `potential person of interest', and the suspect pleading guilty of framing bomb attacks on NY subways. It gives me an uncanny feeling about both the concept of `potential person of interest' and pleading guilty.
You know, there's a porn store for Android, you can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to go there.
Along with everything I don't get about cloud computing, one thing I *did* believe i got right about it is that you don't need to know where it happens. This is hardly compatible with the very idea of printing a hardcopy of your document, is it?
What if, after the banks discover this as a way to increase security, software companies start to use this approach to provide a dedicated environment to make their software run even better? We'll spend half our lives waiting for live-cd's to boot.
You know, I'm thinking one could do far more than just a table for $8500. I mean, ffs, get a plexiglas sheet with a matte side (or a white matte foil), a PC and a projector under the table
In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor, determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted.
Translated: I saw it on the intertubes, so it must be true.
Kind of. I was thinking of the difference between reading something in a quality-newspaper and reading something on somebody's personal homepage.
But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself. By reading a wikipedia article, you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility, by the stylistic quality of the text, it's structure, presence/absence of references, and most importantly, the quality of the argumentation.
You must be reading a very different Wikipedia than I am, because I find none of those things to be true. The 'stylistic quality' is usually that of a committee of middle schoolers. The structure looks good, because it has an outline, but often repeats information and even more often presents it without any well thought out flow and organization.
By credibility I mean the degree of credibility, which includes total incredibility. I didn't mean to say that typical wikipedia articles are credible (nor that they are incredible).
In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor, determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted. But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself. By reading a wikipedia article, you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility, by the stylistic quality of the text, it's structure, presence/absence of references, and most importantly, the quality of the argumentation.
Assume a password of finite size and finite alphabet, which fixes the size of the keyspace to N, and random guesses at the password (selecting passwords from the keyspace). When guessing 'without replacement' (i.e. you don't try the same guess twice), after N guesses the probability of having guessed the password is 1.
If instead the password would be changed after each guess, you don't gain any information about the password (by ruling out an increasing number of possibilities through guessing), and as a result your chances of guessing the password stay at 1/N all the time.
When we take as a metric for systrem security the probability of guessing the password *in the limit*, the increase in security of changing passwords would be a factor 1/(1/N) = N, which for any realistically sized keyspace is a lot more than 2.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 insightful
Elvis Presley sang a song about it in the sixties.
"We were very excited," she said.
just so you know.
They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you
Says the guy who titled two albums by a number! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_discography
The WORM (write once, read many) card is 'tamper-proof' and data cannot be altered or deleted, ...
This is not for governments.
there's a thousand of them in your coke.
Or possibly for the reason that the top kill may be a more expensive solution for BP than to keep on capturing whatever oil they can from the pipe while they keep it alive (and spilling).
Of course it's easy to say afterwards that this should have been the first thing to try, but the point is that many people believed this should have been the first thing to try *before* they finally triedit.
It's not that absurd. Having a widescreen monitor (as is common nowadays), my experience is that there is very little vertical space for web content after subtracting space for tool/status/menu bars. At the same time, there's lots of empty horizontal space. Because of that, I switched to vertical tabs in Firefox recently and am pleased with it.
I believe we were talking about Ubuntu Netbook Remix, not Ubuntu Big Honking Desktop Version.
If we are still talking about the Beagleboard: I've had my hands on one that had a full Ubuntu installed. Not particularly fast, but definitely workable.
it's a valid alias in zsh
alias /bin/sudo='/the_path_to_my_evil_eavesdropping/sudo'
To me this is not about fostering widespread adoption of linux (that is something we can all do in our own time), but rather about choosing a stance on patent-encumbered media standards. There is a debate going on, where big players (Apple, Google, Mozilla Foundation etc) are making up their minds about support for H.264. Deciding not to license H.264 is not introverted belly-button staring by FOSS-lovers, it's a statement in this debate that I would have liked Canonical to make.
heh, and now you get modded up... but anyway, i disagree with you on fighting the whole world at once. This is about settling a standard video format for the web for the time to come. It's not something you do today and undo tomorrow. If you desire open and license free standards this is not the right time to make a compromise!
There's a huge discrepancy between the Protection saying this is a `potential person of interest', and the suspect pleading guilty of framing bomb attacks on NY subways. It gives me an uncanny feeling about both the concept of `potential person of interest' and pleading guilty.
You know, there's a porn store for Android, you can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn. That's a place we don't want to go, so we're not going to go there.
Is he referring to the internet?
Along with everything I don't get about cloud computing, one thing I *did* believe i got right about it is that you don't need to know where it happens. This is hardly compatible with the very idea of printing a hardcopy of your document, is it?
We cannot be sure that Microsoft is evil, but it does turn out to be the best working hypothesis.
What if, after the banks discover this as a way to increase security, software companies start to use this approach to provide a dedicated environment to make their software run even better? We'll spend half our lives waiting for live-cd's to boot.
a few more years and they'll make up the whole picture.
You know, I'm thinking one could do far more than just a table for $8500. I mean, ffs, get a plexiglas sheet with a matte side (or a white matte foil), a PC and a projector under the table
Right! Actually, for a few more bucks (9700 euro) you get this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptyH_RX5Jl0 for musical nerds :-)
actually, this is the only reply i've read that makes sense. sorry my modpoints expired yesterday.
Right! And if he were to predict the future, we would stop calling it future. What use is a future if you can predict it?
Translated: I saw it on the intertubes, so it must be true.
Kind of. I was thinking of the difference between reading something in a quality-newspaper and reading something on somebody's personal homepage.
You must be reading a very different Wikipedia than I am, because I find none of those things to be true. The 'stylistic quality' is usually that of a committee of middle schoolers. The structure looks good, because it has an outline, but often repeats information and even more often presents it without any well thought out flow and organization.
By credibility I mean the degree of credibility, which includes total incredibility. I didn't mean to say that typical wikipedia articles are credible (nor that they are incredible).
In part the credibility of information maybe an external factor, determined by its origin and the media through which it is transmitted. But I think that part of the credibility is due to the information itself. By reading a wikipedia article, you typically get quite a good impression of its credibility, by the stylistic quality of the text, it's structure, presence/absence of references, and most importantly, the quality of the argumentation.
Now look at it this way:
Assume a password of finite size and finite alphabet, which fixes the size of the keyspace to N, and random guesses at the password (selecting passwords from the keyspace). When guessing 'without replacement' (i.e. you don't try the same guess twice), after N guesses the probability of having guessed the password is 1.
If instead the password would be changed after each guess, you don't gain any information about the password (by ruling out an increasing number of possibilities through guessing), and as a result your chances of guessing the password stay at 1/N all the time.
When we take as a metric for systrem security the probability of guessing the password *in the limit*, the increase in security of changing passwords would be a factor 1/(1/N) = N, which for any realistically sized keyspace is a lot more than 2.