So, you say you don't know the passphrase and/or there is none. (i.e. that file is random noise)
What do they do; put you in prison for refusing to state a passphrase which it is perfectly possible you ACTUALLY don't know ?
If they have a warrant to search your car, and you claim not to have the key, they'll force the door, but I don't think they'll punish you for refusal to give up the key, unless they can PROVE that you lied.
It is not different. If they have a warrant, they are free to forcefully break down the encryption, just like they are free to forcefully break down the door to your house.
True. Learning a new LANGUAGE is simple. Learning a new methodology is not.
It takes more than a forthnight to learn structured programming. Or OO-programming. Or functional programming. Or any other of the fundamental methodologies.
Once you *do* know for example OO-programming, you should be able to translate that skill easily from C++ to Java or Python, for example. (allthough python also has functional stuff that might be harder for you)
And yes. I do think it's important for a good programmer to be familiar with more than one development-methodology.
Probably true. But you're still just *talking* you know ? It's nice to see the face of whomever is doing the talking, but plain old television-quality works perfectly. It's not as if it was painful to watch the news before HDTV.
640x480@30fps is plenty for all practical concerns. And a residential connection most certainly can handle that, unless you're American (residential broadband in the US is a joke). Residential broadband here in Stavanger, Norway for example tends to mean a choice of 10Mbps, 25mbps and 50mbps, all symetrical speeds (i.e. equal upload and download)
Yeah. I was obviously only talking about fuel-economy. It is so obvious that I didn't think it worth stating that driving faster will let you arrive sooner.
I was merely saying, it is unlikely that anyone with a normal car can save fuel by going 85mph rather than 60mph. That's a fact.
I dunno about US-cars, most cars over here do have a consumption gauge, and it DOES show idle-consumption too, typically in litres/hour. My two cars are at about 0.7 l/hour when idling.
There's so much nonsense about fuel-economy that it's frankly disapointing. For example you're told regularily that letting the vehicle roll in neutral on downhills will save you fuel. This is certainly nonsense with any modern car.
Simple; if I put my car in neutral and let it roll, the engine will idle, consuming 0.7l/hour. If instead I leave the car in gear and simply release the gas, the car will instead consume zero. That's rigth. Zero fuel is injected. A modern injection car injects fuel on spesifically two conditions: Either because the driver requests it, by the use of the gas, or because the engine would otherwise stop (idling). On a downhill, neither of these two conditions are true, so the consumption is zero.
Additionally, this will prolong the life of your brakes, and improve safety. Riding the brakes down a long downhill ain't precisely recommended behaviour...
I don't know where to start. There's so many outright errors and misunderstandings in your post.
First, fuel-economy is measured in miles-per-gallon, or if you're metric in litres/100km, in either case that already INCLUDES the distance, so no the time running does not matter directly.
Second, your gearbox doesn't slip. There is ALWAYS a linear connection between RPM and speed, unless your clutch is slipping. (on an automatic this happens automatically on gearchange but REALLY shouldn't on normal constant-speed driving)
Third, there is NO direct relationship between fuel-consumption and rpm. True, higher rpm will tend to burn more fuel, but the converse is NOT true. An engine running at 2000rpm full throttle consumes a LOT more fuel than the same engine running at 2000rpm with less throttle.
No, it is REALLY only a question of how much power is needed, and how efficient the combination of engine and drivetrain is at providing this power.
How much power is needed grows quicker than linear, so in principle *very* slow should be best. But this is offset by the fact that the engine and drivetrain is not capable of delivering a tiny amount of power efficiently. (if you had an engine and drivetrain optimised for going 20mph on a flat surface this would give WONDERFUL mpgs, unfortunately it'd utterly suck for accelerations, uphills and actually arriving before nigthfall)
Therefore you need to go fast enough that your engine/drivetrain work efficiently, which tends to mean the slowest *comfortable* speed in the highest gear. (not the slowest *possible* speed, you can go 20mph in 6th on a modern car, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea!)
Believable. Though it'll offcourse depend on the car. But for a typical car that sounds about right.
Basically, it'll run best at a speed that is high enough to run the highest gear comfortably, yet at the other hand NOT have a huge wind-drag.
Sure, there are places in the world where the poor are SIGNIFICANTLY worse off than in USA. No doubt about it whatsoever.
That's a poor yardstick though. Or atleast horribly unambitious.
Most places with a similar GDP/capita as USA are significantly *better* places to live if you're poor than USA is.
So, do you want to compare yourself to countries that are similarily wealthy, or are you happy and content as long as you're doing beter than some bacwards country with a GDP/capita one third of yours or less ?
Actually, debt/GDP is more informative than debt/capita. Because what matters is which percentage of your financial "muscles" (insert jokes about the current debacle here!) you spend dealing with the debt.
It's the same as for a person, your debt relative to your income is the most interesting number, not relative to the size of your household. (getting a new member of household won't help you service the debt, getting a higher income will)
If your household income is $150K/year, then a $250K debt may be safe and sane. If your household-income is a third that and the debt the same, then you're way up shit creek without much of a paddle.
Or wishful thinkers, yeah. Given the physics of the thing, it's pretty darn unlikely, and getting more unlikely the higher speeds are claimed as "optimal".
Wind-drag is by far the dominating force in high-speed level driving, and it goes up significantly faster than linear, typically with the speed squared.
Your engine is seriously unlikely to be so much more efficient at 2500rpm, compared to 1800 that it MORE than compensates for the extra drag at 85, rather than 60mph.
What is more likely is that often when you're driving slow there's a reason for it, curves, high traffic, hills, whatever. *those* thing will hurt your fuel-efficiency. But that's not the same thing as saying the lower speed alone hurts.
The basic claim in the research, that males are to *young* when they become fathers these days sound unreasonable on the face of it.
The average age of parents have been growing steadily for many decades, today it's pretty average to have your first child at 30. It's not THAT long ago that 20 was more common.
The average living-age was much lower before too, you don't need to go back that many centuries before 50 start looking like very old, and most people would be dead before this.
Why go for "plausible" when you can have *real* without problems ?
Leave the data at home on an internet-connected computer, or on some server on the internet. Cross the border with a laptop that REALLY (not just "plausibly") contains nothing even remotely interesting. Download the data once you're inside USA. Or just mount the remote drive if you've got the bandwith. No big deal.
That way they can search all they want. They cannot find what GENUINELY isn't there.
Actually, that's not true. You can only get the silhuette under certain very spesific scenarios. Namely that the analyst has access to two *different* copies of the picture (say one with the contrast adjusted) both encrypted with the same key and the same initialization-vector. Oh yeah, and the picture must be stored a a bitmat, if it's stored in an compressed or compressed-and-lossy format like png or jpg (like basically all digital photos are) the attack don't work.
It's an interesting theorethical result. Not terribly important in the real world. (easily defeated by changing the IV when rewriting a block, for example, and no issue at all in usage-scenarios where one can use CBC or similar)
This vehicle looks cute, but is completely useless.
The thing works by spending some of the energy of your pedaling for a pump which then pumps the water trough a filter and into the "clean" tank in front.
Here's the thing, if you've got that filter, and can maintain it, you can achieve precisely the same thing by lifting the water you've fetched a single meter off the ground, and letting this fancy thing called *gravity* push it trough the filter.
Mounting a mechanical pump on a bike, as a solution for "how to get water to flow trough a filter" makes it much more complicated, thus more expensive and more likely to go wrong.
The mechanical pump, coupled to the pedaling, *will* go wrong sometimes, it'll also cost money and need maintenance.
If self-signed where treated like ssh does it; ask the first time, then complain loudly later if things change, it WOULD be useful.
True enough, you could have a man-in-the-middle from the get-go. But assuming you don't, you're safe against it later.
Just knowing that "This is definitely the same site I've been using for a year-and-a-half" provides better than zero security.
Some perhaps. But most people are just lazy and/or convenient. Price is of importance offcourse, but it's not the only thing of importance. It'd be strange to suggest that making digital music more accessible, cheaper, without DRM would make zero difference whatsoever.
I do know I've bougth quite a lot of music now that it's unencumbered mp3s all the way (despite the fact that I'd prefer a lossless format). I never bougth a single track of drm-encumbered music, and I never would have. I just refuse.
I have no clue how many people like me there are. I think it's fair to guess the number is higher than 1 though.
Anyone who thinks any region of the world is entirely free from corruption is naive.
We've got our share. Transparency helps, and we're more transparent than most of the world. But it's no miracle-cure.
But the bandwith to disk hasn't been growing nearly as quickly as the size of ram and disk.
Which means that though ram and disk may both have gone up by a factor of 100 since my first Pentium, the bandwith hasn't, infact at best it's gone up by a factor of 10.
Which means that a 4 GB machine is unusable if it's actually actively using 8GB of swap. (at 16MB/s it'd take 10 minutes to read the entire swap once)
Even though a 32MB machine back then using 64MB of swap -wasn't- nessecarily unusable. (at 3MB/s it'd take 20 seconds to read the entire swap once -- see the difference ?)
If your machine is unusable when it's swapping 2GB --- then there's no point in having 8GB.
Re:Majority of households still don't have one.
on
HD Wii By 2011?
·
· Score: 1
About half of all household have atleast one HDTV here.
About 75% of all households who own a last-generation-console have atleast one HDTV here.
Okay, so USA is a bit behind due to the lower wages (particular for the lower classes), but I'm sure the majority of US-gamers will have a hdtv inside of a year or two.
Putting the money in your mattress guarantees you'll lose value at the rate of inflation. (several percent a year, over 40 years you'd be lucky to have a third of the value kept...
Buying GOLD for the money risks that goldprices fall, or don't keep up with inflation.
Putting them in the BANK risks that the bank goes bankrupt (assuming you've got more cash than the guarantees cover), or that inflation and taxes will eat any gains. Or that the dollar falls so your value is reduced.
So yes. Buying stock is a gamble. If the economy as a whole is weaker in 40 years than it is today, then it's likely you'll get less value out 40 years from now than you put in today. True.
The economy has been growing steadily for the last few hundred years though. There's been setbacks, true. But none lasting even close to 40 years. 5 Years ? Hell yes. 10 ? Perhaps on a very few occasions, but extremely rare. 40 ? Not once.
Past performance is no guarantee for future performance, true. But it's as good a guess as you're going to get.
Also, you're forgetting about dividends. I've got stock that I've owned for a decade that are worth the same today as they where when I bougth them. And that still has been more profitable than bank over the same period.
It is TRUE that the total value of all the stocks on an exchange can only rise if new capital are added. But it is not true that this makes it a pyramid-game. Because the poster forgets that rising stock-prices aren't the only way to make money from owning stock.
In addition to this, companies that turn a profit frequently pay a DIVIDEND. This comes in *addition* to any gains that may arise from fluctuations in the price of stock.
That's the base idea of stock, afterall.
You want to start a (hopefully profitable!) company, but you ain't got the needed capital. So you go to me and say: "If you give me $X for my company, I'll let you have %y percent of the profits !"
If I think it sounds like a good idea, I might *invest*. Even if I'm the only investor in the world, and thus the stock-price never changes, I STILL benefit if your business-idea works out. (offcourse if you go bankrupt instead, I lose my money, such is life)
Save your ridicule for an issue where RMS isn't, RIGHT. That happens, you know ?
He is right; you have exactly as little influence on the code of Gmail as you do on the code of Outlook. Both are precisely equally proprietary. With gmail, in addition to this, Google gets complete access to your data (i.e. messages).
Remember the context, RMS is consistently figthing for freedom. For users having control over the software they use.
With Gmail (and similar online-solutions) you don't. Plain and simple.
Notice that if the software is GOOD or not is completely different question.
This is very much true. Government shouldn't play the game, they should just set the rules, and act as referees (trough the courts) when somebody is accused for cheating.
If they want more of something, they should tilt the rules in favor of that something. It's not that hard.
This is actually one thing the Norwegian government has managed to do fairly effectively. (which is rare enough!)
For example, they want people to buy more efficient vehicles. What do they do ? Change the vehicle-taxes so they're based on CO2-emissions/km rather than being a flat equal-for-all fee. (so now, if you buy a car spewing 300g/km you *will* pay more than double taxes compared to the person who buys an efficient 130g/km vehicle.)
Slashdot Mirror
So, you say you don't know the passphrase and/or there is none. (i.e. that file is random noise)
What do they do; put you in prison for refusing to state a passphrase which it is perfectly possible you ACTUALLY don't know ?
If they have a warrant to search your car, and you claim not to have the key, they'll force the door, but I don't think they'll punish you for refusal to give up the key, unless they can PROVE that you lied.
It is not different. If they have a warrant, they are free to forcefully break down the encryption, just like they are free to forcefully break down the door to your house.
True. Learning a new LANGUAGE is simple. Learning a new methodology is not.
It takes more than a forthnight to learn structured programming. Or OO-programming. Or functional programming. Or any other of the fundamental methodologies.
Once you *do* know for example OO-programming, you should be able to translate that skill easily from C++ to Java or Python, for example. (allthough python also has functional stuff that might be harder for you)
And yes. I do think it's important for a good programmer to be familiar with more than one development-methodology.
Probably true. But you're still just *talking* you know ? It's nice to see the face of whomever is doing the talking, but plain old television-quality works perfectly. It's not as if it was painful to watch the news before HDTV.
640x480@30fps is plenty for all practical concerns. And a residential connection most certainly can handle that, unless you're American (residential broadband in the US is a joke). Residential broadband here in Stavanger, Norway for example tends to mean a choice of 10Mbps, 25mbps and 50mbps, all symetrical speeds (i.e. equal upload and download)
That's why the meters here typically have logic of the type if speed > 10 then display consumption/speed else display consumption/time
Yeah. I was obviously only talking about fuel-economy. It is so obvious that I didn't think it worth stating that driving faster will let you arrive sooner.
I was merely saying, it is unlikely that anyone with a normal car can save fuel by going 85mph rather than 60mph. That's a fact.
I dunno about US-cars, most cars over here do have a consumption gauge, and it DOES show idle-consumption too, typically in litres/hour. My two cars are at about 0.7 l/hour when idling.
There's so much nonsense about fuel-economy that it's frankly disapointing. For example you're told regularily that letting the vehicle roll in neutral on downhills will save you fuel. This is certainly nonsense with any modern car.
Simple; if I put my car in neutral and let it roll, the engine will idle, consuming 0.7l/hour. If instead I leave the car in gear and simply release the gas, the car will instead consume zero. That's rigth. Zero fuel is injected. A modern injection car injects fuel on spesifically two conditions: Either because the driver requests it, by the use of the gas, or because the engine would otherwise stop (idling). On a downhill, neither of these two conditions are true, so the consumption is zero.
Additionally, this will prolong the life of your brakes, and improve safety. Riding the brakes down a long downhill ain't precisely recommended behaviour...
Yet you hear this nonsense again and again.
Don't US-cars come with fuel-consumption-meters ?
I don't know where to start. There's so many outright errors and misunderstandings in your post.
First, fuel-economy is measured in miles-per-gallon, or if you're metric in litres/100km, in either case that already INCLUDES the distance, so no the time running does not matter directly.
Second, your gearbox doesn't slip. There is ALWAYS a linear connection between RPM and speed, unless your clutch is slipping. (on an automatic this happens automatically on gearchange but REALLY shouldn't on normal constant-speed driving)
Third, there is NO direct relationship between fuel-consumption and rpm. True, higher rpm will tend to burn more fuel, but the converse is NOT true. An engine running at 2000rpm full throttle consumes a LOT more fuel than the same engine running at 2000rpm with less throttle.
No, it is REALLY only a question of how much power is needed, and how efficient the combination of engine and drivetrain is at providing this power.
How much power is needed grows quicker than linear, so in principle *very* slow should be best. But this is offset by the fact that the engine and drivetrain is not capable of delivering a tiny amount of power efficiently. (if you had an engine and drivetrain optimised for going 20mph on a flat surface this would give WONDERFUL mpgs, unfortunately it'd utterly suck for accelerations, uphills and actually arriving before nigthfall)
Therefore you need to go fast enough that your engine/drivetrain work efficiently, which tends to mean the slowest *comfortable* speed in the highest gear. (not the slowest *possible* speed, you can go 20mph in 6th on a modern car, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea!)
Believable. Though it'll offcourse depend on the car. But for a typical car that sounds about right. Basically, it'll run best at a speed that is high enough to run the highest gear comfortably, yet at the other hand NOT have a huge wind-drag.
Sure, there are places in the world where the poor are SIGNIFICANTLY worse off than in USA. No doubt about it whatsoever.
That's a poor yardstick though. Or atleast horribly unambitious.
Most places with a similar GDP/capita as USA are significantly *better* places to live if you're poor than USA is.
So, do you want to compare yourself to countries that are similarily wealthy, or are you happy and content as long as you're doing beter than some bacwards country with a GDP/capita one third of yours or less ?
Actually, debt/GDP is more informative than debt/capita. Because what matters is which percentage of your financial "muscles" (insert jokes about the current debacle here!) you spend dealing with the debt.
It's the same as for a person, your debt relative to your income is the most interesting number, not relative to the size of your household. (getting a new member of household won't help you service the debt, getting a higher income will)
If your household income is $150K/year, then a $250K debt may be safe and sane. If your household-income is a third that and the debt the same, then you're way up shit creek without much of a paddle.
Or wishful thinkers, yeah. Given the physics of the thing, it's pretty darn unlikely, and getting more unlikely the higher speeds are claimed as "optimal".
Wind-drag is by far the dominating force in high-speed level driving, and it goes up significantly faster than linear, typically with the speed squared.
Your engine is seriously unlikely to be so much more efficient at 2500rpm, compared to 1800 that it MORE than compensates for the extra drag at 85, rather than 60mph.
What is more likely is that often when you're driving slow there's a reason for it, curves, high traffic, hills, whatever. *those* thing will hurt your fuel-efficiency. But that's not the same thing as saying the lower speed alone hurts.
The basic claim in the research, that males are to *young* when they become fathers these days sound unreasonable on the face of it.
The average age of parents have been growing steadily for many decades, today it's pretty average to have your first child at 30. It's not THAT long ago that 20 was more common.
The average living-age was much lower before too, you don't need to go back that many centuries before 50 start looking like very old, and most people would be dead before this.
Why go for "plausible" when you can have *real* without problems ?
Leave the data at home on an internet-connected computer, or on some server on the internet.
Cross the border with a laptop that REALLY (not just "plausibly") contains nothing even remotely interesting.
Download the data once you're inside USA. Or just mount the remote drive if you've got the bandwith. No big deal.
That way they can search all they want. They cannot find what GENUINELY isn't there.
Actually, that's not true. You can only get the silhuette under certain very spesific scenarios. Namely that the analyst has access to two *different* copies of the picture (say one with the contrast adjusted) both encrypted with the same key and the same initialization-vector. Oh yeah, and the picture must be stored a a bitmat, if it's stored in an compressed or compressed-and-lossy format like png or jpg (like basically all digital photos are) the attack don't work.
It's an interesting theorethical result. Not terribly important in the real world. (easily defeated by changing the IV when rewriting a block, for example, and no issue at all in usage-scenarios where one can use CBC or similar)
This vehicle looks cute, but is completely useless.
The thing works by spending some of the energy of your pedaling for a pump which then pumps the water trough a filter and into the "clean" tank in front.
Here's the thing, if you've got that filter, and can maintain it, you can achieve precisely the same thing by lifting the water you've fetched a single meter off the ground, and letting this fancy thing called *gravity* push it trough the filter.
Mounting a mechanical pump on a bike, as a solution for "how to get water to flow trough a filter" makes it much more complicated, thus more expensive and more likely to go wrong.
The mechanical pump, coupled to the pedaling, *will* go wrong sometimes, it'll also cost money and need maintenance.
Gravity has none of these problems.
If self-signed where treated like ssh does it; ask the first time, then complain loudly later if things change, it WOULD be useful. True enough, you could have a man-in-the-middle from the get-go. But assuming you don't, you're safe against it later. Just knowing that "This is definitely the same site I've been using for a year-and-a-half" provides better than zero security.
Some perhaps. But most people are just lazy and/or convenient. Price is of importance offcourse, but it's not the only thing of importance. It'd be strange to suggest that making digital music more accessible, cheaper, without DRM would make zero difference whatsoever.
I do know I've bougth quite a lot of music now that it's unencumbered mp3s all the way (despite the fact that I'd prefer a lossless format). I never bougth a single track of drm-encumbered music, and I never would have. I just refuse.
I have no clue how many people like me there are. I think it's fair to guess the number is higher than 1 though.
True. And the "driving ABOVE 80 mph could save lives" argument is completely bogus.
It is true offcourse, it's not that hard to come up with some hypothethical situation in which that happens. But it's not the real test.
The question isn't if it could save lives. The question is if it'd save more lives than it takes. To which the answer is a resounding NO.
A hundred people die due to speeds above 80 for every ONE that is saved by the same speed.
Speedlocking cars is crap though.
Anyone who thinks any region of the world is entirely free from corruption is naive. We've got our share. Transparency helps, and we're more transparent than most of the world. But it's no miracle-cure.
But the bandwith to disk hasn't been growing nearly as quickly as the size of ram and disk.
Which means that though ram and disk may both have gone up by a factor of 100 since my first Pentium, the bandwith hasn't, infact at best it's gone up by a factor of 10.
Which means that a 4 GB machine is unusable if it's actually actively using 8GB of swap. (at 16MB/s it'd take 10 minutes to read the entire swap once)
Even though a 32MB machine back then using 64MB of swap -wasn't- nessecarily unusable. (at 3MB/s it'd take 20 seconds to read the entire swap once -- see the difference ?)
If your machine is unusable when it's swapping 2GB --- then there's no point in having 8GB.
About half of all household have atleast one HDTV here.
About 75% of all households who own a last-generation-console have atleast one HDTV here.
Okay, so USA is a bit behind due to the lower wages (particular for the lower classes), but I'm sure the majority of US-gamers will have a hdtv inside of a year or two.
Anything is a gamble.
Putting the money in your mattress guarantees you'll lose value at the rate of inflation. (several percent a year, over 40 years you'd be lucky to have a third of the value kept...
Buying GOLD for the money risks that goldprices fall, or don't keep up with inflation.
Putting them in the BANK risks that the bank goes bankrupt (assuming you've got more cash than the guarantees cover), or that inflation and taxes will eat any gains. Or that the dollar falls so your value is reduced.
So yes. Buying stock is a gamble. If the economy as a whole is weaker in 40 years than it is today, then it's likely you'll get less value out 40 years from now than you put in today. True.
The economy has been growing steadily for the last few hundred years though. There's been setbacks, true. But none lasting even close to 40 years. 5 Years ? Hell yes. 10 ? Perhaps on a very few occasions, but extremely rare. 40 ? Not once.
Past performance is no guarantee for future performance, true. But it's as good a guess as you're going to get.
Also, you're forgetting about dividends. I've got stock that I've owned for a decade that are worth the same today as they where when I bougth them. And that still has been more profitable than bank over the same period.
It's wrong.
Well, sorta.
It is TRUE that the total value of all the stocks on an exchange can only rise if new capital are added. But it is not true that this makes it a pyramid-game. Because the poster forgets that rising stock-prices aren't the only way to make money from owning stock.
In addition to this, companies that turn a profit frequently pay a DIVIDEND. This comes in *addition* to any gains that may arise from fluctuations in the price of stock.
That's the base idea of stock, afterall.
You want to start a (hopefully profitable!) company, but you ain't got the needed capital. So you go to me and say: "If you give me $X for my company, I'll let you have %y percent of the profits !"
If I think it sounds like a good idea, I might *invest*. Even if I'm the only investor in the world, and thus the stock-price never changes, I STILL benefit if your business-idea works out. (offcourse if you go bankrupt instead, I lose my money, such is life)
Save your ridicule for an issue where RMS isn't, RIGHT. That happens, you know ?
He is right; you have exactly as little influence on the code of Gmail as you do on the code of Outlook. Both are precisely equally proprietary. With gmail, in addition to this, Google gets complete access to your data (i.e. messages).
Remember the context, RMS is consistently figthing for freedom. For users having control over the software they use.
With Gmail (and similar online-solutions) you don't. Plain and simple.
Notice that if the software is GOOD or not is completely different question.
This is very much true. Government shouldn't play the game, they should just set the rules, and act as referees (trough the courts) when somebody is accused for cheating.
If they want more of something, they should tilt the rules in favor of that something. It's not that hard.
This is actually one thing the Norwegian government has managed to do fairly effectively. (which is rare enough!)
For example, they want people to buy more efficient vehicles. What do they do ? Change the vehicle-taxes so they're based on CO2-emissions/km rather than being a flat equal-for-all fee. (so now, if you buy a car spewing 300g/km you *will* pay more than double taxes compared to the person who buys an efficient 130g/km vehicle.)
Works fine.