Once upon a time, backspaces were legal password characters - if you knew how to add them. It was a method designed to get round early methods like watching people type or getting a screen capture - what you saw wasn't what the computer saw. That specific method wouldn't be useful in a world of keyloggers and packet intercepts, although it might still fool the hash table attacks (since the password that the hashing function hashes is NOT the password you type in).
Interesting to know what other techniques might exist.
Just remember, "Can'tinterruptwhileI'mtalkingOrthey'llconfiscateallyourguitarsAndcatch22saysifIsingthetruthTheywon'tmakemeanovernightstar" should always hash to the same value as "BernieRhodesknows,don'targue"
I'll list your inanites. I won't bother replying to them, since you're too braindead to comprehend.
1. Since when are the competent hackers in government? 2. Since when are paranoid populaces immune to wanting to do something destructive? 3. Since when have to-source disassemblers (been around for 20+ years) magically vanished? 4. Since when have competent assembly coders needed disassemblers anyway? (20 megs is very small - a couple week's work with no distractions) 5. Since when have Black Hats ever given a damn about whether they're producing non-trivial variants of something, if a trivial variant does whatever job they want to do? 6. Why the hell are there so many stupid people in the world?! For chrissakes, it's replies like yours that make me wish the legal minimum IQ for procreation was 150.
Oh, there WAS another Window Manager, once upon a time, which did everything via Postscript. Everything. This had some nice features - since everything was vector, everything was scalable - but it was Closed Source (booooo!) and unless someone wants to run the same GUI on a LaserJet as on an X terminal, there's other ways to achieve the same result.
OLVWM (the Open Look Virtual Window Manager) had some really cool features that either are hard to reproduce on other systems or don't exist.
Instead of isolated screens you can flip between - the popular modern method - OLVWM allowed you to have one gigantic window larger than the screen size that you could scroll round. Very nice when working with stuff larger than one screen size.
It was one of the first to support cut-and-paste, although none of the newer WMs use the same protocol so you can't cut from an Open Look window and paste into a KDE window.
TWM is a truly basic window manager, which also makes it ultra-lightweight. If you don't give a damn about being able to do much, but need something that takes close to nothing in memory or CPU, then TWM is a good place to start. The initials are disputed, though Tabbed Window Manager and Tim's Window Manager are the two popular backronyms.
I think it safe to say that my current.sig will appeal to anyone who likes a little bit of this......and a little bit of that.
...between germ warfare and malware warfare is that the anthrax bombs tested out in Scotland never affected areas outside the impact crater and it costs a lot to genetically modify a bacterium.
In contrast, most of the world's true psychopaths have access to coders capable of modifying Stuxnet or Flame to do things never intended by the original author, and both have been found globally.
If they can handle an uncalibrated ring and just wait for the moon to be in roughly the right place, then calibrating all the magnets before each run and enduring a change in tidal forces due to motion of 54,000 arcsecs (15 arcsecs/sec over the course of one hour) for any given one hour experiment will logically produce superior results to guesstimating.
Adding in a non-colliding ring whose sole purpose it is to provide continuous feedback for calibration purposes would logically improve results further.
My point is that you can ALWAYS take measurements to fix errors, and that fixes beforehand will ALWAYS produce cleaner, more repeatable results than adding in fixes after the fact, especially when you can't be sure of all the facts beforehand.
It might be better to run beams of known parameters and adjust the controlling magnets accordingly so that the beam is perfectly circular. The moon won't move enough between a calibration run and an actual run for the results to be invalid, and calibrating the magnets will be easier than calibrating the software.
But you don't communicate. The only successful MBA-driven businesses have relied on FUD and hard-sell. That's not communication, that's emotional abuse. And what have they produced? What has Randall Stevenson (CEO AT&T) actually MADE that is worth hard cash? No, not the geeks he employs, what has HE produced?
And what of the legends in the business world? I despise the very ground Bill Gates walks on, but he SOLD people HIS work and I have some respect for that. It was crap work, but it WAS work. I regard Sir Clive Sinclair with unmuted disgust, but he too SOLD people HIS work. He achieved glory (and infamy) precisely BECAUSE he was a geek. It is BECAUSE he was a geek that he COULD speak to people. It is NOT the geeks who have difficulty, it is the business folk.
Fred Hoyle - GEEK. Stephen Hawking - BLOODY GREAT GEEK. Linus Torvalds - GEEK. Plato - GREEK GEEK. Homer - GEEK. Shakespere - GEEK. Andrew Lloyd Webber - GEEK. Biran May - DR GEEK. Alan Turing - GEEK. The Bad Piper - GEEK. Rolf Harris - GEEK. Prince Charles - Pointy-Eared GEEK. (The architects who slam him but also produce crap buildings - MBAers.) Bruce Dickenson - BLOODY LOUD GEEK. Enzo Ferrari - GEEK. Do you see a pattern here or do I have to clobber you over the head with a 2x4?!
What do Wall Street investors make? I'm not talking about what they make in their paycheck, I'm asking about what their product is. What value they've added to the raw product they work with. An aggregator that took all invested cash and provided it as a loan to the company in question would be value-added, there would be a definite input of raw material and a definite output, a definite product. What product do day-traders make? What's their value-added? Or, instead of adding value, are they not really sponges SUBTRACTING value from industry? Isn't the whole point of their work to get profit NOW and not later through any REAL investment?
Patent trolling companies are an MBA's wet dream - all money and no product. It's all paper-shuffling. What great new revolution will we see from that? What shell company can you name that will produce actual material goods? And if they make nothing and do nothing, what the hell good are they?
Wage should be -a- factor, since higher wages for the middle class means a stronger economy. At present, all the money is at the extreme end of the food chain, so there's no fiscal circulation, which in turns means stagnation.
But it should not be the only factor. Capacity to -generate- wealth should be more important than capacity to earn it, where you need to ignore all right-wing dogma over who actually generates wealth. Inventors generate wealth. Discoverers generate wealth. Engineers of pretty well any walk of life generate wealth. Businesspeople do NOT.
It might be better to arrange a system in which skills are exchanged - we get the real drivers of the economy, they get all of our MBAs and executives. Permanently, with no possibility of return once the overseas nation realizes we've destroyed their nation with the useless third of the world's population.
That's why I'm thinking a GRB sounds like a good candidate. The energy levels are absolutely staggering but because they're bordering on pencil-thin lines, the odds of something being both close AND a direct hit is extremely small.
The thing with self-descriptive data is it doesn't matter if you personally use ASCII, EBCDIC, Unicode or wide characters. You can map whatever to whatever. There is a standard, but it is in the description and not in the described. Specialized solutions are superior - in their niche. I would take a toolbox with a thousand types of saw, hammer and blade over a single Swiss Army Knife because each tool is superior even though no single blade can do everything.
A universal system would be an object-oriented Codd DBM. It would be able to do absolutely anything. Slowly.
All geniuses HAVE to have some mental instability, since stability is the enemy of creativity. If you're fully stable, you've no reason to invent for yourself new methods of working through a problem. If you're fully rational, a small discrepancy between theory and observation won't keep you awake at night until you damn well fix the theory. If you're fully functional, you're going to be too busy doing regular work and won't have time for creative thought.
Very, very few insane people are geniuses, although many will think of themselves as such.
Agreed, but that's the peril of living in a world where everything is tightly-coupled and highly-integrated. People forget that you can mix-n-match, they look no further than using one system for everything. NoSQL does indeed have a purpose, and just like an F1 car, it is in a class of its own when used for that purpose. But I'd no more use Memcache as a substitute for NetCDF or Ingres than I would use an F1 car to go off-road sight-seeing.
The "old old boss" would be the CDF/NetCDF/HDF family of self-describing distributed storage solutions. They predate XML by a long way and are - I believe - the first true self-describing method of storing, indexing and searching data.
For the most part, they support network interconnections between instances, so you can have your virtual storage distributed over as many physical systems as you like. The users will never see the difference except in terms of speed. This gives you all the benefit of NoSQL's distributed model (which XML lacks) but with several decades more development in the database design.
But wait! There's more! If you order in the next gazillion years, you get OpENDAP absolutely free! (Which it is anyway.) OpENDAP will translate between any two data formats, so if one site wants to view the data as, say, a conventional database, another wants to look at it as a collection of spreadsheets and a third is expecting XML data, you'd have OpENDAP translate between client form and central repository form.
I have no objections to Mongo or Memcache, they're very powerful and are very useful, but we're still ultimately talking about technology everyone else has had since 1985, thanks be to NASA, and many NoSQL technologies are really just network-aware versions of the DBM/NDBM/BDB/GDBM/QDBM family which have existed since Unix began.
NoSQL definitely has a place - I would not want to try serving cached web data from HDF5 - and it's an important place. But that's just as true for Hierarchical Databases, Star Databases (aka "Data Warehouses"), "genuine" (ie: actually complies with Codd's rules) relational databases (SQL isn't truly relational in the Codd model, merely a subset), and so on.
It's time we got away from one-size-fits-all ideas, which violates the Unix ethos anyway, and get back to using best solutions for specific problems rather than passable solutions that fail at everything. These are all wonderful, highly specialized solutions to highly specific problem types. Treating them as such will always produce a better answer than force-fitting solutions into not-quite-failing with problems they aren't designed for.
Not just higher-power, but optical. There's other, more powerful, space telescopes being built* but none are in the visible or near-visible spectrum.
*Admittedly, the Congresscritters want them cancelled, but they are for now being built. Even if NASA got these two, I'd be worried that Congress would continue being "cent-wise and dollar-foolish", with the result of them either never being launched or being sold to the Russians. Where they might well be converted back into spy satellites.
Slashdot Mirror
Once upon a time, backspaces were legal password characters - if you knew how to add them. It was a method designed to get round early methods like watching people type or getting a screen capture - what you saw wasn't what the computer saw. That specific method wouldn't be useful in a world of keyloggers and packet intercepts, although it might still fool the hash table attacks (since the password that the hashing function hashes is NOT the password you type in).
Interesting to know what other techniques might exist.
Just remember, "Can'tinterruptwhileI'mtalkingOrthey'llconfiscateallyourguitarsAndcatch22saysifIsingthetruthTheywon'tmakemeanovernightstar" should always hash to the same value as "BernieRhodesknows,don'targue"
I'll list your inanites. I won't bother replying to them, since you're too braindead to comprehend.
1. Since when are the competent hackers in government?
2. Since when are paranoid populaces immune to wanting to do something destructive?
3. Since when have to-source disassemblers (been around for 20+ years) magically vanished?
4. Since when have competent assembly coders needed disassemblers anyway? (20 megs is very small - a couple week's work with no distractions)
5. Since when have Black Hats ever given a damn about whether they're producing non-trivial variants of something, if a trivial variant does whatever job they want to do?
6. Why the hell are there so many stupid people in the world?! For chrissakes, it's replies like yours that make me wish the legal minimum IQ for procreation was 150.
We need a +1 Arcane Reference modifier.
Oh, there WAS another Window Manager, once upon a time, which did everything via Postscript. Everything. This had some nice features - since everything was vector, everything was scalable - but it was Closed Source (booooo!) and unless someone wants to run the same GUI on a LaserJet as on an X terminal, there's other ways to achieve the same result.
OLVWM (the Open Look Virtual Window Manager) had some really cool features that either are hard to reproduce on other systems or don't exist.
Instead of isolated screens you can flip between - the popular modern method - OLVWM allowed you to have one gigantic window larger than the screen size that you could scroll round. Very nice when working with stuff larger than one screen size.
It was one of the first to support cut-and-paste, although none of the newer WMs use the same protocol so you can't cut from an Open Look window and paste into a KDE window.
TWM is a truly basic window manager, which also makes it ultra-lightweight. If you don't give a damn about being able to do much, but need something that takes close to nothing in memory or CPU, then TWM is a good place to start. The initials are disputed, though Tabbed Window Manager and Tim's Window Manager are the two popular backronyms.
I think it safe to say that my current .sig will appeal to anyone who likes a little bit of this... ...and a little bit of that.
...between germ warfare and malware warfare is that the anthrax bombs tested out in Scotland never affected areas outside the impact crater and it costs a lot to genetically modify a bacterium.
In contrast, most of the world's true psychopaths have access to coders capable of modifying Stuxnet or Flame to do things never intended by the original author, and both have been found globally.
I run KDE. I also run Gnome. OLVWM. Window Maker. Enlightenment. XFCE2. TWM.
One night in X and the screen's your shellfish,
Disk space is cheap and the menu's free.
If you haven't seen their music-hall production of the album, it is PRECISELY what you'd expect from that lot.
It's unlikely but nonetheless possible that the LHC is running software I wrote when working for CERN. If so, they are suffering enough.
If they can handle an uncalibrated ring and just wait for the moon to be in roughly the right place, then calibrating all the magnets before each run and enduring a change in tidal forces due to motion of 54,000 arcsecs (15 arcsecs/sec over the course of one hour) for any given one hour experiment will logically produce superior results to guesstimating.
Adding in a non-colliding ring whose sole purpose it is to provide continuous feedback for calibration purposes would logically improve results further.
My point is that you can ALWAYS take measurements to fix errors, and that fixes beforehand will ALWAYS produce cleaner, more repeatable results than adding in fixes after the fact, especially when you can't be sure of all the facts beforehand.
It might be better to run beams of known parameters and adjust the controlling magnets accordingly so that the beam is perfectly circular. The moon won't move enough between a calibration run and an actual run for the results to be invalid, and calibrating the magnets will be easier than calibrating the software.
Didn't Gerry and Sylvia Anderson do this in 1999?
But you don't communicate. The only successful MBA-driven businesses have relied on FUD and hard-sell. That's not communication, that's emotional abuse. And what have they produced? What has Randall Stevenson (CEO AT&T) actually MADE that is worth hard cash? No, not the geeks he employs, what has HE produced?
And what of the legends in the business world? I despise the very ground Bill Gates walks on, but he SOLD people HIS work and I have some respect for that. It was crap work, but it WAS work. I regard Sir Clive Sinclair with unmuted disgust, but he too SOLD people HIS work. He achieved glory (and infamy) precisely BECAUSE he was a geek. It is BECAUSE he was a geek that he COULD speak to people. It is NOT the geeks who have difficulty, it is the business folk.
Fred Hoyle - GEEK. Stephen Hawking - BLOODY GREAT GEEK. Linus Torvalds - GEEK. Plato - GREEK GEEK. Homer - GEEK. Shakespere - GEEK. Andrew Lloyd Webber - GEEK. Biran May - DR GEEK. Alan Turing - GEEK. The Bad Piper - GEEK. Rolf Harris - GEEK. Prince Charles - Pointy-Eared GEEK. (The architects who slam him but also produce crap buildings - MBAers.) Bruce Dickenson - BLOODY LOUD GEEK. Enzo Ferrari - GEEK. Do you see a pattern here or do I have to clobber you over the head with a 2x4?!
What do Wall Street investors make? I'm not talking about what they make in their paycheck, I'm asking about what their product is. What value they've added to the raw product they work with. An aggregator that took all invested cash and provided it as a loan to the company in question would be value-added, there would be a definite input of raw material and a definite output, a definite product. What product do day-traders make? What's their value-added? Or, instead of adding value, are they not really sponges SUBTRACTING value from industry? Isn't the whole point of their work to get profit NOW and not later through any REAL investment?
Patent trolling companies are an MBA's wet dream - all money and no product. It's all paper-shuffling. What great new revolution will we see from that? What shell company can you name that will produce actual material goods? And if they make nothing and do nothing, what the hell good are they?
How could you?! The Tasmanian Devil has done NOTHING to deserve such cruelty!
Wage should be -a- factor, since higher wages for the middle class means a stronger economy. At present, all the money is at the extreme end of the food chain, so there's no fiscal circulation, which in turns means stagnation.
But it should not be the only factor. Capacity to -generate- wealth should be more important than capacity to earn it, where you need to ignore all right-wing dogma over who actually generates wealth. Inventors generate wealth. Discoverers generate wealth. Engineers of pretty well any walk of life generate wealth. Businesspeople do NOT.
It might be better to arrange a system in which skills are exchanged - we get the real drivers of the economy, they get all of our MBAs and executives. Permanently, with no possibility of return once the overseas nation realizes we've destroyed their nation with the useless third of the world's population.
It's not their fault, the Queen's English committee folded yesterday due to the severe apathy towards actually communicating with people.
That's why I'm thinking a GRB sounds like a good candidate. The energy levels are absolutely staggering but because they're bordering on pencil-thin lines, the odds of something being both close AND a direct hit is extremely small.
So long as there's some gold on it, you're ok.
Fine, you can have the blue ones if you insist. There weren't too many of them anyway and the green ones tended to be hotter.
The thing with self-descriptive data is it doesn't matter if you personally use ASCII, EBCDIC, Unicode or wide characters. You can map whatever to whatever. There is a standard, but it is in the description and not in the described. Specialized solutions are superior - in their niche. I would take a toolbox with a thousand types of saw, hammer and blade over a single Swiss Army Knife because each tool is superior even though no single blade can do everything.
A universal system would be an object-oriented Codd DBM. It would be able to do absolutely anything. Slowly.
All geniuses HAVE to have some mental instability, since stability is the enemy of creativity. If you're fully stable, you've no reason to invent for yourself new methods of working through a problem. If you're fully rational, a small discrepancy between theory and observation won't keep you awake at night until you damn well fix the theory. If you're fully functional, you're going to be too busy doing regular work and won't have time for creative thought.
Very, very few insane people are geniuses, although many will think of themselves as such.
Agreed, but that's the peril of living in a world where everything is tightly-coupled and highly-integrated. People forget that you can mix-n-match, they look no further than using one system for everything. NoSQL does indeed have a purpose, and just like an F1 car, it is in a class of its own when used for that purpose. But I'd no more use Memcache as a substitute for NetCDF or Ingres than I would use an F1 car to go off-road sight-seeing.
The "old old boss" would be the CDF/NetCDF/HDF family of self-describing distributed storage solutions. They predate XML by a long way and are - I believe - the first true self-describing method of storing, indexing and searching data.
For the most part, they support network interconnections between instances, so you can have your virtual storage distributed over as many physical systems as you like. The users will never see the difference except in terms of speed. This gives you all the benefit of NoSQL's distributed model (which XML lacks) but with several decades more development in the database design.
But wait! There's more! If you order in the next gazillion years, you get OpENDAP absolutely free! (Which it is anyway.) OpENDAP will translate between any two data formats, so if one site wants to view the data as, say, a conventional database, another wants to look at it as a collection of spreadsheets and a third is expecting XML data, you'd have OpENDAP translate between client form and central repository form.
I have no objections to Mongo or Memcache, they're very powerful and are very useful, but we're still ultimately talking about technology everyone else has had since 1985, thanks be to NASA, and many NoSQL technologies are really just network-aware versions of the DBM/NDBM/BDB/GDBM/QDBM family which have existed since Unix began.
NoSQL definitely has a place - I would not want to try serving cached web data from HDF5 - and it's an important place. But that's just as true for Hierarchical Databases, Star Databases (aka "Data Warehouses"), "genuine" (ie: actually complies with Codd's rules) relational databases (SQL isn't truly relational in the Codd model, merely a subset), and so on.
It's time we got away from one-size-fits-all ideas, which violates the Unix ethos anyway, and get back to using best solutions for specific problems rather than passable solutions that fail at everything. These are all wonderful, highly specialized solutions to highly specific problem types. Treating them as such will always produce a better answer than force-fitting solutions into not-quite-failing with problems they aren't designed for.
Not just higher-power, but optical. There's other, more powerful, space telescopes being built* but none are in the visible or near-visible spectrum.
*Admittedly, the Congresscritters want them cancelled, but they are for now being built. Even if NASA got these two, I'd be worried that Congress would continue being "cent-wise and dollar-foolish", with the result of them either never being launched or being sold to the Russians. Where they might well be converted back into spy satellites.