What religion has a 40 day creation myth? You seem to be confusing the Genesis myth (6 days) with the Deluge (40 days and 40 nights of rain, although different sources give different timings - 150 days of water rise is another commonly used timespan).
The thing is, the only applications that don't require/benefit from contextual menus are the ones that people use infrequently and shallowly.
The great majority of computer time is spent in situations where contextual menus are *great*. So, yes, for a given user, very few applications - but *most* applications (as opposed to utilities like media players) benefit from context.
No, you probably won't. COE at Michigan has what is technically termed "phat pipe", and the main web servers are more than capable of handling your piddly little Slashdot attack.
YOU ARE HITTING THE MAIN WEBSERVERS FOR A 40,000 STUDENT UNIVERSITY WITH 10,000 ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Slashdotting? Unlikely. It'd be like slashdotting Sun.
It is the University of Michigan College of Engineering, or the UMCOE, or engin.umich.edu. It is, under no circumstances, the University of Michigan UM College of Engineering.
Nope. That's the idea behind natural selection; actually, it's the combination of random mutation and natural selection, which is part of evolutionary theory, but by no means the entire parcel.
The information required to read and interpret MP3 is publicly available. Thus, like AAC, it is open. Since it is patented and enforced, and since a single company controls the standard, it is not Open.
It's like Java, dig? Java is open; it is not Open.
Save A Copy is different from Save As, in that it retains the context of current document as active document. Save As implies that the active document needs to become the newly saved document, instead.
MP3 is an open standard. It is not an Open standard. People who care about one (like me) like MP3 just fine. Zealots who care about the other (like the rest of Slashdot) like OGG.
Yeah, I said it. I don't really care about Open Source; open standards are adequate by me.
If you have to ask what color management is, odds are *very* good you won't care.
(It relates to translation between different colorspaces, and is mainly important to photographers, video/film editors, graphic designers, and other people who work professionally with visual media that are likely to be seen somewhere other than on a computer screen.)
Given N parts, each with a probability of P of failure on a given day, with the probabilities independent the correct equation for calculating the probability of *any* system failure occurring is as follows:
(1-P) is the probability of a given widget surviving the day.
(1-P)^N is the probability of *all* widgets surviving the day.
1-((1-P)^N) is the probability of a failure within the system on any given day - this may be a single failure, or multiple failure, but is most assuredly a failure.
For a P 1/3 and N 3, the Ptotal is 0.70, which is indeed only slightly above 1/3. This is true. It is also misleading. The complexity gain is much more noticeable with more realistic failure probabilities - given a P of 1/10, and 3 parts, your failure rate suddenly goes to 0.271, near to tripling your failure rate. As you approach the limit of reliability (lower and lower P), your gain approaches the number of parts in the system; essentially, with sufficiently reliable parts, each additional part *does* more or less additively affect reliability. The bound for additive behavior is roughly (1/P) >= 9.6N, for a 5% bound (additive to within 5% accuracy, in other words).
Ironically, I can't call this a troll. Pictochat does seem to do pretty well with the generally younger market that Nintendo aims at; PSP doesn't have anything like it, and never will.
RTS, I don't know about, but turn-based strategy is quite available; check out anything from FF Tactics to the Front Mission series if turn-based is your cup of tea. Since I personally burned out on RTSes right around Warcraft 2, but still can't get enough of TBS (god, give me another XCom...) a console does just fine by me.
An identified vulnerability is not the same thing as an implemented fix, though. MS doesn't accept fixes from outside, just IDs. Apple can accept both. No idea if they accept fixes, but it seems like they have, at least in regards to packages like SSH.
Good hashes are designed to exhibit an avalanche effect. Since most human's DNA is 99+% similar to each other's, the minor human-human changes should produce major hash-hash changes.
I am not a cryptographer; I have read Schneier's "Applied Crypto", and do have a lot of math background. That out of the way, my understanding of such things leads me to believe that it is easy enough to design a non-colliding one-way function. Since we're not really interested in the data-compressing property of hashing for this, but simply in the "verification without knowledge" that hashed values allow us, a 1:1 one-way function would suffice. Given a 1:1 one-way function, false positives don't exist.
Now, the problem with a 1:1 function is that you can create a reversal table that will provide provably correct outputs. Ways to get around this: salt, pseudorandom pads (essentially equivalent to salt, really), obscurity methods, etc. Also, the need to worry about this varies with how much DNA information you're storing - considering the estimated valuable lifetime of such information (lifespan of the owner plus a bit) we need to account for the likely improvement of computing in that timeframe. Which is likely to be significant. If we were hashing the *entire* DNA sequence from an individual, that might be enough information to be non-trivial even 200 years from now (an optimistic value-lifetime estimate). Or not. That'd remain a problem in such a setup.
But false positives aren't that big a deal, if you're thinking ahead.
And in many places (Michigan, Illinois) it doesn't require a fingerprint and they don't store the photograph except on the license.
Ironic that the places with *incredible* problems with machine politics are the ones whose policies are more protective of the citizenry, isn't it?
(Excepting of course the sad tendency of Chicago cops to get promoted for beating the heads of innocent citizens to a pulp, and the sad tendency of Detroit politicians to never have to actually *do* anything to improve their city and still getting re-elected.)
5% is usually good enough, but many commercial operations use 1% resistors quite a bit. We do, mostly due to the fact that we need to guarantee performance across the industrial temperature range, and a 1% resistor once you account for temperature, drift over life, and a couple other things winds up being strikingly close to a 5% resistor's nominal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it matters how many days, because when referring to a fictional story, most people make an effort to get the plot right.
Besides, I'm curious. Creation myths make fun reading; if there's one out there that implies a 40 day creation, I haven't read it, and I want to.
What religion has a 40 day creation myth? You seem to be confusing the Genesis myth (6 days) with the Deluge (40 days and 40 nights of rain, although different sources give different timings - 150 days of water rise is another commonly used timespan).
The thing is, the only applications that don't require/benefit from contextual menus are the ones that people use infrequently and shallowly.
The great majority of computer time is spent in situations where contextual menus are *great*. So, yes, for a given user, very few applications - but *most* applications (as opposed to utilities like media players) benefit from context.
Hah.
No, you probably won't. COE at Michigan has what is technically termed "phat pipe", and the main web servers are more than capable of handling your piddly little Slashdot attack.
YOU ARE HITTING THE MAIN WEBSERVERS FOR A 40,000 STUDENT UNIVERSITY WITH 10,000 ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Slashdotting? Unlikely. It'd be like slashdotting Sun.
It is the University of Michigan College of Engineering, or the UMCOE, or engin.umich.edu. It is, under no circumstances, the University of Michigan UM College of Engineering.
Nope. That's the idea behind natural selection; actually, it's the combination of random mutation and natural selection, which is part of evolutionary theory, but by no means the entire parcel.
You mistake open and Open, like so many.
The information required to read and interpret MP3 is publicly available. Thus, like AAC, it is open. Since it is patented and enforced, and since a single company controls the standard, it is not Open.
It's like Java, dig? Java is open; it is not Open.
Save A Copy is different from Save As, in that it retains the context of current document as active document. Save As implies that the active document needs to become the newly saved document, instead.
I have purchased software with a license to encode MP3s for for-profit distribution, yes.
MP3 is an open standard. It is not an Open standard. People who care about one (like me) like MP3 just fine. Zealots who care about the other (like the rest of Slashdot) like OGG.
Yeah, I said it. I don't really care about Open Source; open standards are adequate by me.
It hurts a ridiculously stupid model of online legal music.
I'm okay with that.
Q: Why?
A: Because.
Q: But that's not enough of a reason.
A: Yes, it is.
Q: But it's so useless.
A: Shut the fuck up and go play Pokemon, would you?
My Turing machine is more Universal than your Turing machine!
Now was it move left and read, or move 2 left, then read....
If you have to ask what color management is, odds are *very* good you won't care.
(It relates to translation between different colorspaces, and is mainly important to photographers, video/film editors, graphic designers, and other people who work professionally with visual media that are likely to be seen somewhere other than on a computer screen.)
Given N parts, each with a probability of P of failure on a given day, with the probabilities independent the correct equation for calculating the probability of *any* system failure occurring is as follows:
(1-P) is the probability of a given widget surviving the day.
(1-P)^N is the probability of *all* widgets surviving the day.
1-((1-P)^N) is the probability of a failure within the system on any given day - this may be a single failure, or multiple failure, but is most assuredly a failure.
For a P 1/3 and N 3, the Ptotal is 0.70, which is indeed only slightly above 1/3. This is true. It is also misleading. The complexity gain is much more noticeable with more realistic failure probabilities - given a P of 1/10, and 3 parts, your failure rate suddenly goes to 0.271, near to tripling your failure rate. As you approach the limit of reliability (lower and lower P), your gain approaches the number of parts in the system; essentially, with sufficiently reliable parts, each additional part *does* more or less additively affect reliability. The bound for additive behavior is roughly (1/P) >= 9.6N, for a 5% bound (additive to within 5% accuracy, in other words).
Pain in the ass carrying around the 250W generator to power it and your LCD, though.
Ironically, I can't call this a troll. Pictochat does seem to do pretty well with the generally younger market that Nintendo aims at; PSP doesn't have anything like it, and never will.
I don't consider those letters, you damn foreign devil.
(I kid, I kid.)
*Technically*, [A-z] does capture all letters. It does not, however, capture *only* letters.
(Just to be pedantic.)
RTS, I don't know about, but turn-based strategy is quite available; check out anything from FF Tactics to the Front Mission series if turn-based is your cup of tea. Since I personally burned out on RTSes right around Warcraft 2, but still can't get enough of TBS (god, give me another XCom...) a console does just fine by me.
An identified vulnerability is not the same thing as an implemented fix, though. MS doesn't accept fixes from outside, just IDs. Apple can accept both. No idea if they accept fixes, but it seems like they have, at least in regards to packages like SSH.
Some thoughts on this:
Good hashes are designed to exhibit an avalanche effect. Since most human's DNA is 99+% similar to each other's, the minor human-human changes should produce major hash-hash changes.
I am not a cryptographer; I have read Schneier's "Applied Crypto", and do have a lot of math background. That out of the way, my understanding of such things leads me to believe that it is easy enough to design a non-colliding one-way function. Since we're not really interested in the data-compressing property of hashing for this, but simply in the "verification without knowledge" that hashed values allow us, a 1:1 one-way function would suffice. Given a 1:1 one-way function, false positives don't exist.
Now, the problem with a 1:1 function is that you can create a reversal table that will provide provably correct outputs. Ways to get around this: salt, pseudorandom pads (essentially equivalent to salt, really), obscurity methods, etc. Also, the need to worry about this varies with how much DNA information you're storing - considering the estimated valuable lifetime of such information (lifespan of the owner plus a bit) we need to account for the likely improvement of computing in that timeframe. Which is likely to be significant. If we were hashing the *entire* DNA sequence from an individual, that might be enough information to be non-trivial even 200 years from now (an optimistic value-lifetime estimate). Or not. That'd remain a problem in such a setup.
But false positives aren't that big a deal, if you're thinking ahead.
And in many places (Michigan, Illinois) it doesn't require a fingerprint and they don't store the photograph except on the license.
Ironic that the places with *incredible* problems with machine politics are the ones whose policies are more protective of the citizenry, isn't it?
(Excepting of course the sad tendency of Chicago cops to get promoted for beating the heads of innocent citizens to a pulp, and the sad tendency of Detroit politicians to never have to actually *do* anything to improve their city and still getting re-elected.)
5% is usually good enough, but many commercial operations use 1% resistors quite a bit. We do, mostly due to the fact that we need to guarantee performance across the industrial temperature range, and a 1% resistor once you account for temperature, drift over life, and a couple other things winds up being strikingly close to a 5% resistor's nominal.
Hardly anyone plays... except for the Japanese and most of Latin America.