Electrical gates have an inherent gain in that they all use transistors, with the inputs to the gate being inputs to the transistors, and the outputs of the gate being whether or not the transistors flip on, allowing power to come from a power source to the output of the gate. This is why electrical gates all require an always on power input, sort of thing. But it avoids the whole friction/power loss problem.
If he built a switch (kinda like a transistor) out of LEGO and then used a motor to provide the power to the mechanical action of the devices, he could avoid the problem he's having with the lack of gain on the devices (after 3 or 4 devices in a row, the whole mechanism stops due to wobble room). But then it would be partly electrical, I grant you, since you gotta have a powered input of some type.
With some cleverness about arrangement, you could make the whole setup only require one motor, although using two or three would be more likely for ease of construction.
As far as I can tell, this can't damage the iPod's hardware, can it?
If you examine the firmware's code in detail, you'll find that when it boots for the first time (and only the first time) after updating/restore/etc., it reflashes the boot rom.
So in theory, a severely busted firmware could overwrite the flash rom and render the thing unbootable and impossible to fix, as you'd be unable to get it into disk mode to load new firmware on or possibly rendering it able to be forced into disk mode but unable to actually boot from the firmware in the first place to reflash the boot rom.
most folks have an attitude like yours "prove it to me, but don't ask me to learn anything new". Can't be done, if you won't learn the science, you won't, and it's pointless to argue with you.
Thankfully, most folks don't have an attitude like yours: "If you're not going to take my word for it, then fuck you". Sorry, but I don't take this sort of thing based on authority, and I have no interest in people who expect you to buck up without explaining why.
If you can't explain it in layman's terms, then you don't understand it. It's just that simple.
By the way, I personally do understand the science. That's the kind of guy I am. However, the conclusions by the actual science do not point toward any kind of impending catastrophe no matter how much you want them to.
Nevertheless, what the science actually says is not what I was arguing about *at all*, and since I can't seem to make you understand that, I'll just have to drop it. There's no point in arguing it any further. If you're not going to get it after 5 attempts, then I guess you're not going to get it.
Please pay more when you are reading, often one sentence builds on an idea initiated in the previous one. The science predicts the sea levels will rise and storms will get more violent, and the statement was discussing what people will blame it on if they reject the science.
But you have yet to show that these will indeed happen. This isn't a matter of rejecting the science or not, it's a matter of you're making claims that you cannot demonstrate will occur. Or at least, you have yet to demonstrate that this WILL occur. Not might occur, not could occur, WILL occur.
That's the whole bloody argument we're having here, man. Show that it will happen. Because if you can't, then nobody's going to buck up the funds or actually do anything in order to attempt to stop it. See?
Scientists are urging people to get ready for the effects of and perhaps try to reduce the pace of global warming because we're all "fucked" if we don't.
But that's what I'm TALKING about. These scientists may be wanting to do this, but they're certainly not going about it the right way.
If you want to show somebody something will happen, you need to explain it to them in a form that they will understand. That has not occurred. The fact that you get nonsensical arguments like in the original post shows that people don't understand it.
If you can't explain it to people properly, then nothing will get done about it. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand for the last 7 posts in the thread.
Re:Forget that, just install Linux on the thing.
on
Hacking the iPod Firmware
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But what kinda MP3 codec is running in Linux?
You're not making much sense, there. An MP3 decoder is an MP3 decoder. They're all the same. Some are faster or slower, but they all should produce identical output. MP3 encoders can vary, MP3 decoders cannot (short of implementation bugs, of course).
The MP3 decoder for the iPodLinux project isn't wholly finished yet because the kernel has some issues with the dual processors in the iPod. Work on making it faster is therefore progressing rather slowly. It's not yet suitable for public consumption, in other words. But for hacking around and trying stuff out, it's great.
And if you don't want to lose the use of your iPod, the installer can install dual boot. So that you can boot to the Apple firmware by default or boot to the Linux firmware by holding down a button at startup. Or vice-versa.:)
Well, for one thing, to write something better or more flexible than Apple's software. Apple's written a pretty good interface on the thing, but it's not all that. There's significant room for improvement.
But then, if you're not the hacker type, don't install Linux on the thing. Like I care what you do.
The public should care because a 3 foot sea level rise
Except that you haven't proven that sufficently to them. That's what I'm talking about.. Not "proof" in the scientific sense, but proof to the audience you're trying to reach. Most people think you're full of shit. Show them that you're not. Prove it to the lay audience. If you can't do that, then you're just fucked, eh?
the sea level rise and more violent storms are being caused by God to punish us and the solutions are religious ones, not ones based on reason.
The sea level has not risen. There are not more violent storms. If you can't even argue the FACTS of the matter, then you're not going to convince anybody.
And I agree, waiting until those things happen means it's too late. But lookie here, it has to proven, to me or anybody else, that these things will happen. Without the lame ass science. An experiment in a lab doesn't prove shit to me, the layman not versed in climatology. And no, I'm not about to take your word for it when we're discussing a "solution" that fundamentally changes our society.
And I'm an atheist, BTW.
If you leave the science out, then there is no argument
I didn't say leave the science out. I said *EXPLAIN* the science. In layman's terms. Convince the people you're trying to convince. Show me why you think you're right. Show the world.
But if all you can show is a lamp and a box full of gas and some really iffy and loose logic, don't be surprised when the world tells you "you're going to have do better than that".
Forget that, just install Linux on the thing.
on
Hacking the iPod Firmware
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Okay, so Linux isn't quite all there yet for the iPod, but progress is being made, more or less. You can put Linux on the thing and boot it and run apps and such anyway.
Far from it, in fact. I rely wholly on the scientific method. However, SCIENCE ISN'T WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE. How many times do I have to repeat that?
This isn't a science problem. This is a political problem. If you want *CHANGE* to occur, then you need to prove it to the PUBLIC. How hard is this to understand?
Historical observation can't convince you, laboratory experiments can't convince you, and observation of other systems can't convince you.
Historical observation doesn't support the theory, laboratory experiments don't show anything beyond the obvious, and observation of other systems doesn't provide any conclusive results.
But again, that's all about the SCIENCE, which, like I said, is irrelevant. You don't *NEED* to prove it scientifically. That's the whole POINT. That's what I'm trying to say.
What you need to do is provide a reason for the public to want to spend a bunch of cash to fix it. You have not provided them with that reason, and so they attack the shoddy science.
Now you're a science nerd, as am I. The general reaction to this sort of thing is to attempt to defend the science. What I'm telling you is that that approach will not work. It never will work. The reason it won't work is that the attacks being made ont he science are NOT BASED ON THE SCIENCE ITSELF. They're based on lack of understanding of the basic principles behind the science. They're based on lack of a REASON to spend all this cash towards a solution.
And this, in the end, is a political problem, not a scientific one.
I was just pointing out that the science for human effects on global warming (really the effects of rising atmospheric carbon levels) is as solid as the science for relativity...
I wholly disagree, however, that was not what I was trying to get at in the first place. What I was getting at was that the science is not the foundation that attacks on it are based on, and so answering those attacks directly is foolish in the extreme.
I'm not trying to convince you to spend billions on prevention rather than spending trillions on clean-up.
Then WTF are you responding to me at all? I'm talking specifically about spending and a political problem and the reasons behind the attacks that the original post was discussing, and you're talking about the scientific basis and such. Fuck the science. I don't *CARE* about the science. That's not what I'm talking about. That's never *been* what I'm talking about.
Of course no one's stock values depends on relativity being right or wrong.
Not relativity, no, but back in the early 40's, they sure did depend on somebody showing that E=MC^2 was on the money.
However, the principle that adding CO2 and hydrocarbons to a system that is warmed by radiant heat source will result in an increase in the overall temperature of that system is a "fact", it is "proven", it is "true".
So, in other words, you're not answering my original objections at all, you're setting up a straw man?
Show me a reason to want our country to spend a zillion dollars in order to save the world from global warming. If you paid attention, you have seen that that's what I was asking for in the first place.
Not your box and lamp experiment. That ain't "proof". That ain't even a good reason to go spend $5.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with science, not really. You need to do it using science, but you need to have "convincing science". In other words, you don't have to prove it, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Or perhaps even beyond an unreasonable doubt.
If you want the public to believe your theory, if you want the public to change it's ways, if you want them to spend cash to make a difference, then you need to prove it TO THEM. That doesn't mean you need absolute incontrovertible proof in the science aspect of it. But it does mean you need more than a box and a lamp.
Eg if adding green house gasses to a system which is heated by the sun (or a radiant heat source producing the same wavelengths as the sun) causes temperatures in the system to rise, global warming is as proven as relativity, given the limits of our ability to demonstrate large scale processes within controlled environments...
That's your proof? That's seriously the best you can do? Heat a box up with a lamp, shove some gas in there, note a slight variation in temperature, and then state that because of this we need to spend umpteen trillion dollars and completely change everything about our lives and the way our world economy works.
Wow. You're gonna have a long road ahead convincing people with that particular "proof".
You seem to be of the opinion that refuting nonsense will somehow help. It won't.
First, I agree that there's a lot of gibberish here, on both sides of the argument. But those who believe in the nonsense (some of what you posted, for example) aren't the type to be convince by refutations of that nonsense. So on this score, the effort is wasted.
Second, and most importantly in my mind, is that you don't prove a thing by refuting objections to that thing.
Here's why I don't buy global warming: It's insufficiently proven. You want to make me buy into it? Then PROVE it. That's all there is to it. You can spend all day showing links between this and that, and you can spend all night showing correlations and such. But until you actually provide some form of testable science, then I'm not going to buy your little theory.
Most science like, say, physics, attempts to describe reality as best it can. From this you can make predictions and then see if your theories bear out. From this, you can say that the theory is correct, or useful, or good. Longer term experimentation may modify the data and thus refine the theory and such.
But the whole climate change debacle fails this test. It's making predictions, however these predictions are tending to be of the gloom and doom variety and so you get people wanting to enact MASSIVE changes to prevent this sort of thing. Well, that's fine and understandable, but the problem is that you haven't shown your theories to be correct yet.
It's like a chain letter type of science. 30 people forwarded the letter and are not rich and powerful, while Joe Blow didn't and now lives in a van down by the river.
Show your theory is correct. Show it to the common man. Explain every little detail if you have to. Dumb it down if necessary. People accept Einstein's Relativity as being more or less true when they couldn't grasp the math for the life of them. But it's been explained and dumbed down and make simpler to get the word to the masses.
If I'm going to shoulder some form of monetary burden to fix this climate problem that is being whined about, then I damn well need to understand it. That's all there is to it. Explain it to me. In enough detail to convince me. I don't expect to have to go learn a hell of a lot of climatology to understand that a thing needs to be done, but I do need some explanation why.
Because very simply, that has not been done. You're asking the general non-scientific public to pay for change and this sort of pseudo-science you get back is a REACTION to the lack of understanding of the original theories and problems in the first place.
Refuting the objections themselves is not going to work because they aren't based on logic in the first place. They're based on lack of understanding of the original problem.
Take a few years making Discovery channel specials that explain the whole system in detail and watch those objections disappear. Then we can talk about taking action based on the theory.
leading to 100% unmaintainable code that all had to be scrapped some months later
Agreed, but the point of the puzzle wasn't to write maintainable code. I was just answering the given question. Sure, you could do it using recursion, but at the cost of readability and understanding.
It's not like a realistic problem anyway. I mean, you're limited to not using loops, which would be the most readable easy way to solve the problem. It didn't force recursion, and the most sensible, understandable, fastest, *easiest* way to solve the stated goals is to just hardcode the solution. Recursion, for this problem, is way overkill.
It's easier to just flip over a couple of the edge pieces. With even one of the edges reversed, it becomes unsolvable. Of course, if you do it to only one edge piece it's obviously messed up. Do it to 4 or 5 of them, and it's not quite so obvious.;)
Or give a couple of the corner pieces a clockwise rotation. That's even more evil.
Solutions to some of these...
on
Programming Puzzles
·
· Score: 4, Informative
1. Write a "Hello World" program in 'C' without using a semicolon.
void main() { if (printf("Hello World!\n") {} }
2. Write a C++ program without using any loop (if, for, while etc) to print numbers from 1 to 100 and 100 to 1;
Dumb....
void main() { printf("1\n2\n3\n... and so on..."); }
3. C/C++ : Exchange two numbers without using a temporary variable.
x^=y; y^=x; x^=y;
4. C/C++ : Find if the given number is a power of 2.
if (!( x & (x-1)) printf("x is a power of 2\n");
5. C/C++ : Multiply x by 7 without using multiplication (*) operator.
x = (x6. C/C++ : Write a function in different ways that will return f(7) = 4 and f(4) = 7
int function(int x) { switch (x) { case 7: return 4; case 4: return 7; } } Or countless other ways...
10. Convert (integer) number in binary without loops.
I assume you mean to print the binary form of an int without using loops. So I didn't use a loop, I used recursion.;)
"Cow orker" is the usual way to spell co-worker among the technonerd-set.
It's even in the Jargon file: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cow-orker.html
Quote from the Jargon File: cow orker: n.
[Usenet] n. fortuitous typo for co-worker, widely used in Usenet, with perhaps a hint that orking cows is illegal. This term was popularized by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) but already appears in the January 1996 version of the scary devil monastery FAQ, and has been traced back to a 1989 sig block. Compare hing, grilf, filk, newsfroup.
Well, most company type firewalls I've seen are setup to block everything incoming and outgoing except for stuff that has been specifically allowed to pass through. So the outgoing UDP packets just get blocked at the firewall.
I grant you that it's feasible to setup a firewall in a way that this would work and that some default settings on various firewall products might allow this approach to work. But I've never seen a firewall that didn't block most everything making it impossible to connect to the P2P network in the first place.
What happens then if you have two or more machines using the same UDP source port behind the NAT device?
Then it don't work no more. A good implementation of this in a P2P client would choose a port at random from some range and use that for all their direct communications.
Of course, the majority of P2P users behind NATs out there are just home users with a couple of PCs behind a single off the shelf NAT box (like most of those Linksys boxes). The goal is to make their clients able to punch through those implementations, vastly increasing the shared content (since a lot of these home users are too lazy or too ignorant to know how to forward a port on the box).
If you're knowledgable enough to forward a port for the P2P app, then this won't impact you. It does the same kind of thing as forwarding a port would.
UDP Hole Punching won't work on an actual "firewall". Instead it's meant to get through these home-type NAT boxes that people are calling firewalls but which really are not.
The problem with getting stuff across a NAT gateway is that communication must go through the NAT, and the NAT is generally configured to block incoming traffic unless it's expecting it.
See, NAT works by pretending to be you. When you go get a web page, you send a packet to a webserver. The NAT box, being your gateway, gets this packet, then sends out a reformatted packet of it's own to that webserver. It opens a return port to get the data from that webserver and this gets forwarded along to the receiving system. Basically you're changing the addresses used in both ways, so as to munge the thing between the private and public IP address space.
UDP works in a similar way, it's just modifying addresses going through the gateway. However, with UDP, usually the port number doesn't change. Meaning that when I send a packet out, I don't get to specify what port the responding host sends a return packet back to. I'm expected to know that it'll be coming back on the same port. So NAT deals with UDP pretty simply. The outgoing port and incoming port are the same. This is open to possible abuse, so most NAT boxes only forward packets from the original host back to the private network.
That's potentially confusing, so I'll use an example:
Computer A is behind a NAT. He sends a UDP packet to computer B on the public internet, on port 30000. The NAT munges the outgoing address and forwards it to computer B. Computer B sends back a UDP packet on port 30000. The NAT verifies that he is only allowing B to respond on that port, and sends the packet back to computer A. If computer C were to send something to the NAT on port 30000, it would be discarded by the NAT (not all NAT's do this, some allow anything in for a short time instead).
In the case where only one system is behind a NAT, this is easy to solve. The computer behind the NAT must initiate the connection. That's all there is to it. Computer A initiating the connection makes it possible for the NAT to send stuff back to computer A, and so all is good.
In the case where both computers A and B are behind their own NAT, suddenly they have no way to talk to each other. Anything A sends to B gets dropped by B's NAT, and anything B sends to A gets dropped by A's NAT. The only fix for this has been port forwarding, which manually punches a hole in one or both NAT devices.
UDP Hole Punching exploits the UDP behavior of NAT devices to allow A and B to communicate directly without any port forwarding being needed. It works like this:
Computer A sends a UDP packet to computer B on port 30000. This act opens the hole in the NAT for B to talk to A on port 30000. At the same time, A sends a packet to Server S on the P2P network. This packet basically asks computer B to send something to computer A on port 30000. Server S routes the packet to computer B over the already setup P2P network. Computer B then sends something to computer A on the given port, and they can now talk directly and setup other ports if they likee by this single channel of communication that they have gotten open.
And that's all it is, really. Just a way of using an intermediary that can talk to both A and B (via the already established P2P routing) to allow them to talk directly. Nothing particularly tricky.
Why UDP? Because UDP doesn't get the port changed by the NAT. TCP connections over a NAT usually get ports munged by the NAT without informing the computer behind the NAT. That's part of the "transparency" portion of NAT. The less tricky behavior of UDP on a NAT device makes this possible.
A typical cable connection is 128Kbps up/10Mbps down , ADSL is 128Kbps up as well. This would result in tremendously slow downloads.
Typical in the US is something more like 256 K up, and between 2-4 Meg down, for a cable connection. DSL varies wildly, but cable is fairly consistent.
The CCD sensor array in a digital camera is sensitive to IR light. This is easily shown.. Take your webcam, plug it in and get it to display what it sees on your computer screen. Point an IR remote control at it and hit a button. You'll see a white/red flash on the camera's output.
CCD's see IR, people don't. So if they flood the room with IR from several locations, it'll ruin any digital recording devices ability to see the film without affecting your ability to see it. This works for all camcorders, more or less.
You could use a lens that filters the IR out to prevent this from working though, and it's a short step to figuring that out too.
As far as the detection portion of that goes, I have no idea how that would work.
therefore the average information content of a single prime is obviously zero
From this it follows that the entire information content of all the primes is also zero, and anybody you may meet who thinks differently is merely the product of a deranged imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
Electrical gates have an inherent gain in that they all use transistors, with the inputs to the gate being inputs to the transistors, and the outputs of the gate being whether or not the transistors flip on, allowing power to come from a power source to the output of the gate. This is why electrical gates all require an always on power input, sort of thing. But it avoids the whole friction/power loss problem.
If he built a switch (kinda like a transistor) out of LEGO and then used a motor to provide the power to the mechanical action of the devices, he could avoid the problem he's having with the lack of gain on the devices (after 3 or 4 devices in a row, the whole mechanism stops due to wobble room). But then it would be partly electrical, I grant you, since you gotta have a powered input of some type.
With some cleverness about arrangement, you could make the whole setup only require one motor, although using two or three would be more likely for ease of construction.
As far as I can tell, this can't damage the iPod's hardware, can it?
If you examine the firmware's code in detail, you'll find that when it boots for the first time (and only the first time) after updating/restore/etc., it reflashes the boot rom.
So in theory, a severely busted firmware could overwrite the flash rom and render the thing unbootable and impossible to fix, as you'd be unable to get it into disk mode to load new firmware on or possibly rendering it able to be forced into disk mode but unable to actually boot from the firmware in the first place to reflash the boot rom.
most folks have an attitude like yours "prove it to me, but don't ask me to learn anything new". Can't be done, if you won't learn the science, you won't, and it's pointless to argue with you.
Thankfully, most folks don't have an attitude like yours: "If you're not going to take my word for it, then fuck you". Sorry, but I don't take this sort of thing based on authority, and I have no interest in people who expect you to buck up without explaining why.
If you can't explain it in layman's terms, then you don't understand it. It's just that simple.
By the way, I personally do understand the science. That's the kind of guy I am. However, the conclusions by the actual science do not point toward any kind of impending catastrophe no matter how much you want them to.
Nevertheless, what the science actually says is not what I was arguing about *at all*, and since I can't seem to make you understand that, I'll just have to drop it. There's no point in arguing it any further. If you're not going to get it after 5 attempts, then I guess you're not going to get it.
Please pay more when you are reading, often one sentence builds on an idea initiated in the previous one. The science predicts the sea levels will rise and storms will get more violent, and the statement was discussing what people will blame it on if they reject the science.
But you have yet to show that these will indeed happen. This isn't a matter of rejecting the science or not, it's a matter of you're making claims that you cannot demonstrate will occur. Or at least, you have yet to demonstrate that this WILL occur. Not might occur, not could occur, WILL occur.
That's the whole bloody argument we're having here, man. Show that it will happen. Because if you can't, then nobody's going to buck up the funds or actually do anything in order to attempt to stop it. See?
Scientists are urging people to get ready for the effects of and perhaps try to reduce the pace of global warming because we're all "fucked" if we don't.
But that's what I'm TALKING about. These scientists may be wanting to do this, but they're certainly not going about it the right way.
If you want to show somebody something will happen, you need to explain it to them in a form that they will understand. That has not occurred. The fact that you get nonsensical arguments like in the original post shows that people don't understand it.
If you can't explain it to people properly, then nothing will get done about it. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand for the last 7 posts in the thread.
But what kinda MP3 codec is running in Linux?
:)
You're not making much sense, there. An MP3 decoder is an MP3 decoder. They're all the same. Some are faster or slower, but they all should produce identical output. MP3 encoders can vary, MP3 decoders cannot (short of implementation bugs, of course).
The MP3 decoder for the iPodLinux project isn't wholly finished yet because the kernel has some issues with the dual processors in the iPod. Work on making it faster is therefore progressing rather slowly. It's not yet suitable for public consumption, in other words. But for hacking around and trying stuff out, it's great.
And if you don't want to lose the use of your iPod, the installer can install dual boot. So that you can boot to the Apple firmware by default or boot to the Linux firmware by holding down a button at startup. Or vice-versa.
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?
Well, for one thing, to write something better or more flexible than Apple's software. Apple's written a pretty good interface on the thing, but it's not all that. There's significant room for improvement.
But then, if you're not the hacker type, don't install Linux on the thing. Like I care what you do.
The public should care because a 3 foot sea level rise
Except that you haven't proven that sufficently to them. That's what I'm talking about.. Not "proof" in the scientific sense, but proof to the audience you're trying to reach. Most people think you're full of shit. Show them that you're not. Prove it to the lay audience. If you can't do that, then you're just fucked, eh?
the sea level rise and more violent storms are being caused by God to punish us and the solutions are religious ones, not ones based on reason.
The sea level has not risen. There are not more violent storms. If you can't even argue the FACTS of the matter, then you're not going to convince anybody.
And I agree, waiting until those things happen means it's too late. But lookie here, it has to proven, to me or anybody else, that these things will happen. Without the lame ass science. An experiment in a lab doesn't prove shit to me, the layman not versed in climatology. And no, I'm not about to take your word for it when we're discussing a "solution" that fundamentally changes our society.
And I'm an atheist, BTW.
If you leave the science out, then there is no argument
I didn't say leave the science out. I said *EXPLAIN* the science. In layman's terms. Convince the people you're trying to convince. Show me why you think you're right. Show the world.
But if all you can show is a lamp and a box full of gas and some really iffy and loose logic, don't be surprised when the world tells you "you're going to have do better than that".
Okay, so Linux isn't quite all there yet for the iPod, but progress is being made, more or less. You can put Linux on the thing and boot it and run apps and such anyway.
iPodLinux.org
Because you have rejected the scientific method.
Far from it, in fact. I rely wholly on the scientific method. However, SCIENCE ISN'T WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE. How many times do I have to repeat that?
This isn't a science problem. This is a political problem. If you want *CHANGE* to occur, then you need to prove it to the PUBLIC. How hard is this to understand?
Historical observation can't convince you, laboratory experiments can't convince you, and observation of other systems can't convince you.
Historical observation doesn't support the theory, laboratory experiments don't show anything beyond the obvious, and observation of other systems doesn't provide any conclusive results.
But again, that's all about the SCIENCE, which, like I said, is irrelevant. You don't *NEED* to prove it scientifically. That's the whole POINT. That's what I'm trying to say.
What you need to do is provide a reason for the public to want to spend a bunch of cash to fix it. You have not provided them with that reason, and so they attack the shoddy science.
Now you're a science nerd, as am I. The general reaction to this sort of thing is to attempt to defend the science. What I'm telling you is that that approach will not work. It never will work. The reason it won't work is that the attacks being made ont he science are NOT BASED ON THE SCIENCE ITSELF. They're based on lack of understanding of the basic principles behind the science. They're based on lack of a REASON to spend all this cash towards a solution.
And this, in the end, is a political problem, not a scientific one.
I was just pointing out that the science for human effects on global warming (really the effects of rising atmospheric carbon levels) is as solid as the science for relativity...
I wholly disagree, however, that was not what I was trying to get at in the first place. What I was getting at was that the science is not the foundation that attacks on it are based on, and so answering those attacks directly is foolish in the extreme.
I'm not trying to convince you to spend billions on prevention rather than spending trillions on clean-up.
Then WTF are you responding to me at all? I'm talking specifically about spending and a political problem and the reasons behind the attacks that the original post was discussing, and you're talking about the scientific basis and such. Fuck the science. I don't *CARE* about the science. That's not what I'm talking about. That's never *been* what I'm talking about.
Of course no one's stock values depends on relativity being right or wrong.
Not relativity, no, but back in the early 40's, they sure did depend on somebody showing that E=MC^2 was on the money.
However, the principle that adding CO2 and hydrocarbons to a system that is warmed by radiant heat source will result in an increase in the overall temperature of that system is a "fact", it is "proven", it is "true".
So, in other words, you're not answering my original objections at all, you're setting up a straw man?
Show me a reason to want our country to spend a zillion dollars in order to save the world from global warming. If you paid attention, you have seen that that's what I was asking for in the first place.
Not your box and lamp experiment. That ain't "proof". That ain't even a good reason to go spend $5.
What I'm saying has nothing to do with science, not really. You need to do it using science, but you need to have "convincing science". In other words, you don't have to prove it, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Or perhaps even beyond an unreasonable doubt.
If you want the public to believe your theory, if you want the public to change it's ways, if you want them to spend cash to make a difference, then you need to prove it TO THEM. That doesn't mean you need absolute incontrovertible proof in the science aspect of it. But it does mean you need more than a box and a lamp.
Eg if adding green house gasses to a system which is heated by the sun (or a radiant heat source producing the same wavelengths as the sun) causes temperatures in the system to rise, global warming is as proven as relativity, given the limits of our ability to demonstrate large scale processes within controlled environments...
That's your proof? That's seriously the best you can do? Heat a box up with a lamp, shove some gas in there, note a slight variation in temperature, and then state that because of this we need to spend umpteen trillion dollars and completely change everything about our lives and the way our world economy works.
Wow. You're gonna have a long road ahead convincing people with that particular "proof".
You seem to be of the opinion that refuting nonsense will somehow help. It won't.
First, I agree that there's a lot of gibberish here, on both sides of the argument. But those who believe in the nonsense (some of what you posted, for example) aren't the type to be convince by refutations of that nonsense. So on this score, the effort is wasted.
Second, and most importantly in my mind, is that you don't prove a thing by refuting objections to that thing.
Here's why I don't buy global warming: It's insufficiently proven. You want to make me buy into it? Then PROVE it. That's all there is to it. You can spend all day showing links between this and that, and you can spend all night showing correlations and such. But until you actually provide some form of testable science, then I'm not going to buy your little theory.
Most science like, say, physics, attempts to describe reality as best it can. From this you can make predictions and then see if your theories bear out. From this, you can say that the theory is correct, or useful, or good. Longer term experimentation may modify the data and thus refine the theory and such.
But the whole climate change debacle fails this test. It's making predictions, however these predictions are tending to be of the gloom and doom variety and so you get people wanting to enact MASSIVE changes to prevent this sort of thing. Well, that's fine and understandable, but the problem is that you haven't shown your theories to be correct yet.
It's like a chain letter type of science. 30 people forwarded the letter and are not rich and powerful, while Joe Blow didn't and now lives in a van down by the river.
Show your theory is correct. Show it to the common man. Explain every little detail if you have to. Dumb it down if necessary. People accept Einstein's Relativity as being more or less true when they couldn't grasp the math for the life of them. But it's been explained and dumbed down and make simpler to get the word to the masses.
If I'm going to shoulder some form of monetary burden to fix this climate problem that is being whined about, then I damn well need to understand it. That's all there is to it. Explain it to me. In enough detail to convince me. I don't expect to have to go learn a hell of a lot of climatology to understand that a thing needs to be done, but I do need some explanation why.
Because very simply, that has not been done. You're asking the general non-scientific public to pay for change and this sort of pseudo-science you get back is a REACTION to the lack of understanding of the original theories and problems in the first place.
Refuting the objections themselves is not going to work because they aren't based on logic in the first place. They're based on lack of understanding of the original problem.
Take a few years making Discovery channel specials that explain the whole system in detail and watch those objections disappear. Then we can talk about taking action based on the theory.
leading to 100% unmaintainable code that all had to be scrapped some months later
Agreed, but the point of the puzzle wasn't to write maintainable code. I was just answering the given question. Sure, you could do it using recursion, but at the cost of readability and understanding.
It's not like a realistic problem anyway. I mean, you're limited to not using loops, which would be the most readable easy way to solve the problem. It didn't force recursion, and the most sensible, understandable, fastest, *easiest* way to solve the stated goals is to just hardcode the solution. Recursion, for this problem, is way overkill.
It's easier to just flip over a couple of the edge pieces. With even one of the edges reversed, it becomes unsolvable. Of course, if you do it to only one edge piece it's obviously messed up. Do it to 4 or 5 of them, and it's not quite so obvious. ;)
Or give a couple of the corner pieces a clockwise rotation. That's even more evil.
1. Write a "Hello World" program in 'C' without using a semicolon.
;)
void main()
{
if (printf("Hello World!\n") {}
}
2. Write a C++ program without using any loop (if, for, while etc) to print numbers from 1 to 100 and 100 to 1;
Dumb....
void main()
{
printf("1\n2\n3\n... and so on...");
}
3. C/C++ : Exchange two numbers without using a temporary variable.
x^=y; y^=x; x^=y;
4. C/C++ : Find if the given number is a power of 2.
if (!( x & (x-1)) printf("x is a power of 2\n");
5. C/C++ : Multiply x by 7 without using multiplication (*) operator.
x = (x6. C/C++ : Write a function in different ways that will return f(7) = 4 and f(4) = 7
int function(int x) {
switch (x)
{
case 7: return 4;
case 4: return 7;
}
}
Or countless other ways...
10. Convert (integer) number in binary without loops.
I assume you mean to print the binary form of an int without using loops. So I didn't use a loop, I used recursion.
void printbits(int x)
{
int n=x%2;
if(x>=2) printbits(x/2);
printf("%d", n);
}
13. Swap two numbers without using a third variable.
Same problem as #3 above.
That's enough for now...
"Cow orker" is the usual way to spell co-worker among the technonerd-set.
It's even in the Jargon file: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/cow-orker.html
Quote from the Jargon File:
cow orker: n.
[Usenet] n. fortuitous typo for co-worker, widely used in Usenet, with perhaps a hint that orking cows is illegal. This term was popularized by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) but already appears in the January 1996 version of the scary devil monastery FAQ, and has been traced back to a 1989 sig block. Compare hing, grilf, filk, newsfroup.
Well, most company type firewalls I've seen are setup to block everything incoming and outgoing except for stuff that has been specifically allowed to pass through. So the outgoing UDP packets just get blocked at the firewall.
I grant you that it's feasible to setup a firewall in a way that this would work and that some default settings on various firewall products might allow this approach to work. But I've never seen a firewall that didn't block most everything making it impossible to connect to the P2P network in the first place.
What happens then if you have two or more machines using the same UDP source port behind the NAT device?
Then it don't work no more. A good implementation of this in a P2P client would choose a port at random from some range and use that for all their direct communications.
Of course, the majority of P2P users behind NATs out there are just home users with a couple of PCs behind a single off the shelf NAT box (like most of those Linksys boxes). The goal is to make their clients able to punch through those implementations, vastly increasing the shared content (since a lot of these home users are too lazy or too ignorant to know how to forward a port on the box).
If you're knowledgable enough to forward a port for the P2P app, then this won't impact you. It does the same kind of thing as forwarding a port would.
The problem it's solving is actually with NAT, although it'll also apply to some kinda-weak firewalls.
UDP Hole Punching won't work on an actual "firewall". Instead it's meant to get through these home-type NAT boxes that people are calling firewalls but which really are not.
The problem with getting stuff across a NAT gateway is that communication must go through the NAT, and the NAT is generally configured to block incoming traffic unless it's expecting it.
See, NAT works by pretending to be you. When you go get a web page, you send a packet to a webserver. The NAT box, being your gateway, gets this packet, then sends out a reformatted packet of it's own to that webserver. It opens a return port to get the data from that webserver and this gets forwarded along to the receiving system. Basically you're changing the addresses used in both ways, so as to munge the thing between the private and public IP address space.
UDP works in a similar way, it's just modifying addresses going through the gateway. However, with UDP, usually the port number doesn't change. Meaning that when I send a packet out, I don't get to specify what port the responding host sends a return packet back to. I'm expected to know that it'll be coming back on the same port. So NAT deals with UDP pretty simply. The outgoing port and incoming port are the same. This is open to possible abuse, so most NAT boxes only forward packets from the original host back to the private network.
That's potentially confusing, so I'll use an example:
Computer A is behind a NAT. He sends a UDP packet to computer B on the public internet, on port 30000. The NAT munges the outgoing address and forwards it to computer B. Computer B sends back a UDP packet on port 30000. The NAT verifies that he is only allowing B to respond on that port, and sends the packet back to computer A. If computer C were to send something to the NAT on port 30000, it would be discarded by the NAT (not all NAT's do this, some allow anything in for a short time instead).
In the case where only one system is behind a NAT, this is easy to solve. The computer behind the NAT must initiate the connection. That's all there is to it. Computer A initiating the connection makes it possible for the NAT to send stuff back to computer A, and so all is good.
In the case where both computers A and B are behind their own NAT, suddenly they have no way to talk to each other. Anything A sends to B gets dropped by B's NAT, and anything B sends to A gets dropped by A's NAT. The only fix for this has been port forwarding, which manually punches a hole in one or both NAT devices.
UDP Hole Punching exploits the UDP behavior of NAT devices to allow A and B to communicate directly without any port forwarding being needed. It works like this:
Computer A sends a UDP packet to computer B on port 30000. This act opens the hole in the NAT for B to talk to A on port 30000. At the same time, A sends a packet to Server S on the P2P network. This packet basically asks computer B to send something to computer A on port 30000. Server S routes the packet to computer B over the already setup P2P network. Computer B then sends something to computer A on the given port, and they can now talk directly and setup other ports if they likee by this single channel of communication that they have gotten open.
And that's all it is, really. Just a way of using an intermediary that can talk to both A and B (via the already established P2P routing) to allow them to talk directly. Nothing particularly tricky.
Why UDP? Because UDP doesn't get the port changed by the NAT. TCP connections over a NAT usually get ports munged by the NAT without informing the computer behind the NAT. That's part of the "transparency" portion of NAT. The less tricky behavior of UDP on a NAT device makes this possible.
Try this: http://www.nforce.nl.nyud.net:8090/nfos/renderer/l s-black.php?id=79200
The real problem with Ethernet over smoke signals is when some bastard sends 0xFFFFFFFF and the blanket catches on fire.
A typical cable connection is 128Kbps up/10Mbps down , ADSL is 128Kbps up as well. This would result in tremendously slow downloads.
Typical in the US is something more like 256 K up, and between 2-4 Meg down, for a cable connection. DSL varies wildly, but cable is fairly consistent.
The CCD sensor array in a digital camera is sensitive to IR light. This is easily shown.. Take your webcam, plug it in and get it to display what it sees on your computer screen. Point an IR remote control at it and hit a button. You'll see a white/red flash on the camera's output.
CCD's see IR, people don't. So if they flood the room with IR from several locations, it'll ruin any digital recording devices ability to see the film without affecting your ability to see it. This works for all camcorders, more or less.
You could use a lens that filters the IR out to prevent this from working though, and it's a short step to figuring that out too.
As far as the detection portion of that goes, I have no idea how that would work.
therefore the average information content of a single prime is obviously zero
From this it follows that the entire information content of all the primes is also zero, and anybody you may meet who thinks differently is merely the product of a deranged imagination.