Me: It's hard to be more wrong with that one. You: You're the one who needs to check his history. The iMac shipped with USB in August 1998.
I.e. about 2 years after the PC industry, If my memory serves correctly. I know it was supported in Win95 service pack (not called that, obviously) 2.something, which would make it 1996. I remember I was using NT at the time, which didn't have support.
Anyway, Apple was _not_ ahead of the game when it came to USB. That was my point. The fact that they were also unable to get anything firewire out of the door until 3 years after the PC world was happily using USB does not reinforce the ggpp's exagerated point about apple leading the way technology-wise. Until now I actually thought Apple was swift in getting Firewire to market. Thank you for correcting my mistaken positive impression about them.
"the only thing people could get annoyed about is browsing speeds, and that has nothing to do with Apple anyway."
Apple apologist bullcrap. Apple will release, in 6 months time, something that has a tiny fraction of the speed of HSDPA, and you're claiming it's nothing to do with them. That's nothing but deluded. It's everything to do with Apple, as they're using a communications architecture that is positively medieval. I have browsed using HSDPA, EDGE, and GPRS, and I can assure you that if you're grabbing anything apart from tiny things, the data speeds are noticably different. (The latency on all of them is horrible, though, so tiny things are slow on all three.)
"Apple has been at the forefront of compatibility and standards adoption when it comes to interfaces - USB"
It's hard to be more wrong with that one.
Apple shunned USB in favour of FireWire, the reverse of intel. Both companies were nominally members of both standards bodies, but only pushed one. Apple not only took an absolute age to recognise that they had backed the wrong horse, but then repeated the error with the iPod, where again they favoured FireWire, and then were forced to recant and, after everyone else had it, stick USB on there instead.
Whole systems need to be certified. If there's a change anywhere then you need to recertify. However, there are shortcut procedures where your modifications are small - you basically have to tell them your modifications, the reasons for them, and why they won't affect what needs to be tested - and it's effectively a rubber-stamp job.
Certification is usually measured in years, or at least significant fractions thereof. Basically, you never pass first time, and so you'll have several attempts.
I agree with everything apart from the use of the words "election fraud". It's a violation of procedure, and a violation of trust, and is very serious. Quite what the correct legalistic term to use for such things is I don't know. Who knows - it might even be in TFA!
Side note in response to something furhter upthread - it's _impossible_ to say whether a full manual recount would change the outcome, as the only statistical indicator we have (3% of districts), was not unbiassed, as it should be. That's why the random sampling is so important. There _ought_ to be a clearly defined and independently verifiable protocol for the selection of the districts - it's very sloppy if there wasn't one.
It was even on Slashdot back in 2004, IIRC. But heck, this is slashdot
Here are Wang's papers on cracking hashes, which show the age of the cracks, from her webpage:
1)Xiaoyun Wang1, Hongbo Yu, Yiqun Lisa Yin, Efficient Collision Search Attacks on SHA-0,Crypto'05. 2)Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Yin, Hongbo Yu, Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1,Crypto'05. 3)Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Yin, Hongbo Yu, Collision Search Attacks on SHA1,2005. 4)Arjen Lenstra, Xiaoyun Wang,Benne de Weger, Colliding X.509 Certificates, E-print 2005. 5)Xiaoyun Wang, Collisions for Hash Functions MD4, MD5,HAVAL-128 and RIPEMD,Crypto'04,E-print. 6) X. Y. Wang, X. J. Lai etc, Cryptanalysis of the Hash Functions MD4 and RIPEMD, Eurocrypto’05. 7) X. Y. Wang, Hongbo Yu, How to Break MD5 and Other Hash Functions, Eurocrypto’05.
I believe in crypto 2004 she was given a standing ovation for her presentation, which is almost unheard of in the ultra-competative world of crypto.
You're the one who brought up the OED. My 'Obs.' was a direct response to that. I'm glad to see that you have perfectly demonstrated my initial prediction that you don't in fact know one end of a dictionary from the other.
The points you raised made little sense if you had read, and understood, my webpage. I therefore was expecting you to re-word them with the knowledge gleaned about my position from that webpage. The fact that you had already read the webpage, not understood what was thereon, and thence raised your points makes continuing this discussion utterly futile.
I don't see how you can say that something that remained publicly unknown for 10 years, and then retracted when it became known, can be described as 'blatant'.
Yes, it's obvious, as it's business. But MS were and are doing their best to try to pretend to be the friendly, helpful, forward-thinking face of the IT world, even if it's a complete fabrication.
Thank you, sir. I believe 5 years is the maximum any manufacturer is offering currently. I've never had a problem with any seagates, nor have I heard of any huge scandal surroundiung them.
Name a time when Seagate was ever involved in a scandel like the Hitachi deathstar/troublestar one.
I will never buy a Hitachi or Hitachi rebrand. My data is just too valuable to risk it to a company that can produce things with a ~30% failure rate. (Though from personal experience, it feels more like 50-60%, as I've had 3 fail on me.)
There's only one important question - what's the manufacturer's warrantee? That's them putting their money where their mouth is - everything else is just lies, damned lies, and manufacturer-selected statistics.
Jarai never told the prime number hunting community what tools he uses, so there's no way of judginghow much effort he's put into things. However, an off-the-shelf FFT is within a factor of 2 of the absolute fastest, so in the end all that really matters is how many modern CPUs you can throw at the task. I don't suppose Jarai happens to have access to university labs full of computers, does he?
Slashdot Mirror
_and_ diamond is known for hardness, not either of the above.
The usual popular science mangling of terms has taken place. Just like wavefronts travelling faster than the speed of light becoming 'waves'.
Resistance to bending. Not what diamond's known for.
Osmium is stiffer than diamond.
Article and summary are a bit mangled with their use of terminology.
In English, rather than American English, the words are almost exactly reversed.
Nerds are smarties, geeks are asocial gimps.
speed scales inversely with the square root of permittivity*permeability.
The internet is a network of networks. Pull the plug on Angola's. Things like UDPs have worked in the past.
Me: It's hard to be more wrong with that one.
You: You're the one who needs to check his history. The iMac shipped with USB in August 1998.
I.e. about 2 years after the PC industry, If my memory serves correctly. I know it was supported in Win95 service pack (not called that, obviously) 2.something, which would make it 1996. I remember I was using NT at the time, which didn't have support.
Anyway, Apple was _not_ ahead of the game when it came to USB. That was my point. The fact that they were also unable to get anything firewire out of the door until 3 years after the PC world was happily using USB does not reinforce the ggpp's exagerated point about apple leading the way technology-wise. Until now I actually thought Apple was swift in getting Firewire to market. Thank you for correcting my mistaken positive impression about them.
"the only thing people could get annoyed about is browsing speeds, and that has nothing to do with Apple anyway."
Apple apologist bullcrap. Apple will release, in 6 months time, something that has a tiny fraction of the speed of HSDPA, and you're claiming it's nothing to do with them. That's nothing but deluded. It's everything to do with Apple, as they're using a communications architecture that is positively medieval. I have browsed using HSDPA, EDGE, and GPRS, and I can assure you that if you're grabbing anything apart from tiny things, the data speeds are noticably different. (The latency on all of them is horrible, though, so tiny things are slow on all three.)
"This is what passes for logic these days?"
Yes, but no, but yes, but no, but Steve Jobs is an idiot. Whatever.
Kramer's his old handle - he's now "fucking cracker-assed motherfucker" to his friends.
"Apple has been at the forefront of compatibility and standards adoption when it comes to interfaces - USB"
It's hard to be more wrong with that one.
Apple shunned USB in favour of FireWire, the reverse of intel. Both companies were nominally members of both standards bodies, but only pushed one. Apple not only took an absolute age to recognise that they had backed the wrong horse, but then repeated the error with the iPod, where again they favoured FireWire, and then were forced to recant and, after everyone else had it, stick USB on there instead.
Whole systems need to be certified. If there's a change anywhere then you need to recertify. However, there are shortcut procedures where your modifications are small - you basically have to tell them your modifications, the reasons for them, and why they won't affect what needs to be tested - and it's effectively a rubber-stamp job.
Certification is usually measured in years, or at least significant fractions thereof. Basically, you never pass first time, and so you'll have several attempts.
I agree with everything apart from the use of the words "election fraud".
It's a violation of procedure, and a violation of trust, and is very serious. Quite what the correct legalistic term to use for such things is I don't know. Who knows - it might even be in TFA!
Side note in response to something furhter upthread - it's _impossible_ to say whether a full manual recount would change the outcome, as the only statistical indicator we have (3% of districts), was not unbiassed, as it should be. That's why the random sampling is so important. There _ought_ to be a clearly defined and independently verifiable protocol for the selection of the districts - it's very sloppy if there wasn't one.
It was even on Slashdot back in 2004, IIRC. But heck, this is slashdot
Here are Wang's papers on cracking hashes, which show the age of the cracks, from her webpage:
1)Xiaoyun Wang1, Hongbo Yu, Yiqun Lisa Yin, Efficient Collision Search Attacks on SHA-0,Crypto'05.
2)Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Yin, Hongbo Yu, Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1,Crypto'05.
3)Xiaoyun Wang, Yiqun Yin, Hongbo Yu, Collision Search Attacks on SHA1,2005.
4)Arjen Lenstra, Xiaoyun Wang,Benne de Weger, Colliding X.509 Certificates, E-print 2005.
5)Xiaoyun Wang, Collisions for Hash Functions MD4, MD5,HAVAL-128 and RIPEMD,Crypto'04,E-print.
6) X. Y. Wang, X. J. Lai etc, Cryptanalysis of the Hash Functions MD4 and RIPEMD, Eurocrypto’05.
7) X. Y. Wang, Hongbo Yu, How to Break MD5 and Other Hash Functions, Eurocrypto’05.
I believe in crypto 2004 she was given a standing ovation for her presentation, which is almost unheard of in the ultra-competative world of crypto.
You're the one who brought up the OED. My 'Obs.' was a direct response to that. I'm glad to see that you have perfectly demonstrated my initial prediction that you don't in fact know one end of a dictionary from the other.
The points you raised made little sense if you had read, and understood, my webpage. I therefore was expecting you to re-word them with the knowledge gleaned about my position from that webpage. The fact that you had already read the webpage, not understood what was thereon, and thence raised your points makes continuing this discussion utterly futile.
Yes, and such paid-for sections of the paper should be clearly recognisable as adverts.
Personally I think the "Advertisment" marker should be in the same point size as the largest used in the advert itself, lest it get lost.
Why didn't he use the term "foot soldiers" instead?
Pawns is such a loaded term he'd have to be completely ignorant to accidentally use it.
Then again, he was a MS evangelist/apologist, so ignorance does come with the territory.
I don't see how you can say that something that remained publicly unknown for 10 years, and then retracted when it became known, can be described as 'blatant'.
Yes, it's obvious, as it's business. But MS were and are doing their best to try to pretend to be the friendly, helpful, forward-thinking face of the IT world, even if it's a complete fabrication.
Oh, dear, you're too stupid to know what "Obs." means.
Sorry, you've just become "Obs." yourself.
Did you read my page? It appears you've not addressed any of the points therein.
And time is spelt 'time', not 'tyme'. Misspelling it is not cute, or anything.
Thank you, sir. I believe 5 years is the maximum any manufacturer is offering currently.
I've never had a problem with any seagates, nor have I heard of any huge scandal surroundiung them.
Name a time when Seagate was ever involved in a scandel like the Hitachi deathstar/troublestar one.
I will never buy a Hitachi or Hitachi rebrand. My data is just too valuable to risk it to a company that can produce things with a ~30% failure rate. (Though from personal experience, it feels more like 50-60%, as I've had 3 fail on me.)
There's only one important question - what's the manufacturer's warrantee?
That's them putting their money where their mouth is - everything else is just lies, damned lies, and manufacturer-selected statistics.
FatPhil
OK, thread got detached due to score<1 posts.
Jarai never told the prime number hunting community what tools he uses, so there's no way of judginghow much effort he's put into things. However, an off-the-shelf FFT is within a factor of 2 of the absolute fastest, so in the end all that really matters is how many modern CPUs you can throw at the task. I don't suppose Jarai happens to have access to university labs full of computers, does he?
It doesn't need to be forbidden on 770s etc. - They're ARM cores, not x86, and this release is x86 only.
Which means my linux/ppc and linux/alpha boxes will just have to survive without flash - I'm so gutted.
Not really.
George Woltmann wrote and optimised code (the FFT).
Paul Jobling wrote and optimised code (the sieve).
No-one else really did anything of any coding significance, as far as I know.
I client-server setup does not count. They're a dime a dozen.
However, it was a good organisational effort, and I support their aims.