I _dare_ you to use the word 'milliard' wherever you see 10^9.
If you look at a lot of European languages, the native word for 10^9 is of the same root as the English 'milliard', so there are hundreds of millions of people who ought to understand you. If they don't, tell them to look it up in a dictionary - you've done them a favour, you've educated them.
Planks may think you're an arsehole for using the word, but in my case that's probably true, so I don't care:-)
OK, it has been tried.
It doesn't always suceed though, which is why we have issues like DeCSS and IE's "encrypted" password caches. Similarly there's good old fashioned reverse engineering of things like the IBM PC BIOS etc.
Exactly the opposite.
Patents are an "if you tell the world how you did it, we'll ensure they pay you for use of that information" type deal.
The other option is keeping everything hush-hush, and trying to be the only one that does something by the others not finding out how.
The latter hasn't been tried for decades
Katakana looks the closest, but we were using a very modern-looking font, not as "brush-stroke-like" as the examples I've found.
I'll assume it was Katakana henceforth.
OK, I couldn't see the support clearly. However, what I did see was not just the shadows, but the shadows moving _in the opposite direction_ to the hand moving. That means that the shadows are falling onto something solid, and that the image we are seeing is the virtual image of that solid thing. _Exactly_ like those coin/mirror things in magic shops.
Their own video has convinced me of its fakeness.
I guess all that they really want is funding, and then they'll do a runner with the money...
Kanji is a reduced character set (woo less than a hundred IIRC) which can be used to represent Chinese and Japanese. There are at least two other character sets used to represent Chinese, which are considerably larger.
Requiring less detail simply to be distinguishable, Kanji can be far prettier than the other two. I should know as I once had to port our videophone menus to it for a huge Japanese client!
FatPhil
Please post a link inside the site - I can't do shockwave in order to get to the things you talk about. To me it's just a static page with one downloadable pdf file.
I remember, ~20 years ago or more, seeing a pair of facing concave mirrors, the downward facing one of which was annular and a coin sat at the bottom of the lower one. The mirror pair created a virtual image of the coin _above_ the device.
Do a few search/replaces, and the story seems remarkably similar.
They are complaining about the use of the Chinese characters. Imagine if Germany forbade the use of umlauts* in domain names. It sounds impossible to ban. It sounds as if the CCNIC are confused:
"Chinese domain names should be entirely in Chinese," Mao said. "Adding a '.com' is just a temporary method."
Hmm, I don't know why I quoted that bit, I don't understand what he's getting at. But maybe that's my point - htey don't understand what they're trying to do either.
Whatever,
FP.
(*I know what an umlaut really is, linguists out there, but most people know the additional diacriticals as them as umlauts)
"we have expanded our fee-based Business Express program to cover all submissions to our main commercial categories - namely anything under our.com domain" A spokesperson for Yahoo.com said today.
I can't judge what she's read, but I can judge the write-up in the popular science journal. If the author approves the write-up and I believe that the write-up shows weaknesses in the argument, then either (i) there are weaknesses in the argument or (ii) the author doesn't have the wit to see the more cynical views that could be applied. Either way reflects badly on said author. However, if the author hasn't seen pre-published copy, then the journal is shown in bad light, in my view.
"
Here's a brute-force attack: play the music and re-record it. Do it multiple times and use DSP technology to combine the recordings and eliminate noise.
"
I don't read that to be an iterative process. I understand that to mean he plays the watermarked original multiple times. He treats the recordings as peers, not as different generations.
It ought to be clarified though.
There once was a company called Nokia with an office in Cambridge (the original one, of course), whose sysadmins would run a script over the HTTP requests out of the site each day. The script was something along the lines of
egrep '(tit|bum|fanny|minge|knob)' http.log
Now those who were in the know would be sent a copy of todays best GETs, those were the days...
Sorry, I have to side with Bruce Schneier here.
On the assumtion that digital signitures are supposed to be inaudible, each sufficiently high quality analogue conversion of the digital signal will approximate the digital version with a zero-meaned error function.
The strong law of big numbers (Grimmet, G.,R., and Stirzaker, D., R.: Probability and Random Processes was our course book) proves that a large enough sample of these analogue versions will provide an approximation to the original with an arbitrarily small error.
Remember though, as I said already, _one_ analogue version is supposed to be indestinguishable from the original. The method Bruce Schneier recommends is overkill.
I don't mean to jump on you, what you've said expresses the confusion that there is in nomenclature vvery well. However, if I can pick at one line, it would be:
"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the rendering portion as a "client," since it connects to another computer, requests data, and renders that data
"
Nope, the rendering portion is always a server.
The xterm program is a client, as it requests that the server display/undisplay something. What you see on the screen is a virtual client, the thing running on the (maybe) remote machine, and displayed by the local server. The client asks the server to pass back events to it (mouse move, click, keyboard events etc). Again, that's a service provided by the server.
e.g. When the server sends "middle mouse click on object 10001", it's not actually a _request_ for xv (say) to do something (i.e. xv the program is not the server, and the X display is not a client), it's a _response_ to the "keep me informed about mouse clicks" request made by/usr/bin/xv (i.e. the server is responding to the client).
The problem is that people view what's going on from the viewpoint of the User, which is always a client of the.exe (so to speak), so they view the.exe as a server. Which iit is for the user. However when talking _process_ interaction, the X server is really the server, and the X clients really are clients.
HTH.
FatPhil
P.S. I use 'X' as an abbrieviated form of 'The X Windowning System' and if some trademark owner doesn't like that they can blow my imaginary pet dog.:-)
Alas these weren't all the best examples.
As just another perl hacker I found the best of show truly pathetic. The rest were fairly readable as soon as you'd put a few newlines in.
The quality is lower than the IOCCC, certainly, but I think that is because Perl is inherantly noisier (as in SNR) if you use all the inbuilt features, so people go to less effort to make it ugly, it's most of the way there already.
Truly obfuscated Perl uses an unfathomable algorithm as well as undecipherable presentation.
Yeah, that's the way to do it.
I have a perfectly working 486/33 with all the bits except a case, I've been told a student is using it as his houses linux print-server or something. I charged him $0 for it, he charged me $0 to take it off my hands, we're both happy.
Phil
Re:Who cares about practicality - look at the size
on
Firewall On A PCI card
·
· Score: 1
Livingstone Portmaster IRX Router:
25*5*38?cm (assuming my span is 20cm). Probably a single 68360 and about 2M RAM, 512K ROM, similar flash, and a couple of custom ASICS. Oh - and 4 rubber feet at the bottom. Yuppers, this aint no rackmount. And yes, it runs in a wardrobe.
i.e. there's about a quarter of the kit that we (where I work) shove on a single slot (2*15*25cm?) in out access multiplexer subracks. And we have no fans.
Trust me, they charge you for the software license and the name on the box more than the hardware.
It's the TV size principle. Big is good. Small is good. Anything in between can't be any good.
When I first got my Cisco 2501 (OK, 1U rackmount) I opened it up and just laughed. _cigarette packet_ is the correct size for one of those.
Slashdot Mirror
I _dare_ you to use the word 'milliard' wherever you see 10^9.
:-)
If you look at a lot of European languages, the native word for 10^9 is of the same root as the English 'milliard', so there are hundreds of millions of people who ought to understand you. If they don't, tell them to look it up in a dictionary - you've done them a favour, you've educated them.
Planks may think you're an arsehole for using the word, but in my case that's probably true, so I don't care
FatPhil
OK, it has been tried.
It doesn't always suceed though, which is why we have issues like DeCSS and IE's "encrypted" password caches. Similarly there's good old fashioned reverse engineering of things like the IBM PC BIOS etc.
Exactly the opposite.
Patents are an "if you tell the world how you did it, we'll ensure they pay you for use of that information" type deal.
The other option is keeping everything hush-hush, and trying to be the only one that does something by the others not finding out how.
The latter hasn't been tried for decades
Phil
Katakana looks the closest, but we were using a very modern-looking font, not as "brush-stroke-like" as the examples I've found.
I'll assume it was Katakana henceforth.
FP
You are absolutely right. I've just done a web-search for some kanji, and it sure as hell isn't what I was displaying on our videophone.
Having said that the names "hiragana" and "katakana" really don't ring any bells either.
Hmm, Thanks for responding, I'm more enlightened now, but also more confused!
FatPhil
OK, I couldn't see the support clearly. However, what I did see was not just the shadows, but the shadows moving _in the opposite direction_ to the hand moving. That means that the shadows are falling onto something solid, and that the image we are seeing is the virtual image of that solid thing. _Exactly_ like those coin/mirror things in magic shops.
Their own video has convinced me of its fakeness.
I guess all that they really want is funding, and then they'll do a runner with the money...
Yes I'm a fscking cynic.
FatPhil
Kanji is a reduced character set (woo less than a hundred IIRC) which can be used to represent Chinese and Japanese. There are at least two other character sets used to represent Chinese, which are considerably larger.
Requiring less detail simply to be distinguishable, Kanji can be far prettier than the other two. I should know as I once had to port our videophone menus to it for a huge Japanese client!
FatPhil
Please post a link inside the site - I can't do shockwave in order to get to the things you talk about. To me it's just a static page with one downloadable pdf file.
I remember, ~20 years ago or more, seeing a pair of facing concave mirrors, the downward facing one of which was annular and a coin sat at the bottom of the lower one. The mirror pair created a virtual image of the coin _above_ the device.
Do a few search/replaces, and the story seems remarkably similar.
FP
They are complaining about the use of the Chinese characters. Imagine if Germany forbade the use of umlauts* in domain names. It sounds impossible to ban. It sounds as if the CCNIC are confused:
"Chinese domain names should be entirely in Chinese," Mao said. "Adding a '.com' is just a temporary method."
Hmm, I don't know why I quoted that bit, I don't understand what he's getting at. But maybe that's my point - htey don't understand what they're trying to do either.
Whatever,
FP.
(*I know what an umlaut really is, linguists out there, but most people know the additional diacriticals as them as umlauts)
Nope, you get the original digital signal passed through a mid-pass filter.
"we have expanded our fee-based Business Express program to cover all submissions to our main commercial categories - namely anything under our .com domain" A spokesperson for Yahoo.com said today.
FP
I can't judge what she's read, but I can judge the write-up in the popular science journal. If the author approves the write-up and I believe that the write-up shows weaknesses in the argument, then either (i) there are weaknesses in the argument or (ii) the author doesn't have the wit to see the more cynical views that could be applied. Either way reflects badly on said author. However, if the author hasn't seen pre-published copy, then the journal is shown in bad light, in my view.
I retain my right to be cynical, whatever.
FatPhil
"
Here's a brute-force attack: play the music and re-record it. Do it multiple times and use DSP technology to combine the recordings and eliminate noise.
"
I don't read that to be an iterative process. I understand that to mean he plays the watermarked original multiple times. He treats the recordings as peers, not as different generations.
It ought to be clarified though.
FatPhil
NetNanny blocks:
http://alan.TITchmarsh.com/
(He's a BBC garden program host)
http://BRAvo.com
(a cable TV channel)
and God knows what else.
I was bored one day, grepped a dictionary for 'naughty' words embedded in real words, and 90% of them got blocked!
wristwatch -> twat
Matsushita -> shit
skyscraper -> crap
Marseilles -> arse
etc...
There once was a company called Nokia with an office in Cambridge (the original one, of course), whose sysadmins would run a script over the HTTP requests out of the site each day. The script was something along the lines of
s /brian/hairy/beaver.html
egrep '(tit|bum|fanny|minge|knob)' http.log
Now those who were in the know would be sent a copy of todays best GETs, those were the days...
I remember a mate trying
http://pussy.bonk.org/willy/are/you/getting/thi
FatPhil
At karma-cap, please moderate as "troll" so I can start noticing when I've earned the points again.
Sorry, I have to side with Bruce Schneier here.
On the assumtion that digital signitures are supposed to be inaudible, each sufficiently high quality analogue conversion of the digital signal will approximate the digital version with a zero-meaned error function.
The strong law of big numbers (Grimmet, G.,R., and Stirzaker, D., R.: Probability and Random Processes was our course book) proves that a large enough sample of these analogue versions will provide an approximation to the original with an arbitrarily small error.
Remember though, as I said already, _one_ analogue version is supposed to be indestinguishable from the original. The method Bruce Schneier recommends is overkill.
Phil
I'll mail you a copy if you mail me a copy, ad infinitem...
FatPhil
As long as you can play "The Incredible Machine", nothing else matters!
:-(
Anyone else remember that? Anyone got the full version of the game? lost mine several hard disks ago
FatPhil
I don't mean to jump on you, what you've said expresses the confusion that there is in nomenclature vvery well. However, if I can pick at one line, it would be:
/usr/bin/xv (i.e. the server is responding to the client).
.exe (so to speak), so they view the .exe as a server. Which iit is for the user. However when talking _process_ interaction, the X server is really the server, and the X clients really are clients.
:-)
"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the rendering portion as a "client," since it connects to another computer, requests data, and renders that data
"
Nope, the rendering portion is always a server.
The xterm program is a client, as it requests that the server display/undisplay something. What you see on the screen is a virtual client, the thing running on the (maybe) remote machine, and displayed by the local server. The client asks the server to pass back events to it (mouse move, click, keyboard events etc). Again, that's a service provided by the server.
e.g. When the server sends "middle mouse click on object 10001", it's not actually a _request_ for xv (say) to do something (i.e. xv the program is not the server, and the X display is not a client), it's a _response_ to the "keep me informed about mouse clicks" request made by
The problem is that people view what's going on from the viewpoint of the User, which is always a client of the
HTH.
FatPhil
P.S. I use 'X' as an abbrieviated form of 'The X Windowning System' and if some trademark owner doesn't like that they can blow my imaginary pet dog.
What hapenned to good old fashioned anonymous FTP?
What happened to FSP similarly?
Phil
Alas these weren't all the best examples.
As just another perl hacker I found the best of show truly pathetic. The rest were fairly readable as soon as you'd put a few newlines in.
The quality is lower than the IOCCC, certainly, but I think that is because Perl is inherantly noisier (as in SNR) if you use all the inbuilt features, so people go to less effort to make it ugly, it's most of the way there already.
Truly obfuscated Perl uses an unfathomable algorithm as well as undecipherable presentation.
FatPhil
(Repeated IOCCC loser!)
"
she has come up with a theory that fits all the data
"
Apart from the ones which didn't so she reversed the order of the stars in order to get the other ones to fit.
I can't judge until I read the full text of the article, but I interpret the write-up as saying she's taking a few scientific liberties.
FatPhil
Yeah, that's the way to do it.
I have a perfectly working 486/33 with all the bits except a case, I've been told a student is using it as his houses linux print-server or something. I charged him $0 for it, he charged me $0 to take it off my hands, we're both happy.
Phil
Livingstone Portmaster IRX Router:
25*5*38?cm (assuming my span is 20cm). Probably a single 68360 and about 2M RAM, 512K ROM, similar flash, and a couple of custom ASICS. Oh - and 4 rubber feet at the bottom. Yuppers, this aint no rackmount. And yes, it runs in a wardrobe.
i.e. there's about a quarter of the kit that we (where I work) shove on a single slot (2*15*25cm?) in out access multiplexer subracks. And we have no fans.
Trust me, they charge you for the software license and the name on the box more than the hardware.
It's the TV size principle. Big is good. Small is good. Anything in between can't be any good.
When I first got my Cisco 2501 (OK, 1U rackmount) I opened it up and just laughed. _cigarette packet_ is the correct size for one of those.
FP