Looking at the first 10 'burglarized' hits, looking before 1870, where 'burgled' is clearly attested, google has got the date wrong on almost every one. (claims 1800, actually 1890; claims 1801, actually 1891; etc.) This slows down research rather, but fortunately, it's quite a fun errand.
I didn't find an equally-early 'burgled' yet, but 'burglarized' can certainly be attested back in 1854 in that google corpus (didn't copy the link, sorry)
The ``"burglarised" - new word'' in the Upper Canada Law Journal in 1865 is a fairly amusing take on things: http://books.google.com/books?id=QH0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA228&dq=%22burglarized%22&hl=en&ei=3iYOTZOXL83Mswa1q_n0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22burglarized%22&f=false
Seems that including 'burgled' and 'burglarized' in the search opens a few more doors, as both seem to have been used as participles in print much earlier than they were used as infinitives.
That's not a hideous back formation, it fits a well-known pattern that a verb ending/-@l/ goes with an agent noun ending/-l@/ (in most English dialects, add rhoticity to taste if need be). In fact, very few back formations are hideous as, generally, back formations most typically fit in with common norms.
Anyway, enough chat, we want data - let's just see how the two verbs entered printed literature:
Don't be fooled by the 1700s "burgle"s - they're referring to a foodstuff.
Being a Brit, I'm bound to assert that it looks like burgle got there first, but even if they were simultaneous, one is a lovely simple back formation, and the other is a stupid-sounding jumble of additional letters that looks like it was invented by a crack-stoked modern marketting department.
You seem to have confused 'polynomial' with 'linear'.
If the exponentiation operations cost O(N^3), and the number of retries is O(1) (I have no idea what it is in reality, even whether it's o(N) or not), then 1024-bit cracking would be ~ 4^3 = 64 times more expensive _in time_ as 256-bit cracking. Were the number of retries to be O(N), then the factor might be 4^4 = 256 instead. However, the increase in the cost of the device would almost certainly be much more expensive than that factor suggests - note that nobody's built anything but toy examples currently.
"Quantum link encryption is completly unbreakable, according to the mathematics."
Not quite, that's a common misconception. Quantum link encryption is completely unable to detect evesdropping at a lower rate than the noise floor, according to the mathematics. So you'd better make sure you're not transmitting anything with an entropy density too low.
It's not the heuristics that are the problem. If the heuristics may lead to the steps never terminating, then those steps do not define an algorithm. Algorithms must be finite.
Shouldn't comprehension be a criterion for posting? Neither the summary nor the article state that ACO is a new discovery. In fact, quite the opposite; there's no possible interpretation of "The most widely used of these ant-inspired algorithms is known as Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)" that leads to a conclusion of "ACO is novel" apart from the ones that also lead to a conclusion of "I'm a retard with poor comprehension skills".
It's very much about a free press. Such laws are not just there to protect expression of original thought, but to protect propagation of materials from third parties too, and right to not disclose the identity of those third parties (in cases such as leaks - e.g., in the US, Larry Flint and the DeLorean tape).
One of the problems of having a dual core machine is that you don't notice immediately that Firefox is running amok! I'd rather kill it immediataly, thank you.
Now that 1['toString']['constructor'] bit clearly acts as some lambda construction (i.e. defining an anonymous function), but quite how it works, I have no idea. Trying simple variations implies that it's a pretty rigid idiom, and therefore possibly detectable by an de-obfuscation tool. I've always said quite positive things about JS as being a mathematically pure, just horribly misused, language after I worked out how to Curry functions with it (I have a maths/lisp background), but never learnt it in enough depth to back that feeling up - I'd be quite interested to know which resource you learnt the above from, as I reckon that could keep me interested for many a cold winter evening!
The odd thing about the BG 640KB thing is that the first time I heard it (in the 80s), it was recounted as 256KB, not 640KB. So if people are scouring the archives looking for quotes about 640KB, there may be more than one good reason they're not finding anything...
The problem is that the completely unintelligible bit in the middle of claim 1 distinguishes this from at least EFence.
I think the completely unintelligible bit means "can be enabled and disabled on the fly". And that's what makes IBM's work so brilliant and patentable, because the concept of turning debugging functionality on and off on the fly is so revolutionary. Noone skilled in the art could ever think something as groundbreaking as that was obvious.
But c6gunner seems to be talking out of his arse. According to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html, in the US, in 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 billion kWh. In 2008, that output had risen to 809 billion kWh
If that's peaking several decades ago, I'm a dutchman. The peak has never been anything to do the number of facilities, and even that hasn't really peaked - it's plateaued, and new ones are planned.
Here's the icon: http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/playmatedock/playmaitaiko1.gif And here's the program: http://www.noomuseum.net/img/Nooscaphes/MacPlaymate-1-.JPG (NSFW)
tooltips/bubblehelp or whatever they called them seem a closer match.
A quick google/wiki dive implies that under those names, they appeared first in MacOS in 1991, a year after the filing of the patent.
However, I remember actual rollovers on MacOS way back in 1989. There was a program called Mac Playmate whose icon was a big letter M, and when you did a mouseover, the M would turn into a naked woman's lower half (all in glorious black-and-white, at least on the machine we had access to). That was a perfectly standard feature of the OS and application icons, so probably goes back years before that. Annoyingly I don't think you could do an arbitrary pair of images, one had to have a subset of set pixels of the other, I think. (Which is why the original had to be an 'M' so that the calves and thighs were renderable.)
Absolutely. It's just that I think the kids nowadays think that 256-bit wide vector operations are large and in some way advanced, as all they've seen in the past is 64bit MMX and 128bit SSE, and have never encountered a 4096-bit operand.
"Instructive", eh? Yeah, I like that; they're the toy ones that you can learn on before they let you touch the real, expensive, ones;-)
Real vector processing predates altivec by decades. Cray is a good example of pushing the boundaries in modern vector processing, but there were others before that.
But you know what motion estimation is, right? It's you doing a lot of convolutions! (And finding a local extremum.)
And you know what DCTs and FFTs are? They're a whole bunch of convolutions! And you know what matrix multiplication of 3D coordinates is? It's lots of convolutions!
That processors designed to do one task can do one of the other tasks is obvious to anyone with ordinary skill in the field. It's all just a question of whether the data can be chopped up into the right-sized chunks to fit the parallelism of the processing pipelines.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the first 10 'burglarized' hits, looking before 1870, where 'burgled' is clearly attested, google has got the date wrong on almost every one. (claims 1800, actually 1890; claims 1801, actually 1891; etc.) This slows down research rather, but fortunately, it's quite a fun errand.
I didn't find an equally-early 'burgled' yet, but 'burglarized' can certainly be attested back in 1854 in that google corpus (didn't copy the link, sorry)
The ``"burglarised" - new word'' in the Upper Canada Law Journal in 1865 is a fairly amusing take on things:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QH0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA228&dq=%22burglarized%22&hl=en&ei=3iYOTZOXL83Mswa1q_n0DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22burglarized%22&f=false
Seems that including 'burgled' and 'burglarized' in the search opens a few more doors, as both seem to have been used as participles in print much earlier than they were used as infinitives.
That's not a hideous back formation, it fits a well-known pattern that a verb ending /-@l/ goes with an agent noun ending /-l@/ (in most English dialects, add rhoticity to taste if need be). In fact, very few back formations are hideous as, generally, back formations most typically fit in with common norms.
Anyway, enough chat, we want data - let's just see how the two verbs entered printed literature:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=burgle%2Cburglarize&year_start=1750&year_end=1990&corpus=0&smoothing=5
Don't be fooled by the 1700s "burgle"s - they're referring to a foodstuff.
Being a Brit, I'm bound to assert that it looks like burgle got there first, but even if they were simultaneous, one is a lovely simple back formation, and the other is a stupid-sounding jumble of additional letters that looks like it was invented by a crack-stoked modern marketting department.
You seem to have confused 'polynomial' with 'linear'.
If the exponentiation operations cost O(N^3), and the number of retries is O(1) (I have no idea what it is in reality, even whether it's o(N) or not), then 1024-bit cracking would be ~ 4^3 = 64 times more expensive _in time_ as 256-bit cracking. Were the number of retries to be O(N), then the factor might be 4^4 = 256 instead. However, the increase in the cost of the device would almost certainly be much more expensive than that factor suggests - note that nobody's built anything but toy examples currently.
"Quantum link encryption is completly unbreakable, according to the mathematics."
Not quite, that's a common misconception. Quantum link encryption is completely unable to detect evesdropping at a lower rate than the noise floor, according to the mathematics. So you'd better make sure you're not transmitting anything with an entropy density too low.
It's not the heuristics that are the problem. If the heuristics may lead to the steps never terminating, then those steps do not define an algorithm. Algorithms must be finite.
And, since the advent of txt-ing, y is a modern alternative spelling for the Dutch ij-digraph.
Shouldn't comprehension be a criterion for posting? Neither the summary nor the article state that ACO is a new discovery. In fact, quite the opposite; there's no possible interpretation of "The most widely used of these ant-inspired algorithms is known as Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)" that leads to a conclusion of "ACO is novel" apart from the ones that also lead to a conclusion of "I'm a retard with poor comprehension skills".
It's very much about a free press. Such laws are not just there to protect expression of original thought, but to protect propagation of materials from third parties too, and right to not disclose the identity of those third parties (in cases such as leaks - e.g., in the US, Larry Flint and the DeLorean tape).
Changes everything completely? /* Apparently you've not heard of comments. */ /* Apparently you've not heard of comments; */
One of the problems of having a dual core machine is that you don't notice immediately that Firefox is running amok! I'd rather kill it immediataly, thank you.
Beauty's not possible, but de-uglifying's possible:
1['toString']['constructor']('$','alert($)')('hello')
Now that 1['toString']['constructor'] bit clearly acts as some lambda construction (i.e. defining an anonymous function), but quite how it works, I have no idea. Trying simple variations implies that it's a pretty rigid idiom, and therefore possibly detectable by an de-obfuscation tool. I've always said quite positive things about JS as being a mathematically pure, just horribly misused, language after I worked out how to Curry functions with it (I have a maths/lisp background), but never learnt it in enough depth to back that feeling up - I'd be quite interested to know which resource you learnt the above from, as I reckon that could keep me interested for many a cold winter evening!
The odd thing about the BG 640KB thing is that the first time I heard it (in the 80s), it was recounted as 256KB, not 640KB. So if people are scouring the archives looking for quotes about 640KB, there may be more than one good reason they're not finding anything...
The problem is that the completely unintelligible bit in the middle of claim 1 distinguishes this from at least EFence.
I think the completely unintelligible bit means "can be enabled and disabled on the fly". And that's what makes IBM's work so brilliant and patentable, because the concept of turning debugging functionality on and off on the fly is so revolutionary. Noone skilled in the art could ever think something as groundbreaking as that was obvious.
Why do you use such a verbose language? In perl, it's just:
print map{($_%5?$_%3?$_:Fizz:$_%3?Buzz:FizzBuzz).$/}(1..100)
But c6gunner seems to be talking out of his arse. According to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html, in the US, in 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 billion kWh. In 2008, that output had risen to 809 billion kWh
If that's peaking several decades ago, I'm a dutchman. The peak has never been anything to do the number of facilities, and even that hasn't really peaked - it's plateaued, and new ones are planned.
Here's the icon: http://www.d4.dion.ne.jp/~motohiko/playmatedock/playmaitaiko1.gif
And here's the program: http://www.noomuseum.net/img/Nooscaphes/MacPlaymate-1-.JPG (NSFW)
tooltips/bubblehelp or whatever they called them seem a closer match.
A quick google/wiki dive implies that under those names, they appeared first in MacOS in 1991, a year after the filing of the patent.
However, I remember actual rollovers on MacOS way back in 1989. There was a program called Mac Playmate whose icon was a big letter M, and when you did a mouseover, the M would turn into a naked woman's lower half (all in glorious black-and-white, at least on the machine we had access to). That was a perfectly standard feature of the OS and application icons, so probably goes back years before that. Annoyingly I don't think you could do an arbitrary pair of images, one had to have a subset of set pixels of the other, I think. (Which is why the original had to be an 'M' so that the calves and thighs were renderable.)
Can someone enlighten me as to what Ionica's share price is?
Absolutely. It's just that I think the kids nowadays think that 256-bit wide vector operations are large and in some way advanced, as all they've seen in the past is 64bit MMX and 128bit SSE, and have never encountered a 4096-bit operand.
;-)
"Instructive", eh? Yeah, I like that; they're the toy ones that you can learn on before they let you touch the real, expensive, ones
How about a great new term for these things than seem to be able to process all kinds of digital signals - 'DSP's perhaps?
Real vector processing predates altivec by decades. Cray is a good example of pushing the boundaries in modern vector processing, but there were others before that.
I've seen you state that many times, so I have to contradict it many times. It was obvious in 1993, as that was what my ${DAYJOB} was back then.
How about the TI 34010 from 1985?
But you know what motion estimation is, right? It's you doing a lot of convolutions! (And finding a local extremum.)
And you know what DCTs and FFTs are? They're a whole bunch of convolutions!
And you know what matrix multiplication of 3D coordinates is? It's lots of convolutions!
That processors designed to do one task can do one of the other tasks is obvious to anyone with ordinary skill in the field. It's all just a question of whether the data can be chopped up into the right-sized chunks to fit the parallelism of the processing pipelines.