"Where I work we legally have access to Cisco IOS, although we're very strict and only a handful of engineers have the permissions to access it (me being one of them). The code is very clean and when I've browsed it looking to see if there's any exploits, I have thus far come up empty"
You are of-course, one of the exceptions to the general.
Suicide bombers to aim,
'Main Entry: 1aim Pronunciation: 'Am Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French aesmer & esmer; Middle French aesmer, from Old French, from a- (from Latin ad-) + esmer to estimate, from Latin aestimare intransitive senses 1 : to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object 2 : ASPIRE, INTEND transitive senses 1 obsolete : GUESS, CONJECTURE 2 a : POINT b : to direct to or toward a specified object or goal '
'to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object',
I always though that suicide bombers aimed themselfs at there enemy.
I watched the whole of JFK and not once did they say that the 'magic bullet' went into another universe, so yeh, I beleive that multiple parrell universes couldn't have been created by anyone other than God.
I'll quote "David Larkin"
"More than an intuitive nonsense, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, it would seem, legitimised a century of stupidity. A stupidity typified by schizophrenic, ghosting, time dependent, self-replicating, psychic 'god-like' particles; singularities; space-time warps and imaginary time. If sensibility is to be restored, then Science must exorcise the spooks, God-rationalists, and writers of science fiction that riddle modern theoretical physics. Provocative conjecture indeed. The motivation for such conjecture has root in the ultimate beauty of simplicity -- the analysis of the empirical data in the context of a new 'intuitive' theoretical model. Consequently, this work is not so much about an ultimate objective truth of physical theory or the philosophy of time, but is more a quest for re-evaluation in the face of esoteric, complex theories founded upon the 'near mystical.'"
Why does a photon appear to be a wave (or anything else for that matter).
Because it must be a wave, that is the nature of how anything must interact with anything else space,matter,energy,time etc..
It would be fair to assume that because the light is traveling through space time it interacts with it. Why is is so far fetched that whatever the photon interacts with(space time), doesn't then go on to interact with the photon, when I throw a ball at the speed of sound a sound wave will travel through both of the slits and interact with the ball on the other side.
It seems more plausable then the photon becomming an uber photon, or playing with the ghosts of another universe.
"Because a SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect. The reason that SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect cannot be due to an "accumulation of a lot of photons" because there AREN'T a lot of photons in the case where the SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect."
I was arguing that the accumilated effect may not be interaction between photons but the acummalition of the effect on single photons, ie you are seeing a lot of single photon effects.
As for 400 years, if people are trying to find extra-terestrial sources for phonominon then there solutions are far too complex and they should revise the model, just because you can't see something directly doesn't meen that it isn't there, just like spacetime, could the photons interact with space-time, creating a ripple/wave.
"...Since we see the interference pattern here and there are no real things in our universe to explain it, the only rational solution is to posit the existence of real things in other universes."
Hmm... sounds like a God theory to me, let's fix it...
...Since we see the interference pattern here and there are no real things in our universe [that I know of]to explain it, the only rational solution is to assume [that becase I know everything about our universe we can] posit the existence of real things in other universes.
Personally I don't believe that Deutch knows enough about our universe to start saying that there must be others.
I've read the material, and cannot see anything that proves that a photon can interfere with it's self.
I believe the double slit, single photon effect to be an artefact caused by the photon interacting with something we can't see (say space) and causing a drag that then interferes with the photon.
Lets say I(the photon) walk down a slope(momentum), as I go I bump into all kinds of things(if I didn't then I wouldn't really exist).
Why can't some of the things take a different path down the slope and interfere with me later.
A bit like the ball and peg experiment but with lots of invisible balls to get knocked along the way.
It sounds far easier than untold universes and wave function collapse.
Secondly, if a single photon creates the effect, what to say that the effect isn't the accumulation of a lot of photons creating there own little effect, that also seems more probable.
The experement may however show that light can be changed by gravity.
If 4% of people have no data then they can't be identified between each other, that's a 4% failure rate. and as we all know terrorists have a false leg, crook hand and a parrot on there shoulder, so they probably all have false eyes too(well david blunket does).
If you are 'unimportant' they I would like to incourage you to sign everything X, and remove that nasty piece of identification that so many people take you to hold over, the signiture.
Your conciense in what you believe you have signed should be enough to ensure you will comply, and if you don't then the contract writers should review there contract.
Well the problems not n^2 it's about (n*(n-1))/2, but still the more people you have the more mismatches.
If thery have already showed a 4% missidentification then thats a 4% missidentification no matter what the key length is or how the comparisons are done, because whatever algorythm doesn't provide a unique enough key based on the input data.
On a brighter? note, 1 in 1000 is a lot better than 1 in 60 Million. on a duller note, the systems useless unless everyone in the world uses it, at which point the margin of error becomes stupid.
The BBC operates in a huge number of countries including the ones where "the largest portion of the people are thinking about how they are going to get their next meal" (not like I work 8+hours a day or anything!)
So why not make things available for them, or are they too busy trying to eat to give a fuck about?
it's a n^2ish problem, not a linear one, each person on the list can be incorrectly identified as another person on the list.
So the more people you have the greater the percentage of people you can be missidentified as.
on 1000 people there's a 4% chance of being missidentified, assuming n^2 and scalling upto 1 million people you on adverage will match with 400 other people. (a 40000% fuckup) (srq(4%) * 1million/1000) ^ 2.
I've been using wine for a number of years, for development work and general home use and I've noticed that the logs are fairly good at identifying missing functionality.
Have you considered using a client log collation tool to report back most used API's and back-traces from faults?
Troll1: Most Linux developers don't have the hardware to do decient regression testing, they relly on users. Don't believe me, go ask them.
Microsoft relies, in part, on vendors writing there own drivers and certifying there hardware against Windows, I'm sure they have more regression testing facilities too.
Troll2: Like it takes a genius to debug code, am I a genius, you don't seem to think so? If people spent as much time fixing kernel bugs as Windows users spend re-installing and de-working Windows the kernel would be a lovely place to be.
Troll3: Can't say I've ever seen one of those, are Microsoft spying on me again? And I do note down any bug or missing feature I find in an application, but then I do do development work and am concerned with usability.
Like my Confguration management tools don't let me get sub-tree patches easily, I'm sure all the developers test against the cutting edge kernel applying patches even before linus accepts them.
How hard would it be to look in KConfig and pull intergrate with Configuration management tools so that only relevent updates were retrieved.
I wish that I could just patch the bits of the kernel that are important to me, and not the whole lot in one go.
I would be far more lightly to test betas if I could download driver and filing system updates that relate to me instead of the whole kernel which may have new less stable featuers, my build times would be lower and my system would be more stable.
It would also make it easier to upgrade everything except the broken Nvidia bits....
Oh, I wish i could just patch/kernel/drivers/net/eci100 and nothing else.. (preferably from kernel configuration).
'Linux developers aren't as diligent about testing the code before they release it.'
That's because linux users can fix any faults they find and send them to the developers.
If I have a fault in my linux kernel I tend to fix it, and tell others how to fix it, that's a lot more diligance from the developers than Microsoft(or any closed source software/hardware) provides.
Some services spend quite a while waiting for things to happen, e.g. initilising a cd-rom drive.
Services that are independant could be started in parrell so that waiting for a cd-rom drive &co wouldn't slow the whole things down. e.g. I could load the cd-rom drive, networking and keyboard mapping, then while the cd-rom drive is still waiting for an interrupt start up apache.
Jbuilder tells me in real time every sytax error in my code, I guess that's debugging.
It also has good refactoring support, so no need to debug my poor hand refactoring. I guess that's kinda debugging.
And it's very good at displaying my code in a way that allows me to find any bugs before running it, getters, setters, things I may have wanted to overload, UML diagrams etc... So I guess that's debugging.
Debugging without even having to run the application, and wizards to perform all the monkey work so you don't gte bugs in the first place and intergrated junit testing.
I think Eclipse has simila support.
I'm not a very experianced java programmer, but my productivity is more than 4 times that of a friend whos been programming in java for more than 6 years. I do very little runtime debugging because my code is by and large bug free thanks to the design time and code time debugging in the IDE.
Go download jbuilder trial or Eclipse with some sister project plugins (eclipse is a bit of a pain to use because it's still quite a recient product)
It's my plan to invade Iraq so I can make microwaves. Where the hell did you get even the glipmse of the idea that the USA invaded Iraq for oil. Some people.....
Slashdot Mirror
"Where I work we legally have access to Cisco IOS, although we're very strict and only a handful of engineers have the permissions to access it (me being one of them). The code is very clean and when I've browsed it looking to see if there's any exploits, I have thus far come up empty"
Sound like the words of a Cicso employee to me..
I havn't had my identity stole, it's the identity given to me that has been invalidated, and therefore no longer usefull(stolen).
Try signing you name X next time and you could steal my identity.
You are of-course, one of the exceptions to the general.
Suicide bombers to aim,
'Main Entry: 1aim
Pronunciation: 'Am
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French aesmer & esmer; Middle French aesmer, from Old French, from a- (from Latin ad-) + esmer to estimate, from Latin aestimare
intransitive senses
1 : to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object
2 : ASPIRE, INTEND
transitive senses
1 obsolete : GUESS, CONJECTURE
2 a : POINT b : to direct to or toward a specified object or goal '
'to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object',
I always though that suicide bombers aimed themselfs at there enemy.
I watched the whole of JFK and not once did they say that the 'magic bullet' went into another universe, so yeh, I beleive that multiple parrell universes couldn't have been created by anyone other than God.
I'll quote "David Larkin"
"More than an intuitive nonsense, Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, it would seem, legitimised a century of stupidity. A stupidity typified by schizophrenic, ghosting, time dependent, self-replicating, psychic 'god-like' particles; singularities; space-time warps and imaginary time. If sensibility is to be restored, then Science must exorcise the spooks, God-rationalists, and writers of science fiction that riddle modern theoretical physics. Provocative conjecture indeed. The motivation for such conjecture has root in the ultimate beauty of simplicity -- the analysis of the empirical data in the context of a new 'intuitive' theoretical model. Consequently, this work is not so much about an ultimate objective truth of physical theory or the philosophy of time, but is more a quest for re-evaluation in the face of esoteric, complex theories founded upon the 'near mystical.'"
Why does a photon appear to be a wave (or anything else for that matter).
Because it must be a wave, that is the nature of how anything must interact with anything else space,matter,energy,time etc..
It would be fair to assume that because the light is traveling through space time it interacts with it. Why is is so far fetched that whatever the photon interacts with(space time), doesn't then go on to interact with the photon, when I throw a ball at the speed of sound a sound wave will travel through both of the slits and interact with the ball on the other side.
It seems more plausable then the photon becomming an uber photon, or playing with the ghosts of another universe.
"Because a SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect. The reason that SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect cannot be due to an "accumulation of a lot of photons" because there AREN'T a lot of photons in the case where the SINGLE PHOTON displays the effect."
I was arguing that the accumilated effect may not be interaction between photons but the acummalition of the effect on single photons, ie you are seeing a lot of single photon effects.
As for 400 years, if people are trying to find extra-terestrial sources for phonominon then there solutions are far too complex and they should revise the model, just because you can't see something directly doesn't meen that it isn't there, just like spacetime, could the photons interact with space-time, creating a ripple/wave.
"...Since we see the interference pattern here and there are no real things in our universe to explain it, the only rational solution is to posit the existence of real things in other universes."
...Since we see the interference pattern here and there are no real things in our universe [that I know of]to explain it, the only rational solution is to assume [that becase I know everything about our universe we can] posit the existence of real things in other universes.
Hmm... sounds like a God theory to me, let's fix it...
Personally I don't believe that Deutch knows enough about our universe to start saying that there must be others.
Generally anything you aim a weapon at is the wrong thing.
I've read the material, and cannot see anything that proves that a photon can interfere with it's self.
I believe the double slit, single photon effect to be an artefact caused by the photon interacting with something we can't see (say space) and causing a drag that then interferes with the photon.
Lets say I(the photon) walk down a slope(momentum), as I go I bump into all kinds of things(if I didn't then I wouldn't really exist).
Why can't some of the things take a different path down the slope and interfere with me later.
A bit like the ball and peg experiment but with lots of invisible balls to get knocked along the way.
It sounds far easier than untold universes and wave function collapse.
Secondly, if a single photon creates the effect, what to say that the effect isn't the accumulation of a lot of photons creating there own little effect, that also seems more probable.
The experement may however show that light can be changed by gravity.
If 4% of people have no data then they can't be identified between each other, that's a 4% failure rate. and as we all know terrorists have a false leg, crook hand and a parrot on there shoulder, so they probably all have false eyes too(well david blunket does).
If you are 'unimportant' they I would like to incourage you to sign everything X, and remove that nasty piece of identification that so many people take you to hold over, the signiture.
Your conciense in what you believe you have signed should be enough to ensure you will comply, and if you don't then the contract writers should review there contract.
You know how long the password is,
I've been known to type in poems for RSA keys.
Well the problems not n^2 it's about (n*(n-1))/2, but still the more people you have the more mismatches.
If thery have already showed a 4% missidentification then thats a 4% missidentification no matter what the key length is or how the comparisons are done, because whatever algorythm doesn't provide a unique enough key based on the input data.
On a brighter? note, 1 in 1000 is a lot better than 1 in 60 Million. on a duller note, the systems useless unless everyone in the world uses it, at which point the margin of error becomes stupid.
The BBC operates in a huge number of countries including the ones where
"the largest portion of the people are thinking about how they are going to get their next meal" (not like I work 8+hours a day or anything!)
So why not make things available for them, or are they too busy trying to eat to give a fuck about?
it's a n^2ish problem, not a linear one,
each person on the list can be incorrectly identified as another person on the list.
So the more people you have the greater the percentage of people you can be missidentified as.
on 1000 people there's a 4% chance of being missidentified, assuming n^2 and scalling upto 1 million people you on adverage will match with 400 other people. (a 40000% fuckup)
(srq(4%) * 1million/1000) ^ 2.
He's blind you insensitive clod.
I've been using wine for a number of years, for development work and general home use and I've noticed that the logs are fairly good at identifying missing functionality.
Have you considered using a client log collation tool to report back most used API's and back-traces from faults?
How does bittkeeper manage dependancies, shouldn't I look in at least my KConfig files too, to work out rough dependancies.
Troll1:
Most Linux developers don't have the hardware to do decient regression testing, they relly on users. Don't believe me, go ask them.
Microsoft relies, in part, on vendors writing there own drivers and certifying there hardware against Windows, I'm sure they have more regression testing facilities too.
Troll2:
Like it takes a genius to debug code, am I a genius, you don't seem to think so?
If people spent as much time fixing kernel bugs as Windows users spend re-installing and de-working Windows the kernel would be a lovely place to be.
Troll3:
Can't say I've ever seen one of those, are Microsoft spying on me again?
And I do note down any bug or missing feature I find in an application, but then I do do development work and am concerned with usability.
Like my Confguration management tools don't let me get sub-tree patches easily, I'm sure all the developers test against the cutting edge kernel applying patches even before linus accepts them.
How hard would it be to look in KConfig and pull intergrate with Configuration management tools so that only relevent updates were retrieved.
I wish that I could just patch the bits of the kernel that are important to me, and not the whole lot in one go.
/kernel/drivers/net/eci100 and nothing else.. (preferably from kernel configuration).
I would be far more lightly to test betas if I could download driver and filing system updates that relate to me instead of the whole kernel which may have new less stable featuers, my build times would be lower and my system would be more stable.
It would also make it easier to upgrade everything except the broken Nvidia bits....
Oh, I wish i could just patch
'Linux developers aren't as diligent about testing
the code before they release it.'
That's because linux users can fix any faults they find and send them to the developers.
If I have a fault in my linux kernel I tend to fix it, and tell others how to fix it, that's a lot more diligance from the developers than Microsoft(or any closed source software/hardware) provides.
it's just a linked list, some people will patent anything.
Some services spend quite a while waiting for things to happen, e.g. initilising a cd-rom drive.
Services that are independant could be started in parrell so that waiting for a cd-rom drive &co wouldn't slow the whole things down. e.g. I could load the cd-rom drive, networking and keyboard mapping, then while the cd-rom drive is still waiting for an interrupt start up apache.
Jbuilder tells me in real time every sytax error in my code, I guess that's debugging.
It also has good refactoring support, so no need to debug my poor hand refactoring. I guess that's kinda debugging.
And it's very good at displaying my code in a way that allows me to find any bugs before running it, getters, setters, things I may have wanted to overload, UML diagrams etc... So I guess that's debugging.
Debugging without even having to run the application, and wizards to perform all the monkey work so you don't gte bugs in the first place and intergrated junit testing.
I think Eclipse has simila support.
I'm not a very experianced java programmer, but my productivity is more than 4 times that of a friend whos been programming in java for more than 6 years. I do very little runtime debugging because my code is by and large bug free thanks to the design time and code time debugging in the IDE.
Go download jbuilder trial or Eclipse with some sister project plugins (eclipse is a bit of a pain to use because it's still quite a recient product)
It's my plan to invade Iraq so I can make microwaves. Where the hell did you get even the glipmse of the idea that the USA invaded Iraq for oil.
Some people.....