Re:The Word 'Vaccine'
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"WordNet (r) 2.0" vaccine
n : immunogen consisting of a suspension of weakened or dead
pathogenic cells injected in order to stimulate the
production of antibodies
Re:Too bad it runs like ass on my computer.
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I agree, I've got a K6-2 500mhz with only 256mb RAM and firefox is nice and nimble.
The argument isn't that Open Source is inherently more secure when written, but that overall it is more secure.
What's the difference you ask?
Closed source software M is found to have a bug, and that hole is open for 6 months; Open Source software S is found to have a bug, but the hole is open for 2 weeks MAXIMUM, most of the time it's fixed and patches available within 1 week.
Thus, Open Source is more secure because holes, which are, to a certain extent, inevitable, remain open for a very short amount of time, and on the whole not long enough to exploit.
I agree with this post very much... and the fact that some companies start to look at their employees as slaves, instead as people they are paying to be there and do work, is just not right.
I would ignore the policy, nothing better than a little civil disobedience.:)
If you are refering to the BSD license, well, you're just wrong, because I'm even free to take FreeBSD and change it and sell it as my own, as long as I mention that it's based on FreeBSD code.
If you're refering to the fact that the CD ISOs are not free, that doesn't keep you from downloading everything that's on the CD...for free.
Just to correct that... he was accused of molestation. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but we're supposed to presume innocense until proven guilty right?
And to totally take this comment to the far-side...:P Your comment shows exactly what the RIAA and MPAA and SCO and all these other money-grubbing turds are doing: Presuming guilt, and since no one has the guts to prove innocence, they assume victory.
I ran accross this post...wanted to share my thoughts on the dislikes:
1) Trinity's death. It was TOO LONG! People don't die immediately after being kissed! And they usually don't WANT to be kissed!
I also felt that it was somewhat drawn out...but it is a STORY, things happen differently in there than in real life. And as far as a story line goes, it was an excellent finale to their relationship.
2) The logic. Most of the underlying premise of the movie just doesn't make any logical sense at all. Humans would be a TERRIBLE battery! Not only that, but why wouldn't you kill any immediately that you let go (as a machine)? There are a LARGE NUMBER of huge plot holes. Oh well, it's still a cool concept.
Ummmm...the first movie explained this pretty well...it's not that humans were used as a chemical battery as we use in devices today. No, it was human BODY HEAT that was used to create electricity; that's how current power plants create electricity, using heat they turn turbines that create electricity. So they could have set themselves up like reptiles to use human body heat to power themselves.
As far as just killing the ones that were getting out, as told by the architect in the second movie, that was built into the system to keep the equation close to balanced.
3) Sentinals and the dock battle. WTF were they DOING??? Instead of just attacking all the APU's en masse, they fly around in this huge weird fucking snake thing.... not only that, but they seem to be incredibly stupid and smart at the same time... just dumb.
As a programmer, their behavior was very logical to me. They were programmed with a certain amount of intelligence, just enought to do what they were supposed to do, not much more. They were basically programmed to be a hive mind
4) Damage - Ok... so Neo and Smith can fight hard enough to cause shock waves, and do this over and over, but neither takes any serious damage? Then... when it just goes on too long, suddenly Neo is done? Seemed strange...
Yeah, although to me it was somewhat logical that they wouldn't take much damage, since this is basically a battle of minds and wills, it did seem to drag on just a bit. But I enjoyed how it kept escalating bigger and bigger...that was fun.:D I think I kinda followed what Neo was doing, egging smith on so he would be distracted by his own ego, until he thought he had won...but by the time Smith figured it out, it was too late.:)
And... how do programs have babies?
Easy...how do humans make offspring? Combining of two strings of code(DNA) that results in a new string of code unique from the first two yet carrying with it traits from both.
I really loved the whole trilogy. I really could have done without the semi-nude shots, since to me it added nothing to the story and was only there for mindless eye-candy. On the other hand I loved the fact that they didn't feel the need to resort to endless swearing to get peoples attention, which showed intelligence on their part.
I watched Dr. Who when I was kid in the 80s, I loved it then, and I still love it. Mostly I love the way they keep the villians/monsters in the dark for the first part of the show. I also enjoyed all the cryptic comments by the Doctor.:) DR. WHO ROCKS!:D
The installation of any of the BSDs is very simple and straight-forward. I've heard of very few that have had much trouble installing Free, Open, or Net...However Some say that Net is a little convoluted, although I haven't tried that one.
I've used Powerquest DriveCopy for some time and it always results in a perfect copy, even resizing my partitions up to a new drive size. Now this is only a drive to drive copy operation, so maybe that's not what you're looking for... Just my.02:)
This is a book primarily for WINDOWS users looking to migrate to a Samba server. As a windows user myself, the HOWTO on the web is REALLY helpfull to me as I get SAMBA up and running with my MS network, so I'm sure the book will be just as helpful, perhaps even more.:)
Also, I'm glad to see the HOWTO come out in book form, since sometimes it's really handy to have the book there in front of you while you're pounding away at the config.
The best part is that these trolls are excellent for generating curiosity about *BSD...which results in people wanting to try it for themselves...which results in more people liking *BSDs.
And that the tests were run unscientifically with the -CURRENT release...how dumb is that? Shouldn't a fair test be run with a -STABLE release? Silly, silly.
Exactly right. The Mandelbrot set is the perfect example: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/explorer.ht ml
The only thing these methods do is increase the improbability of getting 2 numbers the same. Most of the methods used create numbers with probabilities of.000000001% of being reproduced.
Actually, that's incorrect. At least on the radio side it is. I know, I've tried to get two receivers to get the same numbers listening to the same channel. It was, as with all randomness, impossible for me to do in 2 days of testing. The reason being that the radio waves are being affected by the air, the reflections from walls, the physical proximity to the transmitter. I concluded that in order for them both to come up with the same numbers, they'd have to be in ultra close proximity to each other physically, they'd have to start listening on the same channel at the EXACT same time. So for someone to duplicate the number they'd really need to be in the same physical place as the one creating the number. Even if the attacker was on the same channel, it would still be physically impossible to duplicate the number. In this way the only way an attacker could influence the outcome would be to modulate ALL the channels so that what comes out of the digital receive is zeros. But since that would be something checked by the processor creating the number, it would be reported to the user and the user would KNOW someone is screwing with him
I've used several ways to create really good random numbers, though I've never tested to see if they were PERFECTLY random.
1) use a crappy capacitor. Measure the time it takes for the thing to charge/discharge, the concept here is that because the capacitor is junk the discharge rate will never be the same. Any change in temperature, or even air pressure, would affect the time. Take the least siginificant bit and rotate it into a byte, do that 128 times to get a nice big 128 bit random number. Of course, I found that in some conditions it would take a couple seconds to complete even a 16 bit number
2) My most recent application has used a radio receiver. Measure the time between two rising(or falling) edges on the digital receive lines. Doesn't matter if there's modulated data or if it's noise, the time is always different, at least if you're timing it in 100 nano-second increments. Again, take the least significant bit from each time and rotate it into your number. So you take 128 samples and you have a 128 bit random number. This method is typically VERY fast, since noise is usually picked up as fast as the receiver can get it, so timing between two rising edges is around 2-5 micro seconds. Best thing is, if I find a channel that isn't producing good results, I just change channels!:D
I've taken a lot of samples using the radio method, and it's results were better than the capacitor EVER was. With bluetooth and all these other cheapo radio chips coming out, and microchips for ATMEL being so cheap and so good, I would think someone could easily create a really cheap hardware random number generator that could plug into your usb port. But what do I know?:D
Slashdot Mirror
"WordNet (r) 2.0"
vaccine
n : immunogen consisting of a suspension of weakened or dead
pathogenic cells injected in order to stimulate the
production of antibodies
I agree, I've got a K6-2 500mhz with only 256mb RAM and firefox is nice and nimble.
The argument isn't that Open Source is inherently more secure when written, but that overall it is more secure.
What's the difference you ask?
Closed source software M is found to have a bug, and that hole is open for 6 months; Open Source software S is found to have a bug, but the hole is open for 2 weeks MAXIMUM, most of the time it's fixed and patches available within 1 week.
Thus, Open Source is more secure because holes, which are, to a certain extent, inevitable, remain open for a very short amount of time, and on the whole not long enough to exploit.
I agree with this post very much... and the fact that some companies start to look at their employees as slaves, instead as people they are paying to be there and do work, is just not right.
I would ignore the policy, nothing better than a little civil disobedience.
Well, I live in a small town near St. Louis...here's our lineup currently:
Dialup: $20
Cable(512k down/96k up): $30 ($25 if you're a cable subscriber)
DSL(?/?): coming next this spring/summer
I've been VERY pleased with the cable internet here, and the costs of the cable modem are great to start($40 dlink after $20 mail in rebate)!
Not sure what you're talking about.
If you are refering to the BSD license, well, you're just wrong, because I'm even free to take FreeBSD and change it and sell it as my own, as long as I mention that it's based on FreeBSD code.
If you're refering to the fact that the CD ISOs are not free, that doesn't keep you from downloading everything that's on the CD...for free.
So FreeBSD==Free
Just to correct that... he was accused of molestation. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but we're supposed to presume innocense until proven guilty right?
:P Your comment shows exactly what the RIAA and MPAA and SCO and all these other money-grubbing turds are doing: Presuming guilt, and since no one has the guts to prove innocence, they assume victory.
And to totally take this comment to the far-side...
With tool like audacity...it's getting easier all the time :)
I ran accross this post...wanted to share my thoughts on the dislikes:
:D I think I kinda followed what Neo was doing, egging smith on so he would be distracted by his own ego, until he thought he had won...but by the time Smith figured it out, it was too late. :)
1) Trinity's death. It was TOO LONG! People don't die immediately after being kissed! And they usually don't WANT to be kissed!
I also felt that it was somewhat drawn out...but it is a STORY, things happen differently in there than in real life. And as far as a story line goes, it was an excellent finale to their relationship.
2) The logic. Most of the underlying premise of the movie just doesn't make any logical sense at all. Humans would be a TERRIBLE battery! Not only that, but why wouldn't you kill any immediately that you let go (as a machine)? There are a LARGE NUMBER of huge plot holes. Oh well, it's still a cool concept.
Ummmm...the first movie explained this pretty well...it's not that humans were used as a chemical battery as we use in devices today. No, it was human BODY HEAT that was used to create electricity; that's how current power plants create electricity, using heat they turn turbines that create electricity. So they could have set themselves up like reptiles to use human body heat to power themselves.
As far as just killing the ones that were getting out, as told by the architect in the second movie, that was built into the system to keep the equation close to balanced.
3) Sentinals and the dock battle. WTF were they DOING??? Instead of just attacking all the APU's en masse, they fly around in this huge weird fucking snake thing.... not only that, but they seem to be incredibly stupid and smart at the same time... just dumb.
As a programmer, their behavior was very logical to me. They were programmed with a certain amount of intelligence, just enought to do what they were supposed to do, not much more. They were basically programmed to be a hive mind
4) Damage - Ok... so Neo and Smith can fight hard enough to cause shock waves, and do this over and over, but neither takes any serious damage? Then... when it just goes on too long, suddenly Neo is done? Seemed strange...
Yeah, although to me it was somewhat logical that they wouldn't take much damage, since this is basically a battle of minds and wills, it did seem to drag on just a bit. But I enjoyed how it kept escalating bigger and bigger...that was fun.
And... how do programs have babies?
Easy...how do humans make offspring? Combining of two strings of code(DNA) that results in a new string of code unique from the first two yet carrying with it traits from both.
I really loved the whole trilogy. I really could have done without the semi-nude shots, since to me it added nothing to the story and was only there for mindless eye-candy. On the other hand I loved the fact that they didn't feel the need to resort to endless swearing to get peoples attention, which showed intelligence on their part.
I watched Dr. Who when I was kid in the 80s, I loved it then, and I still love it. Mostly I love the way they keep the villians/monsters in the dark for the first part of the show. I also enjoyed all the cryptic comments by the Doctor.
The installation of any of the BSDs is very simple and straight-forward. I've heard of very few that have had much trouble installing Free, Open, or Net...However Some say that Net is a little convoluted, although I haven't tried that one.
I've used Powerquest DriveCopy for some time and it always results in a perfect copy, even resizing my partitions up to a new drive size. Now this is only a drive to drive copy operation, so maybe that's not what you're looking for... Just my
Excellent, Open Source continues to share the wealth of human knowledge...as it should be.
This is a book primarily for WINDOWS users looking to migrate to a Samba server. As a windows user myself, the HOWTO on the web is REALLY helpfull to me as I get SAMBA up and running with my MS network, so I'm sure the book will be just as helpful, perhaps even more. :)
Also, I'm glad to see the HOWTO come out in book form, since sometimes it's really handy to have the book there in front of you while you're pounding away at the config.
Can finally put those cycles to use on my file server and firewall. YAY
ROFL... I'll have to agree, that's the most intelligent BSD slam I've ever read.
ROFL... so because you don't use it, that means no one does? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR... oy, my sides hurt. :)
;)
The fact that these headlines keep coming up shows that PEOPLE DO USE BSD!! Resistance is futile.
We can learn that trolls will never learn :)
:)
ROFL...the "studies" are hilarious.
The best part is that these trolls are excellent for generating curiosity about *BSD...which results in people wanting to try it for themselves...which results in more people liking *BSDs.
Thanks trolls, *BSD loves you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAA...oh man I love when that troll shows up. Always gives me a chuckle. har har....how dumb. :P
And that the tests were run unscientifically with the -CURRENT release...how dumb is that? Shouldn't a fair test be run with a -STABLE release? Silly, silly.
ROFL that's the best turn-around of the stupid "*BSD is dying" crap! :D
ROCK ON *BSD! WOOOOT!
If you're looking for a server BSD...might want to look closely at OpenBSD
Exactly right. The Mandelbrot set is the perfect example: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/explorer.ht ml
.000000001% of being reproduced.
The only thing these methods do is increase the improbability of getting 2 numbers the same. Most of the methods used create numbers with probabilities of
Actually, that's incorrect. At least on the radio side it is. I know, I've tried to get two receivers to get the same numbers listening to the same channel. It was, as with all randomness, impossible for me to do in 2 days of testing. The reason being that the radio waves are being affected by the air, the reflections from walls, the physical proximity to the transmitter. I concluded that in order for them both to come up with the same numbers, they'd have to be in ultra close proximity to each other physically, they'd have to start listening on the same channel at the EXACT same time. So for someone to duplicate the number they'd really need to be in the same physical place as the one creating the number. Even if the attacker was on the same channel, it would still be physically impossible to duplicate the number. In this way the only way an attacker could influence the outcome would be to modulate ALL the channels so that what comes out of the digital receive is zeros. But since that would be something checked by the processor creating the number, it would be reported to the user and the user would KNOW someone is screwing with him
I've used several ways to create really good random numbers, though I've never tested to see if they were PERFECTLY random.
1) use a crappy capacitor. Measure the time it takes for the thing to charge/discharge, the concept here is that because the capacitor is junk the discharge rate will never be the same. Any change in temperature, or even air pressure, would affect the time. Take the least siginificant bit and rotate it into a byte, do that 128 times to get a nice big 128 bit random number. Of course, I found that in some conditions it would take a couple seconds to complete even a 16 bit number
2) My most recent application has used a radio receiver. Measure the time between two rising(or falling) edges on the digital receive lines. Doesn't matter if there's modulated data or if it's noise, the time is always different, at least if you're timing it in 100 nano-second increments. Again, take the least significant bit from each time and rotate it into your number. So you take 128 samples and you have a 128 bit random number. This method is typically VERY fast, since noise is usually picked up as fast as the receiver can get it, so timing between two rising edges is around 2-5 micro seconds. Best thing is, if I find a channel that isn't producing good results, I just change channels! :D
I've taken a lot of samples using the radio method, and it's results were better than the capacitor EVER was. With bluetooth and all these other cheapo radio chips coming out, and microchips for ATMEL being so cheap and so good, I would think someone could easily create a really cheap hardware random number generator that could plug into your usb port. But what do I know? :D