I can't remember the UI designer, but there are 5 areas of the screen which are "infintely large".
Fitt's Law: the time to aquire a target is proportional to the distance to the target and inversely proportional to its size.
The entire sides are infinitely large as well, but only in one direction. (and all bets are off with multple monitors)
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had this in mind when they decided where to put the taskbar, but screwed up if it was. Maybe they just put it there 'cuz that's where the task icons started at in Win3.1
the quicksort algorithm, while being the most (or one of the most) efficient sorting algorithms, is extremely inefficient if given an ordered set already.
That depends on how you pick your pivots. If you choose them randomly it's a lot harder to get the worst case, so long as an attacker can't duplicate your random number sequence.
Still, there are sort algos that are O(nlogn) regardless of the input, but they've got a slower multiplier. So do you pick the one that's fastest in the average case, or fastest on the worst case? How likely is it that someone will exploit that worst case?
the software could revert to an alternate if the primary function appeared to be generating way too many collisions.
That's probably not as helpful as you might imagine. If the alternate hash function is just as likely (or more likely) to produce collisions than the original, someone could just exploit *both* of them (alternating at whatever rate your code switches at). You really want to just pick a very good hash function to begin with.
ok, but there's a correlation between amps and volts, called Ohm's law: voltage = current * resistance.
There's enough amperage in a AA battery to stop your heart
This is misleading, a AA battery may be capable of putting out that much current, but the amount of current it does put out depends on the resistance. Your body has sufficient resistance that the current from a single AA battery would never do any such thing.
50 amps at a couple picovolts wouldnt do anything either.
You can't get 50A at say 3pV because your body does not have a resistance anywhere near.006 picoohms. It's meaningless to say it wouldn't do anything because it can't happen.
That 300mA at 80,000 volts could kill you, because the current could then reach your heart or cause your diaphragm to convulse.
...because at 80kV, you can actually get 300mA.
So yes, it's both, because you cannot separate voltage and current. The current, however, is a more direct measurement, since it combines voltage and the resistance your body puts up to that voltage. (eg, a lower voltage is more dangerous if your skin is wet)
They also propose that all computer systems should have an "undo" feature built in to allow harmful changes (either due to mistakes or malice) to be easily undone...
Actually it's in some driver, not the core OS, so it's not surprising that it doesn't happen to everyone. (There's a few other things with similar problems.)
If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's)
blah, blah, blah.
I don't care how many fasion critics rave about the emperors outfit, naked is naked.
they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel...or are you just a troll? Stop expressing your opinion, you're just embarrasing yourself.
Why don't the people notice the lack of advancement in the Matrix? Over a hundred years of 1999-ness... no stunning advances in CGI, or science, or anything!
Even if you only count the nondegradable trash, an average movie watcher's rental consumption will not come close to touching the amount of other stuff they already throw away.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing? It sounds like increasing the trash volume is the last thing we should do.
I'll bet most of that is stuff that "would hardly make a noticeable addition to our trash output." Enough raindrops will get you a flood.
Re:gcc 3.3 fails on glibc 2.3.2
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
The same is true with compilers: unless you have a compiler that generated bad code for 100% of the cases where you're not following the language perfectly, you won't catch all bugs.
Even if it does you're not very well off. Optimally it would refuse to generate any code at all when you aren't following the language perfectly.
Has no one heard of Curitaba, Brazil? While the entire city is not car-free, some sections are, and car usage has declined in the face of increased population.
Spam doesn't work the same way as something like a webpage (or Usenet, or IRC, etc). With most systems (HTTP for example), you must actively request the data you want. With email, the spammer makes that decision for you. That's the real problem with email, it's the IETF's equivalent of the Windows Messaging system (which, coincidentally, also gets spammed).
Personally, I am leaning towards using a "web of trust" system, with confirmed authentication to prevent relaying of spoofed email.
If the problem with email is that it's a push service, why not fix that instead of just accepting it? Ok, you need part of it to be push, so you know that someone wants to send you something, but it doesn't have to be very much.
Re:A translation from Nob-speak to Slash-speak
on
Spam, Milord
·
· Score: 1
I would post the definition of "arrogant" here as well, but it is apparent that no man on this earth can teach you anything more about that particular flaw.
I have a semi-uninformed guess: The pit depth is determined by the wavelength of the light used to read it. The light reflected off of the disk has to either reinforce or cancel the incoming laser light, so the pit depth has to be a multiple of the wavelength plus a half.
But I dunno if that's really a problem. A blue laser system compatible with a red laser system makes me suspect that it is not.
You see this in software too. People think if they just "start over", everything will be okay. Wrong! You just get a new set of problems.
False. You *may* get a new set of problems, but if you design properly, it will be a *smaller* set. In fact, you're more likely to get more problems if you just apply a patch to the existing system, because now the system is more complex.
The problem in this case is not that you definitely will get new problems, it's that the cost is very high if you do.
Slashdot Mirror
But would a microcontroller be a "computer chip"? I'd classify it more as an "embedded device chip."
52 cents! My entire life savings! I spent the rest on overpriced CDs.
Maybe that's why they went after him: anyone who has money left over can't be paying for their music.
Rename the file and send it again ;)
Interesting how "total" became "terrorist." Foreshadowing anyone? ;)
I can't remember the UI designer, but there are 5 areas of the screen which are "infintely large".
Fitt's Law: the time to aquire a target is proportional to the distance to the target and inversely proportional to its size.
The entire sides are infinitely large as well, but only in one direction. (and all bets are off with multple monitors)
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had this in mind when they decided where to put the taskbar, but screwed up if it was. Maybe they just put it there 'cuz that's where the task icons started at in Win3.1
If Microsoft has their way, there will only be one browser.
From the sounds of things, if Microsoft has their way, there will be no browser. That's just another part of the OS's shell.
the quicksort algorithm, while being the most (or one of the most) efficient sorting algorithms, is extremely inefficient if given an ordered set already.
That depends on how you pick your pivots. If you choose them randomly it's a lot harder to get the worst case, so long as an attacker can't duplicate your random number sequence.
Still, there are sort algos that are O(nlogn) regardless of the input, but they've got a slower multiplier. So do you pick the one that's fastest in the average case, or fastest on the worst case? How likely is it that someone will exploit that worst case?
the software could revert to an alternate if the primary function appeared to be generating way too many collisions.
That's probably not as helpful as you might imagine. If the alternate hash function is just as likely (or more likely) to produce collisions than the original, someone could just exploit *both* of them (alternating at whatever rate your code switches at). You really want to just pick a very good hash function to begin with.
The floors are filthy enough as it is.
ok, but there's a correlation between amps and volts, called Ohm's law: voltage = current * resistance.
.006 picoohms. It's meaningless to say it wouldn't do anything because it can't happen.
There's enough amperage in a AA battery to stop your heart
This is misleading, a AA battery may be capable of putting out that much current, but the amount of current it does put out depends on the resistance. Your body has sufficient resistance that the current from a single AA battery would never do any such thing.
50 amps at a couple picovolts wouldnt do anything either.
You can't get 50A at say 3pV because your body does not have a resistance anywhere near
That 300mA at 80,000 volts could kill you, because the current could then reach your heart or cause your diaphragm to convulse.
...because at 80kV, you can actually get 300mA.
So yes, it's both, because you cannot separate voltage and current. The current, however, is a more direct measurement, since it combines voltage and the resistance your body puts up to that voltage. (eg, a lower voltage is more dangerous if your skin is wet)
No, in other words not having to recompile many things is kinda moot for those of us not already running Apple hardware.
Even more so since both of the x86 sucessors can run existing 32-bit code, although much less efficiently in the case of ia64.
You *can* recompile your application code but the only program that *has* to do it is the Operating System
But you will have to recompile/rewrite all of your Windows and x86 code in general.
They also propose that all computer systems should have an "undo" feature built in to allow harmful changes (either due to mistakes or malice) to be easily undone...
That's great until the undo feature crashes.
Microsoft says so.
Actually it's in some driver, not the core OS, so it's not surprising that it doesn't happen to everyone. (There's a few other things with similar problems.)
If people knew how many prestigious awards the show has been nominate for and how many critical raves Buffy gets or read any of the background articles written about the writers and the show in some fairly august places (e.g., the NYT's)
..or are you just a troll? Stop expressing your opinion, you're just embarrasing yourself.
blah, blah, blah.
I don't care how many fasion critics rave about the emperors outfit, naked is naked.
they might be less prone to embassing themselves with such drivel.
I would, but I don't know how to form an HTTP request to get them ;)
Why don't the people notice the lack of advancement in the Matrix? Over a hundred years of 1999-ness... no stunning advances in CGI, or science, or anything!
They should hit the public in 5-10 years.
Even if you only count the nondegradable trash, an average movie watcher's rental consumption will not come close to touching the amount of other stuff they already throw away.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing? It sounds like increasing the trash volume is the last thing we should do.
I'll bet most of that is stuff that "would hardly make a noticeable addition to our trash output." Enough raindrops will get you a flood.
The same is true with compilers: unless you have a compiler that generated bad code for 100% of the cases where you're not following the language perfectly, you won't catch all bugs.
Even if it does you're not very well off. Optimally it would refuse to generate any code at all when you aren't following the language perfectly.
Buses, bicycles, feet.
Has no one heard of Curitaba, Brazil? While the entire city is not car-free, some sections are, and car usage has declined in the face of increased population.
Spam doesn't work the same way as something like a webpage (or Usenet, or IRC, etc). With most systems (HTTP for example), you must actively request the data you want. With email, the spammer makes that decision for you. That's the real problem with email, it's the IETF's equivalent of the Windows Messaging system (which, coincidentally, also gets spammed).
Personally, I am leaning towards using a "web of trust" system, with confirmed authentication to prevent relaying of spoofed email.
Why?
If the problem with email is that it's a push service, why not fix that instead of just accepting it? Ok, you need part of it to be push, so you know that someone wants to send you something, but it doesn't have to be very much.
I would post the definition of "arrogant" here as well, but it is apparent that no man on this earth can teach you anything more about that particular flaw.
Psh, I could.
I have a semi-uninformed guess: The pit depth is determined by the wavelength of the light used to read it. The light reflected off of the disk has to either reinforce or cancel the incoming laser light, so the pit depth has to be a multiple of the wavelength plus a half.
But I dunno if that's really a problem. A blue laser system compatible with a red laser system makes me suspect that it is not.
More likely, they just make more money this way.
"What's a date?"
It's a kind of fruit or something. I don't know exactly what they are, but they're quite tasty. Check 'em out next time you're at the supermarket.
You see this in software too. People think if they just "start over", everything will be okay. Wrong! You just get a new set of problems.
False. You *may* get a new set of problems, but if you design properly, it will be a *smaller* set. In fact, you're more likely to get more problems if you just apply a patch to the existing system, because now the system is more complex.
The problem in this case is not that you definitely will get new problems, it's that the cost is very high if you do.
There's another interesting technology at Iridigm.