The middle class is the only class the government can get money from. The rich hire armies of lawyers to find all the loopholes or relocate, the poor have no money and it's bad press to get from the poor anyways.
I usually use SHA and MD5 in sequence, a few hundred times. The hash updates itself with more iterations whenever I detect that the CPUs are too fast. That way I do keep ahead of CPU power. No matter what, my goal is to make the execution time of the hash method constant over time. So new CPUs mean more hashes to perform.
How will they get the password hash without first breaking into the system? Seriously, how useful are these brute force crackers in attempting to crack, for example, my gmail password?
If he works for Google, it's 100% relevant and useful; Remember: some people DO have access to your data.
So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?
There's nothing new here. First DRM, then DMCA, and now they want to censor themselves. Their own sheer stupidity truly is amazing. Maybe they'll make a movie off of it one day...
If a person is not capable of control, they do, in fact, have an issue that will not be fixed by divorce.
Agreed. But that's a misinterpretation of the parent's post. Nobody was talking about a person that is not capable of control. The discussion was about an example of someone who lost control once. That's not quite the same in my book.
S0nicfreak just pushed his answer to the extreme interpreting the example of someone losing control as someone who "cannot himself". That's a bit of a stretch.
I could answer to your statement: Nobody has absolute control, hence nobody is capable of control. But your statement is not made to target anyone that could lose control once in his lifetime. I understand that. S0nicfreak did not in his comment. He depicted the world in black and white and I just tried to point out that this is a stupid view. Nobody "cannot control himself". There are various degrees and at some point in the right (or wrong) circumstances we could all lose control.
The GGGGGGGGP (I think) was just talking about someone giving in to an impulse, to which s0ncfreak replied "If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix." He clearly excluded any form of exception and made a blanket statement so stupid that I felt obliged to correct him pointing out that NO ONE is safe from a mistake here and then.
And now you say "Your comment was the only one making black-and-white assumptions".
I'm not sure either what to make about your reply...
Life spent being able to choose which impulses to give in to is actually pretty good. Most of the people I know with poor impulse control are complete wrecks in at least one area of their lives, which they otherwise could manage.
It has nothing to do with not making mistakes, or being unafraid to ever make them. It's still quite possible to make mistakes, they just usually don't result from impulsive choices. Lots of other causes for mistakes abound in life.
Emphasis mine. There are exceptions then? Isn't this all thread talking about those exceptions?
If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix.
I'll bite and assume you are one of those guys that can control themselves when faced with temptation. And I have only one question: How's life when you make no mistake and you are not even afraid of ever making one? I am genuinely interested since you seem to be one representative.
If you need to consciously be careful not to play into your spouse's insecurities, maybe you have married the wrong human being. Being married is not supposed to mean you're in prison bounded to do whatever your spouse tells you to and avoid at all cost everything that isn't tolerated.
If it is your case, you just married someone that wasn't a good match.
The exception is having married someone whose insecurities changed afterwards. That happens. But usually, unless something big happened, this is within reasonable boundaries.
And Google staff has a great temper on that one. I would have pointed out "Programming for Dummies" to the guy straight out and I would have banned him from my bug tracker. I mean, by this bug alone you can see the guy is utterly clueless about CS in general.
Since you decided to play hard to understand, here it is all laid out for you:
Microsoft's business model revolves around selling software.
Apple's business model revolves around selling hardware.
This is not to say Apple doesn't make software, but they make software for the purpose of selling hardware. While Microsoft makes hardware for the purpose of selling software.
Very nice explanation. Another analogy might be violation of privacy.
Let's say you are retired. Someone takes a pic of you taking a poop and displays it publicly in your town. You lost no money in the process. Have you lost nothing?
Usually, when a company (or a person) violates the GPL they are asked to either release the source code or remove all GPL code from their product. So for instance if they decided to drop their proprietary implementation tomorrow in favor of something else nobody would follow up on the GPL violation.
Granted, it's not to the letter what is in the GPL, but that's how these things usually pan out.
Yes, this is all Microsoft's fault because with UNIX apps, you're expected to deal with this sort of bullshit.
You SHOULD expect this kind of bullshit. Because in real life, shit happens. Servers do reboot. Servers do see their clocks reset. Yes, even time servers.
In general, YOU are responsible for your own system. You may query other servers to check their time, but in the end, it's your program that sets your computer's time, so it's its own responsibility to do the right thing.
A check against something obviously wrong is just common sense.
Nope. in the TOC of an audio CD you can define pauses in between tracks. MP3 doesn't define any pause at all although it is a pain for gapless playback but for an entirely different reason: The length (in time) of an MP3 file is not as precise as the sampling rate, hence a fraction of a second of blank between two songs as a regular encoder will err on encoding a song in an MP3 file slightly longer than the original in order to preserve the full length of the file.
Slashdot Mirror
The middle class is the only class the government can get money from. The rich hire armies of lawyers to find all the loopholes or relocate, the poor have no money and it's bad press to get from the poor anyways.
Are you out of 5th grade yet? The "no I win" argument isn't really going to cut it here.
Since you mentioned "usability and other studies" you might want to substantiate your claim by giving a few links?
I usually use SHA and MD5 in sequence, a few hundred times. The hash updates itself with more iterations whenever I detect that the CPUs are too fast. That way I do keep ahead of CPU power. No matter what, my goal is to make the execution time of the hash method constant over time. So new CPUs mean more hashes to perform.
How will they get the password hash without first breaking into the system? Seriously, how useful are these brute force crackers in attempting to crack, for example, my gmail password?
If he works for Google, it's 100% relevant and useful; Remember: some people DO have access to your data.
Or perhaps just the movie studios clearly mis-understanding what the internet is all about.
Perhaps? It's been a while. They've clearly demonstrated it beyond any shred of doubt.
So, Hollywood is actively trying to push itself into obscurity?
There's nothing new here. First DRM, then DMCA, and now they want to censor themselves. Their own sheer stupidity truly is amazing. Maybe they'll make a movie off of it one day...
If a person is not capable of control, they do, in fact, have an issue that will not be fixed by divorce.
Agreed. But that's a misinterpretation of the parent's post. Nobody was talking about a person that is not capable of control. The discussion was about an example of someone who lost control once. That's not quite the same in my book.
S0nicfreak just pushed his answer to the extreme interpreting the example of someone losing control as someone who "cannot himself". That's a bit of a stretch.
I could answer to your statement: Nobody has absolute control, hence nobody is capable of control. But your statement is not made to target anyone that could lose control once in his lifetime. I understand that. S0nicfreak did not in his comment. He depicted the world in black and white and I just tried to point out that this is a stupid view. Nobody "cannot control himself". There are various degrees and at some point in the right (or wrong) circumstances we could all lose control.
Is that so hard to understand?
The GGGGGGGGP (I think) was just talking about someone giving in to an impulse, to which s0ncfreak replied "If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix." He clearly excluded any form of exception and made a blanket statement so stupid that I felt obliged to correct him pointing out that NO ONE is safe from a mistake here and then.
And now you say "Your comment was the only one making black-and-white assumptions".
I'm not sure either what to make about your reply...
Your own words point in the direction of you giving in to an impulse just before hitting the "Submit" button. I guess you're one of us then. Welcome.
Life spent being able to choose which impulses to give in to is actually pretty good. Most of the people I know with poor impulse control are complete wrecks in at least one area of their lives, which they otherwise could manage.
It has nothing to do with not making mistakes, or being unafraid to ever make them. It's still quite possible to make mistakes, they just usually don't result from impulsive choices. Lots of other causes for mistakes abound in life.
Emphasis mine. There are exceptions then? Isn't this all thread talking about those exceptions?
If you can not control yourself when faced with temptation, you have issues that divorce alone is not going to fix.
I'll bite and assume you are one of those guys that can control themselves when faced with temptation. And I have only one question: How's life when you make no mistake and you are not even afraid of ever making one? I am genuinely interested since you seem to be one representative.
If you need to consciously be careful not to play into your spouse's insecurities, maybe you have married the wrong human being. Being married is not supposed to mean you're in prison bounded to do whatever your spouse tells you to and avoid at all cost everything that isn't tolerated.
If it is your case, you just married someone that wasn't a good match.
The exception is having married someone whose insecurities changed afterwards. That happens. But usually, unless something big happened, this is within reasonable boundaries.
Non! "Le Flamé Royale"!
With Cheese.
Extra Bacon?
That... would be better if were spelled out explicitly in the article or at least implicitly in the summary.
But where would be the fun? Gone...
This level of insanity cannot continue. It stifles innovation, and practically guarantees no small players will ever design a new mobile device or OS.
Given the number of new OSs coming in, I'd say we've got more than enough.
And Google staff has a great temper on that one. I would have pointed out "Programming for Dummies" to the guy straight out and I would have banned him from my bug tracker. I mean, by this bug alone you can see the guy is utterly clueless about CS in general.
Since you decided to play hard to understand, here it is all laid out for you:
Microsoft's business model revolves around selling software.
Apple's business model revolves around selling hardware.
This is not to say Apple doesn't make software, but they make software for the purpose of selling hardware. While Microsoft makes hardware for the purpose of selling software.
Can you provide a link ?
Sailfish being based on Linux as well, it will at least have an open kernel.
Very nice explanation. Another analogy might be violation of privacy.
Let's say you are retired. Someone takes a pic of you taking a poop and displays it publicly in your town. You lost no money in the process. Have you lost nothing?
Usually, when a company (or a person) violates the GPL they are asked to either release the source code or remove all GPL code from their product. So for instance if they decided to drop their proprietary implementation tomorrow in favor of something else nobody would follow up on the GPL violation.
Granted, it's not to the letter what is in the GPL, but that's how these things usually pan out.
Yes, this is all Microsoft's fault because with UNIX apps, you're expected to deal with this sort of bullshit.
You SHOULD expect this kind of bullshit. Because in real life, shit happens. Servers do reboot. Servers do see their clocks reset. Yes, even time servers.
In general, YOU are responsible for your own system. You may query other servers to check their time, but in the end, it's your program that sets your computer's time, so it's its own responsibility to do the right thing.
A check against something obviously wrong is just common sense.
Nope. in the TOC of an audio CD you can define pauses in between tracks. MP3 doesn't define any pause at all although it is a pain for gapless playback but for an entirely different reason: The length (in time) of an MP3 file is not as precise as the sampling rate, hence a fraction of a second of blank between two songs as a regular encoder will err on encoding a song in an MP3 file slightly longer than the original in order to preserve the full length of the file.
You are aware that this story isn't about Apple, right?
Did you read my third sentence?