My previous house was in Nashville, TN, a town of 600k-1.5mil (depending on whether you count just the city proper or the surrounding areas). I was ~2 miles from downtown, ~1 mile from Vanderbilt University. Definitely "in the city" and not out in the boonies.
My option was Comcast or Comcast.
Now, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I recently moved to Chicago (a bit outside of the loop, within 3 blocks of a subway stop), and my only option was also just the cable company. They have Clearwire coverage there, but it was, frankly, terrible. And "two choices" isn't really competition.
I'm sorry, but that entire post is a giant cop-out, wrapped up in an air of "I'm too important for facebook"
If you don't have facebook, whatever, there's a lot of people that don't. That's no big deal one way or another.
But, you claim "I am a libertarian and would even be willing to pick up a gun and fight for freedom" then immediately follow it up with "but I don't do facebook or twitter"
You have a slashdot account so you can spend time talking (semi) anonymously with people about (in the long run) pretty non-life changing articles, but you find a political movement that you may or may not be interested in, but you can't be bothered to sign up for a throwaway account on a website to follow their up-to-date news?
And that's ignoring the fact that there is literally TONS of both press coverage and information about the tea party from both pretty much any major (and minor) news organizations and searching for the term "Tea Party" brings you to their websites immediately.
The most shocking thing is that you are someone who has a defined political position and I assume you vote, but you know so little about political discourse that you didn't know what the Tea Party was up until this thread? And your excuse for this is that you don't use facebook or twitter? If you've spent the past.. year(?) thinking that "Tea Partier" was just a derogatory expression for libertarian, you're simply uninformed. Facebook and twitter had nothing to do with that.
I don't have a DVR, but a common complaint about CableCard is that a) many cable companies charge $5/mo for the card (which is as much as it costs to rent some of their DVRs), and B) CableCard is only supported using certain PVR software under windows (encrypted things have to be stored encrypted on disk). I could be wrong, but I think only MS's software supports it.
Though, honestly, with netflix and hulu, I don't see a reason to store gigs and gigs of video like I used to.
The problem with form fields is it's trivial for the user to edit it. A little knowledge is all that's required. So you store the user's name somewhere, the user changes the value, now they're logged in as someone else. So you put in there a single random identifier instead. Makes more sense to do it like ASP.NET, with cookieless state. It sends you a GUID type session cookie, and stores everything related to it on the server. Just a value appended to the querystring.
Wait. I'm confused. The GUID you speak about in ASP.NET sounds like the sessionIDs, and instead of passing them with cookies, you're passing them either in URLs or as form elements. Unless I'm missing something obvious, that's how (most) web frameworks handle fallbacks for users that don't have cookies enabled.
I'll concede that many times language isn't a good map between words and concepts, but it doesn't take faith for me to be able to say "Pi is irrational", and it's not ridiculous for me to use an axiomatic method to decide logical statements that are defined in an axiomatic universe of discourse.
Oh, I didn't realize I was being trolled. Nevermind.
I'm confused about what this statement means at all. It is certainly and easily provable that pi is irrational and that all irrational numbers will never repeat their pattern. I think even the greeks knew at least one of those statements.
Similarly, it's possible to prove that any set is either finite or infinite...
Which is certainly not polynomial. But isn't quite exponential.
My bad, I'm usually loose with terminology (I work on a particle accelerator, i'm used to having to dumb things down to get the bigger points across to people who wouldn't understand the nuances)
I have 3 thoughts:
1) GGP implied factorization is solved. I wouldn't count a super-polynomial algorithm as 'solving' the problem. In the context of RSA, I'd count "solved" as it would be within the reach of the average person to break a code. (for instance, substitution cyphers are "solved")
2) I thought that factorization wasn't in NP, but I forgot that you can formulate it as a decision tree, so I was wrong on that.
3) From a practical aspect, knowing P = NP wouldn't be useful right away. The complexity of the solution could still be ridiculous even if it's in P.
It's brute-forcable but not solvable. Big factorization (which is the crux of RSA -- finding the integer factors of a giant number) is still expoential, it's just that computers have gotten much much faster, so it's possible to brute-force those keys in a "finite" amount of time.
"solvable" in this context would be someone found a polynomial time to factorize the number. But, I don't think factorization is in NP, so it may be a moot point. (I think it's EXPTIME, but it's been a while)
To add to the parent, there's so many top quarks (something that's pretty rare, even on the tevatron), that we're planning on subtracting it out as a background for other events (tops share some decay channels with other, more interesting particles)
You're comparing apples and oranges. All of these big experiments have things they need to get to get worked out before they're running at their design strength. That's the problem with building machines that are their own prototypes.
I can't speak for all of them, but the detector I work on has been performing excellently (all its detector subsystems, etc..). There was a flaw in some of the accelerator magnets of the main LHC ring, and it needs to be fixed, which involves warming up and cooling down the magnets (which takes 3 months each eway)
Fermilab, by comparison has been running for something like 20 years, they did their shakedown phase a long time ago, and now they're tuned to run optimally. It's the lifecycle of these things.
How about insisting that constructors of derived classes have the same signature (e.g. something like a virtual constructor)? That would save one from having a separate virtual "Init()" function? Why is it necessary? So I can pass the same arguments safely to the particular instance of an object I get from a factory when I ask the factory for an instance based on some run-time parameter WITHOUT needing to separate "construction" and "virtual initialization" when the distinction is artificial.
I'm confused. If you're calling constructors of derived classes, they all have to have the same signature as the base class. (or at least provide the same signature as the base
One correction -- coal generates a TON of radioactive waste, and pumps it straight up into the air. If you managed to scrub it out, you have coal sludge, which is also radioactive. You end right back up to where you are with nuclear power, except it's a bit more diluted than nuclear waste.
I don't understand how people can, in one breath complain about nuclear waste from nuclear plants, and then suggest coal power in the next breath.
Also, IIRC the general director's first language isn't english, so I think the "pompous" the submitter saw was just stemming from that. From what I've heard, he's a nice guy.
The plan for a while now was always to have a period of running at lower power/luminosity then a long shutdown to completely fix the error that caused the incident in 2008. Last december the plan was for a 5 month run this year and a year long shutdown, and they changed that in early february to a 18-24 month run and year long shutdown.
Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program. Valve probably wouldn't do it though:/
yeah, you certainly can, and in fact, the particles in modern accelerators each particle makes many many many rotations whizzing by the counterrotating particles, which is the only way we get any collisions since the probability per crossing of an interaction is so low. Problem is, we're not perfect at containing the beams, and they bleed off little by little by collisions with the walls, etc.. so take an already rare process of antiparticle production and shave off a big amount of that due to losses, and you see where a lot of difficulty producing luminosity (brightness) comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
My previous house was in Nashville, TN, a town of 600k-1.5mil (depending on whether you count just the city proper or the surrounding areas). I was ~2 miles from downtown, ~1 mile from Vanderbilt University. Definitely "in the city" and not out in the boonies.
My option was Comcast or Comcast.
Now, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I recently moved to Chicago (a bit outside of the loop, within 3 blocks of a subway stop), and my only option was also just the cable company. They have Clearwire coverage there, but it was, frankly, terrible. And "two choices" isn't really competition.
I'm sorry, but that entire post is a giant cop-out, wrapped up in an air of "I'm too important for facebook"
If you don't have facebook, whatever, there's a lot of people that don't. That's no big deal one way or another.
But, you claim "I am a libertarian and would even be willing to pick up a gun and fight for freedom" then immediately follow it up with "but I don't do facebook or twitter"
You have a slashdot account so you can spend time talking (semi) anonymously with people about (in the long run) pretty non-life changing articles, but you find a political movement that you may or may not be interested in, but you can't be bothered to sign up for a throwaway account on a website to follow their up-to-date news?
And that's ignoring the fact that there is literally TONS of both press coverage and information about the tea party from both pretty much any major (and minor) news organizations and searching for the term "Tea Party" brings you to their websites immediately.
The most shocking thing is that you are someone who has a defined political position and I assume you vote, but you know so little about political discourse that you didn't know what the Tea Party was up until this thread? And your excuse for this is that you don't use facebook or twitter? If you've spent the past .. year(?) thinking that "Tea Partier" was just a derogatory expression for libertarian, you're simply uninformed. Facebook and twitter had nothing to do with that.
I don't have a DVR, but a common complaint about CableCard is that a) many cable companies charge $5/mo for the card (which is as much as it costs to rent some of their DVRs), and B) CableCard is only supported using certain PVR software under windows (encrypted things have to be stored encrypted on disk). I could be wrong, but I think only MS's software supports it.
Though, honestly, with netflix and hulu, I don't see a reason to store gigs and gigs of video like I used to.
The problem with form fields is it's trivial for the user to edit it. A little knowledge is all that's required. So you store the user's name somewhere, the user changes the value, now they're logged in as someone else. So you put in there a single random identifier instead. Makes more sense to do it like ASP.NET, with cookieless state. It sends you a GUID type session cookie, and stores everything related to it on the server. Just a value appended to the querystring.
Wait. I'm confused. The GUID you speak about in ASP.NET sounds like the sessionIDs, and instead of passing them with cookies, you're passing them either in URLs or as form elements. Unless I'm missing something obvious, that's how (most) web frameworks handle fallbacks for users that don't have cookies enabled.
I'll concede that many times language isn't a good map between words and concepts, but it doesn't take faith for me to be able to say "Pi is irrational", and it's not ridiculous for me to use an axiomatic method to decide logical statements that are defined in an axiomatic universe of discourse.
Oh, I didn't realize I was being trolled. Nevermind.
I'm confused about what this statement means at all. It is certainly and easily provable that pi is irrational and that all irrational numbers will never repeat their pattern. I think even the greeks knew at least one of those statements.
Similarly, it's possible to prove that any set is either finite or infinite...
Sorry, I'm just totally confused.
The running time for GNFS is:
O( EXP[ (CONSTANT_GREATER_THAN_ONE) * (log n)^(1/3) * (loglog n)^{2/3) ] )
Which is certainly not polynomial. But isn't quite exponential.
My bad, I'm usually loose with terminology (I work on a particle accelerator, i'm used to having to dumb things down to get the bigger points across to people who wouldn't understand the nuances)
I have 3 thoughts:
1) GGP implied factorization is solved. I wouldn't count a super-polynomial algorithm as 'solving' the problem. In the context of RSA, I'd count "solved" as it would be within the reach of the average person to break a code. (for instance, substitution cyphers are "solved")
2) I thought that factorization wasn't in NP, but I forgot that you can formulate it as a decision tree, so I was wrong on that.
3) From a practical aspect, knowing P = NP wouldn't be useful right away. The complexity of the solution could still be ridiculous even if it's in P.
It's brute-forcable but not solvable. Big factorization (which is the crux of RSA -- finding the integer factors of a giant number) is still expoential, it's just that computers have gotten much much faster, so it's possible to brute-force those keys in a "finite" amount of time.
"solvable" in this context would be someone found a polynomial time to factorize the number. But, I don't think factorization is in NP, so it may be a moot point. (I think it's EXPTIME, but it's been a while)
and this is why letting your boss know your handles online is a bad thing
(actually was my boss)
You at CMS or ATLAS?
I don't like to get into it too much online but, as a hint, I can see the tevatron ring from my office.
To add to the parent, there's so many top quarks (something that's pretty rare, even on the tevatron), that we're planning on subtracting it out as a background for other events (tops share some decay channels with other, more interesting particles)
You're comparing apples and oranges. All of these big experiments have things they need to get to get worked out before they're running at their design strength. That's the problem with building machines that are their own prototypes.
I can't speak for all of them, but the detector I work on has been performing excellently (all its detector subsystems, etc..). There was a flaw in some of the accelerator magnets of the main LHC ring, and it needs to be fixed, which involves warming up and cooling down the magnets (which takes 3 months each eway)
Fermilab, by comparison has been running for something like 20 years, they did their shakedown phase a long time ago, and now they're tuned to run optimally. It's the lifecycle of these things.
How about insisting that constructors of derived classes have the same signature (e.g. something like a virtual constructor)? That would save one from having a separate virtual "Init()" function? Why is it necessary? So I can pass the same arguments safely to the particular instance of an object I get from a factory when I ask the factory for an instance based on some run-time parameter WITHOUT needing to separate "construction" and "virtual initialization" when the distinction is artificial.
I'm confused. If you're calling constructors of derived classes, they all have to have the same signature as the base class. (or at least provide the same signature as the base
One correction -- coal generates a TON of radioactive waste, and pumps it straight up into the air. If you managed to scrub it out, you have coal sludge, which is also radioactive. You end right back up to where you are with nuclear power, except it's a bit more diluted than nuclear waste.
I don't understand how people can, in one breath complain about nuclear waste from nuclear plants, and then suggest coal power in the next breath.
It's pretty cool that all geeks think exactly the same thing all the time. Otherwise we couldn't have fun discussions like this.
There's already a CLI-based steam client for linux to install dedicated servers though...
They would evaporate according to the theory.
It's still a little rough yet, but is under active development.
Hah, like everything about Myth...
Also, IIRC the general director's first language isn't english, so I think the "pompous" the submitter saw was just stemming from that. From what I've heard, he's a nice guy.
The plan for a while now was always to have a period of running at lower power/luminosity then a long shutdown to completely fix the error that caused the incident in 2008. Last december the plan was for a 5 month run this year and a year long shutdown, and they changed that in early february to a 18-24 month run and year long shutdown.
Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program. Valve probably wouldn't do it though :/
You don't need to source to figure out what libraries are needed, the RPM's .spec file will give that to you.
like a lot of interesting 'discoveries' people have made, nobody has been able to independantly reproduce the result.
To be able to read it on almost every computer available? There's a benefit to that when you have removable media, you know.
yeah, you certainly can, and in fact, the particles in modern accelerators each particle makes many many many rotations whizzing by the counterrotating particles, which is the only way we get any collisions since the probability per crossing of an interaction is so low. Problem is, we're not perfect at containing the beams, and they bleed off little by little by collisions with the walls, etc.. so take an already rare process of antiparticle production and shave off a big amount of that due to losses, and you see where a lot of difficulty producing luminosity (brightness) comes from.