I always read about how our QWERTY typewriters were designed to deliberately 'slow' you down. I even taught this to my classes of elementary and middle school students.
Do elementary teachers have a quota of old wives tales and myths to impart to their students? QWERTY typewriters were designed to avoid mechanical jams resulting from commonly used keys being too close together.
I pulled out my Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing manual (in the days when they came with paper manuals) to compare the results of these 5th graders with the Dvorak keyboard. I was stunned, as they matched almost perfectly.
You were stunned to learn that a layout based on statistical frequencies of English letters closely matched a statistical sampling of English letters?
If young children without a bias come up with the same result, there is a rightness and a logic to it.
You've "helped" nobody except yourself. That is precisely who I was trying to help. I gave the seller an amount of money which, according to the starting bid and reserve, he was willing to accept. The other potential buyers, according to their entered maximum bids (or their snipes) were not willing to pay as much as I was. You will excuse me if I have extremely limited sympathy for all of these people. Especially the seller who now has what used to be my money in his hands.
And with keeping the functionality rich and prices low, people will close an eye on stability.
I'd just like to point out that if we insisted that software be entirely bug-free, we would have no software. None. No man on the moon. No cell phone. No super-saver shipping from amazon. I think in terms of the benefits of sometimes-buggy software compared with the cost of software defects, we are way in the black.
How many thousands of cancer survivors are there for every one THERAC-25 victim?
The researchers say the power to run the Stirling cooler, about 240 watts, would be provided by on-board plutonium batteries, which generate power from the heat of radioactive decay. Excuse me while I go slam my head against a wall...
Slam it against a physics textbook instead. Perhaps the second law of thermodynamics will be driven into your brain.
They might have requested anonymity so people don't ridicule themabout paying for the low UID. Well, actually, it doesn't matter why they requested anonymity. The fact of the matter is that they did. It's a little rude to point out their account when they explicitly wanted to keep it hidden. It's not like GP promised to keep it a secret. The slashdot editors did, and they kept their promise. GP doesn't owe netelder anything, and you can hardly pretend that mentioning someone's slashdot uid is a breach of courtesy. It's not like he posted his phone number.
Name one. No one *has* to use anything. The definition of "have to" you are using is so narrow it is meaningless. You don't *have* to breathe oxygen. Unless you want to live.
Hypocrisy is taking code from a project that shares it freely and then slapping a restrictive license on it "so that it can be shared freely". Doesn't anybody see the irony in that?
It's only irony if you equivocate. "Freely" to the BSD people is not the same as "freely" to the GPL people.
A developer working with BSD licensed code is free to release his work without source code. A developer working with GPL licensed code has no such freedom.
A developer working with GPL licensed code is free to incorporate any modifications made by others back into his codebase. A developer working with BSD licensed code has no such freedom.
You give me a SHA1 hash and five years. If the money's right, I'll give you back a dataset that matches that hash within that five years.
That is an entirely idle boast. SHA1 is "broken." Broken doesn't mean anything like what you think it does. There are several ways in which a hash algorithm can be broken.
It is possible to find any 2 files with the same hash in less time than should be required by randomly trying files.
It is possible to find any 2 files with the same hash in a computationally feasible amount of time.
It is possible, given a file, to find another file with the same hash in less time than should be required by randomly trying files.
It is possible, given a file, to find another file with the same hash in a computationally feasible amount of time.
It is possible, given a file, to find another file with the same hash that doesn't look like a pile of random crap in less time than should be required by randomly trying files.
It is possible, given a file, to find another file with the same hash that doesn't look like a pile of random crap in a computationally feasible amount of time.
One break tends to lead to another eventually, and as Bruce Schneier is fond of saying, attacks always get better, they never get worse. So even the smallest break is enough reason to start looking for a new hash algorithm to use in the future. But make no mistake, what we've got for SHA1 is 1. If you've got enough computing horsepower, maybe 2. Certainly not 3, and 6, which you would need to make good on your promise, is right out. What you claim to be able to do in 5 years, I doubt the NSA could do in 20.
Of course, the vestigial mathematician inside me says that, in order to create that unforgeable hash plus the set of rules the file must conform to in order to be considered authentic, you will have to disclose a volume of information equal or larger than the file itself. No, it is impossible to uniquely describe every file of a given length N in such a way that the description for each file is shorter than N, by the pigeon hole principle. That says nothing about any particular file of length N.
My file is 2^256 bytes, all of which are zero.
There. that signature only fits a single file, but is certainly shorter than that file.
I don't even want to know have many dozens of acres of forest wiped out there are just for newspapers alone.
Basically zero. They don't go find a forest to clearcut to make paper. They have tree farms, where they cut down all the trees, plant new ones, and repeat.
. . . even if they fix the minor problem that google flagged for them?
minor problem my foot. Your notion that bigcompanyhere.com is entitled to grandma's money even if they're peddling spyware is ridiculous. Google gave grandma exactly what she wanted: a place to buy a widget without getting 0wn3d. The fact that they did no favors for bigcompanyhere.com is of no concern to her. Or me.
I wouldn't be surprised if they (google) began offering "consulting" fees to remove the malware that google flagged from the companies site quickly
I would be very surprised indeed. They don't offer consulting fees to get you back on the gravy train after you got penaltyboxed for purveying spam links
Their job should not be to tell people where to search but rather to let them go where they want to go.
Spyware central isn't where I want to go, even if they sell the cheapest RAM by four cents. Google, of course, is working for their shareholders and get paid by their advertisers, but they have a vested interest in keeping the searchers happy so the advertisers will keep paying them. The people whose sites are included in the results don't have some God given right to be on the first page so they can make money. Nevertheless, google has always tried to walk the tightrope between being overrun by crappy keyword farms and kicking out legitimate sites.
Giving someone a vaccine against a virus is not "condoning" anything.
It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.
Wearing a seatbelt is not "condoning" unsafe driving.
That's not the same because, rightly or wrongly, nobody strongly connects the quality of their driving with their potential for dying on the highway. It's all those other idiots, or that wet spot I couldn't have seen, or whatever.
Putting up a lightning rod is not "condoning" thunderstorms.
It is nonsensical to speak of "condoning" an event which is not an act of a person capable of moral thought.
Refusing to help someone because they caused their own suffering is deplorable. I certainly don't want to suffer for every immoral thing I've done. Keeping your children healthy is well worth letting them see your tacit acceptance of their sex life, but don't pretend when you tell them "this is so you won't get sick when you have sex" that what they're going to hear isn't "have sex."
To my knowladge, "terroristic" isn't even a real word
Your "knowladge" is wrong in every respect. It is a word, it is not a bastardization, and it does not trace its origin to the American dialect.
except in the sense that even engrish words that come into common usage do get promoted to the OED or somesuch publication.
You are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. Every word, before it was a word, was not a word. English was not passed down from before time began, you know. There was a time when there were exactly zero real English words. Over time the sounds people made to communicate thoughts and ideas became widespread enough that outside their little group could understand them. It's every bit as true of "fish" as it is of "okay" and "pokemon."
I guess to you it matters a great deal whether the "little group" in question was some Japanese computer nerds, some smart-aleck newspapermen, or a small germanic tribe on a big rainy island. Too bad you were wrong about which category "terroristic" falls in. If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it." So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money?
Quit being dense. The author has assumed that deep-linking is a perfectly moral action, but some webmasters will disagree and will endeavor to stop you. Therefore the reasons to not do it involve avoiding negative consequences like lawsuits, not obeying a moral precept. His point is that you will not face negative consequences until you have ignored a C&D, so there is no reason to pre-emptively clear your site of deep links, but a financial reason to not do so.
Factor in that a lot of the price of a device is overhead that doesn't change between cards, and 10% faster is quite a bit more for that amount of money.
Taking that into account makes it worse, not better. if some amount x of the price of both cards is overhead, then the speed-related portion of the prices are 800-x and 600-x, and (800-x)/(600-x) is bigger than 800/600 (for 0<x<600 of course).
Then there is the big fact that progammers these days are sloppy and waste resources.
Just shut the fuck up already. Anyone with more sense than a bag of rocks will conserve scarce resources, not plentiful ones. Clock cycles are cheap. Profiling is expensive. Megabytes are cheap. Time spent coming up with clever bithacks is expensive, especially since only the cleverest and generally highest-paid developers can do it. Second cores are cheap. More time spent coming up with whole new clever bithacks for the pentium D version because it has a different relative cost for jumps and floating point ops, thus making your last batch of hacks do more harm than good, is expensive.
Furthermore, programmers don't so much *waste* resources as utilize them to provide more value. Yeah, I know the 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, and those were some clever fellas who managed to make playable games on them. Lets see you play WoW on it. I know that your multimedia keyboard probably has more processing power than the PCjr that could once run Word. Fire up that version of Word, insert an image and a table, and hit "print preview."
Of course there are times when computing power is a precious resource. Console games that have to look awesome on 4 year old hardware. System libraries where every wasted clock will be multiplied by 2000 calls by 10000 different programs. Embedded systems where cost and size simply won't allow you to have those few extra Hz you crave. In these situations, when using extra cycles has more severe consequences than offending your sense of computational aesthetics, I believe you will find that these young whippersnappers aren't wasteful at all.
It's easy to have ideals ten miles high when they are never likely to be tested.
So, what, it's better to not have ideals so that you never have to live up to them? People with noble ideals don't always abide by them. People without them never do.
Is it really so hard to accept that people in another country can and will have another outlook?
They're not suing China. They're suing Yahoo. Those aren't "people in another country." Even if it's valid to judge them only on the terms of their society, we are their society.
Boy, you sure are stupid. Pedo- (meaning child) + -phile (meaning love) = sex? No, pedophilia is a *desire* to have sex with children. Hippo- (meaning horse) + -pottamus (meaning river) = Some big fat African animal?
Slashdot Mirror
I always read about how our QWERTY typewriters were designed to deliberately 'slow' you down. I even taught this to my classes of elementary and middle school students.
Do elementary teachers have a quota of old wives tales and myths to impart to their students? QWERTY typewriters were designed to avoid mechanical jams resulting from commonly used keys being too close together.
I pulled out my Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing manual (in the days when they came with paper manuals) to compare the results of these 5th graders with the Dvorak keyboard. I was stunned, as they matched almost perfectly.
You were stunned to learn that a layout based on statistical frequencies of English letters closely matched a statistical sampling of English letters?
If young children without a bias come up with the same result, there is a rightness and a logic to it.
Ha!
I'd just like to point out that if we insisted that software be entirely bug-free, we would have no software. None. No man on the moon. No cell phone. No super-saver shipping from amazon. I think in terms of the benefits of sometimes-buggy software compared with the cost of software defects, we are way in the black.
How many thousands of cancer survivors are there for every one THERAC-25 victim?
Slam it against a physics textbook instead. Perhaps the second law of thermodynamics will be driven into your brain.
How is that not precisely paying the "stupid tax" you spoke of? It's not like the BSD developers did the merging for them.
It's only irony if you equivocate. "Freely" to the BSD people is not the same as "freely" to the GPL people.
A developer working with BSD licensed code is free to release his work without source code. A developer working with GPL licensed code has no such freedom.
A developer working with GPL licensed code is free to incorporate any modifications made by others back into his codebase. A developer working with BSD licensed code has no such freedom.
If you want to program in perl, nobody's stopping you.
That is an entirely idle boast. SHA1 is "broken." Broken doesn't mean anything like what you think it does. There are several ways in which a hash algorithm can be broken.
One break tends to lead to another eventually, and as Bruce Schneier is fond of saying, attacks always get better, they never get worse. So even the smallest break is enough reason to start looking for a new hash algorithm to use in the future. But make no mistake, what we've got for SHA1 is 1. If you've got enough computing horsepower, maybe 2. Certainly not 3, and 6, which you would need to make good on your promise, is right out. What you claim to be able to do in 5 years, I doubt the NSA could do in 20.
My file is 2^256 bytes, all of which are zero.
There. that signature only fits a single file, but is certainly shorter than that file.
Basically zero. They don't go find a forest to clearcut to make paper. They have tree farms, where they cut down all the trees, plant new ones, and repeat.
minor problem my foot. Your notion that bigcompanyhere.com is entitled to grandma's money even if they're peddling spyware is ridiculous. Google gave grandma exactly what she wanted: a place to buy a widget without getting 0wn3d. The fact that they did no favors for bigcompanyhere.com is of no concern to her. Or me.
I would be very surprised indeed. They don't offer consulting fees to get you back on the gravy train after you got penaltyboxed for purveying spam links
Spyware central isn't where I want to go, even if they sell the cheapest RAM by four cents. Google, of course, is working for their shareholders and get paid by their advertisers, but they have a vested interest in keeping the searchers happy so the advertisers will keep paying them. The people whose sites are included in the results don't have some God given right to be on the first page so they can make money. Nevertheless, google has always tried to walk the tightrope between being overrun by crappy keyword farms and kicking out legitimate sites.
It's certainly enabling it. Remove a negative consequence of a choice makes that choice much more attractive.
That's not the same because, rightly or wrongly, nobody strongly connects the quality of their driving with their potential for dying on the highway. It's all those other idiots, or that wet spot I couldn't have seen, or whatever.
It is nonsensical to speak of "condoning" an event which is not an act of a person capable of moral thought.
Refusing to help someone because they caused their own suffering is deplorable. I certainly don't want to suffer for every immoral thing I've done. Keeping your children healthy is well worth letting them see your tacit acceptance of their sex life, but don't pretend when you tell them "this is so you won't get sick when you have sex" that what they're going to hear isn't "have sex."
Your "knowladge" is wrong in every respect. It is a word, it is not a bastardization, and it does not trace its origin to the American dialect.
You are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. Every word, before it was a word, was not a word. English was not passed down from before time began, you know. There was a time when there were exactly zero real English words. Over time the sounds people made to communicate thoughts and ideas became widespread enough that outside their little group could understand them. It's every bit as true of "fish" as it is of "okay" and "pokemon."
I guess to you it matters a great deal whether the "little group" in question was some Japanese computer nerds, some smart-aleck newspapermen, or a small germanic tribe on a big rainy island. Too bad you were wrong about which category "terroristic" falls in. If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
Hey, I think I just found a new sig.
Quit being dense. The author has assumed that deep-linking is a perfectly moral action, but some webmasters will disagree and will endeavor to stop you. Therefore the reasons to not do it involve avoiding negative consequences like lawsuits, not obeying a moral precept. His point is that you will not face negative consequences until you have ignored a C&D, so there is no reason to pre-emptively clear your site of deep links, but a financial reason to not do so.
Taking that into account makes it worse, not better. if some amount x of the price of both cards is overhead, then the speed-related portion of the prices are 800-x and 600-x, and (800-x)/(600-x) is bigger than 800/600 (for 0<x<600 of course).
There are several answers. Sextants, LORAN, etc., but a big part of the answer is quite frankly "not know where the heck they were."
Just shut the fuck up already. Anyone with more sense than a bag of rocks will conserve scarce resources, not plentiful ones. Clock cycles are cheap. Profiling is expensive. Megabytes are cheap. Time spent coming up with clever bithacks is expensive, especially since only the cleverest and generally highest-paid developers can do it. Second cores are cheap. More time spent coming up with whole new clever bithacks for the pentium D version because it has a different relative cost for jumps and floating point ops, thus making your last batch of hacks do more harm than good, is expensive.
Furthermore, programmers don't so much *waste* resources as utilize them to provide more value. Yeah, I know the 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, and those were some clever fellas who managed to make playable games on them. Lets see you play WoW on it. I know that your multimedia keyboard probably has more processing power than the PCjr that could once run Word. Fire up that version of Word, insert an image and a table, and hit "print preview."
Of course there are times when computing power is a precious resource. Console games that have to look awesome on 4 year old hardware. System libraries where every wasted clock will be multiplied by 2000 calls by 10000 different programs. Embedded systems where cost and size simply won't allow you to have those few extra Hz you crave. In these situations, when using extra cycles has more severe consequences than offending your sense of computational aesthetics, I believe you will find that these young whippersnappers aren't wasteful at all.
So, what, it's better to not have ideals so that you never have to live up to them? People with noble ideals don't always abide by them. People without them never do.
They're not suing China. They're suing Yahoo. Those aren't "people in another country." Even if it's valid to judge them only on the terms of their society, we are their society.
non-English-alphabetic characters. And you know who this stunning insight has occurred to before?
China.
laws designed to control your behaviour
Laws to control your ACTIONS? Main Entry: behaviorWhat other kind of laws are there?
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: manner
Synonyms: act, action, address, air, attitude, bag*, bearing, carriage, code, comportment, conduct, convention, course, dealings, decency, decorum, deed, delivery, demeanor, deportment, ethics, etiquette, expression, form, front, guise, habits, management, mien, mode, morals, nature, observance, performance, practice, presence, propriety, ritual, role, routine, savoir-faire, seemliness, social graces, speech, style, tact, talk, taste, tenue, tone, way, ways
Source: Roget's New Millennium(TM) Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang