(Reviews the scripts...) Indeed. The universe has a cron job that runs periodically. If it reads the current value of c as less than a particular value, it runs shutdown -h now...
Reminds me of the episode where Dr. Crusher is in a universe and all the people are disappearing. At one point, only she and Picard are on the Enterprise, and Picard doesn't have a problem with this. She asks does it make sense that just the two of them are on this starship, exploring strange new worlds, etc. His response, "We've never needed anyone else before." And really, he's right, not Crusher. One person (or zero if the computers are savvy enough, but the level of computer intelligence seems to shift dramatically from episode to episode) could conceivably fly the Enterprise around and do most things. Well, until a pesky Romulan fires a torpedo at you and the ludicrously fragile 24th century technology causes every terminal on the ship to explode. I've never quite firgured out why they put explosives in computer terminals in the 24th century. Presumably during the chaos on Earth in the 22nd century, we lost a lot of technology, like how to make a flat-panel display not explode when a torpedo hits a completely different part of the ship that it just happens to be receiving information from at the time...
I got one of these the other day, so I did the logical thing. Being a sysadmin knowing how to use both useradd and for loops, I quickly created 30 email addresses on one of the servers I admin (after I found out it wouldn't accept bouncing addresses), then mined it for all the information I could. Eventually, it just ran out of hints to give me. I was about to delete all the accounts I created, but out of curiousity over your very question, I responded with one of them and listed myself as someone I like.
Now, the site just gave me another one of those "Try again" or "Think Harder" messages, however, a few hours later, both my real account and the fake one received a message saying there was a match on the list I'd submitted. One assumes the delay is to keep you entering email addresses even after you've entered the correct one.
It should be noted, however, that the match message didn't say who it was. It promised to reveal that if I signed up for some service. Since I already knew, I didn't bother, my best guess would be that, yah, once they've managed to get you to provide them with a big list of working addresses, and signed up for a service, generating income for them, they probably would have told me who it was.
Incidently, they don't tell you it someone removes you from their match list. Presumeably they don't want you to know they someone doesn't like you anymore. Perhaps we need a SomeHatesYou.com for this vital service...:)
As for the original message, this is problematic. The address is unfortunately both one that a lot of people, particularly someone matching the profile I got back mining for hints, might send me mail at. At the same time, it's also listed on a college website I admin, so it may have just been harvested. Who knows. If someone in that particular circle of friends likes me, they're going to have to be a bit more forward. The hints are vague enough to be almost useless if you have a large enough circle of friends. Basicly, if it's real, it's one of my "college friends", which I already knew based on the email address they used...
You missed close-orbiting stars, where GR is coming out way off. The fact of the matter is, right now, we have no workable theory of gravity. We have approximations that work as long as you don't put them under too much stress.
Wanted: one working theory of gravity. Reward: a trip to Sweden.:)
I believe balls normally travel along parabolic arcs, same with water balls. Fire balls travel in straight lines. I don't remember about moss or gas balls...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a prophet, to realize that if there's an all-powerful being that created the world and wants to be worshiped, there's only *one* of them.
Only because you're encoded the conclusion into the premise. Perhaps there are many powerful beings who created the world and want to be worshipped. Why assume there's only one? Look at the world around you. It was obviously designed by a committee...:)
Pascal's Wager was first used as an argument for the existence of God.
Err, no. Pascal's Wager is not an arguement for the existence of God. It's an argument for what it is most profitable to believe. It's a pragmatic argument, not a metaphysical one...
Why do with lawyers what the free press and word of mouth can do better, faster, and cheaper?
Hehehe! That's the most hopelessly optimisticly naive thing I've seen anyone say all year! Congrats!
Historical note: It wasn't the book Unsafe at Any Speed that resulted in improvements in car safety. The publication of that book just got Ford to spend huge amounts of money attempting to smear the author. It wasn't until the lawyers and politicians took notice and stepped in that the situation actually improved any.
Yes, politicians and lawyers suck, but the alternative it worse. Faith in the Bible requires faith in "facts" no one was around to see. Faith in Libertarianism requires faith in "facts" the older among us were around to see, and know are false. An altogether higher order of faith...:)
Doubtful. People engage in risky businesses all the time. At some point, the profit becomes worthwile and the risk acceptable. Now, some companies might be driven out because they're genuinely unqualified to write software in this domain, it is too risky for them, but in that case they shouldn't be in that business to begin with. Believe me, I've seen plenty of companies doing business in my local area that are clearly unqualified to be advising clients on security issues -- they should be driven from the marketplace -- and my own company, which is much smaller than the worst and yet most common offender in the area, would greatly benefit from this.
So, upon reflection, I must disagree with you here. This sort of thing would be a godsend for my company (currently with a grand total of 8 employees). The companies this would drive from the market are ones that shouldn't be in it, which would be a big benefit for my little co...
My company does the same, but not every company has a security expert with a Ph.D. on staff (not me, I just wrote the code after the good Dr. designed the method). On the flip side, it's secure enough that I'd have no fear of releasing the source code to customers if they demanded it. Maybe clients should wise up and start demanding it. Any security scheme worth a damn is just as good even if an attacker knows *exactly* how it works...
Re:I just read this in todays newspaper
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 1
The new star they found has these quarks but they are not in groups of 3, they are just single quarks.
This is sort of, but not really, correct. SQM is composed of "delocalized" quarks, but not really "just single quarks". Rather, think of SQM as consisting of a multiquark droplet.
Can the local proxy send the IP address in the GET command
???
The GET commnd includes a pathname (essentially) and a protocol version. The address (either IP or DNS) is not part of the GET command, as the command is designed to be given to the destination machine -- you're supposed to already have an open TCP/IP connection with your destination when you issue the GET command. The Host: is just there for virtual hosting purposes...
Seriously, do any certifications even exist for running a squid proxy?
Seriously, anyone who considers the possesion of a certification as in any way an indicator of competence probably isn't. Anyone who is competent and certified is almost certainly aghast at the level of incompetence of most of their fellow students who nevertheless have no trouble getting a certification. Most certifications fall somewhere between "joke" and "scam", the latter being the more common...
No, the Lunar people aren't the truly disgruntled ones. Apparently, SGL wasn't so much forked as hijacked. Or at least that's the other side of the story. Where the truth lies, who knows...
No, that's not even close to counting among elite Googlewhackers. Remember, clever Googlewhacks use common words. The word "schizophrenogenic" only shows up on 610 results by itself. Frankly, it shouldn't even be considered a Googlewhack unless each word in it scores 100,000 or more results. If you can find two words, each one of which appears in at least 100,000 results, but together bring up only one, THEN you've got a decent Googlewhack. (My first decent one was "dulcimer microdrive"...)
Those are so pathetic. "Perambulatory" alone only appears on 557 pages. Don't even bother posting it if both of the two words don't appear on at least 100,000 pages (such as "dulcimer microdrive" -- each word is on over 100,000 pages, but the two appear together on only one -- until Googlebot indexes this discussion, of course). If either of the two words appears less often than that, the "whack" is simply too pathetic to bother sharing...
Re:Not quite as bad as it seems
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
I found it very easy.
Well, duh. Googlewhacking using words like "ukase" (which only shows up in about four thousand sites in the first place) is ludicrously easy. Your "piece of cake" Googlewhack is far too pathetic to even be worth mentioning, even for a first attempt.
The original poster was right, it's not as easy as it looks to find a decent Googlewhack...
Re:Not as bad as all that
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
Yes, well, it takes an act of God to get more than a small handful of pagans to do anything in an even remotely coordinated manner.:)
Hehe! Yes, very true. I used to obsessively bookmark anything I might possibly be interested in revisiting in the future. Now I rarely bookmark anything -- only things I know I will be visiting at least once a week. And even then, it's usually after a few weeks of doing it that I finally bookmark it. Now bookmarks are just handy click savers, rather than a memory of useful sites. I don't need a memory of useful sites, I can always find them again on Google...
Unfortunately, this doesn't give you perfect greys. None of the 64 values, except 0x00 and 0x3F, will perfectly match any of the 5 bit values in intensity except of course 0x00 and 0x1F. Essentially, the 5 bit values rate the intensity of the color as x/31, and the 6 bit values rate the intensity as y/63. In no cases will x/31 = y/63 except when both x and y are zero, or x = 31 and y = 63. Thus, there's no way to match the intensities and thus no way to get true greys...
Usually, when I see the deleted scenes, I end up agreeing that it was a good idea to delete them. However, Stargate and Aliens are too very noteable exceptions, where I instead find myself saying "what were they thinking when they took that out"? IIRC, in both of these movies they delete a lot of dialog that lets you get to know the characters more. In Stargate (again IIRC), it's the minor characters, but in Aliens, it's the main character!
Slashdot Mirror
(Reviews the scripts...) Indeed. The universe has a cron job that runs periodically. If it reads the current value of c as less than a particular value, it runs shutdown -h now...
I'm torn, it this more or less geeky than my Star Trek post?
And the posts just keep getting geekier... :)
Now, the site just gave me another one of those "Try again" or "Think Harder" messages, however, a few hours later, both my real account and the fake one received a message saying there was a match on the list I'd submitted. One assumes the delay is to keep you entering email addresses even after you've entered the correct one.
It should be noted, however, that the match message didn't say who it was. It promised to reveal that if I signed up for some service. Since I already knew, I didn't bother, my best guess would be that, yah, once they've managed to get you to provide them with a big list of working addresses, and signed up for a service, generating income for them, they probably would have told me who it was.
Incidently, they don't tell you it someone removes you from their match list. Presumeably they don't want you to know they someone doesn't like you anymore. Perhaps we need a SomeHatesYou.com for this vital service... :)
As for the original message, this is problematic. The address is unfortunately both one that a lot of people, particularly someone matching the profile I got back mining for hints, might send me mail at. At the same time, it's also listed on a college website I admin, so it may have just been harvested. Who knows. If someone in that particular circle of friends likes me, they're going to have to be a bit more forward. The hints are vague enough to be almost useless if you have a large enough circle of friends. Basicly, if it's real, it's one of my "college friends", which I already knew based on the email address they used...
Eh bien, c'est la vie...
Wanted: one working theory of gravity. Reward: a trip to Sweden. :)
I believe balls normally travel along parabolic arcs, same with water balls. Fire balls travel in straight lines. I don't remember about moss or gas balls...
Only because you're encoded the conclusion into the premise. Perhaps there are many powerful beings who created the world and want to be worshipped. Why assume there's only one? Look at the world around you. It was obviously designed by a committee... :)
Err, no. Pascal's Wager is not an arguement for the existence of God. It's an argument for what it is most profitable to believe. It's a pragmatic argument, not a metaphysical one...
F-Prot Antivirus
It's also free (as in beer)...
Apparently not... despite the fact that all it really shows is who's had no life the longest... :)
Hehehe! That's the most hopelessly optimisticly naive thing I've seen anyone say all year! Congrats!
Historical note: It wasn't the book Unsafe at Any Speed that resulted in improvements in car safety. The publication of that book just got Ford to spend huge amounts of money attempting to smear the author. It wasn't until the lawyers and politicians took notice and stepped in that the situation actually improved any.
Yes, politicians and lawyers suck, but the alternative it worse. Faith in the Bible requires faith in "facts" no one was around to see. Faith in Libertarianism requires faith in "facts" the older among us were around to see, and know are false. An altogether higher order of faith... :)
What on Earth does this have to do with Schneier's idea?
So, upon reflection, I must disagree with you here. This sort of thing would be a godsend for my company (currently with a grand total of 8 employees). The companies this would drive from the market are ones that shouldn't be in it, which would be a big benefit for my little co...
My company does the same, but not every company has a security expert with a Ph.D. on staff (not me, I just wrote the code after the good Dr. designed the method). On the flip side, it's secure enough that I'd have no fear of releasing the source code to customers if they demanded it. Maybe clients should wise up and start demanding it. Any security scheme worth a damn is just as good even if an attacker knows *exactly* how it works...
The new star they found has these quarks but they are not in groups of 3, they are just single quarks.
This is sort of, but not really, correct. SQM is composed of "delocalized" quarks, but not really "just single quarks". Rather, think of SQM as consisting of a multiquark droplet.
See HYPERMATTER AND ANTIMATTER-PROPERTIES AND FORMATION IN RELATIVISTIC NUCLEAR COLLISIONS.
???
The GET commnd includes a pathname (essentially) and a protocol version. The address (either IP or DNS) is not part of the GET command, as the command is designed to be given to the destination machine -- you're supposed to already have an open TCP/IP connection with your destination when you issue the GET command. The Host: is just there for virtual hosting purposes...
Seriously, anyone who considers the possesion of a certification as in any way an indicator of competence probably isn't. Anyone who is competent and certified is almost certainly aghast at the level of incompetence of most of their fellow students who nevertheless have no trouble getting a certification. Most certifications fall somewhere between "joke" and "scam", the latter being the more common...
No, the Lunar people aren't the truly disgruntled ones. Apparently, SGL wasn't so much forked as hijacked. Or at least that's the other side of the story. Where the truth lies, who knows...
No, that's not even close to counting among elite Googlewhackers. Remember, clever Googlewhacks use common words. The word "schizophrenogenic" only shows up on 610 results by itself. Frankly, it shouldn't even be considered a Googlewhack unless each word in it scores 100,000 or more results. If you can find two words, each one of which appears in at least 100,000 results, but together bring up only one, THEN you've got a decent Googlewhack. (My first decent one was "dulcimer microdrive"...)
Those are so pathetic. "Perambulatory" alone only appears on 557 pages. Don't even bother posting it if both of the two words don't appear on at least 100,000 pages (such as "dulcimer microdrive" -- each word is on over 100,000 pages, but the two appear together on only one -- until Googlebot indexes this discussion, of course). If either of the two words appears less often than that, the "whack" is simply too pathetic to bother sharing...
Well, duh. Googlewhacking using words like "ukase" (which only shows up in about four thousand sites in the first place) is ludicrously easy. Your "piece of cake" Googlewhack is far too pathetic to even be worth mentioning, even for a first attempt.
The original poster was right, it's not as easy as it looks to find a decent Googlewhack...
Yes, well, it takes an act of God to get more than a small handful of pagans to do anything in an even remotely coordinated manner. :)
Hehe! Yes, very true. I used to obsessively bookmark anything I might possibly be interested in revisiting in the future. Now I rarely bookmark anything -- only things I know I will be visiting at least once a week. And even then, it's usually after a few weeks of doing it that I finally bookmark it. Now bookmarks are just handy click savers, rather than a memory of useful sites. I don't need a memory of useful sites, I can always find them again on Google...
Unfortunately, this doesn't give you perfect greys. None of the 64 values, except 0x00 and 0x3F, will perfectly match any of the 5 bit values in intensity except of course 0x00 and 0x1F. Essentially, the 5 bit values rate the intensity of the color as x/31, and the 6 bit values rate the intensity as y/63. In no cases will x/31 = y/63 except when both x and y are zero, or x = 31 and y = 63. Thus, there's no way to match the intensities and thus no way to get true greys...
Usually, when I see the deleted scenes, I end up agreeing that it was a good idea to delete them. However, Stargate and Aliens are too very noteable exceptions, where I instead find myself saying "what were they thinking when they took that out"? IIRC, in both of these movies they delete a lot of dialog that lets you get to know the characters more. In Stargate (again IIRC), it's the minor characters, but in Aliens, it's the main character!