The theory isn't new, but a convincing implementation is.
Convincing to who? to you?
ACM was quite convinced back in 2000 when they published the paper.
They obviously implemented it because it contains a lot of measurements.
Convincing to browser developers, obviously, who moved to fix the other problems fairly quickly but have, to date, done nothing about this one.
And obviously, yes, they implemented a method for doing this back in 2000 for that paper. It's what's being referred to when the author notes, "Such attacks were historically regarded as fairly impractical, slow, and noisy - and perhaps more importantly, one-shot." What we have now, though, is a method that is fast, practical, and nondestructive.
Not really. I don't need to jailbreak my PC to run software created with a different framework, nor do I have trouble running different apps created with different frameworks at the same time.
Agreed, I tried to use the keyboard in Unity and was totally appalled. It is a total brain drain to use the mouse for everything. Hell, in Windows 7 I can burn through tasks with the keyboard--actually have to since everything is absolutely buried in the GUI anymore. We'll see how bad that is screed up with 8 though.
We'll see, but it's hard to imagine Microsoft letting their UI degenerate to Gnome-like levels of difficulty for general use. They have a huge business client base, and people still need to get work done, and they learned with the XP-Vista transition that if they don't do it right, people just happily chug along under the older version for years without upgrading, and no matter how much they threaten to not do so, they're forced to drag out supporting an ancient version until they finally introduce one people will upgrade to.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that putting quotes around a word indicates negation, rather than quotation.
I probably read too much BBC News. BBC News headlines are quite funny if you pretend they're using quotation marks the way Americans tend to abuse them.
When prices rise because demand increases, that is not inflation; that is supply and demand at work.
Inflation is when there is an increase in the money supply. Prices rise because the currency is weaker.
Actually, inflation is when there is a rise in the general level of prices. It may be caused by an increase in the money supply, but that's not what it is, that's just the cause. It can also be caused by other things, including decreases in supply or increases in demand, although since it's a generalized measure, it's hard for anything more than small amounts of inflation or deflation to occur due to this. It does happen, though, particularly when things like "national mood" lead to changes in spending behavior more or less across the board.
They come up with this stuff the exact same way they come up with leaving the 5.25" floppy disk out of your new desktop machine. What on earth would you want it for? If you're one of the two people left on Earth that has a need for one, you can install it yourself.
All these experiments occured on earth in the vicinity of a lot of matter. How do we know that if we performed the experiments on a anti-earth we would not get an opposite result?
All these experiments occurred within 5000 years of 1AD. How do we know that if we performed the experiments before 5000 BC or after 5000 AD we would not get an opposite result?
The answer to both your question and mine is: we don't, but unless we have evidence that we would see an opposite result, it would be silly to believe we would in the absence of any good reason for it. Waving your hands and saying "maybe all the matter around influences things" is silly unless you have evidence to support that claim.
News flash: Aurochs are already extinct. Cows can't return to their "natural habitat" since they don't have one, being an invention of humans descended from a now extinct animal. Their "natural habitat" is the farm.
If these foods are safe and wholesome, what is the problem with labelling them?
Since almost all the food we eat is genetically modified, it would be pointless to label it as such. Merely listing "beef", "wheat", "corn", or whatever on the ingredients label is sufficient, as anyone who cares ought to no none of these species are natural in their present form.
Why genetically modify the most important grains and foods first where if problems later show, we possibly have destroyed our most important foodstuffs? Does that seem wise?
We've been doing this since the dawn of recorded history. It should be obvious why we tinker with the genetics of the foods most important to us: it's what's most important to us, and thus what we want to see improved the most, and will get the most benefit from. Wise? Our civilization as it exists today wouldn't be here if we hadn't done it, and if history is any judge, it would be foolish not to.
Destroying our most important foodstuffs would be foolish, of course, but we're certainly not going to do that. But that's irrelevant, since that's not even in the cards here.
We've been safely eating genetically modified foods for millennia. It's a bit bizarre that we somehow choose to label the latest method of modifying animal or plant genetics as "GM" but not the rest, giving many the entirely false impression that the bread and steak and other foodstuffs they and their ancestors have been eating for generations aren't genetically modified. But then, in a world where people ask, "When did wild poodles roam the Earth?" I suppose it's unsurprising. Sad, but unsurprising...
No, conservatives want personal freedom to choose ISPs.
No, conservatives give lip service to the concept, while promoting policies to ensure it won't be an option. The Republican Party in particular favors policies that lead to a centrally-planned economy, the only difference between their concept and the Soviet one being that the central planning occurs in a boardroom instead of a committee room. Both of these extremes deny people the free market freedom that most liberals favor, but conservatives see everything in black and white, so if you don't take it to their extreme, you must be a "socialist" advocating the opposite extreme. They can't even tell that you're arguing for a different position than either of the idiotic extremes.
Because that would be theft. Taking an action that causes you to consume a little more gas than you otherwise would isn't theft. Since you seem to be unclear on the topic, when I steal something from you, I get the thing stolen. That's not the case here, so it's not theft, period. Now, if you want to argue causing you to use more fuel than you otherwise would should be illegal, even when it's not theft, you need to convince the courts to arrest those crossing-guard kids with their stop signs, forcing you to burn a little extra gas because they wanted to herd a group of kids across the road. Hopefully I don't need to provide more counterexamples -- the point is, it's perfectly legal for many people to commit many actions that do reduce your fuel efficiency. In no case is it theft, and although they frequently have a legitimate reason for doing so, they don't even really need that, as long as the loss isn't unreasonable. If it gets to unreasonable levels, you might have cause for a civil claim against them, though...
Oh yes sorry, you're right. I live in Europe and am used toexcellent GSM coverage almost everywhere but in the US this is of course almost impossible to achieve.
Also, in the US, cops are continually underfunded. No freakin' way they'd just leave any equipment somewhere when it's potentially reusable.
Just be "weird". And understand that most cops have a, shall we say, "conservative" idea of what constitutes "normal" (even while being able to speak from experience as to how rare that is)...
Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?
It's not really like that, no. Spring runoff happens every year, and it happens in areas of the world inhabited by the readership of said news service. Country-sized iceburgs only break off this shelf about once every ten years, and it happens half a world away from the readership of said news service. Are people really that ignorant of the differences in frequency and location of natural processes, and the likely effect that has on the familiarity of most people with them?
Can't recommend that enough. Cygwin is the only thing making Windows into a usable operating system these days. You can even have Cygwin/X run on startup and run X apps on demand under Windows. If you don't need X, just install mintty. (You don't neeed separate installs for either, just select them in the Cygwin installer when installing it, and pin mintty to your Taskbar and/or copy the XWin Server shortcut to your Startup folder.)
Does it do anything that Groovy or Scala don't already?
Does any language do anything that any other Turing-complete language doesn't do? Doesn't seem like a sensible question. A more intelligent question would be, "Does it do anything differently?" And yes, it does.
There are still landlords that want checks? I pay mine electronically, at her request. Used to write her a check every month, but one day she suggested it would be more convenient for both of us if I just used the bank's "Bill Pay" feature on their website. She was right...
Say what you want of Bill Gates and his business tactics, but his foundation's work on eliminating malaria is truly amazing. Give credit where credit's due, sir, even though you may not like the guy.
I don't like the way he made his money. I do like what he's been doing with it. As for liking the guy, I don't even know him...
Slashdot Mirror
Convincing to who? to you?
ACM was quite convinced back in 2000 when they published the paper.
They obviously implemented it because it contains a lot of measurements.
Convincing to browser developers, obviously, who moved to fix the other problems fairly quickly but have, to date, done nothing about this one.
And obviously, yes, they implemented a method for doing this back in 2000 for that paper. It's what's being referred to when the author notes, "Such attacks were historically regarded as fairly impractical, slow, and noisy - and perhaps more importantly, one-shot." What we have now, though, is a method that is fast, practical, and nondestructive.
Not really. I don't need to jailbreak my PC to run software created with a different framework, nor do I have trouble running different apps created with different frameworks at the same time.
Agreed, I tried to use the keyboard in Unity and was totally appalled. It is a total brain drain to use the mouse for everything. Hell, in Windows 7 I can burn through tasks with the keyboard--actually have to since everything is absolutely buried in the GUI anymore. We'll see how bad that is screed up with 8 though.
We'll see, but it's hard to imagine Microsoft letting their UI degenerate to Gnome-like levels of difficulty for general use. They have a huge business client base, and people still need to get work done, and they learned with the XP-Vista transition that if they don't do it right, people just happily chug along under the older version for years without upgrading, and no matter how much they threaten to not do so, they're forced to drag out supporting an ancient version until they finally introduce one people will upgrade to.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that putting quotes around a word indicates negation, rather than quotation.
I probably read too much BBC News. BBC News headlines are quite funny if you pretend they're using quotation marks the way Americans tend to abuse them.
When prices rise because demand increases, that is not inflation; that is supply and demand at work.
Inflation is when there is an increase in the money supply. Prices rise because the currency is weaker.
Actually, inflation is when there is a rise in the general level of prices. It may be caused by an increase in the money supply, but that's not what it is, that's just the cause. It can also be caused by other things, including decreases in supply or increases in demand, although since it's a generalized measure, it's hard for anything more than small amounts of inflation or deflation to occur due to this. It does happen, though, particularly when things like "national mood" lead to changes in spending behavior more or less across the board.
I want to live on planet 6502... (I'll accept even if it's a CO2 world).
"...At some point there, we left the present and entered the future."
"The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed."
They come up with this stuff the exact same way they come up with leaving the 5.25" floppy disk out of your new desktop machine. What on earth would you want it for? If you're one of the two people left on Earth that has a need for one, you can install it yourself.
All these experiments occured on earth in the vicinity of a lot of matter. How do we know that if we performed the experiments on a anti-earth we would not get an opposite result?
All these experiments occurred within 5000 years of 1AD. How do we know that if we performed the experiments before 5000 BC or after 5000 AD we would not get an opposite result?
The answer to both your question and mine is: we don't, but unless we have evidence that we would see an opposite result, it would be silly to believe we would in the absence of any good reason for it. Waving your hands and saying "maybe all the matter around influences things" is silly unless you have evidence to support that claim.
News flash: Aurochs are already extinct. Cows can't return to their "natural habitat" since they don't have one, being an invention of humans descended from a now extinct animal. Their "natural habitat" is the farm.
It is impossible to practice ethical dentistry/medicine because it always causes some pain?
If the person who you're practicing it on did not consent to it, absolutely yes, it very much is.
No.
Oh, I see. You must be a moron.
gah... "ought to know"
If these foods are safe and wholesome, what is the problem with labelling them?
Since almost all the food we eat is genetically modified, it would be pointless to label it as such. Merely listing "beef", "wheat", "corn", or whatever on the ingredients label is sufficient, as anyone who cares ought to no none of these species are natural in their present form.
Why genetically modify the most important grains and foods first where if problems later show, we possibly have destroyed our most important foodstuffs? Does that seem wise?
We've been doing this since the dawn of recorded history. It should be obvious why we tinker with the genetics of the foods most important to us: it's what's most important to us, and thus what we want to see improved the most, and will get the most benefit from. Wise? Our civilization as it exists today wouldn't be here if we hadn't done it, and if history is any judge, it would be foolish not to.
Destroying our most important foodstuffs would be foolish, of course, but we're certainly not going to do that. But that's irrelevant, since that's not even in the cards here.
We've been safely eating genetically modified foods for millennia. It's a bit bizarre that we somehow choose to label the latest method of modifying animal or plant genetics as "GM" but not the rest, giving many the entirely false impression that the bread and steak and other foodstuffs they and their ancestors have been eating for generations aren't genetically modified. But then, in a world where people ask, "When did wild poodles roam the Earth?" I suppose it's unsurprising. Sad, but unsurprising...
No, conservatives want personal freedom to choose ISPs.
No, conservatives give lip service to the concept, while promoting policies to ensure it won't be an option. The Republican Party in particular favors policies that lead to a centrally-planned economy, the only difference between their concept and the Soviet one being that the central planning occurs in a boardroom instead of a committee room. Both of these extremes deny people the free market freedom that most liberals favor, but conservatives see everything in black and white, so if you don't take it to their extreme, you must be a "socialist" advocating the opposite extreme. They can't even tell that you're arguing for a different position than either of the idiotic extremes.
Because that would be theft. Taking an action that causes you to consume a little more gas than you otherwise would isn't theft. Since you seem to be unclear on the topic, when I steal something from you, I get the thing stolen. That's not the case here, so it's not theft, period. Now, if you want to argue causing you to use more fuel than you otherwise would should be illegal, even when it's not theft, you need to convince the courts to arrest those crossing-guard kids with their stop signs, forcing you to burn a little extra gas because they wanted to herd a group of kids across the road. Hopefully I don't need to provide more counterexamples -- the point is, it's perfectly legal for many people to commit many actions that do reduce your fuel efficiency. In no case is it theft, and although they frequently have a legitimate reason for doing so, they don't even really need that, as long as the loss isn't unreasonable. If it gets to unreasonable levels, you might have cause for a civil claim against them, though...
Well, technically, that's correct. The devices will track cars, not people. ;)
Oh yes sorry, you're right. I live in Europe and am used toexcellent GSM coverage almost everywhere but in the US this is of course almost impossible to achieve.
Also, in the US, cops are continually underfunded. No freakin' way they'd just leave any equipment somewhere when it's potentially reusable.
Just be "weird". And understand that most cops have a, shall we say, "conservative" idea of what constitutes "normal" (even while being able to speak from experience as to how rare that is)...
Does it bother anyone else that they had to say this? It's like doing a report on spring runoff and pointing out that it's not a result global warming. Are people really that ignorant of how natural processes work?
It's not really like that, no. Spring runoff happens every year, and it happens in areas of the world inhabited by the readership of said news service. Country-sized iceburgs only break off this shelf about once every ten years, and it happens half a world away from the readership of said news service. Are people really that ignorant of the differences in frequency and location of natural processes, and the likely effect that has on the familiarity of most people with them?
It sure does. cf. The Cygwin Project
Can't recommend that enough. Cygwin is the only thing making Windows into a usable operating system these days. You can even have Cygwin/X run on startup and run X apps on demand under Windows. If you don't need X, just install mintty. (You don't neeed separate installs for either, just select them in the Cygwin installer when installing it, and pin mintty to your Taskbar and/or copy the XWin Server shortcut to your Startup folder.)
Does it do anything that Groovy or Scala don't already?
Does any language do anything that any other Turing-complete language doesn't do? Doesn't seem like a sensible question. A more intelligent question would be, "Does it do anything differently?" And yes, it does.
There are still landlords that want checks? I pay mine electronically, at her request. Used to write her a check every month, but one day she suggested it would be more convenient for both of us if I just used the bank's "Bill Pay" feature on their website. She was right...
Say what you want of Bill Gates and his business tactics, but his foundation's work on eliminating malaria is truly amazing. Give credit where credit's due, sir, even though you may not like the guy.
I don't like the way he made his money. I do like what he's been doing with it. As for liking the guy, I don't even know him...
gah... edit failure (left a "not" after rephrasing that shouldn't be there).