I wonder how much of the RIAA's decrease ended up increasing the game industry? People have limited funds, and if they're spending more money on one form of entertainment, they're going to be spending less on another.
You could have two firewalls, one with the current configuration, and one being preped for the next configuration. When you are ready to change them, just flip them.
There was archelogical interest in the Titanic. We discovered that it did break up before sinking in two distinct peices (The alternative theory being that it sunk almost whole), took samples which confirmed that the steel was brittle in the Atlantic enviroment, and even correcting the location of the titanic before it sunk, which answered questions about The Californian's ability to rescue Titanic passengers.
It depends on the relative food source/requirements. We normally consider 'predators' to be large animals, which mean a lot of prey, but if you think about it, there are instances where the ratio is reversed. One cow can support thousands of fleas, ticks and other small beasties.
It's very important to seperate the design, and the implementation. In an ideal world, they will be the same, but we don't live in an ideal world. If the design is good, then it's possible to fix the implementation. On the other hand, if the design is bad, then nothing you can do with the implementation will fix it. This is the problem that MS Office, MS Outlook and Javascript have, in that their basic security model is flawed, and have had to be tweaked as exploits were discovered.
There is only so far you can go in making the programmer write reasonable behaviour into the program. Yes, you can write the wrong regexp and untaint something dangerous in Perl, but how could a program know this? Similarly in Java you can just catch an exception and ignore it, when you should do something with the exception. However, at least the language has tried. Without taint mode or exceptions, the programmer can accidentally do the wrong thing. With them, he has to be boneheaded deliberatly.
Buffer overflow exploits are technically different to pointer problems.
With a pointer problem, you point the pointer to something you shouldn't have. With a buffer overflow, the pointer is pointing to the correct place, but you stuff too much data into it.
Some languages have references instead of pointers. The difference between a pointer and a reference is that a reference can only be taken of a well defined object, not an arbitary address, and no arithmetic is allowed on references.
This means that you can always be sure that a reference is either valid and pointing correctly to an object, or invalid, and not pointing towards anything (NULL in C terms).
However, this doesn't actually gaurantee that buffer overflow exploits are impossible. If you take a reference of an object that can hold 255 characters, and try to stuff 1024 characters into it, then there is still a chance to cause a buffer overflow. To avoid this, you need to ensure that your low level functions for copying data between the objects ensure that both the reference is valid, and that the target object is sized apropriatly (perhaps by resizing it as required).
Java, C# & Perl all do this, which is why they're relativily immune to buffer overflows, with only flaws in the language implementation leaving you vunerable.
Ring binders can have a printed spine and front piece, I've got several here, and can choose the correct one just as fast as a traditionally bound book.
My 2c, I want books which have a target audience and meet it. I can't stand 'advanced foo' books which spend 1/2 the book telling me stuff that I can learn in 30 seconds from first using foo.
Interesting enough, in Victorian times, secretaries were usually male. It's only in the 20C that women started becoming secretaries, and dominating the field. In paraellel, the status & pay of the job decreased.
We've had computers pass the Turing test already, in a limited subject discussion. We've also had humans fail it. I don't think there is anything which could stop us creating a general Turing test program today. However, I don't think that the Turing test is going to be a good indicator of useful AI, because just like the page I quoted says, "People are easily fooled".
Package size is mainly driven by the need to get enough space to put all the connections onto it. Most of the reason for the McK being big isn't going to increase the connections - if you have 3Mb of cache you need the exact same address lines if you had 0 cache.
It's very expensive and time consuming to sequence a genome, and even when you've done that, we don't currently have the ability to build an entire organism from it's code.
And then another Terry Nichols or Timothy McVeigh gets on the plane, and blows all your assumptions away. You cannot predict the likelyhood of someone being a terrorist based upon anything about the persons origin, habits or aquentinces.
There is nothing in theory stopping RMI from working even if the two ends are running two different languages. As long as there is a well defined API, where each end can understand the paramaters sent & received, then it makes no difference what the languages are. A good example of this sort of thing working would be COBRA, which allows basically any language to call methods in remote subsystems.
Fc gives the chances of an intelligent species getting to the level of technology required. L gives the lifetime of a civilization once it reachest that technology level. EVERY factor assumes that the earlier one is met, because otherwise it's just silly - you can't have intelligence if you don't have life.
This is true, however, as the outer layer of any shape has the largest volume, then there will be no shortage of solar systems out here in the boonies.
That's all part of "L". The lifetime of the civilization. It doesn't matter how we die, if all of humanity dies, or falls below the level of technology able to communicate, then we drop out the Drake equation.
Depends a lot on what your 'favourite series' is. There are several which have been on for 30 years or more, and amassed thousands of hours of footage or more.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that a heck of a lot of companies know that they don't have much on their internal networks which is actually worth searching.
I wonder how much of the RIAA's decrease ended up increasing the game industry? People have limited funds, and if they're spending more money on one form of entertainment, they're going to be spending less on another.
You could have two firewalls, one with the current configuration, and one being preped for the next configuration. When you are ready to change them, just flip them.
There was archelogical interest in the Titanic. We discovered that it did break up before sinking in two distinct peices (The alternative theory being that it sunk almost whole), took samples which confirmed that the steel was brittle in the Atlantic enviroment, and even correcting the location of the titanic before it sunk, which answered questions about The Californian's ability to rescue Titanic passengers.
It depends on the relative food source/requirements. We normally consider 'predators' to be large animals, which mean a lot of prey, but if you think about it, there are instances where the ratio is reversed. One cow can support thousands of fleas, ticks and other small beasties.
It's very important to seperate the design, and the implementation. In an ideal world, they will be the same, but we don't live in an ideal world. If the design is good, then it's possible to fix the implementation. On the other hand, if the design is bad, then nothing you can do with the implementation will fix it. This is the problem that MS Office, MS Outlook and Javascript have, in that their basic security model is flawed, and have had to be tweaked as exploits were discovered.
There is only so far you can go in making the programmer write reasonable behaviour into the program. Yes, you can write the wrong regexp and untaint something dangerous in Perl, but how could a program know this? Similarly in Java you can just catch an exception and ignore it, when you should do something with the exception. However, at least the language has tried. Without taint mode or exceptions, the programmer can accidentally do the wrong thing. With them, he has to be boneheaded deliberatly.
With a pointer problem, you point the pointer to something you shouldn't have. With a buffer overflow, the pointer is pointing to the correct place, but you stuff too much data into it.
Some languages have references instead of pointers. The difference between a pointer and a reference is that a reference can only be taken of a well defined object, not an arbitary address, and no arithmetic is allowed on references.
This means that you can always be sure that a reference is either valid and pointing correctly to an object, or invalid, and not pointing towards anything (NULL in C terms).
However, this doesn't actually gaurantee that buffer overflow exploits are impossible. If you take a reference of an object that can hold 255 characters, and try to stuff 1024 characters into it, then there is still a chance to cause a buffer overflow. To avoid this, you need to ensure that your low level functions for copying data between the objects ensure that both the reference is valid, and that the target object is sized apropriatly (perhaps by resizing it as required).
Java, C# & Perl all do this, which is why they're relativily immune to buffer overflows, with only flaws in the language implementation leaving you vunerable.
My 2c, I want books which have a target audience and meet it. I can't stand 'advanced foo' books which spend 1/2 the book telling me stuff that I can learn in 30 seconds from first using foo.
PVCS Dimensions does too.
Interesting enough, in Victorian times, secretaries were usually male. It's only in the 20C that women started becoming secretaries, and dominating the field. In paraellel, the status & pay of the job decreased.
We've had computers pass the Turing test already, in a limited subject discussion. We've also had humans fail it. I don't think there is anything which could stop us creating a general Turing test program today. However, I don't think that the Turing test is going to be a good indicator of useful AI, because just like the page I quoted says, "People are easily fooled".
Marc Okrand. He's a linguist for the National Captioning Insitutute. His PhD was in Gender and Plurality in Rendille.
Package size is mainly driven by the need to get enough space to put all the connections onto it. Most of the reason for the McK being big isn't going to increase the connections - if you have 3Mb of cache you need the exact same address lines if you had 0 cache.
It's very expensive and time consuming to sequence a genome, and even when you've done that, we don't currently have the ability to build an entire organism from it's code.
But according to Microsoft, IE is the base OS. It's certainly not possible to run 2000 or XP without it.
Worse than that, it demands exactly 80Mb hard drive.
Or to put it another way, it's NASA acting as they have done for the last 30 years.
And then another Terry Nichols or Timothy McVeigh gets on the plane, and blows all your assumptions away. You cannot predict the likelyhood of someone being a terrorist based upon anything about the persons origin, habits or aquentinces.
Don't forget spamming services, CD's full of addresses to spam, and spamming programs.
There is nothing in theory stopping RMI from working even if the two ends are running two different languages. As long as there is a well defined API, where each end can understand the paramaters sent & received, then it makes no difference what the languages are. A good example of this sort of thing working would be COBRA, which allows basically any language to call methods in remote subsystems.
Fc gives the chances of an intelligent species getting to the level of technology required. L gives the lifetime of a civilization once it reachest that technology level. EVERY factor assumes that the earlier one is met, because otherwise it's just silly - you can't have intelligence if you don't have life.
This is true, however, as the outer layer of any shape has the largest volume, then there will be no shortage of solar systems out here in the boonies.
That's all part of "L". The lifetime of the civilization. It doesn't matter how we die, if all of humanity dies, or falls below the level of technology able to communicate, then we drop out the Drake equation.
Depends a lot on what your 'favourite series' is. There are several which have been on for 30 years or more, and amassed thousands of hours of footage or more.