Newton's laws are simple, definitive, and we're unlike to find anything that contradicts them.
Yup, we're unlikely to find anything that contradicts them. Like, you know, a century's worth of experimental physics. But ignoring the pesky 20th century, no, you're not going to find anything to contradict them.
Newton's 'Laws' are simply convenient approximations. They tend to work quite reasonably in most circumstances, but they most certainly are not laws. A law is something that will always be true, everywhere; Newton's 'laws' break down as soon as you try to do anything unusual.
They're called laws because of historical prescedent (back in the day people played fast and loose with their terminology), but it's really quite disingenious.
And again, while neo-Darwinian Evolution is an incredibly good and compelling theory, it's going to remain just a theory until someone invents a time machine. While experiments can be performed to demonstrate small phylogenic changes, evolution discusses tremendous change over tremendous time-scales, and while it seems quite reasonable to believe that you can simply generalise observations about butterflies and rabbits out to millions of years (:-)), you can't exactly proove it, which is the point.
Calling something a law when it really isn't does a disservice to science; you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One of the most important things students can learn about science is that regardless of how strong or weak the evidence is for one theory, there's always the possibility for an alternate explanation, and to be able to judge the relative merits of the theories based on their supporting evidence and their implications.
But the key point is you don't have the administrator password, you've just bypassed it entirely.
NTFS encryption works by generating a random key for each folder that you've set to encrypt. That key is then encrypted with the public key of anybody authorized to access the file.
Your private key is encryped with your password, so if you login somehow but without your password (for example, through the recovery console), it never gets decrypted. Consequently, you can't access the encryption key for the files themselves. So no, this doesn't give access to EFS files.
Dude, that's simple economics. The fact that carrying a niche product (which Linux laptops are) is expensive has nothing to do with Microsoft's illegal monopoly protection.
Re:To put 5 years into perspective
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 1
And five years ago there were many people who did predict the crash. It was inevitable and obvious to anybody without their head stuck up their ass that this was going to happen; all you had to do was sit down and take a long, hard look at the numbers.
Of course, I wasn't one of those people, and I don't think Cringley has the economic and tech background needed to be one of those people now, and in the future. But don't assume that everybody is as blind, deaf and dumb as the herd - not everybody lost their shirt in the dot-com bubble.
If P=NP, then any asymmetric cryptography based on NP problems will probably be significantly weakened. But, you can still make fantastically large polynomial functions; P=NP doesn't limit the size of the functions, it just enforces polynomial growth.
And you're ignoring whole classes of problems, like the exponetial time/space problems, and even the NP-Hard problems wouldn't be affected by a proof that P=NP.
Someone on/. with a decent understanding of the complexity of international economics.
The thing I love about fiat currency is it seperates the wheat from the chaff, since it takes a certain subtlety of mind to understand how it really works.
Actually, in Canada people live closer together. The country is far more urban than the US, with over half of the population living in major population centers (cities).
It might be a large country, but most of it is uninhabited.
This is asynchronous multiprocessing (as opposed to symmetric multiprocessing), and is theoretically possible, although in some respects significantly harder than SMP.
The real problem here is that the chips, while designed for SMP, aren't designed for AMP. I'm sure it would be possible to design such a board (and chipset), but it would be hard, and tricky.
Actually, super-cavitation involves any circumstance where the hull is surrounded in a pocket of gas. However, as far as I'm aware the only real implementation of it is a russian torpedo which pumps gas through its nose to create the bubble.
The issue isn't blocking ports, but egress filtering. If you know the source address of the attack, you can get your upstream to drop those packets for you, but if the attacker is spoofing his or her IP address (or having his or her slave machines spoof their IP addresses) then this isn't any use since the originating IP could change every minute.
Implementing proper egress filtering would ensure that ISPs don't route packets that have source-addresses that are obviously spoofed (and hence, probably are), so DoSes would be managable. But they don't bother with correct egress filtering because that would require hardware upgrades to support the added load the routers would have to be carrying, hence they don't.
A chessboard is 8x8, meaning 64 spaces. However, each space can contain a pawn, a rook, a bishop, a knight, a king or a queen of either colour. The best estimate for the number of states the board can be in is 2.99x1041.
A naive encoding is 96 bytes per state. Let's say a tighter, or compressed encoding is 48 bytes per state. So a rough estimate as to the total storage space it would require is 1.44x1043 bytes.
In words, that's about 14 million billion billion gigabytes of data. I'm not going to say it'd be impossible to build such a storage mechanism in the forseable future, but I will say it's incredibly unlikely, and would be mindbogglingly expensive. And with modern technology, would require more matter than is actually on the planet. So no, dynamic programming wouldn't be useful in chess at all. Proving once again that if it were as simple as that, somebody would have thought of it already.
Out of interest, consider Go. This is a board where dynamic programming really would be useless. With around 10750 possible states, it would require significantly more atoms than are actually in the entire universe.
If I remember correctly, Deep Blue was a modified customised RS/6000. I believe a significant portion of the move evaluation algorithm was implemented in hardware on top of an otherwise fairly beefy machine, meaning Deep Blue could evaluate vast numbers of moves per second.
To beat it in purely software today would still require some serious hardware.
No, Cringley is missing the point, and he's talking about something he doesn't understand: namely the Windows/NT mix.
In some respects he's right, but accidentally (a stopped clock is right twice a day), in that Windows is built on top of another operating system, in this case, NT. But to transition to another base there are three questions that would have to be answered:
Is it possible?
Would it be better?
Would it be economic?
Is it possible? Not without a lot of modification to Linux. NT is not UNIX and has a number of fundamentally different idioms; while Win32 abstracts a lot of this, it still pokes through in a few places. Even if Microsoft implemented features in the Linux kernel necessary, they'd still be forced to deprecate half the API and force developers to rewrite their applications to take full advantage of the new architecture. And if they rewrote Linux enough to make this unnecessary, it wouldn't be Linux anymore - it'd be an NT rewrite.
Would it be better? Cringley simply assumes that Linux is faster, more stable, etc... than NT. Windows is notorious for being unstable, although most of that reputation is due to the Win9x line. Win2K/XP have been known to crash on occasion, but unless you're using some seriously broken hardware, or have fucked its internals up a lot, it doesn't crash that often, and even then the vast majority of crashes are due to the Win32 layer, not NT itself. NT has a stronger security model, is realtime and fully reentrant. In short, the problems with Windows 2000/XP are not the fault of NT, but Win32 itself. Exactly how would porting Win32 to Linux solve these problem?
Would it be economic? The marginal benefit of porting to Linux would be minimal, and at great expense. I can't see how Microsoft would justify it.
Cringley suggested something that is fundamentally highly technical without understanding the real issues involved, which was stupid. This is particularly ironic when you consider the section of his site saying that people should listen to him since he knows what he's talking about. Once again this simply proves that he's nothing more than a digital snake-oil salesman - under the guise of holding an expert opinion, he tells people what they want to hear in exchange for ratings.
NT understands both the concepts of DOS programs and console mode Windows programs. cmd.exe, the command shell, is a console mode Windows program. NT is able to run real DOS programs in an emulated environment, however.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't VMS based off of Unix as well?
You're wrong. VMS and UNIX appeared at about the same time, but are very different beasts. Arguably, VMS was better than UNIX, but UNIX became dominant as a result of BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, we're unlikely to find anything that contradicts them. Like, you know, a century's worth of experimental physics. But ignoring the pesky 20th century, no, you're not going to find anything to contradict them.
Newton's 'Laws' are simply convenient approximations. They tend to work quite reasonably in most circumstances, but they most certainly are not laws. A law is something that will always be true, everywhere; Newton's 'laws' break down as soon as you try to do anything unusual.
They're called laws because of historical prescedent (back in the day people played fast and loose with their terminology), but it's really quite disingenious.
And again, while neo-Darwinian Evolution is an incredibly good and compelling theory, it's going to remain just a theory until someone invents a time machine. While experiments can be performed to demonstrate small phylogenic changes, evolution discusses tremendous change over tremendous time-scales, and while it seems quite reasonable to believe that you can simply generalise observations about butterflies and rabbits out to millions of years (:-)), you can't exactly proove it, which is the point.
Calling something a law when it really isn't does a disservice to science; you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One of the most important things students can learn about science is that regardless of how strong or weak the evidence is for one theory, there's always the possibility for an alternate explanation, and to be able to judge the relative merits of the theories based on their supporting evidence and their implications.
Even if Microsoft intended to do that, I question whether they could actually move on the issue of selling a subscriber list so quickly.
NTFS encryption works by generating a random key for each folder that you've set to encrypt. That key is then encrypted with the public key of anybody authorized to access the file.
Your private key is encryped with your password, so if you login somehow but without your password (for example, through the recovery console), it never gets decrypted. Consequently, you can't access the encryption key for the files themselves. So no, this doesn't give access to EFS files.
3rd voice. They're not around anymore, though.
Jeeze.
Dude, that's simple economics. The fact that carrying a niche product (which Linux laptops are) is expensive has nothing to do with Microsoft's illegal monopoly protection.
Of course, I wasn't one of those people, and I don't think Cringley has the economic and tech background needed to be one of those people now, and in the future. But don't assume that everybody is as blind, deaf and dumb as the herd - not everybody lost their shirt in the dot-com bubble.
It's a fairly fundamental difference.
People without scientific training, apparently...
And you're ignoring whole classes of problems, like the exponetial time/space problems, and even the NP-Hard problems wouldn't be affected by a proof that P=NP.
The thing I love about fiat currency is it seperates the wheat from the chaff, since it takes a certain subtlety of mind to understand how it really works.
It might be a large country, but most of it is uninhabited.
That's okay, IRC networks never had common carrier status in the first place.
The real problem here is that the chips, while designed for SMP, aren't designed for AMP. I'm sure it would be possible to design such a board (and chipset), but it would be hard, and tricky.
Why do you think a lot of intel related optimisation stuff (such as SSE/SSE2 optimisation) improved drastically relatively recently?
IA64 has branch predication, prediction and speculation.
This, of course, is why you're posting on /. and not a multi-billionaire.
Of course, it's also rocket powered. :)
Implementing proper egress filtering would ensure that ISPs don't route packets that have source-addresses that are obviously spoofed (and hence, probably are), so DoSes would be managable. But they don't bother with correct egress filtering because that would require hardware upgrades to support the added load the routers would have to be carrying, hence they don't.
A chessboard is 8x8, meaning 64 spaces. However, each space can contain a pawn, a rook, a bishop, a knight, a king or a queen of either colour. The best estimate for the number of states the board can be in is 2.99x1041.
A naive encoding is 96 bytes per state. Let's say a tighter, or compressed encoding is 48 bytes per state. So a rough estimate as to the total storage space it would require is 1.44x1043 bytes.
In words, that's about 14 million billion billion gigabytes of data. I'm not going to say it'd be impossible to build such a storage mechanism in the forseable future, but I will say it's incredibly unlikely, and would be mindbogglingly expensive. And with modern technology, would require more matter than is actually on the planet. So no, dynamic programming wouldn't be useful in chess at all. Proving once again that if it were as simple as that, somebody would have thought of it already.
Out of interest, consider Go. This is a board where dynamic programming really would be useless. With around 10750 possible states, it would require significantly more atoms than are actually in the entire universe.
If I remember correctly, Deep Blue was a modified customised RS/6000. I believe a significant portion of the move evaluation algorithm was implemented in hardware on top of an otherwise fairly beefy machine, meaning Deep Blue could evaluate vast numbers of moves per second.
To beat it in purely software today would still require some serious hardware.
Who cares?
In some respects he's right, but accidentally (a stopped clock is right twice a day), in that Windows is built on top of another operating system, in this case, NT. But to transition to another base there are three questions that would have to be answered:
Is it possible? Not without a lot of modification to Linux. NT is not UNIX and has a number of fundamentally different idioms; while Win32 abstracts a lot of this, it still pokes through in a few places. Even if Microsoft implemented features in the Linux kernel necessary, they'd still be forced to deprecate half the API and force developers to rewrite their applications to take full advantage of the new architecture. And if they rewrote Linux enough to make this unnecessary, it wouldn't be Linux anymore - it'd be an NT rewrite.
Would it be better? Cringley simply assumes that Linux is faster, more stable, etc... than NT. Windows is notorious for being unstable, although most of that reputation is due to the Win9x line. Win2K/XP have been known to crash on occasion, but unless you're using some seriously broken hardware, or have fucked its internals up a lot, it doesn't crash that often, and even then the vast majority of crashes are due to the Win32 layer, not NT itself. NT has a stronger security model, is realtime and fully reentrant. In short, the problems with Windows 2000/XP are not the fault of NT, but Win32 itself. Exactly how would porting Win32 to Linux solve these problem?
Would it be economic? The marginal benefit of porting to Linux would be minimal, and at great expense. I can't see how Microsoft would justify it.
Cringley suggested something that is fundamentally highly technical without understanding the real issues involved, which was stupid. This is particularly ironic when you consider the section of his site saying that people should listen to him since he knows what he's talking about. Once again this simply proves that he's nothing more than a digital snake-oil salesman - under the guise of holding an expert opinion, he tells people what they want to hear in exchange for ratings.
NT understands both the concepts of DOS programs and console mode Windows programs. cmd.exe, the command shell, is a console mode Windows program. NT is able to run real DOS programs in an emulated environment, however.
You're wrong. VMS and UNIX appeared at about the same time, but are very different beasts. Arguably, VMS was better than UNIX, but UNIX became dominant as a result of BSD.