use order-preserving symmetric encryption and you can still search on encrypted fields
Key word.. SEARCH. You can't search an encrypted field unless it matches exactly.
*sigh* Order-preserving symmetric encryption does allow for non-exact matches, for the least significant part of the field. For example, in an OPE enabled DB, the user may get a list of possible completions for a search query with pretty much the same efficiency as a plaintext DB since adjacent keys will correspond to adjacent values. Other types of non-exact match (e.g. Levenshtein distance) will be extremely inefficient in most plaintext DBs anyway (and nearly impossible with OPE).
OPE may not be nearly as secure as something like SHA (one way cypher) or AES (non-order-preserving symmetric cypher) but it is supposed to be somewhat secure, at least enough to comply with this order.
I would say football seems more popular in China since I know far more people that like it than basketball, though I don't have any hard stats to back me up. I see basketball played on TV, but I don't know many people who watch it. The advantage basketball has is that China has some high profile international players. I think the local football league is OK, the ball skills are surprisingly good, but nobody seems to want the ball to be passed to them. There always seems to be a few people who watch Beijing Guo An play at Worker's Stadium, but most of the shirts I see are for Premier League clubs.
I have written sample code to test many applicants, when I have accidentally fucked up something I didn't mean to it is very hard to get the answer I am looking for. If an applicant pointed out that you were passing char ** to scanf instead of char *, you can hardly say that they are wrong, but even though they are right, they still accomplished something that could have been done quite well by their compiler (well, most do scanf format checking these days). Also, you can hardly say that code there has a buffer overflow issue since on most modern systems you will get a memory protection exception (segfault) as soon as you start writing over that constant string, your code will not run, but that is not the same as a security hole. If you want a potential buffer overflow identified, you need to write good code with that as its only problem.
Also, fair point about information hiding, luckily one can use C++ to implement SHA256 using template metaprogramming and have your sensitive password saved as a hash at compile time. C would require an external tool for that, although an external tool is probably the right way to do it in C++ too, but the option is still there.
Um, I think we're saying the same thing. There is no point to this change, it is all just subjective twiddling with no real benefit, it's a waste of time that only serves to distract attention from real issues.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my second paragraph. To be honest, I don't have a huge amount of respect for UI specialists who do this kind of things, I think they mainly sprout opinions like every other pundit on the sidelines with not much justification. If you have to argue with the actual users about a UI decision it means it is probably not a good one anyway.
Anyway, any conceivable benefit to the usibility is overshadowed by the political shitstorm this stuff causes. I refuse to believe that the Ubuntu desktop experience is at such a point where there is nothing left to tweak apart from this kind of thing. If someone wants to contribute to Ubuntu there are plenty of better improvements they can make.
Never been to Karaoke on the mainland I take it, the lyrics are mostly in Traditional Chinese from HK/TW but nobody seems to have too much of a problem with it. PRC people generally can't _write_ Traditional Chinese but reading it isn't so much of an issue. 90% of characters are either the same, or are built of equivalent radicals, 5% include the simplified character in the traditional one and the last 5% can just be guessed from context.
The old metaphor is: if someone builds a nuclear reactor, it is left to the most qualified engineers. But if you build a bike shed everyone wants to have their opinion heard. I.e. if you want to change the way an IO scheduler or a pagefault handler works, only experienced kernel hackers will bother discussing it, but if you move around two buttons, everyone understand what you've done and wants to weigh in.
But honestly if you are an specialist in building bikesheds, you can never expect to be taken as seriously as those who build nuclear reactors. Someone just reconfigured Metacity to switch some buttons because they thought it was better that way, surely this feat proves that they are the experts here and their judgement should be deferred to.
Back when I regularly contributed to Gnome they switched the button order on dialog boxes, I actually liked the new layout but it was just personal taste, their was no objective improvement to be worth the enormous amount of bitching from the community. And in the end this will be the same, I will get used to this new layout, all that will change is a few indignant people will stop using Ubuntu and it will mainly serve to piss off anyone who borrows my computer.
In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side, but ultimately, it's just not all that important but it serves to attract a lot of attention and impact a lot of people's habits. Surely a software developer who has nothing better to change than this is hardly worth taking seriously.
Both my sisters know C and could easily write a hello world program (and have). Of course the binaries they create are larger than 1.3kb, but at least they would print "hello world".
Not all women write software that does not even perform a simple task correctly and require platform specific hacks to run without segfaulting. I am disappointed by your misogynistic pointing towards her gender to blame this waste of time on her being female, as if no male has ever done something like this. Maybe you think this is just a humorous attempt of "the weaker sex" to try a man's job.
But sarcasm aside, what you said was pretty patronizing.
Well, I am currently on a "Foreign Expert Visa" (essentially H1B) in the People's Republic of China. I have a job and are fending off plenty of job offers from Chinese companies wanting to hire skilled and experienced programmers and are willing to pay _more_ for a foreigner. With tech companies we're not talking about the "mill down the road where your daddy's daddy used to work" we are talking about companies with specialized knowledge requirements and a global sales market. The labor market that drives it has been global for a while now, the great tech companies you know were built on the hard work of a workforce from all over the world, while it used to be just places like Canada, Europe and Australia that would share a pool of skilled tech workers with the US, we now have India, Latin America and China contributing not only workers but jobs too. Sure, the tech company down your street is happy to hire a worker from India if he matches the criteria, but don't be too sure that an Indian company wouldn't hire you if you are _really_ better than the Indian guy hired in America.
The high tech labor market is global and has been since you were too young to work, stop bitching about it and take it as an opportunity to travel, n.b. chicks LOVE an exotic face telling them about adventures that happened growing up in places they have never seen.
Used by a large portion of the world is a good point. There's great value in having everyone use the same system. Of course there's also an enormous cost in switching between systems, and little direct benefit to anyone who was happy with the old system, which is why no one does it.
Apart from the aforementioned "rest of the world" which was largely not using the metric system 60 years ago (especially in the former British Empire for which "Imperial" is named). We even switched to decimal currency from the 12 pennies = 1 shilling, 20 shillings = 1 pound system.
Anyway, this discussion has happened many times before, the same arguments have come up in UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. and have gone just as quickly.
Huh? If they actually liked gays then calling them homosexual would only be insulting to the actual homosexuals who are being inversely compared with Scientologists.
In this case, they're going to get pretty cut about the comparison, so its actually worth saying.
A left rotate will write the MSB into the LSB, which is never the sign bit. Anyway, the grandparent is far more wrong than you are, since the MSB _IS_ the sign bit (not that you should be doing bitwise operations on a signed value anyway).
The law has very little to do with it. Right now, in this country, the Dalai Lama is about as popular and well loved as gonorrhea. If Apple becomes known as the "platform of choice for the Dalai Lama" it will suddenly be just as cool in China to buy an iPhone as it is to wear a shirt with a slogan insulting your own mother. Right now, there are a LOT of people buying iPhones which would stop in a heartbeat if it was in any way connected with that particular man. Censorship or not, Apple is making a seriously smart decision on this issue for their bottom line, the government is the least of their worries.
A sector used to be quite literally a sector of a disc in the mathematical sense, like a wedge shape that spins around. Now with LBA (labeling hard drive's blocks in series from zero rather than by their physical position) it is just like a block on your filesystem, but on the hardware instead, it is a blob of data that must be read or written as a whole. The rationale is that you are not likely to ever want to read or write one byte at a time, so there is no reason to make the hard disk handle requests for one byte. The difference between a "sector" and a block is that a block on a file system should not be smaller than a sector on the hard drive since an OS can pretend two, four, etc. sectors is a single block, it cannot cut a sector in half.
The upshot of this, is unlike memory which is addressable to the byte, hard discs can be much bigger compared to the address range since it only needs volume/blocksize addresses to locate the data, so even with a block size of 512, a 2 Terabyte (base2) volume may be sufficiently covered with a 32 bit address space, this makes everything a lot easier and more efficient.
Anyway, in answer to your question, sectors are still as useful as they ever were, just they might not actually be sectors anymore because of LBA. Maybe they are, I'm not sure, I've only written hard disc drivers, I've never built one of the things.
In American usage, companies are generally considered to be singular nouns. But the BBC is, err, I mean the bbc are British, therfore they should be considered a plural noun, as per British usage.
No, the dialects are the same regarding this, and even if they weren't, you would use your own dialect here. However a company is a group of people (plural), a corporation is an individual legal entity (singular), the BBC is both. Now, companies and corporations are in the laws of both of these countries, but in the case where something is both a company and a corporation (which lets face it, is going to be quite often) in my experience it is usually referred to as "company" in the UK and "corporation" in the US. Which presumably is why pluralisation follows the same pattern.
However in both dialects, the singular is used to draw emphasis to the corporation whereas the plural is used to draw more emphasis to the human constituents making the decisions.
Seriously, here are the tests: pidigits, reverse-complement, regex-dna, k-nucleotide, n-body, fasta, binary-trees, fannkuch, spectral-norm, mandelbrot.
Considering mandelbrot took 116x as much CPU time on PHP than C++, I would say that the 10x is probably more of a guesstimate of what Facebook would use. That said, it is still quite high compared to my guesstimate, but it isn't naive enough to assume those tests represent Facebook performance.
You really should attribute Blackadder when you quote it.
Anyway, it was written for comedic effect rather than accuracy, generally in colonial wars British fought against people with guns, Zulus being a prime example of a group often depicted inaccurately without firearms or military organization, an insult to both sides of that conflict.
"Octopodes" would be the correct plural if octopus were an ancient Greek word, but since it's not, octopuses is it. "Octopi" just makes you look both pretentious and ignorant at once, a feat which may cause people to think you're a libertarian.
Out of those three, I find "octopuses" hardest to say quickly, so the other two both seem like attractive option, probably why Romanesque pluralization of words ending with "s" gained such a foothold in English. Personally I believe they should be like "sheep" and "fish" to avoid the whole stupid discussion entirely. One octopus, two octopus, several octopus, there, easy.
If any of you are an Australian citizen on slashdot who doesn't submit something to the Attorney General I hope you suffer grievous misfortune. Hell, even write to oppose it if you want, I don't care, at least the reasons you'll give will probably be less retarded than the the other people who submit something against this.
Basically, whenever there is a hiatus between two vowels, the diaeresis mark can be used over the second (like GP did) to indicate that it is not a diphthong. I've had teachers insist that I use either a diaeresis or a hyphen on this word, but this is a stupid attitude because of its lack of ambiguity and the fact that not many other English words are really pronounced how they look either. However insisting on it is no more stupid than saying that it is incorrect. This is an often cited example of an English word with a diaeresis such as here I think it is reasonable to use one here if one wants, it is as valid as any other spelling and is _the_ valid spelling in certain reference books.
CDs are mastered with massively compressed dynamic range because most customers want it that way. I'm not quite sure why they don't master two copies, but it isn't an inherent property of vinyl that makes it like that, apart from maybe the fact that you simply cannot cut grooves in a certain shape and expect it to play. Vinyl is good for people who enjoy listening to vinyl, but it has a lot of drawbacks too.
But since you mentioned audiophiles, generally I find self professed audiophiles spend more money on audio equipment to derive much less enjoyment than your average teenybopper listening to a 96kbps dynamic range compressed MP3 of Justin Timberlake on an iPod shuffle with earbuds. I can hear when an 200kbps AAC smears up the treble, I can tell when a $30 pair of ear-buds cannot handle the base, I can hear when a song has its pianos turned to fortes in the interest of having a more "full" sound. But honestly, I try not to, and am getting pretty good at ignoring it. But I feel sorry for people who need to spend $3000 to gain as much enjoyment out of a song as the rest of us can for $60. Now laughing at audiophiles and their stereo systems is just like laughing at a paraplegic and their expensive custom wheelchair, or a blind person and their expensive dog, lifestyle aids are expensive. it should be unthinkable to anyone but the coldest individual to make a joke about that.
But out economy can do just fine without movies. Hm....
Well, in Australia it probably can. There is a profitable domestic movie every 4 years or so, the rest of the time it is relying on imports. If the Australian film industry was to collapse, that would be just one less thing for the government to prop up. Sure, American studios film in Australia, but this has nothing to do with the Australian box office figures, which are going to be trivial either way. If people weren't watching moves, they would be spending their time and money on something else imported from America, it doesn't really have much effect in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* Order-preserving symmetric encryption does allow for non-exact matches, for the least significant part of the field. For example, in an OPE enabled DB, the user may get a list of possible completions for a search query with pretty much the same efficiency as a plaintext DB since adjacent keys will correspond to adjacent values. Other types of non-exact match (e.g. Levenshtein distance) will be extremely inefficient in most plaintext DBs anyway (and nearly impossible with OPE).
OPE may not be nearly as secure as something like SHA (one way cypher) or AES (non-order-preserving symmetric cypher) but it is supposed to be somewhat secure, at least enough to comply with this order.
I haven't played Dante's Inferno, but I've played God of War, which makes me wonder what you are complaining about here.
I would say football seems more popular in China since I know far more people that like it than basketball, though I don't have any hard stats to back me up. I see basketball played on TV, but I don't know many people who watch it. The advantage basketball has is that China has some high profile international players. I think the local football league is OK, the ball skills are surprisingly good, but nobody seems to want the ball to be passed to them. There always seems to be a few people who watch Beijing Guo An play at Worker's Stadium, but most of the shirts I see are for Premier League clubs.
Yeah, but nobody is going to jack off over pictures Ja Me Yoon.
Welcome to the Internet.
I have written sample code to test many applicants, when I have accidentally fucked up something I didn't mean to it is very hard to get the answer I am looking for. If an applicant pointed out that you were passing char ** to scanf instead of char *, you can hardly say that they are wrong, but even though they are right, they still accomplished something that could have been done quite well by their compiler (well, most do scanf format checking these days). Also, you can hardly say that code there has a buffer overflow issue since on most modern systems you will get a memory protection exception (segfault) as soon as you start writing over that constant string, your code will not run, but that is not the same as a security hole. If you want a potential buffer overflow identified, you need to write good code with that as its only problem.
Also, fair point about information hiding, luckily one can use C++ to implement SHA256 using template metaprogramming and have your sensitive password saved as a hash at compile time. C would require an external tool for that, although an external tool is probably the right way to do it in C++ too, but the option is still there.
Um, I think we're saying the same thing. There is no point to this change, it is all just subjective twiddling with no real benefit, it's a waste of time that only serves to distract attention from real issues.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my second paragraph. To be honest, I don't have a huge amount of respect for UI specialists who do this kind of things, I think they mainly sprout opinions like every other pundit on the sidelines with not much justification. If you have to argue with the actual users about a UI decision it means it is probably not a good one anyway.
Anyway, any conceivable benefit to the usibility is overshadowed by the political shitstorm this stuff causes. I refuse to believe that the Ubuntu desktop experience is at such a point where there is nothing left to tweak apart from this kind of thing. If someone wants to contribute to Ubuntu there are plenty of better improvements they can make.
Never been to Karaoke on the mainland I take it, the lyrics are mostly in Traditional Chinese from HK/TW but nobody seems to have too much of a problem with it. PRC people generally can't _write_ Traditional Chinese but reading it isn't so much of an issue. 90% of characters are either the same, or are built of equivalent radicals, 5% include the simplified character in the traditional one and the last 5% can just be guessed from context.
The old metaphor is: if someone builds a nuclear reactor, it is left to the most qualified engineers. But if you build a bike shed everyone wants to have their opinion heard. I.e. if you want to change the way an IO scheduler or a pagefault handler works, only experienced kernel hackers will bother discussing it, but if you move around two buttons, everyone understand what you've done and wants to weigh in.
But honestly if you are an specialist in building bikesheds, you can never expect to be taken as seriously as those who build nuclear reactors. Someone just reconfigured Metacity to switch some buttons because they thought it was better that way, surely this feat proves that they are the experts here and their judgement should be deferred to.
Back when I regularly contributed to Gnome they switched the button order on dialog boxes, I actually liked the new layout but it was just personal taste, their was no objective improvement to be worth the enormous amount of bitching from the community. And in the end this will be the same, I will get used to this new layout, all that will change is a few indignant people will stop using Ubuntu and it will mainly serve to piss off anyone who borrows my computer.
In a way, the new button order makes more sense, maximise is the opposite of close and should be on the opposite side, but ultimately, it's just not all that important but it serves to attract a lot of attention and impact a lot of people's habits. Surely a software developer who has nothing better to change than this is hardly worth taking seriously.
Both my sisters know C and could easily write a hello world program (and have). Of course the binaries they create are larger than 1.3kb, but at least they would print "hello world".
Not all women write software that does not even perform a simple task correctly and require platform specific hacks to run without segfaulting. I am disappointed by your misogynistic pointing towards her gender to blame this waste of time on her being female, as if no male has ever done something like this. Maybe you think this is just a humorous attempt of "the weaker sex" to try a man's job.
But sarcasm aside, what you said was pretty patronizing.
Well, I am currently on a "Foreign Expert Visa" (essentially H1B) in the People's Republic of China. I have a job and are fending off plenty of job offers from Chinese companies wanting to hire skilled and experienced programmers and are willing to pay _more_ for a foreigner. With tech companies we're not talking about the "mill down the road where your daddy's daddy used to work" we are talking about companies with specialized knowledge requirements and a global sales market. The labor market that drives it has been global for a while now, the great tech companies you know were built on the hard work of a workforce from all over the world, while it used to be just places like Canada, Europe and Australia that would share a pool of skilled tech workers with the US, we now have India, Latin America and China contributing not only workers but jobs too. Sure, the tech company down your street is happy to hire a worker from India if he matches the criteria, but don't be too sure that an Indian company wouldn't hire you if you are _really_ better than the Indian guy hired in America.
The high tech labor market is global and has been since you were too young to work, stop bitching about it and take it as an opportunity to travel, n.b. chicks LOVE an exotic face telling them about adventures that happened growing up in places they have never seen.
Sell it to Finns then.
Apart from the aforementioned "rest of the world" which was largely not using the metric system 60 years ago (especially in the former British Empire for which "Imperial" is named). We even switched to decimal currency from the 12 pennies = 1 shilling, 20 shillings = 1 pound system.
Anyway, this discussion has happened many times before, the same arguments have come up in UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. and have gone just as quickly.
Huh? If they actually liked gays then calling them homosexual would only be insulting to the actual homosexuals who are being inversely compared with Scientologists.
In this case, they're going to get pretty cut about the comparison, so its actually worth saying.
A left rotate will write the MSB into the LSB, which is never the sign bit. Anyway, the grandparent is far more wrong than you are, since the MSB _IS_ the sign bit (not that you should be doing bitwise operations on a signed value anyway).
The law has very little to do with it. Right now, in this country, the Dalai Lama is about as popular and well loved as gonorrhea. If Apple becomes known as the "platform of choice for the Dalai Lama" it will suddenly be just as cool in China to buy an iPhone as it is to wear a shirt with a slogan insulting your own mother. Right now, there are a LOT of people buying iPhones which would stop in a heartbeat if it was in any way connected with that particular man. Censorship or not, Apple is making a seriously smart decision on this issue for their bottom line, the government is the least of their worries.
A sector used to be quite literally a sector of a disc in the mathematical sense, like a wedge shape that spins around. Now with LBA (labeling hard drive's blocks in series from zero rather than by their physical position) it is just like a block on your filesystem, but on the hardware instead, it is a blob of data that must be read or written as a whole. The rationale is that you are not likely to ever want to read or write one byte at a time, so there is no reason to make the hard disk handle requests for one byte. The difference between a "sector" and a block is that a block on a file system should not be smaller than a sector on the hard drive since an OS can pretend two, four, etc. sectors is a single block, it cannot cut a sector in half.
The upshot of this, is unlike memory which is addressable to the byte, hard discs can be much bigger compared to the address range since it only needs volume/blocksize addresses to locate the data, so even with a block size of 512, a 2 Terabyte (base2) volume may be sufficiently covered with a 32 bit address space, this makes everything a lot easier and more efficient.
Anyway, in answer to your question, sectors are still as useful as they ever were, just they might not actually be sectors anymore because of LBA. Maybe they are, I'm not sure, I've only written hard disc drivers, I've never built one of the things.
No, the dialects are the same regarding this, and even if they weren't, you would use your own dialect here. However a company is a group of people (plural), a corporation is an individual legal entity (singular), the BBC is both. Now, companies and corporations are in the laws of both of these countries, but in the case where something is both a company and a corporation (which lets face it, is going to be quite often) in my experience it is usually referred to as "company" in the UK and "corporation" in the US. Which presumably is why pluralisation follows the same pattern.
However in both dialects, the singular is used to draw emphasis to the corporation whereas the plural is used to draw more emphasis to the human constituents making the decisions.
Considering mandelbrot took 116x as much CPU time on PHP than C++, I would say that the 10x is probably more of a guesstimate of what Facebook would use. That said, it is still quite high compared to my guesstimate, but it isn't naive enough to assume those tests represent Facebook performance.
You really should attribute Blackadder when you quote it.
Anyway, it was written for comedic effect rather than accuracy, generally in colonial wars British fought against people with guns, Zulus being a prime example of a group often depicted inaccurately without firearms or military organization, an insult to both sides of that conflict.
Out of those three, I find "octopuses" hardest to say quickly, so the other two both seem like attractive option, probably why Romanesque pluralization of words ending with "s" gained such a foothold in English. Personally I believe they should be like "sheep" and "fish" to avoid the whole stupid discussion entirely. One octopus, two octopus, several octopus, there, easy.
If any of you are an Australian citizen on slashdot who doesn't submit something to the Attorney General I hope you suffer grievous misfortune. Hell, even write to oppose it if you want, I don't care, at least the reasons you'll give will probably be less retarded than the the other people who submit something against this.
Basically, whenever there is a hiatus between two vowels, the diaeresis mark can be used over the second (like GP did) to indicate that it is not a diphthong. I've had teachers insist that I use either a diaeresis or a hyphen on this word, but this is a stupid attitude because of its lack of ambiguity and the fact that not many other English words are really pronounced how they look either. However insisting on it is no more stupid than saying that it is incorrect. This is an often cited example of an English word with a diaeresis such as here I think it is reasonable to use one here if one wants, it is as valid as any other spelling and is _the_ valid spelling in certain reference books.
CDs are mastered with massively compressed dynamic range because most customers want it that way. I'm not quite sure why they don't master two copies, but it isn't an inherent property of vinyl that makes it like that, apart from maybe the fact that you simply cannot cut grooves in a certain shape and expect it to play. Vinyl is good for people who enjoy listening to vinyl, but it has a lot of drawbacks too.
But since you mentioned audiophiles, generally I find self professed audiophiles spend more money on audio equipment to derive much less enjoyment than your average teenybopper listening to a 96kbps dynamic range compressed MP3 of Justin Timberlake on an iPod shuffle with earbuds. I can hear when an 200kbps AAC smears up the treble, I can tell when a $30 pair of ear-buds cannot handle the base, I can hear when a song has its pianos turned to fortes in the interest of having a more "full" sound. But honestly, I try not to, and am getting pretty good at ignoring it. But I feel sorry for people who need to spend $3000 to gain as much enjoyment out of a song as the rest of us can for $60. Now laughing at audiophiles and their stereo systems is just like laughing at a paraplegic and their expensive custom wheelchair, or a blind person and their expensive dog, lifestyle aids are expensive. it should be unthinkable to anyone but the coldest individual to make a joke about that.
Seriously, haven't you morons learned your lesson. Say something stupid too loud on the Internet, someone might actually do it.
Well, in Australia it probably can. There is a profitable domestic movie every 4 years or so, the rest of the time it is relying on imports. If the Australian film industry was to collapse, that would be just one less thing for the government to prop up. Sure, American studios film in Australia, but this has nothing to do with the Australian box office figures, which are going to be trivial either way. If people weren't watching moves, they would be spending their time and money on something else imported from America, it doesn't really have much effect in the end.