Yes, it will:-) And so, I would think (but IANAFIPA), would the ICC and other online chess ratings. But then, I am not a ^$#@*&% intellectual property attorney...
Jesus runs a closed-source, proprietary operating system call Logos. It's fully network aware, uses 802.200000a wireless networking (no need for access points or even a wireless card), an 11-dimensional display 12 billion light years around with trillions of pixels per inch, direct cognitive interface with no physical parts, three root accounts, a news reader and email client you'd have to see to believe (infinitesimal in size, but allows him to grok all the incoming mail and news there is without clicking a thing), and a shell that's just incredible, able to make instaneous changes with the absolute minimum of user effort. It's had 12 billion years of uptime and never, ever crashed.
You should see the hardware: a massive singularity-based processor.
Unfortunately, since about AD 33 all he's been doing is playing Freecell while the game of Life he's been running for all of those 12 billion years has gone completely out of control.
I believe about 2000 years ago, the olympic athletes were awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals...
You believe wrongly. The three medals are a modern invention, dating to the 1896 games. The original prizes were olive-branch garlands, and the very valuable respect of your countrymen (including such things as statues, poems composed in your honor, and basically everyone wanting to be your friend). Think of it as being like college sports.
For the real skinny, read a little of Pausanias, who wrote his "Description of Greece" back when the original Olympics were still being held.
Yes, the "technician" (sysop) who screwed up the permissions was at fault, and whoever hired him should be punished (since I suspect from the article that he's no longer employed by the Judiciary Committee). Still doesn't make it legal for the files to be accessed and distributed; I'm sure the directory structure made clear what files belonged to whom. Under Mr. Ashcroft's laws, I would bet that what the Republican staffers did was felony computer intrusion. Hoist by their own petard.
What we've got here is a bunch of stupid Democrats and a bunch of dishonest Republicans. (Whereas the past two presidents have been a dishonest Democrat and a stupid Republican.)
On this subject, the Slashdot CW is pretty close to the money. The real unforgivable continuity breach was Nemesis, though: for the first time, an even numbered Trek film DID suck. [don't mod up funny, I've gotten mod points for that joke before.]
I see that you posted this on January 20th. The January 18th Norton definitions (which were an off-cycle update) detected it. If absolutely necessary, I can post screen shots to prove it. So unless you are claiming that there are late January 19th or early January 20th definitions that removed that detection capability, you are simply wrong. Have a nice day, though.
To have the discovery of the Romulan's link with the Vulcans in Enterprise would be an unforgivable continuity breach: it was a major plot element in the original series episode "Balance of Terror," which was such a popular episode that they brought back the actor who played the doomed Romulan commander to play Spock's father in 1 TOS episode, 2 movies, 2 TNG episodes, and as a Klingon in the first movie.
It was worth it to him. Me, I use Zoe; but then I also use an operating system someone else wrote. I'm not going to gainsay what Linus does with his time - I don't have an entire industry built around what I decided to do as a hobby.
Here's a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars. This planet has finite resources and finite land. The only way we can possible grow our economy as a planet is to have an open system (entropy tells us that recycling loses some resources each cycle). At some point, the growth of our planetary economy will reach the limits of planetary resources. At that point, either we move out into the rest of the universe, or our economy will decay to extinction. How's that for a compelling economic argument.
Next, you'll probably say "but we don't need to go NOW." That's the same economic argument as "I don't need to save money in my 401(k) now; I can wait a few more years."
genesis gignomai, "to become." "Teknon" is "child", not "birth", at least in classical Greek. For instance, Oedipus the King (aka Oedipus Rex or Oidipous Tyrannos) begins "O tekna Kadmou," "O Children of Kadmos." (tekna is the plural of teknon, as criteria - kriteria - is the plural of criterion - kriterion). Check Perseus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
What the hell kind of name is the "Crew Exploration Vehicle"? At least the shuttle didn't have some crazy name; it was the shuttle. And it is a shuttle, so that was an OK name.
The official name of the Shuttle is "Space Transportation System."
He's not bad, he's just written that way. In all seriousness, the Wesley Crusher character was just another in a long line of hopeless "smart kid" characters in tv sci fi: and he was usually somewhat more bearable than Will Robinson (except in the stupid Traveler scripts, of course). Remember, too, that WW wasn't exactly a 40 year old man when he got that job, and it's not like they expected him to deliver his lines in iambic pentameter. The Wesley Crusher character, mindless as he was, was the creation of the same man who created the Whorf character. Now, you can say that the actor helps to flesh the character out: but did WW really have much hope with Wesley "I'm so smart" Crusher?
When they gave him a well-written ep he usually handled it well (that whole bit he did with Robert Duncan McNeill for instance was a nice bit of acting).
Most of them are using random word sequences; the random strings like xdwexe are not usually an important percentage of the overall text, no more than names might be. Besides, how large a corpus of "valid" words do you want to use? The OED weighs in at almost 0.5M; and then with another 0.5M uncatalogued scientific terms and neologisms, plus common mis-spellings and typos and jargon and dialect orthography (like our color, meter, checker, jail etc. for the Brits colour, metre, chequer, gaol)...
If you don't want to keep the entire corpus of "valid" words in your code, you're going to have to make some compromises. Maybe you'll want to exclude words like "thou," "hauberk," and "coney." Not so good if you're subscribing to an Early Modern Literature listserv.
So you're going to need some logic to determine whether or not a "valid" word that occurs in a message is meaningful. Here's how one rather well known discussion of Bayesian filtering deals with this issue (of unknown words); this is precisely the logic that spammers with random meaningful words are exploiting:
One question that arises in practice is what probability to assign to a word you've never seen, i.e. one that doesn't occur in the hash table of word probabilities. I've found, again by trial and error, that.4 is a good number to use. If you've never seen a word before, it is probably fairly innocent; spam words tend to be all too familiar.
So, what if all the words are valid, but the sentences aren't? Grammar checkers involve a lot more logic than spellcheckers do, and are consequently a lot less accurate. Fact is, you can also fool a grammar checker filter: just pad with random quotations from novels, etc. instead of padding with random words or random misspelled strings.
So the Bayesian approach of identifying spam and ham words is a pretty effective one, given the limitations.
The article doesn't do a good enough job of explaining the different techniques in use.
First, hash busters. Yes, spammers are loading a random jumble of meaningful words in meaningless sequences into their spam, usually in the plaintext message body of a message with HTML content (i.e., you get hash buster - html message with spam content - hash buster). So HTML-aware clients (the main clients targeted I'm sure are AOL and Outlook Express) show the spam message, but not the hash buster. I'm guessing that this is specifically targeting bayesian filtering tools at AOL (anyone know if AOL is using a bayesian filter?); it works by introducing words that would not be found in a spam corpus in greater numbers than those that would.
Second, noisy spelling, like v1@gr@. Obviously this is also intended to defeat regex-based filters like spamassassin. If you vary your cliches enough, and you introduce very strange, but easy-for-a-human-reader-to-recognize spelling variants, you make it much more difficult for filter writers to write effective regexes.
Actually, I do have access to a much higher than $5,000 laser printer and Kodak paper, and I would still rather use film, an enlarger, some developer, and some fixer. Digital is great for snapshots at birthday parties and websites, for the sorts of things a Polaroid used to be used for. But for any kind of art photography, film is still better, and will be for at least another generation.
Fortunately, Kodak is just discontinuing stuff like their "Advanced Photo System" - their low-end consumer cameras. They don't to my knowledge make any prosumer cameras, and they'll still be selling their film and conventional (i.e., non-printer) papers. Until 10 years ago, Kodak's main camera lines were the 110-based cameras and the instamatics. As auto-loading auto-focus small 35 millimeters took off, Kodak tried to push into that market with the APS cameras. This is a sign of just how successful that market was. Anyway, the 35 mm consumer cameras have been knocked out by their digital cousins, but I'm sure the big boys will still sell SLRs for decades to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it will :-) And so, I would think (but IANAFIPA), would the ICC and other online chess ratings. But then, I am not a ^$#@*&% intellectual property attorney...
Jesus runs a closed-source, proprietary operating system call Logos. It's fully network aware, uses 802.200000a wireless networking (no need for access points or even a wireless card), an 11-dimensional display 12 billion light years around with trillions of pixels per inch, direct cognitive interface with no physical parts, three root accounts, a news reader and email client you'd have to see to believe (infinitesimal in size, but allows him to grok all the incoming mail and news there is without clicking a thing), and a shell that's just incredible, able to make instaneous changes with the absolute minimum of user effort. It's had 12 billion years of uptime and never, ever crashed.
You should see the hardware: a massive singularity-based processor.
Unfortunately, since about AD 33 all he's been doing is playing Freecell while the game of Life he's been running for all of those 12 billion years has gone completely out of control.
I believe about 2000 years ago, the olympic athletes were awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals...
You believe wrongly. The three medals are a modern invention, dating to the 1896 games. The original prizes were olive-branch garlands, and the very valuable respect of your countrymen (including such things as statues, poems composed in your honor, and basically everyone wanting to be your friend). Think of it as being like college sports.
For the real skinny, read a little of Pausanias,
who wrote his "Description of Greece" back when the original Olympics were still being held.
The copy I had was two volumes. I could probably dig it out with enough effort, but I don't want to bother.
We are America. Finland is irrelevant. Iraq is irrelevant. We will add their technological distinction to our own. They will be assimilated.
Yes, the "technician" (sysop) who screwed up the permissions was at fault, and whoever hired him should be punished (since I suspect from the article that he's no longer employed by the Judiciary Committee). Still doesn't make it legal for the files to be accessed and distributed; I'm sure the directory structure made clear what files belonged to whom. Under Mr. Ashcroft's laws, I would bet that what the Republican staffers did was felony computer intrusion. Hoist by their own petard.
What we've got here is a bunch of stupid Democrats and a bunch of dishonest Republicans. (Whereas the past two presidents have been a dishonest Democrat and a stupid Republican.)
Let's all get drunk.
I must say, you have a point there.
I've owned both. They are no more the same thing than UNIX is the same thing as CP/M.
Yes, it's a touch pad, not a moving-parts wheel.
A very bad Photoshop job, unless Andre the Giant was the model. If the comparative scale were correct, the buttons would be unusuable.
The jog wheel on the iPod is not just buttons in a circle - it's a non-moving touch dial you move your thumb around the center of to move the cursor.
Based on how my iPod sucks power with the iTrip on, I'm guessing the battery life won't be so great on this.
On this subject, the Slashdot CW is pretty close to the money. The real unforgivable continuity breach was Nemesis, though: for the first time, an even numbered Trek film DID suck. [don't mod up funny, I've gotten mod points for that joke before.]
I see that you posted this on January 20th. The January 18th Norton definitions (which were an off-cycle update) detected it. If absolutely necessary, I can post screen shots to prove it. So unless you are claiming that there are late January 19th or early January 20th definitions that removed that detection capability, you are simply wrong. Have a nice day, though.
To have the discovery of the Romulan's link with the Vulcans in Enterprise would be an unforgivable continuity breach: it was a major plot element in the original series episode "Balance of Terror," which was such a popular episode that they brought back the actor who played the doomed Romulan commander to play Spock's father in 1 TOS episode, 2 movies, 2 TNG episodes, and as a Klingon in the first movie.
It was worth it to him. Me, I use Zoe; but then I also use an operating system someone else wrote. I'm not going to gainsay what Linus does with his time - I don't have an entire industry built around what I decided to do as a hobby.
Here's a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars. This planet has finite resources and finite land. The only way we can possible grow our economy as a planet is to have an open system (entropy tells us that recycling loses some resources each cycle). At some point, the growth of our planetary economy will reach the limits of planetary resources. At that point, either we move out into the rest of the universe, or our economy will decay to extinction. How's that for a compelling economic argument.
Next, you'll probably say "but we don't need to go NOW." That's the same economic argument as "I don't need to save money in my 401(k) now; I can wait a few more years."
genesis gignomai, "to become." "Teknon" is "child", not "birth", at least in classical Greek. For instance, Oedipus the King (aka Oedipus Rex or Oidipous Tyrannos) begins "O tekna Kadmou," "O Children of Kadmos." (tekna is the plural of teknon, as criteria - kriteria - is the plural of criterion - kriterion). Check Perseus: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
What the hell kind of name is the "Crew Exploration Vehicle"? At least the shuttle didn't have some crazy name; it was the shuttle. And it is a shuttle, so that was an OK name.
The official name of the Shuttle is "Space Transportation System."
He's not bad, he's just written that way. In all seriousness, the Wesley Crusher character was just another in a long line of hopeless "smart kid" characters in tv sci fi: and he was usually somewhat more bearable than Will Robinson (except in the stupid Traveler scripts, of course). Remember, too, that WW wasn't exactly a 40 year old man when he got that job, and it's not like they expected him to deliver his lines in iambic pentameter. The Wesley Crusher character, mindless as he was, was the creation of the same man who created the Whorf character. Now, you can say that the actor helps to flesh the character out: but did WW really have much hope with Wesley "I'm so smart" Crusher? When they gave him a well-written ep he usually handled it well (that whole bit he did with Robert Duncan McNeill for instance was a nice bit of acting).
So cut the guy some slack.
Most of them are using random word sequences; the random strings like xdwexe are not usually an important percentage of the overall text, no more than names might be. Besides, how large a corpus of "valid" words do you want to use? The OED weighs in at almost 0.5M; and then with another 0.5M uncatalogued scientific terms and neologisms, plus common mis-spellings and typos and jargon and dialect orthography (like our color, meter, checker, jail etc. for the Brits colour, metre, chequer, gaol) ...
If you don't want to keep the entire corpus of "valid" words in your code, you're going to have to make some compromises. Maybe you'll want to exclude words like "thou," "hauberk," and "coney." Not so good if you're subscribing to an Early Modern Literature listserv.
So you're going to need some logic to determine whether or not a "valid" word that occurs in a message is meaningful. Here's how one rather well known discussion of Bayesian filtering deals with this issue (of unknown words); this is precisely the logic that spammers with random meaningful words are exploiting:
One question that arises in practice is what probability to assign to a word you've never seen, i.e. one that doesn't occur in the hash table of word probabilities. I've found, again by trial and error, that .4 is a good number to use. If you've never seen a word before, it is probably fairly innocent; spam words tend to be all too familiar.
So, what if all the words are valid, but the sentences aren't? Grammar checkers involve a lot more logic than spellcheckers do, and are consequently a lot less accurate. Fact is, you can also fool a grammar checker filter: just pad with random quotations from novels, etc. instead of padding with random words or random misspelled strings.
So the Bayesian approach of identifying spam and ham words is a pretty effective one, given the limitations.
The article doesn't do a good enough job of explaining the different techniques in use.
First, hash busters. Yes, spammers are loading a random jumble of meaningful words in meaningless sequences into their spam, usually in the plaintext message body of a message with HTML content (i.e., you get hash buster - html message with spam content - hash buster). So HTML-aware clients (the main clients targeted I'm sure are AOL and Outlook Express) show the spam message, but not the hash buster. I'm guessing that this is specifically targeting bayesian filtering tools at AOL (anyone know if AOL is using a bayesian filter?); it works by introducing words that would not be found in a spam corpus in greater numbers than those that would.
Second, noisy spelling, like v1@gr@. Obviously this is also intended to defeat regex-based filters like spamassassin. If you vary your cliches enough, and you introduce very strange, but easy-for-a-human-reader-to-recognize spelling variants, you make it much more difficult for filter writers to write effective regexes.
Real translation: "I'd like to do the entrepreneurship gig, and maybe get my own company bought out by MS in four or five years."
Actually, I do have access to a much higher than $5,000 laser printer and Kodak paper, and I would still rather use film, an enlarger, some developer, and some fixer. Digital is great for snapshots at birthday parties and websites, for the sorts of things a Polaroid used to be used for. But for any kind of art photography, film is still better, and will be for at least another generation.
Fortunately, Kodak is just discontinuing stuff like their "Advanced Photo System" - their low-end consumer cameras. They don't to my knowledge make any prosumer cameras, and they'll still be selling their film and conventional (i.e., non-printer) papers. Until 10 years ago, Kodak's main camera lines were the 110-based cameras and the instamatics. As auto-loading auto-focus small 35 millimeters took off, Kodak tried to push into that market with the APS cameras. This is a sign of just how successful that market was. Anyway, the 35 mm consumer cameras have been knocked out by their digital cousins, but I'm sure the big boys will still sell SLRs for decades to come.
You realize that MD is a popular format in the UK and other non-US location and Sony never gives up easily.
One word: Betamax.
I have an MD player. I have an iPod. The MD player sits in a drawer. You know why? Because the format is a big pain in the butt.