I can't see anything strange about "triple-DES". "triple-DES" is exactly what the name suggsts: three times DES. And DES is just the abbreviation of Data Encryption Standard.
RC4 sounds like an abbreviation as well (probably version 4 of something), but I have no idea of what and am too lazy to look now. Anyway, nothing strange about that one, either.
OTOH, I cannot imagine how "Blowfish" came to its name.
Well, the delivery here was medicine. Medicine is usually delivered in small quantities. I don't think anyone consumes 150+ lbs of medicine. Moreover, medicine can be time-critical to deliver. And even if not, you usually need it when you're ill, which is the time when you don't want to leave home if not absolutely necessary. So it's a perfect fit for this delivery method.
So fucking hilarious, why the fuck don't you pay for every single fucking page that you view on the internet then?
I wouldn't mind seeing ads (as long as they are not of the obnoxious type). I do mind getting tracked.
Ad-supported content without individual tracking seems to work well on newspapers, TV, radio, and basically everywhere you see or hear ads. Why shouldn't it work on the internet?
You honestly think you can say something, literally anything at all in a Slashdot discussion before people blow up over something misquoted/misinterpreted in the summary.
I would hope so, because otherwise I'd be charged with mass murder for my Slashdot postings, for causing lots of people to blow up.:-)
Almost all identifying information comes from the User Agent and HTTP_ACCEPT headers. Each "no javascript" adds 1.74 bits of data (which tells me that quite a few visitors of that site disable JS, but still most don't).
Enabling JavaScript made me unique (mostly due to browser plugins and system fonts which each provided more than 20 bits of identification).
I'll assume that it was only because you were overworked that you missed the humour in my comment. What I did was to give a possible interpretation which would have made the erroneous sentence correct. Of course I didn't mean to imply that someone really added bugs intentionally. At least one person understood it and gave me a "Funny" mod.
But anyway, your comment was full of interesting information, so it was the rare case of a productive Whoosh. Thank you for sharing that information.
How my weekend was? Well, the only thing that failed for me was my own computer, so by far not the same scale as your problems.:-)
Sure. It was really not a simple bug to put in, but the programmer who wrote it had already grounded flights in the summer, and thanks to that experience he also managed to put this bug in, despite all its difficulty.
Well, the problem is that when you go to the shop and demand a refund, the shop owner points you to the sales contract you signed, and where somewhere in the fine print it is written: "Should the box turn out not to contain an actual iPod, th buyer is not eligible for a refund.".
First thing - a card mounted via UMS (USB Mass Storage) to a PC isn't available to Android OS.
Well, they would just have to design it differently. I don't see a principal reason why it should not be possible for the card to be available to both at the same time. Also, who says that the card must be directly available to the PC via UMS while inserted in the phone?
Think of all apps (and their data) installed on the card and how would they behave if the card suddenly becomes invisible to Android...
Simple solution (if for some reason not removing the underlying problem, see above): Suspend the apps before unmounting the card, and unsuspend them after the card gets available again.
Second thing - security issues. FAT filesystem on most SD card - no file ownership.
Sure. Because it is impossible to keep your SD card physically secure. Hint: Unless you're encrypting your files, file system level security is moot as soon as the attacker has access to the physical medium. And if you're encrypting the files, file ownership is moot, too: It's the key which controls who can read it.
One of the core Android principles is that you never need a file manager. With a memory card mounted a user can start to wonder where data (photo, music, file) ends up.
Given that such hardware would essential void all the encryption on the internet (including the one between your computer and the bank when doing online banking, and I'd not be surprised if the same encryption is also used for the communication between ATMs and the bank, and for the communication between banks), there's a big incentive to build such hardware anyway. That it apparently hasn't been done yet is a good hint that the codes are as secure as the cryptographers assure us.
The last sentence of Point 1 doesn't apply for dollars either. You don't get currency, you get bills. The bills you hold in your hand are not the money. You may think that it is, but it isn't. People in Russia had to learn it the hard way when Boris Yeltsin decided to fight inflation by declaring the 100 Rouble bills as invalid. Many people collected their savings at home in exactly those bills. And so that day they lost a lot of money, despite losing not a single one of those bills. Which proves that the bills and the money they symbolized are two different things.
Point 2 applies to Bitcoin by design.
Points 3 to 5 are not about dollars, but about banks. One could do bitcoin banks as well (just as you can still keep your dollar notes at home), and one could do the same sort of regulations for them. And in the case that a lot of (regular) banks crashed, I'm not sure those guarantees would still be worth much anyway.
For point 6: How transparent is the valuation of the dollar?
1. Evaluate based on more than just publications. Look at what the scientist did, why they did it, and how they did it.
And how do you evaluate that? After all, the scientist will not be willing to share all his unpublished ideas with you. Especially if you're established and he's not, and if you're working on a related field (so you might already be working at the very same problem as he does). And only if you work on a related field, you'll be able to reliably judge whether what he does is worthwhile or not.
Ideally, the publications should give a good overview of what a scientist did. In reality, problems with the publication process may prevent that, but then, that's what should be fixed. However what is fundamentally wrong is just counting the publications. If you want to know if a scientist does good work, you should actually read his publications (at least a substantial fraction of them).
But all the physical insights and principles came from Einstein. The Mach principle.
The Mach principle came from Mach. That's why it is called Mach principle. However you are (somewhat) right about the equivalence principle (only somewhat because the equivalence principle as such already had existed for quite some time; Einstein's ground-breaking insight was that it not only applies to the gravitational acceleration of masses, but to all physical processes).
Slashdot Mirror
While different hashes on top of each other are quite obviously just as good as the weakest, I don't see why this should be the case for encryption.
Oops, just notice I forgot the antineutrinos.
Almost.
U238 + n -> U239 (neutron capture)
U239 -> Np239 + e (beta decay)
Np239 -> Pu239 + e (beta decay)
I can't see anything strange about "triple-DES". "triple-DES" is exactly what the name suggsts: three times DES. And DES is just the abbreviation of Data Encryption Standard.
RC4 sounds like an abbreviation as well (probably version 4 of something), but I have no idea of what and am too lazy to look now. Anyway, nothing strange about that one, either.
OTOH, I cannot imagine how "Blowfish" came to its name.
A drone internet?
Well, the delivery here was medicine. Medicine is usually delivered in small quantities. I don't think anyone consumes 150+ lbs of medicine. Moreover, medicine can be time-critical to deliver. And even if not, you usually need it when you're ill, which is the time when you don't want to leave home if not absolutely necessary. So it's a perfect fit for this delivery method.
I wouldn't mind seeing ads (as long as they are not of the obnoxious type). I do mind getting tracked.
Ad-supported content without individual tracking seems to work well on newspapers, TV, radio, and basically everywhere you see or hear ads. Why shouldn't it work on the internet?
Sounds like the stock market, and that seems to be taken seriously.
But not as a currency.
You honestly think you can say something, literally anything at all in a Slashdot discussion before people blow up over something misquoted/misinterpreted in the summary.
I would hope so, because otherwise I'd be charged with mass murder for my Slashdot postings, for causing lots of people to blow up. :-)
If you go to Twitter, Twitter can certainly tie that profile to your Twitter handle.
My screen resolution reads as "no javascript" :-)
Almost all identifying information comes from the User Agent and HTTP_ACCEPT headers. Each "no javascript" adds 1.74 bits of data (which tells me that quite a few visitors of that site disable JS, but still most don't).
Enabling JavaScript made me unique (mostly due to browser plugins and system fonts which each provided more than 20 bits of identification).
Flash can store its cookies cross-profile, and even cross-browser.
I see. Before facebook started, nobody had any friends whatsoever.
Sorry, but it's the other way round: Facebook "friends" aren't usually friends.
Using Free Software? ;-)
I'll assume that it was only because you were overworked that you missed the humour in my comment. What I did was to give a possible interpretation which would have made the erroneous sentence correct. Of course I didn't mean to imply that someone really added bugs intentionally. At least one person understood it and gave me a "Funny" mod.
But anyway, your comment was full of interesting information, so it was the rare case of a productive Whoosh. Thank you for sharing that information.
How my weekend was? Well, the only thing that failed for me was my own computer, so by far not the same scale as your problems. :-)
It would be nice if the big "cities" in the StackOverflow graph would be labelled with the tags which cause the grouping.
Yeah I can understand that - after seeing goatse you cannot concentrate on your programming and create all sort of nasty bugs ...
Sure. It was really not a simple bug to put in, but the programmer who wrote it had already grounded flights in the summer, and thanks to that experience he also managed to put this bug in, despite all its difficulty.
Well, the problem is that when you go to the shop and demand a refund, the shop owner points you to the sales contract you signed, and where somewhere in the fine print it is written: "Should the box turn out not to contain an actual iPod, th buyer is not eligible for a refund.".
Well, they would just have to design it differently. I don't see a principal reason why it should not be possible for the card to be available to both at the same time.
Also, who says that the card must be directly available to the PC via UMS while inserted in the phone?
Simple solution (if for some reason not removing the underlying problem, see above): Suspend the apps before unmounting the card, and unsuspend them after the card gets available again.
Sure. Because it is impossible to keep your SD card physically secure. Hint: Unless you're encrypting your files, file system level security is moot as soon as the attacker has access to the physical medium. And if you're encrypting the files, file ownership is moot, too: It's the key which controls who can read it.
How do you share data between Android apps?
Given that such hardware would essential void all the encryption on the internet (including the one between your computer and the bank when doing online banking, and I'd not be surprised if the same encryption is also used for the communication between ATMs and the bank, and for the communication between banks), there's a big incentive to build such hardware anyway. That it apparently hasn't been done yet is a good hint that the codes are as secure as the cryptographers assure us.
The last sentence of Point 1 doesn't apply for dollars either. You don't get currency, you get bills. The bills you hold in your hand are not the money. You may think that it is, but it isn't. People in Russia had to learn it the hard way when Boris Yeltsin decided to fight inflation by declaring the 100 Rouble bills as invalid. Many people collected their savings at home in exactly those bills. And so that day they lost a lot of money, despite losing not a single one of those bills. Which proves that the bills and the money they symbolized are two different things.
Point 2 applies to Bitcoin by design.
Points 3 to 5 are not about dollars, but about banks. One could do bitcoin banks as well (just as you can still keep your dollar notes at home), and one could do the same sort of regulations for them. And in the case that a lot of (regular) banks crashed, I'm not sure those guarantees would still be worth much anyway.
For point 6: How transparent is the valuation of the dollar?
And how do you evaluate that? After all, the scientist will not be willing to share all his unpublished ideas with you. Especially if you're established and he's not, and if you're working on a related field (so you might already be working at the very same problem as he does). And only if you work on a related field, you'll be able to reliably judge whether what he does is worthwhile or not.
Ideally, the publications should give a good overview of what a scientist did. In reality, problems with the publication process may prevent that, but then, that's what should be fixed. However what is fundamentally wrong is just counting the publications. If you want to know if a scientist does good work, you should actually read his publications (at least a substantial fraction of them).
He is saying that the 20-something year old Peter Higgs would have no chance to get a job at a university _now_ .
Of course he would have no chance now. His physics knowledge would be utterly outdated. Heck, he wouldn't even yet know about the Higgs particle! ;-)
The Mach principle came from Mach. That's why it is called Mach principle. However you are (somewhat) right about the equivalence principle (only somewhat because the equivalence principle as such already had existed for quite some time; Einstein's ground-breaking insight was that it not only applies to the gravitational acceleration of masses, but to all physical processes).