Also I note that the police is state-funded, and thus obviously anti-capitalistic. Therefore any respectable capitalist should vote for doing away with police.:-)
I hadn't heard that site was violating any standards. From what I understand, Chrome has implemented a set of HTML5 features different from the set some other browsers have implemented, and occasionally the implementations clash because the standard is evolving and not fully defined.
Actually, I wouldn't call HTML5 a standard. Exactly because it's evolving. A standard is by definition a fixed thing. It may be replaced by a later standard (which is usually named the same except for a year of version number), but once it is a standard, it doesn't evolve. Anything which evolves cannot be a standard. It may eventually become one (at which time it stops evolving), but it isn't one (yet).
Well, for n-bit integers using standard two's complement addition throwing away overflow (i.e. calculating mod 2^n, the standard way modern computers hndle it), it is possible to recover zero using only addition: Take an arbitrary number. Add to itself; this multiplies by 2, thus shifts it one bit left, the lowest bit is zero. Repeat n times, now all bits are zero.
As soon as you know zero, you can easily test the lowest bit of any given number: Double it n-1 times; if the result is zero (which you know), the bit was zero. If it was non-zero, that bit was one.
Furthermore, as soon as you found a single odd number, you additionally know the representation of INT_MIN (sign bit 1, all other bits 0) for signed resp. 2^(n-1) for unsigned values.
Now you are ready to discover bit 1. Shift a number left (i.e. double it) n-2 times. Now the two most significant bits contain the previously two least significant ones. Two of the possible values you already know (from now on, for simplicity I'll assume unsigned numbers): 0 and 2^(n-1). For the other two, you can have one of two yet unknown encrypted values, corresponding to 01 and 11. So you now know how to distinguish 0 and 1 for the next-to-last bit, although for odd numbers you don't know yet which is which if the last bit is 1. However, if you have multiplication in addition to addition, you can use the fact that multiplying an odd number with itself always gives a number ending in 01. That is, if you have addition and multiplication, you can also discover the next to last bit.
I'd not be surprised if that scheme could be extended to discover all bits of an unknown number (note that with addition and multiplication you can calculate an arbitrary polynomial with zero constant term of a given integer).
Well, you can easily do it. The technology needed is: A CD pen. Write your data on the CD with the pen. You don't even need glue, or a drive to read it. Of course the data capacity is not very high. But then, think of the advantages!
For more durable data storage, you also may consider scratching the data onto the disk.
On the other hand, we have clearly visible writings from the past which we still cannot decode. And there was no fancy stuff like compression going on, just normal writing from that time.
But you could run tests. For example, assume that the only operations you have are addition, subtraction, multiplication and comparison operators. You start by determining the encrypted values for true and false, by choosing a random encrypted number (you have no idea what it is, but you know it's an encrypted number) and comparing it to itself. Testing for equality gives the encrypted value for true and testing for inequality gives the encrypted value for false. Next, you determine the encrypted value for zero (assuming zero and false might have different encrypted representations) by simply subtracting that encrypted number from itself. Given that the list above doesn't include division, getting at the 1 is harder. However you can easily compare a number against 1 by simply comparing it against with its square (you actually have to test first whether it's positive, but that's easy -- you already have the representations of 0, true and false, and the comparison operators are provided). If you manage to find a number that's smaller than one, you can repeatedly double it until you get something larger than one (or equal to one, if you are very lucky). Note that doubling means just adding the number to itself (no representation of 2 required). As soon as you get to a number larger than 1 this way, you can do nested intervals to find the 1. Now you have 0, 1 and a number between 0.5 and 1, and that is enough to determine the value of any encrypted number sent to the network.
No. This is the Greek "homo", meaning "same" (which BTW also is the "homo" appearing in "homosexual": same sex). But even the Latin "homo" doesn't mean "man" in the sense of "man/woman", but in the sense of "human being", used e.g. in "homo sapiens" (which actually means "wise human" -- whoever gave our species that name must have had a very strange humour).
Morphic = Changing
Right.
Homomorphic computing is going to change our manliness - it's going to be like getting married.
No, homomorphic means "changing the same way". It's going to be like mass hysteria.
Also, if Slashdotters started writing to the congress, the complaints would be buried between letters saying "First Letter" or "In Soviet Russia, bad laws pass you."
Well, if you don't trust your internet provider, you're mostly lost anyway. After all, they are able to route your traffic any way they want. They can do man-in-the-middle attacks on any non-encrypted traffic. And if they collude with a certification authority your browser trusts (any of them!) or even run one themselves, they can even MITM your encrypted https/tls traffic. One thing you could still use is a VPN. But of course that just moves the point of trust to the VPN provider.
The alternative is some form of deep packet inspection, and no ISP wants that.
Shouldn't it be as easy as dropping all packets where the source or destination IP is of the PirateBay server? I doubt that it is on shared hosting or dynamic IP. Should take just a slight modification of the routing table.
Unless there are several domains hosted on the same server. How is the poor web server supposed to know which domain you wanted if all it gets is the IP? (Yes, you could work around it, but that would be a bit more involved than just entering IPs instead of domain names).
Of course, leakage currents are a big problem for silicon transistors as well, and with current technology we are already quite close to the limits of silicon transistors. Of course there's new developments going on for silicon as well, and it's a given that we can't know which future technology will win out.
Also, the article mentions that the diamond transistors are faster; unfortunately I couldn't find how much faster. However, given that modern processors use the miniaturization mainly to cram more cores on the chip, the faster speed might well offset the larger size. If, say, the speed is a factor 8, then a single-core processor made of diamond transistors will outperform an 8-core processor of silicon transistors for anything which is not perfectly parallelizable, and will be on par for perfectly parallelizable programs. Also given that the diamond transistor is put in silicon oxide, I guess it's possible to combine diamond and silicon transistors in a single chip, so e.g. the processor cache could be silicon (you want to have as much as possible, which demands small transistors), while the actual computing cores could be diamond (because less faster cores are better than more slower cores).
Moreover there are applications where the lower energy consumption is more important that high performance. Imagine a laptop with 40 hours battery lifetime!
The first semiconductor transistors were large enough to handle a single one with your hand. What makes you assume that the nanodiamond transistors cannot get smaller?
I'd be surprised if Slashdot deleted your comments. I guess they have just been moderated down below the display threshold. Set the threshold to -1, and you'll most likely see them.
The GRE exam uses software to grade the essay portion for quite a while, along with a human grader. If these two scores different by a point or more, then it is forwarded to another human grader and the final score will be the average of the three entities.
So if the first human grader gives you zero points, the software gives you full points, and the second human agrees with the software, you still get only 2/3 of the points... I think it would be more fair to use the median of the three values.
OK, but if I understand you correctly, that's done via RDP, completely independent of X11. Wayland doesn't have RDP.
Does RDP allow everything X11 allows (or, everything X11 allows which is actually used)? And if so, is it patent encumbered or similar? Because if it really works so well, I'd consider it a good idea to replace X11 with that. As a bonus, it would be possible to natively show remote Linux applications on Windows computers and vice versa, without installing separate software to do so.
The problem is that desktop environments are more like browsers of the time of the browser wars. A KDE app is "best viewed with KDE" and a Gnome app is "best viewed with Gnome".
Slashdot Mirror
Also I note that the police is state-funded, and thus obviously anti-capitalistic. Therefore any respectable capitalist should vote for doing away with police. :-)
Sorry, but if it constantly evolves, I refuse to call it a standard. They may claim it to be a standard as much as they want, it doesn't make it one.
How about CometBird or Kazehakase? Or upgrade to a computer made in the last 5 years?
That last name is a bit long, don't you think? :-)
I hadn't heard that site was violating any standards. From what I understand, Chrome has implemented a set of HTML5 features different from the set some other browsers have implemented, and occasionally the implementations clash because the standard is evolving and not fully defined.
Actually, I wouldn't call HTML5 a standard. Exactly because it's evolving. A standard is by definition a fixed thing. It may be replaced by a later standard (which is usually named the same except for a year of version number), but once it is a standard, it doesn't evolve. Anything which evolves cannot be a standard. It may eventually become one (at which time it stops evolving), but it isn't one (yet).
Well, for n-bit integers using standard two's complement addition throwing away overflow (i.e. calculating mod 2^n, the standard way modern computers hndle it), it is possible to recover zero using only addition: Take an arbitrary number. Add to itself; this multiplies by 2, thus shifts it one bit left, the lowest bit is zero. Repeat n times, now all bits are zero.
As soon as you know zero, you can easily test the lowest bit of any given number: Double it n-1 times; if the result is zero (which you know), the bit was zero. If it was non-zero, that bit was one.
Furthermore, as soon as you found a single odd number, you additionally know the representation of INT_MIN (sign bit 1, all other bits 0) for signed resp. 2^(n-1) for unsigned values.
Now you are ready to discover bit 1. Shift a number left (i.e. double it) n-2 times. Now the two most significant bits contain the previously two least significant ones. Two of the possible values you already know (from now on, for simplicity I'll assume unsigned numbers): 0 and 2^(n-1). For the other two, you can have one of two yet unknown encrypted values, corresponding to 01 and 11. So you now know how to distinguish 0 and 1 for the next-to-last bit, although for odd numbers you don't know yet which is which if the last bit is 1. However, if you have multiplication in addition to addition, you can use the fact that multiplying an odd number with itself always gives a number ending in 01. That is, if you have addition and multiplication, you can also discover the next to last bit.
I'd not be surprised if that scheme could be extended to discover all bits of an unknown number (note that with addition and multiplication you can calculate an arbitrary polynomial with zero constant term of a given integer).
Well, you can easily do it. The technology needed is: A CD pen. Write your data on the CD with the pen. You don't even need glue, or a drive to read it.
Of course the data capacity is not very high. But then, think of the advantages!
For more durable data storage, you also may consider scratching the data onto the disk.
SCNR
Has any alien decrypted the message yet?
Obviously. Or how else would they know to stay away from earth?
On the other hand, we have clearly visible writings from the past which we still cannot decode. And there was no fancy stuff like compression going on, just normal writing from that time.
But you could run tests. For example, assume that the only operations you have are addition, subtraction, multiplication and comparison operators. You start by determining the encrypted values for true and false, by choosing a random encrypted number (you have no idea what it is, but you know it's an encrypted number) and comparing it to itself. Testing for equality gives the encrypted value for true and testing for inequality gives the encrypted value for false. Next, you determine the encrypted value for zero (assuming zero and false might have different encrypted representations) by simply subtracting that encrypted number from itself. Given that the list above doesn't include division, getting at the 1 is harder. However you can easily compare a number against 1 by simply comparing it against with its square (you actually have to test first whether it's positive, but that's easy -- you already have the representations of 0, true and false, and the comparison operators are provided). If you manage to find a number that's smaller than one, you can repeatedly double it until you get something larger than one (or equal to one, if you are very lucky). Note that doubling means just adding the number to itself (no representation of 2 required). As soon as you get to a number larger than 1 this way, you can do nested intervals to find the 1. Now you have 0, 1 and a number between 0.5 and 1, and that is enough to determine the value of any encrypted number sent to the network.
Ok.
No. This is the Greek "homo", meaning "same" (which BTW also is the "homo" appearing in "homosexual": same sex). But even the Latin "homo" doesn't mean "man" in the sense of "man/woman", but in the sense of "human being", used e.g. in "homo sapiens" (which actually means "wise human" -- whoever gave our species that name must have had a very strange humour).
Right.
No, homomorphic means "changing the same way". It's going to be like mass hysteria.
Also, if Slashdotters started writing to the congress, the complaints would be buried between letters saying "First Letter" or "In Soviet Russia, bad laws pass you."
Well, if you don't trust your internet provider, you're mostly lost anyway. After all, they are able to route your traffic any way they want. They can do man-in-the-middle attacks on any non-encrypted traffic. And if they collude with a certification authority your browser trusts (any of them!) or even run one themselves, they can even MITM your encrypted https/tls traffic. One thing you could still use is a VPN. But of course that just moves the point of trust to the VPN provider.
Shouldn't it be as easy as dropping all packets where the source or destination IP is of the PirateBay server? I doubt that it is on shared hosting or dynamic IP. Should take just a slight modification of the routing table.
Unless there are several domains hosted on the same server. How is the poor web server supposed to know which domain you wanted if all it gets is the IP? (Yes, you could work around it, but that would be a bit more involved than just entering IPs instead of domain names).
Ballmer's POS?
Of course, leakage currents are a big problem for silicon transistors as well, and with current technology we are already quite close to the limits of silicon transistors. Of course there's new developments going on for silicon as well, and it's a given that we can't know which future technology will win out.
Also, the article mentions that the diamond transistors are faster; unfortunately I couldn't find how much faster. However, given that modern processors use the miniaturization mainly to cram more cores on the chip, the faster speed might well offset the larger size. If, say, the speed is a factor 8, then a single-core processor made of diamond transistors will outperform an 8-core processor of silicon transistors for anything which is not perfectly parallelizable, and will be on par for perfectly parallelizable programs. Also given that the diamond transistor is put in silicon oxide, I guess it's possible to combine diamond and silicon transistors in a single chip, so e.g. the processor cache could be silicon (you want to have as much as possible, which demands small transistors), while the actual computing cores could be diamond (because less faster cores are better than more slower cores).
Moreover there are applications where the lower energy consumption is more important that high performance. Imagine a laptop with 40 hours battery lifetime!
A femtodiamond must be a single carbon nucleus. I wonder how you distinguish femtodiamonds from femtographite, though.
The first semiconductor transistors were large enough to handle a single one with your hand. What makes you assume that the nanodiamond transistors cannot get smaller?
So are we approaching diamond age now?
It's not just about the CSS, but all the features gmail has and how it shows replies.
Which features, and how does it show replies? (Genuine question; I've never been on gmail).
I'd be surprised if Slashdot deleted your comments. I guess they have just been moderated down below the display threshold. Set the threshold to -1, and you'll most likely see them.
So if the first human grader gives you zero points, the software gives you full points, and the second human agrees with the software, you still get only 2/3 of the points ...
I think it would be more fair to use the median of the three values.
So how do you handle shared memory? I hope without clogging the connection ...
OK, but if I understand you correctly, that's done via RDP, completely independent of X11. Wayland doesn't have RDP.
Does RDP allow everything X11 allows (or, everything X11 allows which is actually used)? And if so, is it patent encumbered or similar? Because if it really works so well, I'd consider it a good idea to replace X11 with that. As a bonus, it would be possible to natively show remote Linux applications on Windows computers and vice versa, without installing separate software to do so.
The problem is that desktop environments are more like browsers of the time of the browser wars. A KDE app is "best viewed with KDE" and a Gnome app is "best viewed with Gnome".