And we all see how android is filled with back doors and hemmoraging data.
Sure. And of course Apples OS is completely secure. You don't have to fear a malicious attack from e.g. opening a simple PDF document... oh, wait...
Sometime you want freedom sometime you want security.
I can see a value in security checks. I don't need someone to protect me from "inappropriate" content. I can decide for myself which content I consider appropriate for me, thank you very much.
You're right, of course. Indeed, all probabilities will be multiples of 1/2^32, because for each bit pattern, the bit-reversed pattern will have the same maximal length.
Then I claim that you didn't post that, but your cat went over your keyboard, and by coincidence typed that specific sequence of letters. It's only improbable, not impossible. Also note that you denying it will not proof anything.
Well, 33 itself is also a binary-palindromic number (although not prime): 100001 And of course, 33 is a palindrome in base 10, too.
Moreover note that the sum of the binary digits (which equals the number of ones) is 17, which is also prime, and in binary is written 10001, so this is again a binary-palindromic prime, and the binary digit-sum here is 2, which again is a prime (although not binary-palindromic).
Yes, but if you look at the longest number of same bits in the number, the probabilities are not equal. For example, the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 1 is 1/2^32, and the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 33 is 1/2^33. The probability of the longest sequence being 2 bits is already substantially higher. I don't know where the peak is.
Basically if you test randomness, you ask the question: What is the probability that this was generated by a random process, as opposed to a non-random process. Now, strictly speaking, you'd have to have a model of the non-random process to answer that, but the point is that the probability is clearly not the same for each sequence, despite the fact that for the random process each number is equally likely. That's because for the non-random process the probabilities are not equally likely, and those probabilities enter into the answer to the above question through Bayes' rule.
Now we don't have a model of how humans produce "fake random" numbers (well, actually some psychologists might even have one), however we are not calculating exact probabilities anyway. However we do know that humans have a tendency to choose the value which has been chosen less often before, and from that alone we can infer that shorter runs increase the likelyhood of "human-random" numbers, and therefore decrease the likelyhood of real random numbers.
Next thing I've found: The first 16 bits form a valid 2-byte UTF8 encoding. The corresponding character is: U+02D2 MODIFIER LETTER CENTRED RIGHT HALF RING
Now it's clear why he added the mirror image: He needed to add the left half ring to get a complete ring! One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, right?:-)
OK, so we now only have to find out what the 1 in the middle means;-)
Another thing I noticee: If you omit the middle bit, you get the same number of 0s and 1s. With the middle bit (which is 1, BTW) you of course can't get that, but it's as close to being balanced as possible.
Actually, there are more threats. There are maps where you can find where all the airports are. There's no place where you are as likely to find an airplane as close to an airport. We should immediately forbid showing airports in the maps!
Secondly, saying Blender has anything to do with the quality of the final product is like saying Kubrick directed great movies because he picked Kodak cameras. Tools are just tools.
So you think Kubrik could have done the movies in the same quality with cheap consumer cameras of the sort found in mobile phones? Yes, the quality of tools does affect the quality of the results. You can create bad results with the best tools, but if your tools aren't good, the result will suffer. Yes, if you are very good, you often can still get good results with mediocre tools, but then only with lots of extra effort which you could have put in making it even better, or in making more good things.
Slashdot Mirror
When he starts dreaming of electric sheep?
Was it intentional that you used a word incorrectly exactly when talking about using words incorrectly? :-)
Yes, it should be "implant" unless that robotic heart was already in someone else's body before.
Sure. And of course Apples OS is completely secure. You don't have to fear a malicious attack from e.g. opening a simple PDF document ... oh, wait ...
I can see a value in security checks. I don't need someone to protect me from "inappropriate" content. I can decide for myself which content I consider appropriate for me, thank you very much.
I don't know an implementation of cut&paste which reverses either on cut or on paste. Without that, the probability of a palindrome decreases.
Well, I just typed "Anonymous Coward" into Google. Not a single page about SEO. Seems your SEO abilities are not that good. ;-)
You're right, of course. Indeed, all probabilities will be multiples of 1/2^32, because for each bit pattern, the bit-reversed pattern will have the same maximal length.
So? That means it's improbable, not impossible.
Then I claim that you didn't post that, but your cat went over your keyboard, and by coincidence typed that specific sequence of letters. It's only improbable, not impossible. Also note that you denying it will not proof anything.
Yeah, that's why they put it in the dupe section:
http://dupe.slashdot.org/story/10/10/04/164241/Geolocation-XSS-Tracker-Proof-of-Concept
It's curious that there only 1's and zero's, what do you think that means?
Whoever wrote it can't count to 2. :-)
It is
192.168.1.1
You can ALL turn in your geek cards. You see a 32 bit number and don't think IP address?
Sorry, but I see a 33 bit number. And I don't see anywhere a string of 7 consecutive 0s, as the binary representation of 192.168.1.1 has even twice.
Yes, someone should hand in his geek card. Guess who. :-)
The text on it is very clearly asymmetric.
Whoever moderated the parent offtopic obviously didn't know Pi.
I only get a "video not available" error. So what does it show?
Well, 33 itself is also a binary-palindromic number (although not prime): 100001
And of course, 33 is a palindrome in base 10, too.
Moreover note that the sum of the binary digits (which equals the number of ones) is 17, which is also prime, and in binary is written 10001, so this is again a binary-palindromic prime, and the binary digit-sum here is 2, which again is a prime (although not binary-palindromic).
Yes, but if you look at the longest number of same bits in the number, the probabilities are not equal.
For example, the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 1 is 1/2^32, and the probability that the longest sequence of equal digits has the length 33 is 1/2^33. The probability of the longest sequence being 2 bits is already substantially higher. I don't know where the peak is.
Basically if you test randomness, you ask the question: What is the probability that this was generated by a random process, as opposed to a non-random process. Now, strictly speaking, you'd have to have a model of the non-random process to answer that, but the point is that the probability is clearly not the same for each sequence, despite the fact that for the random process each number is equally likely. That's because for the non-random process the probabilities are not equally likely, and those probabilities enter into the answer to the above question through Bayes' rule.
Now we don't have a model of how humans produce "fake random" numbers (well, actually some psychologists might even have one), however we are not calculating exact probabilities anyway. However we do know that humans have a tendency to choose the value which has been chosen less often before, and from that alone we can infer that shorter runs increase the likelyhood of "human-random" numbers, and therefore decrease the likelyhood of real random numbers.
No, NATO reads OTA[mirrored letter N] in the rear mirror of the other planes. (I'd have used И but Slashdot eats that.)
Next thing I've found:
The first 16 bits form a valid 2-byte UTF8 encoding.
The corresponding character is:
U+02D2 MODIFIER LETTER CENTRED RIGHT HALF RING
Now it's clear why he added the mirror image: He needed to add the left half ring to get a complete ring! :-)
One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, right?
OK, so we now only have to find out what the 1 in the middle means ;-)
Parent is Goatse
You mean, ArsenneLupin is the goatse guy? :-)
Another thing I noticee: If you omit the middle bit, you get the same number of 0s and 1s. With the middle bit (which is 1, BTW) you of course can't get that, but it's as close to being balanced as possible.
The probability to get a palindrome this way is rather low (1/65536 for a string of 33 binary digits, to be exact).
So Apple is a terrorist supporter! I knew it! :-)
Actually, there are more threats. There are maps where you can find where all the airports are. There's no place where you are as likely to find an airplane as close to an airport. We should immediately forbid showing airports in the maps!
There's one very good reason to buy new hardware: When the old hardware fails.
So you think Kubrik could have done the movies in the same quality with cheap consumer cameras of the sort found in mobile phones? Yes, the quality of tools does affect the quality of the results. You can create bad results with the best tools, but if your tools aren't good, the result will suffer. Yes, if you are very good, you often can still get good results with mediocre tools, but then only with lots of extra effort which you could have put in making it even better, or in making more good things.