No. I used to use the setup that your first link describes for many years. It is no what the OP was asking for. It is his idea of a "best setup", but it does not solve the problem that the OP has.
Coaxial's post is bang on the money in answering the original question.
No - he doesn't understand what he wants because he has freely intermixed the terms desktop and workspace in the question. This has quite rightly confused the crap out of both sides of the never-ending windows-vs-linux death-match on slashdot.
It sounds like he wants independent workspace flipping on both screens, while dragging windows between. This is not hard to do, but by mentioning desktops he has confused everyone. The majority of the posts above are telling him that you cannot transfer windows between independent X screens (true, but irrelevant).
What he actually wants is a standard spanning X display (probably Xinerama) with a custom workspace flipper that groups the windows according to which logical display they are on. It's been a few years since I tried this and my memory is vauge; I would guess that the workspace flipper in Blackbox does this. If not, there are plenty of suggestions in other threads that sound plausible.
Your point was nearly correct: he wants independent workspaces, not desktops, or viewports, nor monitors. Personally I would tell him to get over the whole workspace thing and just use Expose on OS-X hooked up to keyboard shortcuts, but that is not the answer that he is looking for.
They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.
There is no evidence for that. The metric used in the article (number of papers published) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.
Wars often start between the best trading partners.
No, wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets. They rarely start between trading partners. In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World, and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo.
You're assuming that photon collection events are discrete and the sensor is acting like an accumulator. This implies that it needs to accumulate a constant number of photons before it jumps into the triggered state (so it's a saturating accumulator). He sounds as if he is assuming that the sensor is acting probabilistically; each photon to sensor interaction has a 1/10 chance of flipping the sensor into the triggered state. In his case splitting the exposure into smaller windows would preserve the overall probability of a flip. In your case it is not quite as simple as you describe as you assuming that the distribution of photons has low enough variability that the saturating count has a low probability of being hit. So if the average was five but there was more noise you would get better performance.
I'm not sure who is correct, but it seems more like a question on the underlying physics in both models rather than the maths.
PCM2 has tried to use simple logic and reason to explain to you why your approach is wrong. Rather than respond to his point about making an informationally dense representation you said:
it's to provide the ability for people to see what is in databases, without bias
There is no point in explaining to you why this is impossible as you've already shown that you wouldn't understand it, or would simply ignore it. So instead here is the relevant AI Koan from the Jargon file for you:
"What are you doing?", asked Minsky. "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe" Sussman replied. "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said. Minsky then shut his eyes. "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher. "So that the room will be empty." At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
I see that you've gone for the old tactic of citing a page that doesn't back your argument in the slightest. A megapixel is a unit of resolution, it does not mean resolution in the same way that mile does not mean distance. So what he wrote was about as technically valid as "Larger screens give you decent inch", i.e not at all.
Which is nice for you, but everybody lives in a different market. It seems unlikely that I will be able to use this service as I use a non-windows O/S in a non-US country, but if they do offer this properly then I have three choices : 1. Walk 100m to a video store, rent a dvd for 2 euro a night. As a bonus I get to cache a rip of the dvd in case I want to watch it again. 2. Download a CD sized compression of the dvd. That takes about an hour on my connection on a popular torrent. The disadvantage of this is the illegality - and I don't really care about the legal/civil distinction as the odds of being busted for this are a million to one where I live. What does bother me is that the people who made the movie don't get any payment for their work. 3. So now there is (maybe) an online rental option. So it will be more expensive (2.66 euro is unlikely so we will end up with either 3 or 4 euro). Like option one some money is going to flow back to the makers so I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside while I watch the movie. Like option two the codec is probably going to piss me off while I watch the film.
So which will win? It's not a total ordering because cost is not the only criteria. Option two wins on cost and picture quality. Option three wins on getting revenue back to the creators. For now option one is my preferred compromise, but if the codec on option three is acceptable and it works here then I'll probably switch.
(The option of keeping a copy for a longer viewing window is irrelevant for me - I rarely watch a film more than once).
Salvation is at hand. Just buy an external battery. Skim down that page until you get to the bigger models - 200Wh battery + the internal battery on a standard laptop should give you about 5x the battery life. Of course you have to lug around another box, which is why I never bought one. And I can't begin to imagine the conversation with airport security.....
While your statement is technically true it is also practically devoid of information. Any particular advance will only get "so much" improvement, but the more relevant point is how much that "so much" is. Playing around with power management has increased battery times by about a factor of two. Reduction in power consumption from better screens, lower power processors and switching to flash drives might be good for another power of two.
Personally I'd love a laptop with an ARM processor, an eInk display and a real 20hr+ battery life, but then again I'm not the mainstream market. So we'll have to wait until battery technology gives us a 20hr+ battery life from a backlit screen and a power hungry processor.
You've bought bad laptops. Mine got 6 hours out of the box when mostly idling (writing code in vim and compiling it), and about 5 hours when being used (wifi on, browsing the web, iTunes playing). With a battery that is nearly a year old, after being used every day I still get about 4 hours in use, and 5 hours when idle.
If you pointed out that Theoretical Physics didn't involve much experimentation would you think that you had proven that Physics was not a science?
Why do you think that describing one part of a theoretical field within CS is sufficient to say that it is not a science? Strictly speaking what you have described is Program Transformation, and even within this area in CS there is lots of experimental work in compiler optimisation.
It's no big deal either way. Details of practical attacks on the GSM protocols were published in the Journal of Cryptology last year, the article is behind a pay wall here. There are no technical details in the NY Times article and I can't be arsed to track down the original source but I would guess that the main difference is that last years work attacked the protocols used, rather than the underlying encryption system. So in particular, the break on A5/3 used a weakness caused by operators using A5/1 on the same network.
Anyway, well said. The NYT article seems fundamentally flawed and has led to a huge (predictable for slashdot) thread below on the merits of security through obscurity. Completely irrelevant here as the algorithms involved were published and have been known for a long time. We only find out that systems are weak because people try to break them and publish the results. Papers like this are essential for us to make progress.
No. The definition that jonaskoelker provides is the standard definition of security-by-obscurity within the cryptographic community. Although obscurity means hidden in general, the meaning is more specific within this context. It means trying to hide the details of the encryption algorithm, so that revealing the algorithm reveals an attack on the system.
BitZtream is in fact playing semantic word games. By "calculated obscurity" he is not referring to the everyday dictionary definition of obscurity either, but he berates the OP according to this phrase, which subtly alters the definition of obscured.
All encryption systems operate on hidden data, but in cryptography we make a distinction between information that is independent from the publicly known information but not revealed, and information which is dependent in some way on the public information but hidden. Modern cryptography is based entirely on the difference between these two forms, using our best estimation of possible algorithms to maintain the separation between the two.
Without try to sound trollish (or just plain rude) I would recommend that you and BitZtream consult a basic cryptographic textbook on the meaning of "information theoretic security", "computational security" and "security through obscurity" as they are all well defined terms with exact meanings, largely in the way defined by jonaskoelker.
Slight nitpick: the AES crypto-system imposes certain constraints on the mapping from plaintext to ciphertext that allow faster than bruteforce attacks, although none of these attacks are well developed enough to be a problem. Take a look at the algebraic cryptanalysis by Courtois for a good example.
Why do you think that you are qualified to give an opinion on drugs when you don't seem to know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Although they are both class A drugs they are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their effect on users. Trainspotting would have been a very different film if it was about a bunch of Scottish coke fiends. I'm curious as in most other domains in life opinions not backed up by any solid experience in the area would be seen as largely superficial.
Although popular torrents (ie recent tv shows) download much faster than anything from the beeb. A typical 350MB episode takes about 11 minutes (and not really straining my 20Mb connection). If the client prioritised the chunks according to episode then streaming would work pretty well.
Which of course is why we get our smartcards replaced every couple of months, and new pirate cards are advertised without a few hours of each update. To say that the satellite companies have "solved" this problem is perhaps a slight exaggeration. It would be true to say that they have reduced it to a problem that they can justify ignoring...
And that has to rate as your finest contribution to this thread so far. See how much better it is when you stop pretending that you have something of value to add?
Oh dear god you are quite pathetic. Do you really need it explaining to you in bite-sized remedial pieces? Let's try and make it simple enough for your limited IQ to understand:
You said, "You might claim that some smart people are troubled and nobody would argue with you. But if you argue that all smart people, or even most smart people are troubled then you are just wrong."
Now I know there are a lot of word in that quote so I've even highlighted the important ones to make it easier for you.
Also, please show me the definition where it says that "generally" = "all".
Well I could try to answer your misdirection, but instead try and concentrate on the highlighted words in the above quote. I told you that claiming most smart people were in that category was simply stereotyping. Do I need to explain your own reference to you, or can you discover your own wrongness from here?
Actually, you've already proven that you are an idiot, so let's follow the chain shall we:
2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part:
Again I've highlighted the important words so that you don't have to concentrate too hard to see them.
Now, if you have any evidence what-so-ever that the majority of smart people are depressed, or even just a little bit sad then please present it. Or given that you are full of shit just keep trying to win a pathetic point about who was right or wrong despite the clear evidence of just how badly you have failed already.
Sigh. I think that you are lacking logic because you keep demonstrating that you are incapable of applying it. To have "misquoted" you I would have needed to have implied something that you didn't say, from the words that you used.
You've tried to back up your argument with a link that lists "usually" and "normally" and "largely" as synonyms for generally while trying to claim that it does not have the meaning that I took you to task for. When you complain about reading comprehension in this context you just make yourself look bad.
Here's an idea: take a step back and reread what you wrote (using a dictionary if necessary). Consider it in the context of people over-generalising and using stereotypes. Instead of simply admitting that you wrote the wrong thing you've tried to argue your way out of it and failed. Here's a hint for next time, jumping in with personal attacks may often work when trolling on slashdot, but when you're clearly wrong and the other person won't rise to the bait it just makes you look like an idiot.
If you want to continue to flog the dead horse then go ahead, I've shown quite conclusively that I didn't misquote you, and in fact that your reading/writing comprehension is the issue. If on the other hand you simply wanted to point out that the problem may be more prevalent than generally realised because it is hard to detect - then yes that is true. But it does not imply anything about how common the problem is, it only implies a lack of knowledge about the commonness.
Of course, if you were as smart as you think you are, I wouldn't need to explain this to you.
Or... if you were smart enough to know that generally is a synonym for mostly then I wouldn't have to point it out to you.
Which leaves us with your assertion that because depression is hard to spot we can assume that most people are depressed? Well I guess that your knowledge of logic is as deep and nuanced as your vocabulary.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I used to use the setup that your first link describes for many years. It is no what the OP was asking for. It is his idea of a "best setup", but it does not solve the problem that the OP has.
Coaxial's post is bang on the money in answering the original question.
No - he doesn't understand what he wants because he has freely intermixed the terms desktop and workspace in the question. This has quite rightly confused the crap out of both sides of the never-ending windows-vs-linux death-match on slashdot.
It sounds like he wants independent workspace flipping on both screens, while dragging windows between. This is not hard to do, but by mentioning desktops he has confused everyone. The majority of the posts above are telling him that you cannot transfer windows between independent X screens (true, but irrelevant).
What he actually wants is a standard spanning X display (probably Xinerama) with a custom workspace flipper that groups the windows according to which logical display they are on. It's been a few years since I tried this and my memory is vauge; I would guess that the workspace flipper in Blackbox does this. If not, there are plenty of suggestions in other threads that sound plausible.
Your point was nearly correct: he wants independent workspaces, not desktops, or viewports, nor monitors. Personally I would tell him to get over the whole workspace thing and just use Expose on OS-X hooked up to keyboard shortcuts, but that is not the answer that he is looking for.
Eventually they grow old.
There is no evidence for that. The metric used in the article (number of papers published) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.
No, wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets. They rarely start between trading partners. In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World, and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo.
Thanks for the detailed and informative response. Very enlightening.
You're assuming that photon collection events are discrete and the sensor is acting like an accumulator. This implies that it needs to accumulate a constant number of photons before it jumps into the triggered state (so it's a saturating accumulator). He sounds as if he is assuming that the sensor is acting probabilistically; each photon to sensor interaction has a 1/10 chance of flipping the sensor into the triggered state. In his case splitting the exposure into smaller windows would preserve the overall probability of a flip. In your case it is not quite as simple as you describe as you assuming that the distribution of photons has low enough variability that the saturating count has a low probability of being hit. So if the average was five but there was more noise you would get better performance.
I'm not sure who is correct, but it seems more like a question on the underlying physics in both models rather than the maths.
PCM2 has tried to use simple logic and reason to explain to you why your approach is wrong. Rather than respond to his point about making an informationally dense representation you said:
There is no point in explaining to you why this is impossible as you've already shown that you wouldn't understand it, or would simply ignore it. So instead here is the relevant AI Koan from the Jargon file for you:
I see that you've gone for the old tactic of citing a page that doesn't back your argument in the slightest. A megapixel is a unit of resolution, it does not mean resolution in the same way that mile does not mean distance. So what he wrote was about as technically valid as "Larger screens give you decent inch", i.e not at all.
Which is nice for you, but everybody lives in a different market. It seems unlikely that I will be able to use this service as I use a non-windows O/S in a non-US country, but if they do offer this properly then I have three choices :
1. Walk 100m to a video store, rent a dvd for 2 euro a night. As a bonus I get to cache a rip of the dvd in case I want to watch it again.
2. Download a CD sized compression of the dvd. That takes about an hour on my connection on a popular torrent. The disadvantage of this is the illegality - and I don't really care about the legal/civil distinction as the odds of being busted for this are a million to one where I live. What does bother me is that the people who made the movie don't get any payment for their work.
3. So now there is (maybe) an online rental option. So it will be more expensive (2.66 euro is unlikely so we will end up with either 3 or 4 euro). Like option one some money is going to flow back to the makers so I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside while I watch the movie. Like option two the codec is probably going to piss me off while I watch the film.
So which will win? It's not a total ordering because cost is not the only criteria. Option two wins on cost and picture quality. Option three wins on getting revenue back to the creators. For now option one is my preferred compromise, but if the codec on option three is acceptable and it works here then I'll probably switch.
(The option of keeping a copy for a longer viewing window is irrelevant for me - I rarely watch a film more than once).
How does what you've described prevent spam in any way?
Who was that? Did he attack on the same day as the Underpants Bomber?
Salvation is at hand. Just buy an external battery. Skim down that page until you get to the bigger models - 200Wh battery + the internal battery on a standard laptop should give you about 5x the battery life. Of course you have to lug around another box, which is why I never bought one. And I can't begin to imagine the conversation with airport security.....
While your statement is technically true it is also practically devoid of information. Any particular advance will only get "so much" improvement, but the more relevant point is how much that "so much" is. Playing around with power management has increased battery times by about a factor of two. Reduction in power consumption from better screens, lower power processors and switching to flash drives might be good for another power of two.
Personally I'd love a laptop with an ARM processor, an eInk display and a real 20hr+ battery life, but then again I'm not the mainstream market. So we'll have to wait until battery technology gives us a 20hr+ battery life from a backlit screen and a power hungry processor.
You've bought bad laptops. Mine got 6 hours out of the box when mostly idling (writing code in vim and compiling it), and about 5 hours when being used (wifi on, browsing the web, iTunes playing). With a battery that is nearly a year old, after being used every day I still get about 4 hours in use, and 5 hours when idle.
If you pointed out that Theoretical Physics didn't involve much experimentation would you think that you had proven that Physics was not a science?
Why do you think that describing one part of a theoretical field within CS is sufficient to say that it is not a science? Strictly speaking what you have described is Program Transformation, and even within this area in CS there is lots of experimental work in compiler optimisation.
It's no big deal either way. Details of practical attacks on the GSM protocols were published in the Journal of Cryptology last year, the article is behind a pay wall here. There are no technical details in the NY Times article and I can't be arsed to track down the original source but I would guess that the main difference is that last years work attacked the protocols used, rather than the underlying encryption system. So in particular, the break on A5/3 used a weakness caused by operators using A5/1 on the same network.
Anyway, well said. The NYT article seems fundamentally flawed and has led to a huge (predictable for slashdot) thread below on the merits of security through obscurity. Completely irrelevant here as the algorithms involved were published and have been known for a long time. We only find out that systems are weak because people try to break them and publish the results. Papers like this are essential for us to make progress.
No. The definition that jonaskoelker provides is the standard definition of security-by-obscurity within the cryptographic community. Although obscurity means hidden in general, the meaning is more specific within this context. It means trying to hide the details of the encryption algorithm, so that revealing the algorithm reveals an attack on the system.
BitZtream is in fact playing semantic word games. By "calculated obscurity" he is not referring to the everyday dictionary definition of obscurity either, but he berates the OP according to this phrase, which subtly alters the definition of obscured.
All encryption systems operate on hidden data, but in cryptography we make a distinction between information that is independent from the publicly known information but not revealed, and information which is dependent in some way on the public information but hidden. Modern cryptography is based entirely on the difference between these two forms, using our best estimation of possible algorithms to maintain the separation between the two.
Without try to sound trollish (or just plain rude) I would recommend that you and BitZtream consult a basic cryptographic textbook on the meaning of "information theoretic security", "computational security" and "security through obscurity" as they are all well defined terms with exact meanings, largely in the way defined by jonaskoelker.
Slight nitpick: the AES crypto-system imposes certain constraints on the mapping from plaintext to ciphertext that allow faster than bruteforce attacks, although none of these attacks are well developed enough to be a problem. Take a look at the algebraic cryptanalysis by Courtois for a good example.
Why do you think that you are qualified to give an opinion on drugs when you don't seem to know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Although they are both class A drugs they are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their effect on users. Trainspotting would have been a very different film if it was about a bunch of Scottish coke fiends. I'm curious as in most other domains in life opinions not backed up by any solid experience in the area would be seen as largely superficial.
Although popular torrents (ie recent tv shows) download much faster than anything from the beeb. A typical 350MB episode takes about 11 minutes (and not really straining my 20Mb connection). If the client prioritised the chunks according to episode then streaming would work pretty well.
Which of course is why we get our smartcards replaced every couple of months, and new pirate cards are advertised without a few hours of each update. To say that the satellite companies have "solved" this problem is perhaps a slight exaggeration. It would be true to say that they have reduced it to a problem that they can justify ignoring...
Think of what it could do for the quality of youtube comments.... no wait.... does it come with audio feedback?
And that has to rate as your finest contribution to this thread so far. See how much better it is when you stop pretending that you have something of value to add?
Oh dear god you are quite pathetic. Do you really need it explaining to you in bite-sized remedial pieces? Let's try and make it simple enough for your limited IQ to understand:
Now I know there are a lot of word in that quote so I've even highlighted the important ones to make it easier for you.
Well I could try to answer your misdirection, but instead try and concentrate on the highlighted words in the above quote. I told you that claiming most smart people were in that category was simply stereotyping. Do I need to explain your own reference to you, or can you discover your own wrongness from here?
Actually, you've already proven that you are an idiot, so let's follow the chain shall we:
Again I've highlighted the important words so that you don't have to concentrate too hard to see them.
Now, if you have any evidence what-so-ever that the majority of smart people are depressed, or even just a little bit sad then please present it. Or given that you are full of shit just keep trying to win a pathetic point about who was right or wrong despite the clear evidence of just how badly you have failed already.
Sigh. I think that you are lacking logic because you keep demonstrating that you are incapable of applying it. To have "misquoted" you I would have needed to have implied something that you didn't say, from the words that you used.
You've tried to back up your argument with a link that lists "usually" and "normally" and "largely" as synonyms for generally while trying to claim that it does not have the meaning that I took you to task for. When you complain about reading comprehension in this context you just make yourself look bad.
Here's an idea: take a step back and reread what you wrote (using a dictionary if necessary). Consider it in the context of people over-generalising and using stereotypes. Instead of simply admitting that you wrote the wrong thing you've tried to argue your way out of it and failed. Here's a hint for next time, jumping in with personal attacks may often work when trolling on slashdot, but when you're clearly wrong and the other person won't rise to the bait it just makes you look like an idiot.
If you want to continue to flog the dead horse then go ahead, I've shown quite conclusively that I didn't misquote you, and in fact that your reading/writing comprehension is the issue. If on the other hand you simply wanted to point out that the problem may be more prevalent than generally realised because it is hard to detect - then yes that is true. But it does not imply anything about how common the problem is, it only implies a lack of knowledge about the commonness.
Or... if you were smart enough to know that generally is a synonym for mostly then I wouldn't have to point it out to you.
Which leaves us with your assertion that because depression is hard to spot we can assume that most people are depressed? Well I guess that your knowledge of logic is as deep and nuanced as your vocabulary.