Yeah, I did RTFA, and the first comment echoes my thoughts: what about the extended-round variations on SHA-1, with the 256, 384, etc.-large rounds? Does the attack on SHA-1 also apply to these variations?
This reminds me of cyberpunk-esque network traffic. More specifically, I'm talking about those futures when bandwidth is so cheap that it becomes affordable (even necessary?) to have a constant flow of data coming and going from a datacenter.
Seems to me that something like this would be incredibly useful for that: when the data from a couple seconds ago is now obsolete, you definitely need to be able to parse your queue as fast as you can.
When I read a game review, I want to be told information that will either push or pull me away from buying (or playing) that game. If it so happens that they can accomplish this while giving me some kind of stream-of-consciousness tour of their mind, then more power to them.
What works for me is this: tell me what games the reviewer tends to like, and let the reviewer tell me what he likes about the game.
I'm sure that, even if the batteries come out in only one cell size, that people will be ripping them apart and adapting power supplies for their phones and laptops soon thereafter. My point: I'm not too worried about not getting these kinds of cells for any of my appliances because I'm sure that there's going to be someone there making it for me anyway.
Actually, it seems to call to bear something in Texas's law about not infringing upon "fair play"; that is, that Infinium has done nothing in Texas, as as such, shouldn't be held sway under Texan law. The several precedents that Infinium's lawyers have seem to fit the case, but it feels like KB made the declaration because of Infinium's actions, not, as the brief implied (and somewhat stated), out of malicious intent.
IANAL, of course, but I wonder about the section about "minimum contact" with the state of Texas. It seems to me that mudslinging across the internet and bringing attention to the whole thing constitutes as some form of contact... but perhaps a real lawyer can inform me differently.
What if the power company clocks the datastream by using the 50 Hz (IIRC) that AC power cycles at? Could one then screw up the connection for other people by feeding back aperiodic signals to the power grid?
That brings up a very good point: why limit yourself to using one tool for every kind of software development? Just as assembly, C, Perl, and even VB have their uses in programming, industry, and science, there exist programming environments where it'd be useful to deal only with abstractions.
To wit: many of my peers in CS came into CS because they wanted to program--boy, were they in for a rude awakening! It's true: there will always be a need for Lego-builders, but I think that it's useful to have languages specifically targeted toward "Lego builders," and others specifically targeted at "builders who use Legos."
Smalltalk and Ruby have been recommended to me already; perhaps one of those is more along the lines of a language that's more targeted at builders-who-use-Legos?
I would love to use a C/C++/Java-like language that utilizes pure objects, versus the mish-mashy hybrid typing that exists in most languages that I've used. To me, Livschitz's observation about how programmers work in metaphors, while mathematicians work in pure syntax, is very true: I breeze through all my programming and software engineering classes, but struggle mightily with math courses (save boolean algebra, but I digress).
I, for one, would like software writing to resemble (really resemble) building structures with Legos.
It's one hell of a good shmup. Too bad it's only out for the Dreamcast; a whole bunch of shmup fans have probably missed out on it because it's not on a more "mainstream" console.
-from what I remember reading in some not-so-recent Scientific American, a scavenger's immune system wouldn't help protect against rogue prions, because they're neither virus nor bacteria. A scavenger, if it incorporated these same prions into their own bodies, could possibly also be at risk for mad foo disease.
Yes, but it does need to inspect all the processes within a priority level, right??
The analysis in the thread above reveals that this needn't be the case: assuming that find_first_bit() takes O(1) time, that makes the search time only as large as the number of priority levels; presumably, that number is also constant. When the article says "selects a process," I believe it ought to mean, "selects the first eligible process in that priority level"--given either a bitmap or a priority queue, that operation takes O(1) time.
Thanks; that third paragraph alone was much, much more informative than the linked article. Perhaps, if the editors can be bothered to edit a bit more (unlikely), could Ars provide links to these more technical articles?
IIRC, the irises are actually opaque; the only light that gets through to the retina passes only through the cornea and pupil. Colored contacts, likewise, don't color light because they have a transparent "dot" in the middle of the lens.
Beyond that, I also remember reading that it's actually the brain that does all of the color (and gamma) correction; nothing in the eye's machinery--it's all done in the (pre?) processing.
As linked on the blue-deficiency page, the blue-channel analysis had been done before (at least, I remember seeing it a couple years back... or was it months?).
Personally, I like this newer analysis better: the differences are more obvious with the RGB channels put side-by-side.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I did RTFA, and the first comment echoes my thoughts: what about the extended-round variations on SHA-1, with the 256, 384, etc.-large rounds? Does the attack on SHA-1 also apply to these variations?
36 of D?
This reminds me of cyberpunk-esque network traffic. More specifically, I'm talking about those futures when bandwidth is so cheap that it becomes affordable (even necessary?) to have a constant flow of data coming and going from a datacenter.
Seems to me that something like this would be incredibly useful for that: when the data from a couple seconds ago is now obsolete, you definitely need to be able to parse your queue as fast as you can.
There are better ways to compress XML.
A little understanding about what a particular XML file is supposed to represent can go a long way.
When I read a game review, I want to be told information that will either push or pull me away from buying (or playing) that game. If it so happens that they can accomplish this while giving me some kind of stream-of-consciousness tour of their mind, then more power to them.
What works for me is this: tell me what games the reviewer tends to like, and let the reviewer tell me what he likes about the game.
I'll take it from there.
Given the topics in the audio section (it has an audio section!), the site seems to lean more towards audiophiles.
I don't agree with the dismissal of lossy algorithms either, but I think it makes sense given the context.
In Communist China, the government shoots old people backing up Koreans and makes the family pay for the bullet.
In Soviet Russia, solutions back you up.
I, for one, welcome our new point-and-click backup overlords.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...
Profit.
References here and here.
I'm sure that, even if the batteries come out in only one cell size, that people will be ripping them apart and adapting power supplies for their phones and laptops soon thereafter. My point: I'm not too worried about not getting these kinds of cells for any of my appliances because I'm sure that there's going to be someone there making it for me anyway.
Actually, it seems to call to bear something in Texas's law about not infringing upon "fair play"; that is, that Infinium has done nothing in Texas, as as such, shouldn't be held sway under Texan law. The several precedents that Infinium's lawyers have seem to fit the case, but it feels like KB made the declaration because of Infinium's actions, not, as the brief implied (and somewhat stated), out of malicious intent.
IANAL, of course, but I wonder about the section about "minimum contact" with the state of Texas. It seems to me that mudslinging across the internet and bringing attention to the whole thing constitutes as some form of contact... but perhaps a real lawyer can inform me differently.
Do people just blindly click on links just because they are posted?
Judging from the angry shouts and grumbles in lab when someone decides to mass-message a goatse link, I'd say the answer is yes.
What if the power company clocks the datastream by using the 50 Hz (IIRC) that AC power cycles at? Could one then screw up the connection for other people by feeding back aperiodic signals to the power grid?
Maybe the "XP" is for "eXtra Pretty."
That brings up a very good point: why limit yourself to using one tool for every kind of software development? Just as assembly, C, Perl, and even VB have their uses in programming, industry, and science, there exist programming environments where it'd be useful to deal only with abstractions.
To wit: many of my peers in CS came into CS because they wanted to program--boy, were they in for a rude awakening! It's true: there will always be a need for Lego-builders, but I think that it's useful to have languages specifically targeted toward "Lego builders," and others specifically targeted at "builders who use Legos."
Smalltalk and Ruby have been recommended to me already; perhaps one of those is more along the lines of a language that's more targeted at builders-who-use-Legos?
I would love to use a C/C++/Java-like language that utilizes pure objects, versus the mish-mashy hybrid typing that exists in most languages that I've used. To me, Livschitz's observation about how programmers work in metaphors, while mathematicians work in pure syntax, is very true: I breeze through all my programming and software engineering classes, but struggle mightily with math courses (save boolean algebra, but I digress).
I, for one, would like software writing to resemble (really resemble) building structures with Legos.
In short, JUST SAY NO.
::: dramatic silence :::
::: cue dramatic music :::
Father: Where did you learn to do this? Tell me, where?!
Kid: I learned it from you, dad! I learned it from you!
It's one hell of a good shmup. Too bad it's only out for the Dreamcast; a whole bunch of shmup fans have probably missed out on it because it's not on a more "mainstream" console.
I, for one, welcome our new Japanese overl-
oh, screw it.
-from what I remember reading in some not-so-recent Scientific American, a scavenger's immune system wouldn't help protect against rogue prions, because they're neither virus nor bacteria. A scavenger, if it incorporated these same prions into their own bodies, could possibly also be at risk for mad foo disease.
Wouldn't this mean that spammers, like Dell, would have to now outsource their operations to India?
Yes, but it does need to inspect all the processes within a priority level, right??
The analysis in the thread above reveals that this needn't be the case: assuming that find_first_bit() takes O(1) time, that makes the search time only as large as the number of priority levels; presumably, that number is also constant. When the article says "selects a process," I believe it ought to mean, "selects the first eligible process in that priority level"--given either a bitmap or a priority queue, that operation takes O(1) time.
Thanks; that third paragraph alone was much, much more informative than the linked article. Perhaps, if the editors can be bothered to edit a bit more (unlikely), could Ars provide links to these more technical articles?
IIRC, the irises are actually opaque; the only light that gets through to the retina passes only through the cornea and pupil. Colored contacts, likewise, don't color light because they have a transparent "dot" in the middle of the lens.
Beyond that, I also remember reading that it's actually the brain that does all of the color (and gamma) correction; nothing in the eye's machinery--it's all done in the (pre?) processing.
As linked on the blue-deficiency page, the blue-channel analysis had been done before (at least, I remember seeing it a couple years back... or was it months?).
Personally, I like this newer analysis better: the differences are more obvious with the RGB channels put side-by-side.