The master key isn't included on any HDCP product. You simply don't have it at home, so it makes no difference on how hackable was your system. That current news puts light on another more subtile problem with DRM, not even the military (even at war time) can keep secrets for a long time, how do those companies think they will?
I still miss the "YAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! - Kernel Panic" (not a literal copy, I can't remember it exactly) message of Linux I used to get so often when messing with device drivers.
Also, there was a "goto's are funny" single line comment on sched.c I think on Linux 2.4.18. Those goto's were really funy (I needed to print the code to understand them).
No, that is making your code compatible with the available libraries. That 70*9 copied lines of code will make it possible to reduce the overall size of your program by some hundreds of thousands of lines.
But they are still some hellish 70*9 copy-and-pasted lines.
Hum... I've seen people that can't fix code in Java because they were passing some parameters by value, but expected it to be by reference. They didn't even had any idea of what the difference was. It is way more common than you said it was, and not knowing it will come later to bite you.
Also, as far as I know, Perl functions don't have parameters the same way the other languages do. And what resembles paramaters there could be accessed in a way that resembles being passed by reference or in a way that resembles being passed by value. Both ways have some problems you'll have to deal with, and there is no automatic better way (altouh there will probably be one that fits your code better).
You can use pipes on C code in Linux too, and Perl. I don't know about Python. Anyway, most of the times you'd better oppening your pipes on Bash, and dealing only with the std streams on C.
I'm still waiting the ISO people actualy say that that "C++ was a scam" thing wasn't really a fools day joke... Anyway, ISO confirmation of things is mostly just bureocratic assurance with no real word consequences. For they to anounce something everybody must know it first, so the one person that still don't get it, please, raise your hand, so we can proced to clear everything up.
You may not always have aptitude, but the odds of finding the right tool on one distro that doesn't use it are much lower, so you may want to search the debian packages...
The oods of having the stuff you need are so low that you should default to aptitude search, not apropos. Unless you are doing a very common operation.
Do you have any idea of what the system administrators will do with your log? If 'yes', it is perfectly ok for you to bring all that extra complication for the gained tranparency, but that doesn't means it is suitable for other people.
"Come to work knowing what you are doing. This may mean cramming in your off hours. Don't say that you don't know how to do something. Say that you do and then learn it!"
How true! But make those off ours work for you, not just for your boss. Have a growth path planned.
"f you have to complicate a mathematical formula by breaking it into sections appropriate for inner and outer loops, put the formula in the comments. It may even be worth putting in an ASCII diagram if you are working with geometry."
Or, keep a small (one page, one paragraph, no bigger than needed) LaTeX paper explaining that comlicated mathematical formula at the doc directory. (Your projects do have a doc directory, don't they, there is where you put the emails or annotations you have explaining what your program should do, and is also a greath path for auto generated documentation, like javadoc or doxygen.) If you use a complex geometric construct, by all means, draw it, and put it on the docs too (ASCII art on the code, where possible, is a plus).
"Normalize your data and objects. Don't waste memory and time maintaining variables you don't need. Don't repeat yourself."
I don't completely agree with that. Sometimes it is way easier to maintain replicated data than to postpone calculations to the time their are required. Other times it is not, there seems to be no rule.
I'd be very surprised if the numbers matched. Kepler is not expected to detect planets on every star that has a planet with the right angle, there are some other restrictions, like orbit period and size.
Based on our Solar System alone, I'd guess that it is quite rare for a star to have a planetary system that Kepler could detect. My guess is already wrong;)
Didn't make a lot of sense to me. That the theories actualy describe something real is a given from the fact that we check them with reality, by experimentation, and dicard what doesn't fit. Also, there shouldn't be any relation between our understandind of our conscience and how complex theories are. At least, I see no reason why that would happen.
I may agree that "knowing how the brain constructs subjective reality (Conscious Experience) is required before the essence of objective reality can be fully understood" (that means, I'm not sure I agree, but I don't imediately disagree), and that is a very interesting comment. But I fail to see any reason why understanding objective reality would lead to different kinds of physical theories. Physics seems to be completely independent of realism (at least without other independent assumptions).
Your poster tells that you aren't good on math or physics. Just as an example, QM doesn't rely on 'our nunbering system', almost all calculations are made on a Hilbert space, based on the Dirac delta function. There are no numbers as you know them there. Ok, sometimes a real nunber pops from a calculation, but that is normaly just after all the heavy stuff.
Every physics theory uses a different 'numbering system'.
Well, I'm just a layman too, but I rely on the word of some math specialists, that confirmed that it indeed is that hard. Anyway, there is no requirement on the scientific method that your theory must be understandable by lay people, or even by specialists of the area, it must be as complex as the data requires.
String theory poses to the general public as what modern physics is. Take a look at the books available at a bookstore, science articles at the gernal press, etc. All you'll see is bold predictions about how our universe fist within a multiverse, how string theory explains the inner workings of a black hole, and so on. There is nothing wrong with you working on string theory, your PR department just needs to stop presenting it as a certainty.
"You can NOT say that math (arithmetic) is consistent, that's WRONG. You *can* say it's inconsistent"
No, you can NOT say that it is inconsistent, and you can NOT say that it is consistent. The fact that you prove you can't say some A doesn't automaticaly makes NOT A true.
"There are no known ways to construct real numbers that are not simple extensions of rational numbers."
Having a bit of trouble with math, isn't you? What are you proposing to construct the real numbers of? Rational numbers? If so, that is just a tautology. You don't need to construct the real numbers, as you don't need to construct the natural numbers. You don't proff that math exists, that doesn't make sense (well, except if you define "exist" in some mathematical way, but then, you'll be just applying your definition).
The problem with such kind of proposals is that there is no means to actualy build the channels. It is a great idea in theory, and quite obvious (so there is a huge amount of research already on it), but nobody could actualy build it.
You have all kinds of skew between chip components. Designers just live with them. Any moderately sized chip is divided on smaller units where the clock is assumed to be skewless, and communications between those blocks are mainly assynchronous.
That happened since later 90's on a few designs, currently it is quite common.
Well, I don't brag a lot about our all-electronic elections. That is the kind of system that one can only proove that is flawed, if it is working, nobody can ever be sure. Ok, nobody proved our elections are flawed, so we are not sure, that is way better than the US situation, but still nothing to brag about.
Just to be clear, I'm not completely against electronic elections. It is more a kind of trade off, do you want the possibility of undetected convetional (dispersed) election fraud or modern (centralized) one? I'm nothing near certain about my position here, and can't critcize the nations that choose machines or paper.
Slashdot Mirror
The master key isn't included on any HDCP product. You simply don't have it at home, so it makes no difference on how hackable was your system. That current news puts light on another more subtile problem with DRM, not even the military (even at war time) can keep secrets for a long time, how do those companies think they will?
Well, honestly, Google can't really do business in China without being evil. They discovered it the hard way.
Yet, if you didn't pay for any BSA backed piece of software, they wouldn't be able to raid your offices.
Yep, sometimes that is hard, fighting any kind of mafia isn't suposed to be easy. And the BSA won't even break your knees.
I still miss the "YAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! - Kernel Panic" (not a literal copy, I can't remember it exactly) message of Linux I used to get so often when messing with device drivers.
Also, there was a "goto's are funny" single line comment on sched.c I think on Linux 2.4.18. Those goto's were really funy (I needed to print the code to understand them).
No, that is making your code compatible with the available libraries. That 70*9 copied lines of code will make it possible to reduce the overall size of your program by some hundreds of thousands of lines.
But they are still some hellish 70*9 copy-and-pasted lines.
Hum... I've seen people that can't fix code in Java because they were passing some parameters by value, but expected it to be by reference. They didn't even had any idea of what the difference was. It is way more common than you said it was, and not knowing it will come later to bite you.
Also, as far as I know, Perl functions don't have parameters the same way the other languages do. And what resembles paramaters there could be accessed in a way that resembles being passed by reference or in a way that resembles being passed by value. Both ways have some problems you'll have to deal with, and there is no automatic better way (altouh there will probably be one that fits your code better).
You can use pipes on C code in Linux too, and Perl. I don't know about Python. Anyway, most of the times you'd better oppening your pipes on Bash, and dealing only with the std streams on C.
I'm still waiting the ISO people actualy say that that "C++ was a scam" thing wasn't really a fools day joke... Anyway, ISO confirmation of things is mostly just bureocratic assurance with no real word consequences. For they to anounce something everybody must know it first, so the one person that still don't get it, please, raise your hand, so we can proced to clear everything up.
What are those non Microsoft languages that go away? I can think only of COBOL, can you name others?
You may not always have aptitude, but the odds of finding the right tool on one distro that doesn't use it are much lower, so you may want to search the debian packages...
The oods of having the stuff you need are so low that you should default to aptitude search, not apropos. Unless you are doing a very common operation.
Do you have any idea of what the system administrators will do with your log? If 'yes', it is perfectly ok for you to bring all that extra complication for the gained tranparency, but that doesn't means it is suitable for other people.
How true! But make those off ours work for you, not just for your boss. Have a growth path planned.
Or, keep a small (one page, one paragraph, no bigger than needed) LaTeX paper explaining that comlicated mathematical formula at the doc directory. (Your projects do have a doc directory, don't they, there is where you put the emails or annotations you have explaining what your program should do, and is also a greath path for auto generated documentation, like javadoc or doxygen.) If you use a complex geometric construct, by all means, draw it, and put it on the docs too (ASCII art on the code, where possible, is a plus).
I don't completely agree with that. Sometimes it is way easier to maintain replicated data than to postpone calculations to the time their are required. Other times it is not, there seems to be no rule.
I'd be very surprised if the numbers matched. Kepler is not expected to detect planets on every star that has a planet with the right angle, there are some other restrictions, like orbit period and size.
Based on our Solar System alone, I'd guess that it is quite rare for a star to have a planetary system that Kepler could detect. My guess is already wrong ;)
WTF is that, privilege unescalling? If you can already replace the HOSTS file, why would you change a page to get the user clicking on something?
Didn't make a lot of sense to me. That the theories actualy describe something real is a given from the fact that we check them with reality, by experimentation, and dicard what doesn't fit. Also, there shouldn't be any relation between our understandind of our conscience and how complex theories are. At least, I see no reason why that would happen.
I may agree that "knowing how the brain constructs subjective reality (Conscious Experience) is required before the essence of objective reality can be fully understood" (that means, I'm not sure I agree, but I don't imediately disagree), and that is a very interesting comment. But I fail to see any reason why understanding objective reality would lead to different kinds of physical theories. Physics seems to be completely independent of realism (at least without other independent assumptions).
Your poster tells that you aren't good on math or physics. Just as an example, QM doesn't rely on 'our nunbering system', almost all calculations are made on a Hilbert space, based on the Dirac delta function. There are no numbers as you know them there. Ok, sometimes a real nunber pops from a calculation, but that is normaly just after all the heavy stuff.
Every physics theory uses a different 'numbering system'.
Well, I'm just a layman too, but I rely on the word of some math specialists, that confirmed that it indeed is that hard. Anyway, there is no requirement on the scientific method that your theory must be understandable by lay people, or even by specialists of the area, it must be as complex as the data requires.
String theory poses to the general public as what modern physics is. Take a look at the books available at a bookstore, science articles at the gernal press, etc. All you'll see is bold predictions about how our universe fist within a multiverse, how string theory explains the inner workings of a black hole, and so on. There is nothing wrong with you working on string theory, your PR department just needs to stop presenting it as a certainty.
No, you can NOT say that it is inconsistent, and you can NOT say that it is consistent. The fact that you prove you can't say some A doesn't automaticaly makes NOT A true.
Having a bit of trouble with math, isn't you? What are you proposing to construct the real numbers of? Rational numbers? If so, that is just a tautology. You don't need to construct the real numbers, as you don't need to construct the natural numbers. You don't proff that math exists, that doesn't make sense (well, except if you define "exist" in some mathematical way, but then, you'll be just applying your definition).
Please, update your reading and trolling habilities. You failed on both.
The problem with such kind of proposals is that there is no means to actualy build the channels. It is a great idea in theory, and quite obvious (so there is a huge amount of research already on it), but nobody could actualy build it.
You have all kinds of skew between chip components. Designers just live with them. Any moderately sized chip is divided on smaller units where the clock is assumed to be skewless, and communications between those blocks are mainly assynchronous.
That happened since later 90's on a few designs, currently it is quite common.
Well, I don't brag a lot about our all-electronic elections. That is the kind of system that one can only proove that is flawed, if it is working, nobody can ever be sure. Ok, nobody proved our elections are flawed, so we are not sure, that is way better than the US situation, but still nothing to brag about.
Just to be clear, I'm not completely against electronic elections. It is more a kind of trade off, do you want the possibility of undetected convetional (dispersed) election fraud or modern (centralized) one? I'm nothing near certain about my position here, and can't critcize the nations that choose machines or paper.
Infineon processors definitely do run Linux, but not x86 instructions.