They didn't. That article claims that they planned to do it, but they couldn't achieve the necessary precision. (For an entire kilogram of mass, it is astonishing how far they got.)
Turns out that defining the Plank constant is much easier than the Avogadro constant. Anyway, CIPM decided to define both, and left the atomic mass unit floating.
I wonder how long it would take a modern cray or a cluster of 1,000 computers to crack a 2048 cert?
With current (non secret) algorithms? Well, they could do it fast (in geological terms), but they'll need a star thousands of times larger than our Sun powering a computer running near to the optimum efficiency.
Well, until MS explains what the NSAKey does, I'll just assume the worst.
You say that lots of governments can look at the Windows source code, but I have some news to you.
1 - They can't look at the entire code, some sections don't live Microsoft's headquarters, and that is known because... 2 - The code doesn't compile. You aren't allowed to compile it anyway, and it is clearly documented that it doesn't. Also, the tools needed for compiling it aren't simply available.
Informations took from the best of my efforts squeezing people that had contact with the situation and MS salespeople. (And if you are wondering, yes one can squeeze information from MS salespeople, you just need to be better than a lawyer when making your questions less prone to distortion and requiring an answer that actualy answers it. If you are in a position of power, after a few tries you'll get some information - not complete answers, just some information - and the salesperson will run away.)
At nearly (not sure enough to claim "all") all latin languages the cognats of both both methodology and ideology exists and have the same meaning as in english.
Unless it doesn't, of course. Then you have no option except losing any data you didn't send for Google to "backup".
By the same metric, at my Debian PC, I select the software, and it just works. Just like my phone, except that when it doesn't work I can deal with it.
The days of the PC without replaceable parts is long due. An entire computer nowadays is cheaper than your typical RAM upgrade at the 90's, why would people care about being able to upgrade it? Monolitical hardware is here to stay.
Now, there is something to be said about expansibility. The market will bring it back some day, after it is done experimenting with the new form-factors that monolitical hardware make possible.
Nearly all the tasks were speed was limited by typing did go away with the advent of computer networks. Nowadays typing speed is botlenecked by cognitive speed. People (with a minimal amount of practice) simply type faster than they think, there is no reason go improve further.
That seems to be a common delusion... At least MS shares it.
It is like the difference between a steam engine and a locomotive. One is just fine sitting in place doing the work of 100 men. The other gets you from place to place.
And yet, people didn't stop making machines that simply "stood there doing the work of 100 men" once they got machines that moved them from one place to another. And if you asked anybody at the time why, they'd probably think you have mental problems for considering the idea.
Desktops won't stop being usefull, they also won't became more expensive. After adjusting for the end of the MHz war, people will buy more desktops than they buy now; not less. Of course, they'll also want a computer to help them as they go, and while we are stuck with screens, they'll want those with several screen sizes. They'll also probably start to put computers at their TVs. They'll probably want computers everywhere a big screen may help them.
Now, that was always so obvious that even MS knew it since the 80's. Now that it is happening, why they suddenly don't know anymore?
Well, if it is different from everything ever tried, it is innovative. He is not confused.
In fact, it is the other way around. You are the one that is confusing "innovative" with "good". Most innovations weren't done yet just because they are stupid ideas. It doesn't make them less innovative.
Microsoft was all the time full of people having great ideas, but nobody wanted to act because they didn't know if the company wanted "great ideas" implemented. Now that the CEO himself said he wants it, all the barriers will go away, people will be ashamed from comenting their ideas, and sudenly the entire company will change.
The worst part is that the above paragraph isn't stupid enough to incite complete disbelif in myself. I failed.
How so? The earnings seem to go exclusively to executive's bonus. Stockholders get barely enough to justify financing them in good times, and lose eerything in bad times.
Why? Then it'll look like a network card, or a GPU, or a mouse, or watever else.
Linux is missing a "Here, those are the devices that should connect. Besides those, only accept X", where X defaults to hard disks, but you can change to anything that fits you.
No. On that single situation Windows is still no better than Linux.
If you copy a file from a noexec mountpoint in Linux it will come with the x bit cleared, despite whatever value it had originaly (that you'll only be able to discover if you remount it as exec). It will only be permited to run if you mark it +x. On Windows it will only be permited to run if you click yes on a dialog. Linux is no worse.
Now, if the file comes inside a container that knows about the +x, and you copy it to a exec mountpoint before extracting, the bit will be preserved. On Windows, if the file comes inside a container, whatever it is, and you extract it, Windows will trust the file. Again, Linux is no worse.
Scripts will "run" only if you extend the meaning of that word to include running an interpreter and passing them as argument. They will just run at the normal way (just executing them) if they are chmod +x. In a CLI both are completely different things.
I don't know how the GUIs treat clicking at them (hey, I don't remember ever trying it). The sane thing to do would be to run them if they have the x bit set, otherwise edit them.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't. That article claims that they planned to do it, but they couldn't achieve the necessary precision. (For an entire kilogram of mass, it is astonishing how far they got.)
Turns out that defining the Plank constant is much easier than the Avogadro constant. Anyway, CIPM decided to define both, and left the atomic mass unit floating.
Proton streams?
They have a couple of those at the LHC. They even cross the streams. Twice.
Not a guru, but the page reads the following:
"Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request"
It is usefull for warning people that this article appeared at /.
With current (non secret) algorithms? Well, they could do it fast (in geological terms), but they'll need a star thousands of times larger than our Sun powering a computer running near to the optimum efficiency.
Somehow I doubt the NSA has such infrastructure.
They can do that at their 2k qbit quantum computer?
Well, until MS explains what the NSAKey does, I'll just assume the worst.
You say that lots of governments can look at the Windows source code, but I have some news to you.
1 - They can't look at the entire code, some sections don't live Microsoft's headquarters, and that is known because...
2 - The code doesn't compile. You aren't allowed to compile it anyway, and it is clearly documented that it doesn't. Also, the tools needed for compiling it aren't simply available.
Informations took from the best of my efforts squeezing people that had contact with the situation and MS salespeople. (And if you are wondering, yes one can squeeze information from MS salespeople, you just need to be better than a lawyer when making your questions less prone to distortion and requiring an answer that actualy answers it. If you are in a position of power, after a few tries you'll get some information - not complete answers, just some information - and the salesperson will run away.)
One'd expect thing that don't clear their orbit to have more moons...
At nearly (not sure enough to claim "all") all latin languages the cognats of both both methodology and ideology exists and have the same meaning as in english.
Unless it doesn't, of course. Then you have no option except losing any data you didn't send for Google to "backup".
By the same metric, at my Debian PC, I select the software, and it just works. Just like my phone, except that when it doesn't work I can deal with it.
The days of the PC without replaceable parts is long due. An entire computer nowadays is cheaper than your typical RAM upgrade at the 90's, why would people care about being able to upgrade it? Monolitical hardware is here to stay.
Now, there is something to be said about expansibility. The market will bring it back some day, after it is done experimenting with the new form-factors that monolitical hardware make possible.
Nearly all the tasks were speed was limited by typing did go away with the advent of computer networks. Nowadays typing speed is botlenecked by cognitive speed. People (with a minimal amount of practice) simply type faster than they think, there is no reason go improve further.
That seems to be a common delusion... At least MS shares it.
And yet, people didn't stop making machines that simply "stood there doing the work of 100 men" once they got machines that moved them from one place to another. And if you asked anybody at the time why, they'd probably think you have mental problems for considering the idea.
Desktops won't stop being usefull, they also won't became more expensive. After adjusting for the end of the MHz war, people will buy more desktops than they buy now; not less. Of course, they'll also want a computer to help them as they go, and while we are stuck with screens, they'll want those with several screen sizes. They'll also probably start to put computers at their TVs. They'll probably want computers everywhere a big screen may help them.
Now, that was always so obvious that even MS knew it since the 80's. Now that it is happening, why they suddenly don't know anymore?
LOL
Well, if it is different from everything ever tried, it is innovative. He is not confused.
In fact, it is the other way around. You are the one that is confusing "innovative" with "good". Most innovations weren't done yet just because they are stupid ideas. It doesn't make them less innovative.
Yep. Why do you doubt it?
Microsoft was all the time full of people having great ideas, but nobody wanted to act because they didn't know if the company wanted "great ideas" implemented. Now that the CEO himself said he wants it, all the barriers will go away, people will be ashamed from comenting their ideas, and sudenly the entire company will change.
The worst part is that the above paragraph isn't stupid enough to incite complete disbelif in myself. I failed.
No. The Balmer comments are completely surended to Apple. The post does nothing more than echoing that.
If MS ever buys Apple, they'll just fire everybody that is insurbordinated enough to propose an idea different from Balmer ones.
Yeah, in a sense that'll make them as innovative as Apple.
Yep, written by fdisk and grub.
It just seems easier to blank them.
F-Secure wans't eager to tell us the details. It doesn't work anymore on OSX, no word about Linux.
Anyway, it wasn't a proof of concept. It was found on the wild.
Nearly all apes are perfectly capable of conspiring against each other. Even the ones taht don't walk upright.
How so? The earnings seem to go exclusively to executive's bonus. Stockholders get barely enough to justify financing them in good times, and lose eerything in bad times.
Because there are a couple of sectors that are still read by the OS, but aren't changed by mkfs.
Now, he doens't need to run it over the entire device.
Why? Then it'll look like a network card, or a GPU, or a mouse, or watever else.
Linux is missing a "Here, those are the devices that should connect. Besides those, only accept X", where X defaults to hard disks, but you can change to anything that fits you.
No. On that single situation Windows is still no better than Linux.
If you copy a file from a noexec mountpoint in Linux it will come with the x bit cleared, despite whatever value it had originaly (that you'll only be able to discover if you remount it as exec). It will only be permited to run if you mark it +x. On Windows it will only be permited to run if you click yes on a dialog. Linux is no worse.
Now, if the file comes inside a container that knows about the +x, and you copy it to a exec mountpoint before extracting, the bit will be preserved. On Windows, if the file comes inside a container, whatever it is, and you extract it, Windows will trust the file. Again, Linux is no worse.
Scripts will "run" only if you extend the meaning of that word to include running an interpreter and passing them as argument. They will just run at the normal way (just executing them) if they are chmod +x. In a CLI both are completely different things.
I don't know how the GUIs treat clicking at them (hey, I don't remember ever trying it). The sane thing to do would be to run them if they have the x bit set, otherwise edit them.