Everybody knows that their customers want to know such things because they asked in a quite vocal maner just after the troubles, and werre simply dismissed by RSA. So, now RSA issues a PR stating that their customers want to know if they are secure, and not teling if they gave any answer. Quite funny what some spin can create.
Anyway, why should anybody buy a product from RSA anymore?
Micorosft is finaly realising their dream of creating a TCPA compilant plataform, iOS and Android aren't getting any more open and the smartphone market is finaly big. Everything is good now for somebody to pull a "PC" on phones.
Create an extensible standard for ARM (we are near there already), sell a basic machine folowing that standard, then, sell extended versions. Make sure to publish the drivers with your Linux kernel (get them in the main tree if possible), and laugh while developers adopt your architecture.
Once you have the developers, getting users is just a matter of time. Be sure to use your first mover advantage wisely, and sell the company before the market get completely comodityzed.
The idea is obvious, but the implementation is not. Identifying bacteria is hard, so making a test for it is hard. That is why people are not doing it already, they are quite confortable with x-rays, and don't think in investing large sums of money on it.
On the positive side, you have enough to get an US patent on it.
The question was what stars could see us. We know that, those are the stars around the zodiac.
Of course, things are not so simple, since there is no guarantee we could see a planet on any of those stars. Somebody can be whatching us from there, but be completely invisible for us. As we can find planets at stars near the poles, but would be invisible* to them.
* Of course, that is assuming thay'll look through transit changes. There are probably other ways to look.
Yeah, remember people, using public domain works without paying to your choosen master^W corportation is stealing. There is no public domain. If you communicate any kind of idea, or even expressions without conveying any kind of information, pay your toll.
Well, it is IPv6 now or the intenet stops growing. Let's see what hurts less.
I understand your point, and agree to it to some extent. But I really don't belive that the transitio would be easier if we could use the same stack. We aren't using IPv6 yet mainly because ISPs won't provide it to us, and they won't provide it because it doesn't bring any money at the short term. Creating IPv6 in a way that the client would need only one stack wouldn't change this fact; getting out of IPv4 addresses changes it.
That said, there were some technical reasons for not making IPv6 that compatible with IPv4. IPv4 was designed in a time of slow networks, and severely optimized for them. Those optimizations make it behave badly on fast networks that are nearly all of our current ones. The IPv6 designers just assumed the transition wouldn't be easy anyway, so why just not fix that stuf?
That depends. If you run a public facing server, yes, you won't be able to get out of IPv4 soon. Now, if all you do is run clients and servers that only you care about, there is nothing stopping you from switching now... Except maybe for your ISP.
Why do people keep talking about comments when using the word "documentation"? Do they only document APIs? Because that is the only thing autodoc is usefull for.
You need that why, but it doesn't belong to the code. That why belongs to the business model, or the use cases. In no way somebody wearing a developer (or software engineer) hat should be in charge of writting it (ok , he can write, but only after somebody with another kind of hat dictates for him).
Then, your code is left to follow that template:// Long WHAT (if applicable) int WHAT(...){
return HOW(); }
So, the rocks falling fit. Rocks that fall into areas where they are more likely to generate derbris create more derbris to fall into areas that will create more derbris...
But did we have a definition for life? That is news for me.
That's because bits are the best units for calculating things like channel bandwidth.
In a second tought, that is also because the communication channels you are talking about are serial. When you measure throughput of L2 cache, you measure it on pages per second. When you measure throughput of an HD you'll measure it in sectors per second (but with disks it is usual to convert to bytes after measuring). In an equivalent way, when you measure the throughput of a serial line it makes sense to use bits per second.
The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.
POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).
The thing I have installed at my conputers is also called "Linux", but doesn't seem to have those problems. There was one big change at the GUI last year. That's all, from 2001 since I've settled on the current distro + GUI + whatever. (Ok, some software come and go, not unlike any other OS - how do you play media on Windows nowadays?)
All that said I still use the CLI a lot for file management. The GUI tools available for Linux are bad. They just happen to be better than anything common on Windows, but that does not make them good.
At the first half of the XX century he made the absurd decision of measuring information in bits, not bytes despite the huge total of 0 digital computers available at that time, all of them with 8 bits word length.
Well, I'd want most video to be compressed in a way that lets me see the features of the ground better (not jpeg), and the option to switch into the uncrompressed mode for a small region of interest.
But that is how I think I would design such a thing. And I'm not designing anything like that... Maybe they have a good reason for not compressing their video, but more likely, there is some counter-inteligence going on here.
Trees have an efficiency way lower than 0.1% on converting CO2 into wood. H2 from electrolisys + CO2 breaking have eficiencies approaching 50% on converting CO2 into plastics or fuel.
Thus, use a 10% efficient solar pannel for obtaining the CO2, and you'll get a 5% efficient "tree". Just >50 times better than a natural one. Or use a 30% efficient large scale thermal solar plant for a 15% efficient "tree", >150 times better than a natural one. Or use a nuclear plant for that; we don't have nuclear trees available.
Slashdot Mirror
If the are so evil, why did the US help them getting power?
Everybody knows that their customers want to know such things because they asked in a quite vocal maner just after the troubles, and werre simply dismissed by RSA. So, now RSA issues a PR stating that their customers want to know if they are secure, and not teling if they gave any answer. Quite funny what some spin can create.
Anyway, why should anybody buy a product from RSA anymore?
The PC. Also, the Mac. Oh, the mini machines of the time of PDP-10. Also, the huge computers of before that time, they only had developers by then.
Micorosft is finaly realising their dream of creating a TCPA compilant plataform, iOS and Android aren't getting any more open and the smartphone market is finaly big. Everything is good now for somebody to pull a "PC" on phones.
Create an extensible standard for ARM (we are near there already), sell a basic machine folowing that standard, then, sell extended versions. Make sure to publish the drivers with your Linux kernel (get them in the main tree if possible), and laugh while developers adopt your architecture.
Once you have the developers, getting users is just a matter of time. Be sure to use your first mover advantage wisely, and sell the company before the market get completely comodityzed.
a. 60% resistence is enough to turn what would be an epidemics into a few unfortunate cases.
b. That is good enough, isn't it? You only have to take the vaccine every 10 years.
c. Yep, that is a problem. Not nearly bad enough to displace "a", but a problem.
The idea is obvious, but the implementation is not. Identifying bacteria is hard, so making a test for it is hard. That is why people are not doing it already, they are quite confortable with x-rays, and don't think in investing large sums of money on it.
On the positive side, you have enough to get an US patent on it.
The question was what stars could see us. We know that, those are the stars around the zodiac.
Of course, things are not so simple, since there is no guarantee we could see a planet on any of those stars. Somebody can be whatching us from there, but be completely invisible for us. As we can find planets at stars near the poles, but would be invisible* to them.
* Of course, that is assuming thay'll look through transit changes. There are probably other ways to look.
What is equivalent to /. only publishing articles about SOPA on that day.
Maybe /. should do that.
Yeah, remember people, using public domain works without paying to your choosen master^W corportation is stealing. There is no public domain. If you communicate any kind of idea, or even expressions without conveying any kind of information, pay your toll.
That is what autodiscover naming systems and autoconf are for.
Well, it is IPv6 now or the intenet stops growing. Let's see what hurts less.
I understand your point, and agree to it to some extent. But I really don't belive that the transitio would be easier if we could use the same stack. We aren't using IPv6 yet mainly because ISPs won't provide it to us, and they won't provide it because it doesn't bring any money at the short term. Creating IPv6 in a way that the client would need only one stack wouldn't change this fact; getting out of IPv4 addresses changes it.
That said, there were some technical reasons for not making IPv6 that compatible with IPv4. IPv4 was designed in a time of slow networks, and severely optimized for them. Those optimizations make it behave badly on fast networks that are nearly all of our current ones. The IPv6 designers just assumed the transition wouldn't be easy anyway, so why just not fix that stuf?
That depends. If you run a public facing server, yes, you won't be able to get out of IPv4 soon. Now, if all you do is run clients and servers that only you care about, there is nothing stopping you from switching now... Except maybe for your ISP.
Libc gets involved since it translates the kernel calls into c functions.
It also adds some nice abstractions to the calls, but those are optional.
There are several of them, their IP spread mostly via DHCP.
They are passwords. It is just that they are longer, and have less entropy per character. And our minds work better with them.
But, besides that, they are just passwords.
Well, there is something I don't understand here.
Why do people keep talking about comments when using the word "documentation"? Do they only document APIs? Because that is the only thing autodoc is usefull for.
You need that why, but it doesn't belong to the code. That why belongs to the business model, or the use cases. In no way somebody wearing a developer (or software engineer) hat should be in charge of writting it (ok , he can write, but only after somebody with another kind of hat dictates for him).
Then, your code is left to follow that template: // Long WHAT (if applicable)
int WHAT(...){
return HOW();
}
So, the rocks falling fit. Rocks that fall into areas where they are more likely to generate derbris create more derbris to fall into areas that will create more derbris...
But did we have a definition for life? That is news for me.
If inteligent life was common, the ETs should have been here even before we appeared. We shouldn't even exist.
Kepler is not good for detecting Earth-like planets, so on this current estimate just none of them fit all of your criteria.
That's because bits are the best units for calculating things like channel bandwidth.
In a second tought, that is also because the communication channels you are talking about are serial. When you measure throughput of L2 cache, you measure it on pages per second. When you measure throughput of an HD you'll measure it in sectors per second (but with disks it is usual to convert to bytes after measuring). In an equivalent way, when you measure the throughput of a serial line it makes sense to use bits per second.
The name "Gnu is Not Unix" is a joke anyway. It is Unix and POSIX doesn't matter anymore, just get over it.
POSIX stopped mattering at the moment that the companies that sold certified Unixes started to sell "GNU compatible Unix", just before they gone bankrupt or closed their Unix divisions (ok, there is still IBM).
The thing I have installed at my conputers is also called "Linux", but doesn't seem to have those problems. There was one big change at the GUI last year. That's all, from 2001 since I've settled on the current distro + GUI + whatever. (Ok, some software come and go, not unlike any other OS - how do you play media on Windows nowadays?)
All that said I still use the CLI a lot for file management. The GUI tools available for Linux are bad. They just happen to be better than anything common on Windows, but that does not make them good.
You can blame it personaly on Shannon.
At the first half of the XX century he made the absurd decision of measuring information in bits, not bytes despite the huge total of 0 digital computers available at that time, all of them with 8 bits word length.
Well, I'd want most video to be compressed in a way that lets me see the features of the ground better (not jpeg), and the option to switch into the uncrompressed mode for a small region of interest.
But that is how I think I would design such a thing. And I'm not designing anything like that... Maybe they have a good reason for not compressing their video, but more likely, there is some counter-inteligence going on here.
Trees have an efficiency way lower than 0.1% on converting CO2 into wood. H2 from electrolisys + CO2 breaking have eficiencies approaching 50% on converting CO2 into plastics or fuel.
Thus, use a 10% efficient solar pannel for obtaining the CO2, and you'll get a 5% efficient "tree". Just >50 times better than a natural one. Or use a 30% efficient large scale thermal solar plant for a 15% efficient "tree", >150 times better than a natural one. Or use a nuclear plant for that; we don't have nuclear trees available.