Look at the table on the bottom of this page for more insight. Basically, the beginning of Unicode text (for example, in a file or webform) has a string of unambigous prefix bytes that tell you which byte order and encoding to use. There's UTF-8 (like ASCII, one byte wide), USC-2 (UTF-16) big AND little endian (those are the 16-bit ones you are talking about), and USC-4 (UTF-32) big and little endian. The USC-4 are 4 bytes per char and are often used in Asian locales for ideographic text.
In windows NT 5.x, I suspect you can assume USC-2 LE all around.
Word and Excel files also compres readily. For example, my 89k Word.doc compressed to 20k with gzip -9. The excel format file could be 3k too.
In some cases, the XML creates a more verbose representation that is not as easily compressed. But the extra verbage could have certain purpose: extra tags for compatibility, hints, etc. ie it isn't wasted.
Businesses have a HUGE investment in training their staff on how to use software, and once that expense is incurred, you better have a damn good reason to incur it again.
In my experience, businesses don't train their employees to use Word. Rather, they expect to see it on their resumés. So for some (most?) companies a switch to another word processor would entail training existing employees. They just standardize on Word because that's what they EXPECT incoming labor knows.
Similarly many graduate science programs in various Universities expect you to spit out TeX like a rambling anecdote. ^_^
because it'd be difficult to engineer any runnable x86 code with the conversion from one codepage to another. And I imagine most of the opcodes won't be creatable in that fashion. Still, it's a feel-good reason to upgrade.
it's hooked up to my PC-TV card. I get the impression from others that it isn't worth getting the adapter for the GBA so you can play 2d games on your TV. I say, idiot, you need both.
Posts aside about this adapter being the functional equivalent of pulling an SNES out from the closet, the point is there are NEW, addictive games for the GBA that deserve an occaisonal big screen treatment. And it's not like we forget the GBA is portable, you take the game with you when you can't sit in front of the console any longer.
Here'd be another neat trick, getting the SNES cartridges to work with the GBA with a smart dongle. Then you'd have the full monte.
Sure, it may not be requisite. However, I think compared to population size, the number of persons of distinguished intelligence has risen since bygone eras. Perhaps we identify them better today, then that would give my viewpoint less weight.
As to intellegence vs. brain efficiency, hogwash. Intellegence is primarily dependant on the structure of the brain, not how much energy it wastes. With deeper connectivity, you can do more with less. Furthermore, the organs within the body cavity consume several times more blood capacity than the brain; I would suspect those and skeletal muscles would be the first targets of evolutionary modifications for efficiency.
But the tool argument is interesting. Although, I'd like to think that having complex tools still requires no less mental skill to derive and interpret meaningful results. That is, with a computer and MATLAB I can perform calculations on datasets that would have taken teams of college students 30 years ago to reproduce. Yet I still need to understand how to pose the problem, know that the solution is sound, and show how to arrive at those conclusions. You have to at least understand the process, it's only sped up for us. ^_^
I think we also create niche areas where specific kinds of intellegence arise with our technology. Case in point: helicopter pilots. Its not for everyone, it takes a lot of effort and discipline to learn, and there are some who have a special knack for it. They have a high "Gyrcopter IQ" if you will.:)
I think it' s only good for level one configurations though (no seperation of information). Even Macintoshes can be approved for SECRET processing. Woo!
It's called "Baton" and it was developed by the NSA, the details of the algorithm are Top Secret/Propreitary. It's a Type-1 encryption algorithm, the kind that can be used to encrypt Secret/Top-Secret information, for example, on SIPRNET. Harris/Intersil was licensed to create a security module that implements the algorithm.
Baton is a symmetric key cypher, by the way. I read somewhere it's a 160 or 320-bit key and of course it has various chaining modes. So it's definitely strong. It uses the SHA-1 hash in the protocol too.
No one has asserted that intellegence has NOT increased from generation to generation. We would expect this to be the case, if the mounting achievements in human history are to be attributed to human cleverness.
I think I'll just lie down and sulk for 2 days. I hate my life.
Also, you know who really scares me? Die-hard Michael Bolton fans. They are crashing hard drives everywhere with the sheer force of the stupidity field generated by their musical preferences. freecddb.org had to be restored from tape 3 times in one week as a result.
From the poster's description, it didn't sound like the project organizer was doing this for fun. I was using Focus Group informally; it could mean a target community/group of users of the product (3d-artists for a 3d-modeler), or if this project was in fact for fun, the developers themselves!
I was going to clarify it earlier, but I decided not to (being sleepy clouds my judgement... whooo ^_^ )
1) Allowing the developers to dictate the initial design rules. Allow a focus group determine what it is that is required, then let the developers determine how feasible it will be to implement.
2) Fear of COTS product integration. That is, use the right tool for the job. Of course, if everyone's a whiz with CVS and Emacs, then the more power to them. But don't let anyone make a project a "perfect fit" for their tool of choice which no one else is willing to use. That will cause problems later.
3) Not using outside code / help. Often times, portions of what you want to do have already been beaten to death. Look hard.
Of course, you know all of this. It seems your problem statement and proposed solutions on the linked site are quite thorough; I don't see anything that looks like a sticking point.
/etc/hosts and/etc/netmasks are soft links too/etc/inet/hosts and/etc/inet/netmasks. It would make sense if/etc/inet was designed to store host dependant information that could be mounted via NFS. However, there are files like/etc/defaultrouter which are NOT in there, which is confusing!
There are other little quirks. Solaris does something weird when you use NIS during startup. It sets your netmask to a 24-bit default before trying to find an NIS server via broadcast even if you have the/etc/netmasks file set. So if your netmasks come from NIS but your NIS server is not on the same subnet, then you are treated to a hang at bootime. You have to change the netmasks line in/etc/nsswitch.conf to files only to get it to use that netmask, and live without a NIS distribution list. Or modify the boot script to use the one in/etc/netmasks explicitly.
Also I hate how interfaces are identified via IP explictly (there is no way to assign two interfaces the same IP address, it balks and says device busy) This may simplify routing code but it makes designing interesting network topolgies more difficult (and the related hosts files, YOW)
I could go on... but I like Solaris more than any other commercial Unix so I shouldn't be TOO hard on them. ^_^
Already mentioned earlier, but again: The Soft Bulletin (the Flaming Lips) - Cold War Theme Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots (again the Flaming Lips) - Epic Anime Battle Theme Midnite Vultures (Beck) - Songs about Sex and/or Food Gorillaz (Gorillaz) - fake cartoon band sensation, on Behind the Music on VH1
It is most often an issue of drive firmware. The drive has to be able to handle the group of ATAPU commands required for a successful CDDA rip. Improved firmware helps drives cope with weird TOCs as well. The driver that translates SCSI into ATAPI commands that comes with Nero is very thin, and windows does next to nothing in the respect. So your success = Nero (which uses the same procedures for all discs) and your CD-ROM drive, hence my emphasis on the drive firmware. Although, Nero is also critical in that it knows of a number of different strategies for a successul rip, its just that not all of them will be supported by certain CD-ROM drives and discs.
1. The shadows are very long. Note the height at which the legs of the astronaut when they come together at his trunk; this location in the shadow is not visible in the photograph (not even close). The height of the flag is nearly twice as tall, and there is just more than twice that distance of visible ground for the flag pole shadow to cover. Hence, the large shadow from the flag would be off-screen. Moreover, how would NASA fake such a picture (with real shadows hither and thither and a perfectly matted-in flag in the scene?) And if you look VERY closely at the helmet of the astronaut, there is a reflection the flag on the rightmost portion. It is quite distorted, but the bright red and blue gives it away. That flag is definitely real.
2. The rock is problematic because it has the shape of a pyramid thus the shadow retreats downward with the creast of the rock. The rock does not have the same tall, clean profile as the astronaut. The lander is also irregularly shaped, which would explain the odd shadow orientation (in fact in this projection is appears to have a spherical side profile), moreover there appears to be a hill on the right side of the image, upon which the lander shadow projects on the front face, distorting it upwards.
Again, the picture lacks many visual queues. If the angle was wider, this would not be debatable. There are other things about the picture that assert how real it is. Note:
1) The ambient upward lighting on the underside (but not the top) of the backside of the backpack. It takes a REALLY bright light and an even bigger soundstage to fake that.
2) The lack of dust refracting said bright light (there isn't any foreground lightening over the pitch black sky in areas of light vs. shadow)
Perhaps in modern times we could photoshop such features in existance, but for a picture dated by 30 years or so, this wouldn't be an option. If NASA could fund constructing such an elaborate staging environment, how come we don't have theater crew guys screaming about it? No NASA nerds and spooks would know how to do something like that. They'd probably find it easier and cheaper to just chance the astronauts in the firecracker and aim it at Luna. It'd be a PR nightmare!!!! ^_^;;;
Slashdot Mirror
... Unfortunately the software we're using requires IPX for the hardware key, so that's impossible in my situation.
So linux doesn't support that?
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IPX-HOWTO.html
Look at the table on the bottom of this page for more insight. Basically, the beginning of Unicode text (for example, in a file or webform) has a string of unambigous prefix bytes that tell you which byte order and encoding to use. There's UTF-8 (like ASCII, one byte wide), USC-2 (UTF-16) big AND little endian (those are the 16-bit ones you are talking about), and USC-4 (UTF-32) big and little endian. The USC-4 are 4 bytes per char and are often used in Asian locales for ideographic text.
In windows NT 5.x, I suspect you can assume USC-2 LE all around.
Word and Excel files also compres readily. For example, my 89k Word .doc compressed to 20k with gzip -9. The excel format file could be 3k too.
In some cases, the XML creates a more verbose representation that is not as easily compressed. But the extra verbage could have certain purpose: extra tags for compatibility, hints, etc. ie it isn't wasted.
Businesses have a HUGE investment in training their staff on how to use software, and once that expense is incurred, you better have a damn good reason to incur it again.
In my experience, businesses don't train their employees to use Word. Rather, they expect to see it on their resumés. So for some (most?) companies a switch to another word processor would entail training existing employees. They just standardize on Word because that's what they EXPECT incoming labor knows.
Similarly many graduate science programs in various Universities expect you to spit out TeX like a rambling anecdote. ^_^
because it'd be difficult to engineer any runnable x86 code with the conversion from one codepage to another. And I imagine most of the opcodes won't be creatable in that fashion. Still, it's a feel-good reason to upgrade.
it's hooked up to my PC-TV card. I get the impression from others that it isn't worth getting the adapter for the GBA so you can play 2d games on your TV. I say, idiot, you need both.
AV switches is where it's at. ^_^
Posts aside about this adapter being the functional equivalent of pulling an SNES out from the closet, the point is there are NEW, addictive games for the GBA that deserve an occaisonal big screen treatment. And it's not like we forget the GBA is portable, you take the game with you when you can't sit in front of the console any longer.
Here'd be another neat trick, getting the SNES cartridges to work with the GBA with a smart dongle. Then you'd have the full monte.
who is awkward but at times plays the pivotal role in some scene (because the bad guy has convientently forgotten about her)
::Currently planning to NOT destroy all humankind::
I get it now. It's like wine, only more masochistic!
Hate to break it to you, but the one on Solaris also sucks donkey balls. It looks eerie, however.
Sure, it may not be requisite. However, I think compared to population size, the number of persons of distinguished intelligence has risen since bygone eras. Perhaps we identify them better today, then that would give my viewpoint less weight.
:)
As to intellegence vs. brain efficiency, hogwash. Intellegence is primarily dependant on the structure of the brain, not how much energy it wastes. With deeper connectivity, you can do more with less. Furthermore, the organs within the body cavity consume several times more blood capacity than the brain; I would suspect those and skeletal muscles would be the first targets of evolutionary modifications for efficiency.
But the tool argument is interesting. Although, I'd like to think that having complex tools still requires no less mental skill to derive and interpret meaningful results. That is, with a computer and MATLAB I can perform calculations on datasets that would have taken teams of college students 30 years ago to reproduce. Yet I still need to understand how to pose the problem, know that the solution is sound, and show how to arrive at those conclusions. You have to at least understand the process, it's only sped up for us. ^_^
I think we also create niche areas where specific kinds of intellegence arise with our technology. Case in point: helicopter pilots. Its not for everyone, it takes a lot of effort and discipline to learn, and there are some who have a special knack for it. They have a high "Gyrcopter IQ" if you will.
I think it' s only good for level one configurations though (no seperation of information). Even Macintoshes can be approved for SECRET processing. Woo!
Not sure about TS, not my bag.
It's called "Baton" and it was developed by the NSA, the details of the algorithm are Top Secret/Propreitary. It's a Type-1 encryption algorithm, the kind that can be used to encrypt Secret/Top-Secret information, for example, on SIPRNET. Harris/Intersil was licensed to create a security module that implements the algorithm.
Baton is a symmetric key cypher, by the way. I read somewhere it's a 160 or 320-bit key and of course it has various chaining modes. So it's definitely strong. It uses the SHA-1 hash in the protocol too.
No one has asserted that intellegence has NOT increased from generation to generation. We would expect this to be the case, if the mounting achievements in human history are to be attributed to human cleverness.
I think I'll just lie down and sulk for 2 days. I hate my life.
Also, you know who really scares me?
Die-hard Michael Bolton fans.
They are crashing hard drives everywhere with the sheer force of the stupidity field generated by their musical preferences.
freecddb.org had to be restored from tape 3 times in one week as a result.
From the poster's description, it didn't sound like the project organizer was doing this for fun. I was using Focus Group informally; it could mean a target community/group of users of the product (3d-artists for a 3d-modeler), or if this project was in fact for fun, the developers themselves!
I was going to clarify it earlier, but I decided not to (being sleepy clouds my judgement... whooo ^_^ )
buy a whole new round of motherboards that are firewire enabled! I wonder if you can create ring configs if you have two roots per PC.
I wonder when Oracle is going to buy a company that produces firewire interface controllers... can you say instant SAN business?!?!
Just kidding, I think...
I can give you a list of things to avoid:
1) Allowing the developers to dictate the initial design rules. Allow a focus group determine what it is that is required, then let the developers determine how feasible it will be to implement.
2) Fear of COTS product integration. That is, use the right tool for the job. Of course, if everyone's a whiz with CVS and Emacs, then the more power to them. But don't let anyone make a project a "perfect fit" for their tool of choice which no one else is willing to use. That will cause problems later.
3) Not using outside code / help. Often times, portions of what you want to do have already been beaten to death. Look hard.
Of course, you know all of this. It seems your problem statement and proposed solutions on the linked site are quite thorough; I don't see anything that looks like a sticking point.
Maybe you want to restate the question.
/etc/hosts and /etc/netmasks are soft links too /etc/inet/hosts and /etc/inet/netmasks. It would make sense if /etc/inet was designed to store host dependant information that could be mounted via NFS. However, there are files like /etc/defaultrouter which are NOT in there, which is confusing!
/etc/netmasks file set. So if your netmasks come from NIS but your NIS server is not on the same subnet, then you are treated to a hang at bootime. /etc/nsswitch.conf to files only to get it to use that netmask, and live without a NIS distribution list. Or modify the boot script to use the one in /etc/netmasks explicitly.
There are other little quirks. Solaris does something weird when you use NIS during startup. It sets your netmask to a 24-bit default before trying to find an NIS server via broadcast even if you have the
You have to change the netmasks line in
Also I hate how interfaces are identified via IP explictly (there is no way to assign two interfaces the same IP address, it balks and says device busy) This may simplify routing code but it makes designing interesting network topolgies more difficult (and the related hosts files, YOW)
I could go on... but I like Solaris more than any other commercial Unix so I shouldn't be TOO hard on them. ^_^
Already mentioned earlier, but again:
The Soft Bulletin (the Flaming Lips) - Cold War Theme
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots (again the Flaming Lips) - Epic Anime Battle Theme
Midnite Vultures (Beck) - Songs about Sex and/or Food
Gorillaz (Gorillaz) - fake cartoon band sensation, on Behind the Music on VH1
Oh wait... that includes me doesn't it?! ::blushes, frowning:: ::hits wrax with a LART shaped like a bluefin tuna::
Grrrrrrrrr
Also, you may enjoy some Goatse.cx after you wake up.
It is most often an issue of drive firmware. The drive has to be able to handle the group of ATAPU commands required for a successful CDDA rip. Improved firmware helps drives cope with weird TOCs as well. The driver that translates SCSI into ATAPI commands that comes with Nero is very thin, and windows does next to nothing in the respect. So your success = Nero (which uses the same procedures for all discs) and your CD-ROM drive, hence my emphasis on the drive firmware. Although, Nero is also critical in that it knows of a number of different strategies for a successul rip, its just that not all of them will be supported by certain CD-ROM drives and discs.
I've got me a Chrysler, it seats about 20 so come along, and bring your jukebox money!
1. The shadows are very long. Note the height at which the legs of the astronaut when they come together at his trunk; this location in the shadow is not visible in the photograph (not even close). The height of the flag is nearly twice as tall, and there is just more than twice that distance of visible ground for the flag pole shadow to cover. Hence, the large shadow from the flag would be off-screen. Moreover, how would NASA fake such a picture (with real shadows hither and thither and a perfectly matted-in flag in the scene?) And if you look VERY closely at the helmet of the astronaut, there is a reflection the flag on the rightmost portion. It is quite distorted, but the bright red and blue gives it away. That flag is definitely real.
2. The rock is problematic because it has the shape of a pyramid thus the shadow retreats downward with the creast of the rock. The rock does not have the same tall, clean profile as the astronaut. The lander is also irregularly shaped, which would explain the odd shadow orientation (in fact in this projection is appears to have a spherical side profile), moreover there appears to be a hill on the right side of the image, upon which the lander shadow projects on the front face, distorting it upwards.
Again, the picture lacks many visual queues. If the angle was wider, this would not be debatable. There are other things about the picture that assert how real it is. Note:
1) The ambient upward lighting on the underside (but not the top) of the backside of the backpack. It takes a REALLY bright light and an even bigger soundstage to fake that.
2) The lack of dust refracting said bright light (there isn't any foreground lightening over the pitch black sky in areas of light vs. shadow)
Perhaps in modern times we could photoshop such features in existance, but for a picture dated by 30 years or so, this wouldn't be an option. If NASA could fund constructing such an elaborate staging environment, how come we don't have theater crew guys screaming about it? No NASA nerds and spooks would know how to do something like that. They'd probably find it easier and cheaper to just chance the astronauts in the firecracker and aim it at Luna. It'd be a PR nightmare!!!! ^_^;;;