It's not a stereotype when it's true - yes there are fat people everywhere and thin people everywhere, but the US has more than 30% of their population obese. In the UK it's 22%. Italy, Austria and France are at around 10%. Up here in Canada we're hardly better than the US, and Mexico is nearly as bad. North America definitively holds the title for most obese continent, hands down.
Re:"Because some dude made up a rule that says so.
on
The Great Typo Hunt
·
· Score: 1
I would put an insistence on using "less" instead of "fewer" on the same level of insisting on calling Canis familiaris "doggy" rather than "dog". There's no loss in understanding, it's common enough that it's not utterly jarring, it just identifies the speaker as either uneducated, or a child.
On the other hand, someone who insists on the reverse - substituting "fewer" when they mean "less", will cause most English speakers to cringe: "My glass has fewer milk than his!"
It's not my judgement to make - that's been accepted usage for centuries. Few has meant "a small indefinite number" refering to countable objects since old english. We've had "less" and "little" to talk about uncountable amounts since about the same time. The nice people at the OED have gone through and cataloged the usages of various words throughout the centuries, and they've observed that in the vast majority of cases, people use "fewer" to refer to countable nouns, and "less" to refer to uncountable nouns.
If you feel they are in error, please feel free to index/catalog/analyze existing literature to make your own judgment on the matter. I'm sure the OED will be happy to hear from you if their definition is in error, since they approach their dictionary in a descriptive, rather than proscriptive manner - when the language changes, they will note it (and they'll also keep track of archaic usages).
Or when the word is weird, species, science, sufficient, ancient, society, seize, theism, protein, sovereignty, foreign, feisty, kaleidoscope, being, rottweiler, keister, leisure, seize, caffeine.....
Because it's convention. Why do we use the word "water" to mean that liquidy stuff you find in lakes? Why does "the" refer to a specific instance of an entity and "a" applies to any given instance of an entity? Words have meanings because that's how language works. We use "less" to indicate relative positions on a continuous scale. We use "fewer" to indicate relative positions on a discrete scale. Why? Because that's how it's been done since the 12th century. On the other, English in particular is a very fluid language - use whichever word you please. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.
Handwriting with a finger point? Why not spend the extra $30 and go with a wacom multiouch + pen digitizer, and be able to actually write and draw. Or if using fingers is all you really want, you can save $20 and just go with a Wacom multitouch board.
Except in post-selection, you're not actually sending anything back in time, you're selecting the case where future you spontaneously blinked into existence in the past and shot yourself. No paradox exists. Since under quantum mechanics, anything can happen, you don't have to continue to exist in order for the future you to show up. You end up with a time line where you're 5 minutes into assembling your gun, and another you spontaneously starts existing and shoots you. You don't have to post-select in the altered time line, because the "future you" already exists, and doesn't need a "cause" to come into existence.
Of course this means that an event can be caused by an action in the future even if the event itself causes the action not to happen - the event itself wasn't really caused, it happened on it's own, and was post-selected to have happened by the future action. The future action is not required for the past event to have occurred.
Who said anything about converting. My wife sends me to the store to pick up 1100 eggs. My shoes are size 1001, I'm 101' 1011" tall, and I weigh 11000011 lbs. My kids are 111 and 101 years old. Although, it does confuse teachers when the kids tell them they just celebrated their hundred and eleventieth birthday.
Chisenbop? So you can count to 99 using two hands? Because bi-quinary arithmetic is so easy. I just count in binary on my fingers. I can count to 31 on each hand, or 1023 if I use both. Plus, binary arithmetic is easier than even decimal arithmetic and it's easy to run a basic full-adder algorithm over both hands and read off the result.
It doesn't matter what the constants file looks like. It doesn't matter if you sample cosmic background radiation to get a random number. It matters that you are using the same salt for everybody.
That's not salt. Yes, it prevents the google attack, but two users with the same password still have the same hash.
MD5 is just about the worst hash algorithm you could be using for this purpose.
It's not just people outside your firewall you need to worry about. Getting someone's password is a great way to do stuff without getting caught. If you hack a system, and get caught right away, not much damage can be done. If you get a bunch of passwords, you can work all you want for a long time before getting caught.
Good job not storing the plain text. But there are still problems with your code.
First, if two users have the same password, they will have the same hash stored in the db. If an attacker gets a hold of the list of hashes, it's trivial to generate hashes of a few million common passwords and compare them to the list. In any moderately sized user list, you'll get hundreds of matches. The trick is to also generate a random string of "salt" for each user. Append the salt to the password before hashing, and store the salt alongside the hashed password. Now if two users have the same password, the hashes will still be different, and the attacker will have to run his attack against each user individually instead of against the whole DB. See wikipedia
Secondly, if your String.equals() function is returning immediately on compare failure, the attacker can still use the timing method to reconstruct the hash of the password without gaining access to your database. Not the worst of attacks, but it does give the attacker more information to work with.
Even better than trying to fix your solution, though, would be to use an authentication library where someone else is handling the crypto and the protocols. It's brutally tough to get right - as evidenced by the fact that libraries built by experts are still having issues.
For the most part, there's very little reason to port apps over to 64-bit. As the OS level, it's great, allows more memory, and allows you to run 64-bit apps. But at the app level, unless your app can make use of the expanded address space, it's not really that useful to port. The few apps that can really take advantage of it were ported long ago.
WTF? It's weird only in that everyone is freaked out all the time. The risk of anything is way lower these days - there's a reason our life expectancy is cracking 80, and it's not just medical advances. It's not like crazies are a new thing - people have been trying to blow things up since gunpowder was invented. They just didn't have 24-hour news to whip us all up into a panic. Things you really should be worried about - driving accidents, falling, accidental poisoning, work related injuries, getting hit by a car, drowning, seasonal flu, fatal hernia, accidental gunshot, electrocution, law enforcement shooting you. All of which are more common preventable causes of death in the last 20 years than dying from a terrorist explosion (including the 9/11 deaths).
But if he moves the first 1m in 1s, the next 1/2m in 1/2s,.25m in.25s, he's moving at a constant speed of 1m/s, so he'll reach the end of the bridge just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a stereotype when it's true - yes there are fat people everywhere and thin people everywhere, but the US has more than 30% of their population obese. In the UK it's 22%. Italy, Austria and France are at around 10%. Up here in Canada we're hardly better than the US, and Mexico is nearly as bad. North America definitively holds the title for most obese continent, hands down.
On the other hand, someone who insists on the reverse - substituting "fewer" when they mean "less", will cause most English speakers to cringe: "My glass has fewer milk than his!"
If you feel they are in error, please feel free to index/catalog/analyze existing literature to make your own judgment on the matter. I'm sure the OED will be happy to hear from you if their definition is in error, since they approach their dictionary in a descriptive, rather than proscriptive manner - when the language changes, they will note it (and they'll also keep track of archaic usages).
Or when the word is weird, species, science, sufficient, ancient, society, seize, theism, protein, sovereignty, foreign, feisty, kaleidoscope, being, rottweiler, keister, leisure, seize, caffeine.....
They preform the same role
At least they aren't trying to postform the role.
Because it's convention. Why do we use the word "water" to mean that liquidy stuff you find in lakes? Why does "the" refer to a specific instance of an entity and "a" applies to any given instance of an entity? Words have meanings because that's how language works. We use "less" to indicate relative positions on a continuous scale. We use "fewer" to indicate relative positions on a discrete scale. Why? Because that's how it's been done since the 12th century. On the other, English in particular is a very fluid language - use whichever word you please. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.
Personally, I prefer the cup holder / cigarette lighter.
Handwriting with a finger point? Why not spend the extra $30 and go with a wacom multiouch + pen digitizer, and be able to actually write and draw. Or if using fingers is all you really want, you can save $20 and just go with a Wacom multitouch board.
They used to do this with SCSI drives. I have an old beast of one in my closet that takes up two 5 1/4" bays.
You mean like this
Of course this means that an event can be caused by an action in the future even if the event itself causes the action not to happen - the event itself wasn't really caused, it happened on it's own, and was post-selected to have happened by the future action. The future action is not required for the past event to have occurred.
American or European proof?
What kind of weirdo are you, drinking cold beer? You can barely taste it then.
A Windows machine, even the lowest comes with a video editor, DVD video authoring app, Photo manager and basic editor, Backup solution and media organizer. None are cripple ware or 30 day trials... they all are full retail versions.
The mac guys really want you to ignore that fact.
FTFY
Who said anything about converting. My wife sends me to the store to pick up 1100 eggs. My shoes are size 1001, I'm 101' 1011" tall, and I weigh 11000011 lbs. My kids are 111 and 101 years old. Although, it does confuse teachers when the kids tell them they just celebrated their hundred and eleventieth birthday.
Chisenbop? So you can count to 99 using two hands? Because bi-quinary arithmetic is so easy. I just count in binary on my fingers. I can count to 31 on each hand, or 1023 if I use both. Plus, binary arithmetic is easier than even decimal arithmetic and it's easy to run a basic full-adder algorithm over both hands and read off the result.
It doesn't matter what the constants file looks like. It doesn't matter if you sample cosmic background radiation to get a random number. It matters that you are using the same salt for everybody.
First, if two users have the same password, they will have the same hash stored in the db. If an attacker gets a hold of the list of hashes, it's trivial to generate hashes of a few million common passwords and compare them to the list. In any moderately sized user list, you'll get hundreds of matches. The trick is to also generate a random string of "salt" for each user. Append the salt to the password before hashing, and store the salt alongside the hashed password. Now if two users have the same password, the hashes will still be different, and the attacker will have to run his attack against each user individually instead of against the whole DB. See wikipedia
String encryptedPassword = Encryption.encryptString(password + user.GetSalt(), AppConstants.AUTH_KEY);
Secondly, if your String.equals() function is returning immediately on compare failure, the attacker can still use the timing method to reconstruct the hash of the password without gaining access to your database. Not the worst of attacks, but it does give the attacker more information to work with.
Even better than trying to fix your solution, though, would be to use an authentication library where someone else is handling the crypto and the protocols. It's brutally tough to get right - as evidenced by the fact that libraries built by experts are still having issues.
You think you got it bad - I use a chalkboard for a desk.
For the most part, there's very little reason to port apps over to 64-bit. As the OS level, it's great, allows more memory, and allows you to run 64-bit apps. But at the app level, unless your app can make use of the expanded address space, it's not really that useful to port. The few apps that can really take advantage of it were ported long ago.
wierd times
WTF? It's weird only in that everyone is freaked out all the time. The risk of anything is way lower these days - there's a reason our life expectancy is cracking 80, and it's not just medical advances. It's not like crazies are a new thing - people have been trying to blow things up since gunpowder was invented. They just didn't have 24-hour news to whip us all up into a panic. Things you really should be worried about - driving accidents, falling, accidental poisoning, work related injuries, getting hit by a car, drowning, seasonal flu, fatal hernia, accidental gunshot, electrocution, law enforcement shooting you. All of which are more common preventable causes of death in the last 20 years than dying from a terrorist explosion (including the 9/11 deaths).
Nope, the announcement is the discovery of a remotely exploitable vulnerablity in TeX that allows arbitrary code execution as root.
But if he moves the first 1m in 1s, the next 1/2m in 1/2s, .25m in .25s, he's moving at a constant speed of 1m/s, so he'll reach the end of the bridge just fine.
Or each successive step takes half the time as well as half the distance of the previous step.