Encryption (even more in such general terms, not even mentioning which algorithm or basic representing problem) has not been and cannot be "defeated" as such.
What would you say Alan Turing did to the huns' enigma?
Consider as a college you can have 1,000 students who can pay $50,000 a year, or 5,000 that pay $10,000. Which kind of college would you want to operate?
The second one. More students means you need more faculty and more administrators (and people to administrate the administrators, and so on).
And the more people you're in command of the more important you are, and the more important you are the more you get paid.
I think I drove past your workplace. It's the one with a unicorn paddock instead of a parking lot, right?
In most places you'd get labelled as "not having the right skills" (somehow they expect you to learn a specific organisations idiosyncrasies before you get there) or "not a team player".
I didn't say that it said there was causation. I said it implied it. You can imply things by not saying anything.
The writer of the article probably knows that most Guardian readers graduated in underwater basket dancing and will form the required conclusion anyway.
That may be the case, but you can't then come out and say it's because they're women and ethnic minorities, which is what the article and the berk who submitted it are trying to imply.
Back in the dial-up days, yes. Their search was flexible & accurate. Then they did a redesign, tried to become a portal (still not sure what that is) and it went to crap.
And into the gap stepped a little upstart called Google.
Russian reliability is based on the launcher that is almost 60 years old (first two stages of Soyuz launcher is the R7 that put the first Sputnik into orbit in 1957).
Not blowing Russia's trumpet here - I'll leave that to guacamole(24270) - but so what? If it works, it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Could we try demonstrating the difference to them with a practical experiment?
What would you say Alan Turing did to the huns' enigma?
Fucking bullshit, unless you know:
1) what the data is
2) who it's about
and last but not least
3) where it's located.
Murder is legal then, because it doesn't say they're allowed to make laws saying it's illegal.
He was trying to go to reddit, but his hosts file was wrong.
I can't see how that could occur, unless your only friend is Romania and you fail to invade The Caucasus and Persia.
There's something wrong with your keyboard. When you type a question mark it's inserting a space before it.
Or maybe you're a retard.
"VP of chucking shit at the wall and hoping something sticks" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue easily, does it?
The second one. More students means you need more faculty and more administrators (and people to administrate the administrators, and so on).
And the more people you're in command of the more important you are, and the more important you are the more you get paid.
What do I win?
Any == too many.
Liar. I said quite the opposite.
"you can't then come out and say it's because they're women and ethnic minorities"
I think I drove past your workplace. It's the one with a unicorn paddock instead of a parking lot, right?
In most places you'd get labelled as "not having the right skills" (somehow they expect you to learn a specific organisations idiosyncrasies before you get there) or "not a team player".
I didn't say that it said there was causation. I said it implied it. You can imply things by not saying anything.
The writer of the article probably knows that most Guardian readers graduated in underwater basket dancing and will form the required conclusion anyway.
All is never correct, but significant numbers of them don't want to.
They're using the same calculation engine as Amazon.
That may be the case, but you can't then come out and say it's because they're women and ethnic minorities, which is what the article and the berk who submitted it are trying to imply.
Couldn't Mr Burns spare a few grand?
The first time? Certainly.
The third? Arguably.
The tenth time when it's bad for the same reason? Why are they even still there?
Seconded. It's not like a Pollock where you need actual talent.
Back in the dial-up days, yes. Their search was flexible & accurate. Then they did a redesign, tried to become a portal (still not sure what that is) and it went to crap.
And into the gap stepped a little upstart called Google.
Why was the US under any obligation to take the Japanese wishes into account?
They started a war, behaved abominably during it, and lost it. I don't see why people are claiming they were owed anything.
Its code of conduct simply forbids bugs. Awesome.
In other words, it was true in the past.
Well said. It's as bad as expecting an EE to know how to change a fuse.
Not blowing Russia's trumpet here - I'll leave that to guacamole(24270) - but so what? If it works, it works.