Can anybody comment on the finest, cheapest LCD monitors available? I'm looking to get 2 or 3 of them for a kick-ass multi-monitor setup, but I don't want to get crap, nor spend $1200 a pop.
I don't mean to troll here, but consider for a moment that the reason that the old Dr. Who, Star Trek TOS, etc all seem so good is because you were (how old?) when you watched them for the first time. Ask an average 16 year old to watch a Dr. Who episode and they *probably* won't get the same enjoyment out of it as you do now.
Of course the newer Star Trek movies/series will seem worse to you now because you're older, but still have the memory of how good the old ones were. Even if they really weren't *that* great.
I watch TOS all the time-- it's a great series to fall asleep on the couch to on Sunday afternoons, but I think a bit of the good feeling I get is due to the associations I've made to it.
I can also watch movies like Top Secret, Indiana Jones, and Clue over and over and never get tired of them. There's probably something more than just great writing (Skeet Surfing???).
I think the analogy of Wikipedia:Britannica::Open-source:Commercial::Linu x:Windows serves here-- if you want to *pay* for information, you can. If you want it free, you're going to get a best-effort, which in most cases, will be good enough.
If you're only using one source for your information, however, then you're not researching correctly.
100k for 96 processors? Figure you can get a barebones system with 256 MB ram for around $250. That's $24k for the boxes, a 96-port switch, and some good clustering software.
Where's the rest of the cost coming from?
I mean it's cool, but if I had $100k that absolutely needed to be spent, I'd get a Viper or something instead of a big server. <ducks>
A false-negative is very bad (calling email from my business partner spam), but a false-positive is alright once in a while. I can take, at most, 2 V1Agr4 emails a day. This seems like it would just be a matter of tweaking the engine.
I should not have to debug kernel messages and core dumps to get my box to work. And the normal user isn't going to know how to spell kernel, much less debug this kind of issue. It is poor usability, plain and simple. Don't make excuses for Microsoft-- they need to do better on this.
Of course, this would totally undermine the essence of why people would use a hash. If this is indeed 'practical', then I'd say we need a better algorithm.
STOP error messages were the reason that I downgraded from XP back to 2000. Random reboots with no explanation anywhere. I thought I traced it down to a buggy scanner driver, but it still happened.
Microsoft needs to more accurately diagnose these mysterious errors and provide help to end users.
A hashing algorithm H is "broken" when for an arbitrary input A, you can feasibly calculate another input B for which H(A) = H(B).
All they found here were two values C, D for which H(C) = H(D). Anyone who thinks this was suprising needs to take a look at the idea of a hash: Start out with 512 bits (2^512 possible values) Hash it to 128 bits (2^128 possible values) For each possible value to come out of the hash, you're going to have (2^(512-128)) = 2^384 collisions.
If they could find two data values with less than, say, 80 bits of data that both hash to the same, then that's something, 'cause that could be someone's password. And if two values of 80-bit data hash to the same thing, then the algorithm is bad.
I just don't think this is anything special. It's sort of like saying, "look, i found my password in the newspaper by circling various letters and numbers thoughout the articles." Or maybe not, it's still just not that great.
you hear that sound? it's all the CCIE's in the world laughing at you.
I believe that, I'm just bitter because I'm in debt up to my eyeballs because of colleges, I could have spent $100 for all the For Dummies books I needed to have the same salary...
Slashdot Mirror
My deepest condolances to the the family and the survivors. I did not know them personally, but I feel connected in some esoteric geek, /., techie way.
You mean 1.5.1_03.1
Finally, we can institute Club G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy GirlS!
/.
Oh wait, that's
Ohhh, i see:
DELL
UltraSharp 2001FP 20.1-inch Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand
$899.00
$719.20
[You Save $179.80]
25% off coupon?
Where at?
Can anybody comment on the finest, cheapest LCD monitors available? I'm looking to get 2 or 3 of them for a kick-ass multi-monitor setup, but I don't want to get crap, nor spend $1200 a pop.
/.
I'd *like* 1600x1200, and I want 19"+
I open the floor to
I don't mean to troll here, but consider for a moment that the reason that the old Dr. Who, Star Trek TOS, etc all seem so good is because you were (how old?) when you watched them for the first time. Ask an average 16 year old to watch a Dr. Who episode and they *probably* won't get the same enjoyment out of it as you do now.
Of course the newer Star Trek movies/series will seem worse to you now because you're older, but still have the memory of how good the old ones were. Even if they really weren't *that* great.
I watch TOS all the time-- it's a great series to fall asleep on the couch to on Sunday afternoons, but I think a bit of the good feeling I get is due to the associations I've made to it.
I can also watch movies like Top Secret, Indiana Jones, and Clue over and over and never get tired of them. There's probably something more than just great writing (Skeet Surfing???).
Confucius say:
"Never trust a product that includes the phrase:
Completely invulnerable to hacking..."
I think the analogy of Wikipedia:Britannica::Open-source:Commercial::Linu x:Windows serves here-- if you want to *pay* for information, you can. If you want it free, you're going to get a best-effort, which in most cases, will be good enough.
If you're only using one source for your information, however, then you're not researching correctly.
Grab an article out of a "real" encyclopedia, and compare it to the Wikipedia article. Do they factually match?
I would be very interested in the results.
Oftentimes, Wikipedia articles are updates the same day that events happen. This is one advantage over *any* "real" encyclopedia.
I wrote a quick script to make up files filled with garbage (streamed, created on the fly) with names from a text file...
c gi
Take that, MPAA!
http://www.scovetta.com/projects/mpaa-trap/index.
That's a fusion reactor that generates at least 8e23 watts.
And you propose building a Dyson Sphere to harness all of that energy?
Resisting...urge..to make bad joke about "on the one hand"...and him missing a finger... must..not..tarnish the single post positive /. post ever.
Star Trek TOS Season 1 on DVD comes out today!
If you rearrange those letters you get
TNG DOS TNG
Which is obviously a double-reference to Star Trek, as well as MS-DOS. I don't get the correlation though...
100k for 96 processors? Figure you can get a barebones system with 256 MB ram for around $250. That's $24k for the boxes, a 96-port switch, and some good clustering software.
Where's the rest of the cost coming from?
I mean it's cool, but if I had $100k that absolutely needed to be spent, I'd get a Viper or something instead of a big server.
<ducks>
Thou Shalt Not Disparage The Good Name of Google!
A false-negative is very bad (calling email from my business partner spam), but a false-positive is alright once in a while. I can take, at most, 2 V1Agr4 emails a day. This seems like it would just be a matter of tweaking the engine.
I should not have to debug kernel messages and core dumps to get my box to work. And the normal user isn't going to know how to spell kernel, much less debug this kind of issue. It is poor usability, plain and simple. Don't make excuses for Microsoft-- they need to do better on this.
And then of course, all of the clones, like "GIM & Tonic", "GIMMY", and the others...
Did you mis-quote the article name on purpose?
Programmers Are From Mars, Users/Managers/Companies are from Uranus
Of course, this would totally undermine the essence of why people would use a hash. If this is indeed 'practical', then I'd say we need a better algorithm.
STOP error messages were the reason that I downgraded from XP back to 2000. Random reboots with no explanation anywhere. I thought I traced it down to a buggy scanner driver, but it still happened.
Microsoft needs to more accurately diagnose these mysterious errors and provide help to end users.
A hashing algorithm H is "broken" when for an arbitrary input A, you can feasibly calculate another input B for which H(A) = H(B).
All they found here were two values C, D for which H(C) = H(D). Anyone who thinks this was suprising needs to take a look at the idea of a hash:
Start out with 512 bits (2^512 possible values)
Hash it to 128 bits (2^128 possible values)
For each possible value to come out of the hash, you're going to have (2^(512-128)) = 2^384 collisions.
If they could find two data values with less than, say, 80 bits of data that both hash to the same, then that's something, 'cause that could be someone's password. And if two values of 80-bit data hash to the same thing, then the algorithm is bad.
I just don't think this is anything special. It's sort of like saying, "look, i found my password in the newspaper by circling various letters and numbers thoughout the articles." Or maybe not, it's still just not that great.
you hear that sound? it's all the CCIE's in the world laughing at you.
I believe that, I'm just bitter because I'm in debt up to my eyeballs because of colleges, I could have spent $100 for all the For Dummies books I needed to have the same salary...