You could just middle click, instead of right clicking. FYI, I've experienced this problem with Firefox to varying degrees, but not in the way described. I've loaded over 120 tabs in a single Firefox window before, without much difficulty. I've no problems with opening and closing lots of tabs, and neither have I experienced the "CPU hogging" bug aforementioned.
But it does use lots of memory sometimes. I just close it and restart (I'm using 1.5 with the Session Manager extension, so I don't lose anything when I do so), and this never causes Windows itself to crash on either of my Windows 2000 desktops.
Why would a real terrorist make no effort to conceal his weapon?
Well, that depends.Umm..
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
Right, well, that Wikipedia article wasn't meant to be a statement on the resolution of the human eye, but more to the fact that the grandparent poster's figures were off by roughly three orders of magnitude (and some unit factor thereof).
I'm unsure about the veracity of its central claim, as well. I have downloaded programs to determine where the best seeing is near my area, and they don't seem to have this 6 magnitude limitation. My viison is pretty poor, personally, but I don't see any reason the eye should be limited to +6 explicitly. Evidently, some people don't think this is the case.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter all that much to me (I'm not falling prey to the point you addressed already -- I am certainly interested in traveling somewhere remote where I can see the sky, but I just mean that the distinction is a bit irrelevant so far as my current state of mind is concerned), since I live in an area where I may be able to see up to 5 magnitude, or, perhaps, a little higher, at best.
I've never seen the Milky Way. I don't know near enough about stellar coordinates or asterisms or constellations to determine exactly what I can see. I have seen Vesta through binoculars, and I'm somewhat confident I managed to resolve it with my naked eye, extremely vaguely, after they had been accustomed to dark. This would be 6.5 maagnitude or so? But it was very, very faint, and this was on one of our better nights. In fact, I'm not sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me.
Recently, I've been seeing Orion (and surrounding constellations) in the morning, and they're quite stunning, but not nearly as brilliant as you'd expect in anywhere of anything resembling true dark. Mars, Aldebaran, The Pleiades, Rigel, Orion's Belt, The Orion Nebula, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix, Capella, Procyon, Pollux, and Sirius are easily seen. Venus can be quite spectacular at times. Earlier in the night, there isn't such a large variety. Vega, Deneb, Altair, The Big Dipper, Jupiter, Antares, Arcturus, and Spica are the most prominent figures (barring the moon). It leaves much to be desired. But on some nights things just seem to go well, as in the night where I [think] was able to resolve 4 Vesta. The Pleiades can also be seen as four or five distinct stars under the best conditions around these parts.
Really, on the best nights, I may have been witness to some 500 - 1,000 stars, if anywhere near that. Probably closer to a couple hundred on most clear nights. I'm very interested in traveling somewhere that I can make out a more interesting sky, pockmarked with stars. The light pollution here is noticeable. It probably isn't the worst. This small suburban city has around 100,000 people, but the city itself only around 30,000 or so. It lies some 20 miles from a city of ~200,000.
But my location is virtually in the heart of this small city, and there are lights on all the time, wasting energy and wasting themselves, really, by pointing up needlessly at the sky or parallel to it.
They still haven't announced the [ever so mysterious] ninth competitor in the upcoming Lunar Lander Challenge on October 26. It was supposed to have been anounced approximately three weeks ago.
What's the deal with this?
Citing Stephen Hawking's quotation as proof for something is an argument from authority. You're right in thinking I didn't read the quote, because I didn't, and I'm not going to. I don't really care what Stephen Hawking said about anything.
The fact of the matter is that in science, we have facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories. Facts are observations. Laws are collections of these observations. Hypotheses are guesses at explaining why these laws are so, and they must be testable to be taken seriously. A theory is a rigorously tested hypothesis -- a graduated hypothesis. It is an explanation for an observed phenomenon.
Just because you can't understand basic scientific definitions doesn't mean you're not being an idiot. You certainly are being one. It doesn't even make sense to me, either; you obviously have no idea how the scientific process works, but you're still trying to debate it with me. Really, it shouldn't be left up to debate (I'm certainly no scientist myself), but to evidence -- evidence which I have provided in the form of a link to Wikipedia, which, for reasons unknown, you have a problem with. It happened to be the first source I found (probably because it is the first place I check for these kinds of things) on the matter. If you really wish to find more information, there's an abundance of books floating around about the scientific method and its elementary principles.
It's pretty hilarious that you argue with the source I provide to illustrate my point. I don't think I can even get anywhere like this. I don't even think I could convince you of how wrong you are if I had Stephen Hawking himself tell you so. You are bent on challenging anything that doesn't fit your mindset, which is quite strange to me.
Here are some more links for you, courtesy of google:
You're absolutely right that gravity is a theory in the same way evolution is. However, those theories are called The Theory of General Relativity, and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, respectively.
Gravity itself is a set of facts called a law. Newton's equation and general relativity attempt to explain this law.
There is no such thing as a devout atheist. There is certainly no such thing as a devout athiest. If you cannot even spell it, I doubt you understand what it means (is that a necessarily logical conclusion to draw? no, but I felt like making fun of you -- which is logical).
oh snaps.. I just realized I set myself up for a trawl trapz. in b4 evry1: don't start that whole stupid free speech discussion again. I'm aware that free speech can't really be abridged by a private organization, since that's a governmental doctrine, but I'm using the word in a more general sense. so there you have it.
..enforce their policies. They should do whatever it takes to keep ad revenue coming in, so long as it's legal and doesn't violate any contracts they may have with anyone.
The summary takes the whole thing out of context, though, and asks simply:
Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group?
To which the answer is simply:
because they believe in free speech?
If it were my website, I would not even consider entertaining the opinions of the idiots making the petition. I am impartial to any particular kind of speech. It's all beautiful and equally worthy to me. But I am not the site's owner, and that's probably precisely because of my attitude toward these things -- my inability to recognize the usefulness of playing under society's rules, no matter how stupid they are, my inability to perform socially because I just don't give a shit what other people think, and uh.. my utter lack of competence as a businessman (note: I didn't say businessperson:'( frown).
I'm not going to just "trust you," which is what you want me to do, that some random martial arts experts are world class fighters. They aren't, and, until you provide evidence to the contrary, no one who isn't an idiot will think that they are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe martial arts originated as a means to more effective war-time combat. I'm not even discussing the history of the arts. I'm discussing their effectiveness in general, and, more specifically, the skill of top class UFC fighters versus random "martial arts masters" (or experts, if you will; it's all the same thing to me).
If teenagers want "questionable entertainment," they have garbage like TNA, ECW, and WWE to turn to. That is what those organizations are for. The UFC may double as an entertaining medium, as well, but it's primarily about who's good at something.
We watch the NBA (well, I don't, but you get the idea) because we want to see what humans are capable of at their very best. These are top athletes, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I don't think anyone is going to say that The Detroit Pistons are going to be defeated by some retarded Chinese team, or whatever image you manage to conjure up. That's because these guys are seasoned professionals, and that's why they are PAID.
The UFC has origins in Vale Tudo, which is basically no-rules fighting (mostly BJJ). These guys are not incapable of fighting in 'street settings,' or whatever the last Bruce Lee movie you watched has told you. They are the real deal, and that's why they're making millions of dollars -- because people want to see actual, world class fighters at their peak.
Oh, noes. I was called an adolescent boy and a tough guy buy a martial arts guru on the internet......
Right.
Um, I don't have any lust for the UFC. I despise it. I don't claim it's the standards for which martial arts should be judged, either. I claim it's a good standard for judging the effectiveness of fighting, and, particularly, the effectiveness of fighters. And it is.
I don't see what that ridiculously contrived argument about "GO PICK ON A MARTIAL ARTS EXPERT AND SEE IF U CUM OUT ALIVE.. LOL!" has to do with anything. Maybe I would, and maybe I wouldn't. But guess what? I'm not in the UFC, dipshit.
We do not encrypt passwords (well, not usually). We hash them. There is nothing wrong with Blowfish crypt. It is very, very secure. Much more secure than either salted MD5 or SHA-1. However, there is really nothing wrong with using either MD5 or SHA-1 in the short term (so long as you are using a proper salt!). They will do fine. The eight character password, though, has been antiquated for about five years now. You should have switched to 10-15 characters some time ago. Really, even 15 characters is walking a thin line now.
But perhaps you would like to read more about Blowfish crypt:
A better alternative is using a hash function with an adjustable cost (and good salting function with a large salt space), or you could just stop using passwords all together.
Yeah. That sounded a bit off. Evidently, it does 800 concurrent hashes at 4Mh/s, instead of doing 800 different hashes at the normal rate. It would be much more interesting if it were doing one hash at 3.258 billion h/s.
It is very fast compared to modern (conventional -- I am unsure about Cell) processors. You might get some 100 Million MD5 h/s with raw, unsalted MD5 on the latest and greatest quad core Xeon, using MDCrack. Check their performance page here: http://c3rb3r.openwall.net/mdcrack/ln.html#perform ance
At that rate, it would take 32 days and 14 hours to brute force 8 chars a-zA-Z0-9._ for a single given hash. This setup is capable of doing this 800 times concurrently in a single day, if I read correctly.
Are you also a fan of the WWF or WWE or whatever the hell they call it now? You are seriously one deluded, retarded motherfucker.
All of these posts "defending" Kung-Fu and these other ridiculous martial arts smack of religious fundamentalism. You have no evidence for any of your claims, but you keep making up excuses to support this mysticism. Why is that?
Bruce Lee was an ACTOR. Shaolin monks kicking ass happens in MOVIES. Grow up, please.
Real fighters fight in the UFC. That is why it is the benchmark for how effective an art or system of arts is.
Anecdotes from old, grey haired, self proclaimed "martial arts masters" are always accurate.
No "martial artist" master will stand up against someone bigger, stronger and faster than him. I'd take a Navy Seal against your "Sifu" anyday.
Probably, yeah. "Navy seals" and their ilk have the same aura of mysticism surrounding them, as do "monks." I think, on the whole, though, they are better trained, and more prepared for hand to hand combat.
I would certainly rather face a "Shaolin Monk" than Tito Ortiz.
I'm unsure whether you're being a "troll," or you just failed miserably to convey your point near the end.
Nevertheless, I'd warn anyone wishing to homeschool their children against the A Beka curriculum, and, in all likelihood, the Bob Jones (which I'm less familiar with) curricula as well.
These are used by fundamental christians to indoctrinate (arguably) children with religious nonsense. I would not trust them to be very educational or accurate, scientifically.
The publisher is ran out of Pensacola Community College, which has some rather disturbing campus policies:
Slashdot Mirror
You have just invoked the age old concept of "soul."
You could just middle click, instead of right clicking. FYI, I've experienced this problem with Firefox to varying degrees, but not in the way described. I've loaded over 120 tabs in a single Firefox window before, without much difficulty. I've no problems with opening and closing lots of tabs, and neither have I experienced the "CPU hogging" bug aforementioned.
But it does use lots of memory sometimes. I just close it and restart (I'm using 1.5 with the Session Manager extension, so I don't lose anything when I do so), and this never causes Windows itself to crash on either of my Windows 2000 desktops.
YMMV.
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.
Right, well, that Wikipedia article wasn't meant to be a statement on the resolution of the human eye, but more to the fact that the grandparent poster's figures were off by roughly three orders of magnitude (and some unit factor thereof).
I'm unsure about the veracity of its central claim, as well. I have downloaded programs to determine where the best seeing is near my area, and they don't seem to have this 6 magnitude limitation. My viison is pretty poor, personally, but I don't see any reason the eye should be limited to +6 explicitly. Evidently, some people don't think this is the case.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter all that much to me (I'm not falling prey to the point you addressed already -- I am certainly interested in traveling somewhere remote where I can see the sky, but I just mean that the distinction is a bit irrelevant so far as my current state of mind is concerned), since I live in an area where I may be able to see up to 5 magnitude, or, perhaps, a little higher, at best.
I've never seen the Milky Way. I don't know near enough about stellar coordinates or asterisms or constellations to determine exactly what I can see. I have seen Vesta through binoculars, and I'm somewhat confident I managed to resolve it with my naked eye, extremely vaguely, after they had been accustomed to dark. This would be 6.5 maagnitude or so? But it was very, very faint, and this was on one of our better nights. In fact, I'm not sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me.
Recently, I've been seeing Orion (and surrounding constellations) in the morning, and they're quite stunning, but not nearly as brilliant as you'd expect in anywhere of anything resembling true dark. Mars, Aldebaran, The Pleiades, Rigel, Orion's Belt, The Orion Nebula, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix, Capella, Procyon, Pollux, and Sirius are easily seen. Venus can be quite spectacular at times. Earlier in the night, there isn't such a large variety. Vega, Deneb, Altair, The Big Dipper, Jupiter, Antares, Arcturus, and Spica are the most prominent figures (barring the moon). It leaves much to be desired. But on some nights things just seem to go well, as in the night where I [think] was able to resolve 4 Vesta. The Pleiades can also be seen as four or five distinct stars under the best conditions around these parts.
Really, on the best nights, I may have been witness to some 500 - 1,000 stars, if anywhere near that. Probably closer to a couple hundred on most clear nights. I'm very interested in traveling somewhere that I can make out a more interesting sky, pockmarked with stars. The light pollution here is noticeable. It probably isn't the worst. This small suburban city has around 100,000 people, but the city itself only around 30,000 or so. It lies some 20 miles from a city of ~200,000.
But my location is virtually in the heart of this small city, and there are lights on all the time, wasting energy and wasting themselves, really, by pointing up needlessly at the sky or parallel to it.
They still haven't announced the [ever so mysterious] ninth competitor in the upcoming Lunar Lander Challenge on October 26. It was supposed to have been anounced approximately three weeks ago. What's the deal with this?
I'm afraid you didn't see millions of stars. Perhaps you saw thousands.i n_astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye#Naked_eye_
What the hell is a Cen doing in M31?
You have a serious problem with reality.
Citing Stephen Hawking's quotation as proof for something is an argument from authority. You're right in thinking I didn't read the quote, because I didn't, and I'm not going to. I don't really care what Stephen Hawking said about anything.
n ode7.html#SECTION02122000000000000000
The fact of the matter is that in science, we have facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories. Facts are observations. Laws are collections of these observations. Hypotheses are guesses at explaining why these laws are so, and they must be testable to be taken seriously. A theory is a rigorously tested hypothesis -- a graduated hypothesis. It is an explanation for an observed phenomenon.
Just because you can't understand basic scientific definitions doesn't mean you're not being an idiot. You certainly are being one. It doesn't even make sense to me, either; you obviously have no idea how the scientific process works, but you're still trying to debate it with me. Really, it shouldn't be left up to debate (I'm certainly no scientist myself), but to evidence -- evidence which I have provided in the form of a link to Wikipedia, which, for reasons unknown, you have a problem with. It happened to be the first source I found (probably because it is the first place I check for these kinds of things) on the matter. If you really wish to find more information, there's an abundance of books floating around about the scientific method and its elementary principles.
It's pretty hilarious that you argue with the source I provide to illustrate my point. I don't think I can even get anywhere like this. I don't even think I could convince you of how wrong you are if I had Stephen Hawking himself tell you so. You are bent on challenging anything that doesn't fit your mindset, which is quite strange to me.
Here are some more links for you, courtesy of google:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
You're absolutely right that gravity is a theory in the same way evolution is. However, those theories are called The Theory of General Relativity, and The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, respectively.
Gravity itself is a set of facts called a law. Newton's equation and general relativity attempt to explain this law.
There is no such thing as a devout atheist. There is certainly no such thing as a devout athiest. If you cannot even spell it, I doubt you understand what it means (is that a necessarily logical conclusion to draw? no, but I felt like making fun of you -- which is logical).
Viddy well this youtube @ 38 minutes or so inward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M
oh snaps.. I just realized I set myself up for a trawl trapz. in b4 evry1: don't start that whole stupid free speech discussion again. I'm aware that free speech can't really be abridged by a private organization, since that's a governmental doctrine, but I'm using the word in a more general sense. so there you have it.
The summary takes the whole thing out of context, though, and asks simply:
To which the answer is simply: because they believe in free speech?
If it were my website, I would not even consider entertaining the opinions of the idiots making the petition. I am impartial to any particular kind of speech. It's all beautiful and equally worthy to me. But I am not the site's owner, and that's probably precisely because of my attitude toward these things -- my inability to recognize the usefulness of playing under society's rules, no matter how stupid they are, my inability to perform socially because I just don't give a shit what other people think, and uh.. my utter lack of competence as a businessman (note: I didn't say businessperson
I'm not going to just "trust you," which is what you want me to do, that some random martial arts experts are world class fighters. They aren't, and, until you provide evidence to the contrary, no one who isn't an idiot will think that they are. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe martial arts originated as a means to more effective war-time combat. I'm not even discussing the history of the arts. I'm discussing their effectiveness in general, and, more specifically, the skill of top class UFC fighters versus random "martial arts masters" (or experts, if you will; it's all the same thing to me).
If teenagers want "questionable entertainment," they have garbage like TNA, ECW, and WWE to turn to. That is what those organizations are for. The UFC may double as an entertaining medium, as well, but it's primarily about who's good at something.
We watch the NBA (well, I don't, but you get the idea) because we want to see what humans are capable of at their very best. These are top athletes, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I don't think anyone is going to say that The Detroit Pistons are going to be defeated by some retarded Chinese team, or whatever image you manage to conjure up. That's because these guys are seasoned professionals, and that's why they are PAID.
The UFC has origins in Vale Tudo, which is basically no-rules fighting (mostly BJJ). These guys are not incapable of fighting in 'street settings,' or whatever the last Bruce Lee movie you watched has told you. They are the real deal, and that's why they're making millions of dollars -- because people want to see actual, world class fighters at their peak.
Oh, noes. I was called an adolescent boy and a tough guy buy a martial arts guru on the internet...... Right.
Um, I don't have any lust for the UFC. I despise it. I don't claim it's the standards for which martial arts should be judged, either. I claim it's a good standard for judging the effectiveness of fighting, and, particularly, the effectiveness of fighters. And it is.
I don't see what that ridiculously contrived argument about "GO PICK ON A MARTIAL ARTS EXPERT AND SEE IF U CUM OUT ALIVE.. LOL!" has to do with anything. Maybe I would, and maybe I wouldn't. But guess what? I'm not in the UFC, dipshit.
You mean 'statute,' not "statue." I can't help it; editing is what I do.
We do not encrypt passwords (well, not usually). We hash them. There is nothing wrong with Blowfish crypt. It is very, very secure. Much more secure than either salted MD5 or SHA-1. However, there is really nothing wrong with using either MD5 or SHA-1 in the short term (so long as you are using a proper salt!). They will do fine. The eight character password, though, has been antiquated for about five years now. You should have switched to 10-15 characters some time ago. Really, even 15 characters is walking a thin line now.
o s_html/node5.html
But perhaps you would like to read more about Blowfish crypt:
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix99/provos/prov
A better alternative is using a hash function with an adjustable cost (and good salting function with a large salt space), or you could just stop using passwords all together.
Yeah. That sounded a bit off. Evidently, it does 800 concurrent hashes at 4Mh/s, instead of doing 800 different hashes at the normal rate. It would be much more interesting if it were doing one hash at 3.258 billion h/s.
It is very fast compared to modern (conventional -- I am unsure about Cell) processors. You might get some 100 Million MD5 h/s with raw, unsalted MD5 on the latest and greatest quad core Xeon, using MDCrack. Check their performance page here: http://c3rb3r.openwall.net/mdcrack/ln.html#perform ance
At that rate, it would take 32 days and 14 hours to brute force 8 chars a-zA-Z0-9._ for a single given hash. This setup is capable of doing this 800 times concurrently in a single day, if I read correctly.
Are you also a fan of the WWF or WWE or whatever the hell they call it now? You are seriously one deluded, retarded motherfucker.
All of these posts "defending" Kung-Fu and these other ridiculous martial arts smack of religious fundamentalism. You have no evidence for any of your claims, but you keep making up excuses to support this mysticism. Why is that? Bruce Lee was an ACTOR. Shaolin monks kicking ass happens in MOVIES. Grow up, please.
Real fighters fight in the UFC. That is why it is the benchmark for how effective an art or system of arts is.
Probably, yeah. "Navy seals" and their ilk have the same aura of mysticism surrounding them, as do "monks." I think, on the whole, though, they are better trained, and more prepared for hand to hand combat.
I would certainly rather face a "Shaolin Monk" than Tito Ortiz.
2^20 = 1048576
That has to count for something.
I'm unsure whether you're being a "troll," or you just failed miserably to convey your point near the end.
C ollege#A_Beka_Book *C ollege#Controversies_involving_PCC s )
Nevertheless, I'd warn anyone wishing to homeschool their children against the A Beka curriculum, and, in all likelihood, the Bob Jones (which I'm less familiar with) curricula as well.
These are used by fundamental christians to indoctrinate (arguably) children with religious nonsense. I would not trust them to be very educational or accurate, scientifically. The publisher is ran out of Pensacola Community College, which has some rather disturbing campus policies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensacola_Christian_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensacola_Christian_
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i29/29a04001.htm
(google link for more about that article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22eye+babie
* The Bob Jones curriculum is also mentioned in this section.