I agree - no need to hide who you are when you go shopping. But you may want to hide your identity when you are writing something controversial as an AC.
I agree - it's on computers we want the higher resolution - the consumer screens don't actually need any higher resolution except as a factor to impress your friends (it you have any left) with.
Most are going for Linux instead of an embedded proprietary solution like their own OS/software.
What you put on top of Linux is another issue - it can be a web UI or you can probably run the Cisco IOS command interface too for those that prefer that.
Even in cars Linux is used - some use it in the instrument cluster, but have removed the command line capability.
And RIP should go where it stands for - Rest In Peace.
But if they keep that protocol it just means that it is simple enough for coders at Microsoft to understand and that they don't understand the other protocols.
It's still pretty interesting that RIP is still in use even though it was seen as outdated 20 years ago...
The installer that was removed at the introduction of VS2012 has not been re-introduced. That means that now the Nullsoft alternative is more attractive.
The hope that Microsoft would adopt ADA is of course futile.
I agree, but you may at least patch it to be the next best level by at least provide a proportional election system to the House and possibly also to the Senate.
That would at least make it less likely to create deadlocks like this and also make extreme voices like the Tea Party less prominent.
Not necessarily - 32 random bits xor 32 random bits will still be 32 random bits, the difference is that you will introduce two factors of uncertainty due to different decay rates. The XOR function is blind, you only get problems if you use it on a seed value or the result of a function.
Use one GM tube for each bit, and let it toggle that bit on or off for each detected decay. To be really sure have different radioactive samples for each GM tube isolated from each other.
If you feel unsure - use two different isotopes, double the number of bits, then XOR them together and use the result as the random number.
Scale up to the number of bits you need.
If that's not random enough I don't know what will be constituted random enough.
"Not so random" means that you can mathematically calculate how likely it is that you can predict the next number over a long time. If you can predict the next number with an accuracy of 1 in 250 while the random generator provides 1 in 1000 then the random generator isn't that random.
Many random generators picks the previous value as a seed for the next value, but that is definitely predictable. Introduce some additional factors into the equation and you lower the predictability. One real problem with random generators using previous value as a seed without adding a second factor is that they can't generate the same number twice or three times in a row (which actually is allowed under the randomness rules).
It's a completely different thing to create a true random number. For a 32 bit number you essentially should have one generator source for each bit that don't care about how the bit was set previously. It is a bit tricky to create that in a computer in a way that also allows for fast access to a large number of random numbers and prevent others from reading the same random number as you do.
For computers it's more a question of "good enough" to make prediction an unfeasible attack vector.
I can live with glitches like the hair of an actor not behaving correctly. If that's the only scientific glitch you can find in a movie then it's definitely well done, and there are ways around it too - like letting the actors have special hair styles that aren't as sensitive to gravity or not. And I think that Kubrick would have done it that way too - hide what's not critical, be a perfectionist in other parts. It's hard to beat the realism presented in the movie 2001 (aside from the fashion parts).
But we watch movies for pleasure, not to get educated.
Because if you target ads depending on what the customer usually purchases, e.g. Colgate toothpaste it's useless to show ads for another brand.
Throw in ads for stuff that the customer doesn't buy and maybe it will have some effect. But when I shop I don't give a crap about ads in the store. In addition to that most ads are so stupid that you just feel embarrassed by them.
The behavior of Word including styles and formatting seems to be the invention from hell - some style templates seems to be as contagious as viruses and you can't ever get anything right as you want it. The number of times I have had to settle for "Good enough" are numerous and can't be counted.
At least with HTML I can get some control over things, but the downside there is that it costs a lot of time to produce a user-friendly document instead.
Just consider that in the majority of the business applications that floats around in the world right now that are built by programmers there's no real concern about how the sorting is done, the things that most people are concerned about is if it's correctly sorted according to their particular alphabet because if stuff comes out in the wrong order like "AÄÅBC....OÖ...Z" instead of "ABC...ZÅÄÖ" for Swedish people then that software is dead, no matter how smart the sorting algorithm is or what it's called.
This is the big deal - care about the whole system picture and leave the details to well-known well-documented standard routines. If my "ORDER BY" statement is done through Quick Sort or Bubble Sort or some other kind of sort is not of any concern as long as it does the right thing and is fast.
B.t.w. if you have that kind of employment criteria I suspect that you get more than the average share of esoteric people as employees.
And I was stating the important parts of education here - anyone can hack up a sorting routine but in the real life business world the items I did list are what's causes the majority of the failures in projects. People not knowing their tools and inability to write code that can be maintained.
Don't waste time on writing your own sorting algorithm in a commercial application - it just wastes time and money for the project unless it's a very special kind of sorting that's unique to that project.
I would say that one of the most important thing in programming is to break down a problem into parts that are useful and easy to manage. It doesn't matter which language you code in. It's very much like building with Lego - you have more use for all those 4x2 bricks than any other brick. The humongous large bricks are "use once". A right sized brick can be copied and pasted into future code as well, possibly tweaked a bit to suit the new environment. In the process of breaking down a problem - define interfaces. Make a design of the important interfaces to make sure that they can remain stable over time. That can make maintenance easier.
The second most important thing is to learn what compiler warnings means and how to fix them. In this case strong typing isn't your enemy - it's your friend since it will tell you about problems even before you get them when executing the code.
Third is to learn about which known algorithms that are out in the wild so you don't have to invent them yourself. Quicksort is already implemented a thousand times, so there's no need to implement it again, just find which library you need. If you are developing a commercial app you shall start with the Apache project since that license is permissive when it comes to how the libraries may be incorporated. The LGPL is also good. But leave the license headaches to someone else to sort out if you aren't sure.
These are the useful ideas I try to follow, the rest is just a mixture of ingredients and seasoning to get something running.
Remember: You can build a great machine with simple stuff or a stupid machine with expensive stuff.
Innovation is one thing, it's a completely different thing to create business from it. We are missing out a lot of good innovations because the ideas get stifled or the innovator gets pushed down because the investors thinks that it's a bad idea. (The idea may be bad for their business, so therefore they don't promote it)
Slashdot Mirror
Just use AdBlock for that. Then they can do GeoIP all they want - I don't see their crap anyway.
I agree - no need to hide who you are when you go shopping. But you may want to hide your identity when you are writing something controversial as an AC.
I agree - it's on computers we want the higher resolution - the consumer screens don't actually need any higher resolution except as a factor to impress your friends (it you have any left) with.
If the internet is going to be free of commercials, spam and other kinds of junk that right now is the bulk of the traffic on the net.
Most people will reach the data cap due to DoS attacks and other shit. This lobbyist is only after locking in the customers even more.
I don't even trust myself...
Ad profiling is as stupid as Clippy. "Hey you have bought a new car, maybe you want to buy a new car!"
Most are going for Linux instead of an embedded proprietary solution like their own OS/software.
What you put on top of Linux is another issue - it can be a web UI or you can probably run the Cisco IOS command interface too for those that prefer that.
Even in cars Linux is used - some use it in the instrument cluster, but have removed the command line capability.
And RIP should go where it stands for - Rest In Peace.
But if they keep that protocol it just means that it is simple enough for coders at Microsoft to understand and that they don't understand the other protocols.
It's still pretty interesting that RIP is still in use even though it was seen as outdated 20 years ago...
The installer that was removed at the introduction of VS2012 has not been re-introduced. That means that now the Nullsoft alternative is more attractive.
The hope that Microsoft would adopt ADA is of course futile.
I agree, but you may at least patch it to be the next best level by at least provide a proportional election system to the House and possibly also to the Senate.
That would at least make it less likely to create deadlocks like this and also make extreme voices like the Tea Party less prominent.
Not necessarily - 32 random bits xor 32 random bits will still be 32 random bits, the difference is that you will introduce two factors of uncertainty due to different decay rates. The XOR function is blind, you only get problems if you use it on a seed value or the result of a function.
And 6 6 6 is also in the set of random numbers.
Use one GM tube for each bit, and let it toggle that bit on or off for each detected decay. To be really sure have different radioactive samples for each GM tube isolated from each other.
If you feel unsure - use two different isotopes, double the number of bits, then XOR them together and use the result as the random number.
Scale up to the number of bits you need.
If that's not random enough I don't know what will be constituted random enough.
"Not so random" means that you can mathematically calculate how likely it is that you can predict the next number over a long time. If you can predict the next number with an accuracy of 1 in 250 while the random generator provides 1 in 1000 then the random generator isn't that random.
Many random generators picks the previous value as a seed for the next value, but that is definitely predictable. Introduce some additional factors into the equation and you lower the predictability. One real problem with random generators using previous value as a seed without adding a second factor is that they can't generate the same number twice or three times in a row (which actually is allowed under the randomness rules).
It's a completely different thing to create a true random number. For a 32 bit number you essentially should have one generator source for each bit that don't care about how the bit was set previously. It is a bit tricky to create that in a computer in a way that also allows for fast access to a large number of random numbers and prevent others from reading the same random number as you do.
For computers it's more a question of "good enough" to make prediction an unfeasible attack vector.
I can live with glitches like the hair of an actor not behaving correctly. If that's the only scientific glitch you can find in a movie then it's definitely well done, and there are ways around it too - like letting the actors have special hair styles that aren't as sensitive to gravity or not. And I think that Kubrick would have done it that way too - hide what's not critical, be a perfectionist in other parts. It's hard to beat the realism presented in the movie 2001 (aside from the fashion parts).
But we watch movies for pleasure, not to get educated.
Isn't all this just opening a new opportunity for players like Playboy to start e-publishing books that are refused by other publishers?
Because if you target ads depending on what the customer usually purchases, e.g. Colgate toothpaste it's useless to show ads for another brand.
Throw in ads for stuff that the customer doesn't buy and maybe it will have some effect. But when I shop I don't give a crap about ads in the store. In addition to that most ads are so stupid that you just feel embarrassed by them.
The behavior of Word including styles and formatting seems to be the invention from hell - some style templates seems to be as contagious as viruses and you can't ever get anything right as you want it. The number of times I have had to settle for "Good enough" are numerous and can't be counted.
At least with HTML I can get some control over things, but the downside there is that it costs a lot of time to produce a user-friendly document instead.
Are you sure that it isn't a malware on any of your computers that causes the whole problem?
And start to upload all twisted images you have. Nice scenario, but why is there a dead cow in it?
Unfortunately, and the really sad thing is that Don Martin is no longer with us.
Just consider that in the majority of the business applications that floats around in the world right now that are built by programmers there's no real concern about how the sorting is done, the things that most people are concerned about is if it's correctly sorted according to their particular alphabet because if stuff comes out in the wrong order like "AÄÅBC....OÖ...Z" instead of "ABC...ZÅÄÖ" for Swedish people then that software is dead, no matter how smart the sorting algorithm is or what it's called.
This is the big deal - care about the whole system picture and leave the details to well-known well-documented standard routines. If my "ORDER BY" statement is done through Quick Sort or Bubble Sort or some other kind of sort is not of any concern as long as it does the right thing and is fast.
B.t.w. if you have that kind of employment criteria I suspect that you get more than the average share of esoteric people as employees.
And I was stating the important parts of education here - anyone can hack up a sorting routine but in the real life business world the items I did list are what's causes the majority of the failures in projects. People not knowing their tools and inability to write code that can be maintained.
Don't waste time on writing your own sorting algorithm in a commercial application - it just wastes time and money for the project unless it's a very special kind of sorting that's unique to that project.
I would say that one of the most important thing in programming is to break down a problem into parts that are useful and easy to manage. It doesn't matter which language you code in. It's very much like building with Lego - you have more use for all those 4x2 bricks than any other brick. The humongous large bricks are "use once". A right sized brick can be copied and pasted into future code as well, possibly tweaked a bit to suit the new environment. In the process of breaking down a problem - define interfaces. Make a design of the important interfaces to make sure that they can remain stable over time. That can make maintenance easier.
The second most important thing is to learn what compiler warnings means and how to fix them. In this case strong typing isn't your enemy - it's your friend since it will tell you about problems even before you get them when executing the code.
Third is to learn about which known algorithms that are out in the wild so you don't have to invent them yourself. Quicksort is already implemented a thousand times, so there's no need to implement it again, just find which library you need. If you are developing a commercial app you shall start with the Apache project since that license is permissive when it comes to how the libraries may be incorporated. The LGPL is also good. But leave the license headaches to someone else to sort out if you aren't sure.
These are the useful ideas I try to follow, the rest is just a mixture of ingredients and seasoning to get something running.
Remember: You can build a great machine with simple stuff or a stupid machine with expensive stuff.
Innovation is one thing, it's a completely different thing to create business from it. We are missing out a lot of good innovations because the ideas get stifled or the innovator gets pushed down because the investors thinks that it's a bad idea. (The idea may be bad for their business, so therefore they don't promote it)