If he had no interest in it, why is he lying about it?
Suppose, for a moment, the completely outlandish and inconceivable idea that he actually believed that "most current titles use VC-1". Why would he believe that?
In the words of the Wikipedians, you should assume good faith. It is irrelevant whether or not he actually was "lying" unless you had very good reason to believe he was before your original post.
(Why would some random slashdot poster be deliberately trying to deceive people about the encoding of current blu-ray videos?)
He admitted to no such thing. He only admitted he knows *now* that his knowledge was out of date.
Let's say I checked my bank account yesterday and saw it has $1000.
So, today I say "I currently have $1000 in my bank account". It turns out that a $200 payment just posted to my account, so I really only have $800. Later I discover I only have $800. I say "I was a little out of date. I only look at my banking account once in a while."
The original "I currently have $1000 in my bank account" was not a lie.
Of course his knowledge is out of date. That's why his original statement was wrong. For his statement to have been a lie, he would have to have known his knowledge was out of date.
Starting out at 1.9$/GB for a 73.5 GB drive [newegg.com] is certainly inexpensive. Especially when you have to pay an insane 9.332 cent/GB for a 750 GB hard drive [newegg.com].
There is nothing, as far as we know, short of factoring a number that is a component of both the private and public keys.
If you can factor that number you can very easily generate the private key from the public key. The point is that it's important to pick a number which is sufficiently large as to be impossible to factor with current technology.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation (X) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way.
Closures are a natural way to implement private variables.
A private variable is one whose scope is limited to the members of that object. The natural way to do that is to define the member functions in the same private scope as the caller. Assuming you want multiple objects you need a separate scope for each object, so you use the scope of the constructor.
It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript
But it does have classes. You just don't need explicit syntax to call them out; they're duck typed.
My issue is not that, but that you felt the need to insult the OP in the process. Yes, the idea has hazards. Yes, it doesn't work if the error rate is 20% per operation. That doesn't make the idea moronic.
Think of it - if you have 100 lines of code, with a chance of 1% error every time any one line was run, your program will almost always give wrong output.
The reasoning is actually exactly the same. Given a sufficiently low error rate and some reasonable bounds on the types of errors you can implement an error correcting code to detect and eliminate those errors. (oversimplifying, you need an error rate sufficiently low to be able to detect errors in your error detection.) 1% is probably good enough, at least working in a model like "boolean logic circuits" rather than "lines of code." 20% almost certainly isn't.
The same general idea applies to quantum "logic circuits".
This error correction logic obviously isn't free; it adds a logarithmic factor to the cost/length/whatever of your program. That's not such a big deal if you're running an algorithm which is exponentially faster than it's classical counterpart.
The problem is, the number of iterations needed to keep the overall error rate down increases rapidly with each new function call because errors do accumulate for non-trivial programs.
No it doesn't; adding extra repetitions decreases the error rate exponentially; you only need repetitions logarithmic in the length of the program.
In practice it would be foolish to write something like a web browser on a quantum computer with a nontrivial error rate -- but this is just an early prototype. After a while the error rate will be much lower than 21%. (Consider the error rate on a modern CPU!)
Is responding to objectively correct posts with a combination of insults and an invalid argument the current fashion in troll-land, or has slashdot been invaded by twelve year old non-nerds? In good faith I'll assume the latter, leaving me with a stupid question: how did a twelve year old get a five digit UID?
That was not the point. The point was that this implementation of quicksort is bad. It could be argued it is not even a true quicksort.
I'm assuming that that this implementation of quicksort is one which calls filter three times and recursively calls itself twice. Sure, that's inefficient as far as good quicksorts go. It's still a quicksort.
My point is that the "slowness" of "qsort [1..10000]" has almost nothing to do with the qsort not using iteration and everything to do with [1..10000] being a pathological worst case for naive quicksort. It is not complicated to fix that.
Power and signal tether you to a position, and weight puts unnecessary strain on your neck.
Power can come from batteries. Signal can be wireless. This hardware doesn't even weigh a lot compared to a pair of glasses nowadays.
I've tried demos in stores of the current 3D glasses; they're not heavy at all. Unfortunately they don't fit well over or under my normal vision-correcting glasses...
Well, yes, quicksort is slow in the worst case, which in the most naive implementations includes a sorted input. That isn't Haskell's fault, and you don't need iteration to implement something like median-of-3 which would fix the problem.
If it weren't for piracy, this may well be "less than twenty installs and less than twenty sales." Just because people are willing to pirate an app doesn't mean they'd be willing to pay for it -- the FACT is, people who are willing to pirate aren't typically willing to pay!
I'm not saying there isn't a problem here. I'm not saying that software piracy is okay. I'm just saying, you've provided absolutely no FACTS to support the claim that piracy CAUSES the lack of sales.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they sued Sun well before it was bought by Oracle.
Media mail is (part of) what used to be called fourth class mail.
Multithreaded python:
There's a global lock to do what?
"Commissioner Pravin Lal" could, for someone not familiar with SMAC or the UN, plausibly be the name of a real world leader.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century...", not so much.
If he had no interest in it, why is he lying about it?
Suppose, for a moment, the completely outlandish and inconceivable idea that he actually believed that "most current titles use VC-1". Why would he believe that?
This isn't Wikipedia.
So? I'm not saying it's a policy, I'm saying it's a good idea.
If someone is simply wrong and you call them a liar, you're being an asshole.
Why would some random slashdot poster be deliberately trying to deceive people about the business practices of Microsoft?
I don't know, but it happens a lot.
[citation needed]
Except where he admitted to using out of date knowledge to base his statement on what current titles use.
In the words of the Wikipedians, you should assume good faith. It is irrelevant whether or not he actually was "lying" unless you had very good reason to believe he was before your original post.
(Why would some random slashdot poster be deliberately trying to deceive people about the encoding of current blu-ray videos?)
He admitted to no such thing. He only admitted he knows *now* that his knowledge was out of date.
Let's say I checked my bank account yesterday and saw it has $1000.
So, today I say "I currently have $1000 in my bank account". It turns out that a $200 payment just posted to my account, so I really only have $800. Later I discover I only have $800. I say "I was a little out of date. I only look at my banking account once in a while."
The original "I currently have $1000 in my bank account" was not a lie.
Of course his knowledge is out of date. That's why his original statement was wrong. For his statement to have been a lie, he would have to have known his knowledge was out of date.
hereby replacing the passage 'if of and thereof' with 'if of or thereof' followed by ..."
You might try actually reading the code rather than a diff.
You are lying.
The word here is "wrong", not "lying".
You do not accomplish anything by accusing this this person of deliberate misinformation, aside perhaps from making yourself appear a dolt.
Starting out at 1.9$/GB for a 73.5 GB drive [newegg.com] is certainly inexpensive. Especially when you have to pay an insane 9.332 cent/GB for a 750 GB hard drive [newegg.com].
The former is cheaper per random-IOPS.
There is nothing, as far as we know, short of factoring a number that is a component of both the private and public keys.
If you can factor that number you can very easily generate the private key from the public key. The point is that it's important to pick a number which is sufficiently large as to be impossible to factor with current technology.
Now imagine a computer that uses a reversible logic system that is reversible, would that computer have a time-symmetric operation?
Sure, but you need to violate that symmetry to do any sort of input.
gradually shifting production eastward
Asia is *west* of the US, not *east*.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
a language that allows you to use the concepts of OOP in a *natural* and *homogeneous* way.
Closures are a natural way to implement private variables.
A private variable is one whose scope is limited to the members of that object. The natural way to do that is to define the member functions in the same private scope as the caller. Assuming you want multiple objects you need a separate scope for each object, so you use the scope of the constructor.
It's OK if it doesn't has classes, and therefore inheritance does not have a place in Javascript
But it does have classes. You just don't need explicit syntax to call them out; they're duck typed.
I pointed out some of the hazards of that.
My issue is not that, but that you felt the need to insult the OP in the process. Yes, the idea has hazards. Yes, it doesn't work if the error rate is 20% per operation. That doesn't make the idea moronic.
Think of it - if you have 100 lines of code, with a chance of 1% error every time any one line was run, your program will almost always give wrong output.
The reasoning is actually exactly the same. Given a sufficiently low error rate and some reasonable bounds on the types of errors you can implement an error correcting code to detect and eliminate those errors. (oversimplifying, you need an error rate sufficiently low to be able to detect errors in your error detection.) 1% is probably good enough, at least working in a model like "boolean logic circuits" rather than "lines of code." 20% almost certainly isn't.
The same general idea applies to quantum "logic circuits".
This error correction logic obviously isn't free; it adds a logarithmic factor to the cost/length/whatever of your program. That's not such a big deal if you're running an algorithm which is exponentially faster than it's classical counterpart.
The problem is, the number of iterations needed to keep the overall error rate down increases rapidly with each new function call because errors do accumulate for non-trivial programs.
No it doesn't; adding extra repetitions decreases the error rate exponentially; you only need repetitions logarithmic in the length of the program.
In practice it would be foolish to write something like a web browser on a quantum computer with a nontrivial error rate -- but this is just an early prototype. After a while the error rate will be much lower than 21%. (Consider the error rate on a modern CPU!)
We will not run out of salt ocean any time soon.
There is a nontrivial amount of uranium in that salt.
That's TOTALLY moronic.
I've been seeing this a lot lately.
Is responding to objectively correct posts with a combination of insults and an invalid argument the current fashion in troll-land, or has slashdot been invaded by twelve year old non-nerds? In good faith I'll assume the latter, leaving me with a stupid question: how did a twelve year old get a five digit UID?
That was not the point. The point was that this implementation of quicksort is bad. It could be argued it is not even a true quicksort.
I'm assuming that that this implementation of quicksort is one which calls filter three times and recursively calls itself twice. Sure, that's inefficient as far as good quicksorts go. It's still a quicksort.
My point is that the "slowness" of "qsort [1..10000]" has almost nothing to do with the qsort not using iteration and everything to do with [1..10000] being a pathological worst case for naive quicksort. It is not complicated to fix that.
Power and signal tether you to a position, and weight puts unnecessary strain on your neck.
Power can come from batteries. Signal can be wireless. This hardware doesn't even weigh a lot compared to a pair of glasses nowadays.
I've tried demos in stores of the current 3D glasses; they're not heavy at all. Unfortunately they don't fit well over or under my normal vision-correcting glasses...
Well, yes, quicksort is slow in the worst case, which in the most naive implementations includes a sorted input. That isn't Haskell's fault, and you don't need iteration to implement something like median-of-3 which would fix the problem.
Thousands of installs and less than twenty sales.
If it weren't for piracy, this may well be "less than twenty installs and less than twenty sales." Just because people are willing to pirate an app doesn't mean they'd be willing to pay for it -- the FACT is, people who are willing to pirate aren't typically willing to pay!
I'm not saying there isn't a problem here. I'm not saying that software piracy is okay. I'm just saying, you've provided absolutely no FACTS to support the claim that piracy CAUSES the lack of sales.