Serif managed it quite well in Windows 3.1 days - it took quite a bit of searching to eventually find the file containing the trial expiry information which wasn't deleted when the software was removed (and so reclaim the disk space it was using): it wasn't an obvious config file.
The only real solution is to pass a law that makes all kinds of DRM illegal.
Or perhaps make those who insist on using DRM responsible for cost of replacement of damaged goods, ieeg if disk becomes unreadable and user was prevented from making, and using, a backup due to DRM, then publisher of disk becomes legally liable for replacing the disk and will bear all costs for that replacement, including the cost of user having to contact them.
...unskippable DVD ads...
are theft and should be treated as such. By being unskippable, I am forced to provide electrical power to my DVD player for their duration; that is electricity for which I have paid and once gone is unable to be reused. I am supposed to watch those ads, so I am also expected to have to power my display and sound devices [could be same device] for the duration - more electrical power being stolen. There is also my time which has been stolen. When an unskippable ad appears at the beginning of a DVD which contains 2 or more episodes of a series, each time the DVD is inserted to watch an episode, the electricity is stolen again.
It would be funny if it wasn't true the hypocrasy of those who wish to give us information (incorrect information at that) about theft use theft to do it.
...should be banned
The global climate change is a very good argument against them: a 30 episode series with a 30 second unskippable ad amounts to 15mins worth of electricity [and time stolen] when viewing all the episodes for each disk [set] that is used - it soon adds up to quite a lot of wasted power.
...since the hardware in your PC is not covered under the Windows EULA.
You sure? Activation of Windows would disagree with you on that point as if it sees your hardware modified (past some extent of which I'm not privvy as I do not use Windows) it tells you to reactivate it (or so I'm informed).
I have said once before, the main spam problem can only be rectified one way...by charging per email,.01 cent! with a cap of about 50$.
I doubt very much if that would work. If one machine was sending out the mail then yes, it would throttle it, but with a botnet which will have more than enough machines the spam would still be sent out, but the spam sent from each individual machine would be below the threshold and so no dent whatsoever
That's it, your ISP provider will send you off a bill at the end of the month, of which if you hit 50$, you know you are infected seeing as you have not sent any mail...
If the user of a machine also sent out enough emails, then the spam extras may not be noticed.
...you will disconnect yourself...
It's more likely that you'd complain to the ISP that they've got the traffic wrong.
...and bring your pc to a tech who will clean it for you, or install legit windows for you
[emphasis added] You've just shown the problem: Windows. I don't use Windows, so why should I have to pay for for my emails because Microsoft can't write a secure OS, despite the virus problems harking back to the good old DOS days - they've had plenty of experience of how viruses could enter their systems since BEFORE Windows and yet they've still got gaping holes; they obviously do NOT learn from their mistakes...or perhaps they do, just the learning is how to extract more money from their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers.
also make it impossible for spammers to spam legitimately....it would be too expensive...
Not for them: they wouldn't be paying for their emails in the first place - the cost would be born by the customer (sic) of Microsoft who bought a licence to use Windows (as it already is in terms of anti-virus software, re-installing OS, etc)
...and the reason most malware exist, is to send spam, so if you block the spam, then there is not much profit to be had if you can not send your emails...
Except that the spam isn't blocked. It just costs the machine's owner not the spammer, so any spam sent by a spammer costs him/her very little - they just steal the bandwidth and electricity (and, if implemented, the e-stamps).
...or are disconnected from the botnet...
Losing a machine from a botnet won't worry a spammer very much as new infections will add to the botnet.
...and then you will be back on the internet.
Back in December 2003 Microsoft admitted that Windows was not fit for purpose and gave the advice that before doing anything customers (sic) needed to download anti-virus software to protect the system from the deluge of viruses and worms that target the flaws in Microsoft's software as soon as you take it online. Even if the machine is cleaned, it is very likely to be re-infected and the botnet expanded again, as well as with the "new" machines that aren't protected that become part of a botnet, even if unused for the moment..
people slam on the brakes when the yellow light turns, and there are more rear-end collisions
Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?
Are you saying it would be perfectly acceptable for a rear-end shunt if the first car slammed on the brakes because a child suddenly ran out in front of it?
At least with [most] traffic lights the following driver should be able to see them and should know that they may change and that the preceding driver may slam their brakes on [in Toledo, OH] and so prepare for this by easing off the gas slightly and increasing the gap slightly (more if there is a following vehicle that is too close to them) in readiness to brake if necessary.
MS embraced and extended Java and called it Java, thus breaking the Java standard that is supposed to run everywhere - MS Java can only be expected to run [properly] on a MS JRE, NOT ANY JRE.;
whereas Google took Java, possibly embraced and extended, BUT did NOT call it Java - there can be no confusion over the resultant code being able to run everywhere there is a JRE - but also created a cross-compiler which took Java [source] and converted it to their version.
The problem comes in that Oracle are claiming that Software Patents cover Java and thus are being violated as only licensed for use in Java [and JRE] and NOT for use in a different product [I think - I seem to remember on a casual reading about this case that Java licensing for Mobile devices being more expensive than for a "desktop" computer and Google not willing to pay for the obvious market inflation, hence "developing" their own Runtime Environment which also had the benefit of being able to be optimised better].
If you shoot somebody because their bodyguard was incompetent and didn't ensure that his protectee was properly protected, then I'm sure that relatives of the shootee would have grounds to sue him for at least breach of contract, or perhaps they might go as far as considering that the bodyguard aided and abetted you by turning a blind eye, stepping out of the line of fire, etc?
If what he did was accomplished in large part due to the actions of those who were supposed to ensure the system was protected from such intrusions, then they were obviously aiding and abetting him (insider job) - why has their been no headline about their prosecutions? Or is it they are not being prosecuted?
In which case, the deduction is that they were incompetent, in which case why have we not heard much in terms of action against those who were responsible for security (eg losing their jobs)?
If a householder was to leave their doors open and they got burgled, especially in a neighbourhood where the required security is that doors are locked shut, would all the blame be put on the burglar? I'm pretty sure they'd find their household insurance company wouldn't think so.
The number of PC users is about 1 to 1.2 billion, based on most estimates I've seen. That would put the number of Windows users at 900 million to 1 billion...I will take that as pretty strong evidence that the Windows OS works just fine for those who use it.
It's not a two wheeled enigma for at least three reasons:
1) A plain text letter can be encrypted as itself (something an enigma machine cannot do due to physical design).
2) In an enigma machine each wheel is wired in a fixed "permutation"; in the Chaocipher "machine" each wheel is "rewired" depending upon the letter just encrypted.
3) In an enigma machine it is necessary to rotate the wheels semi-independently (ie like the wheels in a tape counter, each one causing the next one to rotate one letter each time it makes a complete revolution) whereas in the Chaocipher "machine" the wheels do not actually need to rotate - by rotating the wheels it makes the "rewiring" easier to explain.
The "rewiring" could possibly be seen as the effect of rotating the enigma wheels, but without a closer look at the algorithm than that I have done I cannot definitely say but my gut feeling is that it is not - I am sure a properly devised plain text with 676 (26^2) characters would show that they are not equivalent as after encrypting the 676th character the 2 wheel enigma machine will now be back in the position in which it started and the Chaocipher "machine" will not.
The biggest problem is that licencers want to tell you you're buying the product in big letters, but put in small print that you're actually only buying a licence to buy the product. How often do you see the advertising "Own the latest film on DVD" when you're really owning a licence to view a copy of the film on DVD?
Whilst selling you the film, they switch the film for a licence to view it.
Still it means that the chance to be infected provided you know what you're doing is 1/10th of that if you don't.
No it doesn't. It means that for every 100 machine infected, 1/10 were belonging to those who knew what they were doing. In fact, it is actually possible (and likely given that it appears that most people do not know what they're doing [with Windows]) that you're chance of being infected if you know what you're doing is GREATER than if you don't know what you're doing!
Only if the NUMBER of machines owned by people who know what they're doing EQUALS the NUMBER of machines owned by people who don't know what they're doing will it mean you've got a 1/10 of the chance of being infected if you know what you are doing vs no knowing which means that the chance you've got of being infected if you know what you're doing is 1/9 that if you don't., since 1/9 of 9/10 is 1/10. Here's why:
<nerd mode>
The chance of being infected is
Pr(infected) = Pr(I) = <number of machines infected> / <total number of machines>
Pf(knowing) = Pr(K) = <number of machines of those knowing> / <total number of machines>
Pf(not knowing) = Pr(nK) = <number of machines of those not knowing> / <total number of machines>
also
Pr(infected | not knowing) = Pr(I | nK) = <number of infected of not knowing> / <total number of not knowing>
and
Pr(infected | knowing) = Pr(I | K) = <number of infected knowing> / <total number of knowing>
However, all we know is
Pr(knowing | infected) = Pr(K | I) = <number of infected knowing> / <total number of infected> = 1/10
Pr(not knowing | infected) = Pr(nK | I) = <number of infected not knowing> / <total number of infected> = 9/10
but we can use
Pr(I | K) = Pr(K | I) * P(I) / Pr(K)
similarly for
pr(I | nK) = Pr(nK | I) * P(I) / Pr(nK)
Then the chance to be infected provided you know what you're doing against that if you don't. is...what? I'll assume that it means how much more likely you are to be infected given you know what you're doing vs if you don't, ie
I suspect that the majority of Windows users do not know what they're doing, thus: Pr(nK) > Pr(K) meaning that Pr(nK) / Pr(K) > 1 and ch(K vs nK) = (1/9 * [> 1]) > 1/9.
In particular, if the number of those who don't know what they're are doing (as I guess most people would suspect) is such that there are more than 9 times those who do know what they're doing, then
Is "popular" the right word? popular suggests that it was deliberately chosen in preference to the other offerings, but as it was delivered (and paid for) with the PC, there is little choice in the matter of the OS [for a PC] - OSX comes with Apple machines only available from Apple; tp use the word "popular", perhaps a better comparison would be to compare the percentages of the different manufacturers?
Personally I prefer the term "populous" - ie a greater proportion of the "population" (the [statistical] "population" [in this case] being the computers).
Using Microsoft speak, boys are the more POPULAR babies as more boys are born than girls! Do parents REALLY have that much choice in the sex of their child? However, by the age of 10, girls are the more POPULAR children [as there are more of them] - have parents decided that boys don't make good children and [gender] swapped them for girls? [The real reason has to do with infant mortality.]
[OPCS data for population figures for England and Wales was the source of the proportions of boys/girls I used above.]
Upon purchasing the Artwork, Collector may establish a new value for the Artwork. The new value may not exceed current market expectations for the Artwork based on the current value of work by the Artist...This value will be set as the minimum bid of the auction.
Note there is only a ceiling to the value, no floor: if after purchasing, I feel that the value has decreased, I can establish this as the new value for the Artwork and so set it as the minimum for the auction.
Regarding the 15%, according to this term:
Collector is responsible for any and all fees and charges generated by the Artwork on the Auction Venue.
the eBay auction fees are the responsibilty of the collector, not the artist. This looks more like a "beat the copyright limitation" of n years to ensure income permanently:
Note that it resells itself every 7 days, every week - the artist gets 15% of every change in value every week, a nice little wage packet.
"Appreciated Value" of the Work for the purposes of this Agreement, shall be the increase, if any, in the value or price of the Work over the price for which the Collector had purchased the Artwork.
There is no statement that the increase has to be positive; mathematically, a decrease is a negative increase. ergo according to the rule:
In the event of a sale the Collector agrees to pay a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Appreciated Value (as hereinafter defined), if any
there is no limitation that the Appreciated Value (as defined above) has to be positive and so according to the rule
occasioned by such transfer or distribution or payment of insurance proceeds to the Artist (or Artist's agent for the purpose) within thirty days of the sale.
the artist has 30 days to pay up (as that is the only way the seller can pay a negative amount).
Interestingly, if the artist fails to pay up, this rule would surely kick in:
Any failure to follow these terms without prior consent of Artist will forfeit the status of the Artwork as a legitimate work of art. The item will no longer be considered a genuine work by the Artist and any value associated with it will be reduced to its value as a material object and not a work of art.
and the artist would no longer consider it a work of art. Similarly, should a renter^Wpurchaser of the item fail to keep to the conditions, this rule would also kick in.
However, I wonder exactly how the original "artist" is going to cope if someone like Marcel Duchamp, takes the now material object and attaches the found art moniker to it, calls it something like "black cube", signs it with white paint and declares it as art again?
Mefinx you mean 0xFFFF = 0110 0101 0101 0011 0101 in BCD?
Whatever the base (>= 2), 101 / 10 is *ALWAYS* 10.1 in that base.
Shirley you made sum mishtake:
binary -> decimal: 10.1 -> 2.5
octal -> decimal: 10.1 -> 8.125
hexadecimal -> decimal: 10.1 -> 16.0625
I'd love to know in what base 10.1 converts to 128.5 in decimal. (It can't be base 128 as implied by 10 => 128, similarly it can't be 2 as implied by.1 =>.5 = 1/2)
Mefinx you also missed a base:
base 3 -> decimal: 10.1 -> 3.33....
In fact for any base not of the form "(2^m)(5^n)" any [proper] rational fraction in that base is a recurring decimal (in base 10); thus 0.1 in base 3 is 1/3 in decimal and is a recurring fraction in decimal.
Similarly, any fraction that is not of the form m/(2^n) in decimal is recurring in binary and cannot be represented exactly; 0.1 in decimal = 1/10 which is NOT of the form m/(2^n) and thus cannot be exactly represented in binary - it is in fact 0.0001 1001 1001... (or in hexadecimal (for easier reading): 0.199...) and so will introduce rounding errors.
...The patent examiner cannot have understood the patent...
Errm, patents are supposed to be usable by someone skilled in the art to produce the invention; no? If the patent examiner can't understand what the patent is about then either:
a) The patent examiner isn't skilled in the art; or
b) The patent isn't disclosing the [full] details of the patent [clearly enough for a skilled person];
or both. In the case of (b), the patent should be instantly rejected as it doesn't fulfil the criteria of disclosing details for a limited monopoly,
In the case of (a) the examiner should refer to someone who is [so skilled] to give guidance and to fail to do so is negligence (and so either personally or the USPTO should be liable for costs incurred in defending against such a patent when the patent is shown to be issued wrongly).
The Accumulator of the 6502 8-bit processor (circa 1978) now contains 0x31; the top nybble contains the MSD in decimal.
Ok, so this is actually only using only 1/2 the word size - 4 bits - packed 2 to a byte.
But this isn't what seems to be implied by the summary, namely, instead of using a BCD style, you only use the first B^n numbers of the word, ieeg for 8-bit and 10^2, you use 0x00-0x63 to represent 0-99 and you still have to convert the binary to decimal, just that each word contains a single base B number, which for B=10^n would be n decimal digits.
And that sounds very similar to the problem we were set as the end of the 1st year of my maths degree back in 1984 as part of a computing unit:: calculate every [decimal] digit of 2^3000 using a CBM PET. In BASIC the obvious answer was to use an array of "bignums" (each holding, say, 0-999) and then to print out each element with leading zeros (except the first). (Choosing 0-999 means that each element contains the "normal" 3 digit split for writing big numbers.)
Whether you use a comma or a period is very unlikely to have anything to do with "logic", and more to do with language.
It's more likely to be the other way round: if a comma is used to separate the whole from the decimal, it is read as a comma, similarly if a point is used it is read as a point.
Danish is using the system we used to use in the UK (when I was a school) - long numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Thousand Million = 10^9 (= Milliard), Billion = 10^12,... unlike the American short numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Billion = 10^9,... (very metric!)
Here in the states the crime rate really started to rise quickly in the sixties and seventies, when we started reducing sentences and emphasizing rehabilitation over the incapacitation model we had in the fifties and prior.
Congratulations on obeying the first rule of assumed consequences.
Or to put it another way:
"June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court has ruled that school prayer and Bible reading shall cease in all public school systems. It is now official; God has been removed from the classroom in the United States of America."
along with your
"Here in the states the crime rate really started to rise quickly in the sixties..."
would suggest that it was the banning of "school prayer and Bible reading" at the beginning of the sixties that caused the crime rate the rise.
So which is it? The change in sentencing or the change in religious observance? Or both; or neither and something else entirely different, or was it just one of the factors, along with many others which if one was missing would make a little, but not much reduction in the crime rate?
[Sorry, after reading "How to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff, I have to question every statistic, and statistical conclusion (eg regression) presented to me.]
IIRC the method to encrypt was to get the relevant wheels in the relevant order, set the key letters, insert into machine, use the initial setting, and plug up the letter swaps - these were changed on a daily basis. The operator then chose a 3 character key for his message and typed this in twice to create the first 6 characters of the encrypted message; finally, the wheels were reset to the operator's chosen key and the message encrypted.
On receipt, the daily initial setting was set up and the first 6 characters of the message entered whereupon the key should come out twice (allowing transmission errors to be spotted...and also allowing a weak spot for breakers).
The operators, having to send lots of messages tended to get lazy and use sequences on the keyboard, eg if they had been using the QWERTY keyboard, they would use keys like: QWE, QAZ, WSX, ZAQ, XSW, EWQ, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Serif managed it quite well in Windows 3.1 days - it took quite a bit of searching to eventually find the file containing the trial expiry information which wasn't deleted when the software was removed (and so reclaim the disk space it was using): it wasn't an obvious config file.
It's more likely to be will not may run into similar problems in the future
TCO of owning Windows just got bigger...^_^
Or perhaps make those who insist on using DRM responsible for cost of replacement of damaged goods, ieeg if disk becomes unreadable and user was prevented from making, and using, a backup due to DRM, then publisher of disk becomes legally liable for replacing the disk and will bear all costs for that replacement, including the cost of user having to contact them.
are theft and should be treated as such. By being unskippable, I am forced to provide electrical power to my DVD player for their duration; that is electricity for which I have paid and once gone is unable to be reused. I am supposed to watch those ads, so I am also expected to have to power my display and sound devices [could be same device] for the duration - more electrical power being stolen. There is also my time which has been stolen. When an unskippable ad appears at the beginning of a DVD which contains 2 or more episodes of a series, each time the DVD is inserted to watch an episode, the electricity is stolen again.
It would be funny if it wasn't true the hypocrasy of those who wish to give us information (incorrect information at that) about theft use theft to do it.
The global climate change is a very good argument against them: a 30 episode series with a 30 second unskippable ad amounts to 15mins worth of electricity [and time stolen] when viewing all the episodes for each disk [set] that is used - it soon adds up to quite a lot of wasted power.
You sure? Activation of Windows would disagree with you on that point as if it sees your hardware modified (past some extent of which I'm not privvy as I do not use Windows) it tells you to reactivate it (or so I'm informed).
So you're happy that:
and you have no recourse to get them to fix it as your relationship with them has ended now that they have your money and you have their product?
I doubt very much if that would work. If one machine was sending out the mail then yes, it would throttle it, but with a botnet which will have more than enough machines the spam would still be sent out, but the spam sent from each individual machine would be below the threshold and so no dent whatsoever
If the user of a machine also sent out enough emails, then the spam extras may not be noticed.
It's more likely that you'd complain to the ISP that they've got the traffic wrong.
[emphasis added] You've just shown the problem: Windows. I don't use Windows, so why should I have to pay for for my emails because Microsoft can't write a secure OS, despite the virus problems harking back to the good old DOS days - they've had plenty of experience of how viruses could enter their systems since BEFORE Windows and yet they've still got gaping holes; they obviously do NOT learn from their mistakes...or perhaps they do, just the learning is how to extract more money from their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers.
Not for them: they wouldn't be paying for their emails in the first place - the cost would be born by the customer (sic) of Microsoft who bought a licence to use Windows (as it already is in terms of anti-virus software, re-installing OS, etc)
Except that the spam isn't blocked. It just costs the machine's owner not the spammer, so any spam sent by a spammer costs him/her very little - they just steal the bandwidth and electricity (and, if implemented, the e-stamps).
Losing a machine from a botnet won't worry a spammer very much as new infections will add to the botnet.
Back in December 2003 Microsoft admitted that Windows was not fit for purpose and gave the advice that before doing anything customers (sic) needed to download anti-virus software to protect the system from the deluge of viruses and worms that target the flaws in Microsoft's software as soon as you take it online. Even if the machine is cleaned, it is very likely to be re-infected and the botnet expanded again, as well as with the "new" machines that aren't protected that become part of a botnet, even if unused for the moment..
Clearly a case of the following driver not driving with due care and attention, or of not leaving a proper gap between them and the preceding vehicle?
Are you saying it would be perfectly acceptable for a rear-end shunt if the first car slammed on the brakes because a child suddenly ran out in front of it?
At least with [most] traffic lights the following driver should be able to see them and should know that they may change and that the preceding driver may slam their brakes on [in Toledo, OH] and so prepare for this by easing off the gas slightly and increasing the gap slightly (more if there is a following vehicle that is too close to them) in readiness to brake if necessary.
Subtle difference to the analogy:
MS embraced and extended Java and called it Java, thus breaking the Java standard that is supposed to run everywhere - MS Java can only be expected to run [properly] on a MS JRE, NOT ANY JRE.;
whereas Google took Java, possibly embraced and extended, BUT did NOT call it Java - there can be no confusion over the resultant code being able to run everywhere there is a JRE - but also created a cross-compiler which took Java [source] and converted it to their version.
The problem comes in that Oracle are claiming that Software Patents cover Java and thus are being violated as only licensed for use in Java [and JRE] and NOT for use in a different product [I think - I seem to remember on a casual reading about this case that Java licensing for Mobile devices being more expensive than for a "desktop" computer and Google not willing to pay for the obvious market inflation, hence "developing" their own Runtime Environment which also had the benefit of being able to be optimised better].
Is it completely irrelevant?
If you shoot somebody because their bodyguard was incompetent and didn't ensure that his protectee was properly protected, then I'm sure that relatives of the shootee would have grounds to sue him for at least breach of contract, or perhaps they might go as far as considering that the bodyguard aided and abetted you by turning a blind eye, stepping out of the line of fire, etc?
If what he did was accomplished in large part due to the actions of those who were supposed to ensure the system was protected from such intrusions, then they were obviously aiding and abetting him (insider job) - why has their been no headline about their prosecutions? Or is it they are not being prosecuted?
In which case, the deduction is that they were incompetent, in which case why have we not heard much in terms of action against those who were responsible for security (eg losing their jobs)?
If a householder was to leave their doors open and they got burgled, especially in a neighbourhood where the required security is that doors are locked shut, would all the blame be put on the burglar? I'm pretty sure they'd find their household insurance company wouldn't think so.
Join the dole, 3 million can't be wrong
It's not a two wheeled enigma for at least three reasons:
1) A plain text letter can be encrypted as itself (something an enigma machine cannot do due to physical design).
2) In an enigma machine each wheel is wired in a fixed "permutation"; in the Chaocipher "machine" each wheel is "rewired" depending upon the letter just encrypted.
3) In an enigma machine it is necessary to rotate the wheels semi-independently (ie like the wheels in a tape counter, each one causing the next one to rotate one letter each time it makes a complete revolution) whereas in the Chaocipher "machine" the wheels do not actually need to rotate - by rotating the wheels it makes the "rewiring" easier to explain.
The "rewiring" could possibly be seen as the effect of rotating the enigma wheels, but without a closer look at the algorithm than that I have done I cannot definitely say but my gut feeling is that it is not - I am sure a properly devised plain text with 676 (26^2) characters would show that they are not equivalent as after encrypting the 676th character the 2 wheel enigma machine will now be back in the position in which it started and the Chaocipher "machine" will not.
The biggest problem is that licencers want to tell you you're buying the product in big letters, but put in small print that you're actually only buying a licence to buy the product. How often do you see the advertising "Own the latest film on DVD" when you're really owning a licence to view a copy of the film on DVD?
Whilst selling you the film, they switch the film for a licence to view it.
No it doesn't. It means that for every 100 machine infected, 1/10 were belonging to those who knew what they were doing. In fact, it is actually possible (and likely given that it appears that most people do not know what they're doing [with Windows]) that you're chance of being infected if you know what you're doing is GREATER than if you don't know what you're doing!
Only if the NUMBER of machines owned by people who know what they're doing EQUALS the NUMBER of machines owned by people who don't know what they're doing will it mean you've got a 1/10 of the chance of being infected if you know what you are doing vs no knowing which means that the chance you've got of being infected if you know what you're doing is 1/9 that if you don't., since 1/9 of 9/10 is 1/10. Here's why:
<nerd mode>
The chance of being infected is
also
and
However, all we know is
but we can use
similarly for
Then the chance to be infected provided you know what you're doing against that if you don't. is...what? I'll assume that it means how much more likely you are to be infected given you know what you're doing vs if you don't, ie
I suspect that the majority of Windows users do not know what they're doing, thus: Pr(nK) > Pr(K) meaning that Pr(nK) / Pr(K) > 1 and ch(K vs nK) = (1/9 * [> 1]) > 1/9.
In particular, if the number of those who don't know what they're are doing (as I guess most people would suspect) is such that there are more than 9 times those who do know what they're doing, then
then the chance of being infected knowing vs not knowing is
meaning that you're MORE likely to be infected if you KNOW what you're doing then if you DON'T!
</nerd mode>
Bob-A-Job solicitors?
Personally I prefer the term "populous" - ie a greater proportion of the "population" (the [statistical] "population" [in this case] being the computers).
Using Microsoft speak, boys are the more POPULAR babies as more boys are born than girls! Do parents REALLY have that much choice in the sex of their child? However, by the age of 10, girls are the more POPULAR children [as there are more of them] - have parents decided that boys don't make good children and [gender] swapped them for girls? [The real reason has to do with infant mortality.]
[OPCS data for population figures for England and Wales was the source of the proportions of boys/girls I used above.]
Note there is only a ceiling to the value, no floor: if after purchasing, I feel that the value has decreased, I can establish this as the new value for the Artwork and so set it as the minimum for the auction.
Regarding the 15%, according to this term:
the eBay auction fees are the responsibilty of the collector, not the artist. This looks more like a "beat the copyright limitation" of n years to ensure income permanently:
Note that it resells itself every 7 days, every week - the artist gets 15% of every change in value every week, a nice little wage packet.
There is no statement that the increase has to be positive; mathematically, a decrease is a negative increase. ergo according to the rule:
there is no limitation that the Appreciated Value (as defined above) has to be positive and so according to the rule
the artist has 30 days to pay up (as that is the only way the seller can pay a negative amount).
Interestingly, if the artist fails to pay up, this rule would surely kick in:
and the artist would no longer consider it a work of art. Similarly, should a renter^Wpurchaser of the item fail to keep to the conditions, this rule would also kick in.
However, I wonder exactly how the original "artist" is going to cope if someone like Marcel Duchamp, takes the now material object and attaches the found art moniker to it, calls it something like "black cube", signs it with white paint and declares it as art again?
Whatever the base (>= 2), 101 / 10 is *ALWAYS* 10.1 in that base.
Shirley you made sum mishtake:
I'd love to know in what base 10.1 converts to 128.5 in decimal. (It can't be base 128 as implied by 10 => 128, similarly it can't be 2 as implied by .1 => .5 = 1/2)
Mefinx you also missed a base:
In fact for any base not of the form "(2^m)(5^n)" any [proper] rational fraction in that base is a recurring decimal (in base 10); thus 0.1 in base 3 is 1/3 in decimal and is a recurring fraction in decimal.
Similarly, any fraction that is not of the form m/(2^n) in decimal is recurring in binary and cannot be represented exactly; 0.1 in decimal = 1/10 which is NOT of the form m/(2^n) and thus cannot be exactly represented in binary - it is in fact 0.0001 1001 1001... (or in hexadecimal (for easier reading): 0.199...) and so will introduce rounding errors.
Talk about stupid errors...
...The patent examiner cannot have understood the patent...
Errm, patents are supposed to be usable by someone skilled in the art to produce the invention; no? If the patent examiner can't understand what the patent is about then either:
or both. In the case of (b), the patent should be instantly rejected as it doesn't fulfil the criteria of disclosing details for a limited monopoly,
In the case of (a) the examiner should refer to someone who is [so skilled] to give guidance and to fail to do so is negligence (and so either personally or the USPTO should be liable for costs incurred in defending against such a patent when the patent is shown to be issued wrongly).
The Accumulator of the 6502 8-bit processor (circa 1978) now contains 0x31; the top nybble contains the MSD in decimal.
Ok, so this is actually only using only 1/2 the word size - 4 bits - packed 2 to a byte.
But this isn't what seems to be implied by the summary, namely, instead of using a BCD style, you only use the first B^n numbers of the word, ieeg for 8-bit and 10^2, you use 0x00-0x63 to represent 0-99 and you still have to convert the binary to decimal, just that each word contains a single base B number, which for B=10^n would be n decimal digits.
And that sounds very similar to the problem we were set as the end of the 1st year of my maths degree back in 1984 as part of a computing unit:: calculate every [decimal] digit of 2^3000 using a CBM PET. In BASIC the obvious answer was to use an array of "bignums" (each holding, say, 0-999) and then to print out each element with leading zeros (except the first). (Choosing 0-999 means that each element contains the "normal" 3 digit split for writing big numbers.)
I'm waiting^Wworking for the day when my wii in the wii fit doesn't change shape dramatically when matching mine...
It's more likely to be the other way round: if a comma is used to separate the whole from the decimal, it is read as a comma, similarly if a point is used it is read as a point.
... unlike the American short numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Billion = 10^9, ... (very metric!)
Danish is using the system we used to use in the UK (when I was a school) - long numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Thousand Million = 10^9 (= Milliard), Billion = 10^12,
Only on your side of the pond....on this side:
Congratulations on obeying the first rule of assumed consequences.
Or to put it another way:
along with your
would suggest that it was the banning of "school prayer and Bible reading" at the beginning of the sixties that caused the crime rate the rise.
So which is it? The change in sentencing or the change in religious observance? Or both; or neither and something else entirely different, or was it just one of the factors, along with many others which if one was missing would make a little, but not much reduction in the crime rate?
[Sorry, after reading "How to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff, I have to question every statistic, and statistical conclusion (eg regression) presented to me.]
IIRC the method to encrypt was to get the relevant wheels in the relevant order, set the key letters, insert into machine, use the initial setting, and plug up the letter swaps - these were changed on a daily basis. The operator then chose a 3 character key for his message and typed this in twice to create the first 6 characters of the encrypted message; finally, the wheels were reset to the operator's chosen key and the message encrypted.
On receipt, the daily initial setting was set up and the first 6 characters of the message entered whereupon the key should come out twice (allowing transmission errors to be spotted...and also allowing a weak spot for breakers).
The operators, having to send lots of messages tended to get lazy and use sequences on the keyboard, eg if they had been using the QWERTY keyboard, they would use keys like: QWE, QAZ, WSX, ZAQ, XSW, EWQ, etc.