Generally agreed that Thinkpads should be at or near the top of the list.
But maybe not quite "any Thinkpad": some of the more recent models have RAM soldered to the motherboard or have just one SODIMM slot. The first makes it hard to upgrade (likely on purpose: you want more RAM, you have to buy it from Lenovo) and the second hurts performance (single channel rather than dual-channel RAM configuration).
I looked at Thinkpads recently and liked the specs and price on the Thinkpad 13: two SODIMM slots (supports 16 GB of RAM, maybe even 32), an i5 or i7, and a 1920x1080, matte, non-touch 13" screen. I liked the old Thinkpad keyboards more than the new ones, but the latter are still much better than your average laptop keyboard (and, of course, you get the Touchpoint---a must!).
At higher price points there are other good options, but you should be able to get something like the above for under $1k. Hard to beat.
> People, the very same issue would exist if this happened with savings accounts. There's nothing wrong with savings accounts,
> but if a chain of people did stupid things with the money in them causing it all to be lost, would we be up in arms that savings
> accounts are bad, or would we be up in arms about the criminals who misused them? I hope the latter.
The key difference is that a loan is leveraged, a savings account isn't. The maximum damage you can do in a savings account takes that
account to zero, which by definition is limited by your actual earning power (how else did the money get there?). The maximum damage you
can do with a loan, especially one that's based on a fraudulent assessment of income, is multiplied by the leverage ratio. This is an extremely
nontrivial distinction.
If I have $5, I can lose $5 and end up at zero. If you let me borrow dollars at 100:1, then I can borrow $500. Now when I lose all the
money I have, I'm in a much worse position.
This is a hoax. JP Morgan doesn't have a massive short position in silver, and you will not hurt them financially by buying silver. You will, however, hurt yourself, considering how silver is riding a massive bubble right now (compare its performance to that of the other precious metals over the last year).
Don't take investment advice from people who motivate you with spite.
Engineers for chip makers are complete fucking morons if this is really happening.
Power dissipation and heat are generally considered system-level problems. That is, the chipmaker specifies "max power dissipation X" and the board designer has to figure out how to move that amount of heat off the part. For example, NVidia says "this will dissipate 200 Watts max," and Asus builds an appropriate cooling system.
This is an area that gets neglected a lot because it's expensive to move that much heat around, and because lots of people are just bad at doing thermal design. Given a few boards with precisely the same chipset, it's very possible (likely, even) that some will fail and others have no issues.
No it's not. A clueless person can be 100% convinced that they will get ahead as a result of their actions, and just be wrong about that fact. It's not altruism that makes them clueless, it's, well, cluelessness.
So yes, an altruist is clueless, but not all clueless are altruists.
As in, the culture of the company.
I'm not a software engineer any more, I'm an electrical engineer (I worked as a coder while I was in college). In particular, I'm an analog (and sometime digital) circuit designer. I learned nothing about business practices, Six Sigma, et al in school (S.B. and M.Eng in EE and CS from MIT). Why? Because I spent all of my time taking real EE/CS classes. When I got a job in the industry, _then_ I started learning all the practical stuff I hadn't had time for in school. Why do EE companies do it this way? Because the cost of failure is so high: we spend a million dollars taping out a chip and it doesn't work because I decided to cowboy my circuit and we're out our money.
Many software companies don't see such large quantization steps in their failure cost: we lost a week here or there because the newbie's coding practices don't mesh with the rest of the team, but management is just watching their Gantt chart and we'll push on them to hit their milestone on time anyway; fuck 'em, they're just code monkeys anyway.
See the difference? The assumption that designing bad software has a small cost (mostly because it's deferred until much later when it's discovered, plus the assumption that any bug that's discovered is easy to fix) is built into the management style of the software company; the assumption that failure is extremely costly and the necessary culture of rigor are built into the management style of the EE company (well, not all EE companies... but there are shitty companies in every industry).
So why not teach EE students all about Six Sigma et cetera? Well... when? I took 5 or 6 classes a term (4 is average at MIT) and still took 6 years to do my degrees. There's just too much to cover in EE/CS to get it done---and yet there's no "cowboy issue" in my industry, as far as I can tell.
So is there really less to learn in Software Engineering? In other words, is this just a fundamental difference between EE/CS and SE? I say absolutely not. There's an incredible amount of material to cover in SE without getting into business practices: first, pretty much any CS topic is fair game for software engineering (yes, I know they're not quite the same thing). Then there are more EE-like subjects that most SE people don't get, but should: signal processing, feedback systems (yes, they exist in software just as in hardware, and they can be analyzed with the same fundamental tools). There's plenty of math to learn: discrete math, algorithms, set/group/category theory, et cetera. Then there are classes on system architecture, complexity management, and a million other really hard problems. Given all of this, and only four years to fit it all, any time spent on business practices and Six Sigma is an unmitigated waste of time. It can be learned faster and better on the job---after all, you may as well learn the business practices at the company you work for, while actually doing useful work.
Far from producing "unemployable" grads, a program with no focus at all on "business practices" will turn out coders who have wrung from college everything that ought to be learned in an academic environment, and who are ready to be apprenticed to an experienced mentor who will teach them the practical details that are dirt simple to understand.
In other words, let Vineet Nayar's coders waste their time learning about bullshit Business Practices instead of expanding their minds by learning something difficult and interesting. You need code monkeys to do shit work anyway. There's always a lowest common denominator somewhere.
Or how about this: do you think when you go interview at Google they're more likely to ask you about Six Sigma, or about problems arising in the design of a secure/anonymous/reliable distributed filesystem?
There's also Super Jumping, Super Speed, and Teleportation, in increasing order of speed and difficulty to use.
Don't forget the powerset (Kinetics Defender) that allows you to grant other people super speed and super jump, and gives the toon Siphon Speed by level 5ish. And of course, there's the utility power in the Teleport powerset that lets you teleport your allies to you! (This is extremely useful for helping low-level characters, when travelling through gigantic zones like the Shadow Shard, or for positioning the group during dangerous missions).
My kin/psy defender was my favorite toon by far. Ahh, to go back to the i4 days with no targeting limits just for a few Fulcrum Shift / Psy Wails. Brings a tear to the eye.
I work at a mixed signal IC company that is, on the digital side, principally a Verilog shop. We do have one or two projects that use VHDL, and maybe even one or two that use both. From a practical applicability point of view, Verilog is a bit more popular as far as I know, but this should not be taken to imply that you will do your students a disservice teaching them VHDL. When we interview digital designers, we don't ask them "do you know Verilog?" we ask them "do you know digital design?" The language is far far less important than the underlying concepts.
The biggest mistake you can make is concentrating on the language and expecting the programming skills will apply to digital design just because the syntax of Verilog looks like the syntax of C (or VHDL looks like Pascal, if you squint a lot). First, learn how to do digital design, then learn how to describe those designs in an HDL. Things might go slightly faster if you are familiar with the syntactic structures (i.e., C coders will feel more comfortable using Verilog), but trying to take the "do-while--if-then-else--for" mentality of a procedural coder and trying to jam it into an FPGA is going to be a painful road to failure.
It's time for a bad analogy! "Hey guys, I have a bunch of novelists whom I want to teach to write medical textbooks. Should I teach them to do it in English, or Spanish?" The answer is "whichever they're more familiar with already... but first teach them medicine."
I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense. When there is rule of law, a person who ignores same and takes justice into his own hands is a vigilante. There is no rule of law on the internet. Therefore, strictly speaking, there can be no vigilantes.
Moreover, even if you're not as much of a persnickety douchebag as I'm being here, you're still forced to admit that this isn't really vigilantism: reporting to a provider that one of their clients is in breach of contract isn't "taking matters into your own hands," it's being a good netizen.
Let's examine this further: under some looser definition of "vigilante," examples of qualifying behavior include defacing offending websites, DoS attacks, threats of violence against SPAM purveyors, destruction of associated computer equipment, et cetera. All of these have in common that the "vigilante" is taking it upon himself to retributively violate the rights (or right-like constructs) of the offender in some semblance of justice.
It is from this violation that complaints against vigilantes stem, by most accounts: you have some rights, and they're considered inviolate except by the government (by which you somehow agree to be governed) just in the case that you violate a law. Having come to such an agreement, you find your rights abrogated by "vigilantes" who are not associated with the government and therefor whom you do not consent to enforce laws upon you.
It's pretty clear that even under this looser definition the above didn't violate any of the spammers' rights: that the spammers were violating their providers' terms of service was public information. Bringing attention to this public fact cannot be construed in any way to violate the rights of the spammers.
Actually, BTL (biomass-to-liquid fuel) is a viable alternative to biodiesel. On the upside, it is much closer chemically to petroleum diesel than biodiesel (methyl or ethyl esters). This has the advantage of not violating warranties (Bio does, in some cases) and being more energy dense than B100. On the downside, it takes a lot of energy to run the BTL process, so it pushes the carbon bubble elsewhere (hopefully, IMHO, to nuclear power).
Addressing your first question: modern diesel engines with Diesel Particular Filters (e.g., the 2009 VW Jetta TDI) could experience some issues with biodiesel. In short, the DPF is designed to trap particulates which are periodically (every 1000 miles or so) burned off by injecting diesel into a specially designed fuel catalyst in the exhaust. This injection uses the cylinder fuel injectors during the exhaust stroke. Unfortunately, biodiesel has a higher boiling point than petroleum diesel, which leads to condensation on cylinder walls and consequent crankcase oil contamination. (reference)
A recent study at MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab indicates that this contamination might not be as deleterious as previously believed despite the fact that the highly polar methyl esters compete with ZDDP on engine surfaces.
A couple drivers on the TDIClub forums are running B100 (100% biodiesel) in their 2009 TDIs with the express intent of directly testing oil quality and engine wear. While 2 cars do not a comprehensive study make, their experiences, oil analyses, et cetera will be invaluable in allowing owners to decide what risks they're willing to take. (For reference, previous versions of the VW TDI engine came with stern warnings that no biodiesel should be run at all, and yet many owners have run B100 for 100k to 200k miles with no problems attributable to the biodiesel).
My guess is that within the next few years all diesel vehicles will be designed to work well with some percentage of biodiesel, since governments around the world (including the EU and several American states) are mandating a schedule of increased biodiesel percentage in their petroleum diesel. Combined with the maturation of BTL, diesel vehicles have a far brighter future than the brain-dead food-for-(poor)-fuel economics that is E85.
I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Well, I have. I just bought one of the Jetta TDI wagons and it's amazing. I can get 50 MPG in mixed city/highway driving plus intermittent AC with some mild hypermiling techniques (fixed consumption hill climb, engine braking, anticipating traffic ahead; no pulse/glide or unpowered driving) and I expect that the fuel consumption will go down measurably as the engine breaks in (peak compression increases by 20% over the break-in of a VW TDI engine). All this in a car that's big enough to fit five people plus cargo.
and their advertising-based business models mean they compete more with Los Angeles and New York than their Silicon Valley brethren
People often use "Silicon Valley" to mean "technology companies," and you have no trouble understanding that they mean the latter as opposed to some geographical region. The same is true of New York and Los Angeles in the above. "New York" alludes to big business (think: New York Stock Exchange), and Los Angeles to big media (think: Hollywood).
No offense, but you shouldn't be writing book reviews if you can't parse the writing.
Let's imagine that the Mozilla developers had modified the release notes for 2.0.0.12 so that it wasn't obvious what they'd fixed. Would that have been any better? Of course not. I can grab the code, diff against 2.0.0.11, take note of the changes, and presumably figure out why they were made. Now I can craft a working exploit against 2.0.0.11. After testing it on Firefox, what's the first thing I might try? How about... see if other browsers have the same problem?
So keeping in the fix but not mentioning it in the release notes is out. What, then... not patch the flaw? Yeah. Right.
Opera might be a nifty browser, but apparently its authors are whiny bitches.
You seemingly fail to comprehend that the reason for this is that China is a terrible market for any kind of disposable spending because its people are for the most part extremely poor.
It's not that it'll get stolen---it just won't sell.
"All the knowledge in the world" != "readability first."
Wikipedia contained all the information you wanted, just not in a format that you liked because it required you to learn lots of things.
Guess what? There's a lot to music theory. If you want a dumbed-down version of it, YES, go get a dumbed down book. Wikipedia's purpose is to contain _all_the_knowledge_, not "happy eddie's music primer."
I'm sorry that your education required so much damned learning.
The network isn't the problem here, your computer's configuration is. All of my machines can safely connect to an untrusted network (and they do---my non-firewalled, non-NATted internet feed) without being turned into zombies.
The message here shouldn't be "don't connect to untrusted networks," it should be "secure your machine."
Once you do that, these guys are just being nice and giving you a free connection!
Getting randomness isn't interesting. Thermal noise is truly random, perfectly white, and easy to generate---it's as hard as passing a current through a resistor. Want more noise power? Avalanche breakdown, with appropriate whitening, works fine.
Unless they've come up with an interesting way for two people in disparate locations to observe the same quasar and both independently observe the same random phenomena in a way which reliably and securely gives them access to the pad with no communication channel between them, this just isn't interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally agreed that Thinkpads should be at or near the top of the list.
But maybe not quite "any Thinkpad": some of the more recent models have RAM soldered to the motherboard or have just one SODIMM slot. The first makes it hard to upgrade (likely on purpose: you want more RAM, you have to buy it from Lenovo) and the second hurts performance (single channel rather than dual-channel RAM configuration).
I looked at Thinkpads recently and liked the specs and price on the Thinkpad 13: two SODIMM slots (supports 16 GB of RAM, maybe even 32), an i5 or i7, and a 1920x1080, matte, non-touch 13" screen. I liked the old Thinkpad keyboards more than the new ones, but the latter are still much better than your average laptop keyboard (and, of course, you get the Touchpoint---a must!).
At higher price points there are other good options, but you should be able to get something like the above for under $1k. Hard to beat.
> People, the very same issue would exist if this happened with savings accounts. There's nothing wrong with savings accounts,
> but if a chain of people did stupid things with the money in them causing it all to be lost, would we be up in arms that savings
> accounts are bad, or would we be up in arms about the criminals who misused them? I hope the latter.
The key difference is that a loan is leveraged, a savings account isn't. The maximum damage you can do in a savings account takes that
account to zero, which by definition is limited by your actual earning power (how else did the money get there?). The maximum damage you
can do with a loan, especially one that's based on a fraudulent assessment of income, is multiplied by the leverage ratio. This is an extremely
nontrivial distinction.
If I have $5, I can lose $5 and end up at zero. If you let me borrow dollars at 100:1, then I can borrow $500. Now when I lose all the
money I have, I'm in a much worse position.
This is a hoax. JP Morgan doesn't have a massive short position in silver, and you will not hurt them financially by buying silver. You will, however, hurt yourself, considering how silver is riding a massive bubble right now (compare its performance to that of the other precious metals over the last year). Don't take investment advice from people who motivate you with spite.
Engineers for chip makers are complete fucking morons if this is really happening.
Power dissipation and heat are generally considered system-level problems. That is, the chipmaker specifies "max power dissipation X" and the board designer has to figure out how to move that amount of heat off the part. For example, NVidia says "this will dissipate 200 Watts max," and Asus builds an appropriate cooling system. This is an area that gets neglected a lot because it's expensive to move that much heat around, and because lots of people are just bad at doing thermal design. Given a few boards with precisely the same chipset, it's very possible (likely, even) that some will fail and others have no issues.
(In other words, s/chip makers/card makers/.)
They both have jobs; they did this in their spare time.
No it's not. A clueless person can be 100% convinced that they will get ahead as a result of their actions, and just be wrong about that fact. It's not altruism that makes them clueless, it's, well, cluelessness. So yes, an altruist is clueless, but not all clueless are altruists.
begs the question
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
As in, the culture of the company. I'm not a software engineer any more, I'm an electrical engineer (I worked as a coder while I was in college). In particular, I'm an analog (and sometime digital) circuit designer. I learned nothing about business practices, Six Sigma, et al in school (S.B. and M.Eng in EE and CS from MIT). Why? Because I spent all of my time taking real EE/CS classes. When I got a job in the industry, _then_ I started learning all the practical stuff I hadn't had time for in school. Why do EE companies do it this way? Because the cost of failure is so high: we spend a million dollars taping out a chip and it doesn't work because I decided to cowboy my circuit and we're out our money.
Many software companies don't see such large quantization steps in their failure cost: we lost a week here or there because the newbie's coding practices don't mesh with the rest of the team, but management is just watching their Gantt chart and we'll push on them to hit their milestone on time anyway; fuck 'em, they're just code monkeys anyway.
See the difference? The assumption that designing bad software has a small cost (mostly because it's deferred until much later when it's discovered, plus the assumption that any bug that's discovered is easy to fix) is built into the management style of the software company; the assumption that failure is extremely costly and the necessary culture of rigor are built into the management style of the EE company (well, not all EE companies... but there are shitty companies in every industry).
So why not teach EE students all about Six Sigma et cetera? Well... when? I took 5 or 6 classes a term (4 is average at MIT) and still took 6 years to do my degrees. There's just too much to cover in EE/CS to get it done---and yet there's no "cowboy issue" in my industry, as far as I can tell.
So is there really less to learn in Software Engineering? In other words, is this just a fundamental difference between EE/CS and SE? I say absolutely not. There's an incredible amount of material to cover in SE without getting into business practices: first, pretty much any CS topic is fair game for software engineering (yes, I know they're not quite the same thing). Then there are more EE-like subjects that most SE people don't get, but should: signal processing, feedback systems (yes, they exist in software just as in hardware, and they can be analyzed with the same fundamental tools). There's plenty of math to learn: discrete math, algorithms, set/group/category theory, et cetera. Then there are classes on system architecture, complexity management, and a million other really hard problems. Given all of this, and only four years to fit it all, any time spent on business practices and Six Sigma is an unmitigated waste of time. It can be learned faster and better on the job---after all, you may as well learn the business practices at the company you work for, while actually doing useful work.
Far from producing "unemployable" grads, a program with no focus at all on "business practices" will turn out coders who have wrung from college everything that ought to be learned in an academic environment, and who are ready to be apprenticed to an experienced mentor who will teach them the practical details that are dirt simple to understand.
In other words, let Vineet Nayar's coders waste their time learning about bullshit Business Practices instead of expanding their minds by learning something difficult and interesting. You need code monkeys to do shit work anyway. There's always a lowest common denominator somewhere.
Or how about this: do you think when you go interview at Google they're more likely to ask you about Six Sigma, or about problems arising in the design of a secure/anonymous/reliable distributed filesystem?
There's also Super Jumping, Super Speed, and Teleportation, in increasing order of speed and difficulty to use.
Don't forget the powerset (Kinetics Defender) that allows you to grant other people super speed and super jump, and gives the toon Siphon Speed by level 5ish. And of course, there's the utility power in the Teleport powerset that lets you teleport your allies to you! (This is extremely useful for helping low-level characters, when travelling through gigantic zones like the Shadow Shard, or for positioning the group during dangerous missions).
My kin/psy defender was my favorite toon by far. Ahh, to go back to the i4 days with no targeting limits just for a few Fulcrum Shift / Psy Wails. Brings a tear to the eye.
I work at a mixed signal IC company that is, on the digital side, principally a Verilog shop. We do have one or two projects that use VHDL, and maybe even one or two that use both. From a practical applicability point of view, Verilog is a bit more popular as far as I know, but this should not be taken to imply that you will do your students a disservice teaching them VHDL. When we interview digital designers, we don't ask them "do you know Verilog?" we ask them "do you know digital design?" The language is far far less important than the underlying concepts.
The biggest mistake you can make is concentrating on the language and expecting the programming skills will apply to digital design just because the syntax of Verilog looks like the syntax of C (or VHDL looks like Pascal, if you squint a lot). First, learn how to do digital design, then learn how to describe those designs in an HDL. Things might go slightly faster if you are familiar with the syntactic structures (i.e., C coders will feel more comfortable using Verilog), but trying to take the "do-while--if-then-else--for" mentality of a procedural coder and trying to jam it into an FPGA is going to be a painful road to failure.
It's time for a bad analogy! "Hey guys, I have a bunch of novelists whom I want to teach to write medical textbooks. Should I teach them to do it in English, or Spanish?" The answer is "whichever they're more familiar with already... but first teach them medicine."
-=rsw
I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense. When there is rule of law, a person who ignores same and takes justice into his own hands is a vigilante. There is no rule of law on the internet. Therefore, strictly speaking, there can be no vigilantes.
Moreover, even if you're not as much of a persnickety douchebag as I'm being here, you're still forced to admit that this isn't really vigilantism: reporting to a provider that one of their clients is in breach of contract isn't "taking matters into your own hands," it's being a good netizen.
Let's examine this further: under some looser definition of "vigilante," examples of qualifying behavior include defacing offending websites, DoS attacks, threats of violence against SPAM purveyors, destruction of associated computer equipment, et cetera. All of these have in common that the "vigilante" is taking it upon himself to retributively violate the rights (or right-like constructs) of the offender in some semblance of justice.
It is from this violation that complaints against vigilantes stem, by most accounts: you have some rights, and they're considered inviolate except by the government (by which you somehow agree to be governed) just in the case that you violate a law. Having come to such an agreement, you find your rights abrogated by "vigilantes" who are not associated with the government and therefor whom you do not consent to enforce laws upon you.
It's pretty clear that even under this looser definition the above didn't violate any of the spammers' rights: that the spammers were violating their providers' terms of service was public information. Bringing attention to this public fact cannot be construed in any way to violate the rights of the spammers.
Actually, BTL (biomass-to-liquid fuel) is a viable alternative to biodiesel. On the upside, it is much closer chemically to petroleum diesel than biodiesel (methyl or ethyl esters). This has the advantage of not violating warranties (Bio does, in some cases) and being more energy dense than B100. On the downside, it takes a lot of energy to run the BTL process, so it pushes the carbon bubble elsewhere (hopefully, IMHO, to nuclear power).
Addressing your first question: modern diesel engines with Diesel Particular Filters (e.g., the 2009 VW Jetta TDI) could experience some issues with biodiesel. In short, the DPF is designed to trap particulates which are periodically (every 1000 miles or so) burned off by injecting diesel into a specially designed fuel catalyst in the exhaust. This injection uses the cylinder fuel injectors during the exhaust stroke. Unfortunately, biodiesel has a higher boiling point than petroleum diesel, which leads to condensation on cylinder walls and consequent crankcase oil contamination. (reference)
A recent study at MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab indicates that this contamination might not be as deleterious as previously believed despite the fact that the highly polar methyl esters compete with ZDDP on engine surfaces.
A couple drivers on the TDIClub forums are running B100 (100% biodiesel) in their 2009 TDIs with the express intent of directly testing oil quality and engine wear. While 2 cars do not a comprehensive study make, their experiences, oil analyses, et cetera will be invaluable in allowing owners to decide what risks they're willing to take. (For reference, previous versions of the VW TDI engine came with stern warnings that no biodiesel should be run at all, and yet many owners have run B100 for 100k to 200k miles with no problems attributable to the biodiesel).
My guess is that within the next few years all diesel vehicles will be designed to work well with some percentage of biodiesel, since governments around the world (including the EU and several American states) are mandating a schedule of increased biodiesel percentage in their petroleum diesel. Combined with the maturation of BTL, diesel vehicles have a far brighter future than the brain-dead food-for-(poor)-fuel economics that is E85.
-=rsw
I have no idea why the US hasn't fallen in love with diesel yet.
Well, I have. I just bought one of the Jetta TDI wagons and it's amazing. I can get 50 MPG in mixed city/highway driving plus intermittent AC with some mild hypermiling techniques (fixed consumption hill climb, engine braking, anticipating traffic ahead; no pulse/glide or unpowered driving) and I expect that the fuel consumption will go down measurably as the engine breaks in (peak compression increases by 20% over the break-in of a VW TDI engine). All this in a car that's big enough to fit five people plus cargo.
I think you need Rearden metal. -=rsw
and their advertising-based business models mean they compete more with Los Angeles and New York than their Silicon Valley brethren
People often use "Silicon Valley" to mean "technology companies," and you have no trouble understanding that they mean the latter as opposed to some geographical region. The same is true of New York and Los Angeles in the above. "New York" alludes to big business (think: New York Stock Exchange), and Los Angeles to big media (think: Hollywood).
No offense, but you shouldn't be writing book reviews if you can't parse the writing.
I was about to post almost exactly the same thing.
This Christmas I'm going to buy a stack of The Mythical Man-Months and leave them on all the managers' desks around here...
-=rsw
...is an excellent sport no matter the local spacetime curvature.
-=rsw
Let's imagine that the Mozilla developers had modified the release notes for 2.0.0.12 so that it wasn't obvious what they'd fixed. Would that have been any better? Of course not. I can grab the code, diff against 2.0.0.11, take note of the changes, and presumably figure out why they were made. Now I can craft a working exploit against 2.0.0.11. After testing it on Firefox, what's the first thing I might try? How about... see if other browsers have the same problem?
So keeping in the fix but not mentioning it in the release notes is out. What, then... not patch the flaw? Yeah. Right.
Opera might be a nifty browser, but apparently its authors are whiny bitches.
-=rsw
Androids actually dream of gunfighting with Rick Deckard.
-=rsw
Nosmo King has stolen the Tunguska Meteorite!!!
OMG NOES!!!!1111one!!!lim(x->0)sin(x)/x!!11!1
-=rsw
Lessee here. 1 kW = 1.34 horsepower. So if they're generating 350 kW, that's 456 horsepower. Where is the other 300 coming from?
Stupid tech journalists strike again.
-=rsw
You seemingly fail to comprehend that the reason for this is that China is a terrible market for any kind of disposable spending because its people are for the most part extremely poor.
It's not that it'll get stolen---it just won't sell.
-=rsw
"All the knowledge in the world" != "readability first."
Wikipedia contained all the information you wanted, just not in a format that you liked because it required you to learn lots of things.
Guess what? There's a lot to music theory. If you want a dumbed-down version of it, YES, go get a dumbed down book. Wikipedia's purpose is to contain _all_the_knowledge_, not "happy eddie's music primer."
I'm sorry that your education required so much damned learning.
-=rsw
The network isn't the problem here, your computer's configuration is. All of my machines can safely connect to an untrusted network (and they do---my non-firewalled, non-NATted internet feed) without being turned into zombies.
The message here shouldn't be "don't connect to untrusted networks," it should be "secure your machine."
Once you do that, these guys are just being nice and giving you a free connection!
-rsw
Getting randomness isn't interesting. Thermal noise is truly random, perfectly white, and easy to generate---it's as hard as passing a current through a resistor. Want more noise power? Avalanche breakdown, with appropriate whitening, works fine.
Unless they've come up with an interesting way for two people in disparate locations to observe the same quasar and both independently observe the same random phenomena in a way which reliably and securely gives them access to the pad with no communication channel between them, this just isn't interesting.
-rsw