Actually, I would like to point out that as a taxpayer Al Gore contributed to DoD's budget and therefore took the initiative in creating what we know of today as GPS.
I would like to point out that your calculation of the memory per tab is slightly off. Because the first tab includes memory for both itself and the software overhead, in order to compute the actual memory/tab you need to remove the first tab's contribution from the computation.
In other words, using your observation of 61MB for the first tab in Firefox, you would subtract 61 from 794MB to arrive at 733MB for the remaining 39 tabs. This yields a more accurate memory/tab value of 18.79MB.
You could do the same for the IE memory/tab value as well, except as you noted, there is no software overhead, so the memory/tab would be the same even if you factored it out.
According to the IEEE 754 standard, a double allows for at least 15 significant decimal digits of precision. This means that a number like 9,999,999,999,999.99 can be represented exactly with no rounding. I believe this is more than sufficient to fit Apple's budget in a C double float, using their current market cap of 496 billion.
In contrast, because Apple's budget exceeds 2^32 dollars, using a 32-bit fixed point number would not be sufficient, whereas the double float is.
Rule #3: All security is ultimately "security through obscurity."
That is what is under debate. Is it true that all security is "security through obscurity"? There is a difference between understanding how an encryption algorithm works (obscuring an algorithm), and knowing a particular key to decrypt ciphertext using that same algorithm (obscuring an input to that algorithm).
For instance, it is possible to understand how the Diffie-Hellman algorithm works works -- meaning it is not obscure -- and yet still be unable to decipher the contents of a message encrypted via that algorithm. In this example, as in many others, the workings of an encryption algorithm need not be obscure in order to be considered secure.
In the sense that algorithms rely on their inputs, such as private keys, to be kept hidden (obscure), you would be correct. But since the phrase "security through obscurity" typically refers to the algorithm, and not its inputs, it would be misleading to claim that all security is "security through obscurity".
What Lunix Nutcase meant was that you can write C code for practically any processor out there. The same can't be said for Java. And yes, C is portable; all you have to do is make use of ifdef statements to use the right code for architecture-specific code.
On the other hand, no Internet and sucky electronics:-\
Well now, that's even better. Back then they didn't know what they were missing, hence blissful ignorance. When they started seeing all these new gadgets and toys come along, it was like a new world opened up to them! And for the go-getters, they could take advantage of the new market opportunities and cash in big time! Sounds good to me.
You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping. A crime against humanity, to be sure.
In short, I agree with your statement, and the guy above you is wrong, just plain wrong. If we are going to have another off day, it is far better to have it on such a day that the off days are as evenly spread out as possible. Consistency is usually best.
While you are correct that the best bet is to simply not use the department-issued device for personal texts, the lieutenant specifically stated that the text messages would not be audited. Then they changed their minds and started auditing them. He had a reasonable expectation of privacy, it would seem.
The oral argument at the Supreme Court hearing from both sides can be read here
Going from 5 to 4 is a reduction of 20%; 4 = 0.80 * 5.
The only case where you would see 25% using these two numbers would be when going from 4 to 5, an increase of 25%.
Firefox detects the cycle and gives an appropriate error. IE just thinks the internet is down. And Opera manually fetches the redirect page so that the user can have fun with the cycle:
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I would like to point out that as a taxpayer Al Gore contributed to DoD's budget and therefore took the initiative in creating what we know of today as GPS.
I would like to point out that your calculation of the memory per tab is slightly off. Because the first tab includes memory for both itself and the software overhead, in order to compute the actual memory/tab you need to remove the first tab's contribution from the computation.
In other words, using your observation of 61MB for the first tab in Firefox, you would subtract 61 from 794MB to arrive at 733MB for the remaining 39 tabs. This yields a more accurate memory/tab value of 18.79MB.
You could do the same for the IE memory/tab value as well, except as you noted, there is no software overhead, so the memory/tab would be the same even if you factored it out.
According to the IEEE 754 standard, a double allows for at least 15 significant decimal digits of precision. This means that a number like 9,999,999,999,999.99 can be represented exactly with no rounding. I believe this is more than sufficient to fit Apple's budget in a C double float, using their current market cap of 496 billion.
In contrast, because Apple's budget exceeds 2^32 dollars, using a 32-bit fixed point number would not be sufficient, whereas the double float is.
Nice... However it does not implement castling.
Earlier you made the following statement:
Rule #3: All security is ultimately "security through obscurity."
That is what is under debate. Is it true that all security is "security through obscurity"? There is a difference between understanding how an encryption algorithm works (obscuring an algorithm), and knowing a particular key to decrypt ciphertext using that same algorithm (obscuring an input to that algorithm).
For instance, it is possible to understand how the Diffie-Hellman algorithm works works -- meaning it is not obscure -- and yet still be unable to decipher the contents of a message encrypted via that algorithm. In this example, as in many others, the workings of an encryption algorithm need not be obscure in order to be considered secure.
In the sense that algorithms rely on their inputs, such as private keys, to be kept hidden (obscure), you would be correct. But since the phrase "security through obscurity" typically refers to the algorithm, and not its inputs, it would be misleading to claim that all security is "security through obscurity".
Right, but you should be sure to use the proper units.
1GB equals exactly 1,000,000,000 bytes by definition.
1GiB (notice the 'i') is the one that equals 1,073,741,824 bytes.
Yeah, well, give them 1960's funding and then they might actually be able to improve upon it...
Well, hey, the moment the majority of Americans decide to quit buying stuff that's made in China, Apple will set up factories in the US.
But I don't see that happening any time soon, as most people prefer low cost above all else. Blame consumers, not Apple.
FYI, 1200 machines * 2 sockets per machine * 6 cores per socket = 14400 cores, not 7000.
Hans Reiser, is that you?
ah, nevermind. SOund NAvigation and Ranging. I shouldn't post past midnight.
Unless the blind are supposed to be using this device while submerged under water...
Yes, very much like your post is irrelevant in a discussion of the Space Shuttle.
What Lunix Nutcase meant was that you can write C code for practically any processor out there. The same can't be said for Java. And yes, C is portable; all you have to do is make use of ifdef statements to use the right code for architecture-specific code.
Okayyyyyyyy... MS astroturfing, anyone?
No... The first millennium = [0,999.99999], the second = [1000.00000,1999.99999], and the third = [2000.00000,2999.000000].
Nothing like a bit of friendly competition, heh..
Not to mention, it's not $100 million, it's actually $3 million...
Seems like anytime you get into the millions, people seem to stop caring about how accurate their numbers are in an argument
"Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon" - Alan Perlis.
On the other hand, no Internet and sucky electronics :-\
Well now, that's even better. Back then they didn't know what they were missing, hence blissful ignorance. When they started seeing all these new gadgets and toys come along, it was like a new world opened up to them! And for the go-getters, they could take advantage of the new market opportunities and cash in big time! Sounds good to me.
You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping. A crime against humanity, to be sure.
In short, I agree with your statement, and the guy above you is wrong, just plain wrong. If we are going to have another off day, it is far better to have it on such a day that the off days are as evenly spread out as possible. Consistency is usually best.
The oral argument at the Supreme Court hearing from both sides can be read here
Going from 5 to 4 is a reduction of 20%; 4 = 0.80 * 5. The only case where you would see 25% using these two numbers would be when going from 4 to 5, an increase of 25%.
How about the iPhone G3?
try it here