I don't think you're right. I think this is from a Consumer Reports test of underarm deodorant. I think you're right that the article was from about 15 years ago, though.
I think it would be possible, if you hand-entered the machine code and stuff required for the file format format in a binary editor. This would be cumbersome, but possible. It probably would not be enough to compile and link the binary and then simply type the data into an editor. You would probably have to actually write the program in machine code. If someone actually wrote a sound card driver this way, I would buy him a candy bar.
I just made myself think of all those tables of binary in Nibble magazine that I painstakingly typed in. Some of them before I even had the program that ran checksums on the data to compare against published values. I nearly died.
Normally, I avoid correcting mistakes in Slashdot posts, but I'm going to make an exception in your case. Your post is cogent, which makes me think that you might care about this.
I think you should have written "fleshed out", which means to give something substance. It's like saying Ubuntu has a skeleton menu system that needs to have more things available in it so you don't have to keep going back to the console. This is in contrast to "flushed out", which means that the Ubuntu menu system is hiding somewhere, and it needs to be scared out into the open.
I remember when I first heard about zero knowledge proofs of knowledge. I was astounded. Even now that I understand how they work, they still seem like black magic to me.
If DRM inventors were more honest, they would call the schemes "zero knowledge transfers of knowledge". At least then it would be more obvious how broken they are by design. But think about it for a moment. A PHB probably has the same reaction to a zero knowledge proof as he does to DRM, "Really, you can do that?" A lot of remarkable things are possible using cryptography. How would you articulate the impossibility of effective DRM to a decision-maker?
Section 7.1 of the article covers an often-overlooked part of the LGPL. If you include LGPL libraries as part of your application, the EULA must permit reverse engineering to debug the application if the end user modifies the library and uses the modified version, instead of the version that came with the software.
I suspect that there is a lot of software out there that includes LGPL libraries, but has a blanket "no reverse engineering" clause in the license agreement.
Canada uses CANDU nuclear reactors, which do not promote nuclear weapons since they use regular unenriched uranium. Canada also has no nuclear weapons. The idea that nuclear power is tied to nuclear weapons is absurd.
This is a little disingenuous. The NRU at Chalk River used to run on high-enriched uranium, and now runs on low-enriched uranium.
Source.
Furthermore, the NRU, like the NRX before it, is heavy-water moderated, which is efficient at producing plutonium. Source.
Production of the world's medical isotopes using the NRU is one of the Canadian excuses for being able to produce bombs in a several-month time frame. It's true that Canada has never actually produced a nuclear weapon, but it's also true that some of the programs at Chalk River are "dual use".
There are some people who think that all wars are wrong. There are some people who, I suspect, think that all wars are right. I'm not 100% sure that the latter class exists, but I know some people who have never come across a war they didn't support. That's enough evidence for me.
I don't think that either of these groups are very intelligent. But, far and away, most people consider each war on its merits and decide if they support it or not. They have doubt. They change their minds when confronted with new facts about the war. It gives me some comfort that most people fit into this class of people: I think they're intelligent.
Actually, the Kammback is better than a teardrop, aerodynamically and functionally. It's more aerodynamic, because it still has the same smooth flow as a teardrop, but it doesn't have all the surface drag. It's more functional because it's shaped more like a box.
It makes sense that the MAC address space should be bigger than the IP address space, because you need one IP address at a time, but once a NIC is made the MAC address should be unique forever just in case it's resurrected out of a junk box and added to an ethernet 20 years on.
Period PC hardware absolutely was capable of running X11. I bet quite a few idiots like myself did it at the time.
First, an 80486 was not really period hardware. The Pentium classic was on the market at the time that Windows 95 came out, clocked at 100MHz. It had been around for almost a year at that speed. This processor is a few percent as fast as modern CPUs.
Now, if you were to put Gnome or KDE on this hardware, it would be a pig. For me, I ran the Open Look Window Manager. It looks like this, which I think looks a little bit worse than Windows for Workgroups. But, man, is it lean.
All rolled up, that window manager, using colour depth common in the period, is probably more than ten times faster than a modern desktop. Through the mists of time, I'd say that Ubuntu, with modern hardware, seems a good three or four times faster than that old unix box, which fits.
For what it's worth, the experience was about as fast as the Sun boxes I had used at university a few years before. IIRC, they were running microSPARC I processors at 40Mhz. I don't remember the RAM, though. They ran OpenLook as well,which is why I used it a few years later. I was used to it.
You should know that X11 was released in 1987. It's not like they wrote and debugged it by desk checking, yeah? It ran on workstations available 20 years ago. Moore's law says there were five doublings of transistors per unit area between 1987 and 1995. To say that hardware in 1995 was too slow to handle security, protection, and a GUI is false on its face.
Time to bring up the "Sharpie solution". If a designer has used a bright LED inappropriately, then use a permanent marker to correct his error. Want to try it out, first? Put some transparent tape over it, and then use the marker.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact, fingerprints are different between identical twins. Source. Source. Source. Source.
I don't think you're right. I think this is from a Consumer Reports test of underarm deodorant. I think you're right that the article was from about 15 years ago, though.
I think it would be possible, if you hand-entered the machine code and stuff required for the file format format in a binary editor. This would be cumbersome, but possible. It probably would not be enough to compile and link the binary and then simply type the data into an editor. You would probably have to actually write the program in machine code. If someone actually wrote a sound card driver this way, I would buy him a candy bar.
I just made myself think of all those tables of binary in Nibble magazine that I painstakingly typed in. Some of them before I even had the program that ran checksums on the data to compare against published values. I nearly died.
Normally, I avoid correcting mistakes in Slashdot posts, but I'm going to make an exception in your case. Your post is cogent, which makes me think that you might care about this.
I think you should have written "fleshed out", which means to give something substance. It's like saying Ubuntu has a skeleton menu system that needs to have more things available in it so you don't have to keep going back to the console. This is in contrast to "flushed out", which means that the Ubuntu menu system is hiding somewhere, and it needs to be scared out into the open.
Three questions:
What redundancy percentage do you use for the par2 recovery files?
Have you ever successfully recovered a borked cd or dvd?
Have you ever tried & failed to recover a borked cd or dvd?
I remember when I first heard about zero knowledge proofs of knowledge. I was astounded. Even now that I understand how they work, they still seem like black magic to me.
If DRM inventors were more honest, they would call the schemes "zero knowledge transfers of knowledge". At least then it would be more obvious how broken they are by design. But think about it for a moment. A PHB probably has the same reaction to a zero knowledge proof as he does to DRM, "Really, you can do that?" A lot of remarkable things are possible using cryptography. How would you articulate the impossibility of effective DRM to a decision-maker?
Linky.
Wouldn't it be awesome, though, if the answer really was 42.
Tell that to the dinosaurs...
They aren't in Kansas anymore, either...
The trick to flying is to fall, and then forget to hit the ground.
Section 7.1 of the article covers an often-overlooked part of the LGPL. If you include LGPL libraries as part of your application, the EULA must permit reverse engineering to debug the application if the end user modifies the library and uses the modified version, instead of the version that came with the software.
I suspect that there is a lot of software out there that includes LGPL libraries, but has a blanket "no reverse engineering" clause in the license agreement.
Canada uses CANDU nuclear reactors, which do not promote nuclear weapons since they use regular unenriched uranium. Canada also has no nuclear weapons. The idea that nuclear power is tied to nuclear weapons is absurd.
This is a little disingenuous. The NRU at Chalk River used to run on high-enriched uranium, and now runs on low-enriched uranium. Source.
Furthermore, the NRU, like the NRX before it, is heavy-water moderated, which is efficient at producing plutonium. Source.
Production of the world's medical isotopes using the NRU is one of the Canadian excuses for being able to produce bombs in a several-month time frame. It's true that Canada has never actually produced a nuclear weapon, but it's also true that some of the programs at Chalk River are "dual use".
I get it 12,000 laptops per week times 17 1/3 weeks per year means 208,000 laptops per year.
208,000 laptops per year times 4.8269231 years means 1,004,000 laptops in five years.
What are you on? Glue?
An old joke. I heard it from /usr/games/fortune in slackware, but it's got to be older than that.
There were in this country two very large monopolies.
The larger of the two had the following record:
The second was responsible for such things as:
Guess which one got to tell the other how to run the telephone business?
There are some people who think that all wars are wrong. There are some people who, I suspect, think that all wars are right. I'm not 100% sure that the latter class exists, but I know some people who have never come across a war they didn't support. That's enough evidence for me.
I don't think that either of these groups are very intelligent. But, far and away, most people consider each war on its merits and decide if they support it or not. They have doubt. They change their minds when confronted with new facts about the war. It gives me some comfort that most people fit into this class of people: I think they're intelligent.
You are so wrong.
Actually, the Kammback is better than a teardrop, aerodynamically and functionally. It's more aerodynamic, because it still has the same smooth flow as a teardrop, but it doesn't have all the surface drag. It's more functional because it's shaped more like a box.
We're already seeing lots of them. Expect more.
Huh. I never read the book, but I saw the movie. I thought that they were saying a Russian word that I can't spell out on Slashdot because it doesn't support UTF-8.
I can do it in one .... I outsource it.
I can solve it faster .... I defenestrate it.
Try number 6 on this page.
--------> Joke
O
-+- You
|
/ \
Twinkle twinkle little star
Power equals I-squared R.
Or was that diamond in the sky
Power equals R-squared I?
Twinkle twinkle little star
You've forgotten what the formulas are.
It makes sense that the MAC address space should be bigger than the IP address space, because you need one IP address at a time, but once a NIC is made the MAC address should be unique forever just in case it's resurrected out of a junk box and added to an ethernet 20 years on.
Period PC hardware absolutely was capable of running X11. I bet quite a few idiots like myself did it at the time.
First, an 80486 was not really period hardware. The Pentium classic was on the market at the time that Windows 95 came out, clocked at 100MHz. It had been around for almost a year at that speed. This processor is a few percent as fast as modern CPUs.
Now, if you were to put Gnome or KDE on this hardware, it would be a pig. For me, I ran the Open Look Window Manager. It looks like this, which I think looks a little bit worse than Windows for Workgroups. But, man, is it lean.
All rolled up, that window manager, using colour depth common in the period, is probably more than ten times faster than a modern desktop. Through the mists of time, I'd say that Ubuntu, with modern hardware, seems a good three or four times faster than that old unix box, which fits.
For what it's worth, the experience was about as fast as the Sun boxes I had used at university a few years before. IIRC, they were running microSPARC I processors at 40Mhz. I don't remember the RAM, though. They ran OpenLook as well,which is why I used it a few years later. I was used to it.
You should know that X11 was released in 1987. It's not like they wrote and debugged it by desk checking, yeah? It ran on workstations available 20 years ago. Moore's law says there were five doublings of transistors per unit area between 1987 and 1995. To say that hardware in 1995 was too slow to handle security, protection, and a GUI is false on its face.
Time to bring up the "Sharpie solution". If a designer has used a bright LED inappropriately, then use a permanent marker to correct his error. Want to try it out, first? Put some transparent tape over it, and then use the marker.