The probability of being able to create a doppelganger which can cause a collision in BOTH hash functions simultaneously is multiplicatively harder. Right?
If that was the case then wouldn't you think that you should do this inside the one hashing algorythm?
And that's exactly what MD2 does! And I quote from an
RSA FAQ
MD2 was developed by Rivest in 1989. The message is first padded so its length in bytes is divisible by 16. A 16-byte checksum is then appended to the message, and the hash value is computed on the resulting message. Rogier and Chauvaud have found that collisions for MD2 can be constructed if the calculation of the checksum is omitted [RC95]. This is the only cryptanalytic result known for MD2.
If you read about other hashing functions you'll see that most of them say if you leave out this or that part of it they fail, it's exactly the same thing: they basically merge two or more different hashing functions.
Another interesting thing is that all the secure hashing functions in use today basically all use the same algorithym, by Prof. Ronald Rivest of MIT!
It's not much of a debugger now is it, if it doesn't make sure all data and signals are sent as they should be.
Does it always happen on exactly the same instuction? And yet not on any others? I still think it's a memory bug, since if it was starving DMA or other data flow issues it would also happen elsewhere.
You can test this yourself without valgrind - just run this test: Increase all data sizes (arrays) by a few bytes and see if it still happens.
Aditionally create a very large array at the begining and at the end of all the variables as sort of a buffer space. (Is it a stack based architecture?) See if it still crashes.
If your program behaves differently (anything at all is different) - it's a memory bug, now you just have to find it.
The volume of a sphere is: 4/3 Pi r^3 The surface area of a sphere is: 4 Pi r^2
So the volume of a sphere goes up as it's radius (width) to the power of 3, but the area only goes up with the power of 2. So the volume increases much much faster then the area does.
Ex:
^1 | ^2 | ^3 5 | 25 | 125 10 2 times as much | 100 4 times as much | 1000 8 times as much 15 3 times as much | 225 9 times as much | 3375 27 times as much
As you can see from my little chart, to the power of 3 grows way way faster then ^2 does. Power of two grew from 4 times as much as the first entry to 9 times as much, but power of 3 grew from 8 to 27 times as much as the first entry.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha!
How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp/dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha!
How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp/dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
If you want to accurately measure the mileage, the best way is to reset the trip odometer when you fill up, then rely on the pump's measurement to calculate it. Your fuel gauge is not very accurate, but the pump's gauge IS.
But how do you know when the tank is full? Over many fillups you can gauge MPG, but for just one fill up, different pumps can give you different amounts of fuel into the tank before they shut off. That's why I was saying that 2 trips is not a test.
If you see that it happens overy many many fillups (I'd guess 5 should be enough). Then try 5 of the other grade (make sure to use up nearly all the old fuel before filling up first, then use up one tank to "flush" the old stuff), then you can determine that you get better MPG with different grade fuel.
But all this is possible ONLY if your car knows what to do with higher octane fuel. Which I wrote above: "....If your vehicle is designed for 92 or can advance the timing...". If your vehicle does not do that then higher octane will do nothing.
And if your vehicle DOES do that, then you shouldn't be using 87 in the first place.
So I stand by what I said: that going to higher octane will not help you.
Please note that this is different that saying: going to a lower octane will harm MPG - I did not say that, if the engine needs 92 then that's what it needs.
In short: there is a specific octane your car is designed for and that's the octane you should use. If it's not designed for it going higher will not help you. And if it's designed for a higher octane going lower will harm MPG more then if it was designed for a lower octane in the first place.
Basically, the higher the pressure (up to the limit of course) the better the milage, but the worse the ride, and probably worse traction as well (since less of the tire is touching the road).
If you really want to do it right then you increase the pressure for smooth highway driving, and lower it for slower bumpy city traffic. Also if you have more load (people, cargo, trailer, etc) then you should increase it.
I'm sorry but this isn't true. Higher octane gas can not give you higher mileage. If you understand what octane actually is you'll agree with me.
There are so many many variations possible when driving, that 2 trips hardly counts as a test case. A/C, out door temperature, speed limit, construction delays, stops, traffic, change in air pressure, passengers, tire air pressure, temperature of fuel, humidity, rain on the road, wind speed and direction. And yes these will all give variations - some more then others of course.
In fact just filling up the tank can give you variations - how do you know how accurate your gauge is? I can overfill my tank by 5 gallons, it won't register on the needle (still just F), but the fuel is there. The temperature of the gas can change how much volume equal amounts (mass) of fuel will take. Colder temperature you'll get more gas in the tank.
But octane will not make the slightest difference in milage for a vehicle that is designed for 87. If your vehicle is designed for 92 or can advance the timing then maybe - but then you are not supposed to use 87, so again not a comparision.
Actually you only have 4 more. At least on my hands the corresponding fingerprints are identical on each hand, just mirror image.
Which leads me to a question: The thesis states:
.....but the exact formation of the fingerprint is a consequence of random events. The exact position of the foetus in the womb at a particular moment, and the exact composition and density of surrounding amniotic fluid, decide how every individual ridge will form....
So how is it possible that the corresponding fingerprints are identical for each finger on my hands?
I remember one time when applying for a renewal of an expired green card they wanted a fingerprint of one finger which I gave (it's on the crard!).
Then like 8 months! later they asked me to provide a fingerprints from all 5 fingers. Well due to mail problems I didn't get that letter for 4 months. Literally 1 week after I finally did get it (and I didn't really want to give all my fingerprints just from a privacy point of view, so I procrastinated), I got the green card in the mail. So yes it took 1 year, just for a renewal! (And meanwhile I couldn't leave the country or I would have no way to get back in.)
So one way to avoid giving your prints is just to keep on procrastinating:)
(More importantly, think about it- it's the altitude with respect to ground that actually matters for a plane, now isn't it?)
I see what you mean about the altitude. Makes sense and explains the difference.
Sigh. Making a faraday cage is simple. A conductive wire mesh is a faraday cage - to wavelengths ~ longer than the spacing between them. Cellphones use frequencies either in the 800 MHz range (foot-ish) or 1500 range (half-foot).
I also thought it was simple, until I tried it. I don't have a cell phone anymore or I would try again. But if you do have one, see how much work you have to do to make a faraday cage that will prevent the phone from ringing. (Of course do the test in an area with good reception.) Also see if you have to ground the cage. (I didn't ground the lunch box I tried.)
The hole would need to be an inch long.
The lunch box was tightly sealed, had an overlaping lip for the lid. Unless the hole was microscopically thin but an inch long I don't see how it had any holes. And it would have to do 2 90 degree bends to get in.
As far as planes go - a plane a lots of holes, you can hardly call it a faraday cage for anything higher frequency then maybe AM radio.
Anyway, the only study I know that the FAA did was to see if there had been any documented problems caused by cellphone usage, not if there could be in any situation.
I read another study that tried to see if there was any resonance effect. He didn't find any. And with all the worry about homeland security I'd certainly hope the planes electronics have at least minimal shielding (a metal box to put them in basically).
Placing cellphones next to monitors can screw them up, for crying out loud. Yes, it's miniscule, but if everyone ignored them, it could be a problem.
My point is that the electronics on a plane are no more sensitive then those on devices on the ground. And becides placing the transmitter right on top of the device there simply are no problems. And even with the metal body - it's just not a faraday cage, nor is there any build-up effect.
Commercial GPS won't work properly at high altitudes and high velocities - read the spec sheet of the GPS receiver device. This is to prevent cheap GPS-driven missile tech. It's possible the GPS stopped working at that cutoff height, and you were flying about 20% higher.
It was a gps receiver connected to a Palm Pilot. It worked just fine. I think the pilot was just rounding since he only gave 1 significant digit of accuracy. It was just fun to watch.
GPS gives altitude to sea level. The pilot is likely giving altitude to ground.
This could be - but do pilot really give altitude to ground? So if they are flying in an altitude corridor they constantly need to go up and down as the ground does?
Stop playing around with electronics onboard planes when they ask you not to. One person doing it is not a problem - they can't prevent everyone, and they know that there are going to be people who do it specifically because they've been told not to. The problem is when everyone does it - then interference can become a real issue. That's why they ask you not to - it can be a real significant concern. Many planes have what, over a hundred people on them, all within a few feet of each other, and all inside a Faraday cage? Not exactly the world's best RF environment.
Ok, I'm sorry but GPS don't transmit ANYTHING. And the tiny bit of RF they (and all electronic devices) make is far too weak to do anything. And the only way multiple people using electronic equipment can possibly build up RF is if the airplane body resonates - and it doesn't.
And besides, making a Faraday cage is harder then it sounds. I once put a cell phone in a metal lunch box - totally sealed everywhere - it still rang. Someone told me it was the tiny seams where the lid met the box that allowed it to leak. (I always thought that if the hole was less then 1/4 of the wavelength it didn't coun't.)
Do the research - I did. It's a myth! It is completely untrue - the FAA did a report on the subject and failed to find anything. The only thing I did find was that the FCC (NOT the FAA) bans cell phone use if you are not on the ground (because it jams many many base stations).
Seriously: I challange you to prove me wrong. Prove that it's not a myth.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that's true. If it was then all a terrorist had to do would be to hide a cell phone "bomb" in his luggage. Make it extra powerful, more so then a regular phone. Nice and easy - and no security check.
I'm sorry - but let me see you site even 1 actual story of a cellphone harming a plane.
They don't tell you not to use them for kicks you know.
They tell you not to use them because they have not a clue. A stewardess once asked me to turn off a GPS - which is about as harmful as a watch (I didn't turn it off of course, maybe if the captain had said something, but he won't because it's harmless). It's obvious that no one actually tells them what is or isn't harmful - because no one actually knows.
I've tried - the little light that says that it's on network was on, but it was unable to actually connect and dial. This was a sprint flip phone.
And the idea that cell phones can harm airplanes is about as likely as your cellphone rebooting your PC. I.e. not likely at all. The airplane either has a computer (fly by wire) which I should hope is more reliable then a PC. Or hydraulics - which would not care in the slightest about cell phone. It's just barely possible that 0 visibility landings would be at risk - but if so, they should ban cell phones in airports!
And besides if cell phone would harm planes then they would be falling out of the air all the time - after all there are all sorts of radio waves flying through the air at all times - from cosmic rays to powerful TV stations.
I've heard that the only realistic problem is resonance due to the metal airplane and the radio waves bouncing around like a cavity resonator. Someone even measured it, but I don't remember the results. But considering how hard it is to design a good cavity resonator - I really doubt a random airplane with holes (the windows!) would work that way.
PS. As a side note - have you ever watched your GPS as a plane was taking off? It's really! cool to watch those speed and altitude numbers. I remember one time the pilot announced that we were cruising at a altitude something - I looked at my GPS and he was off!:) By about 20%. But of course he was probably just rounding.
Erm, no. It's an Aramaic word: abra cadabra - which any speaker of Hebrew (which is the parent language of Aramaic) could translate for you: abra means "will be created" and cadabra means "acording to my words".
PS. You left out the r.
Found on the web:
In explaining the usage of "Abra K'dabara" in the dialogue's title, Cooper points out that both words may be derived from Semitic language. If one removes the 'a' from 'abra,' the remaing word 'bra' means 'to create' in Hebrew. 'Dabara' signifies 'I will say'; combining the words results roughly in the phrase "I will create like what I will say."
I've been getting a lot of advice to simply lie and say I have a degree. I have the experience (8 years) and I certainly have the knowledge, I'm just missing the paper.
So maybe I should just lie, and if they check and find me out the worst that will happen is I'll get fired (or not hired). And that's not any worse then it is right now!
As a hiring manager how often do you actually check?
What do you do when you don't have a degree because you never needed one, computer skills are easy for you. Additionally I could not afford college. But now 10 years later you're having a hard time finding a job?
I can do any kind of programming in any language you want, but all the companies will only hire for specific experience in the language they are using. Which gives a chicken and egg problem!
...as radioactivity is generated in harmful amounts given the fuels used: Deuterium and Tritium.
Um, that's not true. The only radiation produced is one neutron per fusion. Which is hardly anything, especially compared to the tens to hundreds per reaction for fission. And each fission produces less energy then fusion.
And if you did deuterium-deuterium (which is hard to do) you would have no lasting radiation at all!
It's true that the energy would be emitted as gamma rays. But ALL the energy would be gamma rays, and if you had no way to convert them to heat you wouldn't be able to use them. So the gamma rays can be ignored as a source of radiation since they would all be converted to heat.
This is completely NOT TRUE! Moderators: Just because he sounds like he knows what he's talking about doesn't make it true!
You can buy pure heavy water for about $300 per Kg. Making tritium from that is simple. The AC is delusional, you don't need to make it atom-by-atom. Just put some heavy water need a reactor for a couple of days and you're all set!
As for his "ideal" proton-proton reaction. First of all it's not in the slighest bit ideal. A Deuterium-Deuterium reaction is the ideal one. You can't make a proton-proton reaction anyway - you need neutrons. And guess what you do with the neutrons? You attach them to protons and make: you guessed it, deuterium!
The only thing the sun does, which we would not do in a lab is convert protons to neutrons by adding electrons. That's the only thing that you are not going to see mass produced in a lab. The sun does not do proton-proton fusion, you can't do that. What the sun does it take protons convert half ot them to neutrons, and hook them up with protons to make deuterium. Then it does deuterium-deuterium fusion.
> Using his own filter on his own mail! Of course it does well.
Well, DUH! why would you use someone elses filter? You train the filter based on your own email, that's the whole point. What's spam to you, isn't spam to someone else. This way YOU tell the filter what is and isn't spam.
> A pre-trained filter. It can't be compared apples-to-apples with any filter that doesn't require training.
This filter is designed to be trained. I have never heard of a static filter that did better then 95%. Trained filters are the only way to get any real accuracy. And besides all good static filter _ARE_ trained. It's just that they are trained by the devloper. And if that's what you want CRM is distributed with some pre-trained data files.
> Also, I wonder how many people have actually looked at CRM114 and tried to use it.
Me. And it works as advertized. I nearly gave up email for good, until I installed this filter. Now I pretty much never see a spam in my inbox.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's exactly what MD2 does! And I quote from an RSA FAQ
If you read about other hashing functions you'll see that most of them say if you leave out this or that part of it they fail, it's exactly the same thing: they basically merge two or more different hashing functions.Another interesting thing is that all the secure hashing functions in use today basically all use the same algorithym, by Prof. Ronald Rivest of MIT!
Ok, that is a total nonsence. There are good reasons for lack of stars - they are too faint to be seen using the exposure of the film.
But the reason this "NASA" guy gave is 100% nonsence.
Perhaps it's you who is trolling?
It's not much of a debugger now is it, if it doesn't make sure all data and signals are sent as they should be.
Does it always happen on exactly the same instuction? And yet not on any others? I still think it's a memory bug, since if it was starving DMA or other data flow issues it would also happen elsewhere.
You can test this yourself without valgrind - just run this test: Increase all data sizes (arrays) by a few bytes and see if it still happens.
Aditionally create a very large array at the begining and at the end of all the variables as sort of a buffer space. (Is it a stack based architecture?) See if it still crashes.
If your program behaves differently (anything at all is different) - it's a memory bug, now you just have to find it.
I can give you a 100% guarantee that it's a memory overflow issue.
Every single time you get a bug that is triggered on the most simple instructions it's actually a memory overflow bug. Every time.
Run it under valgrind, you'll see.
The volume of a sphere is: 4/3 Pi r^3
The surface area of a sphere is: 4 Pi r^2
So the volume of a sphere goes up as it's radius (width) to the power of 3, but the area only goes up with the power of 2. So the volume increases much much faster then the area does.
Ex:
^1 | ^2 | ^3
5 | 25 | 125
10 2 times as much | 100 4 times as much | 1000 8 times as much
15 3 times as much | 225 9 times as much | 3375 27 times as much
As you can see from my little chart, to the power of 3 grows way way faster then ^2 does. Power of two grew from 4 times as much as the first entry to 9 times as much, but power of 3 grew from 8 to 27 times as much as the first entry.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha!
/dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
How hard is it to mount a iso image in linux? Easy. In windows? Ha! How about give me the raw image of a floppy? cp /dev/fd0 file. on windows? Ha!
Yes I know there are tools that will do all this stuff, but I'm talking about the basic interface.
And so on. The everything is a file phylisophy was the very first thing that was mentioned in the first book I read on unix. And it was listed as the biggest change from how windows works.
It means that if I want to, I have low level access to the devices on the machine. For example the serial port, or the sound card.
Another difference:
Have you ever tried deleting an open file on windows? Or renaming one? Big difference there too.
The fact that you can delete/overwrite etc open files on unix makes in-place no-reboot upgrades possible. Not a chance on windows. This is a HUGE!!! difference.
If you see that it happens overy many many fillups (I'd guess 5 should be enough). Then try 5 of the other grade (make sure to use up nearly all the old fuel before filling up first, then use up one tank to "flush" the old stuff), then you can determine that you get better MPG with different grade fuel.
But all this is possible ONLY if your car knows what to do with higher octane fuel. Which I wrote above: "....If your vehicle is designed for 92 or can advance the timing...". If your vehicle does not do that then higher octane will do nothing.
And if your vehicle DOES do that, then you shouldn't be using 87 in the first place.
So I stand by what I said: that going to higher octane will not help you.
Please note that this is different that saying: going to a lower octane will harm MPG - I did not say that, if the engine needs 92 then that's what it needs.
In short: there is a specific octane your car is designed for and that's the octane you should use. If it's not designed for it going higher will not help you. And if it's designed for a higher octane going lower will harm MPG more then if it was designed for a lower octane in the first place.
If you really want to do it right then you increase the pressure for smooth highway driving, and lower it for slower bumpy city traffic. Also if you have more load (people, cargo, trailer, etc) then you should increase it.
There are so many many variations possible when driving, that 2 trips hardly counts as a test case. A/C, out door temperature, speed limit, construction delays, stops, traffic, change in air pressure, passengers, tire air pressure, temperature of fuel, humidity, rain on the road, wind speed and direction. And yes these will all give variations - some more then others of course.
In fact just filling up the tank can give you variations - how do you know how accurate your gauge is? I can overfill my tank by 5 gallons, it won't register on the needle (still just F), but the fuel is there. The temperature of the gas can change how much volume equal amounts (mass) of fuel will take. Colder temperature you'll get more gas in the tank.
But octane will not make the slightest difference in milage for a vehicle that is designed for 87. If your vehicle is designed for 92 or can advance the timing then maybe - but then you are not supposed to use 87, so again not a comparision.
Howstuffworks "What does octane mean?"
Federal Trade Commission: Are you tempted to buy a high octane gasoline for your car because you want to improve its performance?
You can find more links on your own.
Which leads me to a question: The thesis states:
So how is it possible that the corresponding fingerprints are identical for each finger on my hands?I remember one time when applying for a renewal of an expired green card they wanted a fingerprint of one finger which I gave (it's on the crard!). Then like 8 months! later they asked me to provide a fingerprints from all 5 fingers. Well due to mail problems I didn't get that letter for 4 months. Literally 1 week after I finally did get it (and I didn't really want to give all my fingerprints just from a privacy point of view, so I procrastinated), I got the green card in the mail. So yes it took 1 year, just for a renewal! (And meanwhile I couldn't leave the country or I would have no way to get back in.) So one way to avoid giving your prints is just to keep on procrastinating :)
As far as planes go - a plane a lots of holes, you can hardly call it a faraday cage for anything higher frequency then maybe AM radio.
I read another study that tried to see if there was any resonance effect. He didn't find any. And with all the worry about homeland security I'd certainly hope the planes electronics have at least minimal shielding (a metal box to put them in basically). My point is that the electronics on a plane are no more sensitive then those on devices on the ground. And becides placing the transmitter right on top of the device there simply are no problems. And even with the metal body - it's just not a faraday cage, nor is there any build-up effect.And besides, making a Faraday cage is harder then it sounds. I once put a cell phone in a metal lunch box - totally sealed everywhere - it still rang. Someone told me it was the tiny seams where the lid met the box that allowed it to leak. (I always thought that if the hole was less then 1/4 of the wavelength it didn't coun't.)
Do the research - I did. It's a myth! It is completely untrue - the FAA did a report on the subject and failed to find anything. The only thing I did find was that the FCC (NOT the FAA) bans cell phone use if you are not on the ground (because it jams many many base stations).
Seriously: I challange you to prove me wrong. Prove that it's not a myth.
I'm sorry - but let me see you site even 1 actual story of a cellphone harming a plane.
They tell you not to use them because they have not a clue. A stewardess once asked me to turn off a GPS - which is about as harmful as a watch (I didn't turn it off of course, maybe if the captain had said something, but he won't because it's harmless). It's obvious that no one actually tells them what is or isn't harmful - because no one actually knows.I've actually always wondered why the smell lingers for so long - shouldn't it evaporate quite fast from the heat of your hands?
And the idea that cell phones can harm airplanes is about as likely as your cellphone rebooting your PC. I.e. not likely at all. The airplane either has a computer (fly by wire) which I should hope is more reliable then a PC. Or hydraulics - which would not care in the slightest about cell phone. It's just barely possible that 0 visibility landings would be at risk - but if so, they should ban cell phones in airports!
And besides if cell phone would harm planes then they would be falling out of the air all the time - after all there are all sorts of radio waves flying through the air at all times - from cosmic rays to powerful TV stations.
I've heard that the only realistic problem is resonance due to the metal airplane and the radio waves bouncing around like a cavity resonator. Someone even measured it, but I don't remember the results. But considering how hard it is to design a good cavity resonator - I really doubt a random airplane with holes (the windows!) would work that way.
PS. As a side note - have you ever watched your GPS as a plane was taking off? It's really! cool to watch those speed and altitude numbers. I remember one time the pilot announced that we were cruising at a altitude something - I looked at my GPS and he was off! :) By about 20%. But of course he was probably just rounding.
PS. You left out the r.
Found on the web:
So maybe I should just lie, and if they check and find me out the worst that will happen is I'll get fired (or not hired). And that's not any worse then it is right now!
As a hiring manager how often do you actually check?
I can do any kind of programming in any language you want, but all the companies will only hire for specific experience in the language they are using. Which gives a chicken and egg problem!
I merely broke it down into two steps.
And if you did deuterium-deuterium (which is hard to do) you would have no lasting radiation at all!
It's true that the energy would be emitted as gamma rays. But ALL the energy would be gamma rays, and if you had no way to convert them to heat you wouldn't be able to use them. So the gamma rays can be ignored as a source of radiation since they would all be converted to heat.
For actual numbers see this page: Fusion Energy
You can buy pure heavy water for about $300 per Kg. Making tritium from that is simple. The AC is delusional, you don't need to make it atom-by-atom. Just put some heavy water need a reactor for a couple of days and you're all set!
As I source I give you this link Heavy Water: A Manufacturers Guide for the Hydrogen Century.
As for his "ideal" proton-proton reaction. First of all it's not in the slighest bit ideal. A Deuterium-Deuterium reaction is the ideal one. You can't make a proton-proton reaction anyway - you need neutrons. And guess what you do with the neutrons? You attach them to protons and make: you guessed it, deuterium!
The only thing the sun does, which we would not do in a lab is convert protons to neutrons by adding electrons. That's the only thing that you are not going to see mass produced in a lab. The sun does not do proton-proton fusion, you can't do that. What the sun does it take protons convert half ot them to neutrons, and hook them up with protons to make deuterium. Then it does deuterium-deuterium fusion.
> Using his own filter on his own mail! Of course it does well.
Well, DUH! why would you use someone elses filter? You train the filter based on your own email, that's the whole point. What's spam to you, isn't spam to someone else. This way YOU tell the filter what is and isn't spam.
> A pre-trained filter. It can't be compared apples-to-apples with any filter that doesn't require training.
This filter is designed to be trained. I have never heard of a static filter that did better then 95%. Trained filters are the only way to get any real accuracy. And besides all good static filter _ARE_ trained. It's just that they are trained by the devloper. And if that's what you want CRM is distributed with some pre-trained data files.
> Also, I wonder how many people have actually looked at CRM114 and tried to use it.
Me. And it works as advertized. I nearly gave up email for good, until I installed this filter. Now I pretty much never see a spam in my inbox.