If the basic human body plan, sans hormonal influence, is an underfeminised female, then *any* fail in the developmental process that leads to a masculine human will have some influence on the individual's state of masculinity. There's more than one known mechanism. Kleinfelters Syndrome, partial androgen insensitivity (may not affect all cell lines). Pre-natal hormonal influence. There are more, and that's just off the top of my head.
Obviously, the situation is different for ftm transsexuals. This may account for the disparity in numbers.
Or, it could be argued that something other than cultural difference decribes the difference between boys and girls. A thought that might tend to undermine certain models of feminism.
You're forgetting the potential long-term effects of hormonal influence on neural structure. And, pre-op transsexuals aren't necessarily a good model for short term hormonal effects as you could reasonably argue that something other than wishful thinking makes them the way they are. That is, different.
Lack of empathy. Sex is everything. Aggression. Bullying (particularly in packs). The Bloke vibe.
But that's unfair, and I'm hardly a good person to ask. I'm lesbian, I hate my father. I have some good male friends, and they embody a lot of very praiseworthy qualities, and none of the above-stated negative ones.
Actually, the *torque* the engine produces lies in a curve and peaks somewhere around 3000-4000rpm for many engines. This is the maximum force exerted via the flywheel. The maximum *power* is near peak rpm, produces *less* force, but makes up for it by the increase in rpm... ie more energy delivered per unit time.
The maximum constant force the brakes must overcome is at peak torque. There is an additional factor in that the engine and drivetrain have a large amount of rotational inertia (this is why fast-revving powerful engines often have lightened flywheels), but the brakes apply more retardation (srs) than the engine applies acceleration, for ic-engined cars.
Cracking algorithm attempts to open your encrypted archive using a list of, say, 20,000 english words. 'password' is 5th on the list. After 5 iterations, you notice that your decryption attempt has yielded data that looks like a valid zip archive, or contains english words. Result. You win the internets.
You can refine this.
1. Attempt a password list crack. 2. Attempt a Markov-chain based crack, looking for english-like words generated by your Markov Chain algorithm. Like, say. 'bibble' or 'foglet'. Tr 3. Repeat the above for all letter case combinations, and number/letter replacements - like B1bb7e, or f0Glet.
Et cetera,
The edge you have is that people often choose known words as passwords, or easy-to-remember nonsense words.
This reduces your password search space *hugely*.
For example, say your pgp doodad accepts up to 10 character passwords formed from any combination of letter case or number. 26 lowercase letter, 26 uppercase letters, 10 numbers. Your maximum search space would be the sum of all (26+26+10)^n, where n iterates from 1 to 10, or 853,058,371,866,181,866, or 8.5x10^17. This is the size of the set of all possible mixed case alphanumeric passwords up to a maximum length of 10. You would have to try each of these combinations to fully search this space. This is called 'brute forcing'.
It is a *much* larger number of passwords than the 20,000 in your dictionary list....
So, you use the search space limiting techniques *first*, which will yield a result in 95% of all cases. Then, you try brute force, or give up.
Asimov's books were hard sci-fi, though. It's an art-form as constrained in its way as a haiku; to do it well, you need to be able to spin entertaining worlds within the context of a logical, plausible, self-consistent framework. Not every author has the necessary skills - viz L. Ron Hubbard. I hope Reichert takes this and soars, but if the commissioners were Hollywood types then I'm not particularly full of hope.
Richard Morgan is good. I'd not call Neal Asher hard sci-fi in a million years, though. His technical and scientific intuition isn't strong enough. As to Alastair Reynolds and his characters? His character range isn't huge - I suspect he writes about the kind of people who might interest him; but he does those well.
I think you're forgetting that an interest in technology must also be married to 'vision'. Thirty years ago, I worked for a relatively bright guy (physics trained, ran his own computer shop), who was convinced that the computers of the time were as fast as they would ever need to be. He laughed at my suggestion that 3d graphics might be cool in a gaming context, He made the mistake that many geeks seem to make in assuming that because things are thus, they will always remain thus. He had no imagination whatsoever.
Gates may or may not have an interest in technology, but he doesn't appear to have unusual amounts of imagination.
Sexuality is natural, sure. However, it expresses in different people in different ways, and no, I'm not talking about gay v straight sexuality. I'm surprised that so few of you, all Slashdot jokes aside, seem to understand this...
I thought it was sordid and naff, and makes you 'red-blooded males' look like the sex junkies a few of you unfortunately are. It's your choice if you want to participate in this kind of pavlovian shit, clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
If the basic human body plan, sans hormonal influence, is an underfeminised female, then *any* fail in the developmental process that leads to a masculine human will have some influence on the individual's state of masculinity. There's more than one known mechanism. Kleinfelters Syndrome, partial androgen insensitivity (may not affect all cell lines). Pre-natal hormonal influence. There are more, and that's just off the top of my head.
Obviously, the situation is different for ftm transsexuals. This may account for the disparity in numbers.
Sparta, dude... ;-)
Or, it could be argued that something other than cultural difference decribes the difference between boys and girls. A thought that might tend to undermine certain models of feminism.
You're forgetting the potential long-term effects of hormonal influence on neural structure. And, pre-op transsexuals aren't necessarily a good model for short term hormonal effects as you could reasonably argue that something other than wishful thinking makes them the way they are. That is, different.
lol...
I'm amused :)
*giefs caek*
But certain archetypes have always existed. The urge to nurture. The urge to dominate. I think maybe you're getting hung up on specifics.
Mmm...
A lot of negative associations.
Lack of empathy.
Sex is everything.
Aggression.
Bullying (particularly in packs).
The Bloke vibe.
But that's unfair, and I'm hardly a good person to ask. I'm lesbian, I hate my father. I have some good male friends, and they embody a lot of very praiseworthy qualities, and none of the above-stated negative ones.
Mmm.... I'm tempted to say you're full of shit.
> The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!
The smart ones.
Of course.
With sufficient education (and bananas onna stick), any monkey can be George Orwell...
Look at what OpenSSH is, and does - not what you *think* it is, and think it does.
And direct MHD conversion of the kinetic energy from charged particles to electrical power...
So that's where Feynman got the idea from?
And, what were the 0-60 times, and the 60-0 times?
Out of interest, name a few.
Actually, the *torque* the engine produces lies in a curve and peaks somewhere around 3000-4000rpm for many engines. This is the maximum force exerted via the flywheel. The maximum *power* is near peak rpm, produces *less* force, but makes up for it by the increase in rpm... ie more energy delivered per unit time.
The maximum constant force the brakes must overcome is at peak torque. There is an additional factor in that the engine and drivetrain have a large amount of rotational inertia (this is why fast-revving powerful engines often have lightened flywheels), but the brakes apply more retardation (srs) than the engine applies acceleration, for ic-engined cars.
To pick a trivial example.
Your password is 'password'.
Cracking algorithm attempts to open your encrypted archive using a list of, say, 20,000 english words. 'password' is 5th on the list. After 5 iterations, you notice that your decryption attempt has yielded data that looks like a valid zip archive, or contains english words. Result. You win the internets.
You can refine this.
1. Attempt a password list crack.
2. Attempt a Markov-chain based crack, looking for english-like words generated by your Markov Chain algorithm. Like, say. 'bibble' or 'foglet'. Tr
3. Repeat the above for all letter case combinations, and number/letter replacements - like B1bb7e, or f0Glet.
Et cetera,
The edge you have is that people often choose known words as passwords, or easy-to-remember nonsense words.
This reduces your password search space *hugely*.
For example, say your pgp doodad accepts up to 10 character passwords formed from any combination of letter case or number. 26 lowercase letter, 26 uppercase letters, 10 numbers. Your maximum search space would be the sum of all (26+26+10)^n, where n iterates from 1 to 10, or 853,058,371,866,181,866, or 8.5x10^17. This is the size of the set of all possible mixed case alphanumeric passwords up to a maximum length of 10. You would have to try each of these combinations to fully search this space. This is called 'brute forcing'.
It is a *much* larger number of passwords than the 20,000 in your dictionary list....
So, you use the search space limiting techniques *first*, which will yield a result in 95% of all cases. Then, you try brute force, or give up.
> If the sequels are truly crappy, then those who wrote them will be unable to cash in.
Two words:
Dan,
Brown.
Asimov's books were hard sci-fi, though. It's an art-form as constrained in its way as a haiku; to do it well, you need to be able to spin entertaining worlds within the context of a logical, plausible, self-consistent framework. Not every author has the necessary skills - viz L. Ron Hubbard. I hope Reichert takes this and soars, but if the commissioners were Hollywood types then I'm not particularly full of hope.
Richard Morgan is good. I'd not call Neal Asher hard sci-fi in a million years, though. His technical and scientific intuition isn't strong enough. As to Alastair Reynolds and his characters? His character range isn't huge - I suspect he writes about the kind of people who might interest him; but he does those well.
I think you're forgetting that an interest in technology must also be married to 'vision'. Thirty years ago, I worked for a relatively bright guy (physics trained, ran his own computer shop), who was convinced that the computers of the time were as fast as they would ever need to be. He laughed at my suggestion that 3d graphics might be cool in a gaming context, He made the mistake that many geeks seem to make in assuming that because things are thus, they will always remain thus. He had no imagination whatsoever.
Gates may or may not have an interest in technology, but he doesn't appear to have unusual amounts of imagination.
Sexuality is natural, sure. However, it expresses in different people in different ways, and no, I'm not talking about gay v straight sexuality. I'm surprised that so few of you, all Slashdot jokes aside, seem to understand this...
I thought it was sordid and naff, and makes you 'red-blooded males' look like the sex junkies a few of you unfortunately are. It's your choice if you want to participate in this kind of pavlovian shit, clearly.
And speaking as a woman, I'm not over-impressed with Sharia Law.
I'd have kept the hairdressers,