when I worked for a computer graphics company. What we sold was a routine for very fast voxel rendering. Our bottom line depended on the speed of the voxel rendering inner loop, and we beat the shit out of it. I wrote the reasonably clear, comprehensible version; then I spent a day with an optimization expert called Roger (Sayle, of Rasmol fame), who would send me off to get printouts of the assembly we generated and re-wire the code based on that, as well as on benchmarks of course. The code ran about 50% faster - a vitally important saving - but it took me another half a day to explain to the rest of the team how the code worked after it had been thoroughly Rogered.
I don't think there's a good solution for equipment of the value of the equipment you're talking about.
If you were loaning out stuff that was all worth less than a hundred dollars, I'd have something like this: card swipe on the door, camera watching the whole room and another camera for closeups (both record 24/7 to disk), and electronically closeable rings on shelves. To loan the equipment, just swipe yourself in and pick it up. Your card swipe will unlock the equipment you've booked. Show it to the closeup camera (so that you don't get blamed for any damage already on it) and take it away.
When you return it, show it to the camera again (for the same reason) and lock it back in.
You could add a keypad to the swipe reader.
I don't know of an inexpensive source of electronic locks though - that could be the killer.
"Too, there are unique challenges with representing and operating upon infinite sets, because an infinite set's contents cannot be completely stored in a data structure or enumerated."
Plutonium is a thousand times more toxic than arsenic. Arsenic has an LD50 of 15mg/kg (milligrams of arsenic per kilo of body weight). Plutonium's toxicity is 0.015 mg/kg.
These references aren't great, props to anyone who can find better:
Whirlpool is really slow
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
But with 64-bit CPUs pretty common now, Tiger is looking good...
Re:Not a problem (yet)
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Trivially, exactly the same counting argument you used to convince yourself that the first sort of collision is inevitable serves to prove that the second sort is also inevitable.
We know such collisions exist; the question is, can we find any of them?
As it happens, attempts to find the first sort of collision nearly always focus on finding the second sort anyway, so the answer seems to be that we *can* find collisions that match on the length.
Finally, I can't imagine why you think that the second sort is vastly more useful than the first. If you can generate the first sort, then you can make a signature that was made for one document apply to another. That's enough to consider most signature schemes based on SHA-1 broken.
You will still be able to run Linux on a TC platform. It's just that you'll no longer be able to fool other (local and remote) software into thinking you're running Windows.
TC is evil, but it's more subtle than a hardware lock that prevents you from running Linux on the plaform.
Despite what Certicom would have you believe, it's perfectly possible to use ECC and point compression without trespassing their patents. There are some optimizations and nice tricks that are patented, but they are not essential.
Datum, that was the word I was looking for! Thanks.
Apart from that, I can't figure out what any of your post is trying to say.
Sure, it's possible to convert coordinates between datums. (Datums?) But you still need to know what datum was used for a particular set of coordinates to assign meaning to them. You could encode it alongside the coordinates, or you could choose one datum and specify that it's used for all purposes.
The reality here is... what, that people are somtimes insulting when they could be polite? That's not unique to/.
Anyways, wake up, this is nothing more than simply a new map projection system, of which there are 10's of thousands already.
Hardly a new system - it's just a new encoding of lat/long.
The *second* thing I'd suggest would be to use a cube to divide the surface of the Earth into six squareoid sections, and then use coordinates on the surface of the squaroid - that way you don't get weird precision anomalies at the poles. I'm sure there are even more sophisticated techniques known to GIS geeks such as yourselves (or search Google for "sphere tesselation").
I'd also want a few bits to indicate what geoid you're using (WGS-84 or whatever)...
Just because no-one's ever done it before doesn't mean it isn't obvious - it usually means no-one's felt the need before. If you came to me and said "Paul, we need a compact way to represent latitude and longitude in URLs, what do you suggest?" this is exactly what I would have reeled off at my desk without even needing to pause for thought, modulo the rather silly thing about leaving out vowels. I'm sure the same is true of every programmer in my workplace.
MS aren't introducing a standard, quite the reverse - they are trying to prevent people interoperating with their servers.
Tum tum tum de tum This is apoem I sings a lot to make me very vary hapy. I fink it will look good on a poster two. and a cofey mug to shows my frineds at work so they no i am an internashunal poet who mite even winz a prise! [...]
What you (and the other reply) describe is using steganography for its intended purpose. That's reasonable. What the person I replied to describes is using steganography because you fear that once your ciphertext is discovered, the cipher will be broken. That's ridiculous - if you fear that, use a strong cipher.
It's especially ridiculous that such nonsense gets to be the first 5 in the comments, but that's Slashdot for you...
The guy could have got a far higher transfer rate if he'd used an error-correcting code - he would have been able to recover from the occasional bit error, so he could have turned the bit rate up much higher.
He doesn't even mention using a checksum, but I guess there are checksums built into zlib...
It's worse than that - they *couldn't* retest the entire game without the cheat codes, because that would require super-players as testers who could reliably get to the end of the game in good time every time.
The cheat codes are there to enable testing. So you can't launch without them...
As the AC below notes, those coins are found throughout the UK. For a long time pound notes still circulated in Scotland after they'd been withdrawn from England and Wales; I don't know if that's still true, or what the NI situation is.
Slashdot Mirror
when I worked for a computer graphics company. What we sold was a routine for very fast voxel rendering. Our bottom line depended on the speed of the voxel rendering inner loop, and we beat the shit out of it. I wrote the reasonably clear, comprehensible version; then I spent a day with an optimization expert called Roger (Sayle, of Rasmol fame), who would send me off to get printouts of the assembly we generated and re-wire the code based on that, as well as on benchmarks of course. The code ran about 50% faster - a vitally important saving - but it took me another half a day to explain to the rest of the team how the code worked after it had been thoroughly Rogered.
I don't think there's a good solution for equipment of the value of the equipment you're talking about.
If you were loaning out stuff that was all worth less than a hundred dollars, I'd have something like this: card swipe on the door, camera watching the whole room and another camera for closeups (both record 24/7 to disk), and electronically closeable rings on shelves. To loan the equipment, just swipe yourself in and pick it up. Your card swipe will unlock the equipment you've booked. Show it to the closeup camera (so that you don't get blamed for any damage already on it) and take it away.
When you return it, show it to the camera again (for the same reason) and lock it back in.
You could add a keypad to the swipe reader.
I don't know of an inexpensive source of electronic locks though - that could be the killer.
So users can have the wide range of Linux applications while enjoying the rock-solid stability of Windows?
(Why is the Slashdot subject line limited to so few characters?)
From TFA:
"Too, there are unique challenges with representing and operating upon infinite sets, because an infinite set's contents cannot be completely stored in a data structure or enumerated."
Compare eg Houseplants of Gor.
(And yes, it's not terrifically advanced, and disappointingly free of C#-specific enlightenment...)
Plutonium is a thousand times more toxic than arsenic. Arsenic has an LD50 of 15mg/kg (milligrams of arsenic per kilo of body weight). Plutonium's toxicity is 0.015 mg/kg.
n d_ year.htmln tversion.cf m?documentID=437m /site/pp.asp?c=coI HKTMHF&b=83909o stoxic.htm
These references aren't great, props to anyone who can find better:
http://web.reed.edu/ehs/chemistry_safety/4.seco
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/pri
http://www.seventhgeneration.co
http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/m
But with 64-bit CPUs pretty common now, Tiger is looking good...
Trivially, exactly the same counting argument you used to convince yourself that the first sort of collision is inevitable serves to prove that the second sort is also inevitable.
We know such collisions exist; the question is, can we find any of them?
As it happens, attempts to find the first sort of collision nearly always focus on finding the second sort anyway, so the answer seems to be that we *can* find collisions that match on the length.
Finally, I can't imagine why you think that the second sort is vastly more useful than the first. If you can generate the first sort, then you can make a signature that was made for one document apply to another. That's enough to consider most signature schemes based on SHA-1 broken.
You will still be able to run Linux on a TC platform. It's just that you'll no longer be able to fool other (local and remote) software into thinking you're running Windows.
TC is evil, but it's more subtle than a hardware lock that prevents you from running Linux on the plaform.
Despite what Certicom would have you believe, it's perfectly possible to use ECC and point compression without trespassing their patents. There are some optimizations and nice tricks that are patented, but they are not essential.
uninterested party
I've often seen people write "disinterested" when they mean "uninterested", but this is the first time I've seen it the other way around.
-1, Offtopic, I know.
Actually, the EU employs fewer bureaucrats than an average UK Local Authority.
And one reason why Mono has so rapidly surpassed the open-source Java projects - .NET is just much nicer to program in.
Datum, that was the word I was looking for! Thanks.
/.
Apart from that, I can't figure out what any of your post is trying to say.
Sure, it's possible to convert coordinates between datums. (Datums?) But you still need to know what datum was used for a particular set of coordinates to assign meaning to them. You could encode it alongside the coordinates, or you could choose one datum and specify that it's used for all purposes.
The reality here is... what, that people are somtimes insulting when they could be polite? That's not unique to
Lemmings don't jump off cliffs
Anyways, wake up, this is nothing more than simply a new map projection system, of which there are 10's of thousands already.
Hardly a new system - it's just a new encoding of lat/long.
The *second* thing I'd suggest would be to use a cube to divide the surface of the Earth into six squareoid sections, and then use coordinates on the surface of the squaroid - that way you don't get weird precision anomalies at the poles. I'm sure there are even more sophisticated techniques known to GIS geeks such as yourselves (or search Google for "sphere tesselation").
I'd also want a few bits to indicate what geoid you're using (WGS-84 or whatever)...
Just because no-one's ever done it before doesn't mean it isn't obvious - it usually means no-one's felt the need before. If you came to me and said "Paul, we need a compact way to represent latitude and longitude in URLs, what do you suggest?" this is exactly what I would have reeled off at my desk without even needing to pause for thought, modulo the rather silly thing about leaving out vowels. I'm sure the same is true of every programmer in my workplace.
MS aren't introducing a standard, quite the reverse - they are trying to prevent people interoperating with their servers.
Nicky Nacky Noo
Tum tum tum de tum
This is apoem I sings a lot
to make me very vary hapy.
I fink it will look good on a poster two.
and a cofey mug to shows my frineds
at work so they no i am an internashunal
poet who mite even winz a prise!
[...]
Wergle Flomp Poetry Contest
What you (and the other reply) describe is using steganography for its intended purpose. That's reasonable. What the person I replied to describes is using steganography because you fear that once your ciphertext is discovered, the cipher will be broken. That's ridiculous - if you fear that, use a strong cipher.
It's especially ridiculous that such nonsense gets to be the first 5 in the comments, but that's Slashdot for you...
As another poster says, it's entirely the way of the past. Using a strong cryptosystem is the way of the future with regards to encryption.
When RMS started, he was laughed at. Nobody believed quality software could be made by people in their spare time.
There was quite a bit of Open Source software when RMS started, actually. Sendmail, BIND and TeX predate the GNU Project IIRC.
If it was a 30-bit key, breaking it in software would be trivial - you wouldn't need FPGAs, just a lookup table.
The guy could have got a far higher transfer rate if he'd used an error-correcting code - he would have been able to recover from the occasional bit error, so he could have turned the bit rate up much higher.
He doesn't even mention using a checksum, but I guess there are checksums built into zlib...
It's worse than that - they *couldn't* retest the entire game without the cheat codes, because that would require super-players as testers who could reliably get to the end of the game in good time every time.
The cheat codes are there to enable testing. So you can't launch without them...
eteel haxor doodz?
As the AC below notes, those coins are found throughout the UK. For a long time pound notes still circulated in Scotland after they'd been withdrawn from England and Wales; I don't know if that's still true, or what the NI situation is.
:-)
Royal Mint on pound coins
My favourite thing around the side of the coin is DECUS ET TUTAMEN, because it is referring to itself rather neatly