Sure. Now just come up with a clear definition of "assault weapons" that can categorize any gun you find into either "assault weapon" or "non-asault weapon" in a way that makes sense with no ambiguity. Oh yeah, and this definition needs to come along with a clear explanation as to why *exactly* all the guns in the "assault weapon" category you've invented should be outlawed, while all the guns outside of that category should be legal.
Good luck. It's more than the writers of the Assault Weapons Ban could do.
I'm just a Java programmer, but --- well, reading an "image" is just piping an input stream into a decoder object that would return a graphic object.
Reading an image *file* is a lot more complex than simply piping graphic data along in memory, especially with JPEG.
First off, JPEG doesn't just store the image data, but also other kinds of data fields as well, such as thumbnail data, comment data etc.
You generally have a header which gives you information about what's stored in the file, where it's stored, how big it is, etc. The more extensible your format, the more complex this meta-structure.
Then you finally have the image data itself, and JPEG is more complex than you describe here, as well, as each "block" is described by mathematical coefficients of varying complexity, rather than just image data.
Of course, this is all stuff that your "decoder object" would do for you. But in this case, the bug is in the decoder object itself.
Nowhere in this process could I imagine anything that would necessitate executing any data that might be an instruction.
Read byte x, that is the red value for a specific pixel.. (I understand Jpeg is more complicated than this).. How could that "x" be a "format c:" DOS command?
Well this is trickier. First you have to understand that code and data basically turn into the same thing -- bytes in the computer's memory. Usually the computer runs along executing the "machine code" that's stored in the memory, and it's never supposed to start executing the data that is also stored in the memory. However, there are ways to "trick" the program into executing bytes in the data area. You then have to embed your malicious machine code into that data, and there's your exploit.
This specific vulnerability with JPEGs is in the decoding of the "comment" field. There's a value which tells you the length of that field, but it has a minimum length of 2. The Microsoft parser never deals with the case where that "length" value is less than 2, because it's not supposed to be (btw, this is bad programming practice -- you should never assume that your input won't be out of range). It subtracts 2 from that number to get an "actual length" -- but in the case where the number is 0 or 1, the actual length turns out to be -2 or -1.
Problem is, this negative length is interpreted as an unsigned number, and ends up being a reallly big positive number. This ends up screwing around with the memory allocation for the comment buffer, which eventually is used to trick the computer into running machine code that was embedded in the image. I'm really shaky on how the details of this part work right now:P
Little stuff has no effect, and chaos theory was a load of bullshit.
Man, you're right! Every small thing we do could have an effect on *anything*! We'd better stop building skyscrapers. Hell, we'd better stop building any buildings altogether. Also, we better stop airplanes and other craft from flying around. In fact, why don't we all just stop moving altogether? It's the only way to keep the environment safe! Chaos theory says so!
Seriously: why do people always assume that "chaos theory" means "BAD THINGS HAPPEN!!"? All it means is that systems become unpredictable if they're complex enough.
ps: one bit of your ECC memory failing causing your computer to crash has virtually nothing to do with chaos theory.
This text here is solely to get by the lameness filter. It won't let me post the above because of the minimum average line length filter; however, if I put it all on one line it automagically inserts line breaks and *still* kills the minimum average line length filter. Trying to put some line-widifiers down here causes the compression filter to fail. So, as you're reading through this offtopic and uninteresting drivel at the bottom of an otherwise simple post, remember -- you have the lameness filter to thank!!
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
If you're going to quote this statistic, you should also mention the *trend* of the unemployment rate over each administration. If you leave that out, you're simply being disingenuous.
"reference speakers" being an audio engineering euphamism for "really shitty sounding speakers to make sure that the mix still sounds ok on people's really shitty sounding speakers":)
And in Middle Earth, perhaps the most powerful and coolest individuals are wizards, of which I believe there are supposed to only be a handful of (if that) in the Tolkien "universe". Good luck to enforcing that rule.
Uhm.
What's so hard about just not having wizards be playable characters at all?
"Networked clusters are useful only when the task is parallelizable, and each subtask is computable on a single node. Cloud physics is not like that. Cracking RC5, for instance, is."
The issue isn't parallelizability. *All* supercomputers are designed to exploit large amounts of parallelization (and *all* supercomputers will do poorly if the task isn't parallelizable).
The issue is internode communication. If your simulation requires a *lot* of transmitting data between each processing stage (like "cloud physics" probably would) then a more tightly-integrated parallel machine (like a cray) would be better. If you can do more computation before having to communicate (like cracking RC5), then a cluster will be more cost effective.
and if states are distributed probabilistically (and why wouldn't they be?)
Does "why" or "why not" ever come into the picture of how the universe is set up? How is it any more than "is it" or "is it not"?
I mean, it's possible that they're not -- what can you say beyond that? You can have a repeating universe, or a random universe with states that just never come up. Why wouldn't it be like this?
RGB's aren't "additive colors" and CMYK aren't "subtractive colors." They're all colors, and you can mix with them any way you like -- adding or subtracting.
You wouldn't call a painter "counter-productive" for having red, green or blue paint, would you? Then what's so wrong about a screen having Cyan, Magenta, or Yellow?
See, there's two ways to mix color: adding them (shining multiple light sources upon a surface, or directly at a receptor), or subtracting them (mixing multiple pigments or overlapping multiple light filters, then shining white light on or through them to produce the color).
RGB are the additive *primaries*, and CMY are the subtractive *primaries*. But the notion that "R G and B add, and C M and Y subtract" is completely misleading.
Would you ever expect a serious news program to say something like "This just in: Bush and Kerry are pretty much identical on domestic issues, ie, Pro-Hollywood. Full story at 11!"
Though our current neo-conservative president being identical on the issues to the #1 most liberal senator certainly *would* be a story.
But those two ears can pinpoint an audio source with around 3 degrees accuracy plus distance.
Our ears don't work with *true* 3 degrees of accuracy. There's only two sensors, so it's impossible to, anyway!
They work by some complex post-processing by our brain -- slight differences in the frequencies and phase relationships of sounds as they appear and move around our head are interpreted as coming from different angles, as our ears' strange shapes filter sounds directionally. But it can be fooled.
A 2-speaker headphone can easily re-create a full spherical sound field.... as long as you keep your head fixed in one place (as all the sounds will be relative to your head orientation).
Quality headphones and a subwoofer, OTOH, can always do better, with no extra requirements beyond not having too much background noise.
Ah, but headphones can only easily position sound relative to your head's position and orientation -- whereas this room wafefront synthesis system positions sound relative to the *room*. A sound 50 feet behind the right wall will sound 50 feed behind the right wall to a listener no matter where they are sitting in the theater and no matter which way they're looking.
To emulate this with headphones, you'd need some sort of position/orientation tracking system on each pair of headphones. So now the question is, which is more complex: hundreds of fixed speakers playing phase-synchronized sounds in a coordinated fashion, or hundreds of individual headphone units with tracking devices each playing one version of the virtual "source" material customized for each listener?
"Virtual point sources situated in front of the loudspeaker array. An extension of the WFS principle allows the synthesis of sources within the listening area at positions where no physical sources are actually present. These "sound holograms" are created when a wave front created by the loudspeaker array converges onto a fixed position inside of the listening room. The wave front is then naturally re-emitted from the target position to the rest of the listening area. The sound field is therefore inaccurate between the loudspeaker array and the target position but perfectly valid beyond it."
So a sound "appearing" in the center isle will have to pass through both sides of the theater before being generated. How can this be done without, at best, having some sort of phasey distorted pre-echo before the main wave from the center source reaches your ears?
First of all, thank you for ignoring the great majority of my post, and concentrating entirely on two lines. This is sarcasm.
Second of all, the lines you quote were opinion, not flamebait.
Third of all, you're attempting to make a generalized argument by citing specific instances. This is very poor argument style. My opinionated assertion was that the quality of wikipedia's articles, in general, is leagues beyond e2's nodes, in general. Not that e2 has nodes that aren't in wikipedia (an obvious fact almost to the point of tautology: wikipedia has a smaller scope than e2. It's trying to make an encyclopedia. IMNSHO, e2 was better before it started trying to be an encyclopedia as well). Not that on some topics e2 may have better writeups than wiki. But in general, wiki has better quality writeups than e2.
But hey, this was a small part of my argument -- my major point was regarding the horrid policy of arbitrary deletion. Score one against the straw man!
Fourth of all, and finally, these are some bold statements for an AC.
In the Puerto Rico entry it says that Puerto Ricans dont pay federal taxes, that is simply not true. There is no separate federal taxation category for Puerto Ricans. What is true is that income earned in puerto rico by pays no federal taxes.
I'm surprised this was changed back. Perhaps you should change it again? (BTW, where exactly did you make this change? I'm curious to see why it was changed back)
The entry also says that only 20% of puerto ricans decend from blacks which is a lie. Immigration from europe and slaves brough from africa accounted for almost 100% of the population and it was about 50-50 white and black. The article instead says that 60% of the population can claim amerindian descent. THat is bullshit. the indians in puerto rico were killed in practically less than a generation. that is why they started bringing black slave in the first place.
Do you have a reference for these assertions? If so, perhaps you should add it, or start a conversation on the discussion page to hash it out.
It seems that recent research has made the demographics of puerto rico a contraversial topic. Can you really claim that wiki's info is wrong, if it's a hotly contested item among experts?
is editor - and peer reviewed.... There is also a strong sense of community and lacks any editorial wars.... A much more enlightened and pleasant place to be.
Hrm.
There are three ways (IIRC) that articles on e2 are "reviewed": 1) Voted up/down. Pretty low level users can do this. 2) "Cooled." Medium level users can do this. 3) Deleted entirely. Only the highest level users can do this.
The problem is #3, which results in a huge power imbalance in the e2 community, which I believe detracts from the "strong sense of community."
You see, as an e2 author, you can expect that a large percentage of your articles are going to be deleted. Just completely poof gone. Most of the time you won't get any explanation, it'll just happen. And if it is explained, the standards for deletion are so variable as to be completely inconsistent, and up to the individual editors' whims. The standards keep changing. Once meta-nodes were encouraged, then they started deleting them. For a while it was meant to be a formless system of "all knowledge" where all sorts of surreal things were allowed -- then they wanted to make it into "encyclopedia quality," and started deleting anything that wasn't informative enough. Then things started to swing back in the other direction. Articles that are voted up +100 and cooled ten times are just as likely to be inexplicably deleted as as any other. And if a particular editor has it out for you, there's basically nothing you can do about it.
And the attitude around e2 for all these issues is simply "Suck it up and node something else." Not very enlightened, if you ask me.
Things were a lot more open and expressive with the first everything, may it RIP.
Of course, in wikipedia, anyone can change anything you write. But 1) it's still available in the history of the article, and 2) everyone is on equal ground in wikipedia (minus the mods, who are very hands off unless absolutely necessary) -- something that cannot be said for e2.
And no matter how hard e2 will try, the quality of wikipedia's content will always be leagues beyond it. Maybe not as varied or silly, but when I really want to know about "everything" I aim my browser towards wiki, not e2.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I heard him click the A/B switch. The whole room seemed to open up and I could have sworn it was a live show, synchronized with the CD.
Were the CD and vynil output level-matched? It's amazing how much one's perception of the music can change when it's 6dB louder.
ok i've almost got this figured out, except for cur (carriage return?), whacken, and what "japh" means.
Sure. Now just come up with a clear definition of "assault weapons" that can categorize any gun you find into either "assault weapon" or "non-asault weapon" in a way that makes sense with no ambiguity. Oh yeah, and this definition needs to come along with a clear explanation as to why *exactly* all the guns in the "assault weapon" category you've invented should be outlawed, while all the guns outside of that category should be legal.
Good luck. It's more than the writers of the Assault Weapons Ban could do.
I'm just a Java programmer, but --- well, reading an "image" is just piping an input stream into a decoder object that would return a graphic object.
:P
Reading an image *file* is a lot more complex than simply piping graphic data along in memory, especially with JPEG.
First off, JPEG doesn't just store the image data, but also other kinds of data fields as well, such as thumbnail data, comment data etc.
You generally have a header which gives you information about what's stored in the file, where it's stored, how big it is, etc. The more extensible your format, the more complex this meta-structure.
Then you finally have the image data itself, and JPEG is more complex than you describe here, as well, as each "block" is described by mathematical coefficients of varying complexity, rather than just image data.
Of course, this is all stuff that your "decoder object" would do for you. But in this case, the bug is in the decoder object itself.
Nowhere in this process could I imagine anything that would necessitate executing any data that might be an instruction.
Read byte x, that is the red value for a specific pixel.. (I understand Jpeg is more complicated than this).. How could that "x" be a "format c:" DOS command?
Well this is trickier. First you have to understand that code and data basically turn into the same thing -- bytes in the computer's memory. Usually the computer runs along executing the "machine code" that's stored in the memory, and it's never supposed to start executing the data that is also stored in the memory. However, there are ways to "trick" the program into executing bytes in the data area. You then have to embed your malicious machine code into that data, and there's your exploit.
This specific vulnerability with JPEGs is in the decoding of the "comment" field. There's a value which tells you the length of that field, but it has a minimum length of 2. The Microsoft parser never deals with the case where that "length" value is less than 2, because it's not supposed to be (btw, this is bad programming practice -- you should never assume that your input won't be out of range). It subtracts 2 from that number to get an "actual length" -- but in the case where the number is 0 or 1, the actual length turns out to be -2 or -1.
Problem is, this negative length is interpreted as an unsigned number, and ends up being a reallly big positive number. This ends up screwing around with the memory allocation for the comment buffer, which eventually is used to trick the computer into running machine code that was embedded in the image. I'm really shaky on how the details of this part work right now
Little stuff has no effect, and chaos theory was a load of bullshit.
Man, you're right! Every small thing we do could have an effect on *anything*! We'd better stop building skyscrapers. Hell, we'd better stop building any buildings altogether. Also, we better stop airplanes and other craft from flying around. In fact, why don't we all just stop moving altogether? It's the only way to keep the environment safe! Chaos theory says so!
Seriously: why do people always assume that "chaos theory" means "BAD THINGS HAPPEN!!"? All it means is that systems become unpredictable if they're complex enough.
ps: one bit of your ECC memory failing causing your computer to crash has virtually nothing to do with chaos theory.
One of these?
Springfield, IL
Springfield, MO
Springfield, OH
Springfield, OR
Springfield, FL
Springfield, MI
Springfield, NJ
Springfield, PA
Springfield, TN
or how about Springfield, USA?
This text here is solely to get by the lameness filter. It won't let me post the above because of the minimum average line length filter; however, if I put it all on one line it automagically inserts line breaks and *still* kills the minimum average line length filter. Trying to put some line-widifiers down here causes the compression filter to fail. So, as you're reading through this offtopic and uninteresting drivel at the bottom of an otherwise simple post, remember -- you have the lameness filter to thank!!
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
If you're going to quote this statistic, you should also mention the *trend* of the unemployment rate over each administration. If you leave that out, you're simply being disingenuous.
How does this get around mozilla's popup blocker?
Shame as they were good reference speakers
:)
"reference speakers" being an audio engineering euphamism for "really shitty sounding speakers to make sure that the mix still sounds ok on people's really shitty sounding speakers"
The DOS/Win9x codebase merged against the NT base under XP
I think you misspelled "2000."
The rest of your post is blatant trolling (hey, maybe this was, as well?)
That's the likely reason you'll see Will Smith's naked rear in "I, Robot,"
But... but... Why couldn't it have been Bridget Moynahan's naked rear, instead?
Stupid Will Smith...
And in Middle Earth, perhaps the most powerful and coolest individuals are wizards, of which I believe there are supposed to only be a handful of (if that) in the Tolkien "universe". Good luck to enforcing that rule.
Uhm.
What's so hard about just not having wizards be playable characters at all?
(which is exactly what they're doing, btw.)
"Networked clusters are useful only when the task is parallelizable, and each subtask is computable on a single node. Cloud physics is not like that. Cracking RC5, for instance, is."
The issue isn't parallelizability. *All* supercomputers are designed to exploit large amounts of parallelization (and *all* supercomputers will do poorly if the task isn't parallelizable).
The issue is internode communication. If your simulation requires a *lot* of transmitting data between each processing stage (like "cloud physics" probably would) then a more tightly-integrated parallel machine (like a cray) would be better. If you can do more computation before having to communicate (like cracking RC5), then a cluster will be more cost effective.
and if states are distributed probabilistically (and why wouldn't they be?)
Does "why" or "why not" ever come into the picture of how the universe is set up? How is it any more than "is it" or "is it not"?
I mean, it's possible that they're not -- what can you say beyond that? You can have a repeating universe, or a random universe with states that just never come up. Why wouldn't it be like this?
RGB's aren't "additive colors" and CMYK aren't "subtractive colors." They're all colors, and you can mix with them any way you like -- adding or subtracting.
You wouldn't call a painter "counter-productive" for having red, green or blue paint, would you? Then what's so wrong about a screen having Cyan, Magenta, or Yellow?
See, there's two ways to mix color: adding them (shining multiple light sources upon a surface, or directly at a receptor), or subtracting them (mixing multiple pigments or overlapping multiple light filters, then shining white light on or through them to produce the color).
RGB are the additive *primaries*, and CMY are the subtractive *primaries*. But the notion that "R G and B add, and C M and Y subtract" is completely misleading.
Would you ever expect a serious news program to say something like "This just in: Bush and Kerry are pretty much identical on domestic issues, ie, Pro-Hollywood. Full story at 11!"
Though our current neo-conservative president being identical on the issues to the #1 most liberal senator certainly *would* be a story.
You can manufacture consumer goods privately under socialism, too. You just can't have a "captialist class" making the profit.
But those two ears can pinpoint an audio source with around 3 degrees accuracy plus distance.
Our ears don't work with *true* 3 degrees of accuracy. There's only two sensors, so it's impossible to, anyway!
They work by some complex post-processing by our brain -- slight differences in the frequencies and phase relationships of sounds as they appear and move around our head are interpreted as coming from different angles, as our ears' strange shapes filter sounds directionally. But it can be fooled.
A 2-speaker headphone can easily re-create a full spherical sound field.... as long as you keep your head fixed in one place (as all the sounds will be relative to your head orientation).
Quality headphones and a subwoofer, OTOH, can always do better, with no extra requirements beyond not having too much background noise.
Ah, but headphones can only easily position sound relative to your head's position and orientation -- whereas this room wafefront synthesis system positions sound relative to the *room*. A sound 50 feet behind the right wall will sound 50 feed behind the right wall to a listener no matter where they are sitting in the theater and no matter which way they're looking.
To emulate this with headphones, you'd need some sort of position/orientation tracking system on each pair of headphones. So now the question is, which is more complex: hundreds of fixed speakers playing phase-synchronized sounds in a coordinated fashion, or hundreds of individual headphone units with tracking devices each playing one version of the virtual "source" material customized for each listener?
Ok, I get how the WFS works to generate wave fronts that look like they came from various points behind (or even in front of) the speaker array.
But according to this site:
" Virtual point sources situated in front of the loudspeaker array. An extension of the WFS principle allows the synthesis of sources within the listening area at positions where no physical sources are actually present. These "sound holograms" are created when a wave front created by the loudspeaker array converges onto a fixed position inside of the listening room. The wave front is then naturally re-emitted from the target position to the rest of the listening area. The sound field is therefore inaccurate between the loudspeaker array and the target position but perfectly valid beyond it."
So a sound "appearing" in the center isle will have to pass through both sides of the theater before being generated. How can this be done without, at best, having some sort of phasey distorted pre-echo before the main wave from the center source reaches your ears?
First of all, thank you for ignoring the great majority of my post, and concentrating entirely on two lines. This is sarcasm.
Second of all, the lines you quote were opinion, not flamebait.
Third of all, you're attempting to make a generalized argument by citing specific instances. This is very poor argument style. My opinionated assertion was that the quality of wikipedia's articles, in general, is leagues beyond e2's nodes, in general. Not that e2 has nodes that aren't in wikipedia (an obvious fact almost to the point of tautology: wikipedia has a smaller scope than e2. It's trying to make an encyclopedia. IMNSHO, e2 was better before it started trying to be an encyclopedia as well). Not that on some topics e2 may have better writeups than wiki. But in general, wiki has better quality writeups than e2.
But hey, this was a small part of my argument -- my major point was regarding the horrid policy of arbitrary deletion. Score one against the straw man!
Fourth of all, and finally, these are some bold statements for an AC.
In the Puerto Rico entry it says that Puerto Ricans dont pay federal taxes, that is simply not true. There is no separate federal taxation category for Puerto Ricans. What is true is that income earned in puerto rico by pays no federal taxes.
I'm surprised this was changed back. Perhaps you should change it again? (BTW, where exactly did you make this change? I'm curious to see why it was changed back)
The entry also says that only 20% of puerto ricans decend from blacks which is a lie. Immigration from europe and slaves brough from africa accounted for almost 100% of the population and it was about 50-50 white and black. The article instead says that 60% of the population can claim amerindian descent. THat is bullshit. the indians in puerto rico were killed in practically less than a generation. that is why they started bringing black slave in the first place.
Do you have a reference for these assertions? If so, perhaps you should add it, or start a conversation on the discussion page to hash it out.
It seems that recent research has made the demographics of puerto rico a contraversial topic. Can you really claim that wiki's info is wrong, if it's a hotly contested item among experts?
What guarantee do you have that fact checkers, editors or referees are going to be correct?
is editor - and peer reviewed.... There is also a strong sense of community and lacks any editorial wars.... A much more enlightened and pleasant place to be.
Hrm.
There are three ways (IIRC) that articles on e2 are "reviewed":
1) Voted up/down. Pretty low level users can do this.
2) "Cooled." Medium level users can do this.
3) Deleted entirely. Only the highest level users can do this.
The problem is #3, which results in a huge power imbalance in the e2 community, which I believe detracts from the "strong sense of community."
You see, as an e2 author, you can expect that a large percentage of your articles are going to be deleted. Just completely poof gone. Most of the time you won't get any explanation, it'll just happen. And if it is explained, the standards for deletion are so variable as to be completely inconsistent, and up to the individual editors' whims. The standards keep changing. Once meta-nodes were encouraged, then they started deleting them. For a while it was meant to be a formless system of "all knowledge" where all sorts of surreal things were allowed -- then they wanted to make it into "encyclopedia quality," and started deleting anything that wasn't informative enough. Then things started to swing back in the other direction. Articles that are voted up +100 and cooled ten times are just as likely to be inexplicably deleted as as any other. And if a particular editor has it out for you, there's basically nothing you can do about it.
And the attitude around e2 for all these issues is simply "Suck it up and node something else." Not very enlightened, if you ask me.
Things were a lot more open and expressive with the first everything, may it RIP.
Of course, in wikipedia, anyone can change anything you write. But 1) it's still available in the history of the article, and 2) everyone is on equal ground in wikipedia (minus the mods, who are very hands off unless absolutely necessary) -- something that cannot be said for e2.
And no matter how hard e2 will try, the quality of wikipedia's content will always be leagues beyond it. Maybe not as varied or silly, but when I really want to know about "everything" I aim my browser towards wiki, not e2.
It is true even more so with content found on the Internet.
Why?