Perhaps I can resolve this: the normal definition of "person" does not allow you to consider two persons to be equivalent to one in general. However, the definition of "computer" - a device that computes - allows this, because "device" is suitably vague with respect to spatial boundaries, physical form etc.
I didn't RTFA, but perhaps he's claiming that the growth is described by a function such as exp(t*exp(t)), or even exp(exp(t)), rather than just pointing out the obvious fact that (d/dt)(exp(t)) = exp(t) ? The wording (at least in the summary) is far too ambiguous, and in any case how do we define a numerical "rate of progress"?
Methodology: A global usage share of xx percent for browser Y means that xx percent of the visitors of Internet users arrived at sites that are using one of OneStat.com's services by using browser Y. All numbers mentioned in the research are averages of last week and all measurements are normalised to the GMT timezone. Research is based on a sample of 2 million visitors divided into 20,000 visitors of 100 countries each day.
So, who are OneStat's service users? Are there as many of them in the UK as there are in the US? This could easily have generated the discrepancy you refer to.
Interestingly, the BBC claim that something like 12% of their visitors use Firefox.
And ofcourse voting should have been possible with categories unselected, it is really a major error on behalve of the builder.
Spot on. In my view, though, with such a large number of voters (hopefully anyway - come on slashdot) a random selection is the next best thing to "none of the above", as it will not favour any particular candidate. It isn't ideal, obviously.
There are some suggestions on the NoSoftwarePatents site, if you're really stuck for choice. Obviously, read the justification under each one and see if you agree...
Roll a dice. And tell your friends to do the same, in the catagories they know nothing about. The combined effect of hundreds of random choices in those catagories will then not be biased towards any particular candidate.
I think hard links solve problems (1) and (2) for you, as they refer directly to inodes rather than being pointers to directory entries elsewhere in the heirarchy. Only problem being that you can't hard link to a file on a different filesystem.
I suppose the device would pick up all of the sound in the room, just as microphone hidden behind a picture frame would, and then this would be listened to by the operator. The operator's ears/brain could then filter out the irrelevant stuff quite easily, even with quite a noisy signal.
Essentially, the waveform heard by the operator hiding outside would be the same signal he'd hear inside the room, with a linear transformation applied (like reverberation, which tends to be easy for the brain to compensate for) and perhaps some small amount of nonlinearity (e.g. clipping, which tends to be harder for the brain to deal with). Therefore to mess things up for the spies, try to find materials which respond in a nonlinear way when sound impinges on them. Either that or use materials which absorb a huge percentage of the incident sound. Basically you'd want your secure room to be like a large recording studio's vocal booth.
In other news, we learn that script kiddies don't actually write software.
I'd have thought 450 euros (see here, select "Golden Hacker Defender" from combo box) was a bit beyond the price range of your average copy/paste script kiddies, but then I've never met any so I wouldn't know. Either way, it's not clear to me that the site is breaking any laws by selling this software. Any lawyers around?
You might have more luck rubbing it vigorously against your head/sofa/whatever - hopefully the build-up of static charge will disrupt the image. "Um, no officer, I was just drying my hair with my e-towel"
It has a resolution of 600 by 800 pixels - better than the first digital cameras, better than the camera in my current phone in fact. If the dpi figure worries you, just hold the paper further from your face (joking;-)).
I agree - in the circumstances IIIR are just doing what they have to, and Google are at least having the sense to step down and adopt the "googlemail" alternative (for the time being). To be honest, I really can't say I'm too bothered by this story - still haven't got a gmail account:*( and those who do have them can still receive mail sent to their old addresses. Google won't lose any fame or goodwill in the geek community over this.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I can resolve this: the normal definition of "person" does not allow you to consider two persons to be equivalent to one in general. However, the definition of "computer" - a device that computes - allows this, because "device" is suitably vague with respect to spatial boundaries, physical form etc.
I didn't RTFA, but perhaps he's claiming that the growth is described by a function such as exp(t*exp(t)), or even exp(exp(t)), rather than just pointing out the obvious fact that (d/dt)(exp(t)) = exp(t) ? The wording (at least in the summary) is far too ambiguous, and in any case how do we define a numerical "rate of progress"?
Just what I thought - also mentioned here (which is one of the "offsite" links above).
From OneStat's site:
Methodology: A global usage share of xx percent for browser Y means that xx percent of the visitors of Internet users arrived at sites that are using one of OneStat.com's services by using browser Y. All numbers mentioned in the research are averages of last week and all measurements are normalised to the GMT timezone. Research is based on a sample of 2 million visitors divided into 20,000 visitors of 100 countries each day.
So, who are OneStat's service users? Are there as many of them in the UK as there are in the US? This could easily have generated the discrepancy you refer to.
Interestingly, the BBC claim that something like 12% of their visitors use Firefox.
Hmm.... "download this browser to view our site" tends to be viewed with suspicion where porn sites are concerned. So I hear.
There's an article here about such weapons.
No need for a drive :-)
And ofcourse voting should have been possible with categories unselected, it is really a major error on behalve of the builder.
Spot on. In my view, though, with such a large number of voters (hopefully anyway - come on slashdot) a random selection is the next best thing to "none of the above", as it will not favour any particular candidate. It isn't ideal, obviously.
There are some suggestions on the NoSoftwarePatents site, if you're really stuck for choice. Obviously, read the justification under each one and see if you agree...
Roll a dice. And tell your friends to do the same, in the catagories they know nothing about. The combined effect of hundreds of random choices in those catagories will then not be biased towards any particular candidate.
(Half joking....) :-)
I think hard links solve problems (1) and (2) for you, as they refer directly to inodes rather than being pointers to directory entries elsewhere in the heirarchy. Only problem being that you can't hard link to a file on a different filesystem.
I suppose the device would pick up all of the sound in the room, just as microphone hidden behind a picture frame would, and then this would be listened to by the operator. The operator's ears/brain could then filter out the irrelevant stuff quite easily, even with quite a noisy signal.
Essentially, the waveform heard by the operator hiding outside would be the same signal he'd hear inside the room, with a linear transformation applied (like reverberation, which tends to be easy for the brain to compensate for) and perhaps some small amount of nonlinearity (e.g. clipping, which tends to be harder for the brain to deal with). Therefore to mess things up for the spies, try to find materials which respond in a nonlinear way when sound impinges on them. Either that or use materials which absorb a huge percentage of the incident sound. Basically you'd want your secure room to be like a large recording studio's vocal booth.
In other news, we learn that script kiddies don't actually write software.
I'd have thought 450 euros (see here, select "Golden Hacker Defender" from combo box) was a bit beyond the price range of your average copy/paste script kiddies, but then I've never met any so I wouldn't know. Either way, it's not clear to me that the site is breaking any laws by selling this software. Any lawyers around?
What's next, Virus Writers Monthly?
How about this?
You were looking for this website presumably.
D'OH!!! Sorry, just had a proper look.
William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, HG Wells, Jules Verne ...
Try here - seems to be .tar.gz, about to download now ..... :-)
Better lait than never :-)
Beats the crappy series. That really was disgraceful.
Wasn't that the sound of HG Wells spinning in his grave?
You might have more luck rubbing it vigorously against your head/sofa/whatever - hopefully the build-up of static charge will disrupt the image. "Um, no officer, I was just drying my hair with my e-towel"
Wouldn't that require a 4D office to embed properly?
It has a resolution of 600 by 800 pixels - better than the first digital cameras, better than the camera in my current phone in fact. If the dpi figure worries you, just hold the paper further from your face (joking ;-)).
According to this page, the paper retains the image when the power is removed. Even more info here (PDF).
I agree - in the circumstances IIIR are just doing what they have to, and Google are at least having the sense to step down and adopt the "googlemail" alternative (for the time being). To be honest, I really can't say I'm too bothered by this story - still haven't got a gmail account :*( and those who do have them can still receive mail sent to their old addresses. Google won't lose any fame or goodwill in the geek community over this.