Nah, not too long ago there was a slashdot article about the ethics of allowing the blind to legally hunt, by having their companion do everything but pull the trigger (ah, what sport!)
What will that prove? The average person may find an internet browser in Linux and OSX, more likely OSX than Linux if they have any inkling of what Safari is, and will they be checking their email online or with a client? Again, it'd them to have some knowledge of where or what the name of some of these programs are. And, finally, when you ask them to download an application, they will likely find that it doesn't work on Mac OSX or Linux. And even if it does work on OSX, it's virtually certain that it won't work on Linux because most people's idea of "downloading an application" means using the vast intarwebs, and not the sandboxed playground that is Synaptic or other application managers. They'll go online, find a program, download it, and it won't do anything.
Ooh, no. Good guess though. It'll actually be version 7 of that seventh way. Unfortunately, each upgrade will not be backwards compatible with the previous one, and end up causing only more problems.
Your post doesn't convey much information content, though I do love the use of MS Paint and the novel use of the mathematical term "inflection point" to try and get your message across.
I also like how you used Google Trends, which is an engine that essentially compares for which term is more searched for, and asked it whether MSN.com or Google.com fared better. Because I'm sure the number of people who use google.com to search for google.com are representative of everyone. Everyone with the inability to realize that they are already at the website they want to be at.
If the range is similar to what you mentioned, then at best the law enforcement would only be able to know how many DVDs are currently in stock at Best Buy, tracking people with RFID would be kind of difficult with the shear number of devices using it unless these chips use a novel frequency.
Actually, massively parallel has a meaning. For example, the 131,072 CPU beast designed by IBM. This computer is designed to solve problems that have another term attached to them, and that is "embarassingly parallel" problems. Your average task is not embarassingly parallel, and thus, is difficult to scale to a massively parallel system. It would take a lot of effort, see?
But some problems can use massively parallel computers, designed to solve embarassingly parallel problems.
The problem with your signature isn't that you decry fundamentalism wrong. The problem with your signature is that you rather unfairly associate Atheism with the actions of one very maladjusted individual -- oh to hell with it, we'll just speak his name: You equate Atheism with Hitler.
That's the problem with your signature. Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics. Hitler didn't target the religious, instead, he, being a deeply maladjusted individual (to put it lightly) targeted several groups that he felt were not fit enough for a 'clean' or 'pure' Germany.
Please, just change that part of your signature. Don't equate Atheism with Hitler. Fundamentalism, or more correctly, the idea that people who disagree with your fundamental beliefs should not deserve to live, is wrong. But eugenics has nothing to do with it.
Thank you.
I wrote a valid implementation of SHA-1 and AES in JASS (scripting language of Warcraft III) just to see how poor the integer arithmatic was.
It was poor. (I had to code my own bitwise functions too, which really hurt. None are standard!)
None of you guys got the joke which referenced Stephen Colbert's show, The Colbert Report. On that show he asked all of his viewers to edit the Elephants article on Wikipedia and state that the Elephant population has tripled in the last six months.
Yes. Because if the onus were upon the corporation, could you trust them not to do what is in their favor already?
The point isn't whether it's ethical for them to say "Oops, we lost your receipt." or not, the point is, there's a reason that every time you purchase something, you are handed a receipt. It's an unwritten rule that the receipt is an agreement between you and the company. The company is explaining to you that you will bare the burden of proof of ownership, because their product is sold in many stores, and privacy agreements often keep them from even acquiring evidence of your ownership via purchase at some other place. Or in the case of buying goods or services directly, the company is establishing an agreement on the goods or services exchanged. It allows them to defend themselves if you accuse them of unfairly charging, and it allows you to defend yourself in the same situation.
Nevertheless, if you dare imagine a world in which the onus is entirely upon the corporation and that the consumer never saw a receipt... oh, that's a scary world indeed. -- Upon finding one's bank statements, one might exclaim, "What the hell is this $5000 charge for blinker fluid?"
Right now, for example, Windows XP is using 700MiB of my 1GiB RAM for cache. It also says I have 600MiB RAM available for whatever I want. So either Windows XP is giving me 1.3GiB of RAM, or it's doing what it should: aggressively caching to avoid hitting a bottleneck in I/O.
Qwest does this in a decidedly stupid fashion. Recently they detected a lot of SMTP traffic being spoofed as my email address (we don't even use their mailserver!) going through one of their servers and decided to drop our DSL. My father runs a few commercial websites for people and provides services through the DSL. We don't need much upload speed, so it works. Long story short, Qwest disconnected us after hours, and then refused repeatedly to connect us to anyone who could actually change our connection status. No port 25 blocking or throttling, just a full disconnect become somebody spoofed my email address and must have sent a good portion of spam with it. The mailserver that I use records a whopping twelve emails sent from me in the last five days. Connection was finally restored today, over thirteen hours later. Unacceptable.
I would have thought that brute force no longer implied 2^X attempts as the 'standard' for brute force.
Wikipedia gives a lovely equation (hope it's accurate!,) such that if we want a 50% chance of finding a collision, we let H be the number of possible values in the hash, and let n(P) be a function representing the number of values that must be tested for a desired probability of collision P. n(P) = 1.1174sqrt(H). Applying that to a 160-bit value gives us 'only' 1,350,853,710,837,386,639,816,681 values. That's a phenomenal result (1.35x10^24) because it is drastically lower than 2^160 (1.46x10^48.)
And the neat thing about the birthday attack is that as we increase P, n'(P) decreases. (dn/dP)
That I find difficult to believe. Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligable (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.) In addition, CNet tested iTunes, Photoshop CS2, and FEAR, each showing roughly equal performance.
Stop spreading FUD that Vista will slow down your applications. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I always just renamed it to &c.
~ is a bitwise 'NOT' operation.
Thanks for playing!
Well if you didn't fail statistics, you insensitive clod, you'd know that.
Ah, so it's coded in C+-?
Nah, not too long ago there was a slashdot article about the ethics of allowing the blind to legally hunt, by having their companion do everything but pull the trigger (ah, what sport!)
What will that prove? The average person may find an internet browser in Linux and OSX, more likely OSX than Linux if they have any inkling of what Safari is, and will they be checking their email online or with a client? Again, it'd them to have some knowledge of where or what the name of some of these programs are. And, finally, when you ask them to download an application, they will likely find that it doesn't work on Mac OSX or Linux. And even if it does work on OSX, it's virtually certain that it won't work on Linux because most people's idea of "downloading an application" means using the vast intarwebs, and not the sandboxed playground that is Synaptic or other application managers. They'll go online, find a program, download it, and it won't do anything.
Rivetting.
Ooh, no. Good guess though. It'll actually be version 7 of that seventh way. Unfortunately, each upgrade will not be backwards compatible with the previous one, and end up causing only more problems.
Your post doesn't convey much information content, though I do love the use of MS Paint and the novel use of the mathematical term "inflection point" to try and get your message across.
I also like how you used Google Trends, which is an engine that essentially compares for which term is more searched for, and asked it whether MSN.com or Google.com fared better. Because I'm sure the number of people who use google.com to search for google.com are representative of everyone. Everyone with the inability to realize that they are already at the website they want to be at.
If the range is similar to what you mentioned, then at best the law enforcement would only be able to know how many DVDs are currently in stock at Best Buy, tracking people with RFID would be kind of difficult with the shear number of devices using it unless these chips use a novel frequency.
Actually, massively parallel has a meaning. For example, the 131,072 CPU beast designed by IBM. This computer is designed to solve problems that have another term attached to them, and that is "embarassingly parallel" problems. Your average task is not embarassingly parallel, and thus, is difficult to scale to a massively parallel system. It would take a lot of effort, see?
But some problems can use massively parallel computers, designed to solve embarassingly parallel problems.
The problem with your signature isn't that you decry fundamentalism wrong. The problem with your signature is that you rather unfairly associate Atheism with the actions of one very maladjusted individual -- oh to hell with it, we'll just speak his name: You equate Atheism with Hitler. That's the problem with your signature. Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics. Hitler didn't target the religious, instead, he, being a deeply maladjusted individual (to put it lightly) targeted several groups that he felt were not fit enough for a 'clean' or 'pure' Germany. Please, just change that part of your signature. Don't equate Atheism with Hitler. Fundamentalism, or more correctly, the idea that people who disagree with your fundamental beliefs should not deserve to live, is wrong. But eugenics has nothing to do with it. Thank you.
Not many games utilize 3D sound positioning well, and on top of that, your video card never did EAX anyway.
FUD.
I thought SMP was Symmetric Multi-Processing? Is there a history behind that acronym, and was it changed from its more humble roots? - Just curious.
I attended a Microsoft conference (there goes my karma) and now I feel like "leveraging" my foot up someone's...
I'm just curious. If the 4th dimension is constantly expanding, how have you defined the rate of expansion? Then again, you are just a troll...
I wrote a valid implementation of SHA-1 and AES in JASS (scripting language of Warcraft III) just to see how poor the integer arithmatic was. It was poor. (I had to code my own bitwise functions too, which really hurt. None are standard!)
WHOOOOOSH!
None of you guys got the joke which referenced Stephen Colbert's show, The Colbert Report. On that show he asked all of his viewers to edit the Elephants article on Wikipedia and state that the Elephant population has tripled in the last six months.
Yes. Because if the onus were upon the corporation, could you trust them not to do what is in their favor already?
The point isn't whether it's ethical for them to say "Oops, we lost your receipt." or not, the point is, there's a reason that every time you purchase something, you are handed a receipt. It's an unwritten rule that the receipt is an agreement between you and the company. The company is explaining to you that you will bare the burden of proof of ownership, because their product is sold in many stores, and privacy agreements often keep them from even acquiring evidence of your ownership via purchase at some other place. Or in the case of buying goods or services directly, the company is establishing an agreement on the goods or services exchanged. It allows them to defend themselves if you accuse them of unfairly charging, and it allows you to defend yourself in the same situation.
Nevertheless, if you dare imagine a world in which the onus is entirely upon the corporation and that the consumer never saw a receipt... oh, that's a scary world indeed. -- Upon finding one's bank statements, one might exclaim, "What the hell is this $5000 charge for blinker fluid?"
Powerpoint files accompanied by PDFs and a video requiring the latest release of Flash.
Right now, for example, Windows XP is using 700MiB of my 1GiB RAM for cache. It also says I have 600MiB RAM available for whatever I want. So either Windows XP is giving me 1.3GiB of RAM, or it's doing what it should: aggressively caching to avoid hitting a bottleneck in I/O.
Qwest does this in a decidedly stupid fashion. Recently they detected a lot of SMTP traffic being spoofed as my email address (we don't even use their mailserver!) going through one of their servers and decided to drop our DSL. My father runs a few commercial websites for people and provides services through the DSL. We don't need much upload speed, so it works. Long story short, Qwest disconnected us after hours, and then refused repeatedly to connect us to anyone who could actually change our connection status. No port 25 blocking or throttling, just a full disconnect become somebody spoofed my email address and must have sent a good portion of spam with it. The mailserver that I use records a whopping twelve emails sent from me in the last five days. Connection was finally restored today, over thirteen hours later. Unacceptable.
I would have thought that brute force no longer implied 2^X attempts as the 'standard' for brute force. Wikipedia gives a lovely equation (hope it's accurate!,) such that if we want a 50% chance of finding a collision, we let H be the number of possible values in the hash, and let n(P) be a function representing the number of values that must be tested for a desired probability of collision P. n(P) = 1.1174sqrt(H). Applying that to a 160-bit value gives us 'only' 1,350,853,710,837,386,639,816,681 values. That's a phenomenal result (1.35x10^24) because it is drastically lower than 2^160 (1.46x10^48.) And the neat thing about the birthday attack is that as we increase P, n'(P) decreases. (dn/dP)
Something tells me that if we ever catch Osama, it'll be on charges of Tax Evasion.
That I find difficult to believe. Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligable (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.) In addition, CNet tested iTunes, Photoshop CS2, and FEAR, each showing roughly equal performance. Stop spreading FUD that Vista will slow down your applications. Thank you.