No, it was an example of one the computer CAN deal with (if it's anticipated in the programming.
A computer is limited by the creativity of the guy writing the IF THEN statements (setting aside the possibly of adaptive AI, but that raises other issues).
If you want to be really pedantic, 'whom' is a dative (indirect object, object of a preposition (ablative in Romance languages), and instrumental (separate case form for sweorda in many Anglo-Saxon texts)) form from the Anglo-Saxon 'hwaem'. The accusative (direct object) form was be 'hwone' which became 'who,' not 'whom'.
So it's 'To whom did you speak?' and 'Who did you hit?' and 'Who hit you?'
Or, you could shut the hell up and just accept that Modern English is already, and is still becoming, more and more of an analytic language rather than a synthetic one and that word endings really don't matter nearly as much syntax.
The only 'investigative reporting' that happens in MSM is once a year the NYT gets one big article off. That's it, and even that amounts to just about nothing.
Software is great when it works as intended. What you just outlined is a textbook example of the advantages of software--but software doesn't always work as intended, and it is virtually impossible to prove that a given piece of (non-trivial) code will function exactly as intended. Or worse, even properly functioning software cannot deal with unanticipated scenarios.
No, you've fundametally misunderstood the problem. If you were to fit the circles inside of hexagons instead of inside of squares you'd find that 10% more area fits inside the circles.
The GP was not saying use hexagons instead of circles, he was saying hexagons instead of the squares AROUND the circles.
Though I still don't see how that year is when hourly wage became the measure of the individual. What the hell does a stock market crash and the ensuing depression have to do with that? People were crass and greedy and materialistic all through the 1920s. And the 1910s. And the 1900s. And the 1890s. And the 1880s. I could keep going, but I won't.
What I love about this is the number of posts in previous threads over the last few months claiming that this was a nontrivial DRM, that it wouldn't be broken for weeks.
Can we finally set to rest the notion that there is such a thing as non-trivial to crack DRM?
The answer to all your questions is yes, however, when the article said 'near perfect quantum efficiency' I took that to imply minimal heat loss in the conversion (but I could be wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
where all the junkies go.
Where everything is fast
And everyone gets slow.
No, it was an example of one the computer CAN deal with (if it's anticipated in the programming.
A computer is limited by the creativity of the guy writing the IF THEN statements (setting aside the possibly of adaptive AI, but that raises other issues).
If you want to be really pedantic, 'whom' is a dative (indirect object, object of a preposition (ablative in Romance languages), and instrumental (separate case form for sweorda in many Anglo-Saxon texts)) form from the Anglo-Saxon 'hwaem'. The accusative (direct object) form was be 'hwone' which became 'who,' not 'whom'.
So it's 'To whom did you speak?' and 'Who did you hit?' and 'Who hit you?'
Or, you could shut the hell up and just accept that Modern English is already, and is still becoming, more and more of an analytic language rather than a synthetic one and that word endings really don't matter nearly as much syntax.
The only 'investigative reporting' that happens in MSM is once a year the NYT gets one big article off. That's it, and even that amounts to just about nothing.
Software is great when it works as intended. What you just outlined is a textbook example of the advantages of software--but software doesn't always work as intended, and it is virtually impossible to prove that a given piece of (non-trivial) code will function exactly as intended. Or worse, even properly functioning software cannot deal with unanticipated scenarios.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with the GP's comment. Comment was about hexagons vs. squares that the circles are placed inside of.
No, you've fundametally misunderstood the problem. If you were to fit the circles inside of hexagons instead of inside of squares you'd find that 10% more area fits inside the circles.
The GP was not saying use hexagons instead of circles, he was saying hexagons instead of the squares AROUND the circles.
No, double the nines. Four nines of game developers are morons instead of two nines of regular developers.
It's certainly an appropriate time for this story to post. Glad to know I'm not alone.
2010...carry the one....fuck me. My bad.
Though I still don't see how that year is when hourly wage became the measure of the individual. What the hell does a stock market crash and the ensuing depression have to do with that? People were crass and greedy and materialistic all through the 1920s. And the 1910s. And the 1900s. And the 1890s. And the 1880s. I could keep going, but I won't.
Lesson learned my friend. Lesson learned.
You route the connections to 127.0.0.1 and pack in a small server that answers the requests.
What I love about this is the number of posts in previous threads over the last few months claiming that this was a nontrivial DRM, that it wouldn't be broken for weeks.
Can we finally set to rest the notion that there is such a thing as non-trivial to crack DRM?
Nothing ruins your argument like posting on YouTube.
Many men accept a negative hourly rate for meth-addicts on the street corner. It's called prostitution.
1919? Try again?
not finish your sentences?
Nah, you've just been spoiled by an internet full of porn.
Then you'll have something else instead.
No, no its not. That's the reason for peer review, not the reason for restricting readership. Restricting readership is about money.
(I know, I know, I must be new here.)
Well yeah, just look at your UID.
Everyone else here can see you're a moron. Why can't you?
Go away, and stop ruining products I actually want with irrelevant bullshit I don't need and refuse to pay for.
There's no such thing as 'otherwise sensible people.' They're all morons.
The answer to all your questions is yes, however, when the article said 'near perfect quantum efficiency' I took that to imply minimal heat loss in the conversion (but I could be wrong).