As others have pointed out, performing surgery 30 seconds at a time doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect the reality of being in micro-gravity during the whole operation.
Why don't they do this kind of experiments on the ISS ? It was supposed to be a micro-gravity science laboratory. (Or was it a scheme to maintain 15'000 jobs at NASA ? I don't remember).
This is incorrect. The theorem you are talking about says that you cannot prove the consistency of a complete theory that includes arithmetic in the theory itself. Nothing prevents the theory from being consistent and nothing prevents you from proving the consistency at a higher level (in a meta-theory).
One key problem with many of the GE crops is that they are engineered not to breed naturally. As a marketing point this makes the company the sole source of new seeds. Practically speaking this sets up a problem if the engineered crop contamninates other crop sources preventing them from breeding
By definition if a GE crop cannot breed, it will not pass its genes to future generations so it is a non issue.
"If it's possible to scan the tag on the trash can with an ID, it's possible to use similar equipment to quickly scan your can to uncover your purchasing habits."
Certainly, but if your garbage has RFID tags you can scan it, wether or not the can has a tag.
Or if you prefer:
$(A \Rightarrow B) \nRightarrow (\neg A \Rightarrow \neg B)$
Your terminology is incorrect.
An idempotent cipher is one for which forall K, E_K(E_K(M)) = E_K(M). For exemple E_K(M):= M xor K is idempotent.
I don't know the conventional term for a cipher satisfying the condition you consider, but you could say that it is closed under composition.
To crack the first pass you have to find a key among 2^64 possibilities. Then you do the same search for the second pass. So your search space is 2^64 + 2^64 = 2^65. Hence encrypting twice with a 64 bits key is the same as encrypting once with a 65 bits key.
In the first part (I didn't bother to read the rest) he explains how they improved the lookup time in the TLB by moving from a linear search... to a hash table.
This is algorithm and datastructures 101. The fact that they are proud of this is frightening.
If you want to learn optimization techniques, please, do yourself a favor and read something else.
The article is inacurate and makes a big deal about nothing (BTW did you notice it was written by a guy from Cornell ?)
First, Galileo is not ready yet. The article claim they plan to charge for the keys. This is plain wrong, the base precision signal (which is the one we are talking about) will be available free of charge. The system is simply in testing phase right now and they don't want anyone playing with it, that's all.
Second, this PRN sequence is not supposed to be difficult to crack at all, since it will actually be made public in time. This is in no way an achievement. It is was the high precision signal, this would be another matter.
This is ridiculous. You cannot regulate software because it is speech. I have the right to publish bogus sources like I have the right to publish a medical book full of dangerous suggestions.
I you want liability, just require the vendor to comply to a certain certification and if he turns out the product really doesn't conform to it, sue him. Oh wait, this is already done.
So I you want certified software, ask for it and pay the price.
In such a case you would compile each version of the function and implement the condition by an opcode that put a reference to the correct version into a pointer. Then every call to the function use the reference contained in the pointer. In a word, you use indirect function calls.
Easy. Start with calculus, then electricity, digital systems, turing machines, register machines, read the verilog source of a processor, digest the whole IA32 manual, then the Knuths (with all the exercices) then continue with C, compiler construction, OS design, UNIX, practice procedural/oo/data-flow/logic/functional/message passing programming with an assortement of C++/ML/Prolog/LISP/, read a lot of source, read introductory material on databases, computer graphics, networking, GUI design, etc..., skim through RFCs, read the whole o'reilly catalog, and...
that's it !
Slashdot Mirror
As others have pointed out, performing surgery 30 seconds at a time doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect the reality of being in micro-gravity during the whole operation. Why don't they do this kind of experiments on the ISS ? It was supposed to be a micro-gravity science laboratory. (Or was it a scheme to maintain 15'000 jobs at NASA ? I don't remember).
How novel! A laser on a chip ? You mean, like this?
This is incorrect. The theorem you are talking about says that you cannot prove the consistency of a complete theory that includes arithmetic in the theory itself. Nothing prevents the theory from being consistent and nothing prevents you from proving the consistency at a higher level (in a meta-theory).
Higher quality perhaps, but not higher resolution since it goes from 16 bits to 1 bit.
DansTuner - Tells you if you are playing a pitch in tune
GNU Solfege - Eartraining program for GNOME
Gtick - Digital metronome
You do realise a tablature archive has nothing to do with what the submitter asked for, do you ?
...right here: http://www.meganova.org/download/fc82c202cbbc557e7 0c067869fd0e6835e0b8be4.torrent
Not to mention that he runs Windows XP on his laptop.
Your terminology is incorrect. An idempotent cipher is one for which forall K, E_K(E_K(M)) = E_K(M). For exemple E_K(M) := M xor K is idempotent.
I don't know the conventional term for a cipher satisfying the condition you consider, but you could say that it is closed under composition.
To crack the first pass you have to find a key among 2^64 possibilities. Then you do the same search for the second pass. So your search space is 2^64 + 2^64 = 2^65. Hence encrypting twice with a 64 bits key is the same as encrypting once with a 65 bits key.
If it helps you, 500 KB per tomato seed is exactly equal to 1E-5 library of Congress per coconut.
In the first part (I didn't bother to read the rest) he explains how they improved the lookup time in the TLB by moving from a linear search... to a hash table. This is algorithm and datastructures 101. The fact that they are proud of this is frightening. If you want to learn optimization techniques, please, do yourself a favor and read something else.
The article is inacurate and makes a big deal about nothing (BTW did you notice it was written by a guy from Cornell ?) First, Galileo is not ready yet. The article claim they plan to charge for the keys. This is plain wrong, the base precision signal (which is the one we are talking about) will be available free of charge. The system is simply in testing phase right now and they don't want anyone playing with it, that's all. Second, this PRN sequence is not supposed to be difficult to crack at all, since it will actually be made public in time. This is in no way an achievement. It is was the high precision signal, this would be another matter.
Now be honest. How many of you tried it ? I know I did.
...Apple might buy Apple
This is ridiculous. You cannot regulate software because it is speech. I have the right to publish bogus sources like I have the right to publish a medical book full of dangerous suggestions.
I you want liability, just require the vendor to comply to a certain certification and if he turns out the product really doesn't conform to it, sue him. Oh wait, this is already done.
So I you want certified software, ask for it and pay the price.
Like this
In such a case you would compile each version of the function and implement the condition by an opcode that put a reference to the correct version into a pointer. Then every call to the function use the reference contained in the pointer. In a word, you use indirect function calls.
At least, it sure is the best one in Cambridge.
I think you misspelled the USA.
Easy. Start with calculus, then electricity, digital systems, turing machines, register machines, read the verilog source of a processor, digest the whole IA32 manual, then the Knuths (with all the exercices) then continue with C, compiler construction, OS design, UNIX, practice procedural/oo/data-flow/logic/functional/message passing programming with an assortement of C++/ML/Prolog/LISP/, read a lot of source, read introductory material on databases, computer graphics, networking, GUI design, etc..., skim through RFCs, read the whole o'reilly catalog, and... that's it !
Start with the one and only: "structure and interpretation of computer programs" (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/).