Your SSN is a 9-digit number. Range: 000-00-0000 to 999-99-9999. That's 1 billion combinations. There have been more than 1 billion SSNs issued.
That, right there, tells me there are duplicates.
Since a valid SSN can't have an area number (first 3 digits) between 734 and 749, we remove 15 million numbers; that leaves 985 million. Oh, the area number also can't be higher than 772. That removes another 228 million numbers from the pool, leaving us with 757 million numbers. We can rule out 000-**-** (1 million), ***-00-**** (100 thousand), and ***-**-0000 (10 million) for a total of 11.1 million additional numbers removed from the list; drop off 666-**-**** and we lose another million. Ok, we're left with 744.9 million. Oh, and two numbers have been removed from the system after having been used in advertising. That means there are only 744,899,998 valid SSNs; less than 3/4 of the apparent pool of 1 billion.
With over 300 million living legal US residents with assigned SSNs, unless fewer than 444,899,998 deceased had an SSN assigned at some point during their life, there are multiply-assigned numbers out there. Since we're looking at nearly 50% here, there's a more than fair chance that a fair number of SSNs of living people are also multiply-asigned. Depending on how you analyze these statistics, you can estimate that anywhere from 5% to 25% of SSNs are multiply-assigned to living people right now.
5% might be rare. 25%, not so much. From what you can tell (implying 100% provability given your resources) you're probably right, nobody else has the same SSN as you. From what I just showed you, there's a chance, somewhere between 1:20 and 1:4, that someone does.
My buddy had his BB Curve eaten by a dog (really severly chewed, half the casing on the right side is missing, boards exposed, etc...) about 2 years ago. He never turned it off or pulled the battery to let the slobber dry up; he just wiped it off as well as he could with a paper towel. He's still using it, as is. Even covered in slobber to the point that any other phone would have shorted out and released its magic smoke, he was able to use it to call me and laugh about what had just happened.
The only issue it has is with bluetooth connectivity. Sometimes it gets a little flaky, but that's the nature of bluetooth, from what I've seen.
I think that's what everyone's getting at. My Torch has the same CPU as the Bold it replaced, which, while disappointing, isn't really holding the phone back.
You see, people, when you're talking about mobile devices running services which require at least the illusion of real-time access to the hardware, you're talking about an OS which gives background services priority. When that's what you're talking about, it's not only possible, but probable, that apps can and will run faster a system with more efficiently coded services (e.g. they use less RAM and fewer CPU cycles) and a slower CPU and less RAM than the same apps would run on a less efficiently coded system with a faster CPU and more RAM.
Windows can do this; go ahead, enable the feature, then install a few daemons and open them up to the public. Watch what happens to that game you love to play oh-so-much when those services are getting hammered. Ok, now turn off that feature but leave the services running. Game runs better, right? You can do the same test in Linux, if you know where to look, as well.
Here's why: When you give priority to background services, those services will ALWAYS get CPU, RAM, and I/O resources BEFORE the applications you want to run. The end result is that, when those services need resources, when they're getting hammered, when some obscure (or not so obscure) bug triggers a care condition in one of those services, your apps slow to a crawl.
Ok, so why's my Torch seem more responsive than my Bold, given the same CPU at the same clock speed? Is it because it has more RAM? Probably not, I never really maxed-out the Bold's RAM so that wasn't holding it back. No, I'm pretty sure if I shoehorned BBOS 6 onto the Bold, I'd see the same responsiveness from it that I see from the Torch. Why? Do you really have to ask? I'm pretty sure I just explained it.
Now, as a counter-example, I had a Palm Pixi+ in the interim time between the Bold and the Torch (my fiancee's Curve was having battery issues and the Pixi+ was cheaper than a new battery so I got that and gave her the Bold). The Pixi+ has 256MB of RAM and a 600Mhz CPU, while the Bold weighs in with the same amount of RAM and a CPU that's only 24Mhz faster. That's a difference of only 4% so I really shouldn't have noticed much, right? Wrong. The services on the Pixi+ (specifically the window manager, which I never saw using less than 33% of available RAM or 50% of the CPU) are so inefficient that simple things like sending a text message or initiating a call took several seconds (sometimes more than 10 or 20) rather than being almost instantaneous! There were times that I would miss a call entirely, despite having pressed the answer button on the first ring, because the window manager and some other kernel task were hogging CPU cycles, so the phone and radio services couldn't process my keypress quickly enough! I know it's not a CPU issue, given that the Curve I had before the Bold didn't have these issues and it only brought 32MB and 312Mhz to the table and it was infinitely more responsive than the Pixi+.
What most people, and I'm guessing that includes the/. population (and obviously a large portion of the smartphone OS development community who, for the most part, can't seem to develop system services in such a way as to not require a 1+Ghz CPU and a gig of RAM in order to leave anything available to the user), don't realize is that our phones are servers and, as such, run operating systems designed to give daemons and system processes priority over user processes. The end result, and I can't drive this point home nearly enough, is that a phone with a slower CPU and less RAM can perform noticeably better, run more apps (simultaneously!!), and run those apps faster than a phone with a faster CPU and more RAM.
It's not just theory, it's reality; look at the iPhone or any Android phone vs. the Torch. Every iPhone (save for the original, which shipped with a CPU that was 4Mhz slower) and every Android phone sh
Have you been on 4chan lately? The amount of absolute shit appearing on that site would seem to indicate that Anonymous is, in fact, a movement. A bowel movement, but a movement none-the-less.
So there are a lot of immature FBI agents out there, then? After that connection's been made, for your sake, I hope you're truly as anonymous as you are cowardly; only an immature agent would come after you for saying that.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, it should be noted that, by your logic, people can never mature. You're immature when you're 5 (even if you're mature for a 5-year-old) and, as a result, watch shows catering to your age and maturity level. You know of these shows and you will know of them for your entire life. According to you, you'll never be mature because you have knowledge of immature things.
You'd think someone with an all-caps, no punctuation user name would get "PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI" right.
But, then, you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?
(Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.) Shouldn't that read "Filter error: Don't use so many PUDDI. It's like posting on 4chan."? And what the hell, Slashdot, I AM yelling! How many lowercase letters do I need to type before you'll accept this comment?
You mean to say he has embarrassed the American government. As an american I can, with a straight face, sit here and tell you that Julian Assange has done nothing to embarrass me. What he's done is point out the failings of my representatives, most of whom were elected against my vote, rather than by it.
What Assange is doing is great; it may eventually open peoples' eyes to the fact that the shit politicians spew when they want something from you and the shit they spew once they've had their way with you are from two different bulls. When people realize that they're hearing false promises before the election and lies after, here's hoping they're 7 different kinds of pissed off.
Whether we, as a people, begin voting more wisely, or we violently overthrow our current govenrment, there will be positive changes here in the US, and those changes will have come about, in no small part, due to the work of Julian Assange. My only hope is that it happens soon and that it's not too bloody (voting machines don't produce paper cuts but most of the paper ballots I've used were printed on cardstock).
I propose a new term, similar to character assassination but by means of spreading truth about a person, rather than lies. I wish that we term this act "character assangenation". Who's with me?
Are you talking about prostitutes in countries (and Las Vagas, Nevada in the US) where it's legal or everywhere but Las Vegas in the US?
No, really, it makes a difference.
I'm not positive (got tested the other day, thanks) but I'd be willing to place a small wager that autocracy is both in the US and not in Las Vegas. Your typical US whore with a pimp who could give a fuck less about her well-being will never be tested and will ride bareback a LOT.
Now, if you're referring to escorts as prostitutes, be aware that only roughly a third of their "dates" end in some form of sexual activity and that activity isn't what's being paid for. That's straight promiscuity, not prostitution and I'm almost positive your numbers don't take that into account.
I'm betting he didn't pay for that pirated copy, though. That was part of my point.
I'll openly admit I have pirated software on my home computer (posting from work, where I keep a well-licensed machine out of respect for my employer). I have not problems with admitting that. Hell, I pirate any piece of software I use that tries to phone home. However, I also have legit, boxed, licensed copies of those applications. I do this for the same reason your prof does.
How is that? I mean, the lottery ticket I bought yesterday most likely didn't win (drawing already took place, I simply haven't checked the results). For me to say it's not a winning ticket implies that I've already tested that by checking the results.
Similarly, for autocracy to say that a prostitute most likely has an STD, he simply has to have reason to believe that to be true. For him to say, with any authority, a prostitute does have an STD, he would have to have firsthand experience with said prostitute.
Yes, someone may have told him that prostitute has chlamydia and he's probably wise to believe it; however, he doesn't know until he checks for himself.
No, but we're to assume that someone who does work in law enforcement (or who works for the entertainment industry and thinks they work in law enforcement) is going to read this.
I have this innate and increasingly obviously rare ability to look at things from multiple points of view. The beauty of stereoscopic vision is that you see the ball coming at you.
If you say that people engaged in prostitution most likely have STDs, I'd say you've made an educated assumption. If you say that most people engaged in prostitution do have STDs, I'd be led to assume that you had firsthand experience.
Follow the same logic for your other examples. OP said "most pay warez sites seem to be scams" (rather than "must be" or "are probably") and "some even list fake games" (rather than "probably" or "might"). This implies firsthand knowledge.
I wouldn't publicly admit to knowing that. You just:
A) Admitted that you've joined one of these sites for the express purpose of obtaining an illicit copy of a game (regardless of whether they had the file, that you know they didn't shows that you searched, which shows intent)
B) Admitted that you are willing to knowingly pay for pirated media (really, at that point, why not buy it legitimately? Sure, it's cheaper, but you're now tying your name to the transaction)
C) Admitted to having fallen for the scam. Multiple times. (You did say most, which implies that you have experience with multiple for-pay warez sites)
Slashdot Mirror
Your SSN is a 9-digit number. Range: 000-00-0000 to 999-99-9999. That's 1 billion combinations. There have been more than 1 billion SSNs issued.
That, right there, tells me there are duplicates.
Since a valid SSN can't have an area number (first 3 digits) between 734 and 749, we remove 15 million numbers; that leaves 985 million. Oh, the area number also can't be higher than 772. That removes another 228 million numbers from the pool, leaving us with 757 million numbers. We can rule out 000-**-** (1 million), ***-00-**** (100 thousand), and ***-**-0000 (10 million) for a total of 11.1 million additional numbers removed from the list; drop off 666-**-**** and we lose another million. Ok, we're left with 744.9 million. Oh, and two numbers have been removed from the system after having been used in advertising. That means there are only 744,899,998 valid SSNs; less than 3/4 of the apparent pool of 1 billion.
With over 300 million living legal US residents with assigned SSNs, unless fewer than 444,899,998 deceased had an SSN assigned at some point during their life, there are multiply-assigned numbers out there. Since we're looking at nearly 50% here, there's a more than fair chance that a fair number of SSNs of living people are also multiply-asigned. Depending on how you analyze these statistics, you can estimate that anywhere from 5% to 25% of SSNs are multiply-assigned to living people right now.
5% might be rare. 25%, not so much. From what you can tell (implying 100% provability given your resources) you're probably right, nobody else has the same SSN as you. From what I just showed you, there's a chance, somewhere between 1:20 and 1:4, that someone does.
If you need sources, my primary source was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number which I verified by perusing ssa.gov so no [citation needed] here.
Size doesn't matter? That's not what she said!
My buddy had his BB Curve eaten by a dog (really severly chewed, half the casing on the right side is missing, boards exposed, etc...) about 2 years ago. He never turned it off or pulled the battery to let the slobber dry up; he just wiped it off as well as he could with a paper towel. He's still using it, as is. Even covered in slobber to the point that any other phone would have shorted out and released its magic smoke, he was able to use it to call me and laugh about what had just happened.
The only issue it has is with bluetooth connectivity. Sometimes it gets a little flaky, but that's the nature of bluetooth, from what I've seen.
1+ Ghz CPU? Nope.
I think that's what everyone's getting at. My Torch has the same CPU as the Bold it replaced, which, while disappointing, isn't really holding the phone back.
You see, people, when you're talking about mobile devices running services which require at least the illusion of real-time access to the hardware, you're talking about an OS which gives background services priority. When that's what you're talking about, it's not only possible, but probable, that apps can and will run faster a system with more efficiently coded services (e.g. they use less RAM and fewer CPU cycles) and a slower CPU and less RAM than the same apps would run on a less efficiently coded system with a faster CPU and more RAM.
Windows can do this; go ahead, enable the feature, then install a few daemons and open them up to the public. Watch what happens to that game you love to play oh-so-much when those services are getting hammered. Ok, now turn off that feature but leave the services running. Game runs better, right? You can do the same test in Linux, if you know where to look, as well.
Here's why:
When you give priority to background services, those services will ALWAYS get CPU, RAM, and I/O resources BEFORE the applications you want to run. The end result is that, when those services need resources, when they're getting hammered, when some obscure (or not so obscure) bug triggers a care condition in one of those services, your apps slow to a crawl.
Ok, so why's my Torch seem more responsive than my Bold, given the same CPU at the same clock speed? Is it because it has more RAM? Probably not, I never really maxed-out the Bold's RAM so that wasn't holding it back. No, I'm pretty sure if I shoehorned BBOS 6 onto the Bold, I'd see the same responsiveness from it that I see from the Torch. Why? Do you really have to ask? I'm pretty sure I just explained it.
Now, as a counter-example, I had a Palm Pixi+ in the interim time between the Bold and the Torch (my fiancee's Curve was having battery issues and the Pixi+ was cheaper than a new battery so I got that and gave her the Bold). The Pixi+ has 256MB of RAM and a 600Mhz CPU, while the Bold weighs in with the same amount of RAM and a CPU that's only 24Mhz faster. That's a difference of only 4% so I really shouldn't have noticed much, right? Wrong. The services on the Pixi+ (specifically the window manager, which I never saw using less than 33% of available RAM or 50% of the CPU) are so inefficient that simple things like sending a text message or initiating a call took several seconds (sometimes more than 10 or 20) rather than being almost instantaneous! There were times that I would miss a call entirely, despite having pressed the answer button on the first ring, because the window manager and some other kernel task were hogging CPU cycles, so the phone and radio services couldn't process my keypress quickly enough! I know it's not a CPU issue, given that the Curve I had before the Bold didn't have these issues and it only brought 32MB and 312Mhz to the table and it was infinitely more responsive than the Pixi+.
What most people, and I'm guessing that includes the /. population (and obviously a large portion of the smartphone OS development community who, for the most part, can't seem to develop system services in such a way as to not require a 1+Ghz CPU and a gig of RAM in order to leave anything available to the user), don't realize is that our phones are servers and, as such, run operating systems designed to give daemons and system processes priority over user processes. The end result, and I can't drive this point home nearly enough, is that a phone with a slower CPU and less RAM can perform noticeably better, run more apps (simultaneously!!), and run those apps faster than a phone with a faster CPU and more RAM.
It's not just theory, it's reality; look at the iPhone or any Android phone vs. the Torch. Every iPhone (save for the original, which shipped with a CPU that was 4Mhz slower) and every Android phone sh
I think I'm in love with your wife.
Have you been on 4chan lately? The amount of absolute shit appearing on that site would seem to indicate that Anonymous is, in fact, a movement. A bowel movement, but a movement none-the-less.
That's not a stick, it's a Sharpie.
So there are a lot of immature FBI agents out there, then? After that connection's been made, for your sake, I hope you're truly as anonymous as you are cowardly; only an immature agent would come after you for saying that.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, it should be noted that, by your logic, people can never mature. You're immature when you're 5 (even if you're mature for a 5-year-old) and, as a result, watch shows catering to your age and maturity level. You know of these shows and you will know of them for your entire life. According to you, you'll never be mature because you have knowledge of immature things.
Grow up. Fuck.
You mean "tweeks"?
You'd think someone with an all-caps, no punctuation user name would get "PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI PUDDI" right.
But, then, you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?
(Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)
Shouldn't that read "Filter error: Don't use so many PUDDI. It's like posting on 4chan."? And what the hell, Slashdot, I AM yelling! How many lowercase letters do I need to type before you'll accept this comment?
I shouldn't reply to the troll, but...
10 x .999 = 9.990
Therefore: .999 .999
a =
10a = 9.990
10a - a = 9.990 -
9a = 8.991
a=.999
You mean to say he has embarrassed the American government. As an american I can, with a straight face, sit here and tell you that Julian Assange has done nothing to embarrass me. What he's done is point out the failings of my representatives, most of whom were elected against my vote, rather than by it.
What Assange is doing is great; it may eventually open peoples' eyes to the fact that the shit politicians spew when they want something from you and the shit they spew once they've had their way with you are from two different bulls. When people realize that they're hearing false promises before the election and lies after, here's hoping they're 7 different kinds of pissed off.
Whether we, as a people, begin voting more wisely, or we violently overthrow our current govenrment, there will be positive changes here in the US, and those changes will have come about, in no small part, due to the work of Julian Assange. My only hope is that it happens soon and that it's not too bloody (voting machines don't produce paper cuts but most of the paper ballots I've used were printed on cardstock).
I propose a new term, similar to character assassination but by means of spreading truth about a person, rather than lies. I wish that we term this act "character assangenation". Who's with me?
I'll definitely agree with your last sentence. I've been saying that for years.
Are you talking about prostitutes in countries (and Las Vagas, Nevada in the US) where it's legal or everywhere but Las Vegas in the US?
No, really, it makes a difference.
I'm not positive (got tested the other day, thanks) but I'd be willing to place a small wager that autocracy is both in the US and not in Las Vegas. Your typical US whore with a pimp who could give a fuck less about her well-being will never be tested and will ride bareback a LOT.
Now, if you're referring to escorts as prostitutes, be aware that only roughly a third of their "dates" end in some form of sexual activity and that activity isn't what's being paid for. That's straight promiscuity, not prostitution and I'm almost positive your numbers don't take that into account.
Wow you read even more into that than I did. Hopefully for the same reasons.
Sadly, I've received more insightful mods than funny at this point.
I also got modded funny. No chance that's what I was going for, though, I'm sure.
I don't know how I got modded insightful, either. *facepalm*
I'm betting he didn't pay for that pirated copy, though. That was part of my point.
I'll openly admit I have pirated software on my home computer (posting from work, where I keep a well-licensed machine out of respect for my employer). I have not problems with admitting that. Hell, I pirate any piece of software I use that tries to phone home. However, I also have legit, boxed, licensed copies of those applications. I do this for the same reason your prof does.
I must ask, how do you know the list is fake?
How is that? I mean, the lottery ticket I bought yesterday most likely didn't win (drawing already took place, I simply haven't checked the results). For me to say it's not a winning ticket implies that I've already tested that by checking the results.
Similarly, for autocracy to say that a prostitute most likely has an STD, he simply has to have reason to believe that to be true. For him to say, with any authority, a prostitute does have an STD, he would have to have firsthand experience with said prostitute.
Yes, someone may have told him that prostitute has chlamydia and he's probably wise to believe it; however, he doesn't know until he checks for himself.
You may want to get that looked at, Smirker.
No, but we're to assume that someone who does work in law enforcement (or who works for the entertainment industry and thinks they work in law enforcement) is going to read this.
I have this innate and increasingly obviously rare ability to look at things from multiple points of view. The beauty of stereoscopic vision is that you see the ball coming at you.
I think you're projecting your paranoia onto me. I know the only person out to get me is my ex. :)
If you say that people engaged in prostitution most likely have STDs, I'd say you've made an educated assumption. If you say that most people engaged in prostitution do have STDs, I'd be led to assume that you had firsthand experience.
Follow the same logic for your other examples. OP said "most pay warez sites seem to be scams" (rather than "must be" or "are probably") and "some even list fake games" (rather than "probably" or "might"). This implies firsthand knowledge.
LRN2IMPLY
I wouldn't publicly admit to knowing that. You just:
A) Admitted that you've joined one of these sites for the express purpose of obtaining an illicit copy of a game (regardless of whether they had the file, that you know they didn't shows that you searched, which shows intent)
B) Admitted that you are willing to knowingly pay for pirated media (really, at that point, why not buy it legitimately? Sure, it's cheaper, but you're now tying your name to the transaction)
C) Admitted to having fallen for the scam. Multiple times. (You did say most, which implies that you have experience with multiple for-pay warez sites)
If that's even possible, you're more likely to do so than GP.
I tried that once. Nobody trusted my reports.