To add to this:
the analysis on the original "research blog" was also more specific than the register article.
He said:
By decompiling the algorithm and searching the Internet for source code with similar constants, operations and a 16-value CRC table size, I was able to locate one instance of source code that fully matched the structural code implementation in Hydraq and also produced the same output when given the same input
The Register people seem to have accepted similarity in code, without going to the trouble of
checking the outputs.
The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio. The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor. That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi.
I'm a great programmer and I use emacs, you insensitive clod!
Some time ago I was having a conversation with some people about whether extrajudicial
killing can ever be justified, and Nathan Myhrvold was the one person who we agreed there
was really no good argument against it.
BTW-- The reason that the Indian government has to promise such attractive returns on these
kinds of projects is that they are notoriously
liable to change their minds and most investors don't want to deal with that kind of risk unless there is
a very high rate of return possible. This is why Enron collapsed-- they lost a ton of money after some
Indian state government retroactively changed the terms of some power plant deal that Enron had done with them.
The scandals that happened at Enron relate to their attempts to recover from this situation.
Nick,
>This is what always amazes me about people with anti-union prejudices. The steward was just pointing out to you that you were >doing work for free thereby depriving someone else of employment so you swear and hit him. That's somehow the fault of the lazy >slacker unions?
It's the 21st century. Everyone thinks unions are backward and brain-dead. No one is going to agree with you.
Just drop it.
Dan
The utility does not have to *generate* the 28W of "real" power. It just has to *transmit* it (and typically only from the local transformer to the customer, since phase changes can be handled using capacitors when the voltage is down-coverted the last time).
It's the Anthropic Principle, people! We only observe parallel universes in
which the LHC fails to boot because the LHC will kill us. The LHC will never
be seen to work.
Don't you get it, people? Soylent green is us! It's us!!!
RE the article on how to collect infrared rays at night - way to violate the third law of thermodynamics!
They seem to be proposing to absorb infrared rays and rectify the electromagnetic rays somehow. The only way
this would be possible - even theoretically - is if the absorber were kept at a lower temperature than the incoming
rays, yet I see no mention of this and I get the impression that someone is blissfully unaware of certain
well known truths in physics (e.g. the third law, which states that entropy must increase). To spell it out,
without a heat sink the proposed idea would provide a way to convert heat (not a heat difference) into usable energy,
which violates the third law.
TFA says that a voltage of 1.2V is required, along with sunlight. The theoretical voltage required to split water
is 1.23V. The energy supplied by the electrodes at 1.2V is obviously way more than you could practically retrieve
from the H2 (which maxes out at 1.23V but you have to factor in efficiency). So this device is of no practical value even
if scaled up. Online I see that as far back as 1981
(ahref=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1rel=url2html-26843http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1>) a method was published that used sunlight and an electrode
potential of 0.65V to split water. So I don't understand the fuss about the current paper.
I heard someone say that IBM has a patent on trackpoints and is somehow stopping other companies from using them. Presumably they
passed the rights to this in some form to Lenovo with the laptop business, though.
def main ():
return reduce(lambda b,c:(lambda x:(lambda r=sys.stdout.write(chr(x)):x)())(c+b), [32,40,29,7,0,3,-67,-12,87,-8,3,-6,-8,-67,-23])
main()
This program just prints out hello, world.
I just ran it, but I was hesitant to do so after a shell script that I previously ran from
a Slashdot.sig crashed my machine.
you pay for gpled and lgpled code by following the terms of the copyright license. it is exactly this license that has made free software possible. complaining that it means that others can't make money off it without giving back is stupid. it wouldn't be there if this were otherwise.
You seem to be arguing that most people wouldn't have contributed to free software if they weren't
arm-twisted into doing so by the viral licensing terms. I don't think that is the case.
Of course one should ideally test this statement somehow but my feeling is that most free software
contributors do so because it's fun and they want the recognition that comes from it.
One does have freedom to choose not to drive on roads. But when you choose to drive on roads, there is binding of following certain traffic rules, for the benefit of all. And one must understand the logic behind those bindings.
But the traffic rules are made by our elected representatives; the GPL is made by Richard Stallman.
Mod parent up.
I think it's true that the GPL is a broken licence that makes open source less useful
for business - you have to accept that some people are going
to want to charge money for software and that's a legitimate thing. Why should software
be so different from other forms of labor that it should be immune from being paid for?
(Yes I know that GPL'd stuff can be sold but no one can make a profit without exclusivity).
I'm sure most people who contribute to open source don't even particularly like GPL, they just got it shoved down their throats by commie bastard Richard Stallman.
I know someone who programmed on BlueGene, and each individual unit has very little
or no disk and very little memory (I think it's in the tens of megabytes or so). That's
not really enough for typical Internet type stuff, I don't think. You really need a setup
that's much more oriented towards storage.
Dan
Of course that's a wacky conspiracy theory. But what about terrorism? Now that a 3rd one has been cut, it does look
less possible that it's just chance.
This is a useless invention because the image needs to be at a focal center - either at the retina, or
at least a few feet from the eye. Here the image is in the *worst* place, at the iris; it will be totally
blurred.
It may be aluminium oxynitride (see here rather than sapphire, which is too hard to manufacture in such large pieces (max about 30cm, I believe,
and very expensive). Asus do not claim it is sapphire .
Slashdot Mirror
The Register people seem to have accepted similarity in code, without going to the trouble of checking the outputs.
I'm a great programmer and I use emacs, you insensitive clod!
Here is the Dr. Strangelove clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE
Some time ago I was having a conversation with some people about whether extrajudicial killing can ever be justified, and Nathan Myhrvold was the one person who we agreed there was really no good argument against it.
BTW-- The reason that the Indian government has to promise such attractive returns on these kinds of projects is that they are notoriously liable to change their minds and most investors don't want to deal with that kind of risk unless there is a very high rate of return possible. This is why Enron collapsed-- they lost a ton of money after some Indian state government retroactively changed the terms of some power plant deal that Enron had done with them. The scandals that happened at Enron relate to their attempts to recover from this situation.
Nick, >This is what always amazes me about people with anti-union prejudices. The steward was just pointing out to you that you were >doing work for free thereby depriving someone else of employment so you swear and hit him. That's somehow the fault of the lazy >slacker unions? It's the 21st century. Everyone thinks unions are backward and brain-dead. No one is going to agree with you. Just drop it. Dan
My original post which got modded +5 did not take this reply properly into account.
The utility does not have to *generate* the 28W of "real" power. It just
has to *transmit* it (and typically only from the local transformer to the
customer, since phase changes can be handled using capacitors when the voltage
is down-coverted the last time).
Cut it out, Mr. McCain! You lost that election fair and square.
Don't you get it, people? Soylent green is us! It's us!!!
RE the article on how to collect infrared rays at night - way to violate the third law of thermodynamics! They seem to be proposing to absorb infrared rays and rectify the electromagnetic rays somehow. The only way this would be possible - even theoretically - is if the absorber were kept at a lower temperature than the incoming rays, yet I see no mention of this and I get the impression that someone is blissfully unaware of certain well known truths in physics (e.g. the third law, which states that entropy must increase). To spell it out, without a heat sink the proposed idea would provide a way to convert heat (not a heat difference) into usable energy, which violates the third law.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1
TFA says that a voltage of 1.2V is required, along with sunlight. The theoretical voltage required to split water is 1.23V. The energy supplied by the electrodes at 1.2V is obviously way more than you could practically retrieve from the H2 (which maxes out at 1.23V but you have to factor in efficiency). So this device is of no practical value even if scaled up. Online I see that as far back as 1981 (ahref=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1rel=url2html-26843http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1>) a method was published that used sunlight and an electrode potential of 0.65V to split water. So I don't understand the fuss about the current paper.
I heard someone say that IBM has a patent on trackpoints and is somehow stopping other companies from using them. Presumably they passed the rights to this in some form to Lenovo with the laptop business, though.
Note that in the UK, 17.5% VAT is included in the price, but that's a small difference.
The wikipedia page on de Branges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Branges_de_Bourcia is very informative
But the traffic rules are made by our elected representatives; the GPL is made by Richard Stallman.
I think it's true that the GPL is a broken licence that makes open source less useful for business - you have to accept that some people are going to want to charge money for software and that's a legitimate thing. Why should software be so different from other forms of labor that it should be immune from being paid for? (Yes I know that GPL'd stuff can be sold but no one can make a profit without exclusivity). I'm sure most people who contribute to open source don't even particularly like GPL, they just got it shoved down their throats by commie bastard Richard Stallman.
Do not mod as flamebait like the parent!!
> English, mon frer, do you speak it? French, mon frere, can you spell it?
I know someone who programmed on BlueGene, and each individual unit has very little or no disk and very little memory (I think it's in the tens of megabytes or so). That's not really enough for typical Internet type stuff, I don't think. You really need a setup that's much more oriented towards storage. Dan
Of course that's a wacky conspiracy theory. But what about terrorism? Now that a 3rd one has been cut, it does look less possible that it's just chance.
This is a useless invention because the image needs to be at a focal center - either at the retina, or at least a few feet from the eye. Here the image is in the *worst* place, at the iris; it will be totally blurred.
It may be aluminium oxynitride (see here rather than sapphire, which is too hard to manufacture in such large pieces (max about 30cm, I believe, and very expensive). Asus do not claim it is sapphire .