I can't believe noone has mentioned the Kane series by Karl Edward Wagner. This is probably the most enjoyable Fantasy I've ever read. LOTR, fun and great storytelling, with great appeal to everyone. The Kane books do not appeal to everyone, much like the Illearth series (Donald Stephenson's Thomas Covenant anti-hero) didn't appeal to everyone. Kane is a very complex, chaotic, and amazingly evil character cursed by a mad god to be immortal until killed by the chaos he creates.
Come on! A 15 year old, sexually active imp of a girl that "pontoons" passing cars
Spoken like a true geek!:-)
Some of Stephenson's writing is meta-cliche. He's a bad writer like Army of Darkness was a bad movie.... rather, it was so bad, it was GOOOD. For instance, in Snowcrash, it starts out like "The Deliverator is a member of an elite unit... issued a gun, black supercar, etc." and it's not until a bit later you find out exactly what The Deilverator does which is rather bizarre.
But what it comes down to is that Stephenson's writing is vivid. That's all. His stories may need some tweaks in the plausibility realm, but the writing is vivid. He definitely had a very unique vision in SC, and tailored it to the science fiction punk crowd.
The real question is, where are all the slanderous commments about Hubbard? Did someone do a DNS redirection of/.?
A last note on this (as I was reading through old comments)... I could understand compression being a valid concern if it went through multiple generations of recompression degradation. But when someone rips to mp3, they usually transfer and use the mp3 file itself, not play it onto a CD-R to be used. The file, once converted, is never converted back except to work on legacy equipment. And when put onto a CD that way to play on your stereo, it's rarely given out to be reripped -- rather the original or the mp3 is given. You can convince yourself that this is the case by considering Napster: if degradation was the concern, there would be no concern whatsoever about sharing files over Napster or any reason to have the copyprotect bits on digital music. RIAA doesn't care about multi-generation analog tapes but they sure have their panties in knots about mp3s!
And digital conversion (without compression) does provide loss -- after all it's sampled at 44Khz or 96Khz. It happens to be less loss than our ears can detect, but that was EXACTLY why I was picking on the original poster claiming that no "real" audiophile would use compressed formats, since those can still produce less degradation from the original than our ears can detect.
The guy is saying, essentially, "no compression is ever used by audiophiles" when several types of compression render smaller files that are indistinguishable from the original by the "Golden Ears."
I can't believe you're actually arguing about compressed vs uncompressed on music that's sampled.
By your argument, your audiophile friends are not listening to music if they use digitally sampled music. Reconstructing digital music does not bring back the same waveforms. The frequency doesn't matter unless it exceeds that speed at which air molecules can vibrate. So I hope they're all using vinyl record players with amazing equipment in a hermitically sealed cleanroom.
In the star wars episode 1 big battle, it looked like a bunch of CGI fighting more CGI. Granted part were robots, but they all looked robotic. I felt nothing, and it was due to the obvious cgi and actions.
Sounds like Massive may do it right, assuming the graphics and actions are both believable. This sounds to be quite promising!
That will completely hose you if you subscribe to a mailing list without a way to bypass it. I do some similar checking and have to put many address in specifically.
One huge method of stopping spam is blocking anything west of hawaii. Cut china, tw, jp, and especially kr, and you lose a TON of spam. You have to typically use the IP blocks, though... they've caught on. Sayanara [211.*] and [210.*], I don't have any friends that write me from there anyway.
What you'd do is save all the messages that got PAST the spamassassin filters, then feed those into it. Hopefully it'll start catching such spam later.
The ones I find most often get past spamassassin are one-line urls.
Hurting or not, he's blaming Gates for technology. Showing how that makes no sense, maybe he'll accept advancing technology as a truth of the world, which it is, and that you might as well be mad that 1+1=2.
While we're at it, let's get rid of the telephones and power in rural areas. And burn down the libraries. Hey, let's go back to the law of Leviticus, while we're at it!
Seriously, technology happens, and you can't stop it. Either you embrace it and change if necessary, or you live like the Unibomber. I bet you weren't complaining about technology that was used to harvest or water or plow those orchards you miss. Blaming Gates for technology is kind of silly... might as well blame Gutenberg or that bright guy that invented flint tipped spears.
lol, nm. You're making assumptions. And your assumptions were wrong about my statement. (gee, what's the title of this?)
The above example isn't necessarily referring to a generalized radix sort, which you assumed. Key length can be held constant if you have any idea of the range of your input, yielding O(n) time.
Now, if you have an idea of the range of your input using a quicksort, you gain no real bonus because of the comparison operator. It is always O(n ln(n)). The only time it would beat a radix sort is if n was small, or compatably pre-sorted.
And I'll add, lastly, your trollish attitude will get you dismissed sooner than get a response.
Radix sort works in O(ln(m) * n) time where n is the number of elements and m is the size of the key field.
Perhaps, but m is a small constant.
Since m has to be greater than or equal to n to have a unique sorting order...
wtf are you talking about? M does not have to be greater. m is the number of times you process the N elements, and will be a constant. You're sorting them by a single part (say, a digit), so m could be only 10 for a 10-digit integer. It could be higher or lower. Using a correct implementation you actually end up with a large coefficient, but O(n) is the same as O(10n). You do not end up with O(ln(m) * N), unless the ln(m) is actually merely a small constant which is determined independently of N upon implementation. In that case, it is still a constant. Let's even say it was a LARGE constant, the big-O remains the same.
It may be computationally infeasable, but that claim is made using certain assumptions which may be wrong.
An example of such an assumption is that it takes n log(n) time to sort a list of n elements, using the best sort possible. The proof of this is based on the compare statement. However, there are sorts that work in O(n) time, not O(n log(n)) such as a radix sort which does not use the comparison operator (a/k/a "if-then-else").
The assumptions made are that brute-force is the only way to break this code.
I don't know of any attacks on elliptic curve crypto, when implemented correctly. That doesn't mean they don't exist using different assumptions, different number systems, or different computer hardware. (Quantum computing looks very promising to destroy our complacent attitude toward "computationally infeasable" problems.)
Imagine a hacker posts on a newsgroup or web page something about RIAA and includes many notices that this document may not be stored or used by RIAA. RIAA reads it.
Hacker attempts to retrieve his copyrighted material by disrupting communications to/fro RIAA computers using a DDOS. If he's caught, he uses this as a defense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a +0 Wrong (for the tag) would be better. I got problems with mods lowering scores simply because they disagree, instead of just replying.
If Hollywood wins this, we might have to view all posts at -1.
ugh.
I can't believe noone has mentioned the Kane series by Karl Edward Wagner. This is probably the most enjoyable Fantasy I've ever read. LOTR, fun and great storytelling, with great appeal to everyone. The Kane books do not appeal to everyone, much like the Illearth series (Donald Stephenson's Thomas Covenant anti-hero) didn't appeal to everyone. Kane is a very complex, chaotic, and amazingly evil character cursed by a mad god to be immortal until killed by the chaos he creates.
Go find a copy of Bloodstone today!
Spoken like a true geek! :-)
Some of Stephenson's writing is meta-cliche. He's a bad writer like Army of Darkness was a bad movie.... rather, it was so bad, it was GOOOD. For instance, in Snowcrash, it starts out like "The Deliverator is a member of an elite unit... issued a gun, black supercar, etc." and it's not until a bit later you find out exactly what The Deilverator does which is rather bizarre.
But what it comes down to is that Stephenson's writing is vivid. That's all. His stories may need some tweaks in the plausibility realm, but the writing is vivid. He definitely had a very unique vision in SC, and tailored it to the science fiction punk crowd.
The real question is, where are all the slanderous commments about Hubbard? Did someone do a DNS redirection of /.?
lol, if I were modding I'd hit it with flamebait, offtopic, and a few more underrated to get it back up to Troll:5.
A last note on this (as I was reading through old comments)... I could understand compression being a valid concern if it went through multiple generations of recompression degradation. But when someone rips to mp3, they usually transfer and use the mp3 file itself, not play it onto a CD-R to be used. The file, once converted, is never converted back except to work on legacy equipment. And when put onto a CD that way to play on your stereo, it's rarely given out to be reripped -- rather the original or the mp3 is given. You can convince yourself that this is the case by considering Napster: if degradation was the concern, there would be no concern whatsoever about sharing files over Napster or any reason to have the copyprotect bits on digital music. RIAA doesn't care about multi-generation analog tapes but they sure have their panties in knots about mp3s!
And digital conversion (without compression) does provide loss -- after all it's sampled at 44Khz or 96Khz. It happens to be less loss than our ears can detect, but that was EXACTLY why I was picking on the original poster claiming that no "real" audiophile would use compressed formats, since those can still produce less degradation from the original than our ears can detect.
Irony and sarcasm is lost on you, then.
The guy is saying, essentially, "no compression is ever used by audiophiles" when several types of compression render smaller files that are indistinguishable from the original by the "Golden Ears."
I can't believe you're actually arguing about compressed vs uncompressed on music that's sampled. By your argument, your audiophile friends are not listening to music if they use digitally sampled music. Reconstructing digital music does not bring back the same waveforms. The frequency doesn't matter unless it exceeds that speed at which air molecules can vibrate. So I hope they're all using vinyl record players with amazing equipment in a hermitically sealed cleanroom.
Argh, there are TOWERS in this?
:)
Thanks for ruining the movie.
In the star wars episode 1 big battle, it looked like a bunch of CGI fighting more CGI. Granted part were robots, but they all looked robotic. I felt nothing, and it was due to the obvious cgi and actions.
Sounds like Massive may do it right, assuming the graphics and actions are both believable. This sounds to be quite promising!
She already said it in the original.
"I was like, Ew ew ew ew ew ew!"
I HOPE NOT.
I don't want to imagine what gets caught in my Zip drive.
That will completely hose you if you subscribe to a mailing list without a way to bypass it. I do some similar checking and have to put many address in specifically.
One huge method of stopping spam is blocking anything west of hawaii. Cut china, tw, jp, and especially kr, and you lose a TON of spam. You have to typically use the IP blocks, though... they've caught on. Sayanara [211.*] and [210.*], I don't have any friends that write me from there anyway.
What you'd do is save all the messages that got PAST the spamassassin filters, then feed those into it. Hopefully it'll start catching such spam later.
The ones I find most often get past spamassassin are one-line urls.
So a rabid dog has the right to bite people?
An angry man has the right to rape people?
Hurting or not, he's blaming Gates for technology. Showing how that makes no sense, maybe he'll accept advancing technology as a truth of the world, which it is, and that you might as well be mad that 1+1=2.
Good thinking, Coward.
+1 Cute
heyyy... did you just copy something off of NYT's site?
*pulls out the ban stick*
Ya. You tell him.
While we're at it, let's get rid of the telephones and power in rural areas. And burn down the libraries. Hey, let's go back to the law of Leviticus, while we're at it!
Seriously, technology happens, and you can't stop it. Either you embrace it and change if necessary, or you live like the Unibomber. I bet you weren't complaining about technology that was used to harvest or water or plow those orchards you miss. Blaming Gates for technology is kind of silly... might as well blame Gutenberg or that bright guy that invented flint tipped spears.
lol, nm. You're making assumptions. And your assumptions were wrong about my statement. (gee, what's the title of this?)
The above example isn't necessarily referring to a generalized radix sort, which you assumed. Key length can be held constant if you have any idea of the range of your input, yielding O(n) time.
Now, if you have an idea of the range of your input using a quicksort, you gain no real bonus because of the comparison operator. It is always O(n ln(n)). The only time it would beat a radix sort is if n was small, or compatably pre-sorted.
And I'll add, lastly, your trollish attitude will get you dismissed sooner than get a response.
Perhaps, but m is a small constant.
Since m has to be greater than or equal to n to have a unique sorting order...
wtf are you talking about? M does not have to be greater. m is the number of times you process the N elements, and will be a constant. You're sorting them by a single part (say, a digit), so m could be only 10 for a 10-digit integer. It could be higher or lower. Using a correct implementation you actually end up with a large coefficient, but O(n) is the same as O(10n). You do not end up with O(ln(m) * N), unless the ln(m) is actually merely a small constant which is determined independently of N upon implementation. In that case, it is still a constant. Let's even say it was a LARGE constant, the big-O remains the same.
It may be computationally infeasable, but that claim is made using certain assumptions which may be wrong.
An example of such an assumption is that it takes n log(n) time to sort a list of n elements, using the best sort possible. The proof of this is based on the compare statement. However, there are sorts that work in O(n) time, not O(n log(n)) such as a radix sort which does not use the comparison operator (a/k/a "if-then-else").
The assumptions made are that brute-force is the only way to break this code.
I don't know of any attacks on elliptic curve crypto, when implemented correctly. That doesn't mean they don't exist using different assumptions, different number systems, or different computer hardware. (Quantum computing looks very promising to destroy our complacent attitude toward "computationally infeasable" problems.)
Hey, it didn't spend 4 years in Evil Robot School to be called MISTER Robot!
(and 640k ought to be enough RAM for it :-)
What am I going to do with that HUGE BOX OF WAREZ?! :-)
Imagine a hacker posts on a newsgroup or web page something about RIAA and includes many notices that this document may not be stored or used by RIAA. RIAA reads it.
Hacker attempts to retrieve his copyrighted material by disrupting communications to/fro RIAA computers using a DDOS. If he's caught, he uses this as a defense.