The article says AMD has 20% market share, not 50%. Oops.
Still, the fact that AMD was able to wrest 20% of the market away from Intel seems to imply that Intel doesn't have monopoly power, and whatever power Intel has is steadily eroding. I don't think an antitrust suit is justified.
Two thousand American deaths in almost three years of war is tiny when you compare it to the death tolls of most modern wars. World War I and II had casualties in the hundreds of thousands. The Battle of Gettysburg had a death toll of over 6,000 in just three days. By way of contrast, there were only 472 American deaths in the Gulf War, and we've had barely over 2,000 deaths in three years of the current Iraq War. Compared to past wars, Americans really don't get killed much anymore.
Read the website carefully before you write your check to this one, because its politics would not sit well with most Slashdotters.
What politics? Is it their assertion that freedom of speech extends to speech that other people may find offensive? That people shouldn't be punished for saying things that go against current ideas? That people should be treated equally, regardless of whatever racial, religious, or other group they belong to? Or am I missing something?
Also, if you'll take a look at FIRE's case listing, you'll see that they defend liberal speech as well as conservative.
Can't you exponentially increase the difficulty of breaking encryption just by adding bits to the key?
No. That's how it works with conventional computers, but as an earlier poster mentioned, adding bits to a key will only result in a linear increase in difficulty for a quantum computer. That's why quantum computing is so potentially troublesome.
NAT was merely a method for saving scarce IPv4 addresses. Since the IPv6 address space is so incredibly huge, there's no need for NAT, and so there will be no NAT for IPv6. There are other reasons people use NAT, but the benefits of getting rid of it outweigh any convenience it provides (at least according to the people who came up with IPv6).
On the other hand, if my ISP tries to charge me extra for using more than one IPv6 address like they do with IPv4, I'm going to be extremely annoyed.
...it lacks the ability to personally manage your host network address space with a memorizable number.
You can still use DHCP with IPv6, and you can still assign specific addresses manually if you want to. It's just that, with IPv6, you can choose to do neither of these and all your computers will give themselves non-conflicting IP addresses automatically. The sheer size of the host portion of the address means that the chances that two different hosts will assign themselves the same IP address is essentially zero.
OT, but I must rise to the dangling pro-gun-nut bait, no matter what hooks are in it.
I'm afraid I must do the same with your post.
These women need to protect themselves, but why with a gun?
Because a gun is by far the most effective tool for self-defense, especially for women, who tend on average to be smaller and weaker than their male attackers.
If they're being maltreated, the obvious action is to tell the police.
Yes, telling the police is obviously the first step to be taken, but the police can't guard someone 24/7. Also, police take time to respond to a call for assistance. The delay between calling 911 and the arrival of police can potentially be fatal. On the other hand, if the potential victim has a gun, she can protect herself immediately.
Carrying a gun around is not a valid solution to all life's problems!
A gun isn't meant to solve all of life's problems. But it can be very effective in dealing with human predators. Usually, you don't even have to shoot -- most attackers will change their minds once they find out their victims are armed.
It's inevitable that advertising will try to worm its way into every possible medium.
Leela: "Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?"
Fry: "Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio...and in magazines...and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree."
I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded
I've never seen such a blatant contradiction.
There is no contradiction. Liberals (as the term is used in contemporary US politics) generally favor expanded government power and greater government spending and responsibility, while conservatives favor smaller government with less power and less spending. (Oddly enough, on the subject of the War on Terror/Homeland Security/Iraq/etc., both sides are exactly the opposite.) President Bush is somewhat of an anomaly, in that he is (or claims to be) a conservative, but has greatly expanded government power and government spending during his term in office.
The Eldar were kidnapped and enslaved by Santa Claus. After centuries of malnourishment and hard work in the bitter cold, their bodies shrank to what we normally think of as "elfin".
I find it interesting that pretty much any time a lobby group has the words "freedom" or "innovation" in their names they are simply paid hacks for corporate interests looking to take rights away from consumers.
Um, the EFF has neither "Freedom" nor "Innovation" in their name. "EFF" stands for "Electronic Frontier Foundation". Thus, the grandparent post doesn't apply to them. As far as I can tell, the EFF really does advocate individual rights, just like the NRA. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
The funeral industry might have problems with it. Imagine a funeral going like this:
Minister: John Smith was a kind man, loved by all, and his departure--
Coffin: I'm naught dead!
Minister (reading louder): --his departure greatly saddened us all--
Coffin: I'm naught dead!
Minister: --AND HE WILL BE SORELY MISSED.
Coffin: I'm getting better!
At this point, the minister pulls out a pistol and fires six rounds into the coffin, then finishes his sermon.
Two minutes later, as the coffin is being lowered, we hear "I think I'm going for a walk!" The minister drops a grenade into the grave, and the funeral finishes without further incident.
You're right. OS zealotry of any stripe is just silly, because it's obvious that no technology ever conceived can even come close to the awesomeness of Gentoo.
Re:Unfortunately, not a troll
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, it is possible to decrypt the entire cache on your machine. The way you do it is to simply try every possible key. Assuming it takes 1 second to try each key (I tried this on my computer), it would take about 4.6 x 10^40 years to try all 2^160 keys. For comparison, the current age of the universe is roughly 13.7 x 10^9 years. Have fun.
To get back on topic, it is possible to decrypt a given file in your cache if you already know its key. If the police/FBI/whoever want to know if the key CHK@iPw3Grf-hV7d8IQF2-WXFByWfzMQAwI,FGJqABIFcBZ91I qayz6aew is in your cache, it's trivial to check for that key, but if they grab a random file from your cache and want to decrypt it, the only way to do that is by trying every possible key.
Slashdot Mirror
The article says AMD has 20% market share, not 50%. Oops. Still, the fact that AMD was able to wrest 20% of the market away from Intel seems to imply that Intel doesn't have monopoly power, and whatever power Intel has is steadily eroding. I don't think an antitrust suit is justified.
AMD is getting close to 50% marketshare. Call me crazy, but that doesn't really sound like Intel has monopoly power.
Oh, naaaaa. It's no different than sheep. *shrug*
Do you live near a nuclear facility, by any chance?
Two thousand American deaths in almost three years of war is tiny when you compare it to the death tolls of most modern wars. World War I and II had casualties in the hundreds of thousands. The Battle of Gettysburg had a death toll of over 6,000 in just three days. By way of contrast, there were only 472 American deaths in the Gulf War, and we've had barely over 2,000 deaths in three years of the current Iraq War. Compared to past wars, Americans really don't get killed much anymore.
Something is not right here...
What politics? Is it their assertion that freedom of speech extends to speech that other people may find offensive? That people shouldn't be punished for saying things that go against current ideas? That people should be treated equally, regardless of whatever racial, religious, or other group they belong to? Or am I missing something?
Also, if you'll take a look at FIRE's case listing, you'll see that they defend liberal speech as well as conservative.
Yes, I think they've outsourced a lot of their development work to Saruman.
No. That's how it works with conventional computers, but as an earlier poster mentioned, adding bits to a key will only result in a linear increase in difficulty for a quantum computer. That's why quantum computing is so potentially troublesome.
NAT was merely a method for saving scarce IPv4 addresses. Since the IPv6 address space is so incredibly huge, there's no need for NAT, and so there will be no NAT for IPv6. There are other reasons people use NAT, but the benefits of getting rid of it outweigh any convenience it provides (at least according to the people who came up with IPv6).
On the other hand, if my ISP tries to charge me extra for using more than one IPv6 address like they do with IPv4, I'm going to be extremely annoyed.
You can still use DHCP with IPv6, and you can still assign specific addresses manually if you want to. It's just that, with IPv6, you can choose to do neither of these and all your computers will give themselves non-conflicting IP addresses automatically. The sheer size of the host portion of the address means that the chances that two different hosts will assign themselves the same IP address is essentially zero.
Why more research? We already know that DDT is extremely effective against malaria-bearing mosquitoes. We should just start whipping up huge batches of DDT to send to Africa.
I'm afraid I must do the same with your post.
These women need to protect themselves, but why with a gun?
Because a gun is by far the most effective tool for self-defense, especially for women, who tend on average to be smaller and weaker than their male attackers.
If they're being maltreated, the obvious action is to tell the police.
Yes, telling the police is obviously the first step to be taken, but the police can't guard someone 24/7. Also, police take time to respond to a call for assistance. The delay between calling 911 and the arrival of police can potentially be fatal. On the other hand, if the potential victim has a gun, she can protect herself immediately.
Carrying a gun around is not a valid solution to all life's problems!
A gun isn't meant to solve all of life's problems. But it can be very effective in dealing with human predators. Usually, you don't even have to shoot -- most attackers will change their minds once they find out their victims are armed.
Finally, here's a link that might be revelant: http://www.a-human-right.com/fight-flight.html
Leela: "Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?"
Fry: "Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio...and in magazines...and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree."
I've never seen such a blatant contradiction.
There is no contradiction. Liberals (as the term is used in contemporary US politics) generally favor expanded government power and greater government spending and responsibility, while conservatives favor smaller government with less power and less spending. (Oddly enough, on the subject of the War on Terror/Homeland Security/Iraq/etc., both sides are exactly the opposite.) President Bush is somewhat of an anomaly, in that he is (or claims to be) a conservative, but has greatly expanded government power and government spending during his term in office.
The Eldar were kidnapped and enslaved by Santa Claus. After centuries of malnourishment and hard work in the bitter cold, their bodies shrank to what we normally think of as "elfin".
-- Darth Vader, to Joss Whedon
Interesting link. Here's another group that's trying to restore government according to the Constitution. Maybe the two groups should join forces...?
The funeral industry might have problems with it. Imagine a funeral going like this:
Minister: John Smith was a kind man, loved by all, and his departure--
Coffin: I'm naught dead!
Minister (reading louder): --his departure greatly saddened us all--
Coffin: I'm naught dead!
Minister: --AND HE WILL BE SORELY MISSED.
Coffin: I'm getting better!
At this point, the minister pulls out a pistol and fires six rounds into the coffin, then finishes his sermon.
Two minutes later, as the coffin is being lowered, we hear "I think I'm going for a walk!" The minister drops a grenade into the grave, and the funeral finishes without further incident.
Your link is broken. It should be http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050622. (And, of course, iSophagus is the first thing I thought of too.)
Transporters won't do any good, because we no longer have anyone to operate them :-(
"Wait, my vision isn't that bad. I can still read the large-print books!"
<< Eyes fall out >>
"Nooooo! Wait, I can still read Braille."
<< Hands fall off >>
"Nooooo!"
<< Head falls off >>
You're right. OS zealotry of any stripe is just silly, because it's obvious that no technology ever conceived can even come close to the awesomeness of Gentoo.
To get back on topic, it is possible to decrypt a given file in your cache if you already know its key. If the police/FBI/whoever want to know if the key CHK@iPw3Grf-hV7d8IQF2-WXFByWfzMQAwI,FGJqABIFcBZ91I qayz6aew is in your cache, it's trivial to check for that key, but if they grab a random file from your cache and want to decrypt it, the only way to do that is by trying every possible key.
So, you're saying that government is no longer unreasonable and never violates the rights of its citizens? Interesting theory.