"In the novel Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, Nova 5 is an American vessel owned by "The Coca-Cola Company" which was sent on a mission to induce the supernova of 128 super giant stars in order to create a five-week-long message in the sky visible even in daylight, reading "COKE ADDS LIFE!" Kryten causes Nova 5 to crash after cleaning the sensitive computer terminals with soapy water. After the Red Dwarf crew finds the wreck it is brought aboard and repaired in order to utilize its Duality Jump engine, which could get the crew back to Earth within three months. However, although the ship is successfully repaired, circumstances prevent them from ever going through with it."
So you need the memory controller and its initialisation to see that it's Optane and act accordingly, and then when that's done, have OS support (i.e. not see it as ordinary DRAM, but allow it to be read and written to via the memory controller as if it were DRAM). Given both, there's hardly a problem.
Last time I tried All winner, the Linux ran badly, built in WiFi did not work, and basically I had to consign them to the bin. For the saving over a pi, All winner is not worth the hassle.
Wikipedia is your friend, as is google. Just googling for "casino high roller wiki" yields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- basically a high roller is somebody who gambles a lot of money.
An Oldskool kernel hacker once said: BEEN THERE, TRIED THAT, DIDN'T WORK, THREW IT IN THE BIN. Sometimes I see/bin as where all the SORT OF WORKS programs go, to be marshalled by our friend the great GNU BASH.
The message above purporting to be from me IS GENUINE. The 'was I pwned' bit is a copy and paste of the first thing on my screen that is pissing me off. Slashdot is friend, and any slashdot user is friend of friend. Please do not abuse my trust, since I wish to teach the new school slashdotters about the old slashdot effect. We have a simple game to play:
MD5 is so broken it cannot hash the word BROKEN without getting PWND.
Now SHA256 is a 128bit hash with a 256bit output. That means it's QUANTUM MECHANICAL PHASE SPACE occupies at most 1/2**128 of its output space. This makes it an interesting test case.
The PASS THIS WORD HASHING GAME.
Write a letter. Split it into 128bit chunks. Pass each chunk though SHA256. Split the output into 64bit chunks (exercise: can you count how any chunks that is? If not then perhaps you should put down the beer and go to bed.)
Take the SHA256 outputs from above, base64 them. Split into 128bit (char x[16]) chunks. Go to random web pages and sign up as new user, and use these outputs as passwords, and fragments of the message as entries to other boxes.
How long before the weight of humanity saturates the 128bit QUANTUM SEARCH SPACE? (The Quantum Search Space is the inverse image of the word Alive under the mapping X -> { Dead, Alive } for those who grok maths.)
John The#MooStyleMaster (Cult of the New Age Bull on Youtube).
Sometimes I do wonder if I am the only regular 3-digit Slashdotter left. My Wacom stylus scribbled this thought the other minute: http://allsup.co/HowManyRegula...
When it comes to Open Source, I'm of the mind that it would be less effort to write a better solution to the problem I face, than to try and solve the makes-NP-hard-look-like-a-teddy-bears-tea-party-Hard problem of figuring out how to explain OpenSource and FreeSoftware to somebody who doesn't already get it. Gates didn't get it. Ballmer didn't get it. Nadella seems to get it.
If you think a/. comment, made in jest, where I was so high on coffee that I missed the bloody y key with my right pointy finger... that coffee'd up...
If you think that demonstrates _anything_ about the Open Source community, of which I am not even a part, being a former Free Software nutter, and a kind of PoohBear programmer who lives the philosophy that if your program takes more than 1000 lines, you're using the wrong language... (And generally I start to get worried when I've used more than 10 lines for a program my intuition tells me should require fewer...)
If you think my/. comments demonstrate anything more than the fact that I felt like pressing the keys I did in the order I did and then hitting the Submit button...
Then you have a _lot_ to learn about reasoning from empirical evidence, and the havoc that can be wreaked by #NumptyDumptySchoolboy over-generalisations. I would advice you to learn that 'lot', soon, and thoroughly.
Think of a peloton in the Tour de France. Think of the bizarre cathedral on magic wheels we now have rolling along. If Microsoft want to take a turn pulling the magic penguin train along, we should embrace them, welcome them in, be friends and comrades in the game of MakeTheBloodyMachineWork. We have nothing to fear from them, the can embrace us, and extend us all they like. They will never extinguish the flame of our inner penguin.
Security, proper, I mean proper proper, as in 'I say it to my Master, he does not beat me with a stick for being stupid' proper...
Proper security does not, and cannot, assume that they other lot are abiding by any sort of social convention. Anything less is 'faux security' and, while very marketable, is worse than nothing.
The only laws hackers must abide by are those of physics and mathematics, and only then when physics and mathematics are done properly.
Let's start with something the computer literate ought to understand: Any computational problem at least as hard as solving the Halting Problem is certain to have no general solution. If we restrict to a finite Turing machine of a given size N (e.g. by looping the tape, or having the machine halt-and-reject in the advent of running of tape), any size we choose, the corresponding Halting Problem for that machine cannot be solved on that machine, only a much larger machine.
Once we reach the point where decision making is affected (i.e. beyond proper sensible drinking), prediction as to the outcome is essentially reduces to a practically limitless family of decision problems each at least as hard as the Halting Problem for the _largest_ finite Turing Machine which can be faithfully implemented in this physical universe (yes, the entire universe, and given all 14 billion years of runtime available to us).
That is how hard the problem these 'this drug does X' researchers are trying to solve. The only problems they can really solve are those which involve coming up with more and more elaborate ways to delude themselves and those who are gullible enough to believe their pseudoscientific bullshit. Accurate prediction of the 'this medication treats schizoaffective disorder' is so impossible that it is way past the point of insanity, out through Numptyland to the field called Dipshit, before one begins to get to the degree of craziness necessary to think what people who believe this shit do.
AI can, in principle, do anything a computing machine can do in principle. As for sexual orientation, there is yet to be devised a sensible theory and classification which doesn't massively oversimplify human sexuality well past the point of taking the piss.
As such, they're playing the game of keeping definitions fuzzy enough that they can wing it when they write up the paper.
One HD crash are no excuse for losing data. Having your entire IT setup infested with malware is no excuse for losing all but the most recent data.
In electrical engineering there are various kinds of 'isolators'. These isolate one system from the damaging effects of something going wrong with a neighbouring system.
Not isolating your work from potential sources of failure is just asking for it.
This is not blaming the victim. Having a solid backup regime _before_ you start any serious work is as important and necessary as putting on safety belts when driving. If a driver doesn't bother to belt up, and goes flying through the windscreen, and then blames the brakes for the injury, pointing out that he should have belted up is not 'blaming the victim'.
If you are using a piece of software with which you are unfamiliar, you should _always_ take precautions. Think 'computational condom': presume that each piece of software is riddled with bugs until you have checked everything out.
Typing, done well, is fantastic as a means to communicate to a computer. At present many who can't be bothered to learn to type well type with poor technique, slowly, and potentially risking injury. For these, voice input would be a very good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of the Red Dwarf books. (source: https://reddwarf.fandom.com/wi...)
"In the novel Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers, Nova 5 is an American vessel owned by "The Coca-Cola Company" which was sent on a mission to induce the supernova of 128 super giant stars in order to create a five-week-long message in the sky visible even in daylight, reading "COKE ADDS LIFE!" Kryten causes Nova 5 to crash after cleaning the sensitive computer terminals with soapy water. After the Red Dwarf crew finds the wreck it is brought aboard and repaired in order to utilize its Duality Jump engine, which could get the crew back to Earth within three months. However, although the ship is successfully repaired, circumstances prevent them from ever going through with it."
https://xkcd.com/927/
Basically it comes in a similar ballpark, but with 2-3 times the power consumption, and ~10 times the price. Something like that.
So you need the memory controller and its initialisation to see that it's Optane and act accordingly, and then when that's done, have OS support (i.e. not see it as ordinary DRAM, but allow it to be read and written to via the memory controller as if it were DRAM). Given both, there's hardly a problem.
Likely a similar approach will show that, on average, each planet is closer to the sun than to any other planet.
IE legacy is the new y2k, it seems.
Last time I tried All winner, the Linux ran badly, built in WiFi did not work, and basically I had to consign them to the bin. For the saving over a pi, All winner is not worth the hassle.
This is the first time out with VAR. We should not expect them to have it perfect yet.
Packs of trading cards are random and, until bought, you don't know what you're buying. Somewhere a clear line of demarcation needs to be drawn.
Wikipedia is your friend, as is google. Just googling for "casino high roller wiki" yields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- basically a high roller is somebody who gambles a lot of money.
Permanent head Damage. Been there, bashed my head against the proverbial brick wall, was never the same after.
An Oldskool kernel hacker once said: BEEN THERE, TRIED THAT, DIDN'T WORK, THREW IT IN THE BIN. /bin as where all the SORT OF WORKS programs go, to be marshalled by our friend the great GNU BASH.
Sometimes I see
The message above purporting to be from me IS GENUINE. The 'was I pwned' bit is a copy and paste of the first thing on my screen that is pissing me off. Slashdot is friend, and any slashdot user is friend of friend. Please do not abuse my trust, since I wish to teach the new school slashdotters about the old slashdot effect. We have a simple game to play:
MD5 is so broken it cannot hash the word BROKEN without getting PWND.
Now SHA256 is a 128bit hash with a 256bit output. That means it's QUANTUM MECHANICAL PHASE SPACE occupies at most 1/2**128 of its output space. This makes it an interesting test case.
The PASS THIS WORD HASHING GAME.
Write a letter. Split it into 128bit chunks. Pass each chunk though SHA256. Split the output into 64bit chunks (exercise: can you count how any chunks that is? If not then perhaps you should put down the beer and go to bed.)
Take the SHA256 outputs from above, base64 them. Split into 128bit (char x[16]) chunks. Go to random web pages and sign up as new user, and use these outputs as passwords, and fragments of the message as entries to other boxes.
How long before the weight of humanity saturates the 128bit QUANTUM SEARCH SPACE? (The Quantum Search Space is the inverse image of the word Alive under the mapping X -> { Dead, Alive } for those who grok maths.)
John The#MooStyleMaster (Cult of the New Age Bull on Youtube).
Sometimes I do wonder if I am the only regular 3-digit Slashdotter left. My Wacom stylus scribbled this thought the other minute: http://allsup.co/HowManyRegula...
When it comes to Open Source, I'm of the mind that it would be less effort to write a better solution to the problem I face, than to try and solve the makes-NP-hard-look-like-a-teddy-bears-tea-party-Hard problem of figuring out how to explain OpenSource and FreeSoftware to somebody who doesn't already get it. Gates didn't get it. Ballmer didn't get it. Nadella seems to get it.
If you think a /. comment, made in jest, where I was so high on coffee that I missed the bloody y key with my right pointy finger... that coffee'd up...
If you think that demonstrates _anything_ about the Open Source community, of which I am not even a part, being a former Free Software nutter, and a kind of PoohBear programmer who lives the philosophy that if your program takes more than 1000 lines, you're using the wrong language... (And generally I start to get worried when I've used more than 10 lines for a program my intuition tells me should require fewer...)
If you think my /. comments demonstrate anything more than the fact that I felt like pressing the keys I did in the order I did and then hitting the Submit button...
Then you have a _lot_ to learn about reasoning from empirical evidence, and the havoc that can be wreaked by #NumptyDumptySchoolboy over-generalisations. I would advice you to learn that 'lot', soon, and thoroughly.
#Moo!
Think of a peloton in the Tour de France. Think of the bizarre cathedral on magic wheels we now have rolling along. If Microsoft want to take a turn pulling the magic penguin train along, we should embrace them, welcome them in, be friends and comrades in the game of MakeTheBloodyMachineWork. We have nothing to fear from them, the can embrace us, and extend us all they like. They will never extinguish the flame of our inner penguin.
Bang on!
Security, proper, I mean proper proper, as in 'I say it to my Master, he does not beat me with a stick for being stupid' proper...
Proper security does not, and cannot, assume that they other lot are abiding by any sort of social convention. Anything less is 'faux security' and, while very marketable, is worse than nothing.
The only laws hackers must abide by are those of physics and mathematics, and only then when physics and mathematics are done properly.
I would split things as follows:
AI refers to development of computational solutions that traditionally required human intelligence.
Deep Learning attempts to emulate how the brain learns.
That said, I'm of the view that 99.9% of the academic literate, at a minimum, needs to be placed atop the next solstice bonfire.
Let's start with something the computer literate ought to understand: Any computational problem at least as hard as solving the Halting Problem is certain to have no general solution. If we restrict to a finite Turing machine of a given size N (e.g. by looping the tape, or having the machine halt-and-reject in the advent of running of tape), any size we choose, the corresponding Halting Problem for that machine cannot be solved on that machine, only a much larger machine.
Once we reach the point where decision making is affected (i.e. beyond proper sensible drinking), prediction as to the outcome is essentially reduces to a practically limitless family of decision problems each at least as hard as the Halting Problem for the _largest_ finite Turing Machine which can be faithfully implemented in this physical universe (yes, the entire universe, and given all 14 billion years of runtime available to us).
That is how hard the problem these 'this drug does X' researchers are trying to solve. The only problems they can really solve are those which involve coming up with more and more elaborate ways to delude themselves and those who are gullible enough to believe their pseudoscientific bullshit. Accurate prediction of the 'this medication treats schizoaffective disorder' is so impossible that it is way past the point of insanity, out through Numptyland to the field called Dipshit, before one begins to get to the degree of craziness necessary to think what people who believe this shit do.
AI can, in principle, do anything a computing machine can do in principle. As for sexual orientation, there is yet to be devised a sensible theory and classification which doesn't massively oversimplify human sexuality well past the point of taking the piss.
As such, they're playing the game of keeping definitions fuzzy enough that they can wing it when they write up the paper.
Reminds me of an episode from years back.
One HD crash are no excuse for losing data. Having your entire IT setup infested with malware is no excuse for losing all but the most recent data.
In electrical engineering there are various kinds of 'isolators'. These isolate one system from the damaging effects of something going wrong with a neighbouring system.
Not isolating your work from potential sources of failure is just asking for it.
This is not blaming the victim. Having a solid backup regime _before_ you start any serious work is as important and necessary as putting on safety belts when driving. If a driver doesn't bother to belt up, and goes flying through the windscreen, and then blames the brakes for the injury, pointing out that he should have belted up is not 'blaming the victim'.
If you are using a piece of software with which you are unfamiliar, you should _always_ take precautions. Think 'computational condom': presume that each piece of software is riddled with bugs until you have checked everything out.
Basically the same reason there is porn on the internet: sex sells, sexy young women sell, and studios want to sell movies.
Typing, done well, is fantastic as a means to communicate to a computer. At present many who can't be bothered to learn to type well type with poor technique, slowly, and potentially risking injury. For these, voice input would be a very good idea.