Posts by bogsheet

In response to 'No I will not fix your computer'

The main reason two non-identical twins differ is because they are conceived with separate sperm (not to mention separate eggs) which differ principally because the process of meiosis involves the 23 pairs of chromosomes in the father splitting, with the resultant two sperm having a 50/50 chance of having either one or other of each distinct chromosme pair. This results in 2^23 possible combinations of chromosomes for a given sperm long before you factor in chromosomal crossover, which is what you describe. It's almost as if to suggest that without chromosomal crossover, there would only be two different genetic make-ups in resulting sperm! I think not...

You also say that in meiosis, chromosomes are duplicated. This is also incorrect. It is fairly fundamental biology that normal haploid cells contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, which split into diploid cells containing 23 single chromosomes. There is no duplication here...

It's going to be pretty difficult for the Indomitable Gall or anyone else to accept criticism or correction on these matters from your good self bearing these mistakes in mind, not to mention the fact that you spell 'chromosome' wrong. It looks like the spelling has undergone two distinct mutations in your mind resulting in 'chromasone'.

I never cease to wonder how frequently people make critical posts on internet forums in a tone as to suggest they are more knowledgeable than those whom they attempt to correct, when in fact their 'corrections' are littered with factual errors. Please be critical of your own knowledge before you criticise that of others!

another for Mikey C!

hey mike, just had to throw in my tuppence worth on that crock you wrote. most points have already been addressed, but the last paragraph is something i have to come back on...

"To all you kiddies out there that por through torrents to get all the free stuff you can"

well i download a fair bit of stuff from torrents but i ain't a kiddie, either from the perspective of age or technical knowledge...

"first of all sooner or later you're going to get nailed by a virus like this or worse"

as a professional reverse engineer and malware researcher i doubt this is gonna happen... but thanks for your concern

"second, you'll ned up starting all over from scratch regularly since likely you have no backup for your hundreds of GBs of data..."

again cheers for the kind thoughts, but you'll be relieved to know that i have a very thorough system of backups across my machines that ensure that i have at least two and even sometimes three copies of all my data! including all my music and films:o)

@Creationism

Well I think it is particularly notable if not amusing that the argument from the "creationist" who just joined the debate says that unless we can *prove* something, we can't make a conclusion based on that assumption!

I barely even feel it necessary to finish my retort, as I'm sure you can see it coming. Incredible really that the argument picks a couple of examples from nature to try and lend itself credibility. What of all the other numerous examples that support the hypothesis of evolution?

But anyway there is little point trying to defend evolution from scientific stand point when faced with an attack from someone who proposes completely foundless non-scientific fairy-tales as their counter. See Genesis? I'm glad I still have my sense of humour in tact, as the last time I checked Genesis was a book written by men a couple of thousands of years ago who then passed it down to us via a process akin to Chinese whispers. I'm not sure if I would want to believe anything people believed thousands of years ago, as they were without the benefit of scientific thinking and knowledge... At least they had an excuse for believing that God created the Earth - they had nothing better to choose from. For people nowadays there is no such excuse.

@Wayland Sothcott - Onwards and Upwards? I don't think so...

Wayland tells us: "We could freeze all hardware right where it is and the computer industry would still produce faster computers. Software would slim down and speed up. With Vista, Microsoft is using software to drive the hardware market which does not seem to want to follow."

Now this sounds great, ideal in fact. But I'm afraid that this is idealistic fantasy.

We might all like to think of software development as continual fine-honing of software, optimising here, tweaking there, until you are left with a smaller, faster, more refined piece of code.

Sadly this is nothing like the reality, certainly as far as Microsoft is concerned, but regrettably most other developers too. The problem is that making code more secure only serves to add bulk to it in most cases. Bounds checking, input validation and the like all require more code. We have seen Firefox, sadly, become more bloated and slow with every security update they release. Don't get me wrong, I still love it and use it, but it isn't getting any faster, at least not at the moment (version 3?).

I like the ideal, I wish code was becoming more refined, faster and smaller. But that don't make it so. The reality is that securing code only makes it more bulky and slow in the vast majority of cases. And that is without mentioning the effects of adding new functionality, and other inexplicable bloat for which Microsoft has become renowned.

Rutkowska - Zero Credibility

Joanna Rutkowska has no credibility with anyone with proper technical understanding of malware. Her reputation exists entirely upon smoke and mirrors, and a couple of big scaremongering stories from a couple of years ago.

Anyone remember the 'blue pill'? Joanna warned us years ago that she was working on.... wait for it.... Undetectable Malware! Yes, she claimed that she would soon present her working prototype of her blue pill technology which would be completely undetectable to A-V software. She gained a _lot_ of press and attention for these extreme claims, and became quite famous on the back of it all, but professionals working in the industry were extremely skeptical...

...with good reason. Nothing she has ever claimed has amounted to anything of substance. Where is this ground breaking undetectable hypervisor-based malware she promised? All we ever got was an extremely detectable first prototype (memory scanning was sufficient to detect it) and the promise of a new version soon that would be live up to all the promises.

We're still waiting. And with every day that passes in the meantime the reputation of Joanna Rutkowska means less and less.

right then!

well if ever there was a reason for going to the extra effort of arranging a fancy dress party, this is it!

this will replace my apathy with enthusiasm for such events :oD

back @ Paul M

Well I don't want to start a flame war... But like I say this isn't something I conjured up out of theory, like I said I _actually_ have tried this. I believe in science, so I performed the experiment, and I have done so on a few different pieces of good quality kit. I have done it with high quality amplifiers, speakers and even headphones to try and cut out any other noise. And yes, the volume was sufficiently high...

Now maybe your hearing is better than mine, but even if my life depended on it I honestly couldn't hear any difference as long as the mp3s are ripped at highest possible quality. I was able to hear the difference at 128kbps CBR but not VBR0.

Tis true, statistics might be misleading....

The number of people that downloaded the album 'In Rainbows' for nothing, or the fraction of the total number that were downloaded for nothing are both pretty meaningless statistics in terms of illustrating whether or not this new style of music sale was a success or not.

It was the first of its kind, and an experiment, so it is not surprising that a huge number of people went online to download it for free. As well as the freeloaders, there were many people eager to test for themselves whether it really was true. But forget this fraction, it is the total of the money that was taken, and Radiohead's opinion of this total, that are the important indicators as to whether this novel approach to music sales is a goer or not.

From what Iain says it sounds like a resounding success to me.

@Steve Rowsell

Ah no, Steve you miss my point.

You think my post was about me?! Ah no, you would be wrong, read it again! I won't be buying any console this Christmas...

But to admire Hedley Phillips for "taking a stand against the 'must have at all costs' attitude of too many people" by buying an ancient console from several years ago on the cheap is pretty empty headed in my opinion...

The real point is that, although a PS2/NES/whatever might convince you, it won't convince any youngsters this Christmas! Now if you want to criticise this "must have" attitude then I suggest you start with all the kids in this country, it is they who embody it most... and see quickest through any BS that out-of-touch old folks might try to pull on them!