please check my math
ω : angular velocity (in rad/s)
r : radius (in m)
a : acceleration (in m/s²)
r = 200 m (= half of 400m)
ω = 1 rotation per 7.3 hours = 2.39-04 rad/s
a = rω² = 1.14e-05 m/s² = 1.17e-6 G
Micro-gravity indeed.
472 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Sep 2014
1. There was never an SS rank Übersturmbahnführer, with or without umlauts. It's all Ober-whatever, "Ober" meaning "Senior" in this context.
2. If that was an intended part of the joke, I obviously didn't get it.
3. There was, however, a book on the topic of the "Übermensch", namely "Also sprach Zarathustra".
4. It was popular in some Nazi circles.
5. Although actually *reading* it was a bit too much for the average Nazi thug.
6. The book is mostly not about taxi driving.
7. Although there is some stuff about camels in there.
I think it is great. If you favorite hat color is black.
Think about the possibilities.
1. Malicious website uses social engineering tricks to let user grant it WebUSB access.
2. Using said access, it hacks into a piece of hardware which communicates over USB protocol but which may even be a physical part of your computer (e.g. laptop keyboard or touchpad). So nice try that you filled your USB ports with epoxy but it didn't help.
3. From the compromised device it now hacks back into your computer using the IME vulnerability.
It doesn't even matter anymore if you run Windows, macOs or Linux!
You are delighted that Microsoft is apparently unable to whitelist their own apps?
Would it not rather suggest that the whitelisting criteria are sufficiently difficult to get right that the number of false positives will be huge, which in turn will cause the vast majority of users to disable this feature?
So my sysadmin turned this on on my computer so I don't need to fear ransomware anymore. Only one snag: this handy little photo editor I downloaded from the interwebs couldn't access my files in Documents anymore. No worries, though, I just created a new folder Documents2 and put all my files there! Am I a computer wiz or what?
"Could it be that P≠NP is unprovable."
That would be possible. From a practical point of view, the consequences would be not so different from a proof that P≠NP. It would still mean that you cannot have an actual polynomial-time algorithm to solve, say, the traveling salesman problem (because any such algorithm would immediately be a proof that P=NP).
However, it would mean that *assuming* that such an algorithm exists (even though you don't know it) cannot lead you to a logical contradiction.
"and if so, could someone prove this to be the case?"
I take this as a question if proving this would be possible, and not as a request to provide the proof. If so, then yes, provided it is actually true ;-)
By the way, it would be really tantalizing if somebody would prove P=NP but in a non-constructive way, i.e. proving that all NP problems can be solved in polynomial time but providing absolutely no clue about *how* to achieve this...
There are of course tons of crackpots who come up with their "proofs" that P is or is not NP, but this was a real Comp.Sci. professor from a respectable university. Obviously the odds where still that there was a mistake, but I think it was justified to take notice this time.
It depends on what development environment was used to produce the original apps. There are a number of cross-platform environments: PhoneGap, Qt, Xamarin, probably others. Of course, even in that best-case scenario, it is not simply hitting the "Compile for Android" button, they would still need to do all the testing for the new platform.
If they used the "native" development environment, then porting them to another platform would essentially amount to a rewrite. If they used C# originally they might be able to re-use some back-end code by going to Xamarin, but the GUI would need to be rewritten.
AI research has definitely produced results;unfortunately it has been the victim of a constant hype/disappointment cycle. Recall the "AI winter" of the later 80's. Now we are again in the "hype" phase.
AI research has produced stuff like A* path-finding and linear programming (LP) solvers. However, these things are now so well understood that we don't consider them "AI" anymore.
AI has also produced a few "generic optimization" algorithms , such as neural networks, simulated annealing, and genetic algorithms. My prof used to joke that if you had no understanding of your problem and you had absolutely no clue what to do, you would choose one of those. They "work" but are slow and not guaranteed to give something approaching the global optimum.
It seems every generation has to learn again that these "AI" methods are not a panacea and inferior to specialized approaches which leverage the structure of the underlying problem.
Xenix was not just a shell, it was a true UNIX™ port. Obviously it required a much heftier machine than DOS, but it was itself the most-widely-used UNIX for a while.
Note that in MS DOS 2.0, Microsoft introduced a lot of UNIX compatibility features (directories, file descriptors, a primitive form of redirection). At the time MS saw Xenix as the long-term successor of DOS.
Later they changed that to OS/2, and ultimately they decided to go for it alone with Windows NT.
I would like to observe that this has nothing to do with cmd.exe, except in so far that cmd.exe is a console Windows program, and will therefore pop up a console when being executed (and when it isn't invoked from a parent which already has a console).
It has also nothing to do with DOS: cmd.exe is perfectly normal Windows application, just one which happens to request a console. (I should note that automatically getting the console window is the *only* difference between console and non-console .EXE's in Windows: a console application can still create additional "normal" windows, and basically do whatever a non-console .EXE can do.)
This is about SMBv1, an ancient protocol back from the days that the Internet was a kinder, gentler place. The only reasonable use case today is to put it on a tightly air-gapped network to talk to some legacy machines (say you have some Win95 boxes which must be kept alive to support some custom hardware).
It's like insisting that the security issues in Telnet get fixed. They *did* get fixed, and the result is called "ssh".
"The two-to-three-year updates for embedded and specialized versions of Windows, meanwhile, will be given 10 years of support, dubbed the Long-Term Servicing Channel."
Well, I'll be taking one of those "specialized" versions then, please.
https://www.howtogeek.com/273824/windows-10-without-the-cruft-windows-10-ltsb-explained/
"I wonder how much of the problems with Flash would be solved if it was open sourced?"
Would you like to work on a bug-riddled and probably poorly documented and tested legacy code base for free?
Open-sourcing Flash could work if there were a bunch of companies would would consider it in their enlightened self-interest for Flash to continue existing, and would be willing to pay developers to work on the code base.
But I don't see any such white knights on the horizon. Google, Apple and Microsoft have clearly already made their choice for HTML5.
It seems that Red Hat is nowadays run by a club of "developers" who think security issues cannot happen to them because
1. they're so very clever
2. magic open source pixie dust
3. calling something "Linux" makes it automatically secure.
It seems they still need to learn the lessons that Microsoft learned the hard way during the Windows XP SP2 timeframe. Seems they are also opting for the hard way.
"170 cores, 32 TB of main memory, those figures resemble a high-end PC."
Had some trouble finding such a high-end PC at MediaMarkt.
But in any case, IBM mainframe has never been a cost-effective proposal if you are looking for computing muscle. For example, nobody[1] does HPC on a mainframe. The mainframe's USP have traditionally been IO throughput and robustness (doubled CPUs to do error checking, hot-swappable everything.)
Why IBM marketing then comes up with a story which stresses its (rather unimpressive, for the money) computing prowess is a bit of a mystery but may explain why sales are falling...
[1] Yeah, there is probably somebody.
systemd
with faint praise
To be precise, Red Hat has made systemd a hard dependency of Gnome (another fine RH project).
Attempts by others (in particular, Canonical), to create an alternative init system by "shimming" the initd protocols somehow got consistently broken since these protocols changed all the time (fancy that). In the end, the Ubuntu folks gave up and went with initd.
In assembler this makes sometimes sense, "cmp eax, eax" sets some flags to a known state. However, in a higher-level language "x==x" just gets optimized away to 1 (unless it is a floating-point type, in which case as already mentioned "x != x" is equivalent to (but less obvious than) "isnan(x)").
In assembler, we also had tricks like "xor eax, eax" as the shortest and fastest way to set register eax to 0. But in C, it makes little sense to write "x ^= x"; the compiler knows all these tricks and then some.
The numbers quoted match that in the original article: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08781
They note explicitly that the density is very high: "... and is one of the densest non-stellar-remnant objects currently known. These measurements are consistent with models of low-mass stars. "
So apparently this is correct and expected.
I completely fail to see when you could ever *correctly* use padStart/padEnd.
Basically, these functions apparently simply count length by counting UTF-16 code points. So they don't work correctly if your string contains:
* Non-BMP characters (e.g. emoji)
* Double-width characters (Chinese, Japanese etc.)
* Combining characters (accents etc.)
* Let alone right-to-left languages like Arabic.
On the other hand, if you still believe that "all the world is ASCII" you'll be fine.
The correct way to deal with this would be to style your HTML so that stuff gets left or right-aligned.
That this makes it into a language standard in 2017 is ridiculous.