Re: Couldn't close filing cabinet.
The one next to my desk does work exactly like that. Which is super annoying as, when left alone, the bottom drawer has a tendency to roll itself out just enough to activate the lock.
138 posts • joined 8 Sep 2010
> I think that's just the article author talking.
Quite possible. It's also possible that the algorithms presented in the Wiki article and the one referred to by the article are different - the one referenced in the article may be smarter, but still hits a roadblock at some point.
>Therefore I'm not sure what the actual problem under discussion is here - I wish El Reg would write clearly.
The very first sentence of your link states the problem that the article also refers to: "These brute-force algorithms to count the number of solutions are computationally manageable for n = 8, but would be intractable for problems of n ≥ 20,"
In the words of the article: "The researchers found that once the chessboard is larger than 1,000 by 1,000, computers can no longer cope with the monumental number of possible squares in which to place a queen."
You're wrong, The only instance of the word 'paranoid' in the article is here
Alright. The article does say:
if you choose to use Invizbox's VPN, you are essentially trusting them completely with your privacy.
We wouldn't go so far as to say the system is NSA-proof (what is?) but if you are serious about protecting your personal data ... – and you trust the VPN provider to be true to its word ...
So if you are as paranoid as you say, then the article arguably tells you quite clearly that this product is not for you.
In fairness, the article does state that this product is not for the paranoid, so it may not be for you.
Really, it's about whether you trust a company that has no interest in protecting your privacy vs. your trust in a company whose existence is dependent on doing just that.
Oddly enough, that's exactly the word I use for people that will speak up on the matter without any context.
Personally, I've saved two companies about 100k EUR/year by analyzing their database usage and recommending they go with MySQL/MariaDB instead of their blind use of Oracle for their address books.
Quite legal to Sweden.
Illegal because the Swedes have shown many times in recent years that they are quite happy to hand over anyone that the US asks for - including their own citizens.
The whole thing would have been over a long time ago, if the Swedes had guaranteed that Assange will not be handed over to the US. That they haven't done so tells Assange all he needs to know.
"Ah... as someone who actually used the floppies of the era (on IBM PCs, DEC Rainbows, Apple IIs, and others) I can say that the 360 kB drive was NOT a single-side drive."
As someone who actually owned a PCjr, I can confirm this. Also, there was never a single-sided drive configuration nor was the 1.2MB drive that the reviewer got in his machine ever offered by IBM. This must be a 3rd party product.
"But now the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment (GAIAE) has issued a fatwa forbidding devout Muslims from taking part."
Without seeing a translation of the original text, I doubt that very much indeed.
Fatwas do not forbid anything. The provide an opinion on what the holy texts say, but no concrete instructions to do this or the other.
(no, there never was a fatwa saying to kill Rushdie. There was a fatwa saying his text was blasphemous. Then there were people who, based on that, put a bounty on his head)
"You talk to the Department for Work & Pensions. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate over the fact that you WOULD NOT break the law."
Much as I understand you're angry, violating a website's T&C is not breaking the law. It's breaking terms of a contract. There's quite a difference between the two.
The fines themselves are laughable, that's true.
But ASA gets this mentioned in the press. Which teaches people to be aware of the small print and other little things to be aware of in future advertising. Making it harder for cretins to try and pull similar stunts.
Not perfect, but not completely toothless either.
"Avoiding the use of easily-guessed passwords is simple enough if users employ a bit of creativity and standard best practices, such as using hard-to-guess mnemonic device and mixing letters and numbers (non-sequential, obviously) in their passwords"
Based on an el reg comment some 12 months ago, I started using KeePass. Haven't looked back since. It creates, stores securely, and makes it easy to re-enter passwords in websites, etc.
Alternatively, of you suspect you won't be using the site very often, just create a bogus password and forget about it - when you come back in 6mo, it's much easier to have them send you a reset e-mail.
"There's a certain hubris to a lot of so-called science. The assumption is that we can explain everything - or that we could, if only we got enough research grants."
Only idiots that still haven't grasped what their 1st year science teacher tried to explain to them about the scientific method will expound such drivel.
The first attempt at character assassination backfired, when the gubbiment brought up his stripper girlfriend and his less than perfect people skills.
So now they take a long-term tack, where they let out a bit of detail at a time, slowly eroding his character. People won't notice that as much, and it's much more digestible for the media to copy/paste such "reasoned" descriptions instead.
"Don't you see the sliding slope here?"
Yes I do. My reaction was to the implied flat-out denial that global temperatures have risen. Temperatures *have* risen and the *climate* is warming up. Even if the *weather* isn't. We are in agreement. (I think; I suspect that your 3rd paragraph is lacking an important "not").
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says its more certain than ever that humanity is warming the planet dangerously - despite the fact that a long-running flat period in global temperatures is well into its second decade."
and this, of course, completely bypasses one of the main conclusions of this year's report: That the oceans have heated up considerably, the consequences of which not many are able to able to understand.
"Google Glass is no different except you don't need to take it out your pocket"
Which is a pretty big difference. At least you have a pretty good idea if someone is taking pictures of you with their phone. With glass, you'll have to assume that you're being recorded at all times.
Is that the kind of world we want to live in? I'm not so sure.
The difference in devices is not important.
The difference is the scale at which it happens. It will be more passive, and more widespread than ever.
Am I worried? Yes, but I'm not sure what of. This is definitely going to change the world, but I can't see in which ways. And that has me worried.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019