Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 236

by flargleblarg (#47950971) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

I have no clue what all the above really means.... If you are saying that 256 bit keys are hard to break, I would concur. If you are saying that it would take a long time, I would again agree. However, if you look at "possible" it is totally possible to brute force a 256 bit key, it just takes TIME to do, LOTS of time OR lots of computers. Either way, it is perfectly possible... Now it may take a LOT of computers (more than are physically possible) or it may take a LONG time (more than we likely have before the sun destroys the earth) but that is all about being practical and not about being possible.

It's mathematically possible. It's humanly impossible. No human will ever build a machine using normal matter that is capable of it.

Comment Re:Does HFCS count? (Score 1) 294

by flargleblarg (#47940257) Attached to: Study Finds Link Between Artificial Sweeteners and Glucose Intolerance

sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose HFCS: 55% fructose, 45% glucose
zomg, clearly hfcs is the reason people are getting so much fatter.

It's not that simple.
Do a little reading about it. Your body has to expend energy/effort to break sugar into fructose + glucose, whereas with HFCS, the fructose and glucose are already separated and your body has immediate use of them. This is the kicker, and why HFCS is worse than sugar. Of course, even worse than HFCS is fruit juice that's high in fructose.

Comment Re:Not answered in review (Score 1) 216

by flargleblarg (#47934105) Attached to: iOS 8 Review

It'd only be nice if you have a filing fetish. It's not useful. Any minor pleasure it might bring filing fetishists would be vastly outweighed by those ordinary phone users who lose applications.

That's a rather naive thing of you to say. Some of us have a hundred apps installed, and it's very useful to have them organized and be able to select them quickly with just a couple or three taps, rather than scrolling through dozens of pages of grids.

Comment Re:Well, if you're going to push... (Score 1) 159

by flargleblarg (#47913855) Attached to: Court Rules the "Google" Trademark Isn't Generic

More to the point, when people use, "Google," as a verb, they mean to actually use Google, as opposed to using any brand of facial tissue available when saying, "Kleenex."

Exactly! You can't google something using Bing, for example. Not that you'd want to anyway. You can only google something using Google.

(Now I feel like I need to go wash my hands after mentioning Bing. Eww.)

Comment Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

Don't feel bad. It's tricky wording. I wasn't sure how to word it to be clear (and to be fair, I don't think it was really clear). "Opposites" to me would imply 180 opposing... so I wrote "mirror-opposites" to imply a vertical mirror, but of course that's pretty subtle and not very unambiguous.

Comment Re: Would be nice to see Scala replace Java (Score 1) 94

by flargleblarg (#47854831) Attached to: Scala Designer Martin Odersky On Next Steps
I'm pretty sure, though, that even any class that requires you to use equals(), you can still use == as a fast-precheck. That is, a==b implies a.equals(b) for all objects a,b in all classes. The converse, of course, is not the case: a.equals(b) does not imply a==b. And the inverse is not true: a!=b does not imply !a.equals(b). But the contra-positive is true: !a.equals(b) does imply a!=b.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Close