You are advocating not questioning the cultural habits of your time and society, instead you seem to think it's alright for people to follow them blindly.
Besides, Lovecraft's merits are less literary than due to his wild imagination and his ability to let it flow.
At this point, I am fairly certain nothing will ever make Apple blush.
Your post and your sig do not rhyme, my friend.
Actually, that applies to both of them.
I guess most of us know what redundancy in this context is intended to convey, UK or not.
It's still a nice example of saying the opposite of what you mean because the convolutions of politically correct newspeak went over your head.
Don't you think it's a bit naive to rely on a company's promotional material to give you a true picture of their environmental impact and efforts?
Do you really believe facebook limits tracking via the "like" button to registered users?
From the original post in question:
... a lot of effort was put into highly optimized bresenham line algorithms, because traditional implementations implied a div operation per pixel,
...
Which is worded poorly enough to be taken to mean, "traditional bresenham implementations require a division operation at each pixel".
I also posit that the quoted post is wrong about the division instruction: DIV still takes a lot of cycles to execute*, that's just the nature of the maths involved. Of course modern processors will try to do some clever code reordering that may make slow instructions appear to be executing a lot quicker, but the instruction dependency chain does not always afford this opportunity.
* cf for example http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
Similarly, in the vernacular:
mieren neuken (dutch) - to fuck ants
Korinthen kacken (german) - to shit raisins
"We, the citizens", you surely meant to write, not "we, the consumers".
You can say "In a total war, nobody will be perceived as innocent" and that is sad enough, but to postulate that nobody is innocent in a total war is taking things quite a bit too far. Get a heart while you're still alive, bud.
bits of identifying information : 11.09+
one in x browsers have this value : 2183
log (2183) / log (2) = 11.092096414990792
It's just a mathematical expression that does not heed the semantic value of the UA string. In other words, they treat "lynx" as being as common as "MSIE".
Prisons are full of career criminals who are little more than animals, but we have to be nice to them so that when we let them out again they can continue their life of crime.
I'm shocked to see a statement so ignorant and full of contempt for your fellow human beings get a positive moderation score.
A sad day.
Fundamentally, the issue is very simple: Given some sort of identifier, and a series of properties about that identifier, if you have enough dimensions of detail, you end up narrowing down your sample so much that you end up with a population of one, that being the person the identifier "hides". It's just that simple.
We go through the same basic process to find information through a search engine -- we attempt to find ways to narrow down the data in such a way that the information we are looking for exist within a sufficiently limited set.
I'm sure we both have experience searching for relatively generic information, where the number of possible matches unrelated to our target is so great that the information is effectively unavailable. Anonymization is the same basic principle - genericize the data to the point that it is useful in aggregate, but valueless for targeting individual users, based on a preponderance of possible matches.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
