You buried the lede. That site states that 91% of passwords are in that list (or the 10000 most commonly used passwords). That's shockingly high (but not entirely unexpected). As a consequence of implementing your suggestion, 9/10 chosen passwords would be rejected!

Nope. You got it first try.

OK, so you're going to carry around a nice heavy dictionary, and once someone sees you open it to generate a password and drag your finger down the middle column, they're going to have a field day with your bank account.

A tight/tight situation? That's when Tuco Salamanca has a taste of your meth.

They claim to have crowds of 30k NPCs: http://www.gamespot.com/articl...

What makes you certain that the AI code can't be vectorized across the GPU cores, for example, one core per NPC? Yes, we understand that CUDA/GPU's don't run vanilla C code.

Yes, I read the summary, I was simply supplying a correction. I'm not an editor, so I can't fix TFS directly.

You haven't heard anything about Transmeta in years because they ceased operating in 2009. The patent portfolio went to Intellectual Ventures, LLC, and licensed in whole or part to Intel, Nvidia, Sony, Fujitsu, and NEC.

900p is the resolution, 30fps is the frame rate for that resolution.

TFA just mentions the interview without a clear reference to it. Looking for it I found two other articles that suggest that the 900p resolution and 30fps targets came from other factors. http://www.gamespot.com/articl... says that 30fps is "more cinematic" and 60fps "looked really wierd." http://www.gamespot.com/articl... suggests that some non-graphic computation is going on the GPU, but also has a quote that mentions "technically CPU bound."

What we don't know from these articles is why some or more of the AI computation can't be done in the GPU.

...which is why review sites get free samples and detailed marketing material sent to them. The review sites are using that to make advertising that doesn't look like conventional ads. Of course, they also run banner advertising on the sites - and who do you think wants to buy advertising on those review sites? Why do you think people make a good living running product review websites?

Truthfully, the actual purpose of the advertising for cars involves makin recent purchasers feel good about their recent purchase. Purchasers who feel good about their recent purchase are more likely to talk their friends and acquaintances about their car and have a greater influence on them than the direct advertising can do. Listen to someone talk about their newly purchased car and you can hear the tag lines of the advertising coming out of their mouths - people use the advertising to focus their own conversations - whether its the rally tires, or MacPherson strut suspension, lock-up transmission, or a zillion other features that most people even know what they really are. These person's status upgrade depends on their being able to make the case to their friends that they made a good purchase, and didn't buy the kind of cars that social losers buy.

Toyota had a huge problem marketing to young first-time car buyers - they kept coming out with low-cost cars that they'd like to market to that group, but found that older buyers were buying them, and when young people saw old people driving the same car, their interest in them plummeted. They were more successful marketing the Scion than previous attempts because they went out of their way to make the car unattractive to older people, as well as other initiatives, including opening up the specifications early to third-party customizers, to encourage buyers to make the cars even funkier.

Points!

Nonsense. Highly unlikely events? Multitude of convincing arguments? ...and if we are alone, the fact that failing to colonize other galaxies before the sun exhausts all its nuclear fuel would finish us does not make us the ones to seed life in other galaxies and colonize distant solar systems. That's simply a non-sequitur.

With neither real facts nor justification of any assumptions of the frequency of life, multicellular life, intelligent life, technological life, stupid-enough-to-give-itself-away life, this article starts off on the wrong foot and gets worse. It doesn't matter how many exoplanets you can find, one, ten, hundreds, millions, billions, trillions - finding life on those planets is a completely different step. Finding life on a planet that has is not trying to be found is not likely to be possible, and this opens a problem that is beyond simple epistemology.

As others and famously, Stephen Hawking, has pointed out, an intelligent life form on an exoplanet should be aware of the risk contacting ET should entail. It's a simple matter of weighing risk and reward - and so far, Homo Sapiens has failed to figure that out. We're still stupid enough to be sending physical artifacts far away from our planet with a map that effectively says "We're curious and stupid - please invite us to dinner" without distinguishing the difference in role of dinner guest and entree.

Fortunately, sending physical artifacts is one the least effectual ways to contact ET. Sending electromagnetic signals is far more effective, and humans have tried that too, but only for a short time and only in a few directions. Beyond our early transmissions of "I Love Lucy," the increasing complexity of our signals make it less likely that modern communication, if were somehow intercepted with adequate S/N ratio, would be decoded into anything useful to ET. In fact, those DirecTV signals mean almost nothing without a access card, by design. Unless we actually intend to send a signal, nothing from Earth is likely to give our presence away, short of a few hundred short bursts of nuclear radiation from our atomic and fusion weapons, which we can only hope have ceased to be transmitted.

The simple fact is: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." Plausably, Homo Sapiens has got to figure out how to deal with the "terrible ghastly silence" of space with much greater probability than having to deal with ET. Even so, contact with ET is much more likely to be via long-distance (and therefore long-latency) communication than by physical contact. And if a religious person doesn't like what ET is saying, they'll just change the channel, or stop responding.

Historically, religion has adapted to scientific advances without just giving up and saying - OK, we were wrong. Religions have been very facile in their interpretation of sacred documents in order for their memes to continue to flourish despite scientific and logical contradiction. Indeed, with Socrates as the example, the risk is borne by the truth-tellers, not the religious followers....unless one can surmise how religious orthodoxy would drink the hemlock this time.