Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I Don't Buy It (Score 1) 1165

by Laetor (#18337321) Attached to: Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"
"The current global warming trend is caused by human activity, primarily the use of fossil fuels. That is an absolute fact. It's about as well established as Newtonian physics at this point." This is precisely what is being debated. Simply stating in a /. post that it is certain does not make it so. It is precisely this certainty which, which questioned by scientists, is apparently leading to death threats and the like. (1) There is debate as to whether or not the "current global warming trend", as you put it, even exists. You might not like that, you might even hate it and threaten people who say it (who knows...), but *there is debate*. There are many scientists who question that there is a warming trend at all, if the trend will continue, and if the trend is caused by any human activity. Variations in studies of the global temperature have shown conflicting results. (2) If we assume that there is a trend of steadily increasing temperatures on the planet, it is still uncertain if this is caused by human activity or is an indication of natural processes at work in extremely long and hard-to-predict (let alone measure) geological cycles. Please do not claim things which are not true, just by stating them with a lot of conviction and assuming others will not question them. It is exactly this practice which is hurting the global warming cause with reputable and skeptical scientists. Come to think of it, ignore that request. Do this as often as possible! It will bring about the revolution of thinking and increase the level of scientific skepticism of global warming theory all that must faster. Continue, by all means!

Comment: Re:Mathematically provably secure? (Score 1) 234

by Alan Cox (#15289011) Attached to: Computer Security, The Next 50 Years
There are several "provably secure" computer systems. As in you can demonstrate they fulfil certain mathematical constraints and those constraints are absolute. Then you have to write the code and prove the code, then you have to hope the prover is correct and the hardwareis correct. Nothing is 100%.

As to the randomisation stuff - yes I've got examples, and we've hit the same thing in Linux with randomisation. You get cases where memory scribbles cause a problem only if the layout happens to be a specific variant (especially with stack randomisation). From "either it dies or it works" you get "1 in 10,000 times xyz app blows up". That does make debugging much much harder. Of course a good reply to that is "so improve the debugging tools".

Comment: Re:There is a price for what you want (Score 3, Insightful) 1643

by kaalamaadan (#13249043) Attached to: Is It Wrong to Love Microsoft?
Yes. But what if you want a cheap computer? That is better than nothing at all. I do not want the best computer, I want something that does bare minumum. When you look at this in this way, I think Microsoft is nobler (and less effecient) than Apple. Microsoft in a way made the PC revolution possible, with all its negative side-effects.
User Journal

Journal: Proof, Lemma 2.2

Journal by kaalamaadan
Measurability continued ...

Should be getting around to proving that all those functions are measurable, upto the algebra.

  1. Lemma 2.2
  2. Corollary 2.3
  3. Corollary 2.4
  4. Theorem 2.6
  5. Theorem C.7
  6. Corollary C.8
  7. Theorem 2.8

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"