Still it means that the chance to be infected provided you know what you're doing is 1/10th of that if you don't.

No it doesn't. It means that for every 100 machine infected, 1/10 were belonging to those who knew what they were doing. In fact, it is actually possible (and likely given that it appears that most people do not know what they're doing [with Windows]) that you're chance of being infected if you know what you're doing is GREATER than if you don't know what you're doing!

Only if the NUMBER of machines owned by people who know what they're doing EQUALS the NUMBER of machines owned by people who don't know what they're doing will it mean you've got a 1/10 of the chance of being infected if you know what you are doing vs no knowing which means that the chance you've got of being infected if you know what you're doing is 1/9 that if you don't., since 1/9 of 9/10 is 1/10. Here's why:

<nerd mode>
The chance of being infected is

Pr(infected) = Pr(I) = <number of machines infected> / <total number of machines>
Pf(knowing) = Pr(K) = <number of machines of those knowing> / <total number of machines>
Pf(not knowing) = Pr(nK) = <number of machines of those not knowing> / <total number of machines>

also

Pr(infected | not knowing) = Pr(I | nK) = <number of infected of not knowing> / <total number of not knowing>

and

Pr(infected | knowing) = Pr(I | K) = <number of infected knowing> / <total number of knowing>

However, all we know is

Pr(knowing | infected) = Pr(K | I) = <number of infected knowing> / <total number of infected> = 1/10
Pr(not knowing | infected) = Pr(nK | I) = <number of infected not knowing> / <total number of infected> = 9/10

but we can use

Pr(I | K) = Pr(K | I) * P(I) / Pr(K)

similarly for

pr(I | nK) = Pr(nK | I) * P(I) / Pr(nK)

Then the chance to be infected provided you know what you're doing against that if you don't. is...what? I'll assume that it means how much more likely you are to be infected given you know what you're doing vs if you don't, ie

ch(K vs nk) = Pr(I | K) / Pr(I / nK)
ch(K vs nK) = Pr = Pr(K | I) * P(I) / Pr(K) / (Pr(nK | I) * P(I) / Pr(nK))
ch(K vs nK) = Pr(K | I) * P(I) * Pr(nK) / (Pr(nK | I) * Pr(I) *Pr(K))
ch(K vs nK) = Pr(K | I) * Pr(nK) / (Pr(nK | I) * Pr(K))
ch(K vs nK) = 1/10 * Pr(nK) / (9/10 * Pr(K))
ch(K vs nK) = 1/9 * (Pr(nK) / Pr(K))

I suspect that the majority of Windows users do not know what they're doing, thus: Pr(nK) > Pr(K) meaning that Pr(nK) / Pr(K) > 1 and ch(K vs nK) = (1/9 * [> 1]) > 1/9.

In particular, if the number of those who don't know what they're are doing (as I guess most people would suspect) is such that there are more than 9 times those who do know what they're doing, then

Pr(K) = #(K) / (#(K) + #(nK)) = #(K) / (#(K) + (9+d)#(K)) = #(K) / (#(K)(9+d)) = 1/(10+d) < 1/10
Pr(nK) = 1 - Pr(K) > 9/10

then the chance of being infected knowing vs not knowing is

ch(K vs nK) = 1/9 * ((9+d)/(10+d)) / (1/(10+d)) = 1/9 * (9+d) / 1 = 1/9 * (9+d) = 1 + d/9 > 1

meaning that you're MORE likely to be infected if you KNOW what you're doing then if you DON'T!
</nerd mode>

I am very much hoping that this will end up in at the SCOUTS so we can have a clear answer on many of these ambiguous legal issues.

Bob-A-Job solicitors?

Is "popular" the right word? popular suggests that it was deliberately chosen in preference to the other offerings, but as it was delivered (and paid for) with the PC, there is little choice in the matter of the OS [for a PC] - OSX comes with Apple machines only available from Apple; tp use the word "popular", perhaps a better comparison would be to compare the percentages of the different manufacturers?

Personally I prefer the term "populous" - ie a greater proportion of the "population" (the [statistical] "population" [in this case] being the computers).

Using Microsoft speak, boys are the more POPULAR babies as more boys are born than girls! Do parents REALLY have that much choice in the sex of their child? However, by the age of 10, girls are the more POPULAR children [as there are more of them] - have parents decided that boys don't make good children and [gender] swapped them for girls? [The real reason has to do with infant mortality.]

[OPCS data for population figures for England and Wales was the source of the proportions of boys/girls I used above.]

Not according to the terms:

Upon purchasing the Artwork, Collector may establish a new value for the Artwork. The new value may not exceed current market expectations for the Artwork based on the current value of work by the Artist...This value will be set as the minimum bid of the auction.

Note there is only a ceiling to the value, no floor: if after purchasing, I feel that the value has decreased, I can establish this as the new value for the Artwork and so set it as the minimum for the auction.

Regarding the 15%, according to this term:

Collector is responsible for any and all fees and charges generated by the Artwork on the Auction Venue.

the eBay auction fees are the responsibilty of the collector, not the artist. This looks more like a "beat the copyright limitation" of n years to ensure income permanently:

Note that it resells itself every 7 days, every week - the artist gets 15% of every change in value every week, a nice little wage packet.

All the "rules" state is:

"Appreciated Value" of the Work for the purposes of this Agreement, shall be the increase, if any, in the value or price of the Work over the price for which the Collector had purchased the Artwork.

There is no statement that the increase has to be positive; mathematically, a decrease is a negative increase. ergo according to the rule:

In the event of a sale the Collector agrees to pay a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Appreciated Value (as hereinafter defined), if any

there is no limitation that the Appreciated Value (as defined above) has to be positive and so according to the rule

occasioned by such transfer or distribution or payment of insurance proceeds to the Artist (or Artist's agent for the purpose) within thirty days of the sale.

the artist has 30 days to pay up (as that is the only way the seller can pay a negative amount).

Interestingly, if the artist fails to pay up, this rule would surely kick in:

Any failure to follow these terms without prior consent of Artist will forfeit the status of the Artwork as a legitimate work of art. The item will no longer be considered a genuine work by the Artist and any value associated with it will be reduced to its value as a material object and not a work of art.

and the artist would no longer consider it a work of art. Similarly, should a renter^Wpurchaser of the item fail to keep to the conditions, this rule would also kick in.

However, I wonder exactly how the original "artist" is going to cope if someone like Marcel Duchamp, takes the now material object and attaches the found art moniker to it, calls it something like "black cube", signs it with white paint and declares it as art again?

Mefinx you mean 0xFFFF = 0110 0101 0101 0011 0101 in BCD?

Whatever the base (>= 2), 101 / 10 is *ALWAYS* 10.1 in that base.

Shirley you made sum mishtake:

• binary -> decimal: 10.1 -> 2.5
• octal -> decimal: 10.1 -> 8.125
• hexadecimal -> decimal: 10.1 -> 16.0625

I'd love to know in what base 10.1 converts to 128.5 in decimal. (It can't be base 128 as implied by 10 => 128, similarly it can't be 2 as implied by .1 => .5 = 1/2)

Mefinx you also missed a base:

• base 3 -> decimal: 10.1 -> 3.33....

In fact for any base not of the form "(2^m)(5^n)" any [proper] rational fraction in that base is a recurring decimal (in base 10); thus 0.1 in base 3 is 1/3 in decimal and is a recurring fraction in decimal.

Similarly, any fraction that is not of the form m/(2^n) in decimal is recurring in binary and cannot be represented exactly; 0.1 in decimal = 1/10 which is NOT of the form m/(2^n) and thus cannot be exactly represented in binary - it is in fact 0.0001 1001 1001... (or in hexadecimal (for easier reading): 0.199...) and so will introduce rounding errors.

Talk about stupid errors...

Errm, patents are supposed to be usable by someone skilled in the art to produce the invention; no? If the patent examiner can't understand what the patent is about then either:

• a) The patent examiner isn't skilled in the art; or
• b) The patent isn't disclosing the [full] details of the patent [clearly enough for a skilled person];

or both. In the case of (b), the patent should be instantly rejected as it doesn't fulfil the criteria of disclosing details for a limited monopoly,

In the case of (a) the examiner should refer to someone who is [so skilled] to give guidance and to fail to do so is negligence (and so either personally or the USPTO should be liable for costs incurred in defending against such a patent when the patent is shown to be issued wrongly).

SED
LDA #$12
CLC
ADC #$19

The Accumulator of the 6502 8-bit processor (circa 1978) now contains 0x31; the top nybble contains the MSD in decimal.

Ok, so this is actually only using only 1/2 the word size - 4 bits - packed 2 to a byte.

But this isn't what seems to be implied by the summary, namely, instead of using a BCD style, you only use the first B^n numbers of the word, ieeg for 8-bit and 10^2, you use 0x00-0x63 to represent 0-99 and you still have to convert the binary to decimal, just that each word contains a single base B number, which for B=10^n would be n decimal digits.

And that sounds very similar to the problem we were set as the end of the 1st year of my maths degree back in 1984 as part of a computing unit:: calculate every [decimal] digit of 2^3000 using a CBM PET. In BASIC the obvious answer was to use an array of "bignums" (each holding, say, 0-999) and then to print out each element with leading zeros (except the first). (Choosing 0-999 means that each element contains the "normal" 3 digit split for writing big numbers.)

I'm waiting^Wworking for the day when my wii in the wii fit doesn't change shape dramatically when matching mine...

Whether you use a comma or a period is very unlikely to have anything to do with "logic", and more to do with language.

It's more likely to be the other way round: if a comma is used to separate the whole from the decimal, it is read as a comma, similarly if a point is used it is read as a point.

Danish is using the system we used to use in the UK (when I was a school) - long numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Thousand Million = 10^9 (= Milliard), Billion = 10^12, ... unlike the American short numbers: Thousand = 10^3, Million = 10^6, Billion = 10^9, ... (very metric!)

Gallon: 128 fluid ounces, 16 cups, 8 pints, or 4 quarts
Quart: 32 fluid ounces, 64 Tablespoons, 4 cups, or 2 pints
Pint: 16 fluid ounces, 96 teaspoons, 32 Tablespoons, or 2 cups

Only on your side of the pond....on this side:

Gallon: 160 fluid ounces
Quart: 40 fluid ounces
Pint: 20 fluid ounces

Here in the states the crime rate really started to rise quickly in the sixties and seventies, when we started reducing sentences and emphasizing rehabilitation over the incapacitation model we had in the fifties and prior.

Congratulations on obeying the first rule of assumed consequences.

Or to put it another way:

"June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court has ruled that school prayer and Bible reading shall cease in all public school systems. It is now official; God has been removed from the classroom in the United States of America."

along with your

"Here in the states the crime rate really started to rise quickly in the sixties..."

would suggest that it was the banning of "school prayer and Bible reading" at the beginning of the sixties that caused the crime rate the rise.

So which is it? The change in sentencing or the change in religious observance? Or both; or neither and something else entirely different, or was it just one of the factors, along with many others which if one was missing would make a little, but not much reduction in the crime rate?

[Sorry, after reading "How to lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff, I have to question every statistic, and statistical conclusion (eg regression) presented to me.]

IIRC the method to encrypt was to get the relevant wheels in the relevant order, set the key letters, insert into machine, use the initial setting, and plug up the letter swaps - these were changed on a daily basis. The operator then chose a 3 character key for his message and typed this in twice to create the first 6 characters of the encrypted message; finally, the wheels were reset to the operator's chosen key and the message encrypted.

On receipt, the daily initial setting was set up and the first 6 characters of the message entered whereupon the key should come out twice (allowing transmission errors to be spotted...and also allowing a weak spot for breakers).

The operators, having to send lots of messages tended to get lazy and use sequences on the keyboard, eg if they had been using the QWERTY keyboard, they would use keys like: QWE, QAZ, WSX, ZAQ, XSW, EWQ, etc.

A lot of work was done on breaking Enigma BEFORE WWII - by the Polish.

The wheel wirings had been discovered (whether by fair means or foul - ie capturing the actual wheels - I can't remember). Enigma was basically hacked^Wcracked by using the fact that a lot of the German messages had key, crib phrases at the start or end of the messages, and that no letter could encrypt to itself. It was Bombes which were the set the task of finding the starting position of the wheels given a possible crib match.

The German Navy used an enhanced enigma machine which used 4 instead of the normal 3 rotating wheels and so was harder to crack. That was helped by the capture of the settings books (about 2 years before the US entered the war).

It was the Lorentz cypher, as used by Hitler and the high command, was the cypher that was decrypted with the aid of the Colossi. A Lorentz machine was bult at Bletchely Park by modifying a British cypher machine.

Bletchley Park is well worth a visit to see the reconstructed Colossus and the computing museum - it was most odd to see the computers I used as a wee lad in the museum.

I presume you've never heard of a loss leader then?