|
I wonder how much they'll charge subscribers for telling them how many coins everyone has, alongside their purchasing history.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Not having access to Facebook because you have the wrong opinions is so last year. Not being able to buy anything because you have the wrong opinions is where it's at.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the Google currency. I wonder how many ads you will have to watch before making a transaction.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung has advised owners of its latest TVs to run regular virus scans. Remember when the worst thing about your TV was sitting too close?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Sony Android-based TV. I suppose it needs to be virus checked as well, but since there's no storage, and the OS is most likely built into a ROM or something, how do you even do a virus check?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
u can check on the sony support website, normally if there are any udpates etc..
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not into that at all...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Do the malware checkers block soaps?
If so, I'm buying a Samsung TV.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Now there's an idea for malware - reading the "favorite channels" list, and allowing the victim to play anything but his/her favorites.
:evil grin:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Official development targets for Java 13 include improvements to garbage collection, application class-data sharing, and text blocks Surely there's someone excited about this?
And yes, I surely called you Shirley.
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on!
There's a version higher than Java 8?
Why have they bothered?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess they had more C# features to copy?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
They're never going to succede with java unless they introduce new icons. They could really take a clue from Micrsoft in that regard.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
AIs that were given a “social” drive and rewarded for influence learned to cooperate Now they know how to gang up on us
|
|
|
|
|
Good news is good news.
... Even if it's over fifteen years old...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Trained on tens of thousands of program examples, SketchAdapt learns how to compose short, high-level programs, while letting a second set of algorithms find the right sub-programs to fill in the details. They've automated copy/paste?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: They've automated copy/paste?
Egg-f***ing-sackerly.
Another article I'm not going to bother to read, because where did the code examples come from, and how were they trimmed and massaged to get results that look "good"?
It will likely be a lot of years before something like this is done seriously and professionally.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If they're trained on samples generated by humans, all we're going to end up with is with something like Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
Randomness sits at the heart of everything we do online. Many encryption algorithms depend upon randomly generated numbers to work, and that’s just one example of many. But how random is random? 4d6, pick the best 3
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on!
I'm not even going to bother reading the article, because Computers Cannot Generate Random Numbers!
That's lesson one of programming class 000; it's burned into your brain before you even think of taking class 101.
Computers Don't Do Random!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently these efforts use various physical sources for random numbers. This project apparently aggregates these. However, I recently read an article which pointed out that over-randomizing and/or using too many sources often leads to less randomization, not more.
|
|
|
|
|
I can well believe that. Adding more "randomising factors" just makes the process more complicated -- but it's still a process, and therefore not random.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: but it's still a process, and therefore not random
If you read the article you'd read that they use lava lamps (which are pretty darn random), tremors in the earth (which are also pretty darn random) and other physical sources that are random.
They use those to generate a number which should be as random as their sources.
And then a few sources are combined to generate an even more random number (because random + random = more random).
The only pitfall is that if you know the values of, say some seismograph, you can reconstruct the random numbers generated at that time.
So the random numbers aren't suited for security purposes, but can be used in other scenario's, like picking a winning lottery number.
Just because you can't think of a way to generate random numbers doesn't mean no one can...
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The only pitfall is that if you know the values of, say some seismograph, you can reconstruct the random numbers generated at that time.
So the random numbers aren't suited for security purposes, but can be used in other scenario's, like picking a winning lottery number.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Adding more "randomising factors" just makes the process more complicated -- but it's still a process, and therefore not random.
I just read the same, but said with other words
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a few sources are combined to generate an even more random number (because random + random = more random).
Afraid not. Intersections become predictable, with multiple rounded sources -- and differences in the numeric ranges of the sources has an even more marked effect on predictability, and therefore lack of randomness.
Someone comes along every few years with wild claims of having invented "true computer randomness", but their claims only last a short time, until someone writes a routine that gives exactly the same results (without using 1960s tacky accoutrements or global indigestion).
Give it a month or two (or learn Z, and crack it yourself) (or program an AI to estimate the results) (or buy several pencils and a very thick notepad).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
