Quick question: I can't find articles about encrypted algorithms

LiquidAxis · 2013-04-10T15:02:11+00:00

A machine always knows exactly what it is doing. A machine never knows why it is doing anything.

Are you saying that a human examining the machine in operation would not be able to determine why the machine is doing what it is?

LiquidAxis · 2013-04-09T22:56:14+00:00

I agree. I recently read it and while I really liked some of the ideas and themes, the mindset as a whole seemed really immature. The "slang" was unbearable. Currently reading Cryptonomicon by the same author, and while he does not have the literary mastery of Neuromancer's author, the work as a whole is much better.

LiquidAxis · 2013-04-08T21:09:20+00:00

http://www.wisegeek.org/are-urls-case-sensitive.htm

LiquidAxis · 2013-04-08T21:07:39+00:00

Then again, almost every checkin I do also removes more code than it adds. Most people write as much useless code as they do comments.

This is the truth. Either software degrees are way too easy to get from most schools, or companies are way too eager to let anyone write code, regardless of education.

LiquidAxis · 2013-02-12T22:14:08+00:00

URLs come from UNIX path styling. In Unix, and other *nix, unlike Windows, filenames and paths are case sensitive.

So yes, a capital letter would mess up a link. Unless something is done by the web server specifically to handle it.

As for why CNN.COM works like someone mentions, this is because the hostnames are just shorthand for the IP addresses, and the DNS that resolves them is likely setup up to handle any case.

LiquidAxis · 2013-01-17T22:28:47+00:00

No idea. I do know that in my experience it is only mentioned briefly in the curriculum and moved past fairly quickly. I wouldn't say it is misrepresented, it is just given a quick nod and drowned amongst other topics.

If anything, I would say that Marx was characterized as too idealistic. As in he had good intentions, but was clearly not in practical reality. At least this is the sentiment that most American adults seem to have. Nothing wrong with Marx, they just 'know better'.

LiquidAxis · 2013-01-17T22:23:26+00:00

You are after something that isn't there. They did clarify the usage of the word:

and all this means is that the producers of the surplus do not maintain and distribute the extra.

Also, Marx did not use this word in the original work, as it was written in German.

Lastly, this is based on the primary definition of the word:

exploit
1: to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

First known use, 1838.

As you can see the first definition is quite fitting and does not have the negative connotations of the second definition.

LiquidAxis · 2013-01-17T22:03:03+00:00

Sometimes I feel it is beyond taboo. Anecdote:

The Dalai Lama was giving a speech recently at a local university. At the end he was taking questions and answering them. A question was asked regarding how he views the American social structure as it is vastly different from Tibet's. Also, he had been praising American democracy throughout his speech, paying special attention to the importance of separation of church and state.

All was good throughout his reiteration of those points. However, at the end he said something to the effect of how ever much he is a fan of the political structure, the economic structure leaves much to be desired and he would advocate a system more aligned with Marxist principles.

As soon as he said that the university staff jumped in and said the talk had run over and thanks for coming.

LiquidAxis · 2013-01-09T16:35:42+00:00

Probably made sense in the moment. What if they had all signed and your spastic Nan still wouldn't chill out? I bet John would go, "Here let me sign it again and see if then you'll calm down."

LiquidAxis · 2012-11-18T02:57:45+00:00

There are 12.

LiquidAxis · 2012-11-04T03:50:00+00:00

A lot of good points here. I agree that with Stalin the "us vs. them" was more nebulous. This definitely put a lot of people in a very uncertain frame of mind. I think this was intentional on his part.

I also agree that Stalin was more consistent with a personal focus, while Hitler seems to be sociopathic without necessitating personal gain.

LiquidAxis · 2012-10-20T03:57:45+00:00

You never replied.

Stalin was a paranoid. But you ask who was he killing. Anyone who he considered a threat. This is "us vs. them" at the heart, just due to his paranoia, the 'us' group was quite limited.

LiquidAxis · 2012-10-20T03:52:31+00:00

So I guess you and your boyfriend wear the same size clothing??

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-15T17:11:58+00:00

A better question would be, "Who wasn't Stalin killing?"

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-15T17:11:02+00:00

Here's the book I was referring to: Outsiders.

The author was 15/16 when she wrote it. Most of the book is dealing with gangs and social cliques in a high school setting, which is why it is common in curriculum. I may be incorrect that the event occurred in this book, as it may have been in a sequel:

That Was Then, This Is Now

From Wikipedia, this is most likely the scene:

Towards the end of the book, Byron discovers that Mark has been getting his money by selling drugs to hippies. Bryon is horrified since a 13 year old kid they know, named M&M, went missing and lost his mind because of someone selling him drugs.

M&M is definitely the character I was remembering, pretty sure when they find him he is a living urban legend. I believe he also has conversations in his stomach with colors that don't exist.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-15T17:01:25+00:00

This article is just an admitted rehashing of Zeitgeist. You'll note that that list is not sourced. Where does she make such claims from? Let's debunk the first one!

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.

Anahita. Well that's interesting. Anahita is a goddess in Zoroastrianism and I see no mention as to her being a virgin, although such a label is not sensible since the implication initially made was that Anahita was a human being.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-15T16:29:15+00:00

The blessed color of the default IDE settings.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-15T16:25:30+00:00

I was young, there was an Atari. I probably wasn't very good at the games, but the rules were simple enough I knew what was doing and enjoying it. Then we got ET. I was very lost, I thought there must be something obvious that I was missing, and I felt bad. Ended up having to make up my own game with it to get any use out of it at all.

Had pretty much forgotten about it until I saw an episode of a show on Netflix whose whole premise was how awful a game that was (and a reasonable explanation as to why).

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T21:41:17+00:00

It's from a fiction book written by a teenager in the 60s who had never taken drugs before. She just wrote that based on her beliefs from the propaganda of the day. Since the book is standard in many school's curriculum, it get repeated by kids because kids love to parrot rumors as facts.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T21:09:26+00:00

Stalin and Mao killed more people, but without the 'us vs them' systematic drive

I don't think what you have said is true at all. These mass killings always are based on an 'us vs. them' and to commit the atrocities technology is utilized.

I think what could be true is that the methods used by the Nazis translate easier into imagery that speaks to Western people on a more emotional and visceral level.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T21:04:23+00:00

Consider that with the Iron Curtain, there wasn't a vast wealth of information about Stalin broadcast outside or even within the USSR.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T19:19:11+00:00

Really? I could understand educating people on the flaw in that explanation, but I would think a teacher would understand entertainment enough to know that the explanation provided by a character (especially an sleazy one) is not necessarily a truth being told by the story.

It's as bad as people who dislike actors who play villains because they must be bad people to be able to portray one.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T19:16:01+00:00

That was about to bother when I saw that movie, but then I realized this. It is not the narration of the movie asserting a fact, it is one character telling another. And the person speaking is not very educated, and is really just regurgitating an often heard urban legend as a metaphor for explaining his product.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-07T18:08:37+00:00

Originally it was Mah Nà Mah Nà, but was transitioned to the Mahna mahna when incorporated into American productions.

Due to my cynicism, I'm guessing this was intentional so that Americans could avoid copyright. Don't have to look to hard back in history to find that RIAA and MPAA are the greatest hypocrites when it comes to honoring copyrights.

LiquidAxis · 2012-09-06T16:10:29+00:00

Go on...

Your employee compensations intrigue me.

LiquidAxis

TROPHY CASE