Re: Nomenclature
It was a joke based on the fact that many people use hoi polloi to mean the exact opposite of it's original meaning.
Jokes don't really work if you have to explain them to people.
I can't use "the"?
Prescriptivist? Moi?
765 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Dec 2018
Well the JAXA SLIM was supposed to approach the Moon and perform a 90 degree flip before landing. Which didn't happen.
Shape it like a Gomboc. Wait till it stops rolling. Poke some legs out.
Job's a good'un.
Anything I don't understand can't be difficult, as the MBAs say.
Make it six times heavier and put solar panels, antennae, thrusters etc on each face. Plus a leg sticking out from each corner.
Or a weeble.
What puzzles me is what combination of mass distribution and landing angle caused it to tip?
You'd think five legs should still keep it on the level, assuming they are strong enough.
Icon for robot wars, you didn't say who they were at war with.
In about 4 million years leap days will no longer be necessary.
Actually, I only came here to complain about you stripping me of my silver status.
Can anyone suggest an unpopular sport for me to try at the next Olympics? Obviously, if there are fewer competitors I'll have more chance of winning, given that there isn't much time left for me to train. Gold would be good, but I'd settle for Silver.
It's a shame that posting snarky comments on the Internet isn't an Olympic sport yet.
It's all we have left! We're interested in railways, underground railways, traction engines, steam ships, clippers and omnibuses because we were instrumental in developing most of them when the rest of the world were using horses.
Aeroplanes (US), hot air balloons (France), Zeppelins (Germany), motor cars (Germany), rockets (Russia/Germany), monocars (Russia), autogyros (Spain), helicopters (Russia) are passing fads which will never catch on. Consequently, they are of no interest to us.
That doesn't really address the point. Even if two different hashes are compromised, using them both as separate hashes still gives some measure of assurance that the file has not been tampered with. If only one is compromised file integrity is guaranteed by the other. If both are compromised it may still be extremely difficult to find a hash collision for both.
I was merely using MD5 as an example.
My question really is - are two hashes more secure than one?
Some time ago I noticed that some Linux ISOs were being signed with two different types of hash - usually an MD5 and some type of SHA. Whilst I realise that this is not really applicable to OpenSSH, surely this is still a reasonable defence against hash collisions?
I'm not trying to minimise the inconvenience these things cause to astro-photographers but.....
Since there are going to be lots of them and we know their shape, size, altitude, velocity and position at any given time (OK, last one is less certain, they're LEOs)....
Could they be used for transit/occultation studies?
Unlike asteroids, they are not all whizzing around the ecliptic.
387 and 663 cover error correction. There may be some merit in these, but a few companies tried patenting Turbo codes for broadcasting some years ago and got their fingers burnt. (That clever bloke from Cambridge who wrote the alternative energy report showed that all Turbo codes were a subset of an existing error correcting scheme.)
283 seems to be a way of efficiently transmitting video encoding data. This may actually be novel.
The rest look rather over-broad, basically how do you get high bandwidth, time-critical stuff over a network. (DVD bitstreams? What?)
Look like typical US patents to me. Not sure this would fly in Europe. DVB standards are all FRAND based. Compression standards are a bit more confusing, because of the sheer number of researchers, overlapping ideas and not everybody agrees to licence stuff as FRAND.
Edit David MacKay was the prof. He showed that LDPC codes (invented/discovered by Gallager in 1960) were a superset of all Turbo codes. This wiped out a promising business model/technical blackmail scam overnight.
I don't have to answer your "one question". I don't live in a theocracy, you don't get to frame compulsory questions, or burn to death anyone who refuses to answer or who gives the wrong answer.
Your time is over. Take your absurd death cult with you. You are not forgiven.
I'm glad He understands predator/prey cycles. If His solution is the same as that produced by millions of years of evolution it just comes down to deciding which is the most likely explanation. Then we just have to decide which of the thousands of gods is the correct one.
They all seem pretty unconvincing to me, what is special about yours?