There's also a ncurses-based interface for git called tig[1]. I find it a bit easier to stage chunks/lines than git add -p as it's interactive. When I'm not on a command line, gitx-dev for OSX [2] also makes it very easy too.
+1 for tig. I don't use it for staging and committing (I prefer to do all that using normal git) but it's ridiculously useful for quickly checking the git history, blames etc.
At least on the experimental LHC side, we process/analyse each event independently from every other event, so it's an embarrassingly parallel workload. All we do is split our input dataset up into N files, run N jobs, combine the N outputs.
Because we have so much data (of the order of 25+ PB of raw data per year; it actually balloons to much more than this due to copies in many slightly different formats) and so many users (several thousand physicists on LHC experiments) that's why we have hundreds of GRID sites across the world. The scheduler sends your jobs to sites where the data is located. The output can then be transferred back via various academic/research internet networks.
HEP also tends to invent many of its own 'large-scale computing' solutions. For example most sites tend to use Condor[1] as the batch system, dcache[2] as the distributed storage system, XRootD[3] as the file access protocol, GridFTP[4] as the file transfer protocol. I know there are some sites that use Lustre but it's pretty uncommon.
If they can make a 20" 4K display and put it in a tablet, then why can't they just mount it in a desktop display and I'd be interested in buying it (though whether I have the money is a completely different question). I'm sure it would be easier to manufacture if they didn't care about weight/power consumption and there might be a bigger market.
> First of all I do not trust any hardware. It’s impossible to verify that the hardware doesn’t have a backdoor and randomness looks random even if tampered with.
Well if you can't trust any hardware, how can the author trust any off-the-shelf computer and CPU to generate the private key even if he is using Linux+GPG? For all he could know the CPU could contain a backdoor that performs the necessary arithmetic and operations incorrectly (in the process making the key weaker).
He is also trusting his CPU to do the session encryption correctly (even with his external smartcard). Perhaps the CPU could leak information about the session key to another processes, allowing people to decrypt your communications?
Now I trust my CPU and hardware, especially because we have little alternatives. Perhaps it would be better to use an external smartcard to generate the private key too, because the physical hardware is orders of magnitude less complicated than a CPU/computer, so you could verify the hardware contains no backdoors by examining the physical circuits using a microscope (I presume this would still be very hard to do but millions of times simpler than that for a modern CPU).
Smartcard is the whole computer, minus power supply and the clock. You are right that it's smaller than one x86 and the rest of your notebook or desktop though. Still you'd have to investigate all the hardware and software on your desktop that you use with the smartcard too -- how would you know that the desktop isn't just pretending to use your smartcard? And if you trust the desktop, why do you waste the time with the smartcard, as long as you make the whole setup only for you?
There are many rendering filters and pipelines available for DirectShow (and therefore MPC-HC) that VLC does not have. For example MadVR[1] improves upscaling and display rendering quality dramatically and xy-VSFilter can render subtitles many times faster than libass which is used in VLC.
These are just two examples that I came up with off the top of my head, but there are countless more. The advantage of VLC is that it's simple and just works out of the box for 95% of stuff, but MPC/Directshow gives you far more flexibility as you can construct a very custom filter chain (eg. using different decoders and renderers).
When I read the title for this article, I thought it might be referring to some unconventional racing game that I remembered as getting the worst score ever on some gaming site. That game was Big Rigs. Thanks for reminding me of this hilarious atrocity.
Looks the same guy was the producer for this game the more recent War Z [1]. Its also interesting that War Z also faced accusations around misleading customers [2] and [3].
I get my SSL certificates from Namecheap[1]. Here the cheapest ones are $9/yr (they are the same certificates as the OP's cheapest ones) and they're I suppose a well-known domain registrar.
There is also the Pizza Theorem[1] which says that even if you don't cut the pizza through the middle but so long as the slices are of equal angles, you can divide it equally by area by choosing alternating slices.
> In my case the hacker asked to all my contacts with an automatic message for some Liberty Reserve money. Most of them trust me and my account, so they were inclined to accept.
I'm not sure why anyone would give money to a friend via Liberty Reserve, just because a friend requests some via an instant message. The average person has probably never heard of Liberty Reserve either. Before sending any money of any kind, wouldn't one ask the friend what's wrong whereupon it would become obvious it's not them?
Maybe I'm just deeply skeptical and distrusting and the rest of the world is more optimistic.
I've been nearly taken in by a similar scam done by e-mail: a message from an aunt, saying that her handbag had been stolen while she was in Spain, and she urgently needed some money to sort things out and get home.
It needs a target who's close enough to care, but not so close that they know the details are wrong (as far as I knew, my aunt could have been in Spain). The apparent theft can stop a credulous target from trying to phone the person.
Finally, it only needs to work occasionally to pay off, and the OP mentions having over 1000 Skype contacts.
[1] http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/ [2] http://rowanj.github.io/gitx/