kindly

I currently use a sha hash (with salt) but rehash it x amounts of times. I have changed x over the years to be larger to get an acceptable trade off in computation time. Why is bcrypt much better than this? Is it because the algorithm is less gpu friendly?

Sorry for the late reply. I sadly do not understand the concerns of this field very well. There are many very large datasets referenced on ckan, mainly links to huge triple stores. There are many biological data sets also eg flybase as mentioned. These triple stores are too big to do any decent dynamic linking against which is big shame.

If you get the opportunity could you repost this to ckan-discuss@lists.okfn.org. There are people on that list that understand these issues far more than me and they would love to hear from anyone interested.

No disrespect was taken. The hacker news coverage came as a big surprise. We like to turn any caching mostly off and we know this is a risk. This is because we do not want the possibility of any stale data as this annoying to the type of users we have. We are working on a better cache invalidation scheme but this has not been a big priority.

Your feedback is appreciated, thank you.

Edit: Our amount of steal was much much higher than that.

You are correct.

Hi, I'm one of the CKAN devs. Just wanted to say the site is fully functional again (we've up the cached to be a bit more aggressive).

As a side note we have indeed tested with ab :) Our problem is we continue to find the AWS instances we use somewhat unpredictable in their response to load (largely due, we believe, to the fluctuations in CPU "stealing" as load varies across the other instances that share the same physical box).

Anyway, if you want to know more about ckan have a look on http://ckan.org/about.

My guess would be a babel fish. It only picks up on subconscious frequencies, so outside noise will not get in the way. It also proves the non-existence of god.

You make open source groups sound a lot like apple.

I said "potential credit card fraud". Sorry for the confusion. The potential fraud is not being done to me. I just wanted to know what I should do if I suspected it.

>This is the very definition of "accessing a computer system without authorization", which you do not want to be caught doing.

I realised this after the fact. I do not know if there is anything I can do to make amends for this.

That was the first thing I did. I do not think they have my card details. The bank thought that too. They just used my email address.

It has nothing to do with my bank card. It was only the use of my email for some account. I had no account on X before this point. I imagine if they used my bank card they would use another email for the account on X and not inform me of what they have done.

I already checked with my bank to make sure no money has come out. That was the first thing I did.

I think it may be due to failing dns lookup. It has been for me anyway. The images and css are on ycombinator.com and not news.ycombinator.com.

I think it probably was the right choice. I see it as a game that I will enjoy in retirement, and look forward to it.

I actually played it instead of doing well in my math degree. I am only about a 4ku in real life (played in the odd competition). I gave up after the degree for similar reasons.

I love the game as compared to chess there is real strategy involved. I am dyslexic and I find calculating locally hard i.e the kind of calculating you do in chess (dyslexics are bad at sequencing). However, in go, you have full board considerations and I am above my grade in those. In go that means I need to take a lower (than my grade) handicap from stronger players but am bad at fighting.

If you can see through the language, repetitiveness and overlook some of the context setting, the best resource is here.

http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/ati_website/canon/sutta/m...

It is supposedly a transcript from the buddha discources.

There is nothing "spiritual" about it and is very systematic (basically lists of what to do) and worded very carefully. Most practaces I have gone to seem to lack the precice details.

Here is the main part, sorry for the length, but I tried to summarise and it would not do.

"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?

"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "

"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body,[2] and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath),[3] and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication.

"[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication,[4] and to breathe out calming mental fabrication.

"[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind.[5]

"[13] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on inconstancy, and to breathe out focusing on inconstancy. [14] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading], and to breathe out focusing on dispassion. [15] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on cessation, and to breathe out focusing on cessation. [16] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on relinquishment, and to breathe out focusing on relinquishment.

To give an opposite view point, read Charlie Brookers article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/charlie-bro...

"If you don't play games, you're not just missing out, you're wilfully ignoring the most rapidly evolving creative medium in human history."

By non technical, all that was meant was, people who currently find technologies hard to use. I agree it will help everyone consume more media, but it will particularly help these people.

Will the ipad actually be useful for the things people actually need to get done to do their jobs? and contribute to a better world because of it? I think in very limited cases it will, but will mainly help non technical people consume more media. Is this a good thing? I personally think not, because I like nature too much. I am happy that some people do not spend their life glued to a screen. Others may differ on this. In terms of useful applications, for doctors and for others who need convenient information retrieval, the Ipad will be great, and I welcome it. On the most part though it will just be a gadget that people will get addicted to and waste more or their worthwhile lives on. Real work will be done on real computers (with a keyboard).