Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | It really disturbs me that people who are so into computers don't care if they perpetuate the stereotype of hackers as malevolent. | What is your salary? |
| 12 | And hillbilly, amazingly enough, we have many words in English that are spelled and sounded the same yet have different meanings. Cracker is the proper term here. Period. | What is your salary? |
| 13 | bill: it's not majorly important to me, it's just annoying, and no one else is speaking up. People have a right to define themselves, as has been so eloquently argued with regard to Christians. I got my definition from hackers themselves, yes. And I totally see their point. The media fails to make a distinction between hackers that crack and those that don't, because they enjoy stirring up hysteria about the net. The fact that you won't call yourself a hacker means you are letting the media co-opt the word. You should be proud to be a hacker. | What is your salary? |
| 14 | hillbilly: first of all, hackers do a lot more than cracking into systems to look around. Hackers are into stretching technology to its limits and finding out what can be done. As for your scenario, often a better analogy would be if someone left their door wide open, and you wandered into their house to see what was going on. Also you'd tell the person about it afterwards: "hey, you left this side door open, you shouldn't do that." Many hackers try to break into someone's system *with the person's permission*, specifically to test it for security. | What is your salary? |
| 15 | hillbilly: I love how you are ignoring that MOST hackers do NOT "break and enter." bill: What's the problem here? Do you honestly not know this in the first place (that would surprise me)? Am I not expressing myself well? Hackers are interested in expanding technology. Period. They may or may not be interested in breaking into people's systems. If they are interested, they usually do it in a nonmalevolent manner. | What is your salary? |
| 16 | 225 | Here is a cube of cubes. What is the total possible number of cubes present? |
| 17 | This isn't that hard, folks. The total number of cubes made out of single units is 125: 5 vertically X 5 horizontally X 5 deep. Then you add the cubes that can be made out of 2's: 4 vertically X 4 horizontally X 4 deep. That's 64. Then you add the cubes that can be made out of 3's: 3 vertically X 3 horizontally X 3 deep. That's 27. Then you add the cubes that can be made out of 4's: 2 vertically X 2 horizontally X 2 deep. That's 8. Then you add one for the total cube. 125 + 64 + 27 + 8 + 1 = 225. BTW, not that much visualization is required. Once you understand the mathematic principle involved, you can stop trying to visualize and simply plug in the numbers. | Here is a cube of cubes. What is the total possible number of cubes present? |
| 18 | mandy: Bill is right, it's not a condescending remark. On the contrary, I am saying most of the people on this site are definitely bright enough to understand this problem. You just gave up too soon. If you don't want to do it because you don't feel like it, that's your choice. But I think it would help your fear of math if you stuck with it long enough to get the basic "aha" of insight. | Here is a cube of cubes. What is the total possible number of cubes present? |
| 19 | mandy: I used to believe I "had difficiculty" getting math, and then I realized that it was mainly my attitude, a fear of math I had developed, that was the problem. I defined myself as "artistic". As I said before, if you don't care to do this problem, no big deal. But having "MY BRAIN HAS DIFFICULTY GETTING IT!" engraved onto your self-image is not a big help to you. Anything that falls into the category of math is *not* automatically hard. gilly 'n Twister: There seems to be no point in explaining that my comment was not intended to offend. So I guess I won't bother in the future, you guys just take what you want from it anyway. | Here is a cube of cubes. What is the total possible number of cubes present? |
| 20 | It has to be finite. You can't keep dividing bigger cubes into smaller cubes endlessly. You'd get down to a certain small unit of space and not be able to divide it - it's the smallest unit. It's like if the cube was represented on even the highest imaginable resolution computer screen, you would eventually get down to where in order to divide further you'd have to split a pixel, and you can't, practically speaking. Pixels are the bits you are given to work with. So once you've hit that smallest unit of space and you can't divide the space into more teeny tiny cubes, you're left to count all the permutations of the cubes you have, and that is a finite (if humungous) number. This is me trying desperately to express a concept from quantum physics that I marginally understand but can't explain well. Hopefully someone else will explain... | Here is a cube of cubes. What is the total possible number of cubes present? |
