Weak security because of dynamic typing? You really have to elaborate on this, because like this it just makes no sense. How is a strong typed languare more secure than a dynamic typed one? It's not more secure, it's just that the compiler/run-time performs additional tests against what types objects are when they are created and passed around. Ideally these types of errors are caught by the coder anyway during the testing phase, at which point strong typing becomes more of a burden than anything else.
I suppose if you don't want to test your stuff, it's a big benefit to use a strongly-typed language.
In truly secure code, you should be checking that sort of thing manually anyway, and not relying on the compiler/interpreter to do it for you. That way, you know that it is done, and done correctly, and can be verified by others on your programming team.
Cause it's worth the $8,000 if I can send it to meetings and it can ignore all the shit I don't care about for me. No need. You can just send it there and then ignore the stuff you don't care about when it tells you what happened at the meeting.
If the singularity happens, we are no longer the apex of intellect. There will be superhumanly intelligent players, and much of the world will be to their design. Explaining that to one of us would be like trying to explain our world to a monkey.
From a technological perspective, I already can't explain 'my world' to other 'players'. For example, my girlfriend and/or parents.
Good idea, except you have to route all hiring decisions through some HR drone that doesn't know jack crap about anything related to the position. Putting something like that in place would only serve to confuse them.
If Comcast has any sense they will try to hire the guys rather than drag them through the courts. We need people like this looking for and fixing flaws rather than exploiting them. That's the one thing they can't do, because if they did, it would open the proverbial floodgates. Every script kiddie who wanted a job would start in on it, and I'm sure that for a company like Comcast it's just not worth the hassle.
Can you imagine the difficulty of trying to create a library if they already didn't exist. Publishers, Authors, Printers, MPAA, RIAA... they would all try to sue you into oblivion for essentially 'giving away' what they rightfully own. Yeah, seriously, thank $deity for prior art
...just put a webserver on it and then link to it on the front page of Slashdot, like that guy's master's project that was incinerated by the Slashdot effect a few months back
What adverts? I don't see no adverts. Do I need to install Windows to get the full user experience?
If you know what you're doing (ie. Ad/Script/FlashBlock + FireFox) you probably won't see the ads anyway...but the problem is that the ISP is either replacing the advertising content served by the remote site with their own advertising, or just serving you ads on top of the ads that are already on the website.
The real party that gets screwed here is the advertiser...depending on how they set things up, they may see a hit on their ads that end up getting chopped out by the ISP and never actually displayed to an end user.
I can picture something like this getting challenged in court pretty fast by the actual advertisers, but I'm not so sure about what would happen if they just send additional ads down the pipe along with your requests. That would probably take a class-action suit led by users (EFF, ho!)
I'd like to think that for $50/month *minimum* they wouldn't need to resort to this type of bullshit to generate a profit.
Also, God forbid they simultaneously switch to some sort of metered bandwidth plan and ALSO start wasting said bandwidth with extra ads. That would be enough to motivate any nerd to drive down to the local ISP office and start shooting people.
You're not going to be able to see the whole screen without turning your head. Isn't the average human's field of view between 120-140 degrees? Actually, the $200 package includes a miniscule Mexican wrestler that will crank your neck back and forth so you can see the whole screen without actually trying.
I think the poll should have asked if people were getting sick of responding to polls. It's probably the only poll you could give someone and expect a reliable answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose if you don't want to test your stuff, it's a big benefit to use a strongly-typed language.
In truly secure code, you should be checking that sort of thing manually anyway, and not relying on the compiler/interpreter to do it for you. That way, you know that it is done, and done correctly, and can be verified by others on your programming team.
Nah, the scammers will just route it through some mule, like they do with the stuff they buy through credit card fraud.
Good idea, except you have to route all hiring decisions through some HR drone that doesn't know jack crap about anything related to the position. Putting something like that in place would only serve to confuse them.
Yes, but why do that when they could charge $20 in the store AND $10 for the album download?
Old, but good: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
Maybe we should do that with humans too.
...just put a webserver on it and then link to it on the front page of Slashdot, like that guy's master's project that was incinerated by the Slashdot effect a few months back
Dogs reproduce well enough on their own without requiring us to artificially inflate the supply via cloning.
1st film: Groundbreaking 2nd film: Great 3rd film: Ok 4th film: WTF was everyone thinking?
Counterargument: Rocky IV.Although, in this case, Rocky V was the stinker.
If you know what you're doing (ie. Ad/Script/FlashBlock + FireFox) you probably won't see the ads anyway...but the problem is that the ISP is either replacing the advertising content served by the remote site with their own advertising, or just serving you ads on top of the ads that are already on the website.
The real party that gets screwed here is the advertiser...depending on how they set things up, they may see a hit on their ads that end up getting chopped out by the ISP and never actually displayed to an end user.
I can picture something like this getting challenged in court pretty fast by the actual advertisers, but I'm not so sure about what would happen if they just send additional ads down the pipe along with your requests. That would probably take a class-action suit led by users (EFF, ho!)
I'd like to think that for $50/month *minimum* they wouldn't need to resort to this type of bullshit to generate a profit.
Also, God forbid they simultaneously switch to some sort of metered bandwidth plan and ALSO start wasting said bandwidth with extra ads. That would be enough to motivate any nerd to drive down to the local ISP office and start shooting people.
Ah, but they *can* have it both ways, as long as they keep their friendly neighborhood congress-critter on their payroll.
...but if we strike down this site, it shall become more powerful than we can possibly imagine.
I think you may have tried too hard.
More like they'll just stop teaching kids to read in publically funded schools so they won't potentially be exposed to smut.
If you think of the sun as a power source, it's not exactly user-replaceable either, but I'll be damned if its battery life isn't unbelievable.
I think the poll should have asked if people were getting sick of responding to polls. It's probably the only poll you could give someone and expect a reliable answer.
The article is posted on http://blog.wired.com/ and is therefore blocked by the filter it's complaining about.