I remember that during the last world cup there was a server that was running the coolest telnet I have ever seen. It was the world cup TV feed filtered into ASCII, so you could actually watch the games over telnet. I was all about it, although I can't remember the server address now. I would be very interested if anyone knew anything else about this, or how it's done, or how I could set it up.
I just looked up Functional Programming in Wikipedia. Wow, I thought assembly was bad. Albeit, I didn't spend more than fifteen minutes on it, but, after reading this review, and looking at some examples, I'm totally confused.
I pulled this example from Wikipedia:
# imperative style
target = [] # create empty list
for item in source_list: # iterate over each thing in source
trans1 = G(item) # transform the item with the G() function
trans2 = F(trans1) # second transform with the F() function
target.append(trans2) # add transformed item to target
A functional version has a different feel to it:
# functional style
# FP-oriented languages often have standard compose()
compose2 = lambda F, G: lambda x: (F(G(x))
target = map(compose2(F,G), source_list)
The first block of code is easy to understand. The second block, whoah, I guess I just have to take your word that it does the same thing as the first block. Can someone give me an introduction/explanation to Erlang / functional programming that I can understand? At this point, I don't even understand what situations this could be usefully applied to.
It seems interesting though...
This is the problem with people who don't understand technology ruling on it. I'm sure this judge probably had some kind of "lesson" given to her, but that's ridiculous. If you don't have a degree in electronic / computer engineering, you shouldn't be ruling as to whether or not data in RAM is stored or not. This is just insane. Is it even technically possible to constantly store a record of a computers RAM? Does this Judge even understand what RAM is, or what function it plays, or how it works? I doubt her understanding is anything but cursory. This is bullshit. It makes me furious! This is like ruling that gravity doesn't exist, and then saying that needs to be enforced. I know that doesn't make sense, that's the point! This Judge is an idiot.
This was reported in all the major papers yesterday. Slashdot is getting lagged, I haven't even seen a story about the Monster.com hack yet. Keep this up, and I'll have to find a new source for news. Slashdot always used to be ahead of the curve, wtf?
The reviewer says that the authors claim that true authentication is impossible on the internet is an error. I think this is more a matter of opinion. The term true authentication, without getting too semantic, is open to a debate that I see being philosophical in nature. If one's definition of true authentication involved, say, eye-to-eye contact, then this obviously couldn't be accomplished on the internet (even a webcam could be spoofed).
What do people think? Obviously eye-to-eye contact isn't a great definition, but neither is an RSA ID.
Umm, I read the (short) posting, and it does not mention Novell even once. This is just slanderous, because boohoo Novell wants to steal all of our money? Come on, that's just a lame write up.
I'm going to venture that you don't know much about serious professional level computer systems. I'm going to discuss, point by point, why you are just flat out wrong and not thinking clearly about many things.
A)Many different versions of Linux have various binary packaging systems so you don't have to compile things, Debian and Redhat being the two most popular (yum and synaptic/.deb and.rpm). The constant upgrade cycle where you discover that your most recent upgrade broke something has nothing to do with the process of compiling software per se, but interoperability between different software. The Microsoft WSUS updates are constantly breaking applications, and this is even more exaggerated in the server market.
B)The vast majority of mission critical infrastructure systems that the internet and all high level computing systems run from the command line. Switches, routers, cores, these are the bread and butter of what makes the internet work, and nobody says that a developer has failed when they produce one of these that works. Frankly, you are just being hyperbolic, failure as a developer means that your application does not work. These devices and applications do work, and as anyone familiar with a command line interface knows, it is usually far simpler to troubleshoot a problem in an environment that you have complete control over (like the command line) than it is in some hairbrained GUI that is made to pander to people like yourself who consider themselves technical users but think that command line interfaces are bad.
C)Linux documentation is far superior to that of Windows, because the API's and sourcecode are all available. Learn how to program, don't blame the difficulty of programming on inferior documentation and instructions. There are people who do what they want in linux, just because you can't, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with linux. Rather, it probably means you are not that smart. The entire notion that linux is an alien environment presupposes a fetish for windows.
Your conclusion is complete bunk, because your arguments don't hold any water. Basically, what you've just done is ranted. Linux does not suck in the regards you listed. Nothing is perfect, and everything can be improved, but you simply don't make a nuanced point like this.
Dashboard and Expose effects are very neat, but I think these are probably the two most difficult (if not impossible) to implement on a Windows environment. Safari on the other hand is probably the simplest to port. Dashboard and Expose need to work with the guts of Windows GUI, whereas Safari really doesn't need to.
www.system76.com sells laptops that are cheap and powerful and come preloaded with ubuntu. No wasting money on a mac/windows license. Of course, this article neglected that.
The article basically says "thanks for these power point slides, AMD/ATI, I'll kiss your F**** asses in my article"
Seriously, that article sucked.
Also, when they say that customers don't realize how much work goes into drivers, is that an excuse? I don't care how much work goes into drivers, I know it's hard to do. It's hard to develop the cards to begin with, and to engineer them. The entire process is hard and full of work. The bottom line is that if you can't produce working drivers for a product that you created and manufacture and sell, that you are in the wrong business and wasting my time.
1) Are you saying sqllite is already in firefox 2.0? I haven't looked at the source code for firefox 2, though I use it, but it would be news to me.
2) I don't know what that is, I just hope the new code is faster / more reliable (or at least equally as reliable).
3) I'd be surprised if this ends up being simpler.
Regardless of how "light" this is, it really sounds like feature creep to me. Why don't the work on improving the existing code and making it faster and have a smaller footprint? I don't see myself upgrading to some SQL based web browser.
Maybe they're also going to rewrite firefox 3.0 in java?
Just because something causes cancer, that doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining!
Besides, that way once they get you in a bed, you're guaranteed to never get better. Think about it: get treatment for ocular cancer -> lay in bed and watch TV -> TV causes cancer so it negates treatment -> repeat.
They must make a fortune.
When 802.11 was first starting, and the standard was not yet finalized by IEEE, I had a job working for the University of New Hampshire InterOperability Lab
Keep in mind this was an environment where we literally had hundreds of uncertified and untested wireless devices all around us. My job was going to be to read through the draft 802.11 standard, and write perl scripts that tested conformance to the standard. Well, the very first day the first thing they did was hand me a study that basically laid out that it would take at least a decade before any real conclusions could be drawn about the hazards (or non hazards) of wifi and human health. It mentioned that there was a correlation between ocular cancer and the radiation from television, and that it took something like 25 years before this was discovered.
Do I find it scary that we put so much into our environment and expose ourselves to so much that we don't understand? Yes. My big problem is that wifi uses the airwaves, so even someone who does not want anything to do with Wifi is having the air that surrounds them used by wifi. I'm a libertarian, and I consider the commons (earth, oceans, space, air, nature basically) to be something that each of us has equal rights to. I see this as the tragedy of the commons (read the book if you're unfamiliar). I would at least like to be able to tax those that use my air for purposes that I don't approve of, or have some kind of options. Right now, the FCC just decides using a decision making process that I find repugnant.
I see the potential health problem of wifi to be a symptom of a much greater problem.
The entire idea of a Metaverse embolized existentialist absurdity: the idea of an "unending avenue of lights," 24 hours a day, is supposed to suspend reality. We're supposed to make this irrational and, frankly, just have fun with it.
I disagree. This is your subjective reading of the Metaverse. Objectively, the metaverse did not symbolize anything, rather, it was a technological commodity that people found to be very useful and fun. It is a tool. I don't know what you find absurd about this, and you need to support that claim if you are going to stick to it.
For the thousands who don't work for IBM, Sun, or have some other connections, a gated Metaverse will be a bad place and waste of time
This is simply wrong. For example, when I am at the office, my friends aren't there, and I get a lot accomplished. Having my friends around would lead to me talking to them, playing with them, and getting less accomplished. Sun and IBM are businesses, and they need to be productive. It is just a fact that keeping people who do business away from people who don't (like their friends or myspace) is a productivity enhancer. Sun and IBM did not set up this Metaverse as a game, that would be like installing Quake 2 onto everyone's PC. The internet started as a gated community, and it expanded into a larger beast with small pockets of private activity. That is what the metaverse should and will become - a large network with some open spaces and some private spaces. You call this a fancy social party, but I call it the real world. People will invest money in the metaverse, and to get a ROI (return of investment) they need to be able to charge (aka put up gates).
Hi,
I am a great cyber punk science fiction buff, and so, I'll take it upon myself to explain what the metaverse is. The metaverse is a 3D representation of reality that is fully networked. Instead of a website, you would have a block of real estate on "the street". It's essentially the internet with 3d goggles. The term metaverse was coined by Neil Stephenson in the book "Snow Crash". However, Stephenson's metaverse bears a striking similarity to:cyberspace" as coined by William Gibson in the book "Neuromancer".
In response to the question, is the metaverse going to be thousands of gated communities, I would say, yes. If you read these two books, the metaverse/cyberspace was never an open place where everything is free and available to anyone with an avatar/net connection. Quite the contrary. The premise of Neuromancer is that cyberspace consists of corporate blocks that contain valuable information and data that is only available to a few (military, clans, etc). In the metaverse of Snow Crash, Stephenson clearly stipulates that only some people can access some places. Your home for example, people only can gain access to your "site" or real estate if you make it available to them. I guess an apt response to this question is, do you expect it to be?
The internet is not totally free, and is in essence created of thousands of gates communities. That's one of the reason's that it works so well for both recreation and for business. Private communications, business transactions, pr0n sites, there are tons of legitimate arguments to be made for why communications systems like the internet/cyberspace/metaverse are made better by having these "gated communities".
Combine this with the Sony's announcement today that PS3 will have a persistent online "street" where everyone will have an avatar and their own apartment, and it's basically the metaverse.
Sweet.
This seems pretty obvious, but, computer systems being what they are, doesn't this create the mother of all cracker targets?
Whatever remote control technology they use, I hope it's far safer than mere IP addresses. I mean, come on, planes should not have public IP addresses, especially not public IP addresses linked to a remote control system.
Pilot:
"I'm sorry folks, but it appears the some script kiddie has taken control of the flight, drinks are now free"
The entire wireless community did get together, that's what 802.11.a/b/g/n etc. refer to. It's called a standard, and everyone agrees on it, so that they can have interoperability.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, will not work for less than a certain sum. I'll go back to cooking before I do I.T. style work for less money.
I remember that during the last world cup there was a server that was running the coolest telnet I have ever seen. It was the world cup TV feed filtered into ASCII, so you could actually watch the games over telnet. I was all about it, although I can't remember the server address now. I would be very interested if anyone knew anything else about this, or how it's done, or how I could set it up.
I pulled this example from Wikipedia:
The first block of code is easy to understand. The second block, whoah, I guess I just have to take your word that it does the same thing as the first block. Can someone give me an introduction/explanation to Erlang / functional programming that I can understand? At this point, I don't even understand what situations this could be usefully applied to.
It seems interesting though...
This is the problem with people who don't understand technology ruling on it. I'm sure this judge probably had some kind of "lesson" given to her, but that's ridiculous. If you don't have a degree in electronic / computer engineering, you shouldn't be ruling as to whether or not data in RAM is stored or not. This is just insane. Is it even technically possible to constantly store a record of a computers RAM? Does this Judge even understand what RAM is, or what function it plays, or how it works? I doubt her understanding is anything but cursory. This is bullshit. It makes me furious! This is like ruling that gravity doesn't exist, and then saying that needs to be enforced. I know that doesn't make sense, that's the point! This Judge is an idiot.
This was reported in all the major papers yesterday. Slashdot is getting lagged, I haven't even seen a story about the Monster.com hack yet. Keep this up, and I'll have to find a new source for news. Slashdot always used to be ahead of the curve, wtf?
The reviewer says that the authors claim that true authentication is impossible on the internet is an error. I think this is more a matter of opinion. The term true authentication, without getting too semantic, is open to a debate that I see being philosophical in nature. If one's definition of true authentication involved, say, eye-to-eye contact, then this obviously couldn't be accomplished on the internet (even a webcam could be spoofed). What do people think? Obviously eye-to-eye contact isn't a great definition, but neither is an RSA ID.
Umm, I read the (short) posting, and it does not mention Novell even once. This is just slanderous, because boohoo Novell wants to steal all of our money? Come on, that's just a lame write up.
I'm going to venture that you don't know much about serious professional level computer systems. I'm going to discuss, point by point, why you are just flat out wrong and not thinking clearly about many things.
.deb and .rpm). The constant upgrade cycle where you discover that your most recent upgrade broke something has nothing to do with the process of compiling software per se, but interoperability between different software. The Microsoft WSUS updates are constantly breaking applications, and this is even more exaggerated in the server market.
A)Many different versions of Linux have various binary packaging systems so you don't have to compile things, Debian and Redhat being the two most popular (yum and synaptic/
B)The vast majority of mission critical infrastructure systems that the internet and all high level computing systems run from the command line. Switches, routers, cores, these are the bread and butter of what makes the internet work, and nobody says that a developer has failed when they produce one of these that works. Frankly, you are just being hyperbolic, failure as a developer means that your application does not work. These devices and applications do work, and as anyone familiar with a command line interface knows, it is usually far simpler to troubleshoot a problem in an environment that you have complete control over (like the command line) than it is in some hairbrained GUI that is made to pander to people like yourself who consider themselves technical users but think that command line interfaces are bad.
C)Linux documentation is far superior to that of Windows, because the API's and sourcecode are all available. Learn how to program, don't blame the difficulty of programming on inferior documentation and instructions. There are people who do what they want in linux, just because you can't, doesn't mean that there is something wrong with linux. Rather, it probably means you are not that smart. The entire notion that linux is an alien environment presupposes a fetish for windows.
Your conclusion is complete bunk, because your arguments don't hold any water. Basically, what you've just done is ranted. Linux does not suck in the regards you listed. Nothing is perfect, and everything can be improved, but you simply don't make a nuanced point like this.
Besides which, this thread was about Security!
Dashboard and Expose effects are very neat, but I think these are probably the two most difficult (if not impossible) to implement on a Windows environment. Safari on the other hand is probably the simplest to port. Dashboard and Expose need to work with the guts of Windows GUI, whereas Safari really doesn't need to.
www.system76.com sells laptops that are cheap and powerful and come preloaded with ubuntu. No wasting money on a mac/windows license. Of course, this article neglected that.
The article basically says "thanks for these power point slides, AMD/ATI, I'll kiss your F**** asses in my article" Seriously, that article sucked.
Also, when they say that customers don't realize how much work goes into drivers, is that an excuse? I don't care how much work goes into drivers, I know it's hard to do. It's hard to develop the cards to begin with, and to engineer them. The entire process is hard and full of work. The bottom line is that if you can't produce working drivers for a product that you created and manufacture and sell, that you are in the wrong business and wasting my time.
I can't decide, what do people think, 65 years is basically a life sentence. Is that excessive?
Did you have an attorney present on your behalf? The DA sold you on a bad deal, but done is done. Sorry to hear about this though.
if only they hadn't had all those open windows! Someone should have told the driver to restart the engine and close all those windows!
1) Are you saying sqllite is already in firefox 2.0? I haven't looked at the source code for firefox 2, though I use it, but it would be news to me. 2) I don't know what that is, I just hope the new code is faster / more reliable (or at least equally as reliable). 3) I'd be surprised if this ends up being simpler.
Regardless of how "light" this is, it really sounds like feature creep to me. Why don't the work on improving the existing code and making it faster and have a smaller footprint? I don't see myself upgrading to some SQL based web browser. Maybe they're also going to rewrite firefox 3.0 in java?
Just because something causes cancer, that doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining! Besides, that way once they get you in a bed, you're guaranteed to never get better. Think about it: get treatment for ocular cancer -> lay in bed and watch TV -> TV causes cancer so it negates treatment -> repeat. They must make a fortune.
http://iol.unh.edu/
Keep in mind this was an environment where we literally had hundreds of uncertified and untested wireless devices all around us. My job was going to be to read through the draft 802.11 standard, and write perl scripts that tested conformance to the standard. Well, the very first day the first thing they did was hand me a study that basically laid out that it would take at least a decade before any real conclusions could be drawn about the hazards (or non hazards) of wifi and human health. It mentioned that there was a correlation between ocular cancer and the radiation from television, and that it took something like 25 years before this was discovered.
Do I find it scary that we put so much into our environment and expose ourselves to so much that we don't understand? Yes. My big problem is that wifi uses the airwaves, so even someone who does not want anything to do with Wifi is having the air that surrounds them used by wifi. I'm a libertarian, and I consider the commons (earth, oceans, space, air, nature basically) to be something that each of us has equal rights to. I see this as the tragedy of the commons (read the book if you're unfamiliar). I would at least like to be able to tax those that use my air for purposes that I don't approve of, or have some kind of options. Right now, the FCC just decides using a decision making process that I find repugnant.
I see the potential health problem of wifi to be a symptom of a much greater problem.
I disagree. This is your subjective reading of the Metaverse. Objectively, the metaverse did not symbolize anything, rather, it was a technological commodity that people found to be very useful and fun. It is a tool. I don't know what you find absurd about this, and you need to support that claim if you are going to stick to it.
This is simply wrong. For example, when I am at the office, my friends aren't there, and I get a lot accomplished. Having my friends around would lead to me talking to them, playing with them, and getting less accomplished. Sun and IBM are businesses, and they need to be productive. It is just a fact that keeping people who do business away from people who don't (like their friends or myspace) is a productivity enhancer. Sun and IBM did not set up this Metaverse as a game, that would be like installing Quake 2 onto everyone's PC. The internet started as a gated community, and it expanded into a larger beast with small pockets of private activity. That is what the metaverse should and will become - a large network with some open spaces and some private spaces. You call this a fancy social party, but I call it the real world. People will invest money in the metaverse, and to get a ROI (return of investment) they need to be able to charge (aka put up gates).
Hi, I am a great cyber punk science fiction buff, and so, I'll take it upon myself to explain what the metaverse is. The metaverse is a 3D representation of reality that is fully networked. Instead of a website, you would have a block of real estate on "the street". It's essentially the internet with 3d goggles. The term metaverse was coined by Neil Stephenson in the book "Snow Crash". However, Stephenson's metaverse bears a striking similarity to :cyberspace" as coined by William Gibson in the book "Neuromancer".
In response to the question, is the metaverse going to be thousands of gated communities, I would say, yes. If you read these two books, the metaverse/cyberspace was never an open place where everything is free and available to anyone with an avatar/net connection. Quite the contrary. The premise of Neuromancer is that cyberspace consists of corporate blocks that contain valuable information and data that is only available to a few (military, clans, etc). In the metaverse of Snow Crash, Stephenson clearly stipulates that only some people can access some places. Your home for example, people only can gain access to your "site" or real estate if you make it available to them. I guess an apt response to this question is, do you expect it to be?
The internet is not totally free, and is in essence created of thousands of gates communities. That's one of the reason's that it works so well for both recreation and for business. Private communications, business transactions, pr0n sites, there are tons of legitimate arguments to be made for why communications systems like the internet/cyberspace/metaverse are made better by having these "gated communities".
Combine this with the Sony's announcement today that PS3 will have a persistent online "street" where everyone will have an avatar and their own apartment, and it's basically the metaverse. Sweet.
This seems pretty obvious, but, computer systems being what they are, doesn't this create the mother of all cracker targets? Whatever remote control technology they use, I hope it's far safer than mere IP addresses. I mean, come on, planes should not have public IP addresses, especially not public IP addresses linked to a remote control system. Pilot: "I'm sorry folks, but it appears the some script kiddie has taken control of the flight, drinks are now free"
The entire wireless community did get together, that's what 802.11.a/b/g/n etc. refer to. It's called a standard, and everyone agrees on it, so that they can have interoperability.