Unless the sherrifs department had a contract that said otherwise, he can change his mind at any time. His demands are unreasonable, but it was a server *he* was paying for, site maintenance *he* was doing.
These charges are utter bullshit. So I do something for free for someone, I can't change my mind about continuing to do it for free?
A lot of bloggers launch off other ideas they read and put their own spin on it. Thats part of the power of it, sparking wide discussion and expression of multiple points of view of a topic.
This article isn't saying that bloggers outright copy... just that often, a common topic will explode among many bloggers. Sometimes when I write about something in my LiveJournal that I've seen elsewhere, I've seen it in so many blogs that proper attribution would be difficult at best...
Most bloggers don't really give a shit if their ideas for topics are used elsewhere... if their words are used without permission/attribution, then there is an issue, but the ideas and subjects flow freely for a reason... we WANT them to.
No, it wouldn't. It would have no tactile feedback, which is how I know I've screwed up when typing off of a hardcopy. Any measures that could be taken to give it tactile feedback would defeat the purpose of having a projected keyboard.
Looking at the screen is fine when writing code, but when typing something off a sheet of paper for a school assignment or office job, looking at what you are typing is the way to do it. Looking at the screen, back to the original, back to the screen to make sure you are typing properly slows you down immensely.
If what you are typing is all off the top of your head, then look at it, but if you are typing up something off of a hardcopy then you are wasting your time if you can't type without watching the screen.
Without tactile feedback it is impossible to use a keyboard effectively without looking at it. I can detect typos by the feel of the keys, I know when I hit the wrong one. without tactile feedback, I'll be looking at what I'm doing rather than what I'm typing from. That slows me down a lot.
No-feedback keyboards have a place, but not for general use.
Solaris on Sparc. I've never seen one of those crash or even hiccup, and i spent lots of time sitting at some of those workstations. I have seen all NT os's crash, all 9x's, I've seen Macs crash, Linux crash... Solaris would simply work.
Perhaps three times as many Linux systems were targeted as cracked, yet only 50% more windows systems were targetd as cracked. That leads to a far greater success rate against windows.
What was on each machine?
Perhaps the stuff on the Linux boxes was simply more interesting to get to.
And don't forget, quite a few crackers just do their thing for a fun challenge. Perhaps Linux provides a greater challenge, leading more of those types to attack it?
There is certainly enough reason to pay attention, and the Linux community should seriously look at these results and ask these questions and mroe. It is possible that a heretofore ingored or undiscovered security flaw was involved, and we'd do well to find out if that is the case. But this article is far from proof that Linux is inherently less secure than windows. AT most, it raises some issues for Torvalds and co to look into.
On the upside, at least they were honest with that. That allows people to say "Ok, these people are idiots" rather than freak over something that isnt' there.
Actually, the facts listed on that site are pretty accurate.
Of course, they don't mention anything that mitigates the risks they list, or list any possible good drugs can do, but it is an improvement over other anti-drug sites in that the facts they do put out, while incomplete, are accurate in and of themselves. Its a step up. A *small* step up, but it is an improvement. The overall effect is misleading as all hell but they aren't actually lying like they used to.
Also, it may not work the way most people think if it is as bad as it looks. The best available information shows that there was a period of global warming BEFORE the ice age. Apparently something about that allowing more precipitation up north and down south rather than it all staying frozen up and the glaciers then being pushed south and north. So we may not be turning the planet into a desert, but a sheet of ice.
STill, for the rolling retests, thats a horrible place to put it. unless you have something that straps on to your head allowing full movement and view, the rolling retests are a serious traffic hazard. 5 seconds can easily cause a crash. One of my near misses, idiot cuts me off as I'm passing him. If I had been doing a rolling retest at the time, there would have been a crash no questions asked. At least one of us would have taken out other cars(traffic was heavy enough to make that a virtual certainty). There is no way rolling retests are reasonable. At least with cell phones, lighting a cigarette, etc you know when you are going to do it so you can watch traffic and determine the safest(or least dangerous) time to do so. Random rolling retests, you can't plan it- its random.
Rolling retest? Ok, thats just fucked up. How are they going to pull that off in a way that lets you control the car? Or will it say "Pull over for retest please"?
Having the thing dangling from the ceiling could cause a visibility issue, or at least be distracting even if it doesn't block vision. That can cause an accident even when not doing it.
Having it on the steering wheel or dash would solve that problem, but would require the driver to contort into a position that would make it difficult to control the car.
And regardless of where its placed, while doing a rolling retest, you cannot pay as much attention to driving. Given it could take up to 30 seconds, you'd travel anywhere from a quarter mile to half a mile during the test with impaired driving ability. And thats without speeding. That long a distance without being able to watch the road and/or control your vehicle is incredibly dangerous.
Then of course there is innocent till proven guilty.
Go like Connecticut does. Repeat offenders need to get them installed before they can get their license back, and none of this rolling retest bullshit which would probably be almost as dangerous as drunk driving itself is. Solves the innocent till proven guilty(and the one time mistake) issues and doesn't introduce new dangers of its own.
Re:Why such a fat book?
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
Vector does provide range checked subscripts via the "at()" member.
Two weeks tops for a simple program as you describe in C++. Though, C++ wouldn't be my first language of choice anyways for that- too simple to take advantage of its strengths. That project, as it seems you already are a MS shop, I'd do as an Access database project. build some report formats, some VBA maybe to do tie it together, day or two and you'd have something far more powerful than a custom hack of some VB example program.
That sounds like a fun program to code in Perl. Would be fairly easy to do so, evn with a GUI.
Re:The C++ Programming Language
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
I don't start coding C++ without first going to my bookshelf and pulling that book off it. I think I'm allergic to even starting up my IDE or running a compiler wihtout having that book within arms reach. Doesn't matter if the program is so simple I know I won't refer to any book, I just have it nearby regardless.
C++ programmers should have one college textbook(I used deitel and deitel 3rd, but there are better by all reports), that one, and The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference by Nicolai Josuttis.
To counter the weakness of the STL section
on
Practical C++
·
· Score: 1
The C++ Standard Library by Nicolai Josuttis. Covers the whold damn thing in about 800 or so pages. STL, STL, STL. Also convers, with less detail, the non-STL parts of the standard library- but those being mainly simple functions such as pow(), you don't need much detail beyond "throw it some numbers this is what you get back".
That is still an incredibly expensive suicide mission. A hundered used cessnas could do a lot more damage... bunching them all up in one place would draw enough attention to make stopping it feasible, but slamming into 100 city hall buildings across the northeast would kill a shitload of people and scare everyone else even more than 9/11.
It could be feasible if the terrorists kidnap the owners kids and use them as leverage, but actually buying it.. their ten million+ could do a shitload more damage, both from loss of life and fear than a single F/A-18 suicide strike.
Any military aircraft in civilian hands in the US are stripped of weaponry and fire control systems. It would be very difficult and expensive to rearm them.
While possible, the aircraft would be destroyed during their first mission. Unless you assembled a full squadron, they'd probably be shot down before they reached the target(unscheduled fighter aircraft arriving tend to attract attention). Within the US, there isn't really anywhere someone other than the government could operate an airbase secure enough for sustained combat operations. Cessnas with dynamite thrown out the door would be much more dangerous from a homeland security perspective. They are cheap enough you don't need a secure base- they get shot down just buy more. Can't quite do that with multimillion dollar fighters.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the sherrifs department had a contract that said otherwise, he can change his mind at any time. His demands are unreasonable, but it was a server *he* was paying for, site maintenance *he* was doing.
These charges are utter bullshit. So I do something for free for someone, I can't change my mind about continuing to do it for free?
A lot of bloggers launch off other ideas they read and put their own spin on it. Thats part of the power of it, sparking wide discussion and expression of multiple points of view of a topic.
This article isn't saying that bloggers outright copy... just that often, a common topic will explode among many bloggers. Sometimes when I write about something in my LiveJournal that I've seen elsewhere, I've seen it in so many blogs that proper attribution would be difficult at best...
Most bloggers don't really give a shit if their ideas for topics are used elsewhere... if their words are used without permission/attribution, then there is an issue, but the ideas and subjects flow freely for a reason... we WANT them to.
Regarding the subject here, Darl isn't evil. He's fucking stupid, high, or both.
And I'm addicted to SCO news stories.
Please die.
Probably a pagan of one variety or another.
No, it wouldn't. It would have no tactile feedback, which is how I know I've screwed up when typing off of a hardcopy. Any measures that could be taken to give it tactile feedback would defeat the purpose of having a projected keyboard.
Jesus, that was a serious fucking question. Konqueror has always been crash happy in my experience, I was wondering if they had improved that.
dumbass mods.
Looking at the screen is fine when writing code, but when typing something off a sheet of paper for a school assignment or office job, looking at what you are typing is the way to do it. Looking at the screen, back to the original, back to the screen to make sure you are typing properly slows you down immensely.
If what you are typing is all off the top of your head, then look at it, but if you are typing up something off of a hardcopy then you are wasting your time if you can't type without watching the screen.
Does it still crash more often than IE 4 on an unpatched Win95 box?
Without tactile feedback it is impossible to use a keyboard effectively without looking at it. I can detect typos by the feel of the keys, I know when I hit the wrong one. without tactile feedback, I'll be looking at what I'm doing rather than what I'm typing from. That slows me down a lot.
No-feedback keyboards have a place, but not for general use.
Solaris on Sparc. I've never seen one of those crash or even hiccup, and i spent lots of time sitting at some of those workstations. I have seen all NT os's crash, all 9x's, I've seen Macs crash, Linux crash... Solaris would simply work.
Questions-
How many systems of each type were targeted?
Perhaps three times as many Linux systems were targeted as cracked, yet only 50% more windows systems were targetd as cracked. That leads to a far greater success rate against windows.
What was on each machine?
Perhaps the stuff on the Linux boxes was simply more interesting to get to.
And don't forget, quite a few crackers just do their thing for a fun challenge. Perhaps Linux provides a greater challenge, leading more of those types to attack it?
There is certainly enough reason to pay attention, and the Linux community should seriously look at these results and ask these questions and mroe. It is possible that a heretofore ingored or undiscovered security flaw was involved, and we'd do well to find out if that is the case. But this article is far from proof that Linux is inherently less secure than windows. AT most, it raises some issues for Torvalds and co to look into.
On the upside, at least they were honest with that. That allows people to say "Ok, these people are idiots" rather than freak over something that isnt' there.
Actually, the facts listed on that site are pretty accurate.
Of course, they don't mention anything that mitigates the risks they list, or list any possible good drugs can do, but it is an improvement over other anti-drug sites in that the facts they do put out, while incomplete, are accurate in and of themselves. Its a step up. A *small* step up, but it is an improvement. The overall effect is misleading as all hell but they aren't actually lying like they used to.
Also, it may not work the way most people think if it is as bad as it looks. The best available information shows that there was a period of global warming BEFORE the ice age. Apparently something about that allowing more precipitation up north and down south rather than it all staying frozen up and the glaciers then being pushed south and north. So we may not be turning the planet into a desert, but a sheet of ice.
STill, for the rolling retests, thats a horrible place to put it. unless you have something that straps on to your head allowing full movement and view, the rolling retests are a serious traffic hazard. 5 seconds can easily cause a crash. One of my near misses, idiot cuts me off as I'm passing him. If I had been doing a rolling retest at the time, there would have been a crash no questions asked. At least one of us would have taken out other cars(traffic was heavy enough to make that a virtual certainty). There is no way rolling retests are reasonable. At least with cell phones, lighting a cigarette, etc you know when you are going to do it so you can watch traffic and determine the safest(or least dangerous) time to do so. Random rolling retests, you can't plan it- its random.
Rolling retest? Ok, thats just fucked up. How are they going to pull that off in a way that lets you control the car? Or will it say "Pull over for retest please"?
Having the thing dangling from the ceiling could cause a visibility issue, or at least be distracting even if it doesn't block vision. That can cause an accident even when not doing it.
Having it on the steering wheel or dash would solve that problem, but would require the driver to contort into a position that would make it difficult to control the car.
And regardless of where its placed, while doing a rolling retest, you cannot pay as much attention to driving. Given it could take up to 30 seconds, you'd travel anywhere from a quarter mile to half a mile during the test with impaired driving ability. And thats without speeding. That long a distance without being able to watch the road and/or control your vehicle is incredibly dangerous.
Then of course there is innocent till proven guilty.
Go like Connecticut does. Repeat offenders need to get them installed before they can get their license back, and none of this rolling retest bullshit which would probably be almost as dangerous as drunk driving itself is. Solves the innocent till proven guilty(and the one time mistake) issues and doesn't introduce new dangers of its own.
Vector does provide range checked subscripts via the "at()" member.
Two weeks tops for a simple program as you describe in C++. Though, C++ wouldn't be my first language of choice anyways for that- too simple to take advantage of its strengths. That project, as it seems you already are a MS shop, I'd do as an Access database project. build some report formats, some VBA maybe to do tie it together, day or two and you'd have something far more powerful than a custom hack of some VB example program.
That sounds like a fun program to code in Perl. Would be fairly easy to do so, evn with a GUI.
I don't start coding C++ without first going to my bookshelf and pulling that book off it. I think I'm allergic to even starting up my IDE or running a compiler wihtout having that book within arms reach. Doesn't matter if the program is so simple I know I won't refer to any book, I just have it nearby regardless.
C++ programmers should have one college textbook(I used deitel and deitel 3rd, but there are better by all reports), that one, and The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference by Nicolai Josuttis.
The C++ Standard Library by Nicolai Josuttis. Covers the whold damn thing in about 800 or so pages. STL, STL, STL. Also convers, with less detail, the non-STL parts of the standard library- but those being mainly simple functions such as pow(), you don't need much detail beyond "throw it some numbers this is what you get back".
Now lets see how long it takes to disprove 99.9% of their claims, and how long it takes to replace the .1% left.
That is still an incredibly expensive suicide mission. A hundered used cessnas could do a lot more damage... bunching them all up in one place would draw enough attention to make stopping it feasible, but slamming into 100 city hall buildings across the northeast would kill a shitload of people and scare everyone else even more than 9/11.
It could be feasible if the terrorists kidnap the owners kids and use them as leverage, but actually buying it.. their ten million+ could do a shitload more damage, both from loss of life and fear than a single F/A-18 suicide strike.
Any military aircraft in civilian hands in the US are stripped of weaponry and fire control systems. It would be very difficult and expensive to rearm them.
While possible, the aircraft would be destroyed during their first mission. Unless you assembled a full squadron, they'd probably be shot down before they reached the target(unscheduled fighter aircraft arriving tend to attract attention). Within the US, there isn't really anywhere someone other than the government could operate an airbase secure enough for sustained combat operations. Cessnas with dynamite thrown out the door would be much more dangerous from a homeland security perspective. They are cheap enough you don't need a secure base- they get shot down just buy more. Can't quite do that with multimillion dollar fighters.