Isn't that the reason that you can: - still buy a mobile phone that doesn't have advertisements? - get pay-tv where you can watch movies without interruption (at least here in the netherlands) - become a slashdot subscriber and NOT see the ads anymore.
This is a new businessmodel, for those of us who don't want to pay for the product or service but instead want to view ads. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are (and will be) plenty alternatives for you.
Oh, I saw I forget to mention the features I used: - attach the profiler to a remote machine (in our case a test environment) - trace memory allocations: you can see live which objects live in the JVM - memory snapshot, this makes a snapshot in which you can see which objects live, which other objects have references to it, where it was allocated etc. So if you have a mem-leak, you can find out exactly why the object wasn't GC'ed - cpu profiling: see which methods take how many percent of your processing, and fold open the call-tree for such a method to see which methods it calls and how much time is spent there.
Interesting to see this question come up just a week after I was in deperate need of a profiler. I downloaded JProfiler 4.2 and got a test-license (for 10 days or so). (oh, and I work on a Mac, and it has downloads for 3 platforms).
The problem I had was the following. We upgraded our system from the previous stable release of our opensource CMS to the new stable release. We knew a lot had changed in the internals, so we did a good functional testround and fixed quite a few issues. Quite confident in the new software (it appeared faster) we deployed on our live environment. Looked fine, until after a few hours it didn't stop Full-GC-ing, the symptoms of a memory leak. (and yes, I know how to tune my VM to optimum GC performance).
All I can say about JProfiler is that after only 3 or 4 days, I found all memory leaks, several performance issues (even things like 'for (int i=0; istr.length(); i++)'), and got a real good feel about the bottlenecks inside the application. My manager just bought me a $400 or so license, and it's money very well spent.
So next week we'll go live again, but now with a piece of software of which we exactly know how it behaves.
I suggest you download the evaluation version and just give it a try. I can't imagine putting a release live anymore, without having profiled it for at least a day.
Correct, but you cheated:). The second one is actually quite interesting; 'NaN' is a thing that represents the non-computable. If you compare it to anything it will always return false... even if you compare it to itself.
Re:disappointed -- try the java cert exam
on
Java Puzzlers
·
· Score: 1
I own the book (got it as a goodbye present when I left my previous job) and it is really, REALLY good. Yeah the example in the review isn't that interesting, but the other 100 or so are really amazing.
I consider myself a somewhat experienced java developer, but they got me every single time. If you think you'r smart you certainly have to read this book, it'll slap you back to the ground.
Example (let's hope I don't violate any copyright here, my intentions are to get more copies sold anyway;-)
Provide a declaration for i that turns this loop into an infinite loop: while (i != 0 && i == -i) {}
Or try to do the same with this one: while (i != i) {}
These are two examples of oneliners that require you to dive deep into your java knowledge. There are some more exotic examples with larger source fragments related to threading/synchronization, locking, etc. etc.
Nearly 45% of consumers said they would watch TV on their home computer, because it enabled them to choose what they wanted to watch and when.
This smells like a very badly formed question. I would never want to watch TV on my home computer if I could 'choose wat and when to watch' on my TV.
My TV is way bigger than my PC, located in a far more confortable room. This answer looks like the question had too few possible options; if you could have video-on-demand on your TV you wouldn't dream of giving the above answer.
1. buy all songs currently in top10 from your 100mbit university connection 2. wait untel the rest of the world downloads them from you, where you earn credits 3. you buy more songs, but now with the credits 4. people download more songs from you 5. repeat step 3 6. profit! (or at least, free legal songs).
For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.
So, assume this happens: - Client A requests the site - Client B requests the site - PHP engine process request for A: generates a random string 'abcde' and creates the captcha.jpg for this 'abcde' - PHP engine process request for B: generates a random string 'fghij' and creates the captcha.jpg for this 'fghij' - Due to some network lag (200ms), A will now request 'captcha.jpg'
A will see 'fghij', but the session for A will have 'abcde' set. This means that A cannot validate himself.
The problem here is ofcourse that the file is always the same: if you would use a PHP file that generates the images for a request (based on the sessionid from a cookie), you would be safe.
(I also posted this on the CAPATCHA topic, but I think it's relevant here too).
Too bad that that example on that site of 'an international group of PHP experts dedicated to promoting secure programming practices within the PHP community.' is flawed.
It always writes to the same.jpg file, so two people requesting the page at the same time will see the same image (the last generated one).
If these are the PHP experts on secure programming, I am now really worried.
Too bad that that example on that site of 'an international group of PHP experts dedicated to promoting secure programming practices within the PHP community.' is flawed.
It always writes to the same.jpg file, so two people requesting the page at the same time will see the same image (the last generated one).
If these are the PHP experts on secure programming, I am now really worried.
I don't think we'll have somebody changing the length of days, since that one is defined in the number of seconds (60 * 60 * 24), and a second is pretty well defined by SI:
What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance of some (mostly the 'popular') science people on TV or in the news, is that they make you believe that Science will Have All The Answers. Eventually we will comprehend everything, and with that, we will know the nature of God (loosely quoting Stephen Hawking).
What most people (in my opinion) fail to realise, is that we have tiny brains. We have a limited number of grey cells in that tiny skull up there, and we are therefore limited in what we can comprehend. Sure we have come to understand the world around us in a incredible detailed way; but we have no guarantees at all that we will be able to continue this trend.
You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims. But I believe that we will never know everything there is to know about the universe around us, because we are mentally incapable. Science has nothing to say about religion, because science is a way for our brains to try to explain the world around us. Religion/faith is all about the step after that.
Therefore, it is not a question of 'possibility' to determine if there is a God or not. He either is (and we can't begin to grasp what this God is, it goes beyond our deductive skills), or he is not. That's a question of faith, it's a choice you make. Do you believe it or not? I personally do, you might not, but please don't come with arguments that science will prove you right. I won't use science to prove you wrong either, promise.
Some kind of statistical thing maybe?
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
They definately are not. Try completing "asdfjklasdfjklasdfjklasdfjkl". It shows that there should be 4100 hits, but when you actually search for it, it returns none.
My guess is that it does some statistical magic based top-indexed search terms, because searching for only 'asdfjkl' does give around 4700 hits.
I recently got a Creative Zen Touch (a present from my company; if I had to choose it'd be an iPod), and I've already spent an unsuccesfull day getting it to work under linux. There is no way that you would mount this device, since it is NOT an USB mass storage device but uses proprietary Creative protocols.
There is one open-source project (Gnomad2) that claims to do the job, but I haven't been able to get that working. If I had the C skills and the time, I would try writing a LUFS plugin. For now, I'm pondering buying an USB2 card, because gnomad2 refuses to work with usb1.1 it seems.
You have just proven my point. You need to write a program that simulates a process, and then run the program on that. Then you must run it using ALL POSSIBLE INPUTS.
Now, go study the halting problem, then write your reply again.
Why do people keep thinking that decompilation is possible? In short: decompiling a computer program is solving the halting problem. Period.
The long version: In a compiled computer program there is no distinction for either code or data. Every byte in memory can be data, but it can also be executed as valid computer code.
Now, the catch is that during compilation, data and code are mixed in the resulting binary. For instance take the compilation of a 'case' statement. There are several ways of compiling a case: - you can write it as a list of IF's, which is perfectly fine decompilable - you can write it as a jump, based on the case expression. The fun part about the second possibility is that it's far more efficient, but it poses a problem: when decompiling this you have to know where the bounds of the case lie. What's the furthest jump that can be made? It's a jump based on a calculated value, so you should know which values are possible. But for that, you need to run the program, and more specifically, you must run all possible execution paths.
This can be rewritten as the instance of the halting problem: can a computer find out for any program whether or not it will halt? It is proven that a computer program cannot be written to do this task. Neither can a computer program decompile any other computer program.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the reason that you can:
- still buy a mobile phone that doesn't have advertisements?
- get pay-tv where you can watch movies without interruption (at least here in the netherlands)
- become a slashdot subscriber and NOT see the ads anymore.
This is a new businessmodel, for those of us who don't want to pay for the product or service but instead want to view ads. If you don't like it, don't use it. There are (and will be) plenty alternatives for you.
Oh, I saw I forget to mention the features I used:
- attach the profiler to a remote machine (in our case a test environment)
- trace memory allocations: you can see live which objects live in the JVM
- memory snapshot, this makes a snapshot in which you can see which objects live, which other objects have references to it, where it was allocated etc. So if you have a mem-leak, you can find out exactly why the object wasn't GC'ed
- cpu profiling: see which methods take how many percent of your processing, and fold open the call-tree for such a method to see which methods it calls and how much time is spent there.
Interesting to see this question come up just a week after I was in deperate need of a profiler. I downloaded JProfiler 4.2 and got a test-license (for 10 days or so). (oh, and I work on a Mac, and it has downloads for 3 platforms).
The problem I had was the following. We upgraded our system from the previous stable release of our opensource CMS to the new stable release. We knew a lot had changed in the internals, so we did a good functional testround and fixed quite a few issues. Quite confident in the new software (it appeared faster) we deployed on our live environment. Looked fine, until after a few hours it didn't stop Full-GC-ing, the symptoms of a memory leak. (and yes, I know how to tune my VM to optimum GC performance).
All I can say about JProfiler is that after only 3 or 4 days, I found all memory leaks, several performance issues (even things like 'for (int i=0; istr.length(); i++)'), and got a real good feel about the bottlenecks inside the application. My manager just bought me a $400 or so license, and it's money very well spent.
So next week we'll go live again, but now with a piece of software of which we exactly know how it behaves.
I suggest you download the evaluation version and just give it a try. I can't imagine putting a release live anymore, without having profiled it for at least a day.
Correct, but you cheated :). The second one is actually quite interesting; 'NaN' is a thing that represents the non-computable. If you compare it to anything it will always return false ... even if you compare it to itself.
I own the book (got it as a goodbye present when I left my previous job) and it is really, REALLY good. Yeah the example in the review isn't that interesting, but the other 100 or so are really amazing.
;-)
I consider myself a somewhat experienced java developer, but they got me every single time. If you think you'r smart you certainly have to read this book, it'll slap you back to the ground.
Example (let's hope I don't violate any copyright here, my intentions are to get more copies sold anyway
Provide a declaration for i that turns this loop into an infinite loop:
while (i != 0 && i == -i) {}
Or try to do the same with this one:
while (i != i) {}
These are two examples of oneliners that require you to dive deep into your java knowledge. There are some more exotic examples with larger source fragments related to threading/synchronization, locking, etc. etc.
So I can only say again: buy this book!
This smells like a very badly formed question. I would never want to watch TV on my home computer if I could 'choose wat and when to watch' on my TV.
My TV is way bigger than my PC, located in a far more confortable room. This answer looks like the question had too few possible options; if you could have video-on-demand on your TV you wouldn't dream of giving the above answer.
1. buy all songs currently in top10 from your 100mbit university connection
2. wait untel the rest of the world downloads them from you, where you earn credits
3. you buy more songs, but now with the credits
4. people download more songs from you
5. repeat step 3
6. profit! (or at least, free legal songs).
For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.
Aaah .. stupid me. The first line of code should be:
/> ... i did have 'Plain old Text' enabled when posting, well, nevermind.
<img src="captcha.jpg"
The code says:
and:
$image = $captcha->getCAPTCHAAsJPEG();
$handle = fopen('captcha.jpg', 'w');
fwrite($handle, $image);
fclose($handle);
So, assume this happens:
- Client A requests the site
- Client B requests the site
- PHP engine process request for A: generates a random string 'abcde' and creates the captcha.jpg for this 'abcde'
- PHP engine process request for B: generates a random string 'fghij' and creates the captcha.jpg for this 'fghij'
- Due to some network lag (200ms), A will now request 'captcha.jpg'
A will see 'fghij', but the session for A will have 'abcde' set. This means that A cannot validate himself.
The problem here is ofcourse that the file is always the same: if you would use a PHP file that generates the images for a request (based on the sessionid from a cookie), you would be safe.
(I also posted this on the CAPATCHA topic, but I think it's relevant here too).
.jpg file, so two people requesting the page at the same time will see the same image (the last generated one).
Too bad that that example on that site of 'an international group of PHP experts dedicated to promoting secure programming practices within the PHP community.' is flawed.
It always writes to the same
If these are the PHP experts on secure programming, I am now really worried.
Too bad that that example on that site of 'an international group of PHP experts dedicated to promoting secure programming practices within the PHP community.' is flawed.
.jpg file, so two people requesting the page at the same time will see the same image (the last generated one).
It always writes to the same
If these are the PHP experts on secure programming, I am now really worried.
I don't think we'll have somebody changing the length of days, since that one is defined in the number of seconds (60 * 60 * 24), and a second is pretty well defined by SI:
http://www.metas.ch/en/labors/4/41.html
What has striken me most the last few years, is the arrogance of some (mostly the 'popular') science people on TV or in the news, is that they make you believe that Science will Have All The Answers. Eventually we will comprehend everything, and with that, we will know the nature of God (loosely quoting Stephen Hawking).
What most people (in my opinion) fail to realise, is that we have tiny brains. We have a limited number of grey cells in that tiny skull up there, and we are therefore limited in what we can comprehend. Sure we have come to understand the world around us in a incredible detailed way; but we have no guarantees at all that we will be able to continue this trend.
You often hear people come with arguments like 'but God can't exist' or 'we don't need God to explain the universe'. Sure, if you think that man can eventually comprehend everything there is to know about the universe, then you can make those claims. But I believe that we will never know everything there is to know about the universe around us, because we are mentally incapable. Science has nothing to say about religion, because science is a way for our brains to try to explain the world around us. Religion/faith is all about the step after that.
Therefore, it is not a question of 'possibility' to determine if there is a God or not. He either is (and we can't begin to grasp what this God is, it goes beyond our deductive skills), or he is not. That's a question of faith, it's a choice you make. Do you believe it or not? I personally do, you might not, but please don't come with arguments that science will prove you right. I won't use science to prove you wrong either, promise.
They definately are not. Try completing "asdfjklasdfjklasdfjklasdfjkl". It shows that there should be 4100 hits, but when you actually search for it, it returns none.
My guess is that it does some statistical magic based top-indexed search terms, because searching for only 'asdfjkl' does give around 4700 hits.
Please mod the parent down, it's a troll.
I recently got a Creative Zen Touch (a present from my company; if I had to choose it'd be an iPod), and I've already spent an unsuccesfull day getting it to work under linux. There is no way that you would mount this device, since it is NOT an USB mass storage device but uses proprietary Creative protocols.
There is one open-source project (Gnomad2) that claims to do the job, but I haven't been able to get that working. If I had the C skills and the time, I would try writing a LUFS plugin. For now, I'm pondering buying an USB2 card, because gnomad2 refuses to work with usb1.1 it seems.
And the fun thing is that that server is in the Netherlands, where today (thursday) is a nation-wide holiday.
...
I think I can hear the faint cursing of a VU system administrator somewhere
more like:
D'Oh!
Of course, if you'r stock is worth a few billion dollars, the cost of hardware is 'almost free' :)
Well, why not use wireless electicity distribution? There even is a RFC for it: 3252 :)
Hmm, there are probabilities that are larger than 1? :)
'shure' ?? What language did you translate that from? :-)
A full list can be found on microsoft's site:
u n0 3/0617SpamEnforcementFS.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/J
</karmawhore>
You have just proven my point. You need to write a program that simulates a process, and then run the program on that. Then you must run it using ALL POSSIBLE INPUTS.
Now, go study the halting problem, then write your reply again.
Why do people keep thinking that decompilation is possible? In short: decompiling a computer program is solving the halting problem. Period.
The long version: In a compiled computer program there is no distinction for either code or data. Every byte in memory can be data, but it can also be executed as valid computer code.
Now, the catch is that during compilation, data and code are mixed in the resulting binary. For instance take the compilation of a 'case' statement. There are several ways of compiling a case:
- you can write it as a list of IF's, which is perfectly fine decompilable
- you can write it as a jump, based on the case expression.
The fun part about the second possibility is that it's far more efficient, but it poses a problem: when decompiling this you have to know where the bounds of the case lie. What's the furthest jump that can be made? It's a jump based on a calculated value, so you should know which values are possible. But for that, you need to run the program, and more specifically, you must run all possible execution paths.
This can be rewritten as the instance of the halting problem: can a computer find out for any program whether or not it will halt? It is proven that a computer program cannot be written to do this task. Neither can a computer program decompile any other computer program.