I never understood the hatred of JarJar - I think he was just picked as an effigy for the problems with the whole movie. Having a "comic relief character for the kiddies" is barely annoying - Star Wars was never a serious drama. Of the deep and never-ending flaws in the prequels, JarJar doesn't even make my short list.
Even so, I'd still support a constitutional amendment banning cartoon rabbits from prequel trilogies - think of the pain it would have saved in the wretched Hobbit movies.
Any coo who keeps one in the chamber while walking around is asking for it. A police officer is most likely to be shot in the line of duty by his own gun, which is why complex safeties and holsters with 3 separate clasps are common. But I can't imagine someone making a smart gun that way.
No, that sort of thing wont work, because the NK officers can just march their troops past the sign. The troops won't surrender until (a) they're convinced life will be better, and (b) superior force arrives on the scene (so they know they won't be shot for surrendering). Ultimatums won't work, but still it could be done.
Bah, they forgot all the times Darth JarJar used the dark side of the force, from the force jumps to using a combat droid attached to his leg as an aimed weapon.
The question isn't whether "people" want them, but whether God wants them. I have no opinion on the matter, aside from noting the lack of smiting, but it's still a legitimate question. In fact, it's why "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists" are distinct groups in the US.
No, it remains true that "if it can be played, it can be cracked", as unencrypted bits are needed at the moment of playing, and are right there in the CPU.
Back in the day, you could buy hardware CPU emulators (ICEs) that would emit a transcript as you ran a program. If you had debugging symbols, they'd give you working source code for everything you executed. Far beyond the price the typical hacker team could pay, but we used them professionally. These days you can virtualize far cheaper. "Trusted computing" is the possible countermeasure, but encrypting a video stream isn't the same as encrypting the executing object code.
It's possible the "trusted" computing architecture could be extended in years to come, especially for consoles, but until art assets and graphics/CUDA code move encrypted from disk to video card memory, it won't help (and even then, it has to be decrypted somewhere on the video card).
Since I can't see PC games restricted to FIPS 140-2 Level 3 vid cards, it will remain true that "if it can be played, it can be copied". At what price though?
Blocks of Python code are not set off by curly braces, therefore, by the wisdom of the ages, it's a toy scripting language. (In the same way that Visual Basic is a toy scripting language, despite being identical to C# aside from the curly braces and some other syntactic quirks.)
Java > C#
Just no. I've programmed in both professionally for years. Java has needless boilerplate that C# has gotten rid of (my IDE writes about half the lines of my Java code - why doesn't the compiler do that?). Java simply got generics wrong: you can't have a List, and "type stripping" really sucks when it matters. Java was a day late and a dollar short with lambda and list comprehensions - C#, C++, and Python are all better at that, and all had it years earlier (well, a tie for parts of C++).
I can't believe NK would be able to independently invent an earthquake machine - the only way I buy this is if they stole the plans for HAARP. Maybe, except they'd have to get past Dick Cheney first, and we know he's good with a shotgun!
You do realize you're agreeing with me, right? Compassion? (Well, unless you're a hardcore Buddhist insisting on a technical meaning of "compassion" that excludes people you have an emotional attachment to).
With Java I can do simple game with GUI in an hour. With C++ it takes much longer usually days. Mostly because C++ does not have graphics library so first I need to evaluate and pick one.
Fair enough. I think I've written one program with a GUI in the past 25 years. I'm pretty sure I'd use Unity for a game though - C# is really nice these days, if your target platform supports it.
Hardly anybody is a "rabid fan" of Java. It's a mature, full-featured language with a healthy (perhaps leading) ecosystem of APIs, tools, developers, and training materials, that is considerably faster compared to scripting languages in many situations. This is reality, not fandom.
This.
I don't like Java. It's the worst of the "curly brace languages" IMO. But I still find it vastly better than the scripting languages, even Python. The ability to find problems at compile time is very important indeed.
I like C# better, but it's a hard sale for Linux server code. I like C++ better for my own code, but I have vastly more confidence in my ability to train a fresh college hire to write safe code in Java than in C++. Hell, I enjoy writing C code more than Java code, but it's not very productive where Java is used today.
That's only one part of the problem, though. Making a thousand-yard-wide "highway" for people to flee the country is a start (or more than one), but the troops who will be sent to stop people leaving are also people you want to leave, so you don't want to just shoot them all. It's a hard problem, but we've seen large troop formations surrender to us in the past, and we just need to trigger that.
IT Security is a component of IT that exists to ensure you can continue operating the fucking business
Only a small portion of IT security is that, and that portion (if done right) has little to do with individual employees following nit-picky rules. Most IT security concerns have some manageable cost associated with ignoring them, and it's just a matter of cost of security vs risk of loss.
If you're an IT security guy, it's easy to mistake your job for "eliminate all IT security threats". But that's not your job. Your job is "manage all IT security threats". It's up to the business leaders to decide what trade-offs are best for the business, and you should accept that the best decision is sometimes to ignore a risk, or take minimal preventive steps.
It's also your job to realize that humans don't follow rules as written. You're not writing software there. Write rules such that, when people do what they are prone to do in response to the rules, you benefit (even though that's rarely "follow them exactly").
And, for those who believe we'd just steamroll over the country like it was Iraq, you don't know NK.
Invasion would solve nothing - even Bush didn't suggest it. All that it will take to end NK as a separate entity is to make it easy for people to cross the border. That's not an easy task (minefields especially are hard to clear: more work than removing the military leadership), but it is possible as a military action. It's not about nukes or taking over; a very different sort of military action would be needed.
A few tracks on Biebers album that I've heard are actually good, get over yourself.
I'm willing to say it logged-in. There are a couple of mediocre tracks now that aren't embarrassing to listen to. To borrow a line from Penny Arcade "the new one is not all shit gravy".
Still, I find him weirdly grating on the ears - even the OK tracks got old fast when repeated on the radio.
But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
Unless the government grants permission! Airbus can't just build this and sell it to random people, but institutions that already work closely with government (or are part of the government) are a different story. It's not like "intense regulatory burden" is anything new to Airbus!
And if you connect to a bank, and exploit a flaw in their web server to extract customer information? Is that just clever programming? There are laws that state what "information you shouldn't be able to get": any information that you weren't authorized to get. The only thing that makes this legal, FBI or no, is the warrant. Fortunately, the FBI did the right thing here and got a warrant, so there's no gray area.
<one-upsmanship>I once had a project to do the same with a PL/S program. The fun bit was, we didn't have a PL/S compiler, nor the source code. Fortunately, PL/S compiled to assembler as an intermediate step, so we had the generated assembler with the source as comments. </one-upsmanship>
Not a task I'd like to ever do again, but it was neat to do it once. Maintaining what was effectively "object code with debugging symbols" is not for the faint of heart.
Oh boy! That will be one helluva an electric powered, solar charged, driverless rickshaw! Because you don't own it, who care what it looks like or how it rides so long as it gets you from point A to B; amIright?!
This is I think, the majority view of people in college or fresh out, these days. Car ownership just isn't a thing with the new crowd. I'm a car guy, so this baffles me, but in one sense I can see it. Starting with the 50s, cars embodied freedom, but specifically a guy with a car could take his girl to a place away from prying eyes and make out or have sex, so having a good car was a critical social signal. Good car meant more likely to have sex, and that's a hell of a draw in the high school and college years.
Society has changed a lot, of course, and for young people who aren't driving enthusiasts, that social signal is vanishing. A car is seen as just an expensive hassle (even though reliability is vastly higher than cars for the 80s); just a way to get where the bus doesn't run. Well, you can't argue with taste. I don't think any of it will have much effect on the enthusiast car market anyhow: I'm entirely unconcerned with the future evolution of the Camry.
I don't think GM really believes it's 'the future' or anything as blue-sky as that, they're just hedging their bets against the possibility of this combination being viable.
They may be hoping it's the future. Perhaps GM, which makes cars no on wants to own, is hoping for a future in which individuals don't make buying decisions, and instead just ride in whatever shows up.
While GM trucks are still popular (GM vs Ford is the redneck version of VI vs EMACS), the cars are mostly popular with rental fleets and government fleets: places where the driver doesn't choose the car (much like Newsweek is only found in waiting rooms). This business model fits perfectly with that idea.
A good quality metal tape recorded with dolby C on a good quality tape deck is almost identical to the CD source. I'm quite sure that almost anyone could not tell the difference
Maybe I misunderstand "metal tape", but I used top-end consumer cassette tapes before CDs, and the difference was stark, because tapes wear and stretch. It also seemed that a tape recorded on one deck would never sound quite right played on another (which seemed to be exaggerated by Dolby C).
CD is easy to get right. Maybe use a better DAC if you want to get fancy, but even an audiophile-quality DAC costs only ~$20 per channel for the components (likely marked up 10x-100x for that market).
I've been fairly happy with high-bitrate MP3s as well. Is there any place you can buy them, though? I've been too lazy to rip my whole CD collection to quality MP3, and it's years past time to stop hauling CDs around!
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood the hatred of JarJar - I think he was just picked as an effigy for the problems with the whole movie. Having a "comic relief character for the kiddies" is barely annoying - Star Wars was never a serious drama. Of the deep and never-ending flaws in the prequels, JarJar doesn't even make my short list.
Even so, I'd still support a constitutional amendment banning cartoon rabbits from prequel trilogies - think of the pain it would have saved in the wretched Hobbit movies.
Any coo who keeps one in the chamber while walking around is asking for it. A police officer is most likely to be shot in the line of duty by his own gun, which is why complex safeties and holsters with 3 separate clasps are common. But I can't imagine someone making a smart gun that way.
No, that sort of thing wont work, because the NK officers can just march their troops past the sign. The troops won't surrender until (a) they're convinced life will be better, and (b) superior force arrives on the scene (so they know they won't be shot for surrendering). Ultimatums won't work, but still it could be done.
Bah, they forgot all the times Darth JarJar used the dark side of the force, from the force jumps to using a combat droid attached to his leg as an aimed weapon.
How many churches have gymnasiums?
Most of the big ones.
Uh... how are those ultraight rubberband-powered fixed-wing powered, if not by propellers?
Slingshot.
The question isn't whether "people" want them, but whether God wants them. I have no opinion on the matter, aside from noting the lack of smiting, but it's still a legitimate question. In fact, it's why "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists" are distinct groups in the US.
No, it remains true that "if it can be played, it can be cracked", as unencrypted bits are needed at the moment of playing, and are right there in the CPU.
Back in the day, you could buy hardware CPU emulators (ICEs) that would emit a transcript as you ran a program. If you had debugging symbols, they'd give you working source code for everything you executed. Far beyond the price the typical hacker team could pay, but we used them professionally. These days you can virtualize far cheaper. "Trusted computing" is the possible countermeasure, but encrypting a video stream isn't the same as encrypting the executing object code.
It's possible the "trusted" computing architecture could be extended in years to come, especially for consoles, but until art assets and graphics/CUDA code move encrypted from disk to video card memory, it won't help (and even then, it has to be decrypted somewhere on the video card).
Since I can't see PC games restricted to FIPS 140-2 Level 3 vid cards, it will remain true that "if it can be played, it can be copied". At what price though?
grr, ancient slashcode. "You can't have a List<int>"
Python IS a curly brace language
Blocks of Python code are not set off by curly braces, therefore, by the wisdom of the ages, it's a toy scripting language. (In the same way that Visual Basic is a toy scripting language, despite being identical to C# aside from the curly braces and some other syntactic quirks.)
Java > C#
Just no. I've programmed in both professionally for years. Java has needless boilerplate that C# has gotten rid of (my IDE writes about half the lines of my Java code - why doesn't the compiler do that?). Java simply got generics wrong: you can't have a List, and "type stripping" really sucks when it matters. Java was a day late and a dollar short with lambda and list comprehensions - C#, C++, and Python are all better at that, and all had it years earlier (well, a tie for parts of C++).
I can't believe NK would be able to independently invent an earthquake machine - the only way I buy this is if they stole the plans for HAARP. Maybe, except they'd have to get past Dick Cheney first, and we know he's good with a shotgun!
You do realize you're agreeing with me, right? Compassion? (Well, unless you're a hardcore Buddhist insisting on a technical meaning of "compassion" that excludes people you have an emotional attachment to).
With Java I can do simple game with GUI in an hour. With C++ it takes much longer usually days. Mostly because C++ does not have graphics library so first I need to evaluate and pick one.
Fair enough. I think I've written one program with a GUI in the past 25 years. I'm pretty sure I'd use Unity for a game though - C# is really nice these days, if your target platform supports it.
Hardly anybody is a "rabid fan" of Java. It's a mature, full-featured language with a healthy (perhaps leading) ecosystem of APIs, tools, developers, and training materials, that is considerably faster compared to scripting languages in many situations. This is reality, not fandom.
This.
I don't like Java. It's the worst of the "curly brace languages" IMO. But I still find it vastly better than the scripting languages, even Python. The ability to find problems at compile time is very important indeed.
I like C# better, but it's a hard sale for Linux server code. I like C++ better for my own code, but I have vastly more confidence in my ability to train a fresh college hire to write safe code in Java than in C++. Hell, I enjoy writing C code more than Java code, but it's not very productive where Java is used today.
That's only one part of the problem, though. Making a thousand-yard-wide "highway" for people to flee the country is a start (or more than one), but the troops who will be sent to stop people leaving are also people you want to leave, so you don't want to just shoot them all. It's a hard problem, but we've seen large troop formations surrender to us in the past, and we just need to trigger that.
IT Security is a component of IT that exists to ensure you can continue operating the fucking business
Only a small portion of IT security is that, and that portion (if done right) has little to do with individual employees following nit-picky rules. Most IT security concerns have some manageable cost associated with ignoring them, and it's just a matter of cost of security vs risk of loss.
If you're an IT security guy, it's easy to mistake your job for "eliminate all IT security threats". But that's not your job. Your job is "manage all IT security threats". It's up to the business leaders to decide what trade-offs are best for the business, and you should accept that the best decision is sometimes to ignore a risk, or take minimal preventive steps.
It's also your job to realize that humans don't follow rules as written. You're not writing software there. Write rules such that, when people do what they are prone to do in response to the rules, you benefit (even though that's rarely "follow them exactly").
It was not cheap at the price. Was the population density of East Germany even that much lower than West Germany? Maybe?
And, for those who believe we'd just steamroll over the country like it was Iraq, you don't know NK.
Invasion would solve nothing - even Bush didn't suggest it. All that it will take to end NK as a separate entity is to make it easy for people to cross the border. That's not an easy task (minefields especially are hard to clear: more work than removing the military leadership), but it is possible as a military action. It's not about nukes or taking over; a very different sort of military action would be needed.
why would South Korea want to annex a basketcase like Nork?
For the same reason West Germany rushed to embrace East German despite the real setback that caused to their economy: compassion.
A few tracks on Biebers album that I've heard are actually good, get over yourself.
I'm willing to say it logged-in. There are a couple of mediocre tracks now that aren't embarrassing to listen to. To borrow a line from Penny Arcade "the new one is not all shit gravy".
Still, I find him weirdly grating on the ears - even the OK tracks got old fast when repeated on the radio.
But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
Unless the government grants permission! Airbus can't just build this and sell it to random people, but institutions that already work closely with government (or are part of the government) are a different story. It's not like "intense regulatory burden" is anything new to Airbus!
And if you connect to a bank, and exploit a flaw in their web server to extract customer information? Is that just clever programming? There are laws that state what "information you shouldn't be able to get": any information that you weren't authorized to get. The only thing that makes this legal, FBI or no, is the warrant. Fortunately, the FBI did the right thing here and got a warrant, so there's no gray area.
<one-upsmanship>I once had a project to do the same with a PL/S program. The fun bit was, we didn't have a PL/S compiler, nor the source code. Fortunately, PL/S compiled to assembler as an intermediate step, so we had the generated assembler with the source as comments. </one-upsmanship>
Not a task I'd like to ever do again, but it was neat to do it once. Maintaining what was effectively "object code with debugging symbols" is not for the faint of heart.
Oh boy! That will be one helluva an electric powered, solar charged, driverless rickshaw! Because you don't own it, who care what it looks like or how it rides so long as it gets you from point A to B; amIright?!
This is I think, the majority view of people in college or fresh out, these days. Car ownership just isn't a thing with the new crowd. I'm a car guy, so this baffles me, but in one sense I can see it. Starting with the 50s, cars embodied freedom, but specifically a guy with a car could take his girl to a place away from prying eyes and make out or have sex, so having a good car was a critical social signal. Good car meant more likely to have sex, and that's a hell of a draw in the high school and college years.
Society has changed a lot, of course, and for young people who aren't driving enthusiasts, that social signal is vanishing. A car is seen as just an expensive hassle (even though reliability is vastly higher than cars for the 80s); just a way to get where the bus doesn't run. Well, you can't argue with taste. I don't think any of it will have much effect on the enthusiast car market anyhow: I'm entirely unconcerned with the future evolution of the Camry.
I don't think GM really believes it's 'the future' or anything as blue-sky as that, they're just hedging their bets against the possibility of this combination being viable.
They may be hoping it's the future. Perhaps GM, which makes cars no on wants to own, is hoping for a future in which individuals don't make buying decisions, and instead just ride in whatever shows up.
While GM trucks are still popular (GM vs Ford is the redneck version of VI vs EMACS), the cars are mostly popular with rental fleets and government fleets: places where the driver doesn't choose the car (much like Newsweek is only found in waiting rooms). This business model fits perfectly with that idea.
A good quality metal tape recorded with dolby C on a good quality tape deck is almost identical to the CD source. I'm quite sure that almost anyone could not tell the difference
Maybe I misunderstand "metal tape", but I used top-end consumer cassette tapes before CDs, and the difference was stark, because tapes wear and stretch. It also seemed that a tape recorded on one deck would never sound quite right played on another (which seemed to be exaggerated by Dolby C).
CD is easy to get right. Maybe use a better DAC if you want to get fancy, but even an audiophile-quality DAC costs only ~$20 per channel for the components (likely marked up 10x-100x for that market).
I've been fairly happy with high-bitrate MP3s as well. Is there any place you can buy them, though? I've been too lazy to rip my whole CD collection to quality MP3, and it's years past time to stop hauling CDs around!