Exactly the opposite is needed for work on mail filters.
Spam is really easy to find, everyone knows that, create a hotmail account fill out some web forms, post to some newsgroups, put a mailto: on a web page. Wait a little while. Bingo, lots of spam.
However, non-spam email is harder to find. Using your own makes techniques that work with your particular type of email and not other people's.
Non-spam is harder to collect. Since email is often private in nature. Removing identifiers from the headers is easy enough, but the body also can contain things like addresses, emails, phone numbers, comparisons of the boss to bacteria, etc.
A collection of real emails, from which personal information has been replaced with fake data would be of great use. A few people I know are working on creating such a data set of email. It is aimed at more general email filtering though, not just spam detection, and hence requires categorisation. And is from academia and hence will probably lose the race with the heat death of universe for completion.
I do note they have a 'non-spam' heading on the very sparse web page which is encouraging.
It boggles my mind that people in second-year programming courses at my university don't know what a pointer is, because it wasn't covered in their first-year programming course (which used Java).
I'm not surprised, seeing that people passing third-year programming courses at my university (and hence graduating) don't know what a loop or a function is.
Well at least they don't use loops or functions in their code, preferring to copy-n-paste. Maybe they think longer == better...
How about you try the damn experiment before you assume how it turns out.
Floating ice is not fully submerged because it is less dense. It's less dense and hence takes up more volume than the same mass of liquid water. Simple physics indicates that the *volume* that is submerged is the same as the volume the equivalent mass of liquid water would occupy (assumming the 'floating' is caused by the density difference and not jets you installed on the bottom of the ice...)
I know, I know, you read all this and you're saying, but what about the time it takes.... Yeah you're right, but you gotta deal with that. Start it and walk away, or check your email, or read/. I'm sure you can find something to do for an hour.
Like actually listen to the damn music for example...
All contributers of code to the kernel know that the kernel will be used to run proprietary programs. This knowledge implies that they consent to having their code used this way.
Rather than realying on some implicit concent why not read the damn license. The *first* paragraph of the COPYING file in the kernel source tarball is:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Because the super secure channel is temporary and exists *before* you have decided what message you actually want to send.
Such as the super secure channel being meeting at McDonalds and swapping DVDs filled with random data and then heading back to opposite sides of the world, and exchanging love letters over OTP encrypted email for the next few months.
I guess it might require the ability to read a perl faq on how to keep your own packages installed, which means you would need to be able to read, which would imply you need at least a tiny brain.
The infrared problem can be solved the same way the visible light problem is solved. Just have IR detectors and emitters. You can even to a variety of frequencies (just as with visible light) to fool various enemy equipment.
People generate heat. They don't generate visible light. Hence a different solution is required.
Those things that would let the user select which content they wanted to view, so that say the person living in England person could watch the english version not the spanish version...
that silverware such as forks, knives and spoons should not be placed in a microwave. Also I thought aluminum foil was not supposed to be placed inside a microwave too. Oh well.
You could try reading the article which mentions what happens with a fork and why it doesn't occur with the setup used.
But that would require a brain cell I guess and you don't seem to have one spare.
Re:Stuff that Matters
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 0, Troll
News alert: Some geeks like sport.
And some geeks like homosexual sex.
And some geeks like gardening.
And some geeks are catholic.
Should be some interesting articles soon I guess...
The Gypsy Moth pheremone is an attractant, not a stimulant, so another bad scenario - the male moths find the female and are extra randy - cannot happen either.
However, one should not underestimate nature. There could be unforeseen side-effects.
Like the flakes producing a pheremone concentration that attracts all the moths on the planet to one area. Causing an imbalance in the weight distribution of the planet and the death of us all!!!!!!!
http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit. ht ml is vaguely entertaining regarding the JATO on a car legend. Whether it's an explanation or the product a few hours of boredom is up to you...
At the moment in Australia, all the states are Labour, and only the Federal government is Liberal. This is something like every state government in the US being Republican, and only the Federal government being Democrat
To pick a nit.
It's more like every state being Democrat and the Federal government being Republican. Since in the wonderful land of Oz (as you hinted in your first paragraph) the conservatives party is called the Liberal party.
And yes it is confusing. Is there anywhere else in the world where politicians have to say "I'm a small l liberal" since saying "I'm a Liberal" means you are a conservative?
B contains a negative quality - it isn't a "negative" itself, in the sense of negating anything. It's only by arbitrarily assigning something good to be "positive" and something bad to be "negative" that you can make that argument.
B was in fact "very poorly implemented anyways".
Could you please point the out the negative in that statment, because I sure can't see it.
I also didn't list a monitor because I had a spare 19". Or maybe I pirated that as well.
Which was also silly, since I assummed you didn't use a monitor - the PC I used for a similar thing a long time ago didn't. After all it's was used for playing movies and didn't need one.
I didn't say you pirated the software either... but again I assummed rather than just blabbering you might have been trying to give people an idea of what they could use to do something similar and how much it would cost. Not including components because you happened to have them lieing around means it's only useful to you.
I admit listing "Win2k ($0 - already owned)" would be flame bait on slashdot, but listing "Monitor ($0 - already had)" seems reasonable, since not everyone has a 19" monitor hidden in the closet.
Legislators are stupid... similiar situation: a couple years ago here in california, some school kid got himself darwined by running across the street and into the path of a car after getting off a bus.
Our legislators in their finite wisdom decided that to avoid this in the future, drivers would have to *stop* on *both lanes* of trafic anytime a school bus was unloading. The fine for not stoping ? 1500$.
I have nearly gotten in 5 accidents because of this -- people slam on their breaks when the buses flip on their stop sign because they're afraid of the amazing fine (and guess what -- cops are following the buses so they can *give* amazing fines). Then invariably a busy street or expressway comes to a halt with screaching tires. And yes ive narowly avoided some fantastic collisions only by luck.
Which indicates that you shouldn't be driving.
There's this concept of keeping enough distance between you and the car in front so that if they slam on their brakes you have time to slam on yours - without being even close to hitting them.
Only an idiot who drives way to close would manage to come close to crashing in those circumstances, let alone do so five times.
What happens when the car in front sees some kid step out from between parked cars and you don't because from your viewpoint they are obscured by something? Do you almost have an accident because the other driver slams on their brakes?
Braking hard is dangerous (especially if the guy behind you is changing radio stations at the time) but sometimes you need to. Hence you should always leave enough room and assume the other driver just might need to (or maybe the other driver is an idiot who will slam on his brakes because he missed his turn off)...
Kids have underdeveloped peripheral vision, they are bad at judging speeds and distances of object moving at the speeds cars go, they are easily distracted, and often do not notice what is happening around them when focused on something (like getting their ball that just bounced onto the road, or seeing their mother who is an idiot and is on the other side of the road). All this means they will run onto roads...
Stopping for buses to (un)load seems silly to me, a slow speed limit when the bus is (un)loading seems better.
will call the member function in std::string not in your class.
So what is the point of inheritance?
The point is to add functionality that wan't in the base class. There may be situations where polymorphism isn't needed. And in those cases, it makes perfect sense to add functionality by using derived classes.
C++ has private/protected inheritance which does this if you really don't like forwarding functions.
Violating the substitutablility principle because it saves you forwarding some functions is just plain silly. Someone else is going to use your class which inherits from std::string, but is not actually subsititutable with a string as if it is, since by publically inheriting you have claimed it is.
I would strongly recommend that you start learning how to use the OO paradigm both with and without polymorphism -- it will make you a much stronger programmer.
I have, I must admit though I don't plan on violating substitutablility while my code claims it is substitutable just to save me some typing.
YOU SHOULD NEVER INHERENT FROM AN STL CONTAINER. Period. There is no good reason to do this. If your design calls for it, then you have a bad design. Besides, STL containers do not have to have virtual destructors so you are introducing potential memory leaks if you inherent from them (this was made part of the standard on purpose).
That's a pretty broad statement, and again I disagree. Suposing you want to create a string class with a subset of the functionality in std::string? Do you re-implement it? Supposing you want to create a structure that is best expressed as a list, but has just a little more functionality? Granted, you have to keep a pointer to the derived class, because of the virtual dtor issue, but its not completely unheard of.
You could privately inherit and provide wrappers for the subset, or just have a string object in your object and provide forwarding member functions.
Publically inheriting *will* cause problems unless you and everyone who uses your new class are extremely careful, the following for example would be an error:
will call the member function in std::string not in your class.
So what is the point of inheritance?
Plus inheritance can never be used to produce a 'subset' of the behaviour. That violates the substitutable principle that is the entire basis of object oriented inheritance.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly the opposite is needed for work on mail filters.
Spam is really easy to find, everyone knows that, create a hotmail account fill out some web forms, post to some newsgroups, put a mailto: on a web page. Wait a little while. Bingo, lots of spam.
However, non-spam email is harder to find. Using your own makes techniques that work with your particular type of email and not other people's.
Non-spam is harder to collect. Since email is often private in nature. Removing identifiers from the headers is easy enough, but the body also can contain things like addresses, emails, phone numbers, comparisons of the boss to bacteria, etc.
A collection of real emails, from which personal information has been replaced with fake data would be of great use. A few people I know are working on creating such a data set of email. It is aimed at more general email filtering though, not just spam detection, and hence requires categorisation. And is from academia and hence will probably lose the race with the heat death of universe for completion.
I do note they have a 'non-spam' heading on the very sparse web page which is encouraging.
I'm not surprised, seeing that people passing third-year programming courses at my university (and hence graduating) don't know what a loop or a function is.
Well at least they don't use loops or functions in their code, preferring to copy-n-paste. Maybe they think longer == better...
How about you try the damn experiment before you assume how it turns out.
Floating ice is not fully submerged because it is less dense. It's less dense and hence takes up more volume than the same mass of liquid water. Simple physics indicates that the *volume* that is submerged is the same as the volume the equivalent mass of liquid water would occupy (assumming the 'floating' is caused by the density difference and not jets you installed on the bottom of the ice...)
Do you think ice floats by magic?!?
Like actually listen to the damn music for example...
Rather than realying on some implicit concent why not read the damn license. The *first* paragraph of the COPYING file in the kernel source tarball is:
This also works on a per application basis.
And has the advantage that the configuration is in a central place rather then scattered about the file system.
How do you propose a chroot jail would allow you to not run apache as root???
Because the super secure channel is temporary and exists *before* you have decided what message you actually want to send.
Such as the super secure channel being meeting at McDonalds and swapping DVDs filled with random data and then heading back to opposite sides of the world, and exchanging love letters over OTP encrypted email for the next few months.
I managed with no trouble at all.
I guess it might require the ability to read a perl faq on how to keep your own packages installed, which means you would need to be able to read, which would imply you need at least a tiny brain.
People generate heat. They don't generate visible light. Hence a different solution is required.
You haven't heard of menus?
Those things that would let the user select which content they wanted to view, so that say the person living in England person could watch the english version not the spanish version...
Which part of "at home" do you not understand?
You could try reading the article which mentions what happens with a fork and why it doesn't occur with the setup used.
But that would require a brain cell I guess and you don't seem to have one spare.
And some geeks like homosexual sex.
And some geeks like gardening.
And some geeks are catholic.
Should be some interesting articles soon I guess...
Like the flakes producing a pheremone concentration that attracts all the moths on the planet to one area. Causing an imbalance in the weight distribution of the planet and the death of us all!!!!!!!
http://www.wagoneers.com/pages/RocketCar/rockit
is vaguely entertaining regarding the JATO on a car legend. Whether it's an explanation or the product a few hours of boredom is up to you...
To pick a nit.
It's more like every state being Democrat and the Federal government being Republican. Since in the wonderful land of Oz (as you hinted in your first paragraph) the conservatives party is called the Liberal party.
And yes it is confusing. Is there anywhere else in the world where politicians have to say "I'm a small l liberal" since saying "I'm a Liberal" means you are a conservative?
So spell it out then.
"very poorly implemented" doesn't seem to contain a negative in the sense that "isn't very poorly implemented" would be a double negative.
"not implemented" would be a negative I agree.
Do any of the following also contain negatives:
* very well implemented
* poorly implemented
* badly implemented
* averagely implemented
* extremely poorly implemented
* implemented
How about:
* quickly implemented
* slowly implemented
Which of those is 'negative'? Or is the word 'poor' some new negation that they didn't teach me in school.
B was in fact "very poorly implemented anyways".
Could you please point the out the negative in that statment, because I sure can't see it.
You have trouble parsing sentences of the form:
Not that A isn't B.
???
For the english impaired, it means that A isn't B is false. And in a lot of cases, thus A is B.
So the quoted sentence means:
MSIE's gopher support is very poorly implemented.
But stated in a more diplomatic style, which I guess is not so common for slashdot
Which was also silly, since I assummed you didn't use a monitor - the PC I used for a similar thing a long time ago didn't. After all it's was used for playing movies and didn't need one.
I didn't say you pirated the software either... but again I assummed rather than just blabbering you might have been trying to give people an idea of what they could use to do something similar and how much it would cost. Not including components because you happened to have them lieing around means it's only useful to you.
I admit listing "Win2k ($0 - already owned)" would be flame bait on slashdot, but listing "Monitor ($0 - already had)" seems reasonable, since not everyone has a 19" monitor hidden in the closet.
In which case you seem to have missed including the cost of that component, which is larger than the cost of some of the components you did list.
Which indicates that you shouldn't be driving.
There's this concept of keeping enough distance between you and the car in front so that if they slam on their brakes you have time to slam on yours - without being even close to hitting them.
Only an idiot who drives way to close would manage to come close to crashing in those circumstances, let alone do so five times.
What happens when the car in front sees some kid step out from between parked cars and you don't because from your viewpoint they are obscured by something? Do you almost have an accident because the other driver slams on their brakes?
Braking hard is dangerous (especially if the guy behind you is changing radio stations at the time) but sometimes you need to. Hence you should always leave enough room and assume the other driver just might need to (or maybe the other driver is an idiot who will slam on his brakes because he missed his turn off)...
Kids have underdeveloped peripheral vision, they are bad at judging speeds and distances of object moving at the speeds cars go, they are easily distracted, and often do not notice what is happening around them when focused on something (like getting their ball that just bounced onto the road, or seeing their mother who is an idiot and is on the other side of the road). All this means they will run onto roads...
Stopping for buses to (un)load seems silly to me, a slow speed limit when the bus is (un)loading seems better.
C++ has private/protected inheritance which does this if you really don't like forwarding functions.
Violating the substitutablility principle because it saves you forwarding some functions is just plain silly. Someone else is going to use your class which inherits from std::string, but is not actually subsititutable with a string as if it is, since by publically inheriting you have claimed it is.
I have, I must admit though I don't plan on violating substitutablility while my code claims it is substitutable just to save me some typing.
You could privately inherit and provide wrappers for the subset, or just have a string object in your object and provide forwarding member functions.
Publically inheriting *will* cause problems unless you and everyone who uses your new class are extremely careful, the following for example would be an error:
string *s = get_a_derived_from_string_ptr();
//
delete s;
Since it's not safe to use your object in a very common idiom of inherited type usage it's not safe to use inheritance.
Also since none of the methods are virtual it's useless anyway since:
string *s = get_a_derived_from_string_ptr();
s->some_member_
will call the member function in std::string not in your class.
So what is the point of inheritance?
Plus inheritance can never be used to produce a 'subset' of the behaviour. That violates the substitutable principle that is the entire basis of object oriented inheritance.