Are you suggesting that where confidential data is involved science should not be done?
No, just that when the raw data and methodology hasn't been scrutinised by yourself or someone in your web of trust, you shouldn't trust the results of a study.
I think the implication is that "real time email" usually jittery, paranoid, and willing to do anything however depraved, demeaning or desperate for a hit of sweet sweet crack.
Oops, perhaps a patent to automatically detect if users meant to set the format to Plain Old Text is in order... ------------- Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback.
Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to:
1. Have a cool idea 2. Patent idea
Instead of:
1. Have a cool idea 2. Design it 3. Build a prototype 4. Patent novelties in your prototype
Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback.
Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Patent idea
Instead of:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Design it
3. Build a prototype
4. Patent novelties in your prototype
Anyone??
The submitter says using back-ported security fixes (presumably from some official repository) is not an option because it doesn't give a guarantee of fixing the vulnerability the original update was for. If this is a problem I'm curious as to why he thinks manually installing the latest versions is any better. Is someone being paid to guarantee the efficacy of security fixes but only in those latest versions? If that is the case why not just pay them to audit the back-ported fixes in a repository instead?
If you're using Linux and have been shrewd enough to install all of your applications through the distribution maintainers repository, then the sweet-spot between security and stability *is* using back-ported security fixes.
Actually most online backup software would find a whole lot of duplicated blocks of data in that - meaning he'd probably end up uploading a whole bunch less than 2TB. The point stands though, if he wants to use remote backup for that much data it's be nigh impossible with most providers - and likely cost a whole bunch too.
Best thing at the moment for home backup is to mount an encrypted external hard drive and copy to it, then take it off-site. If you think that sounds over the top, then I predict one day you'll be sitting at your terminal saying "aw, shit".
Replace that external hard drive with a service like Amazon S3 and a piece of software like Time Vault and you have a real contender for a viable Home Backup strategy (albeit one for geeks). Expecting people to perform off-site tape backups from home is a bit much.
At most, copyright should last for until original authors death + ZERO years.
For commissioned work where the creator was never the rights holder, it should last for average life expectancy minus the average age of a country's workforce - retested regularly (though not frequently).
Anything else is ridiculous.
Really? I saw butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, dead dog with it's head split open, butterfly, butterfly.
I wasn't too sure about the last one though.
The justification at http://www.secnetix.de/olli/Python/block_indentation.hawk is pretty telling ("Python does not allow to obfuscate the structure of a program by using bogus indentations"). I think it's consistent with their stated principles for the design of the language: what they call 'the zen of python' (copied below).
Personally I've come to find it quite useful, with the only downside being a disgusted voice in the back of my head saying "urgh, you're not supposed to do it this way". Certainly I've been flummoxed by plenty of indentation errors in my day.
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
They're both pretty crappy, in real life you'd write that like this:
if (a == b and c == d): doSomething(foo=a, bar=b) doSomething(foo=c, bar=d) doSomethingElse()
I think the point the GP was trying to make was that if you have a really long line of code it is acceptable to break it up into multiple lines indented how you like, ie in the following where the only syntactically significant indentation occurs on rows 2,10 & 12 and the only significant unindention occurs on row 11:
if someCondition: print( "This is", "a really", "long string", "that I've", "decided to", "break up", ) doSomething() else: doSomethingElse([ 'passing', 'a list', 'to a function', ])
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
If it teaches software development methodologies, or specific languages then it's not a pure CS degree. It may well be more valuable for most people - but call a spade a spade.
Perhaps it's just the aggression behind the swearing that causes some endorphins to be released. Swearing, to me, is like an intellectual version ofa primordial scream.
'ATM' has been a pseudo-acronym since people stopped using the phrase 'automated teller machine' except to pretend that saying 'ATM machine' is silly. Bah!
Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is. It's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device(s) capable of storing a petabyte of information.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that where confidential data is involved science should not be done?
No, just that when the raw data and methodology hasn't been scrutinised by yourself or someone in your web of trust, you shouldn't trust the results of a study.
On whatever scale you care to mention...I think you're downplaying the significance the Earth holds for your readers!
Acutally local telecoms monopolies are very, very rare. Unique to Hull, in fact.
ugh, how about a nice game of chess?
I think the implication is that "real time email" usually jittery, paranoid, and willing to do anything however depraved, demeaning or desperate for a hit of sweet sweet crack.
Oops, perhaps a patent to automatically detect if users meant to set the format to Plain Old Text is in order...
-------------
Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback.
Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Patent idea
Instead of:
1. Have a cool idea
2. Design it
3. Build a prototype
4. Patent novelties in your prototype
Anyone??
Maybe someone should patent the touchpad interface used by iPods - because Tsera sure hasn't done so here. The patent is for an invention that allows the user to issue commands to a portable electronic device by making gestures with their finger over a touch sensitive surface (just like patent application 20060026535) in order to perform some function which doesn't require visual feedback. Sure, I'm paraphrasing - and the wording is so vague in some places that maybe they could twist it to apply to scroll wheel on the iPod - but this is really all there is to the patent. It's weak. The really crappy part is that if you decided you wanted to build this into your device (it's an obvious combination of a gesture based interface with a touch screen), then reading this patent would give you no help whatsoever in implementing it. Utter drivel! Can someone explain why is it acceptable to: 1. Have a cool idea 2. Patent idea Instead of: 1. Have a cool idea 2. Design it 3. Build a prototype 4. Patent novelties in your prototype Anyone??
The submitter says using back-ported security fixes (presumably from some official repository) is not an option because it doesn't give a guarantee of fixing the vulnerability the original update was for. If this is a problem I'm curious as to why he thinks manually installing the latest versions is any better. Is someone being paid to guarantee the efficacy of security fixes but only in those latest versions? If that is the case why not just pay them to audit the back-ported fixes in a repository instead? If you're using Linux and have been shrewd enough to install all of your applications through the distribution maintainers repository, then the sweet-spot between security and stability *is* using back-ported security fixes.
If you're willing and able to release the source code, why not encourage them to use a free account on sourceforge or github?
No, actually the whole thing doesn't make sense when taken out of context. What he actually said was
"DRM is dead, isn't it? *wink* *wink*
Actually most online backup software would find a whole lot of duplicated blocks of data in that - meaning he'd probably end up uploading a whole bunch less than 2TB. The point stands though, if he wants to use remote backup for that much data it's be nigh impossible with most providers - and likely cost a whole bunch too.
Best thing at the moment for home backup is to mount an encrypted external hard drive and copy to it, then take it off-site. If you think that sounds over the top, then I predict one day you'll be sitting at your terminal saying "aw, shit".
Replace that external hard drive with a service like Amazon S3 and a piece of software like Time Vault and you have a real contender for a viable Home Backup strategy (albeit one for geeks). Expecting people to perform off-site tape backups from home is a bit much.
Well, obviously he meant 24 hours after it was posted on Slashdot. As we all know, it's not real until it's on Slahdot.
At most, copyright should last for until original authors death + ZERO years. For commissioned work where the creator was never the rights holder, it should last for average life expectancy minus the average age of a country's workforce - retested regularly (though not frequently). Anything else is ridiculous.
Well I've never read the fine print on a kindle....then again I doubt many Kindle owners have either.
How about this one? Looks like it goes to Google, right?
Really? I saw butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, butterfly, dead dog with it's head split open, butterfly, butterfly. I wasn't too sure about the last one though.
The justification at http://www.secnetix.de/olli/Python/block_indentation.hawk is pretty telling ("Python does not allow to obfuscate the structure of a program by using bogus indentations"). I think it's consistent with their stated principles for the design of the language: what they call 'the zen of python' (copied below).
Personally I've come to find it quite useful, with the only downside being a disgusted voice in the back of my head saying "urgh, you're not supposed to do it this way". Certainly I've been flummoxed by plenty of indentation errors in my day.
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
They're both pretty crappy, in real life you'd write that like this:
if (a == b and c == d):
doSomething(foo=a, bar=b)
doSomething(foo=c, bar=d)
doSomethingElse()
I think the point the GP was trying to make was that if you have a really long line of code it is acceptable to break it up into multiple lines indented how you like, ie in the following where the only syntactically significant indentation occurs on rows 2,10 & 12 and the only significant unindention occurs on row 11:
if someCondition:
print(
"This is",
"a really",
"long string",
"that I've",
"decided to",
"break up",
)
doSomething()
else:
doSomethingElse([
'passing',
'a list',
'to a function',
])
It's prefectly believable and easy enough to understand - but it damn sure doesn't make any sense to me.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
If it teaches software development methodologies, or specific languages then it's not a pure CS degree. It may well be more valuable for most people - but call a spade a spade.
Perhaps it's just the aggression behind the swearing that causes some endorphins to be released. Swearing, to me, is like an intellectual version ofa primordial scream.
'ATM' has been a pseudo-acronym since people stopped using the phrase 'automated teller machine' except to pretend that saying 'ATM machine' is silly. Bah!
Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is. It's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device(s) capable of storing a petabyte of information.
A rabbit sitting on the moon will be at a much different temperature than its surroundings
Not for very long. How's that for pedantry?