The Windows event model intrinsically is a security nightmare, and the service configuration of a default install is all that a script kiddie could dream -- althought there are specific Linux distributions which can rival Windows in the insecurty of their default installation, they are not the norm.
It is easier to develop code for Linux than for Windows. That is why there are so many more applications for Linux than there are for Windows, and it is also why developers, on the whole, prefer to use Linux when it is suitable. There are no evident alternative explanations for these facts.
He's telling you that for a short period of time, the government was frankly admitting that it was spreading misinformation. Now we will return to your regularly scheduled disinformation.
Felber is not claiming to be noted. The author of the article is claiming that Felber is noted. Several people who are well-known for their quality work in Physics get fewer than 40 google hits, and several crackpots or mediocre semi-professionals with prolific publication histories get a lot more than 40 hits. I think I would be ill-advised to adopt your criteria.
That said, I have no opinion about Felber's work, not having found a preprint to read.
> I've never understood what drives the rapid expansion right after the big bang.
Necessity. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention. Since the observed universe is incompatible with the big bang cosmology absent an early period of rapid inflation, it was necessary to postulate one in order to prop-up the theory.
Historical models are inherently unfalsifiable, when falsifiability is restricted to experimentation. The historical element of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is not refutable by experimentation. It is however, falsifiable, to the degree that it makes predictions about observations, such as phylogenetic biochemical observations, and fossilized natural observations. Basically all of the putative evidences of historical speciation by means of neo-darwinian model mechanisms are not only falsifiable, they have in fact been falsified by the observation of contradictory evidences. These are largely disregarded by the scientific establishment, which has an enormous investment, which bears substantial dividends, in the current dominant paradigm. This social process was well-described by Kuhn in the 1960s. Eventually, just as the original darwinian model was replaced by the neo-darwinian model, a new model will arise which more adequately accounts for the totality of observed facts, rather than accounting for a select few, and requiring ignorance of the remainder. Whether it will continue to be called darwinian (or quasidarwinian or pseudodarwinian or metadarwinian) is a topic of speculation only.
I like unlambda better, because it is intractable in a conceptually pure way, rather than by virtue of heaps of stinking crap. Although the whitespace language does have it's appeal, I must say.
Regardless, I take exception to the notion that you can't write a webserver in bf (or unlambda or whitespace). You can indeed write one. It's the *operating system* which is failing to perform the IO, not the webserver. Fix the operating system to recognize when your application is requesting to do IO and the problem is solved.
Why would any decent person *want* to reduce the support for Islamic freedom fighters? They are the only people on earth who are actually wagining a campaign of force *against* evil.
It's not folly that guides the chickenhawks, it's malice. You see, unless the masses live in fear of a bogeyman, they are difficult to control and subdue. One must create a villian, an Emmanuel Goldstein, for the daily 5-minute hate, so that you can protect your serfs from his sadistic evil, otherwise they will object to your... sadistic evil.
If you're referring to the executive commanders of Al Qaeda, the ones living between Virginia and Maryland, yes, it does appear to be going according to their plan, to drain the last remaining wealth and power out of North America and into Europe. If you're referring to the long-dead cave-dwelling pious muslims who wanted to defend their homes against foreign invaders, no, I don't think it's going according to plan at all.
While I agree with you in the main, SIGSEGV handlers are sheer hubris. There's good reason to distrust any code running after a segfault. It's much better to deal with such conditions from the safety of another address space.
Don't use new/delete or pointer arithmetic, and you're 90% of the way to crash-proof. Use STL and boost where you can. Pass references instead of pointers and let the stack manage your memory.
Create processing units by forking, and communicate between them using unix-domain sockets. You can even handle network I/O in several processes this way, passing the socket file descriptor between processes through unix-domain sockets, if you need. For Windows the equivalent is named pipes, but you can't pass descriptors.
But not, I see, an observation of comets. The observation of comets leads to the conclusion that comets have little to no ice. I know you've been told for years that comets are dirty snowballs, and that your worldview depends on the blind acceptance of the priestly authority of most holy scientists, but, yo, dude, this comet is a big rock. So were the other comets. I see a trend here.
Wow. Trillions. I'm impressed. How could I have been so foolish as to expect a sound, reasoned argument when the numbers are so big, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend.
If you attempt to force me to use that DRM-laden virus-bus to view your stream, you had might as well stab yourself in the face with a fork, because otherwise I'll have to do it for you.
Actually, in P2P swarming, you're not sharing your bandwidth, which implies a loss of bandwidth otherwise available to you; rather, if the software is correctly designed, you're exploiting otherwise unused bandwidth.
That is, of course, simply wrong. Java applets can connect to anything, using TCP, UDP, or TLS. You must be thinking of Javascript's XMLHttpRequest object.
So, actually, it was free data. Since it was produced by the U.S. government, after all, it is public domain. So, in reality, someone copied some public domain data. I guess I can see why it was "sexed-up" for the press release.
The post appears to draw several unwarranted inferences. Perhaps, for example, people develop a sunny outlook as a result of a long string of successes, punctuated only by failures caused by uncontrolable factors, whereas people who screw up a lot end up with a dismal outlook.
Ah, but the rack of Xboxen in my closet cost *Microsoft* almost that much in subsidized pricing. And they run stock debian packages. Now *there's* priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
The Windows event model intrinsically is a security nightmare, and the service configuration of a default install is all that a script kiddie could dream -- althought there are specific Linux distributions which can rival Windows in the insecurty of their default installation, they are not the norm.
It is easier to develop code for Linux than for Windows. That is why there are so many more applications for Linux than there are for Windows, and it is also why developers, on the whole, prefer to use Linux when it is suitable. There are no evident alternative explanations for these facts.
He's telling you that for a short period of time, the government was frankly admitting that it was spreading misinformation. Now we will return to your regularly scheduled disinformation.
Felber is not claiming to be noted. The author of the article is claiming that Felber is noted.
Several people who are well-known for their quality work in Physics get fewer than 40 google hits,
and several crackpots or mediocre semi-professionals with prolific publication histories get a lot
more than 40 hits. I think I would be ill-advised to adopt your criteria.
That said, I have no opinion about Felber's work, not having found a preprint to read.
Just hunt down a few lying journos and kill their entire families. Ancestors, descendants, distant cousins. After all, it works for Microsoft.
> I've never understood what drives the rapid expansion right after the big bang.
Necessity. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention. Since the observed universe is incompatible with the big bang cosmology absent an early period of rapid inflation, it was necessary to postulate one in order to prop-up the theory.
Historical models are inherently unfalsifiable, when falsifiability is restricted to experimentation. The historical element of neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is not refutable by experimentation. It is however, falsifiable, to the degree that it makes predictions about observations, such as phylogenetic biochemical observations, and fossilized natural observations. Basically all of the putative evidences of historical speciation by means of neo-darwinian model mechanisms are not only falsifiable, they have in fact been falsified by the observation of contradictory evidences. These are largely disregarded by the scientific establishment, which has an enormous investment, which bears substantial dividends, in the current dominant paradigm. This social process was well-described by Kuhn in the 1960s. Eventually, just as the original darwinian model was replaced by the neo-darwinian model, a new model will arise which more adequately accounts for the totality of observed facts, rather than accounting for a select few, and requiring ignorance of the remainder. Whether it will continue to be called darwinian (or quasidarwinian or pseudodarwinian or metadarwinian) is a topic of speculation only.
What is this ^^ notation? Exponentiate me harder? Double winky? I'm confused. (Again.)
> Your copyright is there to ultimately benefit the public.
Ah, the naivete of youth. Go read some Adam Smith, why dontcha?
I like unlambda better, because it is intractable in a conceptually pure way, rather than by virtue of heaps of stinking crap. Although the whitespace language does have it's appeal, I must say.
Regardless, I take exception to the notion that you can't write a webserver in bf (or unlambda or whitespace). You can indeed write one. It's the *operating system* which is failing to perform the IO, not the webserver. Fix the operating system to recognize when your application is requesting to do IO and the problem is solved.
I'm just as genetically entitled as my daughter's mother. I demand equal cellular boosters!
Your thinly veiled racism is contemptible. I disrespect what you respect, and respect what you disrespect, because I disrespect your worldview.
Why would any decent person *want* to reduce the support for Islamic freedom fighters? They are the only people on earth who are actually wagining a campaign of force *against* evil.
It's not folly that guides the chickenhawks, it's malice. You see, unless the masses live in fear of a bogeyman, they are difficult to control and subdue. One must create a villian, an Emmanuel Goldstein, for the daily 5-minute hate, so that you can protect your serfs from his sadistic evil, otherwise they will object to your... sadistic evil.
If you're referring to the executive commanders of Al Qaeda, the ones living between Virginia and Maryland, yes, it does appear to be going according to their plan, to drain the last remaining wealth and power out of North America and into Europe. If you're referring to the long-dead cave-dwelling pious muslims who wanted to defend their homes against foreign invaders, no, I don't think it's going according to plan at all.
While I agree with you in the main, SIGSEGV handlers are sheer hubris. There's good reason to distrust any code running after a segfault. It's much better to deal with such conditions from the safety of another address space.
Don't use new/delete or pointer arithmetic, and you're 90% of the way to crash-proof. Use STL and boost where you can. Pass references instead of pointers and let the stack manage your memory.
Create processing units by forking, and communicate between them using unix-domain sockets. You can even handle network I/O in several processes this way, passing the socket file descriptor between processes through unix-domain sockets, if you need. For Windows the equivalent is named pipes, but you can't pass descriptors.
> It starts as an observation.
But not, I see, an observation of comets. The observation of comets leads to the conclusion that comets have little to no ice. I know you've been told for years that comets are dirty snowballs, and that your worldview depends on the blind acceptance of the priestly authority of most holy scientists, but, yo, dude, this comet is a big rock. So were the other comets. I see a trend here.
Wow. Trillions. I'm impressed. How could I have been so foolish as to expect a sound, reasoned argument when the numbers are so big, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend.
If you attempt to force me to use that DRM-laden virus-bus to view your stream, you had might as well stab yourself in the face with a fork, because otherwise I'll have to do it for you.
Actually, in P2P swarming, you're not sharing your bandwidth, which implies a loss of bandwidth otherwise available to you; rather, if the software is correctly designed, you're exploiting otherwise unused bandwidth.
That is, of course, simply wrong. Java applets can connect to anything, using TCP, UDP, or TLS.
You must be thinking of Javascript's XMLHttpRequest object.
So, actually, it was free data. Since it was produced by the U.S. government, after all, it is public domain. So, in reality, someone copied some public domain data. I guess I can see why it was "sexed-up" for the press release.
The post appears to draw several unwarranted inferences. Perhaps, for example, people develop a sunny outlook as a result of a long string of successes, punctuated only by failures caused by uncontrolable factors, whereas people who screw up a lot end up with a dismal outlook.
"$1.9 Billion worth of data" seems like a contradiction in terms to me.
I suggest putting it on the market and finding the strike price.
Ah, but the rack of Xboxen in my closet cost *Microsoft* almost that much in subsidized pricing. And they run stock debian packages. Now *there's* priceless.