Consider the alternative: the taxpayers pay for it. This leads to taxpayers getting upset when expensive rescues are performed, which leads to lobbying the government for stricter controls on wilderness recreation, which ultimately leads to a shutdown of freedom.
Personally, I'd rather take the chance of being held responsible for my own rescue costs, in exchange for greater freedom to go out and do what I want to.
I belong to a mountaineering organization called The Mazamas and one of the benefits of membership is international rescue insurance, which will pay for my rescue costs if something were to happen. This insurance is paid for by membership dues, which means the taxpayer does not end up footing the bill. This model seems to work well. If you're spending a lot of time in remote, dangerous locations, get some form of rescue insurance.
If you crash into somebody in a car and kill them, due to being an incompetent driver, that is a crime.
If you feed your baby the wrong foods, resulting in his death due to your incompetence as a parent, that is a crime.
If a doctor kills a patient through incompetence, that is a crime.
But you believe that incompetence should not be a crime, when it is committed by the highest institutions of government. This makes you insane, not "insightful." The inability of the office of the White House to comply with basic laws concerning the conduct of that office is absolutely unacceptable.
You can get a long line of IT admins from around the country to testify how big the lies coming from the Administration are, put the white house IT admins on the stand and rip them to shreds, then throw their asses in JAIL when they show gross incompetence in following the law, instead of coming right out with the truth of what happened and who encouraged it to happen.
Why are people always so concerned with the underlings following orders? We don't have time to waste prosecuting this bullshit. Go after the decision makers.
Unless higher-ups end up behind bars, I find the idea of throwing the lowest-rung participants in jail to be... morally revolting.
That's a ridiculous statement. If that were true then even the simplest software would have literally millions of test cases.
Just because the test cases aren't there doesn't mean they shouldn't be. The fact is, most software is insufficiently tested, and for exactly this reason.
You can do some hand-waving and say that certain parts of the program are logically independent of other parts and can't possibly influence them, but that's simply untrue in languages without memory protection, where memory errors can have inexplicable and unpredictable affects on unrelated parts of the program.
This is why more and more houses are integrating some type of fuzz testing into their standard QA. No matter how carefully designed the test cases are, there is usually some random input you would never have imagined which will trigger a bug. Now, if such bugs were actually RARE in such a large configuration space, you would expect that simply throwing random data at the program would be unlikely to trigger bugs. But in reality, fuzz testing is amazingly effective (although there is a point of diminishing returns). What this means is that your bug density is greater than you think it is.
It is foolish to pointlessly multiply the complexity of your program by adding an unnecessary option. Instead, spend the effort to figure out the one right way to do it. Only if you cannot possibly find a single right way, should you consider adding an option.
If there's no technical reason not to allow both options with a simple option in a menu somewhere, then yes it is ridiculous.
There is always a technical reason to avoid giving the user an option. For each option, the number of test cases doubles. You have to test the entire program with the option set, and with it not set. "It's obvious that this option can't have an affect on anything else" is not a valid excuse to not test.
So, if you're willing to run potentially buggy, untested code all the time, by all means give the users as many options as possible.
(I'm not against giving users flexibility, but testing is not an afterthought, and it pays to invest some time into trying to find ways to avoid the need for an option in the first place)
This one is simple. Everyone just blackholes the IP range and game over. Better if the backbones drop the route. Best if we all drop the IP space of whoever is directly connecting to a known spam network.
How, exactly, will that give us those addresses back?
There are far worse crimes than destroying records which are specifically mandated by the Presidental Records Act to be maintained? A law which was passed not even that long ago, SPECIFICALLY to prevent Presidential abuse of power by destruction of incriminating documents? Which crimes exactly are you thinking of? Oh, that's right -- the ones which were probably detailed in all of the lost documents!
I think the real question is do you really want to know? does the family really want to know?
Who the fuck is he to decide what the family wants to know? They have legal right to everything. If you have some kind of fucked up personal dilemma about doing the right thing, then don't do it, but for God's sake don't pretend to do it and serve as some sort of dire filter of information such that you (some ultimately irrelevant sliver of this family's life) are holding ultimate control over the facts. I really can't imagine anything more sick than that.
If this was a suicide, and there was information he never wanted the world to see, he should have deleted it. If he didn't, then he made a mistake. There is no privacy in death.
I'm not sure what the underlying assumption is here. Is it:
A) Females are dumber than real Linux users
or
B) Girlfriends are dumber than real Linux users
Which prejudiced assumption was intended? I'm curious.
Dimensionless constants are irrelevant because the constant can always be subsumed into some other quantity. Other dimensionless quantities, however, can't be predicted through dimensional analysis.
Absolutely everything. Many fundamental equations of physics can be correctly arrived at simply by manipulating units. The dimensions of energy are kg*m^2*s^2. A combination of physical quantities which does not have precisely this dimension cannot possibly be a quantity of energy.
Dimensional analysis is an extremely powerful technique, and something which is learned in basic physics.
Why do you want to punish the underling who was ordered to transport something probably without even being told what it was or how important it was? This sort of thing is the job of an armored car. For wanting to punish the least responsible party involved, you are an asshole.
Among things mentioned by others, it enables you to blackmail people who have sensitive medical conditions they don't want the whole world knowing about.
The article is very careful to phrase it as "2 million medical records." I somehow doubt that this means the medical records of 2 million separate individuals -- if it did, surely the news outlet would have said so, as it is much more dramatic. I bet a "medical record" is a single row in the database, and what was really stolen was a DB with 2 million records (as in "rows") in it. I seriously doubt the medical records of 2 million people are all collected on a single set of tapes.
Then why did you call these graphic engine experts "old men" as if they are just set in their ways? It sounds to me like they know just what they are talking about.
It's been my experience in the software world that people are incredibly stubborn about dropping old, familiar technology when something better comes along. It's certainly not limited to these folks. But even the smartest people get blinded by the familiarity of their ways.
The day I am judged by everyone around me based on what some machine says is going on inside my head, regardless of my outward actions, is the day I make a swift exit from the human race via a bullet to the head. I will not live in such a world.
It seems to me like this technology is basically detecting when a person stops paying complete attention to what they are doing. It's hardly a huge leap to assume that a person who is not paying attention, is more likely to make a mistake.
My day job consists mostly of writing rendering code, although not in a gaming context. I am not at all "dissing" scan conversion. It's what I do every day. My point is, WHEN (and only when) the technology is fast enough for real time recursive ray tracing, it will be the end of rasterization in 3D applications.
Cache coherency problems can be fixed by making an enormous cache, or simply making the RAM itself so damn fast it doesn't matter anymore. Adaptive subdivision of pixels for antialiasing is not exactly a first year student problem but not enormously difficult either.
Honestly, I want to see the technology blow right past raytracing and go straight to radiosity, but that's probably another factor of 5 in terms of how far off it is.
I don't see why you think it's weird. People write numbers like this all the time, especially when talking about monetary amounts. For instance, "Microsoft made $100 billion last year."
The whole damn debate is just a bunch of old men whining. Raytracing is obviously a superior rendering method, the question is simply when it will become fast enough. The dinosaurs don't want to let go of their precious scan conversion -- and who can blame them given the massive amount of work put into those algorithms over the last decades -- but the time of scan conversion is coming to an end.
And by the way, what the hell sort of "network programmer" uses read() instead of recv()? Guess what -- they aren't the same thing, especially on Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the alternative: the taxpayers pay for it. This leads to taxpayers getting upset when expensive rescues are performed, which leads to lobbying the government for stricter controls on wilderness recreation, which ultimately leads to a shutdown of freedom.
Personally, I'd rather take the chance of being held responsible for my own rescue costs, in exchange for greater freedom to go out and do what I want to.
I belong to a mountaineering organization called The Mazamas and one of the benefits of membership is international rescue insurance, which will pay for my rescue costs if something were to happen. This insurance is paid for by membership dues, which means the taxpayer does not end up footing the bill. This model seems to work well. If you're spending a lot of time in remote, dangerous locations, get some form of rescue insurance.
If you crash into somebody in a car and kill them, due to being an incompetent driver, that is a crime.
If you feed your baby the wrong foods, resulting in his death due to your incompetence as a parent, that is a crime.
If a doctor kills a patient through incompetence, that is a crime.
But you believe that incompetence should not be a crime, when it is committed by the highest institutions of government. This makes you insane, not "insightful." The inability of the office of the White House to comply with basic laws concerning the conduct of that office is absolutely unacceptable.
You can get a long line of IT admins from around the country to testify how big the lies coming from the Administration are, put the white house IT admins on the stand and rip them to shreds, then throw their asses in JAIL when they show gross incompetence in following the law, instead of coming right out with the truth of what happened and who encouraged it to happen.
Why are people always so concerned with the underlings following orders? We don't have time to waste prosecuting this bullshit. Go after the decision makers.
Unless higher-ups end up behind bars, I find the idea of throwing the lowest-rung participants in jail to be... morally revolting.
That's a ridiculous statement. If that were true then even the simplest software would have literally millions of test cases.
Just because the test cases aren't there doesn't mean they shouldn't be. The fact is, most software is insufficiently tested, and for exactly this reason.
You can do some hand-waving and say that certain parts of the program are logically independent of other parts and can't possibly influence them, but that's simply untrue in languages without memory protection, where memory errors can have inexplicable and unpredictable affects on unrelated parts of the program.
This is why more and more houses are integrating some type of fuzz testing into their standard QA. No matter how carefully designed the test cases are, there is usually some random input you would never have imagined which will trigger a bug. Now, if such bugs were actually RARE in such a large configuration space, you would expect that simply throwing random data at the program would be unlikely to trigger bugs. But in reality, fuzz testing is amazingly effective (although there is a point of diminishing returns). What this means is that your bug density is greater than you think it is.
It is foolish to pointlessly multiply the complexity of your program by adding an unnecessary option. Instead, spend the effort to figure out the one right way to do it. Only if you cannot possibly find a single right way, should you consider adding an option.
If there's no technical reason not to allow both options with a simple option in a menu somewhere, then yes it is ridiculous.
There is always a technical reason to avoid giving the user an option. For each option, the number of test cases doubles. You have to test the entire program with the option set, and with it not set. "It's obvious that this option can't have an affect on anything else" is not a valid excuse to not test.
So, if you're willing to run potentially buggy, untested code all the time, by all means give the users as many options as possible.
(I'm not against giving users flexibility, but testing is not an afterthought, and it pays to invest some time into trying to find ways to avoid the need for an option in the first place)
This one is simple. Everyone just blackholes the IP range and game over. Better if the backbones drop the route. Best if we all drop the IP space of whoever is directly connecting to a known spam network.
How, exactly, will that give us those addresses back?
There are far worse crimes than destroying records which are specifically mandated by the Presidental Records Act to be maintained? A law which was passed not even that long ago, SPECIFICALLY to prevent Presidential abuse of power by destruction of incriminating documents? Which crimes exactly are you thinking of? Oh, that's right -- the ones which were probably detailed in all of the lost documents!
How is incompetence an excuse for violating the Presidential Records Act?
I think the real question is do you really want to know? does the family really want to know?
Who the fuck is he to decide what the family wants to know? They have legal right to everything. If you have some kind of fucked up personal dilemma about doing the right thing, then don't do it, but for God's sake don't pretend to do it and serve as some sort of dire filter of information such that you (some ultimately irrelevant sliver of this family's life) are holding ultimate control over the facts. I really can't imagine anything more sick than that.
If this was a suicide, and there was information he never wanted the world to see, he should have deleted it. If he didn't, then he made a mistake. There is no privacy in death.
I'm not sure what the underlying assumption is here. Is it: A) Females are dumber than real Linux users or B) Girlfriends are dumber than real Linux users Which prejudiced assumption was intended? I'm curious.
Yeah -- "jumboleum" sounds more like a high-quality floor wax made from elephant lard...
Dimensionless constants are irrelevant because the constant can always be subsumed into some other quantity. Other dimensionless quantities, however, can't be predicted through dimensional analysis.
What does this have to do with units?
Absolutely everything. Many fundamental equations of physics can be correctly arrived at simply by manipulating units. The dimensions of energy are kg*m^2*s^2. A combination of physical quantities which does not have precisely this dimension cannot possibly be a quantity of energy.
Dimensional analysis is an extremely powerful technique, and something which is learned in basic physics.
Why do you want to punish the underling who was ordered to transport something probably without even being told what it was or how important it was? This sort of thing is the job of an armored car. For wanting to punish the least responsible party involved, you are an asshole.
Among things mentioned by others, it enables you to blackmail people who have sensitive medical conditions they don't want the whole world knowing about.
The article is very careful to phrase it as "2 million medical records." I somehow doubt that this means the medical records of 2 million separate individuals -- if it did, surely the news outlet would have said so, as it is much more dramatic. I bet a "medical record" is a single row in the database, and what was really stolen was a DB with 2 million records (as in "rows") in it. I seriously doubt the medical records of 2 million people are all collected on a single set of tapes.
Since it's a public library, however, I can't have any software on the computers that is risqué, gory, or violent.
Exactly why not? Does your library also lack risqué, gory, and violent books? What the hell sort of library is this?
Then why did you call these graphic engine experts "old men" as if they are just set in their ways? It sounds to me like they know just what they are talking about.
It's been my experience in the software world that people are incredibly stubborn about dropping old, familiar technology when something better comes along. It's certainly not limited to these folks. But even the smartest people get blinded by the familiarity of their ways.
The day I am judged by everyone around me based on what some machine says is going on inside my head, regardless of my outward actions, is the day I make a swift exit from the human race via a bullet to the head. I will not live in such a world.
It seems to me like this technology is basically detecting when a person stops paying complete attention to what they are doing. It's hardly a huge leap to assume that a person who is not paying attention, is more likely to make a mistake.
My day job consists mostly of writing rendering code, although not in a gaming context. I am not at all "dissing" scan conversion. It's what I do every day. My point is, WHEN (and only when) the technology is fast enough for real time recursive ray tracing, it will be the end of rasterization in 3D applications.
Cache coherency problems can be fixed by making an enormous cache, or simply making the RAM itself so damn fast it doesn't matter anymore. Adaptive subdivision of pixels for antialiasing is not exactly a first year student problem but not enormously difficult either.
Honestly, I want to see the technology blow right past raytracing and go straight to radiosity, but that's probably another factor of 5 in terms of how far off it is.
I'm 1 hundred % shocked.
I don't see why you think it's weird. People write numbers like this all the time, especially when talking about monetary amounts. For instance, "Microsoft made $100 billion last year."
The whole damn debate is just a bunch of old men whining. Raytracing is obviously a superior rendering method, the question is simply when it will become fast enough. The dinosaurs don't want to let go of their precious scan conversion -- and who can blame them given the massive amount of work put into those algorithms over the last decades -- but the time of scan conversion is coming to an end.
And by the way, what the hell sort of "network programmer" uses read() instead of recv()? Guess what -- they aren't the same thing, especially on Windows.
Err why would I ever want to do that? You think I want to add one character at a time??
Why the hell would you have to add a char at a time?
std::vector buffer(packet_size);recv(socket, &buffer[0], packet_size, 0);
Not so fucking hard, is it? Guess what: STL was not designed to be inefficient. Who the hell would use it if it was?
And how exactly would I get the internal pointer to use in a read()?
The address of the element at index i in a vector is simply:
&buffer[i]But by all means, continue to lean on your own ignorance in an effort to convince me I'm stupid. Give me another one, genius.