I recently had to go to london from amsterdam and checked out the three different methods. Boat, train (via channel-tunnel) and plane. Plane beat the other by a few hours.
The train has to go via France. The ferry is, admittedly, slow with the transfers and so forth, but hey, it has two bars and a movie theatre.
But imagine, say, a Melbourne-Sydney train travelling at 400kmh... that's a little over two hours from centre to centre, which easily beats an aeroplane.
(The flight is only an hour, but when you arrive, you're at the airport)
Luckily, we still have this, where if you select games by rating, you'll see that modern text adventures have pretty much surpassed anything that was written when they were still commercial.
Where have I read this comment before? Oh, right, here.
Word for word. Do you reckon karma gets you laid or what?
Re:Yeah well...in this case, I think it's reasonab
on
Phoenix To Change Name
·
· Score: 1
I mean: the KIllustrator vs. Adobe Illustrator thing some time ago was a bit weird, because Illustrator can be seen as a more general word that can't be trademarked.
But since I bothered posting this, can I ask which film you actually had in mind? I saw the latter (God it was bad) but not the former.
The movie with CG shots is Showgirls.
Striptease is horrible... I couldn't watch the whole thing even though I'd, um, sent my brain on a little journey. Showgirls, on the other hand, is wildly underrated. I won't bother defending this, but it's nevertheless true.
Anyway, the CG: little things like making the (water) fountains bigger. Touches that you wouldn't normally notice as CG. Apparently the male dancers were all playing it straight before the computers were called in.
I know most European nations are generally socialist at their core and tax their citizens quite heavily.
I pay about the same amount of tax here as I did when I lived in the US. The difference is that in the EU, the money goes to social policies; while in the US it goes on the military.
OK, consider a language where every array access is validated. You loop through an array. As a programmer, you know you only have to check the array length once, at the beginning of the loop. The runtime doesn't know this, and thus checks the bounds every time through.
You seem to be thinking in C++... yes, the C++ checked array classes are ridiculously slow, because every reference is checked. Here's the Ada equivalent to looping through an array:
for I in Array_Variable'Range loop
-- do stuff with Array_Variable (I) end loop;
No bounds check required, because the compiler knows that I is always in range.
Furthermore, the ability to restrict variable ranges removes a whole bunch of other bounds checks. You'd be surprised at how little is actually required.
It's also much harder to have buffer overflows with extra-long input; in general, an exception will be raised (in this case by the run time), which, if uncaught, terminates the process. No security risk.
Language design has come a long way since the 1970s. You'd be doing yourself a favour to see what else is out there, even if you never program in anything other than C.
Look, I know you're a troll, and you're probably pretty stupid, and maybe you've never written a line of code in your life, but it might be interesting to point out why you're wrong anyway.
If the language you're using does not automatically check array indices, then you have to do it yourself. The Kerberos implementation flaw proves it. So you pay for bounds checking anyway, and chances are, the compiler constructed check will be faster than the one you wrote.
Furthermore, with the right language a compiler can omit most of the checks because it can easily prove that the value will always be in range.
The idea that bounds checking = slow is just so 60s.
So all I have to do is update the software and I'm good to go. Just like any other buffer overflow.
When are we going to switch to languages that don't have buffer overflow problems? Solutions have been around for years. It stuns me that buffer overflow is still an avenue of attack.
Very few of these messages are related to the Linux kernel itself. I find most of these to be about packages included with most major distributions.
If only there was some simple prefix we could insert before the word Linux that distinguished the complete GNU + Linux system from the bit that's just the kernel.
Not even close, but isn't breaking encryption just a matter of throwing enough processor cycles at it until it finds a match?
This is correct. But if you can show that a massively parallel computer the size of the Earth would take billions of years to crack your code, then you can feel reasonably secure. Factorisation of large primes is a task that (probably) falls into this category -- it hasn't yet been shown to be easier.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about trying every message against the encrypted text, then that doesn't work either, because (a) it takes even longer than cracking the code, and (b) any message is potentially the plain text.
In other words, eBay knew about the patent and had read it and knew they wanted to licence it. Then they went ahead and used the technique anyway without completing the negotiation.
No, eBay were already using the technique, and then apparently discovered the patent or had it pointed out to them, and in what looks like simple self-preservation tried to buy it. I expect the negotiations broke down because the patent owner was asking too much for something that doesn't really apply to what eBay does (they both talk about online auctions, but the mechanics are very different). IMHO, IANAL, HAND.
The plural of auction is auctions. Was the original poster trying to fake a Latin connection? That word is "auctio", and if I'm not too rusty the plural would be "auctiones." But since we're speaking English, this sort of argument can go and get fucked.
And what on earth does the word "auction" have to do with "ox" and "box"? The slight 'x' sound? Please. Furthermore, anybody who uses the non-word "boxen" is a complete wanker and should be shot on sight.
"Auctionae" if anything would be the plural of "auctiona", which, as it isn't a word, doesn't have a plural.
Now, if that's all clear, I'd like to go back to reading about the patent-driven end to intellectual freedom in peace. Thanks.
if I were an Agent, I wouldn't want to be looking out for some lard-arse specialist, I'd like to know the guy doing the specialist work could cover my back in a firefight.
Cover your back? No, make the lard-arses cover your front. The more ridiculously obese they are, the more cover they provide. And more bullet-stopping potential.
You just have to make sure they don't fall backwards, or you'll get squashed.
Has it ever occured to you that anyone who is truly loyal to GNU/linux will go to What Ever Means Necessary to get developers to migrate to our platform?
Which is fine, but the Means you're referring to don't work, and in fact have a nett negative effect. Passion is great, but flaming the people that you want something from is just stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
a real potential to spontaneously explode (even if the chances are nil).
Real potentials must be different in your land.
I recently had to go to london from amsterdam and checked out the three different methods. Boat, train (via channel-tunnel) and plane. Plane beat the other by a few hours.
... that's a little over two hours from centre to centre, which easily beats an aeroplane.
The train has to go via France. The ferry is, admittedly, slow with the transfers and so forth, but hey, it has two bars and a movie theatre.
But imagine, say, a Melbourne-Sydney train travelling at 400kmh
(The flight is only an hour, but when you arrive, you're at the airport)
was when the text-parser was axed.
Luckily, we still have this, where if you select games by rating, you'll see that modern text adventures have pretty much surpassed anything that was written when they were still commercial.
Btw, you are a brave man to participate in this discussion while being logged in. You'll leave at least 2 points of Karma.
It's OK, I have a life.
I wish I could metamoderate the moderation to +1, Funny.
Where have I read this comment before? Oh, right, here.
Word for word. Do you reckon karma gets you laid or what?
I mean: the KIllustrator vs. Adobe Illustrator thing some time ago was a bit weird, because Illustrator can be seen as a more general word that can't be trademarked.
What, like Windows?
But since I bothered posting this, can I ask which film you actually had in mind? I saw the latter (God it was bad) but not the former.
... I couldn't watch the whole thing even though I'd, um, sent my brain on a little journey. Showgirls, on the other hand, is wildly underrated. I won't bother defending this, but it's nevertheless true.
The movie with CG shots is Showgirls.
Striptease is horrible
Anyway, the CG: little things like making the (water) fountains bigger. Touches that you wouldn't normally notice as CG. Apparently the male dancers were all playing it straight before the computers were called in.
Let's imagine a situation. Someone went to a pr0n site, and Mozilla crashed. You really think they will submit the URL?
Well, did you or not?
I know most European nations are generally socialist at their core and tax their citizens quite heavily.
I pay about the same amount of tax here as I did when I lived in the US. The difference is that in the EU, the money goes to social policies; while in the US it goes on the military.
Wasn't there some talk about being able to filter out comments moderated as "funny"? Did anything ever come of that?
On your user page, preferences tab, comment options, there's a section called "Reason Modifier", in which you can penalize funny posts.
Of course, everybody's going to call you a curmudgeon, but you can probably filter that out too.
OK, consider a language where every array access is validated. You loop through an array. As a programmer, you know you only have to check the array length once, at the beginning of the loop. The runtime doesn't know this, and thus checks the bounds every time through.
... yes, the C++ checked array classes are ridiculously slow, because every reference is checked. Here's the Ada equivalent to looping through an array:
You seem to be thinking in C++
for I in Array_Variable'Range loop
-- do stuff with Array_Variable (I)
end loop;
No bounds check required, because the compiler knows that I is always in range.
Furthermore, the ability to restrict variable ranges removes a whole bunch of other bounds checks. You'd be surprised at how little is actually required.
It's also much harder to have buffer overflows with extra-long input; in general, an exception will be raised (in this case by the run time), which, if uncaught, terminates the process. No security risk.
Language design has come a long way since the 1970s. You'd be doing yourself a favour to see what else is out there, even if you never program in anything other than C.
Look, I know you're a troll, and you're probably pretty stupid, and maybe you've never written a line of code in your life, but it might be interesting to point out why you're wrong anyway.
If the language you're using does not automatically check array indices, then you have to do it yourself. The Kerberos implementation flaw proves it. So you pay for bounds checking anyway, and chances are, the compiler constructed check will be faster than the one you wrote.
Furthermore, with the right language a compiler can omit most of the checks because it can easily prove that the value will always be in range.
The idea that bounds checking = slow is just so 60s.
Building a computer, to tell you how to build another, larger, more complex computer. Hrmmm..
Uh, that's how it works in general. Or did you think modern CPUs were laid out by hand?
So all I have to do is update the software and I'm good to go. Just like any other buffer overflow.
When are we going to switch to languages that don't have buffer overflow problems? Solutions have been around for years. It stuns me that buffer overflow is still an avenue of attack.
does it make you feel any better that the criminal broke 17 laws to shoot your ass instead of 15 laws?
Well, kinda. They might beat the first fifteen charges and get nailed on the last two. It's not much, but it's something.
Thanks, Pedantor. Now reread the comment with s/party/major party/ applied.
Note that a preferential voting system would solve this problem.
Very few of these messages are related to the Linux kernel itself. I find most of these to be about packages included with most major distributions.
If only there was some simple prefix we could insert before the word Linux that distinguished the complete GNU + Linux system from the bit that's just the kernel.
Like that would ever happen.
Counter-intuitive - unless you're a woman - they seem to like trying to start cars that are already running (cue sound of gears grinding).
If you stopped stalking all the women you're too scared to talk to, they wouldn't want to get away from you so badly.
Not even close, but isn't breaking encryption just a matter of throwing enough processor cycles at it until it finds a match?
This is correct. But if you can show that a massively parallel computer the size of the Earth would take billions of years to crack your code, then you can feel reasonably secure. Factorisation of large primes is a task that (probably) falls into this category -- it hasn't yet been shown to be easier.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about trying every message against the encrypted text, then that doesn't work either, because (a) it takes even longer than cracking the code, and (b) any message is potentially the plain text.
He started licence negotiations shortly after the patent was granted. Move along now.
In other words, eBay knew about the patent and had read it and knew they wanted to licence it. Then they went ahead and used the technique anyway without completing the negotiation.
No, eBay were already using the technique, and then apparently discovered the patent or had it pointed out to them, and in what looks like simple self-preservation tried to buy it. I expect the negotiations broke down because the patent owner was asking too much for something that doesn't really apply to what eBay does (they both talk about online auctions, but the mechanics are very different). IMHO, IANAL, HAND.
[don't reply to trolls ... do not reply to trolls]
The plural of auction is auctions. Was the original poster trying to fake a Latin connection? That word is "auctio", and if I'm not too rusty the plural would be "auctiones." But since we're speaking English, this sort of argument can go and get fucked.
And what on earth does the word "auction" have to do with "ox" and "box"? The slight 'x' sound? Please. Furthermore, anybody who uses the non-word "boxen" is a complete wanker and should be shot on sight.
"Auctionae" if anything would be the plural of "auctiona", which, as it isn't a word, doesn't have a plural.
Now, if that's all clear, I'd like to go back to reading about the patent-driven end to intellectual freedom in peace. Thanks.
if I were an Agent, I wouldn't want to be looking out for some lard-arse specialist, I'd like to know the guy doing the specialist work could cover my back in a firefight.
Cover your back? No, make the lard-arses cover your front. The more ridiculously obese they are, the more cover they provide. And more bullet-stopping potential.
You just have to make sure they don't fall backwards, or you'll get squashed.
Has it ever occured to you that anyone who is truly loyal to GNU/linux will go to What Ever Means Necessary to get developers to migrate to our platform?
Which is fine, but the Means you're referring to don't work, and in fact have a nett negative effect. Passion is great, but flaming the people that you want something from is just stupid.