D-Day was the fourth date available for the British sojourn to France in 1944.
Before it were A-Day, B-Day and C-Day, all of which were cancelled due to bad weather.
Do you Americans no nothing about WWII except the big bomb bit?
Well, WWII aside, I'm pretty sure some of us under-educated ignorant redneck Americans have learned how to spell know.
There are many things that are wrong with Java. This is not one of them. It is simply one of the differences between Java and other languages. *shrug*.
Actually, I was referring more generally to the use of protected/private members (methods, attributes, whatever a given language calls them). Certainly, Java is not unique in the general theme.
Private and protected constructors make a lot of sense. If I am selling you a library of classes, and I want to do stuff that you should NOT be allowed to touch, I make it private. If you don't understand when to use them... well, bummer. It is hard to say -- you may or may not know what you are talking about. If you do, it doesn't show 100% in your text -- but there is enough there that I don't want to ignore you outright. You know the drill: it is simply very hard to tell from the limited amount we are willing to type;~)
Why do you care how I extend your library to suit my own individual/corporate needs, of which you are likely completely unaware when coding the original library? Assuming I am in compliance with whatever licensing terms you have attached to the library, why on earth would it matter how I use it?
This is not about arbitrary protection/privacy of class elements, it's about the simple unmistakable fact that no developer (or group of developers) is all knowing and can possibly forsee every single potential need/use that exists. Why would you want to limit another downstream developer? In the name of ego?
What you describe as modifying the superclass rather turns my stomach: it means that some idiot can come along and break my code. If a class constructor is declared protected, it should be for a good reason. You shouldn't be trying to 'unprotect' it. If you don't like that it is protected, make your own, or if it is open source figure out WHY they protected it.
No, it doesn't mean someone can break your code, it means someone can break their own code. Unless they (a) have your source and (b) have modified it, they cannot alter your code. They can only break their own.
I do believe that a language should offer clear demarcation between "public" api elements and "private", however iron-clad enforcement of this is just silly and needlessly limiting.
If someone is using your library in an unsupported fashion, the only reprocussion this has on you is that you don't have to support it. Other than that, I fail to see how it's really any of your business (or my business if I were the developer of said library).
Also, protection prohibits 'viral' code from pretending to be a class of type 'x' and then doing something that 'x' would NEVER do -- like randomly delete files when someone calls 'toString()'. As a few of my programs do allow users to load 3rd party classes which extend my own code, this is somewhat important to me.
This is a strawman argument. The given semantics of an OO language's inter-object calls should never be relied on to prevent trojaning. Cryptography is the correct technology to apply for ensuring that the code being executed is actually the intended code.
The law of conservation of mass fails for nuclear processes
This was sorted out almost a hundred years ago.
Matter can be destroyed. Nuclear fission and fusion are prime examples. It happens too in chemical reactions, but the mass change is so small it's absurdly hard to measure.
Seeing as we have our Pendantic Pants<tm> on, let me point out that the OP was technically correct in his original assertion that matter cannot be destroyed (not the bit about conservation failing for nuclear processes obviously). You can't, strictly speaking, destroy matter; but you can convert it to a wave.;)
Then, when you realize what nappy code exists in MyClassImpl, you can create a new class called 'MyLessSuckyClassImpl' and modify your own base code to point to the new class. Any 'outsider' should have been using 'MyClass' and thus will never know that when he updated from version 0.9 to version 1.0 that an completely different class was actually being passed through his functions. Except that it crashes less often or is faster or something.
This assumes the user has no business creating such classes on his own -- generally constructors would be given protected or private access for such cases, and a static 'createXX()' function inside the Class which returns a new instance of the proper superclass of itself. Consider the java.util.Calendar() class an example.
Right, and this is precisely what is functionally wrong with java (there's also all the syntax goop, but that's a separate issue), although it is by no means limited strictly to java. The original developer of the base class(es) may have arbitrarily decided that he didn't want someone other than his contructors touching certain "internals" and thus used the horrid OOP concept of "protection" to prevent that.
Contrast that with a dynmically typed language like python (and yes, I know much of python is just old syntactic tricks rehashed, but they are DAMN good old tricks) where one can not only access any and all attributes/methods/functions (really all the same thing) but can go even deeper and modify a "superclass" (using your parlance) such that it is no longer a superclass, but is instead attached to some other inheritance mechanism and thus all of its ancestors also gain the same inheritance; and it matters not the slightest who the "outsider" or the "insider" is.
Of course, in reality, you would rarely ever need to do that in python, there are generally far simpler and more elegant ways of achieving precise dynamic behavior with pre-existing objects/classes/functions.
I believe the buzzword du'jour for this is "aspect-oriented programming", no? Or perhaps a better truism is: "aspect-oriented programming" is what you end up needing when you don't have fully dynamic types and introspection.
So to summarize, Everything you do in Java is in turn calling C or C++ code which then calls the operating system's system call.
Nope! Everything we do is calling either some other Java Bytecode, or native (a.k.a. machine) code (or MSIL, if we manage to let Java interface with.Net)!
And how do you suppose that the byte code or "native machine code" (translation: compiled C) interacts with the OS in order to actually perform i/o or present an interface to the user in any way at all? Magic beans, perhaps?
If every person in the middle east was Buddist, Hindi, Christian, Pagan, Aethist or Agnostic the culture of violence would still exist. [emphasis added]
I suspect that the culture of violence could not exist in the region if Hindi was the predominate religion. The two are mutually incompatible.
Why? Seriously, why is a normal expected event, part of the cycle of all living things so horrible?
The horror of the attack on London is not the death; it is the continuing escalation of violence that strikes fear into the hearts of many living people. In response, the west will now feel great outrage and redouble their efforts at "rooting out" the terrorists; perhaps even going as far as beginning to officially demonize all people of arabian lineage (based on how these things have worked in the past).
Thus the cycle continues, until at last, large-scale war finally erupts. It's been how many thousands of years since civilization was first born, and yet mankind, as a whole, still has not realized how this works?
"Prior" to the big bang is about as meaningful as asking what point on the Earth's surface is the center of the world.
How is your analogy even remotely correct? I am not asking a question which has already been proven to be false, I am simply asking science to explain, even a tiny amount, the origin of the whole basis of their theory.
The analogy is correct because your question is an attempt to extrapolate an additional orthagonal relationship from any given n-dimension while somehow still remaining in the confines of said dimension.
It is identical to asking where a point with three cartesian ccordinates exists in a two-dimensional space. It's nonsense.
In more real-world terms: How can you possibly have a "before", which is a temporal construct, without having the temporal bit?
Consider the fact that it is entirely possible that the following two statements are both true:
So this guy is walking down the street, his stomach grumbling with hunger. In a row of a shops to the right he spots what looks like it might be a sandwich shop, but he can't tell. There's a sign with no writing up and no hours on the door.
He walks in, and sure enough, there's a "make table" with all the goodies someone could possible want for a sandwich. Oddly though, there's nobody in sight, and no cash register! Hell, not even a tip jar to be seen. He scans the room for a price marquee, or any indication of how he might go about purchasing one of these delectable appearing sandwiches. Again, absolutely no indication of standard vending apparatus or staff!
His shouts of "Helloooo, anyone here?" go unanswered. Finally, he peeks around the establishment looking for any sign of vendor life. None. His stomach of course couldn't care less of this odd situation, and continues to complain with increasing annoyance. Finally, he gives up and decides to make himself a nice tasty lunchtime treat. He figures he'll just go ahead and eat it here; someone's sure to come along sooner or later!
Thirty minutes later, his appetite is well appeased, but still.. the "shop" remains without "keeper." Once more he searches for some sign of till or other monetary receptacle, finding absolutely nothing. Time pressing, he finally gives up and leaves; perhaps he'll come back tomorrow and discover the truth to the great Agatha Cristie Lunchtime Mystery Special.
Two hours later he is arrested for shoplifting. Apparently he missed the hidden camera in one corner of the shop.
If Alex Hanff is anything like he was when I knew him, the company are probably looking for any excuse to fire him. Apparently he was only a week into this job, but that was probably enough for the company to realise what a mistake they'd made.
Yes, I suspect that there are other factors in play here that aren't being mentioned (disclaimer: I don't personally know this fellow at all).
Most professional IT people are aware that if they have a good relationship with their employer and co-workers, the company will generally bend over backwards to keep them employed. Why? Because, as anyone who has ever had the displeasure of being responsible for staffing knows, it's damn hard to find new employees who are both competent and a good "mesh" with a given corporate culture. When you find them, you really really don't want to lose them. (Even if it means "hiding" them for a bit until the media attention cools off)
Most likely, even after that first week (and before the interview), eyebrows had been raised by some behavior or other of Mr. Hanff's.
(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)
I should say it's not about doppler shift, or... maybe it is, but there's another piece of the puzzle missing/not-understood. Consider the pioneer 10/11 blueshifts (slowing down w/ relation to Sol/us). The latest theory on that is non-cosmology based (more dense Kuiper belt - 10AU closer to the Sun), but should be testable via predicted minor anomalies in Neptune's orbit.
If this theory turns out not to be correct, however, then we have a serious problem. It implies that either our fundamental understanding of the long-range effects of gravity is flawed (which shouldn't be too surprising, given the enigma that the gravitational force has presented in the past) or a similar flawed conception exists regarding the nature of red/blue shifts over vast distances.
Sorry, but no. Windows 2000 will happily authenticate against non-AD kerberos realms.
Let's try that again, shall we? You cannot have a 2k workstation authenticate against a kerberos realm while simultaneously being a "member" of an AD domain. You cannot delegate ticket-granting or authorization within an AD domain to non-Microsoft kerberos implementations. The closest you can get is via an inter-realm trust, which is highly unappealing for the purposes of central sign-on/management and downright unworkable in a large distributed environment.
You cannot deploy fully interoperable technologies in a distributed environment that includes any sizable microsoft base, period. Just going "one way" (authing from a *nix workstation to "AD") is exactly the problem, because in the majority of large infrastructures the desire is much more likely to be towards using heterogenous server-side products while worrying much much less about end-user workstations.
Additionally, and this is the real kicker, Microsoft's design choice of integrating Active Directory with DNS was purposefully and maliciously intended to damage networking interoperability and force companies to choose between Microsoft or "whatever isn't Microsoft." They implemented just enough of dynamic dns to be able to claim technical compatibility, but then wrapped it all up in their own proprietary cryptography in order to ensure that those implementing heterogenous solutions would be unable to use "best practices" (thus, in their eyes, making Microsoft more attactive). This is almost exactly what they did with Kerberos as well. "Sure, you can use this technology in a mixed enviornment, as long as you don't try to scale it the way it was intended.." They are plainly attempting to leverage their installed base against alternative, and often superior (in one way or another), technologies.
Microsoft takes cool stuff, dumbs it down, and makes it avaiable to everyone else. This is what has made them so popular. People who understand the cool stuff in the raw form are the minority (changing slowly). Microsofts power is directly proportional to the average person's lack of computational understanding and the lack of developer's understanding of the average person's lack of computational understanding. Microsoft can take the developers stuff that is cool but hard to use, simplify it, and distribute with marketing power behind it.
No. What Microsoft does is carefully review existing deployed technology and figure how best they can use their installed-base to render said technology as non-functional as possible while simultaneously creating increased dependency on Microsoft products. Case and point: Active Directory Services and DNS, Active Directory Services and Kerberos.
This is not about engineering, this is about marketing. Microsoft does not want you to have any non-Microsoft choices regarding what software technologies you deploy. Their past behavior has shown that they will stop at nothing to achieve this goal.
So while there is considerable "knee-jerk" reactionism to what might only amount to benign behavior on the part of Microsoft (RSS extension/design), can you really blaim people? Beat a man repeatedly enough times and he'll flinch when you raise your hand to offer him food.
I was under the impression that the phrase for opiate den patronage was "riding the dragon" not chasing it...
I suppose it's possible that both phrases could be euphemisms for the same activity, however, a quick google of the term "chasing the dragon" returns 58,200 hits with the majority of the entire first page being drug related in some aspect (first link example: http://www.biopsychiatry.com/heroin.htm/)
A syntactically identical search for "riding the dragon" returns no opiate or apparent drug related information on the first page, or on any of the first few subsequent pages.
Thus, while I cannot prove a negative, I suspect that "riding the dragon" is not the correct euphemism.
The euphemism is 'Draining the Dragon,' and it refers to going to the bathroom.
When you say "The euphemism is..", which euphemism exactly are you referring to?
The OP's humorous remark about the equivalent to "chasing the dragon" is a reference to the euphemism of "chasing the dragon" (oddly enough), a formerly underground term meaning heroin smoking (supposedly originated in Shanghai during the 1920s). Heroin is a very powerful opiate, so thus.. ha ha..
But I am confused about this "draining the dragon" you speak of (I've never heard it) and just how it relates.
A lot of residential cable modem users get the same IP all the time, and we're on DHCP. In fact, my old Netgear router constantly failed to update Dynamic DNS because of this (it checked for a new IP address, but forgot to update the information every 30 days, so I got a nastygram from them).
As part of the DHCP protocol, a host is allowed to request a specific address (usually the one they had last session) before negotiating a new one. Many DHCP clients (including the one in Windows) do this, see section 3.2 of RFC2131.
Not only that, but dhcp servers (well, ok, I'm just speaking of the gold standard here -- ISC dhcpd) will attempt to give the same IP that you previously had, even if the lease has completely expired and your client knows nothing of it (for whatever reason).
Why? Because it's good networking practice and unobtrusive. Much less chance of odd client ip misconfiguration issues not to mention potentially avoiding the worst thing that can happen in a heavy dhcp environment -- a layer 3 address being "misplaced" (again, misconfigured clients, or even long-term sync issues between dhcpd peers could cause this).
So really, the moral of the story is that there are two types of static IP addresses. One of them being the traditional variety where some human being tells you what it is before-hand, and the "auto-assigned" variety you get on today's relatively static broadband connections.
What fucking amends? You sound like we have got something to apologize. For what? Liberating not one but two oppressed peoples?
How about having something to do with getting them there in the first place? Or have you completely, to use your parlance, fucking forgot about US support for Iraq/Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war between 82-88? This is fucking during the regime's use of chemical weapons against the kurds.
And you wonder why people hate "Americans" (my apologies to Canadians, Mexicans, etc)?
I don't think it's cynical as much as truthful. I read this and nodded my head in agreement, I've tried lixux every year for the past 3 or 4 years, and have found it more and more usable - but the basic stuff STILL DOES NOT WORK.
God, yes. Lixux is the absolute worst OS on the planet. Don't even bother wasting your money on it.
I don't use a calendar. Maybe this has to do with how young I am (17, going into my senior year of HS) but I've never found calendar applications useful. I use mozilla and gmail for my web/mail applications but there's just no need for a calendar. My calendar would consist of "Wake up at 3 PM, hack a little, eat, and repeat".:o)
You are not the odd man out. I am almost twice your age, and I do not use a calendar aside from occasionally typing `cal' at the $, just to see which weekdays certain dates fall on in the next few weeks.
I have just as many meetings and priorities as the next shmoe (probably more than many). Fortunately, like all humans (ok, that's probably too generous.. let's say.. a significant portion of humans that read/.), I was born with a cpu capable of parallel-processing on a scale envied by the world's leading AI researchers.
It doesn't do math very rapidly though as it is quaintly antiquated analog technology, but for calendaring: unbeatable.
No, seriously. What the fuck? Really... what the FUCK?
Is this a sarcastic jab at hippies? Are you being serious? Trolling? This post makes so little sense it has left my frail geek mind in a state of disarray. It's a lonely, scary place in there right now.
In related news, scientists today discovered a hidden link between solar storm high-energy radiation exposure and Asperger Syndrome.
You're forgetting, this is Europe. They came and took our guns away about 50 years ago, and nobody thought to object.
To be fair, for a while there it looked like you europeans were making a habit out of trying to wipe each other off the face of the planet.;)
It does seem as though you've gotten past that little idiosyncracy now though (even in the baltics!). Unfortunately, it appears as if the US might have contracted a bad case of the same disease.
From my understadning the best method to ensure cell coverage inside the cilyndrical faraday cage that airplanes are is the pico cell soultion.
People keep saying this (an airplane is a "faraday cage"), and while the fuselage certainly would severely attenuate longer wavelengths, I suspect that, in reality, an airframe makes a piss-poor faraday cage for digital cell phones.
Consider that (a) the fuselage is a composite of many dissimilar materials (both ferrites, non-ferrites and non-metallics), (b) modern cell phones are severely spread-spectrum and (c) US [non-PCS] cell phones operate at around.3 meters and GSM/PCS are in the.15 meter neighborhood (ie, windows would greatly reduce the faraday-related attenuation at these wavelengths).
Their point about oxygen was that it isn't naturally occuring at all; it's produced by living organisms, which they think are unlikely to evolve on a gas giant. And they're right about Coruscant, in that planets near the core of a galaxy get too much radiation to be habitable. (But was Coruscant supposed to be that close to the core to begin with?)
<pedantic>
I assure you, oxygen is produced all the time inside of large stars (and sol sized stars as well near the end of their lives).
</pedantic>
When Mount Kilimanjaro erupted in 1912 it released more CFCs into the atmosphere than every county released during the entire industrial revolution.
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? Kilimanjaro has not erupted (or at least it hasn't been noted) in recorded history. It's considered "active", but it would seem that you pulled this 1912 eruption straight out of your ass.
Perhaps you meant the Novarupta Eruption of 1912? That would, of course, be in Alaska, nowhere near Kilimanjaro.
Volcanoes release almost nothing in the way of chlorofluorcarbos, by the way. Not that they don't release large quantities of other noxious chemicals (yes, causing climatic change, I know), but CFCs are not significant in that list.
Slashdot Mirror
D-Day was the fourth date available for the British sojourn to France in 1944. Before it were A-Day, B-Day and C-Day, all of which were cancelled due to bad weather.
Do you Americans no nothing about WWII except the big bomb bit?
Well, WWII aside, I'm pretty sure some of us under-educated ignorant redneck Americans have learned how to spell know .
There are many things that are wrong with Java. This is not one of them. It is simply one of the differences between Java and other languages. *shrug*.
;~)
Actually, I was referring more generally to the use of protected/private members (methods, attributes, whatever a given language calls them). Certainly, Java is not unique in the general theme.
Private and protected constructors make a lot of sense. If I am selling you a library of classes, and I want to do stuff that you should NOT be allowed to touch, I make it private. If you don't understand when to use them... well, bummer. It is hard to say -- you may or may not know what you are talking about. If you do, it doesn't show 100% in your text -- but there is enough there that I don't want to ignore you outright. You know the drill: it is simply very hard to tell from the limited amount we are willing to type
Why do you care how I extend your library to suit my own individual/corporate needs, of which you are likely completely unaware when coding the original library? Assuming I am in compliance with whatever licensing terms you have attached to the library, why on earth would it matter how I use it?
This is not about arbitrary protection/privacy of class elements, it's about the simple unmistakable fact that no developer (or group of developers) is all knowing and can possibly forsee every single potential need/use that exists. Why would you want to limit another downstream developer? In the name of ego?
What you describe as modifying the superclass rather turns my stomach: it means that some idiot can come along and break my code. If a class constructor is declared protected, it should be for a good reason. You shouldn't be trying to 'unprotect' it. If you don't like that it is protected, make your own, or if it is open source figure out WHY they protected it.
No, it doesn't mean someone can break your code, it means someone can break their own code. Unless they (a) have your source and (b) have modified it, they cannot alter your code. They can only break their own.
I do believe that a language should offer clear demarcation between "public" api elements and "private", however iron-clad enforcement of this is just silly and needlessly limiting.
If someone is using your library in an unsupported fashion, the only reprocussion this has on you is that you don't have to support it. Other than that, I fail to see how it's really any of your business (or my business if I were the developer of said library).
Also, protection prohibits 'viral' code from pretending to be a class of type 'x' and then doing something that 'x' would NEVER do -- like randomly delete files when someone calls 'toString()'. As a few of my programs do allow users to load 3rd party classes which extend my own code, this is somewhat important to me.
This is a strawman argument. The given semantics of an OO language's inter-object calls should never be relied on to prevent trojaning. Cryptography is the correct technology to apply for ensuring that the code being executed is actually the intended code.
The law of conservation of mass fails for nuclear processes
;)
This was sorted out almost a hundred years ago.
Matter can be destroyed. Nuclear fission and fusion are prime examples. It happens too in chemical reactions, but the mass change is so small it's absurdly hard to measure.
Seeing as we have our Pendantic Pants<tm> on, let me point out that the OP was technically correct in his original assertion that matter cannot be destroyed (not the bit about conservation failing for nuclear processes obviously). You can't, strictly speaking, destroy matter; but you can convert it to a wave.
Then, when you realize what nappy code exists in MyClassImpl, you can create a new class called 'MyLessSuckyClassImpl' and modify your own base code to point to the new class. Any 'outsider' should have been using 'MyClass' and thus will never know that when he updated from version 0.9 to version 1.0 that an completely different class was actually being passed through his functions. Except that it crashes less often or is faster or something. This assumes the user has no business creating such classes on his own -- generally constructors would be given protected or private access for such cases, and a static 'createXX()' function inside the Class which returns a new instance of the proper superclass of itself. Consider the java.util.Calendar() class an example.
Right, and this is precisely what is functionally wrong with java (there's also all the syntax goop, but that's a separate issue), although it is by no means limited strictly to java. The original developer of the base class(es) may have arbitrarily decided that he didn't want someone other than his contructors touching certain "internals" and thus used the horrid OOP concept of "protection" to prevent that.
Contrast that with a dynmically typed language like python (and yes, I know much of python is just old syntactic tricks rehashed, but they are DAMN good old tricks) where one can not only access any and all attributes/methods/functions (really all the same thing) but can go even deeper and modify a "superclass" (using your parlance) such that it is no longer a superclass, but is instead attached to some other inheritance mechanism and thus all of its ancestors also gain the same inheritance; and it matters not the slightest who the "outsider" or the "insider" is.
Of course, in reality, you would rarely ever need to do that in python, there are generally far simpler and more elegant ways of achieving precise dynamic behavior with pre-existing objects/classes/functions.
I believe the buzzword du'jour for this is "aspect-oriented programming", no? Or perhaps a better truism is: "aspect-oriented programming" is what you end up needing when you don't have fully dynamic types and introspection.
So to summarize, Everything you do in Java is in turn calling C or C++ code which then calls the operating system's system call.
.Net)!
Nope! Everything we do is calling either some other Java Bytecode, or native (a.k.a. machine) code (or MSIL, if we manage to let Java interface with
And how do you suppose that the byte code or "native machine code" (translation: compiled C) interacts with the OS in order to actually perform i/o or present an interface to the user in any way at all? Magic beans, perhaps?
If every person in the middle east was Buddist, Hindi, Christian, Pagan, Aethist or Agnostic the culture of violence would still exist. [emphasis added]
I suspect that the culture of violence could not exist in the region if Hindi was the predominate religion. The two are mutually incompatible.
1 death is a horrible thing.
Why? Seriously, why is a normal expected event, part of the cycle of all living things so horrible?
The horror of the attack on London is not the death; it is the continuing escalation of violence that strikes fear into the hearts of many living people. In response, the west will now feel great outrage and redouble their efforts at "rooting out" the terrorists; perhaps even going as far as beginning to officially demonize all people of arabian lineage (based on how these things have worked in the past).
Thus the cycle continues, until at last, large-scale war finally erupts. It's been how many thousands of years since civilization was first born, and yet mankind, as a whole, still has not realized how this works?
"Prior" to the big bang is about as meaningful as asking what point on the Earth's surface is the center of the world.
How is your analogy even remotely correct? I am not asking a question which has already been proven to be false, I am simply asking science to explain, even a tiny amount, the origin of the whole basis of their theory.
The analogy is correct because your question is an attempt to extrapolate an additional orthagonal relationship from any given n-dimension while somehow still remaining in the confines of said dimension.
It is identical to asking where a point with three cartesian ccordinates exists in a two-dimensional space. It's nonsense.
In more real-world terms: How can you possibly have a "before", which is a temporal construct, without having the temporal bit?
Consider the fact that it is entirely possible that the following two statements are both true:
a. The universe began at the big bang.
b. The universe has always existed.
Seems to me like a very clear-cut case of theft, by real life standards.
--snip--
I think by RL standards you have a _very_ clear-cut case of pre-meditated theft.
I'm curious. Per-chance, do you think that by real-life standards this is a clear-cut case of theft?
(Next up class: We learn all about tongue-in-cheek humor!)
So this guy is walking down the street, his stomach grumbling with hunger. In a row of a shops to the right he spots what looks like it might be a sandwich shop, but he can't tell. There's a sign with no writing up and no hours on the door.
.. the "shop" remains without "keeper." Once more he searches for some sign of till or other monetary receptacle, finding absolutely nothing. Time pressing, he finally gives up and leaves; perhaps he'll come back tomorrow and discover the truth to the great Agatha Cristie Lunchtime Mystery Special.
He walks in, and sure enough, there's a "make table" with all the goodies someone could possible want for a sandwich. Oddly though, there's nobody in sight, and no cash register! Hell, not even a tip jar to be seen. He scans the room for a price marquee, or any indication of how he might go about purchasing one of these delectable appearing sandwiches. Again, absolutely no indication of standard vending apparatus or staff!
His shouts of "Helloooo, anyone here?" go unanswered. Finally, he peeks around the establishment looking for any sign of vendor life. None. His stomach of course couldn't care less of this odd situation, and continues to complain with increasing annoyance. Finally, he gives up and decides to make himself a nice tasty lunchtime treat. He figures he'll just go ahead and eat it here; someone's sure to come along sooner or later!
Thirty minutes later, his appetite is well appeased, but still
Two hours later he is arrested for shoplifting. Apparently he missed the hidden camera in one corner of the shop.
If Alex Hanff is anything like he was when I knew him, the company are probably looking for any excuse to fire him. Apparently he was only a week into this job, but that was probably enough for the company to realise what a mistake they'd made.
Yes, I suspect that there are other factors in play here that aren't being mentioned (disclaimer: I don't personally know this fellow at all).
Most professional IT people are aware that if they have a good relationship with their employer and co-workers, the company will generally bend over backwards to keep them employed. Why? Because, as anyone who has ever had the displeasure of being responsible for staffing knows, it's damn hard to find new employees who are both competent and a good "mesh" with a given corporate culture. When you find them, you really really don't want to lose them. (Even if it means "hiding" them for a bit until the media attention cools off)
Most likely, even after that first week (and before the interview), eyebrows had been raised by some behavior or other of Mr. Hanff's.
(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)
... maybe it is, but there's another piece of the puzzle missing/not-understood. Consider the pioneer 10/11 blueshifts (slowing down w/ relation to Sol/us). The latest theory on that is non-cosmology based (more dense Kuiper belt - 10AU closer to the Sun), but should be testable via predicted minor anomalies in Neptune's orbit.
I should say it's not about doppler shift, or
If this theory turns out not to be correct, however, then we have a serious problem. It implies that either our fundamental understanding of the long-range effects of gravity is flawed (which shouldn't be too surprising, given the enigma that the gravitational force has presented in the past) or a similar flawed conception exists regarding the nature of red/blue shifts over vast distances.
Sorry, but no. Windows 2000 will happily authenticate against non-AD kerberos realms.
Let's try that again, shall we? You cannot have a 2k workstation authenticate against a kerberos realm while simultaneously being a "member" of an AD domain. You cannot delegate ticket-granting or authorization within an AD domain to non-Microsoft kerberos implementations. The closest you can get is via an inter-realm trust, which is highly unappealing for the purposes of central sign-on/management and downright unworkable in a large distributed environment.
You cannot deploy fully interoperable technologies in a distributed environment that includes any sizable microsoft base, period. Just going "one way" (authing from a *nix workstation to "AD") is exactly the problem, because in the majority of large infrastructures the desire is much more likely to be towards using heterogenous server-side products while worrying much much less about end-user workstations.
Additionally, and this is the real kicker, Microsoft's design choice of integrating Active Directory with DNS was purposefully and maliciously intended to damage networking interoperability and force companies to choose between Microsoft or "whatever isn't Microsoft." They implemented just enough of dynamic dns to be able to claim technical compatibility, but then wrapped it all up in their own proprietary cryptography in order to ensure that those implementing heterogenous solutions would be unable to use "best practices" (thus, in their eyes, making Microsoft more attactive). This is almost exactly what they did with Kerberos as well. "Sure, you can use this technology in a mixed enviornment, as long as you don't try to scale it the way it was intended.." They are plainly attempting to leverage their installed base against alternative, and often superior (in one way or another), technologies.
Microsoft takes cool stuff, dumbs it down, and makes it avaiable to everyone else. This is what has made them so popular. People who understand the cool stuff in the raw form are the minority (changing slowly). Microsofts power is directly proportional to the average person's lack of computational understanding and the lack of developer's understanding of the average person's lack of computational understanding. Microsoft can take the developers stuff that is cool but hard to use, simplify it, and distribute with marketing power behind it.
No. What Microsoft does is carefully review existing deployed technology and figure how best they can use their installed-base to render said technology as non-functional as possible while simultaneously creating increased dependency on Microsoft products. Case and point: Active Directory Services and DNS, Active Directory Services and Kerberos.
This is not about engineering, this is about marketing. Microsoft does not want you to have any non-Microsoft choices regarding what software technologies you deploy. Their past behavior has shown that they will stop at nothing to achieve this goal.
So while there is considerable "knee-jerk" reactionism to what might only amount to benign behavior on the part of Microsoft (RSS extension/design), can you really blaim people? Beat a man repeatedly enough times and he'll flinch when you raise your hand to offer him food.
I was under the impression that the phrase for opiate den patronage was "riding the dragon" not chasing it...
I suppose it's possible that both phrases could be euphemisms for the same activity, however, a quick google of the term "chasing the dragon" returns 58,200 hits with the majority of the entire first page being drug related in some aspect (first link example: http://www.biopsychiatry.com/heroin.htm/)
A syntactically identical search for "riding the dragon" returns no opiate or apparent drug related information on the first page, or on any of the first few subsequent pages.
Thus, while I cannot prove a negative, I suspect that "riding the dragon" is not the correct euphemism.
The euphemism is 'Draining the Dragon,' and it refers to going to the bathroom.
..", which euphemism exactly are you referring to?
.. ha ha ..
When you say "The euphemism is
The OP's humorous remark about the equivalent to "chasing the dragon" is a reference to the euphemism of "chasing the dragon" (oddly enough), a formerly underground term meaning heroin smoking (supposedly originated in Shanghai during the 1920s). Heroin is a very powerful opiate, so thus
But I am confused about this "draining the dragon" you speak of (I've never heard it) and just how it relates.
A lot of residential cable modem users get the same IP all the time, and we're on DHCP. In fact, my old Netgear router constantly failed to update Dynamic DNS because of this (it checked for a new IP address, but forgot to update the information every 30 days, so I got a nastygram from them).
As part of the DHCP protocol, a host is allowed to request a specific address (usually the one they had last session) before negotiating a new one. Many DHCP clients (including the one in Windows) do this, see section 3.2 of RFC2131.
Not only that, but dhcp servers (well, ok, I'm just speaking of the gold standard here -- ISC dhcpd) will attempt to give the same IP that you previously had, even if the lease has completely expired and your client knows nothing of it (for whatever reason).
Why? Because it's good networking practice and unobtrusive. Much less chance of odd client ip misconfiguration issues not to mention potentially avoiding the worst thing that can happen in a heavy dhcp environment -- a layer 3 address being "misplaced" (again, misconfigured clients, or even long-term sync issues between dhcpd peers could cause this).
So really, the moral of the story is that there are two types of static IP addresses. One of them being the traditional variety where some human being tells you what it is before-hand, and the "auto-assigned" variety you get on today's relatively static broadband connections.
What fucking amends? You sound like we have got something to apologize. For what? Liberating not one but two oppressed peoples?
How about having something to do with getting them there in the first place? Or have you completely, to use your parlance, fucking forgot about US support for Iraq/Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war between 82-88? This is fucking during the regime's use of chemical weapons against the kurds.
And you wonder why people hate "Americans" (my apologies to Canadians, Mexicans, etc)?
I don't think it's cynical as much as truthful. I read this and nodded my head in agreement, I've tried lixux every year for the past 3 or 4 years, and have found it more and more usable - but the basic stuff STILL DOES NOT WORK.
God, yes. Lixux is the absolute worst OS on the planet. Don't even bother wasting your money on it.
I don't use a calendar. Maybe this has to do with how young I am (17, going into my senior year of HS) but I've never found calendar applications useful. I use mozilla and gmail for my web/mail applications but there's just no need for a calendar. My calendar would consist of "Wake up at 3 PM, hack a little, eat, and repeat". :o)
.. let's say .. a significant portion of humans that read /.), I was born with a cpu capable of parallel-processing on a scale envied by the world's leading AI researchers.
You are not the odd man out. I am almost twice your age, and I do not use a calendar aside from occasionally typing `cal' at the $, just to see which weekdays certain dates fall on in the next few weeks.
I have just as many meetings and priorities as the next shmoe (probably more than many). Fortunately, like all humans (ok, that's probably too generous
It doesn't do math very rapidly though as it is quaintly antiquated analog technology, but for calendaring: unbeatable.
What... the... fuck
No, seriously. What the fuck? Really... what the FUCK?
Is this a sarcastic jab at hippies? Are you being serious? Trolling? This post makes so little sense it has left my frail geek mind in a state of disarray. It's a lonely, scary place in there right now.
In related news, scientists today discovered a hidden link between solar storm high-energy radiation exposure and Asperger Syndrome.
You're forgetting, this is Europe. They came and took our guns away about 50 years ago, and nobody thought to object.
;)
To be fair, for a while there it looked like you europeans were making a habit out of trying to wipe each other off the face of the planet.
It does seem as though you've gotten past that little idiosyncracy now though (even in the baltics!). Unfortunately, it appears as if the US might have contracted a bad case of the same disease.
From my understadning the best method to ensure cell coverage inside the cilyndrical faraday cage that airplanes are is the pico cell soultion.
.3 meters and GSM/PCS are in the .15 meter neighborhood (ie, windows would greatly reduce the faraday-related attenuation at these wavelengths).
People keep saying this (an airplane is a "faraday cage"), and while the fuselage certainly would severely attenuate longer wavelengths, I suspect that, in reality, an airframe makes a piss-poor faraday cage for digital cell phones.
Consider that (a) the fuselage is a composite of many dissimilar materials (both ferrites, non-ferrites and non-metallics), (b) modern cell phones are severely spread-spectrum and (c) US [non-PCS] cell phones operate at around
Their point about oxygen was that it isn't naturally occuring at all; it's produced by living organisms, which they think are unlikely to evolve on a gas giant. And they're right about Coruscant, in that planets near the core of a galaxy get too much radiation to be habitable. (But was Coruscant supposed to be that close to the core to begin with?)
<pedantic>
I assure you, oxygen is produced all the time inside of large stars (and sol sized stars as well near the end of their lives).
</pedantic>
When Mount Kilimanjaro erupted in 1912 it released more CFCs into the atmosphere than every county released during the entire industrial revolution.
What in the bloody hell are you talking about? Kilimanjaro has not erupted (or at least it hasn't been noted) in recorded history. It's considered "active", but it would seem that you pulled this 1912 eruption straight out of your ass.
Perhaps you meant the Novarupta Eruption of 1912? That would, of course, be in Alaska, nowhere near Kilimanjaro.
Volcanoes release almost nothing in the way of chlorofluorcarbos, by the way. Not that they don't release large quantities of other noxious chemicals (yes, causing climatic change, I know), but CFCs are not significant in that list.