You can only whistle FSK with a single mouth. QAM and friends are totally out.
And yes, I can get a Bell 103 modem to "connect" using nothing more than my mouth and a telephone. I cannot, however, select what data I want to transmit.
What's REALLY odd is that the Sun Solaris guys *do* know to patch. They've been doing a great job for over a decade.
Well, although, recently, they've had their heads messed with by the people who want to sell support licenses.
But I can't for the life of my understand why the Java group is so thorough thick. It's as though when they started the Java project they hired ONLY noobs, and even today, have only promoted from within and forbidden senior developers or experienced managers from joining the group.
Does Java uses finalizers? If so, how do they differ from C++ destructors?
(Honest question - I'm not a Java guy but IIRC I found the finalizer concept in Java useful in understanding finalization (called during GC) in Spidermonkey.)
might work a little better, and have similar storage semantics. However, what makes Time Machine innovative is the great time-based UI in the finder.
(Or so I've been told. I personally don't make backups, I store everything on triply-redundant RAID5 volumes and hope like I hell I never erase something by accident)
Of course you have to convert it to/from strings, duh, you can't put an abstract concept like an object on a wire and send it across the internet. So we represent the object some other way. A string is a perfectly fine way.
And -- Oh -- it's a string which which contains a JavaScript object literal. Now, what do you call the language subset which defines the string appearance of a Javascript object literal? JavaScript Object Notation seems pretty damned reasonable.
Don't like calling eval() to parse the object literal? Why not? It's an object literal; to turn ANY piece of source code (and that's what it is, source code for an object) you need to run a parser over it. It turns out that eval() is a pretty damned good JavaScript parser.
You could, if you we were so inclined, parse the JavaScript yourself. And, in fact, if you only wanted to support objects -- not the whole JavaScript language -- you might want to only parse a limited subset of JavaScript, which some freaky has guy (who works at Yahoo) has decided to call JSON.
Now, what's the best way to write a limited-function parser in JavaScript, and still have it be really fast?
Use native constructs.
Hmm, but does JavaScript have any native constructs which allow us to easily build parsers which understand small regular grammars? Hint: there's a reason they're called regular expressions.
So, the current common/secure technique is to use a regexp parser to validate the input to eval(), because that's the fastest way (two calls, both into native code).
Now, how the hell can we MAKE these objects? Well, it's pretty easy from JavaScript; the.toSource() method and/or uneval calls work pretty good.
So, we now have a general-purpose way to serialize/deserialize javascript objects into something we can send over a network. If you wanted to, that's enough to start a cult and try to build a career around. You could even describe it really complicatedly (like on http://www.json.org/). Or, you could build a compilcated object/class hierarchy around it, like this guy http://www.devpro.it/JSON/files/JSON-js.html -- I suppose you could even come up with something as complicated as DCOM or CORBA if you were really bored.
But it's still nothing more than winging JavaScript source code around the internet, and validating it somehow [regexp] if you don't trust its contents.
That's funny, you just reminded me of programming a game on the Timex-Sinclair 1000 (Sinclair ZX81 w/ 2K RAM). The thing you moved around the screen was <*>. I thought it was duck-beak, star, backwards-duck-beak.
Content filtering is not only costly in terms of CPU, it's costly in terms of man-power if you care about maintaining a super-low false positive rate.
Our organization manually reviews N% of all incoming e-mail for training purposes, at a cost of about Y man-months per year. That's real dollars.
Blocklists are still the most effective anti-spam weapon, but are a huge problem in terms of false positives. So.. block list selection is incredibly important.
Gmail servers have hit a variety of DNS blacklists in the past. They still get on every now and then. I have to run a whitelist in front of my blacklists to make sure I don't block gmail by accident.
I personally loathe having to MAKE things work. It irritates me, I have better things to do with my life than to relive the hell that was my university-era life, where fixing PCs was my way of paying the bills.
My mac mini is great. I took it out of the box, plugged it in, and turned it on. Other than setting up system prefs on the first day, and clicking "Sure, go ahead, run the update", I haven't done _anything_ to it from a maintenance point of view.
Now, my Windows laptop on the other hand.... don't get me started.
> I for one will NEVER by a MAC or any other APPLE product > just over this alone.
Over this alone? You mean, aside from this, you would have?
One might that that someone such as yourself might be equally appalled at Apple's attempted stomping of the VTech Laser, an Apple//c clone.
I can forgive them for taking Franklin to court; Franklin pirated the ROMs. VTech licensed the Applesoft BASIC (from MS) and reversed the rest of the ROMs.
Laser, on the other hand, actually innovated on the//c.
Being directed and being redirected are REALLY subtle differences in the mind of a techno-plebe. And no, in Canada, there is no requirement for journalists to hold CS degrees.
So, when something's directed to one place, and then directed to another place, it's not strange for a reporter to assume that it was redirected, as opposed to newly directed.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, I never thought I'd get to play this game which such a high UID!
I just didn't have anything to say for a couple of years, so I never registered.
That's not physiologically possible.
You can only whistle FSK with a single mouth. QAM and friends are totally out.
And yes, I can get a Bell 103 modem to "connect" using nothing more than my mouth and a telephone. I cannot, however, select what data I want to transmit.
What's REALLY odd is that the Sun Solaris guys *do* know to patch. They've been doing a great job for over a decade.
Well, although, recently, they've had their heads messed with by the people who want to sell support licenses.
But I can't for the life of my understand why the Java group is so thorough thick. It's as though when they started the Java project they hired ONLY noobs, and even today, have only promoted from within and forbidden senior developers or experienced managers from joining the group.
Does Java uses finalizers? If so, how do they differ from C++ destructors?
(Honest question - I'm not a Java guy but IIRC I found the finalizer concept in Java useful in understanding finalization (called during GC) in Spidermonkey.)
Abby and McGee have had a copy of that for what... five seasons?
Wow, that's REALLY sad. And a great way to get your ass TOTALLY owned in court!
Too bad you don't pay as much attention to the fuel level in your motorcycle as you do your exchange stores and SAN.
It's all the CPU/GPU and cooling required for the facial-recognition software.
You didn't REALLY think they're changing them all just to go LED, did you?
Especially if he wants to back up files with dots in them!
Something like
find $dir -newer $lastBackup | tar -T - -zcvf backup`date +%s`.tar.gz
might work a little better, and have similar storage semantics. However, what makes Time Machine innovative is the great time-based UI in the finder.
(Or so I've been told. I personally don't make backups, I store everything on triply-redundant RAID5 volumes and hope like I hell I never erase something by accident)
Sun T3s (storage arrays) use batteries inside the power supply. These are a ~4U box with 9 disks on fibre.
Effing expensive batteries ($1200), one in each power supply, and they have to replaced every three years. *grumble*
> I subtly train employers not to call me. i purposely miss their
> calls, let their call ring while i'm sitting there,
I hope you're good at what you do.
Because I'd fire your ass if I caught you ducking my calls.
I don't know where you live, but where _I_ live, most power is either coal, hydro, or nuclear.
I checked the US as well, oil was the source of only 3% of the nation's power in 2005.
http://www.teachengineering.com/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_images/cub_earth_lesson08_figure5.jpg
Of course you have to convert it to/from strings, duh, you can't put an abstract concept like an object on a wire and send it across the internet. So we represent the object some other way. A string is a perfectly fine way.
And -- Oh -- it's a string which which contains a JavaScript object literal. Now, what do you call the language subset which defines the string appearance of a Javascript object literal? JavaScript Object Notation seems pretty damned reasonable.
Don't like calling eval() to parse the object literal? Why not? It's an object literal; to turn ANY piece of source code (and that's what it is, source code for an object) you need to run a parser over it. It turns out that eval() is a pretty damned good JavaScript parser.
You could, if you we were so inclined, parse the JavaScript yourself. And, in fact, if you only wanted to support objects -- not the whole JavaScript language -- you might want to only parse a limited subset of JavaScript, which some freaky has guy (who works at Yahoo) has decided to call JSON.
Now, what's the best way to write a limited-function parser in JavaScript, and still have it be really fast?
Use native constructs.
Hmm, but does JavaScript have any native constructs which allow us to easily build parsers which understand small regular grammars? Hint: there's a reason they're called regular expressions.
So, the current common/secure technique is to use a regexp parser to validate the input to eval(), because that's the fastest way (two calls, both into native code).
Now, how the hell can we MAKE these objects? Well, it's pretty easy from JavaScript; the .toSource() method and/or uneval calls work pretty good.
So, we now have a general-purpose way to serialize/deserialize javascript objects into something we can send over a network. If you wanted to, that's enough to start a cult and try to build a career around. You could even describe it really complicatedly (like on http://www.json.org/). Or, you could build a compilcated object/class hierarchy around it, like this guy http://www.devpro.it/JSON/files/JSON-js.html -- I suppose you could even come up with something as complicated as DCOM or CORBA if you were really bored.
But it's still nothing more than winging JavaScript source code around the internet, and validating it somehow [regexp] if you don't trust its contents.
> when I barely knew what a less than sign meant
That's funny, you just reminded me of programming a game on the Timex-Sinclair 1000 (Sinclair ZX81 w/ 2K RAM). The thing you moved around the screen was <*>. I thought it was duck-beak, star, backwards-duck-beak.
Content filtering is not only costly in terms of CPU, it's costly in terms of man-power if you care about maintaining a super-low false positive rate.
Our organization manually reviews N% of all incoming e-mail for training purposes, at a cost of about Y man-months per year. That's real dollars.
Blocklists are still the most effective anti-spam weapon, but are a huge problem in terms of false positives. So.. block list selection is incredibly important.
[ N and Y redacted ]
Gmail servers have hit a variety of DNS blacklists in the past. They still get on every now and then. I have to run a whitelist in front of my blacklists to make sure I don't block gmail by accident.
I love all-in-one computers.
They either work or they don't.
I personally loathe having to MAKE things work. It irritates me, I have better things to do with my life than to relive the hell that was my university-era life, where fixing PCs was my way of paying the bills.
My mac mini is great. I took it out of the box, plugged it in, and turned it on. Other than setting up system prefs on the first day, and clicking "Sure, go ahead, run the update", I haven't done _anything_ to it from a maintenance point of view.
Now, my Windows laptop on the other hand.... don't get me started.
> I for one will NEVER by a MAC or any other APPLE product
> just over this alone.
Over this alone? You mean, aside from this, you would have?
One might that that someone such as yourself might be equally appalled at Apple's attempted stomping of the VTech Laser, an Apple //c clone.
I can forgive them for taking Franklin to court; Franklin pirated the ROMs. VTech licensed the Applesoft BASIC (from MS) and reversed the rest of the ROMs.
Laser, on the other hand, actually innovated on the //c.
All poodles are dogs.
But all dogs are not necessarily poodles.
> My laptop bag is my brief case
Oh, well THAT explains it. Personally, I keep them in my top dresser drawer.
> Speaking of liberating, once I forgot a change of underwear
Well, that's what you get for keeping your laptop in your brief case.
You could always write it as a web app.
VBScript, tabular data control databindings to read the CSV....
Your users run IE, right? :)
Being directed and being redirected are REALLY subtle differences in the mind of a techno-plebe. And no, in Canada, there is no requirement for journalists to hold CS degrees.
So, when something's directed to one place, and then directed to another place, it's not strange for a reporter to assume that it was redirected, as opposed to newly directed.
On the off chance that it does, and the even off-er chance that it's plugged in... have it call your telephone and read the Caller ID back.
How about a microphone? Turn it on and spy on them.
How about a camera? Ditto.
Wifi card? Sniff the area and see if you can't figure out who his neighbours are. Hotels, Starbucks, etc.
Or, put a squid box on the 'net and send all his HTTP through it. Then trolls through his HTTP traffic and try and figure who he is.
Dude, you owe me a monitor.
Note to self: Do not drink coke while reading /.
Man, where's Charles Eppes when you need something explained to you in layman's terms?
Is that Turk-Telecom that got banned?
Because, I gotta say, wow, that netblock generates a LOT of spam. Seriously. Like 25% of my spam comes from there.