It at least used to be that Yahoo Groups wouldn't automatically munge email addresses, meaning that non-private archives would reveal email address information to everyone that happened along.
Indeed, C is a much more complex language than people realize. I work at a company doing a lot of embedded software in C on platforms where it's rough to fit a reasonable C++ implementation, let alone Python or similar. During interviews, I see a lot of people who believe they are experts who get flummoxed by "what is the different between const int * foo and int * const foo?"
Another question that springs to mind, but is (comparatively) a less practical factoid: "What does the comma operator do?"
At the same time, the error in your examples that you highlight will be caught by most modern C compilers in some form, though you might have to tell it to give you all warnings.
I have a different hosting provider that offered a catch-all address for a long time, which I used for my email. I started receiving huge quantities of dictionary spam, and after a while the provider decided there would be no more catch-all addresses, and my spam was greatly reduced. (I wasn't really using the functionality anyhow.)
What I ask you is, what if people don't have a choice?
We know about the AOL/Time-Warner merger -- and that AOL plans to offer its service over cable modems. What if the only way you can get that service is through an AOL client? Before, people would complain, "but AOL won't run on Linux" and have a point. Now, they do -- and if they're smart this won't be x86 only. Suddenly, thousands of Linux broadband users will have to use the AOL client. For that matter, who will say that this client will allow NAT?
Well, if you read the series of articles, you would know that they finally decided they had to rebuild the system.
That in fact seems to be one of the two morals of this bunch of articles (yes, the series isn't over yet): If you're cracked, start from scratch; If you're not, make sure your network is planned from the beginning. It's far too easy to patch it together and have it work "well enough" and discover some bitrot (or worse, someone crawling in your walls like they did).
Of course, the fact that they had it done by volunteer sysadmins didn't help -- they didn't have the time to watch things as well as paid ones might.
Oddly enough, I am moving out of Rochester, NY, where last I checked I had a choice of local dialtone. Besides, if all these things are such a big deal to you, why aren't you organizing something? It honestly sounds like a worthwhile cause to me.
Everyone remember how well the Blue Ribbon campaign went against the CDA? It was hard to ignore with the graphics everywhere and everyone turning their pages black for a day.
What if there was some graphic that could be associated with this? Someone could set up a central website against anonymous reporting in general, that people would link the graphic to. Katz could tug on some of his contacts and get it in the media. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think that this will fix everything, or that everyone will share the same level of outrage -- but if we can keep up the campaign against any corporation that gets this "bright idea", it will be more injurious to them than it's worth.
The most important thing in my mind is the graphic -- lots of people work against many other issues, but a central image is what seemed to bring unity to the Blue Ribbon campaign.
How about it? I'm not artist, so I shouldn't be the one to come up with the idea for the pic, but I'd be happy to help get the ball rolling, so drop me an email.
As you may or may not be aware, Hewlett-Packard tries to protect the environment from something rather nasty -- toner. They've teamed to up pay for spent toner cartridges to be sent back to them at no cost to you. They have a section on their website where they talk about their environmental policy.
I finally used up my first toner cartridge last year and they made it trivial for me to send it back to them for recycling.
They also talk about other facets of their philanthropic image on their website, but I've never had any personal involvement, so YMMV.
To begin with, he talks about 'chickclickers' not being interested in the technology behind things, unlike males -- then says some of them are. Well, does anyone out there really think that all the males are into the technology either? Anyone who has worked a helpdesk can answer that question easily. I think Katz missed the real big picture, which is that gender-segregated media is showing up on the net in large quantities. It was always there, to be sure, but before many sites strived to be neutral. None of them are perfect, but here on/. (as an example) we seem to have a good deal of female contributors. Does that mean that women the world over are discovering and loving/.? No, no more than men are. The real big picture is that people can talk about their interests. Yes, there will be some forums (due to topic, or the starting crowd) that are female-dominated, just as there are some that will be male-dominated. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that women will flock to discussions about the possibility of "male menopause" and testosterone replacement therapy. Not to mention the point that one could find similar things in UseNet and e-mail lists years ago. It's just that now there are more people online in bulk.
How about a personal preference-based system, like the (cough) Amazon book recommendations, Firefly, or that music recommendation thing that used to be at MIT? You'd have to do a bit of browsing to get it to work, but not only would it help you find pages, but with a bit of logic, it would allow you to determine "prohibited" pages for your kids based on what you didn't like...
It could use the distributed databases another poster suggested, allowing for a truly public recommendation. Also, if you wanted to look for naughty things, you could use it to find precisely the ones you want.
It strikes me all the pseudocode is there just to cover up the lack of real material in the article. Yes, some high-tech workers don't have sex high on the priority list. It happens in Silicon Valley and I've seen it happen in Michigan (not a jab at the Geek Compound; I have friends in Michigan parts of this article describe). So some geeks like alternate sexual methodologies. So? I think that the article would have fit in one page without all the bad (and sometimes buggy) pseudocode.
In fact, I'd have to argue that various bits of alternative sexuality don't have precise protocols. Not being into all the alternatives I cannot comment on them, but I don't think there's a big book of algorithms for going about alternative sexual practices. It's just that high-tech workers know what they want. They're not about to go and not communicate their needs because they think that doing so would be filthy. We know what we want, not that we have a precise checklist.
Seeing hasn't equalled believing for some time. That's why photographs are so carefully examined for alterations when their veracity is important and why they actually investigated the "Alien Autopsy" video. This just is a new step up. Besides, oftentimes live TV is delayed slightly anyhow, to give them a chance to hit the bleep button when someone unexpectedly starts cursing.
Not to mention that while many of us may watch Trek and Star Wars, we don't necessarily believe that either is a valid vision of the future (or past, for Star Wars).
I don't trust the media anyhow, so I'm not really concerned.
It would be nice if we could somehow get all the forms filed to get Linus's hold on Linux as a trademark in every country. At least those that have trademarks. It could be called something like the Linux Trademark Plan, with a domain such as linuxtm.org.
I think you should hook up with the guys on the Linux Image Montage Project and see what they could come up with to help out. That way, it would be open source.:-)
I have a copy of it. It's still almost completely applicable. Most of what you need to know hasn't changed.
Furthermore, I would recommend it wholeheartedly. The examples cover what you need, but are simple enough to pick up quickly. With this book I picked up writing device drivers within a day.
Slashdot Mirror
It at least used to be that Yahoo Groups wouldn't automatically munge email addresses, meaning that non-private archives would reveal email address information to everyone that happened along.
Indeed, C is a much more complex language than people realize. I work at a company doing a lot of embedded software in C on platforms where it's rough to fit a reasonable C++ implementation, let alone Python or similar. During interviews, I see a lot of people who believe they are experts who get flummoxed by "what is the different between const int * foo and int * const foo?"
Another question that springs to mind, but is (comparatively) a less practical factoid: "What does the comma operator do?"
At the same time, the error in your examples that you highlight will be caught by most modern C compilers in some form, though you might have to tell it to give you all warnings.
I have a different hosting provider that offered a catch-all address for a long time, which I used for my email. I started receiving huge quantities of dictionary spam, and after a while the provider decided there would be no more catch-all addresses, and my spam was greatly reduced. (I wasn't really using the functionality anyhow.)
What I ask you is, what if people don't have a choice?
We know about the AOL/Time-Warner merger -- and that AOL plans to offer its service over cable modems. What if the only way you can get that service is through an AOL client? Before, people would complain, "but AOL won't run on Linux" and have a point. Now, they do -- and if they're smart this won't be x86 only. Suddenly, thousands of Linux broadband users will have to use the AOL client. For that matter, who will say that this client will allow NAT?
Just some thoughts...
That in fact seems to be one of the two morals of this bunch of articles (yes, the series isn't over yet): If you're cracked, start from scratch; If you're not, make sure your network is planned from the beginning. It's far too easy to patch it together and have it work "well enough" and discover some bitrot (or worse, someone crawling in your walls like they did).
Of course, the fact that they had it done by volunteer sysadmins didn't help -- they didn't have the time to watch things as well as paid ones might.
Oddly enough, I am moving out of Rochester, NY, where last I checked I had a choice of local dialtone. Besides, if all these things are such a big deal to you, why aren't you organizing something? It honestly sounds like a worthwhile cause to me.
What if there was some graphic that could be associated with this? Someone could set up a central website against anonymous reporting in general, that people would link the graphic to. Katz could tug on some of his contacts and get it in the media. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think that this will fix everything, or that everyone will share the same level of outrage -- but if we can keep up the campaign against any corporation that gets this "bright idea", it will be more injurious to them than it's worth.
The most important thing in my mind is the graphic -- lots of people work against many other issues, but a central image is what seemed to bring unity to the Blue Ribbon campaign.
How about it? I'm not artist, so I shouldn't be the one to come up with the idea for the pic, but I'd be happy to help get the ball rolling, so drop me an email.
I finally used up my first toner cartridge last year and they made it trivial for me to send it back to them for recycling.
They also talk about other facets of their philanthropic image on their website, but I've never had any personal involvement, so YMMV.
To begin with, he talks about 'chickclickers' not being interested in the technology behind things, unlike males -- then says some of them are. Well, does anyone out there really think that all the males are into the technology either? Anyone who has worked a helpdesk can answer that question easily. I think Katz missed the real big picture, which is that gender-segregated media is showing up on the net in large quantities. It was always there, to be sure, but before many sites strived to be neutral. None of them are perfect, but here on /. (as an example) we seem to have a good deal of female contributors. Does that mean that women the world over are discovering and loving /.? No, no more than men are. The real big picture is that people can talk about their interests. Yes, there will be some forums (due to topic, or the starting crowd) that are female-dominated, just as there are some that will be male-dominated. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that women will flock to discussions about the possibility of "male menopause" and testosterone replacement therapy. Not to mention the point that one could find similar things in UseNet and e-mail lists years ago. It's just that now there are more people online in bulk.
It could use the distributed databases another poster suggested, allowing for a truly public recommendation. Also, if you wanted to look for naughty things, you could use it to find precisely the ones you want.
It strikes me all the pseudocode is there just to cover up the lack of real material in the article. Yes, some high-tech workers don't have sex high on the priority list. It happens in Silicon Valley and I've seen it happen in Michigan (not a jab at the Geek Compound; I have friends in Michigan parts of this article describe). So some geeks like alternate sexual methodologies. So? I think that the article would have fit in one page without all the bad (and sometimes buggy) pseudocode.
In fact, I'd have to argue that various bits of alternative sexuality don't have precise protocols. Not being into all the alternatives I cannot comment on them, but I don't think there's a big book of algorithms for going about alternative sexual practices. It's just that high-tech workers know what they want. They're not about to go and not communicate their needs because they think that doing so would be filthy. We know what we want, not that we have a precise checklist.
Seeing hasn't equalled believing for some time. That's why photographs are so carefully examined for alterations when their veracity is important and why they actually investigated the "Alien Autopsy" video. This just is a new step up. Besides, oftentimes live TV is delayed slightly anyhow, to give them a chance to hit the bleep button when someone unexpectedly starts cursing.
Not to mention that while many of us may watch Trek and Star Wars, we don't necessarily believe that either is a valid vision of the future (or past, for Star Wars).
I don't trust the media anyhow, so I'm not really concerned.
This isn't the first time this has come up.
It would be nice if we could somehow get all the forms filed to get Linus's hold on Linux as a trademark in every country. At least those that have trademarks. It could be called something like the Linux Trademark Plan, with a domain such as linuxtm.org.
I think you should hook up with the guys on the Linux Image Montage Project and see what they could come up with to help out. That way, it would be open source. :-)
Furthermore, I would recommend it wholeheartedly. The examples cover what you need, but are simple enough to pick up quickly. With this book I picked up writing device drivers within a day.