Having had the misfortune of witnessing many different methodologies (a word that I hate - it's a nonsense word when used in that context, it is not a study of methods, it is merely a method), and a wide range of teams with varying experience, I think that Agile does have its uses. It's good for making sure that sloppy non-self-motivated people keep making progress. There's nothing software-engineering-specific in that, it would work just as well in a many contexts (such as producing a textbook with many authors, or even creating an album if you're a band like 60s/70s Pink Floyd). Of course, whilst the micromanagement would be annoying, more than objecting to that I'd rather not be working with such a team of sloppy and non-self-motivated people.
That depends on what OS they're running. And whether they need to change anything in that OS itself. And whether they think they can trust the current state of the system. If the reason you're patching the software is because there's a bug which means you can't trust the state of the system, such as a scribbler, then the last thing you want to do is to attempt to continue running in that state (even dumping your state for later debugging is dangerous - you can no longer trust the data that in the flash driver), you must start from scratch, i.e. a reboot.
Exactly. That's how it's done in the telecomms world (infrastructure, not terminals). Typically the new software is given three attempts to boot, and if it doesn't acknowledge that it's fully booted after three attempts, the bootloader falls back to the previous version of the software. Of course, things get tricker if you need to update the bootloader, but those should be very rare situations. However, they in turn can be handled a similar way (typically there's a 3-stage boot, the initial being a ROM bootstrap, then your bootloader, then the OS which you'll want to change).
No, 5% of what's in that blog post is useful, but not even insightful (then again, perhaps I already have more insights than most, having spent about a third of my working life at nokia, including the last 4 years; however, it's all been said a dozen times already). The other 95% is inane gibbering.
They were whores who were totally dependent on nokia, and when nokia started heading resolutely down the path to doom and gloom last year, digia realised they were fucked, and started YT (co-determination) negotiations before any other consultancy in Finland. (Although only by a couple of days, there was a lot of fuckage at that time (and still is).)
That, and they're a MS house. I think this is bad news for Qt.
What privacy? You signed that away a long time ago. This is merely the wider exercising of something that's been possible and legal for a very long time.
No-one yet has cited the precise point in time that this registration info became public, and who signed it off. Don't just whine, go and do some useful research instead.
Exactly. As I read it (and I have a weird view on things sometimes), I felt that this new app was a clean, fresh, and honest breath of fresh air - it's the history that is creepy.
> No, it is not. You need go back to Cryptography 101.
> A properly seeded hash using a proper cryptographic one-way hash function is impossible to revert using todays and any technology within the forseable future. It's not a matter of raising CPU powers by a few orders of magnitude, but by a couple billion orders of magnitude.
You need to go back to Mathematics 101. These functions have a brute force work factor of between about 2^160 and 2^512, or about 10^50-10^150. Related problems which are currently tractible have work factor about 10^20. Therefore an increase of between 30 and 130, not "a few billion", orders of magnitde would put make a preimage attack feasible.
There's more than one "looks right". If a static image looks stunning - photographic quality - then that's a wonderful feature to have. However, your immersion can be blown out of the water immediately if the NPCs look like beautifully rendered arthritic marionettes when they move. Or if objects don't obey simple laws of physics like conservation of momentum.
(Yes, I hate superman movies, as when a lorry hits him, he should be moved backwards, unless he's of enormous mass, in which case he should collapse any floor he walks upon, etc. etc.)
There are loudspeaker horns behind every starting place. Every racer is the same distance from his horn. If they are too stupid to listen to the amplified version, and wait for the real shot to reach them, then they deserve to lose.
Nope. They turn 5 (pairs of) lights on one (pair) at a time a second apart. Then there's a random delay (seems to commonly be about 2-5s), and they all go out simultaniously.
Sometimes Samsung just ask a design company to design, program and build a phone to their specification. In 2005, I was working for a semiconductor chipset vendor, and one of these design companies was building a phone for Samsung based on our platform. Samsung basically were hands-off the whole time. In fact, they asked 2 competing design houses to build exactly the same spec (look and feel, not innards) phone. Whichever one made them happy first, they ran with. I mean literally - Samsung did *nothing*.
Slashdot Mirror
Having had the misfortune of witnessing many different methodologies (a word that I hate - it's a nonsense word when used in that context, it is not a study of methods, it is merely a method), and a wide range of teams with varying experience, I think that Agile does have its uses. It's good for making sure that sloppy non-self-motivated people keep making progress. There's nothing software-engineering-specific in that, it would work just as well in a many contexts (such as producing a textbook with many authors, or even creating an album if you're a band like 60s/70s Pink Floyd). Of course, whilst the micromanagement would be annoying, more than objecting to that I'd rather not be working with such a team of sloppy and non-self-motivated people.
That depends on what OS they're running. And whether they need to change anything in that OS itself. And whether they think they can trust the current state of the system. If the reason you're patching the software is because there's a bug which means you can't trust the state of the system, such as a scribbler, then the last thing you want to do is to attempt to continue running in that state (even dumping your state for later debugging is dangerous - you can no longer trust the data that in the flash driver), you must start from scratch, i.e. a reboot.
I can't even get to that stage, it keeps giving me a keyboard error - did no-one stick one on Curiosity?
Exactly. That's how it's done in the telecomms world (infrastructure, not terminals). Typically the new software is given three attempts to boot, and if it doesn't acknowledge that it's fully booted after three attempts, the bootloader falls back to the previous version of the software. Of course, things get tricker if you need to update the bootloader, but those should be very rare situations. However, they in turn can be handled a similar way (typically there's a 3-stage boot, the initial being a ROM bootstrap, then your bootloader, then the OS which you'll want to change).
I think the one who mentions a territory that used to be tropical is the one who's trying to be deceptive.
No, 5% of what's in that blog post is useful, but not even insightful (then again, perhaps I already have more insights than most, having spent about a third of my working life at nokia, including the last 4 years; however, it's all been said a dozen times already). The other 95% is inane gibbering.
While about 5% of what Ahonen says is insightful, about 95% of it is just inane gibbering. His blog is best avoided.
Nope.
They were whores who were totally dependent on nokia, and when nokia started heading resolutely down the path to doom and gloom last year, digia realised they were fucked, and started YT (co-determination) negotiations before any other consultancy in Finland. (Although only by a couple of days, there was a lot of fuckage at that time (and still is).)
That, and they're a MS house. I think this is bad news for Qt.
... it must not be able to interbreed with the currently known species.
/canis lupus familiaris/, appearance is particularly feeble evidence.
How did these "scientists" determine what it can and what it cannot interbreed with just from a photo?
Given that a giant mastiff and a miniture chihuahua are both of the species
> And about those tropical fossils under the north (and south) pole(s)...
You do realise that what is currently the south pole was level with Australia and abutting India when some of that fossil record was being laid down?
Exacerbated, though I like the idea of a dust-bowl being exasperated.
Screw you, slashdot, and your broken double-escaping of my e-acute.
I thought that was just a réaumur.
What privacy? You signed that away a long time ago. This is merely the wider exercising of something that's been possible and legal for a very long time.
No-one yet has cited the precise point in time that this registration info became public, and who signed it off. Don't just whine, go and do some useful research instead.
Exactly. As I read it (and I have a weird view on things sometimes), I felt that this new app was a clean, fresh, and honest breath of fresh air - it's the history that is creepy.
>> It is *always possible to recover* a password.
> No, it is not. You need go back to Cryptography 101.
> A properly seeded hash using a proper cryptographic one-way hash function is impossible to revert using todays and any technology within the forseable future. It's not a matter of raising CPU powers by a few orders of magnitude, but by a couple billion orders of magnitude.
You need to go back to Mathematics 101. These functions have a brute force work factor of between about 2^160 and 2^512, or about 10^50-10^150. Related problems which are currently tractible have work factor about 10^20. Therefore an increase of between 30 and 130, not "a few billion", orders of magnitde would put make a preimage attack feasible.
. for path, # for wall, surely?
Not that I remember clearly, it's at least 2 weeks since I played a roguelike.
There's more than one "looks right". If a static image looks stunning - photographic quality - then that's a wonderful feature to have. However, your immersion can be blown out of the water immediately if the NPCs look like beautifully rendered arthritic marionettes when they move. Or if objects don't obey simple laws of physics like conservation of momentum.
(Yes, I hate superman movies, as when a lorry hits him, he should be moved backwards, unless he's of enormous mass, in which case he should collapse any floor he walks upon, etc. etc.)
There are loudspeaker horns behind every starting place. Every racer is the same distance from his horn. If they are too stupid to listen to the amplified version, and wait for the real shot to reach them, then they deserve to lose.
Nope. They turn 5 (pairs of) lights on one (pair) at a time a second apart. Then there's a random delay (seems to commonly be about 2-5s), and they all go out simultaniously.
Lights going out seems to work for Formula 1 drivers, and many other vehicle racing formulae.
Nope, but I've been to drag night at a strip club, does that count?
Trust me - you need quick reactions!
How about boots on the end of spring-loaded sticks?
Race starts - you get a kick up the arse.
Simple mechanics - can't fail.
Sometimes Samsung just ask a design company to design, program and build a phone to their specification. In 2005, I was working for a semiconductor chipset vendor, and one of these design companies was building a phone for Samsung based on our platform. Samsung basically were hands-off the whole time. In fact, they asked 2 competing design houses to build exactly the same spec (look and feel, not innards) phone. Whichever one made them happy first, they ran with. I mean literally - Samsung did *nothing*.
It's just another fashion. It will pass.