One, as other people have pointed out, spammers run dictionary-based attacks on ISP's domains. Sometimes, ISPs with multiple domains have them all connected so username@ one domain works for all of them. Due to this and other factors, chances are good that more than one email address can be delivered to any given "public" or "real" address.
So, my email I give out is username@pacifier.com. Pacifier also runs other domains. I frequently get spams for username@pacifier.rain.com, username@paclink.com, etc., addresses which until I got those spams I didn't even know existed.
I'll bet the reason Safari couldn't handle that XML -- which Mozilla 1.3b didn't run on my debian system until I copied it locally and fixed the XML problems -- was that it wasn't really XML. The MIME type is "text/plain" and it didn't have a proper XML declaration.
Ah... Fair enough. Didn't realize it was an actual thing... I thought it was just wishful thinking.:-)
But in the first two pages of Google results for "Executable UML", I can find no concrete information about it. Lots of claims of "100% code generation" and that sort of thing, but very little that says how you actually define your UML-described behaviors, though there are lots of books, and lots of products for sale.
The best I can find is a quick reference in a PDF to a "set of archetypes" and this: "you'll use a CASE tool to develop detailed UML diagrams, and then supplement them with specifications written in a formal language." (Google cache) That sounds a lot like.... traditional programming. Something you'd perhaps use a text editor for. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Come to think of it, this is a lot like the results I got searching for a completely different software engineering fad, Aspect Oriented Programming. Of course that had an entire issue of the Communications of the ACM filled with claims and no actual demonstrations.:-)
Hm. You can draw pretty lines in UML all day long, but at some point the behavior that UML is representing has to get turned into ones and zeros that your processor can execute. Even if you have large libraries of predefined modules, you still will not have any sort of flexibility -- unless you whittle those libraries down to the level of source code.
And I think I'd rather use a text editor to type "for(int i=0; i<10; i++) {... }" than drag a "Loop" module into my diagram and fill out a dialog box.
Perhaps we could send inspectors to investigate the company and require them to prove they destroyed all the unlawful code that we had previously given them.
Obviously, no matter where you shop, it's much cheaper to make your own clothes (excluding your time, which open source doesn't take into account anyway), so who here makes their own clothes?
Have you actually investigated this? When I looked into making my own clothes, I was unable to find cloth for prices that would beat buying new clothes, even at Wal-Mart. It seems to be a hobbyist market, so the prices are really high.
Even if they don't, as someone else suggested, always fill in the fields with the same bogus data, they'll figure out a way to create an empty document, save that with bogus data, then always open the document and save it under a new name or with as little extra typing as possible.
And then, they'll demand that YOU find it. The only way to solve these problems is to make the computer smarter than the user. Shouldn't be hard, but it is.:-)
Come on, the potential change in the public school's funding shouldn't be part of anyone's decisions on education. If the school works, use it. If it would work better, if it were better funded, then sure, use it. But it's the bad (I would say pathological) design of the system, not the funding, that makes the public school system fail. The current lack of money just makes the failure more extreme.
I can just imagine the affected school board's newsletters to parents -- "We can't do a good job of teaching your children academics, but we do expose them to a herd mentality, inefficient bureacracy and mistrust from the administration, and to brute aggression from the football team, which nurtures blind obedience and avoidance of conflict, necessary skills for surviving in a modern corporation! Also, please don't allow the cute little revenue units[1] to leave, because we need the cash they represent. Think of what the others might miss out on!"
Seriously, do you really believe that an average public school system provides a well rounded education to the typical student? Some people graduate without the ability to read. I was in the gifted-and-talented set, like many others here, and it's a joke. AFAICT, it exists to keep smart people out of the teacher's hair. My experience is with the California and Oregon systems; perhaps others are better. (I was also homeschooled for a few years, and my sisters are homeschooled.) But when you put 30 people in a room and say "You will learn this material, whether you like it or not", you're never going to get good results. Some of them will learn the material, some of them will ignore it completely, and some will just cause problems. Those who learn, would probably learn well under any system, and would probably learn better under a system that encourages them to pursue what interests them, rather than dictating a curriculum. The others aren't being helped at all. At best, they remember what they have to in order to pass the next test, then they forget it. If anything manages to stick, it's only due to massive repetition, not because the student wants to know it. What's the point of making them learn it in the first place? They don't care about it. This is pure speculation, fueled by my biases, but I bet an average high school senior can't even do long division, and a high percentage probably can't tell you who wrote a book that was required reading for them, or what the main theme was. That was certainly true at *my* high school, 7 years ago, and by all accounts it's worse now. Disagree?
I believe that people can end up with good and bad educations from all kinds of systems, and learning is pretty much up to each individual. It works best, I think, when someone can direct his own studies, with guidance, and in the current world, homeschooling can be a good approximation of that. If public schools were better designed, they could be a resource that no homeschool group could possibly match. But unfortunately, the schools are founded on the belief that education is something that must be forced into people. Even if they were fully funded and working right, the poor design would make homeschooling a better option.
Certainly people can sometimes do a poor job of homeschooling. However, there are many other options that are much better designed than the American public schools. I think Montessori schools are an interesting system, but I have no experience with them.
[1] "Revenue unit" was the term used for a full-time student in the 2000 Oregon University System budget. I don't know if any K-12 systems use that term, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.
I have to respond to this - you are seriously confused.
Good idea gone very bad - now you tell me where they went wrong.
It's a work of fiction. Maybe you can find an example of this happening in real life? This "learning is dangerous if not tightly controlled" idea is itself pretty dangerous.
Too many people are expecting the educational system to be tailored to their needs, without realizing that dealing with an imperfect [educational] system is part of the learning process itself.
First, the OP suggested withdrawing from the educational system and doing it yourself, not changing the system. Second, the "educational" system is perhaps the single most corrupt and twisted system there is. It's Lord of the Flies mixed with 1984. That makes it a really bad place to learn about imperfect systems or any other sort of humanity, since it has so little humanity itself.
This is fine, but then the problem occurs that you discover your original measurements were wrong, (or just inaccurate) but the old lengths are by now established. You then will have to redefine your everyday unit of length" as 1.28462341 * 10 ^ 12 hydrodgen-atom-widths (or whatever) and it's become just as arbitrary as the meter.
Slashdot Mirror
God, I hope they patented that and sue the hell out of everyone who does it :-)
... for many reasons.
One, as other people have pointed out, spammers run dictionary-based attacks on ISP's domains. Sometimes, ISPs with multiple domains have them all connected so username@ one domain works for all of them. Due to this and other factors, chances are good that more than one email address can be delivered to any given "public" or "real" address.
So, my email I give out is username@pacifier.com. Pacifier also runs other domains. I frequently get spams for username@pacifier.rain.com, username@paclink.com, etc., addresses which until I got those spams I didn't even know existed.
I'll bet the reason Safari couldn't handle that XML -- which Mozilla 1.3b didn't run on my debian system until I copied it locally and fixed the XML problems -- was that it wasn't really XML. The MIME type is "text/plain" and it didn't have a proper XML declaration.
What is that "Thing" I described above? I mean, I used text .... so you surely know what it is and ... erm ... who it is?
:-)
Let's look at that again, in pseudo-UML...
(Imagine this as a pretty box. This is the best I could do with the lameness filter.)
==========
Thing
==========
Leg left(length=0.85m)
Leg righ(length=0.85m)
Corpus corpus(weight = 55kg)
Head head(haircolor =red))
==========
Oh, yes, well *now* it's obvious what it is...
Ah... Fair enough. Didn't realize it was an actual thing... I thought it was just wishful thinking. :-)
.... traditional programming. Something you'd perhaps use a text editor for. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
:-)
But in the first two pages of Google results for "Executable UML", I can find no concrete information about it. Lots of claims of "100% code generation" and that sort of thing, but very little that says how you actually define your UML-described behaviors, though there are lots of books, and lots of products for sale.
The best I can find is a quick reference in a PDF to a "set of archetypes" and this: "you'll use a CASE tool to develop detailed UML diagrams, and then supplement them with specifications written in a formal language." (Google cache) That sounds a lot like
Come to think of it, this is a lot like the results I got searching for a completely different software engineering fad, Aspect Oriented Programming. Of course that had an entire issue of the Communications of the ACM filled with claims and no actual demonstrations.
Hm. You can draw pretty lines in UML all day long, but at some point the behavior that UML is representing has to get turned into ones and zeros that your processor can execute. Even if you have large libraries of predefined modules, you still will not have any sort of flexibility -- unless you whittle those libraries down to the level of source code.
... }" than drag a "Loop" module into my diagram and fill out a dialog box.
And I think I'd rather use a text editor to type "for(int i=0; i<10; i++) {
What would you prefer?
Where were they, later, when the hired goons were beating on your kidneys? :-)
Perhaps we could send inspectors to investigate the company and require them to prove they destroyed all the unlawful code that we had previously given them.
Like so:
You're welcome :-)
Heh. Good point, but buying sheep, or acreage to grow cotton, or a chemical lab to make polyester, is *quite* expensive. :-)
Have you actually investigated this? When I looked into making my own clothes, I was unable to find cloth for prices that would beat buying new clothes, even at Wal-Mart. It seems to be a hobbyist market, so the prices are really high.
Sorry, that was JP Morgan Chase, not BofA. No word on their infection. :-)
According to eweek the BofA infection was traced to some manager with an infected laptop. Still, that's too close for my comfort.
No kidding. I had a hard drive fall off the top of a computer once while it was running (carelessness). $4000 later, we got the data back on CD-ROM...
Heh. Fortunately the theory of evolution doesn't make any claims regarding the beginning of life. :-)
No, please do. That would be a nice diversion from the usual holy wars :-)
Even if they don't, as someone else suggested, always fill in the fields with the same bogus data, they'll figure out a way to create an empty document, save that with bogus data, then always open the document and save it under a new name or with as little extra typing as possible.
:-)
And then, they'll demand that YOU find it. The only way to solve these problems is to make the computer smarter than the user. Shouldn't be hard, but it is.
hmmm...
:-)
$ wc -l access_log
2433667 access_log
$ grep Gecko access_log | wc -l
96362
Almost 4% since yesterday morning!
Guess we're all confused. It reminded me of Maximilian from The Black Hole. :-)
Come on, the potential change in the public school's funding shouldn't be part of anyone's decisions on education. If the school works, use it. If it would work better, if it were better funded, then sure, use it. But it's the bad (I would say pathological) design of the system, not the funding, that makes the public school system fail. The current lack of money just makes the failure more extreme.
I can just imagine the affected school board's newsletters to parents -- "We can't do a good job of teaching your children academics, but we do expose them to a herd mentality, inefficient bureacracy and mistrust from the administration, and to brute aggression from the football team, which nurtures blind obedience and avoidance of conflict, necessary skills for surviving in a modern corporation! Also, please don't allow the cute little revenue units[1] to leave, because we need the cash they represent. Think of what the others might miss out on!"
Seriously, do you really believe that an average public school system provides a well rounded education to the typical student? Some people graduate without the ability to read. I was in the gifted-and-talented set, like many others here, and it's a joke. AFAICT, it exists to keep smart people out of the teacher's hair. My experience is with the California and Oregon systems; perhaps others are better. (I was also homeschooled for a few years, and my sisters are homeschooled.) But when you put 30 people in a room and say "You will learn this material, whether you like it or not", you're never going to get good results. Some of them will learn the material, some of them will ignore it completely, and some will just cause problems. Those who learn, would probably learn well under any system, and would probably learn better under a system that encourages them to pursue what interests them, rather than dictating a curriculum. The others aren't being helped at all. At best, they remember what they have to in order to pass the next test, then they forget it. If anything manages to stick, it's only due to massive repetition, not because the student wants to know it. What's the point of making them learn it in the first place? They don't care about it. This is pure speculation, fueled by my biases, but I bet an average high school senior can't even do long division, and a high percentage probably can't tell you who wrote a book that was required reading for them, or what the main theme was. That was certainly true at *my* high school, 7 years ago, and by all accounts it's worse now. Disagree?
I believe that people can end up with good and bad educations from all kinds of systems, and learning is pretty much up to each individual. It works best, I think, when someone can direct his own studies, with guidance, and in the current world, homeschooling can be a good approximation of that. If public schools were better designed, they could be a resource that no homeschool group could possibly match. But unfortunately, the schools are founded on the belief that education is something that must be forced into people. Even if they were fully funded and working right, the poor design would make homeschooling a better option.
Certainly people can sometimes do a poor job of homeschooling. However, there are many other options that are much better designed than the American public schools. I think Montessori schools are an interesting system, but I have no experience with them.
[1] "Revenue unit" was the term used for a full-time student in the 2000 Oregon University System budget. I don't know if any K-12 systems use that term, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Good idea gone very bad - now you tell me where they went wrong.
It's a work of fiction. Maybe you can find an example of this happening in real life? This "learning is dangerous if not tightly controlled" idea is itself pretty dangerous.
Too many people are expecting the educational system to be tailored to their needs, without realizing that dealing with an imperfect [educational] system is part of the learning process itself.
First, the OP suggested withdrawing from the educational system and doing it yourself, not changing the system. Second, the "educational" system is perhaps the single most corrupt and twisted system there is. It's Lord of the Flies mixed with 1984. That makes it a really bad place to learn about imperfect systems or any other sort of humanity, since it has so little humanity itself.
that frying pan is there for a reason.
You must have been really scarred by something.
This is fine, but then the problem occurs that you discover your original measurements were wrong, (or just inaccurate) but the old lengths are by now established. You then will have to redefine your everyday unit of length" as 1.28462341 * 10 ^ 12 hydrodgen-atom-widths (or whatever) and it's become just as arbitrary as the meter.
What??? That's a blatant ripoff of the Apache interface! :-)