Get stuffed RIAA and your ilk. The only IP right I recognize is the right of citation. Given that assumption, I can only view your organization as a leach on society, using your might to steal our knowledge and culture away from us. Your unjust laws that were foisted upon us are working for now, but your days are numbered. Every day there is one more like me, and one less like you. It won't be long until your laws are ignored entirely. What will you do then? Arrest us all? No, you must adapt into an entity that provides an actual value to society or risk becoming irrelevant, just like the rest of us. I wish you luck in your incredible journey.
Ahh, "from here on out," just what I was looking for. I think this is what I'm meaning to say when I use the expression. This sounds a lot better to my ears. Thanks!
I probably over use this term a lot, and your comment made me realize I should probably substitute it for "moving on" where applicable. However, I don't think "forward" is the only way to move, when used in such a general sense. One could "take a step back" to examine the options, for example. Wouldn't this be an equally valid use of language? Disclamer: I am terrible at expressing thoughts as words
No, only broken when used out of specification.
RNGs have a lot of uses, not all of them related to cryptography. Generators suited for cryptography could be extremely unsuitable for other uses.
Take for example the ISO-C random function. It is specified for reproducibility. There is even a non-mandatory recommendation to because they saw a use for a generator that behaved the same way on a variety of systems, for example when implementing sprite behavior in games.
If you implement cryptography and uses a RNG that isn't specified for it then it is your code that is broken. It's like using a CRC designed for sequential data when communicating over a framed protocol like RS485.
It isn't the one implementing the CRC that is to blame, it is the one who applied it incorrectly.
..Quoting AC rated at 0 as the only reasonable response to this thread.. (Try 2 haha, oops)
We are using JavaScript for performance critical code and I can confirm that it is the most buggiest, immature technology by far that I have ever seen in my 30 years old carrier. Every second month there is a new browser version for each browser, each with a different set of new critical bugs. We even find JIT compiler bugs regularly!
I simply do not understand why they do not take the free, open source, mature, very fast Java virtual machine, and let the browsers run Java bytecode directly, and let software engineers chose any programming language which best suits their task.
Not to come across sounding like "you're doing it wrong," but I found I had a fairly similar experience when I needed to produce some solid javascript (rather intensive real-time media/graphics in mobile web). It wasn't until I realized I was trying to hammer a screw (applying my knowledge of c/c++/Java/C# to my JavaScript code) that my experiences turned around. In short, a relatively small amount of your code should be exposed to browser specific bugs, to the point where most of it can be tested without any browser at all. This makes the browser bugs easy to plan for, and code around as if routine (the unstable bits are fairly well known at this point, I would say). I would suggest getting you some static typing with either TypeScript or the closure complier (I have only had experience with the later, to great results). Then get you some JavaScript Design Patterns, and some Functional JavaScript, and you are all set. Cheers and good luck!
Also, approach-ability by "random" developers sometimes trumps something that's more flexible but requires more experience or a learning curve. Staff changes such that we often have to target "middle brow" abstractions.
Sure, since you asked... I find that functional programming is better for processing "data," while OOP is better for processing/handling "events." I also think there is a line that can be crossed where functional programming simply becomes a clever form of obfuscation, but overall, there is a lot of value in simple, repeatable, and easy to use constructs, which may be composed together to express the "idea" behind the code in fewer lines. I would say that readability and maintainability ranks #1 in my book of priorities, and functional programming helps very well with this in a lot of cases. Underscorejs is a good example of FP in javascript, if you're unfamiliar.
In my line work, the coder maintenance effort is usually more of a factor than client-side-browser speed/memory, or even server side for that matter. Whether (good) OOP is inherently more resource intensive than anonymous function prototypes remains to be solidly proven. It may depend on coding style.
As far "simpler to parse", if that were the main factor, we'd all be using Lisp. Being human-friendly and being machine-friendly are not necessarily the same thing. Machines are generally cheaper than humans (code maintainers) such that economics often favors being human-friendly over machine-friendly (speed/memory). What I personally like is another matter; I'm paid to make my employer's org more efficient. (The database is usually the bottleneck, not the application, I would note.)
In short, I question how you are weighing the factors being compared. I agree that different niches emphasize different factors, but in general an application language (or usage) should favor humans over machines when you look at the total economics involved. Unfortunately, JavaScript is often being used for application development AND systems software (OS-like services and low-level libraries). One-language-fits-all is a tall order, and probably in impossible order if we want to optimize the language design for its actual usage patterns.
I shared this same opinion, but have found protipical inheritance (accompanied with static typing ala closure compiler) to be quite nice. In fact, it has made me more aware of how/when OOP constructs can provid actual value above a more functional approach (hint: it's not as often as you may think)
The option to sit out a fine is SOP. The going rate is about $100 a day (varies by state, and even county). I got $200 for being a trustee (had to mop floors and say yes sir no sir a lot). You can sit out any fine or ticket you get, no problems, free and clear. The issue with TX is that I owe money (surcharges) to a private corp in Texas, with the legal authority to block my license. These surcharges are what amount to a "processing fee" even though I never once used their payment processing services to pay my legal fines (opting instead for my right to sit out). It's actually not even on my credit, as they hold no actual debt over me. All they have is the power to coerce payment via the inter-state license ceck system (don't know the exact name of it). The WA ticket is another matter. This is money I actually owe (until it is cleared by time served).
The 'crimes' in TX are bullshit the ones in WA were not (though the stop may have been bullshit). You knew you weren't supposed to be driving. WA has good public transportation in a lot of places and many areas are walker or biker friendly. Getting rid of a car will save you a lot of money. I didn't get one until I was 30. I wish you luck in your lawsuit against the Municipal Services Bureau and TX and thank you for reaffirming my desire to never move to TX.
I got by just fine in Seattle. It wasn't until I had to move to the heavily conservative Hanford area (Pasco) that I ended up purchasing a car in cash, that I still to this day drive it only out of necessity. While I understand the public need for insurance and licensing, I have never been in a wreck, or received any kind of moving violation since the age of 16. I consider it my free right of transportation, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I did not show up to court in WA, and do not plan to pay a dime on that ticket. Eventually, it will catch up to me, and I will be physically restrained, but in front of a judge, and told I can either pay up the cash or sit it out in jail for credit paid out at $x per day on my fine. When that day comes, I will choose to sit it out, just as I did in TX.
PS: I just want to reiterate, THE STRUGGLE IS REAL. In addition to those fines I owe TX, I now owe WA $2,100 for getting a ticket for no license or insurance. They ran my plate and saw the car was registered to someone who only had a state ID and decided to pull me over and ask me a few questions. After ransaking my car, they let me go with a ticket. As it turns out, driving without a license is only an arrestable offense if you fail to provide a valid ID at the time of the offense. I got lucky that time (getting away with nothing but a little more debt tacked on to my household), but I have spent time in jail in TX for "crimes" that essentially amount to paperwork violations. I still to this day, struggling to get out of this cycle and have this burden off my chest once and for all.
Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.
Like I said double jeopardy.
I can't get my WA drivers licence because those scumbags have it blocked for some tickets I got in ~2002 (I moved away from TX shortly after highschool). All my actual fines (my "debt to society") have been paid. This bastard ass private corp has my license for Ransome to the tune of $2,500 in "surcharges" (the exact term listed on the paperwork I got).
It was a direct link to the PDF memo (aka the citation). Are you saying their http server is infected by some kind of liberal juju? You Xians all sound equally retarted. Have an original thought for once. Sincerely, a proud Libertarian
Not taking any sides here, just pointing out some ignorance. It was actually the R's who changed the national dialog to "Climate Change."
http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
Take of it what you will. Dems the facts.
Well from personal experience at least, we always have to use an IP address when testing our web app on a local build server. The android tablets let us use the internal domain name, out of the box.
Think "embedded systems" rather than "phones." It's not really intended as a smart phone OS, although you could easily build one using QNX as the base system.
My guess has nothing to do with the facts of building 7. I was simply speculating as to why they would bring building 7 down in a controlled demolition when it never got hit by a plane (which is the official sorry by the way... It's only the "why" that's under debate). Exactly three planes were hijaked, only two made it to the target, and yet, all three buildings went down in a similar fashion. I definitely don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, in fact I'm quite a skeptic usually. The problem is that the official story isn't logically consistent with reality, which is bothersome to me. I always feel unease with things don't add up. If buying into the official story helps you sleep at night, then more power to ya!
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7...
My guess is that the plane that went down in the fields (due to passenger intervention) was supposed to hit building 7. They brought it down anyways because... what else were they supposed to do? It really isn't all that far fetched, if you consider for a second, the amount of psychopaths that rise to a position of power simply for their willingness to do things that is normal people would consider unimaginable.
Slashdot Mirror
Get stuffed RIAA and your ilk. The only IP right I recognize is the right of citation. Given that assumption, I can only view your organization as a leach on society, using your might to steal our knowledge and culture away from us. Your unjust laws that were foisted upon us are working for now, but your days are numbered. Every day there is one more like me, and one less like you. It won't be long until your laws are ignored entirely. What will you do then? Arrest us all? No, you must adapt into an entity that provides an actual value to society or risk becoming irrelevant, just like the rest of us. I wish you luck in your incredible journey.
Ahh, "from here on out," just what I was looking for. I think this is what I'm meaning to say when I use the expression. This sounds a lot better to my ears. Thanks!
I probably over use this term a lot, and your comment made me realize I should probably substitute it for "moving on" where applicable. However, I don't think "forward" is the only way to move, when used in such a general sense. One could "take a step back" to examine the options, for example. Wouldn't this be an equally valid use of language? Disclamer: I am terrible at expressing thoughts as words
Yea, two very different sides of the same shit sandwich. That's why our generation doesn't vote. We ain't stupid anymore.
No, only broken when used out of specification. RNGs have a lot of uses, not all of them related to cryptography. Generators suited for cryptography could be extremely unsuitable for other uses. Take for example the ISO-C random function. It is specified for reproducibility. There is even a non-mandatory recommendation to because they saw a use for a generator that behaved the same way on a variety of systems, for example when implementing sprite behavior in games.
If you implement cryptography and uses a RNG that isn't specified for it then it is your code that is broken. It's like using a CRC designed for sequential data when communicating over a framed protocol like RS485. It isn't the one implementing the CRC that is to blame, it is the one who applied it incorrectly.
..Quoting AC rated at 0 as the only reasonable response to this thread.. (Try 2 haha, oops)
We are using JavaScript for performance critical code and I can confirm that it is the most buggiest, immature technology by far that I have ever seen in my 30 years old carrier. Every second month there is a new browser version for each browser, each with a different set of new critical bugs. We even find JIT compiler bugs regularly!
I simply do not understand why they do not take the free, open source, mature, very fast Java virtual machine, and let the browsers run Java bytecode directly, and let software engineers chose any programming language which best suits their task.
Not to come across sounding like "you're doing it wrong," but I found I had a fairly similar experience when I needed to produce some solid javascript (rather intensive real-time media/graphics in mobile web). It wasn't until I realized I was trying to hammer a screw (applying my knowledge of c/c++/Java/C# to my JavaScript code) that my experiences turned around. In short, a relatively small amount of your code should be exposed to browser specific bugs, to the point where most of it can be tested without any browser at all. This makes the browser bugs easy to plan for, and code around as if routine (the unstable bits are fairly well known at this point, I would say). I would suggest getting you some static typing with either TypeScript or the closure complier (I have only had experience with the later, to great results). Then get you some JavaScript Design Patterns, and some Functional JavaScript, and you are all set. Cheers and good luck!
Do you have some realistic examples?
Also, approach-ability by "random" developers sometimes trumps something that's more flexible but requires more experience or a learning curve. Staff changes such that we often have to target "middle brow" abstractions.
Sure, since you asked... I find that functional programming is better for processing "data," while OOP is better for processing/handling "events." I also think there is a line that can be crossed where functional programming simply becomes a clever form of obfuscation, but overall, there is a lot of value in simple, repeatable, and easy to use constructs, which may be composed together to express the "idea" behind the code in fewer lines. I would say that readability and maintainability ranks #1 in my book of priorities, and functional programming helps very well with this in a lot of cases. Underscorejs is a good example of FP in javascript, if you're unfamiliar.
Check out underscorejs for a great example of functional programming in javascript, and curry away to your heart's content.
In my line work, the coder maintenance effort is usually more of a factor than client-side-browser speed/memory, or even server side for that matter. Whether (good) OOP is inherently more resource intensive than anonymous function prototypes remains to be solidly proven. It may depend on coding style.
As far "simpler to parse", if that were the main factor, we'd all be using Lisp. Being human-friendly and being machine-friendly are not necessarily the same thing. Machines are generally cheaper than humans (code maintainers) such that economics often favors being human-friendly over machine-friendly (speed/memory). What I personally like is another matter; I'm paid to make my employer's org more efficient. (The database is usually the bottleneck, not the application, I would note.)
In short, I question how you are weighing the factors being compared. I agree that different niches emphasize different factors, but in general an application language (or usage) should favor humans over machines when you look at the total economics involved. Unfortunately, JavaScript is often being used for application development AND systems software (OS-like services and low-level libraries). One-language-fits-all is a tall order, and probably in impossible order if we want to optimize the language design for its actual usage patterns.
I shared this same opinion, but have found protipical inheritance (accompanied with static typing ala closure compiler) to be quite nice. In fact, it has made me more aware of how/when OOP constructs can provid actual value above a more functional approach (hint: it's not as often as you may think)
Also for the record, it took me exactly 50 days to sit out my fines, in Denton county jail, TX. I do not recommend it.
The option to sit out a fine is SOP. The going rate is about $100 a day (varies by state, and even county). I got $200 for being a trustee (had to mop floors and say yes sir no sir a lot). You can sit out any fine or ticket you get, no problems, free and clear. The issue with TX is that I owe money (surcharges) to a private corp in Texas, with the legal authority to block my license. These surcharges are what amount to a "processing fee" even though I never once used their payment processing services to pay my legal fines (opting instead for my right to sit out). It's actually not even on my credit, as they hold no actual debt over me. All they have is the power to coerce payment via the inter-state license ceck system (don't know the exact name of it). The WA ticket is another matter. This is money I actually owe (until it is cleared by time served).
The 'crimes' in TX are bullshit the ones in WA were not (though the stop may have been bullshit). You knew you weren't supposed to be driving. WA has good public transportation in a lot of places and many areas are walker or biker friendly. Getting rid of a car will save you a lot of money. I didn't get one until I was 30. I wish you luck in your lawsuit against the Municipal Services Bureau and TX and thank you for reaffirming my desire to never move to TX.
I got by just fine in Seattle. It wasn't until I had to move to the heavily conservative Hanford area (Pasco) that I ended up purchasing a car in cash, that I still to this day drive it only out of necessity. While I understand the public need for insurance and licensing, I have never been in a wreck, or received any kind of moving violation since the age of 16. I consider it my free right of transportation, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I did not show up to court in WA, and do not plan to pay a dime on that ticket. Eventually, it will catch up to me, and I will be physically restrained, but in front of a judge, and told I can either pay up the cash or sit it out in jail for credit paid out at $x per day on my fine. When that day comes, I will choose to sit it out, just as I did in TX.
PS: I just want to reiterate, THE STRUGGLE IS REAL. In addition to those fines I owe TX, I now owe WA $2,100 for getting a ticket for no license or insurance. They ran my plate and saw the car was registered to someone who only had a state ID and decided to pull me over and ask me a few questions. After ransaking my car, they let me go with a ticket. As it turns out, driving without a license is only an arrestable offense if you fail to provide a valid ID at the time of the offense. I got lucky that time (getting away with nothing but a little more debt tacked on to my household), but I have spent time in jail in TX for "crimes" that essentially amount to paperwork violations. I still to this day, struggling to get out of this cycle and have this burden off my chest once and for all.
Let them start with the double jeopardy they call the "Texas driver responsibility program". Pay a ticket, then also an exorbitant surcharge to the "Municipal Services Bureau" which is a private company. If you don't pay the surcharge, the private company suspends your license until you do... You pay the surcharge just for getting the ticket, whether the ticket was dismissed or not.
Like I said double jeopardy.
I can't get my WA drivers licence because those scumbags have it blocked for some tickets I got in ~2002 (I moved away from TX shortly after highschool). All my actual fines (my "debt to society") have been paid. This bastard ass private corp has my license for Ransome to the tune of $2,500 in "surcharges" (the exact term listed on the paperwork I got).
Haha, it seems like it's the other way around for programmers, a lot of the time.
It was a direct link to the PDF memo (aka the citation). Are you saying their http server is infected by some kind of liberal juju? You Xians all sound equally retarted. Have an original thought for once. Sincerely, a proud Libertarian
Not taking any sides here, just pointing out some ignorance. It was actually the R's who changed the national dialog to "Climate Change." http://www.motherjones.com/fil... Take of it what you will. Dems the facts.
ISDS != free trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well from personal experience at least, we always have to use an IP address when testing our web app on a local build server. The android tablets let us use the internal domain name, out of the box.
No comment to add. Tortoise is so great, no linux tool get close to tortoise svn!
Came here to say this, but you beat me to. I do a lot of SVN tasks from within my windows VM because Tortoise is such a joy to use!
Actually now that I think about it, I prefer to do a lot of SVN stuff in it too, using Tortoise. It's the one thing I really miss in my linux host.
Adobe Creative Suite. It's pretty much the only reason I have win7 running on KVM.
Think "embedded systems" rather than "phones." It's not really intended as a smart phone OS, although you could easily build one using QNX as the base system.
My guess has nothing to do with the facts of building 7. I was simply speculating as to why they would bring building 7 down in a controlled demolition when it never got hit by a plane (which is the official sorry by the way... It's only the "why" that's under debate). Exactly three planes were hijaked, only two made it to the target, and yet, all three buildings went down in a similar fashion. I definitely don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, in fact I'm quite a skeptic usually. The problem is that the official story isn't logically consistent with reality, which is bothersome to me. I always feel unease with things don't add up. If buying into the official story helps you sleep at night, then more power to ya!
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7... My guess is that the plane that went down in the fields (due to passenger intervention) was supposed to hit building 7. They brought it down anyways because... what else were they supposed to do? It really isn't all that far fetched, if you consider for a second, the amount of psychopaths that rise to a position of power simply for their willingness to do things that is normal people would consider unimaginable.