All you need is a utility called html2png which just renders such a stream to a png file instead of the screen, and you're done: instant screenshot. For added points: integrate it with your browser of choice and allow rectangular selection (Alt-mouse).
Anything you can see can be copied, anything that can be rendered can be copied.
France and Germany supplying embargoed biological and chemical supplies to Iraq pre-war.
quite a few stories
European and UN officials getting kickbacks from Saddam from diverted Oil-for-Food program funds.
also known and documented.
And who is the source of the the nuclear materials currently being used in Iran? Why Germany.
Also known, though you leave out the Dutch nuclear scientist who has given the critical knowledge to both Pakistan and Iran. I'm Dutch, and this was big news.
All these points are known over here and we are well aware that our governments are as corrupt as are yours and also that our so-called democracies don't offer any choice. But, at the very least (some of) our media is as critical of our own governments as the ones abroad, and we don't generally start hailing the flag when the great leader demands it from us. Very bad memories on that one.
The limited memory overhead, but actually the additional overhead of having both reference counted semantics and a generational garbage collector running around. Reference counting adds overhead for each copy (through pointer/reference assignment), while generational garbage collection adds overhead for running once in while and examining all memory that is allocated. Python manages to implement both, which leads to the worst of both worlds. This is however unavoidable given python's history. Again, I love python, but speed is not its forte, and the gc has not improved things.
To satisfy your curiosity: yes as far as I know, Java allows programmatic control of its garbage collector.
BTW, I've read a bit more about Python's gc since, and indeed, my previous assertion that python's GC was bolted on is wrong, for which I apologize. It's still pretty hideous to have both mechanisms running around, but ok, I was wrong.
Ah, you're referring to the python GC extension in which you can do some cyclic checks by subclassing from a gc object at the expense of a special GC flag that is added to the normal overhead of your classes? I love python, but this is an add-on to the normal reference counting mechanism and not a built-in. The python 'solution' slows down the code instead of increasing its speed (full GC is oddly enough faster than reference counting, especially for copying), and is just there to allow you to make cyclic references without shooting yourself in the foot too easily.
Also, I don't know for sure, but would what happen if two objects referenced each other but nothing else referenced them. Would gc know to follow the links between the two and see that nothing in the main app is using them?
Yes, Java's GC would notice that nothing is referring to them and remove the objects. This unlike a simple reference counting gc such as python's which would not notice this. Java's GC can even relocate memory on the fly to minimize page misses and avoid memory fragmentation.
What if the European Commission asks Microsoft in the context of a European community wide deal if they support the new ISO-Office standard? They'd better implement it quickly and correctly, because all business and government that needs to communicate with the EU will otherwise be forced to install Star/Openoffice. Don't assume that Microsoft can easily wriggle out of such a situation. They're located in Redmond, not Dortmund.
The people at Google are probably too smart to buy into yet another failure-to-be from GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence). Next to automatic translation (60s) and expert systems (80s), the semantic web (00s) will soon be found on the garbage heap of technology. Whenever the real world kicks in, crisp logic and deductive reasoning fail simply because they cannot account for uncertainty in the basis of their reasoning: their assumptions. There is no formal way to assert the truthfullness of assumptions (or if you want, ontologies), they are either true or false. That's it, there is no 'maybe' or 'could be' or 'pretty likely': true or false.
Any form of information found on the web, from whatever trusted source, needs to be evaluated on the likeliness that it is true. From this likeliness, you can start reasoning and finally come up with a conclusion plus a degree of belief in that conclusion, but you will not be able to state that an assumption is absolutely true of false. As crisp logic only leads to valid conclusions assuming absolute truth or falsehood of its assumptions, any conclusion drawn from that meta-assumption is invalid, or at best unqualified.
No, the abberation called fuzzy logic is no solution
Enter the world of Bayesian reasoning. Here the truth of a proposition is never absolutely true or false, there are only degrees of belief and a system of systematic and consistent calculations to derive the likeliness of conclusions in the presence of uncertainty, plus a method to add new evidence to the calculations. Take a simple crisp assumption 'The sun always comes up in the morning'. For a semantic webber this statement is either true or false, and whenever two trusted sites claim two opposing views on the matter, the human operator needs to fix the inconsistency. A Bayesian webber might start to reason first: okay, first in the absence of any information I will assign an observation of true to the assertion, and an observation of false. This is my informationless prior and makes the likelihood 50%. Then I'm going to count: every time the sun has come up in the morning I count one for truth of the assertion. If it didn't I count one for falsehood. As I don't remember it ever not happening (and I would have noticed!) I can claim about the number of days I have lived to the truth of the assertion. That's about 4 9's of truths. Now I can ask someone else if they ever saw the sun not coming up. Assuming that I trust them for 95% to give me the correct answer, I can easily add a few extra nines to my belief in the assertion. Also reading some physics books adds to my belief, up to the point that it will take quite a lot of conflicting evidence to make me doubt that particular assertion.
It might be interesting to note that from this strong belief in the assertion I can actually deduce that somebody that tells me otherwise is very likely lying to me, and I should watch whatever the person says. A semantic web will fly flat on its face when there are conflicting pieces of information or outright lies on 'trusted' webpages
Note that the two approaches are completely at odds: for the crisp logic approach everything is either true or false, for the bayesian logic approach nothing is purely true or false(*).
The Bayesian approach is well-known, but can easily lead to computational explosions. However, it seems to be the only way to reason in a world where evidence can (will) be contradictory and assumptions cannot be trusted. Without a consistent framework of reasoning with uncertainty (and the Bayesian framework is provably the only consistent one), the semantic web will be yet another failure of AI.
(*) Bayesian probabilities can be completely true or false (1 or 0), but no-one in his right mind would do that because from that there is no mathematical way to change your belief, 20 9's should be enough for anybody.
Now, if a business decides to do this it's one thing, but you can't justify having the government force this on the entire country until you can justify why someone else should have to pay for your child.
I know it's a lesser issue in the US, but in Europe we're dangerously running out of children. This goes to the point where it's no longer a given that when you are older there are actually enough people around to make the society as a whole keep on running. That's just a minor example why it can be justified for paying for someone else's child. That child will eventually pay the taxes to keep the country running, and boy, do you guys in the US need those taxes!
The solution: cron scripts, only installed by default, not hand-rolled. Once the masses get hold of linux, and virus writers start to target these, some distributions will automatically install cronjobs that will keep the system secure, informing the users by a polite email. What's wrong with that?
Maybe you can enlighten me. I'm a European who mostly has access to the biased reporting done here in Europe. From my perspective there are two parties in the US: one is extremely right wing, the other is dogmatically right wing. For one reason or another, my media favours one above the other, but in the 20 years I've been following this, it does not seem to influence policy which of the two has been chosen. Maybe an insider can give a clear unbiased view of why it would matter which of the two would get the limited amount of power that the US presidency entails.
Maybe I'm generalizing too far, but from your post and the responses of Badnarik I do sense an implicit belief that the legal system is capable of making all the right decisions that the (federal) government is incapable of. Where does this belief come from? Following the 'Trias Politica', on which all western governments are based, without a legislative body (i.e., government), law enforcement is powerless. If there is no law that states that the products of drug companies should not actually kill people, any class action lawsuit would be futile. Or do the libertarians suppose that the judges will start making their own law? Now that is scary! We do need a distinction between legislation, execution and justice. One of the big problems we're facing now is that legislation and execution are one and the same. Transferring both of these powers to the judicial branch is a horrendous mistake. Who will decide what the boundaries are in which the drug companies need to operate with their products? Legislation, execution, or judicial? Pick one.
Re:Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 1
The really interesting (and scary) bit of that story was that instead of changing the combo, they made sure Feynman couldn't get to the safes anymore. That's national security for ya.
Quantum encryption might be just the equivalent of the defence strategy of putting a huge sharpened stake in front of your headquarters and assuming that your enemy will blindly run into it.
It does drive away people. Would you install a piece of software for which you know that it has a hidden trigger that could delete your home directory? Even without ever contemplating to pirate that software, the simple fact that there is a 'rm -rf ~' somewhere inside that program that can be triggered in circumstances that you cannot control makes it a complete liability. I wouldn't touch this malware with a ten-foot pole.
Without the United States? I think not. Korea was an independent state for 1300 (!!) years before the United States agreed with the Soviet Union to split it up in two. Your point being?
Don't know about BSD but under Linux you link against glibc (LGPL), under Windows (mingw) you link against mscrt.dll (MS EULA). In both cases you can distribute your hello world code binary only, as long as you don't change either glibc or mscrt (ha!). I guess something similar holds under BSD.
... but I think the combination of parent and grandparent let me finally see the light on the issue of what these three question-marks are supposed to be:
The other side of the 'height of dishonesty' (depth of morality?) is people who set up contracts that contain clauses that are unenforceable in the hope that someone is gullible enough to abide them.
Simply pick at random 5% of the paper votes to be counted by hand and if there are anomalies, the electronic vote is dismissed and a full recount of the paper ballots will take place. It's not that difficult.
Pedantic, but what the hell, I'm drunk. You obviously mean standard errors, not deviations. Standard errors are standard deviations divided by the square root of the number of cases, a quantity that does converge to zero in the limit of an infinite number of cases (unlike the standard deviation), which is what you would expect when estimating a mean 'opinion'.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything you can see can be copied, anything that can be rendered can be copied.
6/6, Dutch.
quite a few stories
European and UN officials getting kickbacks from Saddam from diverted Oil-for-Food program funds.
also known and documented.
And who is the source of the the nuclear materials currently being used in Iran? Why Germany.
Also known, though you leave out the Dutch nuclear scientist who has given the critical knowledge to both Pakistan and Iran. I'm Dutch, and this was big news.
All these points are known over here and we are well aware that our governments are as corrupt as are yours and also that our so-called democracies don't offer any choice. But, at the very least (some of) our media is as critical of our own governments as the ones abroad, and we don't generally start hailing the flag when the great leader demands it from us. Very bad memories on that one.
What overhead are you talking about?
The limited memory overhead, but actually the additional overhead of having both reference counted semantics and a generational garbage collector running around. Reference counting adds overhead for each copy (through pointer/reference assignment), while generational garbage collection adds overhead for running once in while and examining all memory that is allocated. Python manages to implement both, which leads to the worst of both worlds. This is however unavoidable given python's history. Again, I love python, but speed is not its forte, and the gc has not improved things.To satisfy your curiosity: yes as far as I know, Java allows programmatic control of its garbage collector.
BTW, I've read a bit more about Python's gc since, and indeed, my previous assertion that python's GC was bolted on is wrong, for which I apologize. It's still pretty hideous to have both mechanisms running around, but ok, I was wrong.
Ah, you're referring to the python GC extension in which you can do some cyclic checks by subclassing from a gc object at the expense of a special GC flag that is added to the normal overhead of your classes? I love python, but this is an add-on to the normal reference counting mechanism and not a built-in. The python 'solution' slows down the code instead of increasing its speed (full GC is oddly enough faster than reference counting, especially for copying), and is just there to allow you to make cyclic references without shooting yourself in the foot too easily.
Yes, Java's GC would notice that nothing is referring to them and remove the objects. This unlike a simple reference counting gc such as python's which would not notice this. Java's GC can even relocate memory on the fly to minimize page misses and avoid memory fragmentation.
What if the European Commission asks Microsoft in the context of a European community wide deal if they support the new ISO-Office standard? They'd better implement it quickly and correctly, because all business and government that needs to communicate with the EU will otherwise be forced to install Star/Openoffice. Don't assume that Microsoft can easily wriggle out of such a situation. They're located in Redmond, not Dortmund.
Any form of information found on the web, from whatever trusted source, needs to be evaluated on the likeliness that it is true. From this likeliness, you can start reasoning and finally come up with a conclusion plus a degree of belief in that conclusion, but you will not be able to state that an assumption is absolutely true of false. As crisp logic only leads to valid conclusions assuming absolute truth or falsehood of its assumptions, any conclusion drawn from that meta-assumption is invalid, or at best unqualified.
No, the abberation called fuzzy logic is no solution
Enter the world of Bayesian reasoning. Here the truth of a proposition is never absolutely true or false, there are only degrees of belief and a system of systematic and consistent calculations to derive the likeliness of conclusions in the presence of uncertainty, plus a method to add new evidence to the calculations. Take a simple crisp assumption 'The sun always comes up in the morning'. For a semantic webber this statement is either true or false, and whenever two trusted sites claim two opposing views on the matter, the human operator needs to fix the inconsistency. A Bayesian webber might start to reason first: okay, first in the absence of any information I will assign an observation of true to the assertion, and an observation of false. This is my informationless prior and makes the likelihood 50%. Then I'm going to count: every time the sun has come up in the morning I count one for truth of the assertion. If it didn't I count one for falsehood. As I don't remember it ever not happening (and I would have noticed!) I can claim about the number of days I have lived to the truth of the assertion. That's about 4 9's of truths. Now I can ask someone else if they ever saw the sun not coming up. Assuming that I trust them for 95% to give me the correct answer, I can easily add a few extra nines to my belief in the assertion. Also reading some physics books adds to my belief, up to the point that it will take quite a lot of conflicting evidence to make me doubt that particular assertion.
It might be interesting to note that from this strong belief in the assertion I can actually deduce that somebody that tells me otherwise is very likely lying to me, and I should watch whatever the person says. A semantic web will fly flat on its face when there are conflicting pieces of information or outright lies on 'trusted' webpages
Note that the two approaches are completely at odds: for the crisp logic approach everything is either true or false, for the bayesian logic approach nothing is purely true or false(*). The Bayesian approach is well-known, but can easily lead to computational explosions. However, it seems to be the only way to reason in a world where evidence can (will) be contradictory and assumptions cannot be trusted. Without a consistent framework of reasoning with uncertainty (and the Bayesian framework is provably the only consistent one), the semantic web will be yet another failure of AI.
(*) Bayesian probabilities can be completely true or false (1 or 0), but no-one in his right mind would do that because from that there is no mathematical way to change your belief, 20 9's should be enough for anybody.
So now the international community is at fault for not trusting the US? Great way of phrasing this.
I know it's a lesser issue in the US, but in Europe we're dangerously running out of children. This goes to the point where it's no longer a given that when you are older there are actually enough people around to make the society as a whole keep on running. That's just a minor example why it can be justified for paying for someone else's child. That child will eventually pay the taxes to keep the country running, and boy, do you guys in the US need those taxes!
The solution: cron scripts, only installed by default, not hand-rolled. Once the masses get hold of linux, and virus writers start to target these, some distributions will automatically install cronjobs that will keep the system secure, informing the users by a polite email. What's wrong with that?
Maybe you can enlighten me. I'm a European who mostly has access to the biased reporting done here in Europe. From my perspective there are two parties in the US: one is extremely right wing, the other is dogmatically right wing. For one reason or another, my media favours one above the other, but in the 20 years I've been following this, it does not seem to influence policy which of the two has been chosen. Maybe an insider can give a clear unbiased view of why it would matter which of the two would get the limited amount of power that the US presidency entails.
Maybe I'm generalizing too far, but from your post and the responses of Badnarik I do sense an implicit belief that the legal system is capable of making all the right decisions that the (federal) government is incapable of. Where does this belief come from? Following the 'Trias Politica', on which all western governments are based, without a legislative body (i.e., government), law enforcement is powerless. If there is no law that states that the products of drug companies should not actually kill people, any class action lawsuit would be futile. Or do the libertarians suppose that the judges will start making their own law? Now that is scary!
We do need a distinction between legislation, execution and justice. One of the big problems we're facing now is that legislation and execution are one and the same. Transferring both of these powers to the judicial branch is a horrendous mistake. Who will decide what the boundaries are in which the drug companies need to operate with their products? Legislation, execution, or judicial? Pick one.
The really interesting (and scary) bit of that story was that instead of changing the combo, they made sure Feynman couldn't get to the safes anymore. That's national security for ya.
Quantum encryption might be just the equivalent of the defence strategy of putting a huge sharpened stake in front of your headquarters and assuming that your enemy will blindly run into it.
It does drive away people. Would you install a piece of software for which you know that it has a hidden trigger that could delete your home directory? Even without ever contemplating to pirate that software, the simple fact that there is a 'rm -rf ~' somewhere inside that program that can be triggered in circumstances that you cannot control makes it a complete liability. I wouldn't touch this malware with a ten-foot pole.
Without the United States? I think not. Korea was an independent state for 1300 (!!) years before the United States agreed with the Soviet Union to split it up in two. Your point being?
It's a Wiki, so the vendor could simply remove the hardware from the list, and keep removing it when it is freshly added.
Don't know about BSD but under Linux you link against glibc (LGPL), under Windows (mingw) you link against mscrt.dll (MS EULA). In both cases you can distribute your hello world code binary only, as long as you don't change either glibc or mscrt (ha!). I guess something similar holds under BSD.
std::string
std::vector
std::auto_ptr
boost::shared_ptr
boost::weak_ptr
I can't remember the last time I actually needed to write 'delete' in C++.
1) Collect underpants
2) Goto 1
3) Profit
See, it does make sense!
That China ends up whole again (their view, not mine).
The other side of the 'height of dishonesty' (depth of morality?) is people who set up contracts that contain clauses that are unenforceable in the hope that someone is gullible enough to abide them.
Simply pick at random 5% of the paper votes to be counted by hand and if there are anomalies, the electronic vote is dismissed and a full recount of the paper ballots will take place. It's not that difficult.
Pedantic, but what the hell, I'm drunk. You obviously mean standard errors, not deviations. Standard errors are standard deviations divided by the square root of the number of cases, a quantity that does converge to zero in the limit of an infinite number of cases (unlike the standard deviation), which is what you would expect when estimating a mean 'opinion'.