A person's beliefs should be questioned, as should evolution. Why should people be allowed to believe whatever they want without others questioning it?
You're talking about "security through project obscurity", and I don't buy it. If I were an evil cracker, I might start with a source-based linux distribution, and search for gets in all of the source files. There are probably other obvious buffer overflows that are easily identified. Next, I figure out a way to exploit the hack. Sure, I didn't get onto every computer, but I got onto yours, didn't I?
If anything, Open Source authors should be more alert to exploits, as I can only do this in open source software, though I'll bet a smart person could figure out how to analyze the executable to see if it uses an insecure library function, or something.
I think you mean phenomenal. I don't mean to be the spelling nazi or anything, but your post was going so well, and that ending was just anticlimactic.
This is pretty common on Slashdot. With slash, an editor can publish a story to appear with any arbitrary time for the article. If the time is in the future, the article won't appear for a while. If it is in the past, it will appear down the line in the submissions. Whenever it happens, people get mad.
You grow up. I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. That's all. See this page for at least one example of how the original RPM format was a hack... inflexibility.
As for the insults, you started the insults by correcting me. We both know that correcting somebody like you did is a form of insult. While your insults didn't hold water, I think my insults stand on their own feet.
You tell me to grow up because I made a claim and provided no proof, and look at all the proof you gave in your post! Wow!
Now, before you jump out of your chair, screaming murder, realize that I never said that RPM is currently a hack (I haven't had time to look at any recent changes), I said that it was a hack from the beginning. Now that I've proven my point by backing up my claim, I guess you're going to say, "Gee, mister, you sure are right!", right? I didn't think so.
Lastly, the fact that RPM is used by "many organizations" does not mean it is flawless. My entire point is that it was created quickly by Red Hat, and that we might be better off if we designed a new format that has all of the RPM's good stuff, and none of its bad stuff.
Sorry, you're wrong. RPM stands for Red Hat Package Manager. You're having a hard time separating what they say now from what they said when they created it. It is extremely easy to change anything into a recursive acronym. If I started a software project and called it "Nailer Porn Manager", I could later change it to mean "NPM Porn Manager" so that all of the nerdiest Unix people can get off on the acronym.
You're so obviously wrong to correct me that it isn't funny. At least think about what you type before you post it in a public forum.
As for the RPM, it was a hack from the very beginning, just like so many other things. Where would Linux be today if Linus Torvalds had not been willing to accept drastic changes when it is for the better? All I am saying is that writing off thinking about something from the start is foolish because there might be a better way. Instead, you just want to improve on what is there. That's important, too, but why not even let others consider a redesign? Seems like an ignorant way to go about life, and pointless to argue about, too.
If Debian doesn't want to use RPM in its current state, they should make RPM better, not try and get the LSB to let them avoid it.
The "R" in RPM stands for "RedHat". They should probably standardize on a completely new format name derived from existing formats. They could also use the chance to finally decide upon the best package content.
And, here's the program with its algorithm fixed, but admittedly with a few warnings showing up because it passes 196:
#!/usr/bin/env perl use strict; use warnings;
my $reclimit = 100;
for my $i (1.. 200) { my $r = &paltest($i,$i,0); if ($r == -1) { print "$i yields no palindrome in $reclimit recursion levels\n"; } else { print "$i yields a palindrome at recursion level $r\n"; } # else } # for
I think you mean terminology, not ontology. To be unnecessarily picky.
No, I meant ontology. That is, the ontology that means an agreed upon set of words when talking about a specific subject. Terminology is much broader. I am coming from a Computer Science background, so I may be using the word differently from what you've learned, but an ontology can be a very small agreed upon set of words in a particular circumstance. Terminology, as I see it, is "ontology", but is very broadly defined. Of course, now I am being unnecessarily picky.
To be honest, I didn't even realize that ontology had other meanings until I just now looked it up. Had I known it would be a source of confusion, I would have used the word "terminology" or "jargon" or something simple.
You're right. He's typing, since he used "YO" for year old. Nobody talks like that, so if he used voice recognition software, then it would have said "year old". Definitely typing.
PLEASE, PLEASE don't say "boxen." The plural form of "box" is boxes. Saying "boxen" makes it seem like you played too much D&D.
Boxen is an acceptable word to use as the plural of "box", at least when referring to "Unix boxen". The fact that he is talking about dual boot Windows machines takes away some credibility from his use of the word. However, your blanket statement seems much more like the thought police than a simple personal objection. i.e. "Look! It's not in MY dictionary, so you must be wrong. Wait, I mean that you're double plus un-good!"
Now, if he was talking to you personally, then you might have a case, as people want to settle on a specific ontology when speaking directly to one another. In fact, he is more-or-less on target with his jargon with respect to this public forum. You are off target and intolerant of those unlike you, so perhaps you should think about going somewhere else. Just a thought...
Aaaah! How is misspelling "flamebait" not a troll? See how you're making me respond now??!! It's almost as bad as if you spelled troll as "trole" or something.
*sniff* I feel so misunderstood! Just kidding. It's no big deal, really, just as long as my post didn't get modded down! I really don't deserve so much support, as my comment wasn't really that spectacular. It's weird when four people agree on some point, yet they end up arguing needlessly.
(signs peace treaty, thereby ending the confrontation)
Would the system be able to generate enough energy to control itself, and have excess power to give away?
The easy answer is "Yes". Fusion reactions create an amazing amount of energy. Of course, part of the point of this news item is that nobody has been able to implement this in a truly stable way.
You seem like a smart, well informed guy. I appreciate your input. Admittedly this is offtopic, but in the past, I immediately wrote off people who use "then" instead of "than" as "stupid" (like CmdrTaco). You're not stupid, so it leads me to wonder about other causes.
Here in Texas, then and than sound different from each other. (Imagine someone with a Texan accent saying "than") Since you and Taco are both from farther north, I wonder, Do you guys pronounce the words identically? I'm just imagining a Canadian accent saying the two words, and they DO sound the same, but I could be wrong.
It wouldn't make your grammar correct, but it would help me not to immediately judge people who use the wrong word.
Well, many people have written small snippets of code for perl 6 that could easily be executed, were the language finished. It might make an interesting chapter in the book, but it would be academic since nobody can run it, and the spec might even change.
Re:I think you clicked on the wrong button, man
on
Clockless Computing
·
· Score: 1
OOps, I looked back, and I can see that you're debating my little comment about looking at an asynchronous processor sideways, and not about my main point. You're, of course, right that there is a kind of inherent clock, but my point was that there's no clock signal that could be used for overclocking. My bad.
I think you clicked on the wrong button, man
on
Clockless Computing
·
· Score: 1
I cannot believe that you meant to post that message as a response to my comment. Yeah, I remember my Intro to Digital Logic class, as well as my advanced VLSI Design class, but your points have no relevance regardless of how much education I've had. An overclocker is someone who makes the computer run faster than spec, post production, by setting the clock rate higher. I don't care about your points concerning the design of the chip unless you're suggesting that a person crack it open or something, which you're not. I'm not claiming to know more than you on the subject, or anything like that, but I would advocate debating on topic.
Most alarm clocks use the 60 Hz AC to generate time.
I don't think this is likely, since most alarm clocks I've ever had have a battery in them, just in case the power goes out. Once you have a DC battery, you almost have to have a crystal to keep accurate time. I think this clock you mention is a very unusual specimen. Or maybe it is just incredibly cheap, and the reason I've never seen one is that I don't purchase that kind of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
I want a level where you have to punch a baby.
Let's see.....
$80/hr.... 3 hrs a day = $240/day
Assuming you work 5 days a week = $1200/wk
52 weeks a year = $62400/yr
So, that's not $100000. Therefore you are double-booking your 3 hours a day about 40% of the time. So, you're more expensive than you say.
A person's beliefs should be questioned, as should evolution. Why should people be allowed to believe whatever they want without others questioning it?
You're talking about "security through project obscurity", and I don't buy it. If I were an evil cracker, I might start with a source-based linux distribution, and search for gets in all of the source files. There are probably other obvious buffer overflows that are easily identified. Next, I figure out a way to exploit the hack. Sure, I didn't get onto every computer, but I got onto yours, didn't I?
If anything, Open Source authors should be more alert to exploits, as I can only do this in open source software, though I'll bet a smart person could figure out how to analyze the executable to see if it uses an insecure library function, or something.
I think you mean phenomenal. I don't mean to be the spelling nazi or anything, but your post was going so well, and that ending was just anticlimactic.
This is pretty common on Slashdot. With slash, an editor can publish a story to appear with any arbitrary time for the article. If the time is in the future, the article won't appear for a while. If it is in the past, it will appear down the line in the submissions. Whenever it happens, people get mad.
I'm fine with fewer people using adverbs. It lets me separate the wheat from the chaff more quickly.
Hooray! Capitalism works!
Folding at home has a command line linux client.
As for the insults, you started the insults by correcting me. We both know that correcting somebody like you did is a form of insult. While your insults didn't hold water, I think my insults stand on their own feet.
You tell me to grow up because I made a claim and provided no proof, and look at all the proof you gave in your post! Wow!
Now, before you jump out of your chair, screaming murder, realize that I never said that RPM is currently a hack (I haven't had time to look at any recent changes), I said that it was a hack from the beginning. Now that I've proven my point by backing up my claim, I guess you're going to say, "Gee, mister, you sure are right!", right? I didn't think so.
Lastly, the fact that RPM is used by "many organizations" does not mean it is flawless. My entire point is that it was created quickly by Red Hat, and that we might be better off if we designed a new format that has all of the RPM's good stuff, and none of its bad stuff.
Sorry, you're wrong. RPM stands for Red Hat Package Manager. You're having a hard time separating what they say now from what they said when they created it. It is extremely easy to change anything into a recursive acronym. If I started a software project and called it "Nailer Porn Manager", I could later change it to mean "NPM Porn Manager" so that all of the nerdiest Unix people can get off on the acronym.
You're so obviously wrong to correct me that it isn't funny. At least think about what you type before you post it in a public forum.
As for the RPM, it was a hack from the very beginning, just like so many other things. Where would Linux be today if Linus Torvalds had not been willing to accept drastic changes when it is for the better? All I am saying is that writing off thinking about something from the start is foolish because there might be a better way. Instead, you just want to improve on what is there. That's important, too, but why not even let others consider a redesign? Seems like an ignorant way to go about life, and pointless to argue about, too.
And, here's the program with its algorithm fixed, but admittedly with a few warnings showing up because it passes 196:
.. 200) {
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $reclimit = 100;
for my $i (1
my $r = &paltest($i,$i,0);
if ($r == -1) {
print "$i yields no palindrome in $reclimit recursion levels\n";
} else {
print "$i yields a palindrome at recursion level $r\n";
} # else
} # for
sub paltest {
my ($number,$orig,$reclevel) = @_;
if($number eq reverse($number)) {
return $reclevel;
} elsif ($reclevel > $reclimit) {
return -1;
} else {
my $rev = reverse ($number);
return &paltest ($rev+$number,$orig,$reclevel+1);
} # else
} # paltest
Oh, man! Do you actually call that a perl program? Here's how it is supposed to look (this is the exact same program with the syntax fixed ;-):
.. 100) {
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
for my $i (1
&paltest($i,$i,0);
} # for
sub paltest {
my($number,$orig,$reclevel) = @_;
if($number eq reverse($number)) {
print "$orig yields a palindrome at recursion level $reclevel\n";
} else {
my $rev = reverse($number);
&paltest ($rev+$number,$orig,$reclevel+1);
} # else
} # paltest
No, I meant ontology. That is, the ontology that means an agreed upon set of words when talking about a specific subject. Terminology is much broader. I am coming from a Computer Science background, so I may be using the word differently from what you've learned, but an ontology can be a very small agreed upon set of words in a particular circumstance. Terminology, as I see it, is "ontology", but is very broadly defined. Of course, now I am being unnecessarily picky.
To be honest, I didn't even realize that ontology had other meanings until I just now looked it up. Had I known it would be a source of confusion, I would have used the word "terminology" or "jargon" or something simple.
You're right. He's typing, since he used "YO" for year old. Nobody talks like that, so if he used voice recognition software, then it would have said "year old". Definitely typing.
Now, if he was talking to you personally, then you might have a case, as people want to settle on a specific ontology when speaking directly to one another. In fact, he is more-or-less on target with his jargon with respect to this public forum. You are off target and intolerant of those unlike you, so perhaps you should think about going somewhere else. Just a thought...
I know, I know... YHBT . YHL. HAND.
*sniff* I feel so misunderstood! Just kidding. It's no big deal, really, just as long as my post didn't get modded down! I really don't deserve so much support, as my comment wasn't really that spectacular. It's weird when four people agree on some point, yet they end up arguing needlessly.
(signs peace treaty, thereby ending the confrontation)
You seem like a smart, well informed guy. I appreciate your input. Admittedly this is offtopic, but in the past, I immediately wrote off people who use "then" instead of "than" as "stupid" (like CmdrTaco). You're not stupid, so it leads me to wonder about other causes.
Here in Texas, then and than sound different from each other. (Imagine someone with a Texan accent saying "than") Since you and Taco are both from farther north, I wonder, Do you guys pronounce the words identically? I'm just imagining a Canadian accent saying the two words, and they DO sound the same, but I could be wrong.
It wouldn't make your grammar correct, but it would help me not to immediately judge people who use the wrong word.
Well, many people have written small snippets of code for perl 6 that could easily be executed, were the language finished. It might make an interesting chapter in the book, but it would be academic since nobody can run it, and the spec might even change.
OOps, I looked back, and I can see that you're debating my little comment about looking at an asynchronous processor sideways, and not about my main point. You're, of course, right that there is a kind of inherent clock, but my point was that there's no clock signal that could be used for overclocking. My bad.
I cannot believe that you meant to post that message as a response to my comment. Yeah, I remember my Intro to Digital Logic class, as well as my advanced VLSI Design class, but your points have no relevance regardless of how much education I've had. An overclocker is someone who makes the computer run faster than spec, post production, by setting the clock rate higher. I don't care about your points concerning the design of the chip unless you're suggesting that a person crack it open or something, which you're not. I'm not claiming to know more than you on the subject, or anything like that, but I would advocate debating on topic.