The US Army issues instructions for everything. Including MRE's (Meal Ready to Eat). Of course, now they have a magnesium plate that reacts with water to heat up your meal, so this makes a bit of sense.
The point of interest in this is that the MRE pouch with the magnesium has a big circle with a line through it of a guy eating the plate.
I was in the Army for a short period of time, but I can speak for certain that they usually train you to follow instructions so closely that most people come out being unable to follow any set of instructions that contain abiquious methods.
Soon after getting out of the Army, I had a friend ask me to turn up the volume on his stereo. I walked over to the stereo and was dumb struck on what to do next. He said, "The big knob." It took me awhile to find it, as there was no direction as to WHERE the big knob was. Then I was kinda dumb struck and waited for him to tell me which direction.
It's just a natural reaction. You're placed in an environment where you're punished for wrong procedures, and you get nervous about making mistakes.
Re:Hah! I've got something that will crash IE also
on
HTML Rendering Crashes IE
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The semicolon is from Slashdot breaking your & g t ; apart, to ensure that it properly line wraps.
They still insist that breaking apart &blah; tags is not a bug.
Linux is similar. Stack starts at bffd7000, heap starts at 40000000, but so do the linked libraries, so depending on how many libraries you link it'll go up from there. The code text segment is at 8048000.
Note it's not really a "waste" of address space, since applications will usually not use the whole address space anyways. Yeah, if you have some high memory-requirement program you're going to have trouble, but most of those programs try and keep as little in memory as possible.
OS1-9 used a non-protected memory model. There was no virtualized memory, because every application worked in the same memory space. And actually, this is nearly the same way that Win9x worked. Thus, the recommendation from Microsoft to reboot the entire system if a program crashed in 9x.
I wrote the blitting function for the nvidia DirectFB driver. I had to take the code from the radeonfb driver. They didn't have a working blitter when I was into directfb awhile ago.
I still like DirectFB, and would like to see better support for hardware in it. Then I'd probably ditch my XFree86, and run DFBX exclusively.
BTW: the nvidia blitter is still probably hacked together, and hasn't ever supported transparency.
My university, New Mexico State University, has it's entire Computer Science department running Linux. We don't use any Microsoft programs at all for our CS dept. We use it in just about every other dept (Journalism has Macs, if I recall correctly)
I think it's very nice. It gets us out of programming for just the Microsoft world, but a lot of students are upset because we're learning nothing about VisualStudio and stuff, which is what "we'll be using in the real world"
Pecker and Dick directly refer to the same thing. As for the contrast between the words, it all depends on who you are, and where you were raised.
If you were raised where a lot of people used "pecker" (not New Mexico, I'll tell you that) then you'll be accustomed to hearing "pecker" and would be somewhat offended at being called a "dick".
and vice-versa.
So, the choice of translating this word falls in just choosing an similar word semantically, and translating it. But, you can't make a contrived solution, because "peckerhead" is actually in fairly common use in English.
Anyways, I don't see why Pikkhode would be a bad choice as a translation. Especially, since by nature, translation shifts the semantic domain of every word just slightly.
Slashdot doesn't do that. Slashdot has already made up its collective mind that this story is a hoax. So, they will absolutely refuse to mod up anything that has real details. Or in anyway suggests that it is not a hoax.
After all, all those egos that would go down the hill if they actually found out that a 16 year old COULD do 15,000 some LOC a day.
I'd have to agree. This article, while yes very disheartening, and shocking, should have been left until the author had real details to share. Not just a bunch of hearsay, and rumors.
'Course, the article does actually talk about the marketting director, who confirms that they are seeing a lawyer about IP assets. So, there's a strong question of truth here. But it still sounds way to much like, "I heard this the other day from this guy, who never lies"
Um.... *blink* *blink* You obviously don't use a Mac. XFree86 has already released an X client for OSX. It's called XDarwin or XonX. And actually, John Caramacks been a major contributor. (So I hear, he's got a bit of Mac love in him)
I just pulled out a USB keyboard to try this out... and I must say, it's very odd... the only problem is htat you don't get the ability to hit the shift key with the other hand... that's a nice time saver that I usually use....
I like your idea of the two one-handed dvorak keyboards though... and I myself have though about learning LH-Dvorak to free my mouse...
So THIS is what got me my excellent deal. I bought a "Dead as a Doorknob" Base station at our local university bookstore for $20 (I've bought lighter paperweights for more) and then after some searching online, I replaced two caps (which were blown) and it's worked perfect ever since...
There's no reason to write a validator for my format. It's impossible to write incorrectly formatted text. ###stuff{} ? that's a # followed by a stuff tag. The only key characters are #, { and } (ok, and () for parameters, but this is trivial) to get a } in regular text, you do a #}, otherwise it closes the previous tag. Closed to many tags?:P who cares, not the recursive parser, had to many tags open? who cares not the recursive parser.
Ok, so you could validate for that, just lexx and count the number of {'s verse the number of }'s (not prefixed by #) done. I'd say that was just a bit easier to write than ANY XML validator.
As for parsing/reading it? The code that was required to make PHP use the XML parser to grab document the way you want requires far more code than the entire set of code to completely parse my format.
Yeah, I noticed the LISP like processing myself also... I was just like "damn, stupid repeating stuff" and I decided that XML wasn't very worth it. My intentions of "shoehorning" everything was to make it easily recursively parsible. (I call my format RPF, recursively parsible formatting) I don't actually use it as much as the document embedding that I designed (which allows both HTML and XML to be put into it) The format is the same only each document is headed with a % not a #.
Again, parsing these are trivial, and that was my entire intentions. I was also aware that XML required the proper nesting, thus my statement that it was possible to produce "improper" XML.
I disagree with a lot in XML, (from what I've seen from XHTML) I mean selected='selected' screw that. I was a simple selected. *shrug* eh, everyone has their own desires.
Well, all I know is that I don't like XML, because it's entirely possible to produce "bad" XML where the computer begins one tag, then starts another, then closes the first, then closes the second. Thus you get this situation: <STUFF><THINGS> text </STUFF></THINGS> This is entirely human parsable, and understandable, but for the computer this becomes a nightmare. Since, you'd have to shift the THINGS tag out past the stuff.
One ought to use a markup-language where it's both human readable and strictly recursive (you can't close anything but the most recent tag)
I use a format like this for my personal use (when it seems like everyone would use XML) I just use a # to indicate the begining of a tag, then descriptive text, then { } enclosing the text, otherwise a ; if there is no text. Arguments are simply put in ( )'s... So the above example could only be #stuff{#things{text}} And could _NOT_ be expressed in a poorly formatted way.
Funny thing is it's trivial to convert this to XML, but yet vice-versa isn't necessarily so easy. (because of the above example)
My interpretation of the article was different. They made it seem that they could sign an image, not encrypt the image. Thus, the image was viewable to all, but it's verifiability was secured through this technique. Being that any alteration done to the picture would cause the signature to fail. It would likely result in the picture being blotched in the area that was altered, as the information that was contained there for both the signature and the previous color value are ruined.
Thus, all those pr0n sites that steal pictures from each other, and post them on their own site with nifty looking "pr0n.net" marks would be verifiably altered.
They're French.... give 'em a break. So they can't spell English well... Oooo! Not everyone speaks American English. I've seen some odd looking statements from British English that are perfectly grammatical to them.
Re:i cant even pronounce this number
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 2, Informative
fifteen quintillion seven hundred sixty-nine quadrillion nine hundred thirty-eight trillion one hundred sixty-five billion nine hundred sixty-one million three hundred twenty-six thousand five hundred ninty-two.
In american english of course. I recall something about the british having "Millard" between million and thousand.
Capitalize schampitalize... English used to capitalize all nouns until recently. German still does, Swedish doesn't capitalize anything but the first letter in a sentence, and names. I don't let myself get bogged down in the "idiocy" of "one should capitalize all pronouns refering to God." Whatever...
I accept that some people don't believe in God, and I can have a rational conversation without resorting to "God says" because most of my beliefs are secularly grounded, (I'm a very logical person who came to Christ only 4 some years ago)
I personally don't believe that believing in God is the "happier" option, and I don't see God as a spoiled brat either. I see God as a being whose motives we can never fully understand. God gave us free-will to make our own descisions, and we do, without his interference.
The way I see it is this: God exists; God is perfect; God gave us free-will, over which he has _NO_ control or power; We are not perfect; God loves us; God can't stand imperfection; Jesus is God's son; Jesus died to atone for our sins.
If you don't believe these, then you are free to argue all you want about them, but I see them as philosophical atoms, which cannot be proven or disproven, and must stand on faith.
BTW, to think that all "all organized religion is a lie and a scam" is to believe that any organization is a lie and a scam. Governments, companies, every organization of people. Organized religion is just that, an organization of people with similar religious beliefs. As a government is just an organization of people with similar political motives.
The Germans infects hundreds of Jews with syphilis to see how their bodies would react to it. Guess what? They reacted exactly the same as German bodies. So they killed hundreds of people just to learn that Jews are people.
Was this experiment unethical? In my opinion, yes, definately.
Is embryonic stem cell research ethical? It depends. If you're using stem cells that are cultured independant of a being that was denied life, then my opinion is yes. Namely, if you can extract stem cells without damaging the embryo, go ahead, if you can get stem cells from dead embryos which were not aborted, then yes.
Is it all right to use stem cells from embryos which are aborted? Only if the (non)mother consents knowingly, after all, it's her body right?
Why is embryonic stem cell research banned? Because there is too great a risk, that some research doctor will ignore the value of life in his embryos, and breed embryos soley to harvest their stem cells. I ask of you this: would the fertilization of a egg cell soley with the intention of harvesting stem cells from the resulting embryo be wrong? To me, with out a doubt, yes, it's wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Army issues instructions for everything. Including MRE's (Meal Ready to Eat). Of course, now they have a magnesium plate that reacts with water to heat up your meal, so this makes a bit of sense.
The point of interest in this is that the MRE pouch with the magnesium has a big circle with a line through it of a guy eating the plate.
I was in the Army for a short period of time, but I can speak for certain that they usually train you to follow instructions so closely that most people come out being unable to follow any set of instructions that contain abiquious methods.
Soon after getting out of the Army, I had a friend ask me to turn up the volume on his stereo. I walked over to the stereo and was dumb struck on what to do next. He said, "The big knob." It took me awhile to find it, as there was no direction as to WHERE the big knob was. Then I was kinda dumb struck and waited for him to tell me which direction.
It's just a natural reaction. You're placed in an environment where you're punished for wrong procedures, and you get nervous about making mistakes.
The semicolon is from Slashdot breaking your & g t ; apart, to ensure that it properly line wraps.
They still insist that breaking apart &blah; tags is not a bug.
Linux is similar. Stack starts at bffd7000, heap starts at 40000000, but so do the linked libraries, so depending on how many libraries you link it'll go up from there. The code text segment is at 8048000.
Note it's not really a "waste" of address space, since applications will usually not use the whole address space anyways. Yeah, if you have some high memory-requirement program you're going to have trouble, but most of those programs try and keep as little in memory as possible.
OS1-9 used a non-protected memory model. There was no virtualized memory, because every application worked in the same memory space. And actually, this is nearly the same way that Win9x worked. Thus, the recommendation from Microsoft to reboot the entire system if a program crashed in 9x.
I wrote the blitting function for the nvidia DirectFB driver. I had to take the code from the radeonfb driver. They didn't have a working blitter when I was into directfb awhile ago.
I still like DirectFB, and would like to see better support for hardware in it. Then I'd probably ditch my XFree86, and run DFBX exclusively.
BTW: the nvidia blitter is still probably hacked together, and hasn't ever supported transparency.
My university, New Mexico State University, has it's entire Computer Science department running Linux. We don't use any Microsoft programs at all for our CS dept. We use it in just about every other dept (Journalism has Macs, if I recall correctly)
I think it's very nice. It gets us out of programming for just the Microsoft world, but a lot of students are upset because we're learning nothing about VisualStudio and stuff, which is what "we'll be using in the real world"
Pecker and Dick directly refer to the same thing. As for the contrast between the words, it all depends on who you are, and where you were raised.
If you were raised where a lot of people used "pecker" (not New Mexico, I'll tell you that) then you'll be accustomed to hearing "pecker" and would be somewhat offended at being called a "dick".
and vice-versa.
So, the choice of translating this word falls in just choosing an similar word semantically, and translating it. But, you can't make a contrived solution, because "peckerhead" is actually in fairly common use in English.
Anyways, I don't see why Pikkhode would be a bad choice as a translation. Especially, since by nature, translation shifts the semantic domain of every word just slightly.
Slashdot doesn't do that. Slashdot has already made up its collective mind that this story is a hoax. So, they will absolutely refuse to mod up anything that has real details. Or in anyway suggests that it is not a hoax.
After all, all those egos that would go down the hill if they actually found out that a 16 year old COULD do 15,000 some LOC a day.
I'd have to agree. This article, while yes very disheartening, and shocking, should have been left until the author had real details to share. Not just a bunch of hearsay, and rumors.
'Course, the article does actually talk about the marketting director, who confirms that they are seeing a lawyer about IP assets. So, there's a strong question of truth here. But it still sounds way to much like, "I heard this the other day from this guy, who never lies"
Um.... *blink* *blink* You obviously don't use a Mac. XFree86 has already released an X client for OSX. It's called XDarwin or XonX. And actually, John Caramacks been a major contributor. (So I hear, he's got a bit of Mac love in him)
I just pulled out a USB keyboard to try this out... and I must say, it's very odd... the only problem is htat you don't get the ability to hit the shift key with the other hand... that's a nice time saver that I usually use....
I like your idea of the two one-handed dvorak keyboards though... and I myself have though about learning LH-Dvorak to free my mouse...
Can I get Wireless networking across the distance of my house now?
So THIS is what got me my excellent deal. I bought a "Dead as a Doorknob" Base station at our local university bookstore for $20 (I've bought lighter paperweights for more) and then after some searching online, I replaced two caps (which were blown) and it's worked perfect ever since...
;)
I guess not all bad news is entirely bad...
Why can't we mod articles as redundant again?
Yeah, it's good to know that in the future, "genetic enhancment" == "big breasts"
There's no reason to write a validator for my format. It's impossible to write incorrectly formatted text. ###stuff{} ? that's a # followed by a stuff tag. The only key characters are #, { and } (ok, and () for parameters, but this is trivial) to get a } in regular text, you do a #}, otherwise it closes the previous tag. Closed to many tags? :P who cares, not the recursive parser, had to many tags open? who cares not the recursive parser.
.= $char; next $char;
Ok, so you could validate for that, just lexx and count the number of {'s verse the number of }'s (not prefixed by #) done. I'd say that was just a bit easier to write than ANY XML validator.
As for parsing/reading it? The code that was required to make PHP use the XML parser to grab document the way you want requires far more code than the entire set of code to completely parse my format.
{
while($char != '#' && $char != '}') print $char; next $char;
if($char == '}') return;
next $char
while($char != '{') $tag
do_tag_code($tag);
me();
}
Yeah, I noticed the LISP like processing myself also... I was just like "damn, stupid repeating stuff" and I decided that XML wasn't very worth it. My intentions of "shoehorning" everything was to make it easily recursively parsible. (I call my format RPF, recursively parsible formatting) I don't actually use it as much as the document embedding that I designed (which allows both HTML and XML to be put into it) The format is the same only each document is headed with a % not a #.
Again, parsing these are trivial, and that was my entire intentions. I was also aware that XML required the proper nesting, thus my statement that it was possible to produce "improper" XML.
I disagree with a lot in XML, (from what I've seen from XHTML) I mean selected='selected' screw that. I was a simple selected. *shrug* eh, everyone has their own desires.
Well, all I know is that I don't like XML, because it's entirely possible to produce "bad" XML where the computer begins one tag, then starts another, then closes the first, then closes the second. Thus you get this situation:
<STUFF><THINGS> text </STUFF></THINGS> This is entirely human parsable, and understandable, but for the computer this becomes a nightmare. Since, you'd have to shift the THINGS tag out past the stuff.
One ought to use a markup-language where it's both human readable and strictly recursive (you can't close anything but the most recent tag)
I use a format like this for my personal use (when it seems like everyone would use XML) I just use a # to indicate the begining of a tag, then descriptive text, then { } enclosing the text, otherwise a ; if there is no text. Arguments are simply put in ( )'s... So the above example could only be #stuff{#things{text}} And could _NOT_ be expressed in a poorly formatted way.
Funny thing is it's trivial to convert this to XML, but yet vice-versa isn't necessarily so easy. (because of the above example)
"By breaking this encryption..." OH FUCK! :( *walks away whistling*
My interpretation of the article was different. They made it seem that they could sign an image, not encrypt the image. Thus, the image was viewable to all, but it's verifiability was secured through this technique. Being that any alteration done to the picture would cause the signature to fail. It would likely result in the picture being blotched in the area that was altered, as the information that was contained there for both the signature and the previous color value are ruined.
Thus, all those pr0n sites that steal pictures from each other, and post them on their own site with nifty looking "pr0n.net" marks would be verifiably altered.
When I program date logic, and I come up with a mythical date, I always have to put out "Smarch Error"
They're French.... give 'em a break. So they can't spell English well... Oooo! Not everyone speaks American English. I've seen some odd looking statements from British English that are perfectly grammatical to them.
fifteen quintillion seven hundred sixty-nine quadrillion nine hundred thirty-eight trillion one hundred sixty-five billion nine hundred sixty-one million three hundred twenty-six thousand five hundred ninty-two.
In american english of course. I recall something about the british having "Millard" between million and thousand.
Capitalize schampitalize... English used to capitalize all nouns until recently. German still does, Swedish doesn't capitalize anything but the first letter in a sentence, and names. I don't let myself get bogged down in the "idiocy" of "one should capitalize all pronouns refering to God." Whatever...
I accept that some people don't believe in God, and I can have a rational conversation without resorting to "God says" because most of my beliefs are secularly grounded, (I'm a very logical person who came to Christ only 4 some years ago)
I personally don't believe that believing in God is the "happier" option, and I don't see God as a spoiled brat either. I see God as a being whose motives we can never fully understand. God gave us free-will to make our own descisions, and we do, without his interference.
The way I see it is this: God exists; God is perfect; God gave us free-will, over which he has _NO_ control or power; We are not perfect; God loves us; God can't stand imperfection; Jesus is God's son; Jesus died to atone for our sins.
If you don't believe these, then you are free to argue all you want about them, but I see them as philosophical atoms, which cannot be proven or disproven, and must stand on faith.
BTW, to think that all "all organized religion is a lie and a scam" is to believe that any organization is a lie and a scam. Governments, companies, every organization of people. Organized religion is just that, an organization of people with similar religious beliefs. As a government is just an organization of people with similar political motives.
The Germans infects hundreds of Jews with syphilis to see how their bodies would react to it. Guess what? They reacted exactly the same as German bodies. So they killed hundreds of people just to learn that Jews are people.
Was this experiment unethical? In my opinion, yes, definately.
Is embryonic stem cell research ethical? It depends. If you're using stem cells that are cultured independant of a being that was denied life, then my opinion is yes. Namely, if you can extract stem cells without damaging the embryo, go ahead, if you can get stem cells from dead embryos which were not aborted, then yes.
Is it all right to use stem cells from embryos which are aborted? Only if the (non)mother consents knowingly, after all, it's her body right?
Why is embryonic stem cell research banned? Because there is too great a risk, that some research doctor will ignore the value of life in his embryos, and breed embryos soley to harvest their stem cells. I ask of you this: would the fertilization of a egg cell soley with the intention of harvesting stem cells from the resulting embryo be wrong? To me, with out a doubt, yes, it's wrong.