The link in your sig goes to... Internal Server Error
I'm glad that someone else is getting this as well; I though that it might be just me. I was in the middle of creating a login account at technocrat.net, and had just hit the submit button, and these errors started popping up. I thought that it was something that I did (maybe the signup process doesn't like spaces in user names?), and that it was screwing up only for me. It's been broken now for a day or so.
When's the last time that Google ripped off copywritten material?
Why do people keep making this mistake? I'ts "copyright", not "copywrite", so the past tense is "copyrighted", not "copywritten".
And if you don't think that "right" has a past tense, consider: If a chair tips over and you set it back up, have you "written" the chair? No, you've "righted" the chair.
To summarize: copyrighted, copyrighted, copyRIGHTED.
This is why physicists have so many drunken fistfights.
Ha! Can you imagine Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking getting into a drunken fistfight? Hawking is confined to a wheelchair, and can barely move, so you'd expect him to lose. However, Einstein is dead, which IMO gives Hawking a slight edge.
According to the article, this [providing new passwords, which are stronger and not publicly known] is exactly what was done. Some of the students, however, brute-forced the new passwords.
There is no way that a sufficiently-strong password can be brute-forced in any reasonable time period by equipment available to the average student. Their new password must have been pretty weak.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I just want to clarify that I am not against server-side scripting, where the environment is more tightly controlled; it's client-side scripting that I oppose. Also, I have no objection if a site wants to cater to those who are not as security-concious as I, as long as they include <noscript> sections that provide similar functionality to the <script> sections.
JavaScript/ECMAScript is a huge gaping security hole in your browser. Nine out of ten serious security advisories[1] are due to problems with scripting (and the temporary workaround until a fix is issued is frequently "disable JavaScript"). Any person who is serious about security will disable all browser scripting. If a site insists that scripting be enabled in order to browse it, well then, I just won't browse it. Instead, I'll go to some other site that doesn't demand that I compromise my system's security.
[1] Statistic pulled out of my rectal region, but my guess is that it's not far off.
Granny Weatherwax said sin is treating other people as objects. No more, no less.
So I guess that Granny Weatherwax doesn'r consider beastiality or animal cruelty to be sins. I'd be more inclined to agree with him (or, at least, acknowledge some validity in his statement) had he used the phrase "others", or perhaps "other animals" or "other beings", instead of "other people".
It's only when people like Hilary Clinton start shouting that anyone listens.
You can shut her up by pointing out to her that using the "Arnon" mod (removing the letters "a", "r", "n", "o", and "n" from "Hillary Clinton") reveals "embedded adult content" in her name.
There is no moral value in defending microbs. No ethical constraint against colonization of a dead planet.
Dear Ugly Bag of Mostly Water: That depends on your point of view. However, morality aside, there may be practical (e.g., biological and/or economic) reasons for trying to preserve microbial life.
P.S. If there are microbes there, then the planet isn't really dead, now is it?
Mercury vapor is in... mercury vapor lamps, the stale white lamps used in street lighting. [...] Fluorescent lighting runs an arc through a tube of noble gas
The comma is intended, historically, to represent the omission of the word 'and'
"The comma is intended and historically and to represent the omission of the word 'and'"?
I learned, as a child, that a comma was used, among other things, to represent a short pause. (One of those other things was to indicate an "aside phrase" (I forget the "official" term), as in "The comma is intended, historically, to represent [...]", "I learned, as a child, that [...]", (short pause) and "a comma was used, among other things, to represent [...]".) So "Apples, bananas, and grapes are fruit." is "more correct", because the length of the pause between "bananas" and "and" is roughly equivalent to the length of the pause between "Apples" and "bananas". Now, it's possible that, in GB, you say "Apples, bananasandgrapes are fruit.", but, based on my extensive research into the English language as spoken in Great Britain (said research carried out mainly by watching "Are You Being Served?", "Are You Being Served Again?" (which, inexplicably, was entitled something different in your native land), "As Time Goes By", "BBC World News", speeches by and interviews with HRH Betty Windsor and/or her kids Chuck (esp. his show on Architecture) and Andy (esp. his show on British history), "Butterflies", "Dr. Who", Fergie's weight-loss commercials, "The Good Life", the "Harry Potter" movies, "Inspector Morse", "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"[1], "I, Caudius"[2], James Bond movies, "Keeping Up Appearances", the "Lord of the Ring" movies, Michael Wood-hosted documentaries, "Monty Python's Flying Circus", "My Fair Lady"[6], "Poirot"[3], "Prime Suspect", "Question Time"[4], "Red Dwarf", "Sherlock Holmes"[3], "The Stephen Hawing Lecture Tour"[5], "To the Manor Born", "The Vicar of Dibly", "Waiting For God", (short pause) and "The Young Ones"[5]), I suspect that you probably don't.
[1] BBC TV version. [2] "Masterpiece Theatre" version. [3] "Mystery!" version. [4] Margaret Thatcher era; John Majors was boring, and Tony Blair is just too painful to watch (as he tries to be, simultaneously, liberal and conservative ("Labor" and "Tory")). [5] Yeah, I put that one in as a joke. [6] Rex Harrison movie version. (Coincidentally, I played Henry Higgen's Butler (or is it "Butlre"?) in my High School's presentation of the musical play version of "My Fair Lady".)
The main problem with your idea is engine fumes. IIRC, the fuel used in the engines (not sure if it's the main engines or just the maneuvering engines) is so toxic that the astronauts can't exit the orbiter after landing it until technicians have tested the air and made sure that any fumes have dispersed. This is not an issue out in space, because any fumes quickly disperse into the vacuum of space, so the amount that can get into the pressurized part of the orbiter after, say, a space walk, is infinitesimal. But put a big, pressurized bag around the orbiter, and the fumes can't disperse so well.
Other problems with your idea include the mass and volume of the bag and the air necessary to inflate it, how to deploy it without damaging the orbiter, how to seal it after you manage to get the thing around the orbiter, how to safely depressurize it afterwards, and how to re-stow it or discard it without tangling it up with the orbiter.
The cloth can erode at that temperature and pressure, though. They found 1/4 in. fragments sticking out before, but no one knos if they fragments were larger in orbit.
Since they should know how big the cloth was originally, they should be able to determine how much broke/burnt off.
I think that the safest thing to do would be to use some of the tile-repair "goop" to try to paste the protruding material flat against the orbiter tiles, thus providing a much lower profile for the airstream on re-entry. This would avoid dangers associated with pulling on the material (e.g., loosened or loose tiles) or attempting to cut it (lacerated tiles). I don't know how well the goop will adhere to the material or tiles, though, or, for that matter, whether or not the material is flexible enough to fold it against the tiles, so this idea may not be feasible.
One thing that I've learned about Lisp is that the distinction between "library" and "language" is pretty meaningless.
What I meant by external library was a library that isn't considered part of the language, or isn't used to implement part of the language. For example, versions of C on machines that don't support floating-point (e.g., PDP-11) usually call support library routines to do floating-point operations. I consider such routines to be part of the language implementation, and thus I consider floating point operations to be part of the C language, even when the underlying code calls library functions. OTOH, to do I/O, a C program has to explicitly call functions such as printf, etc., so I/O is not part of the (ANSI) C language itself; i.e., C can't do I/O without calling (functions in) an external library (even if some compilers recognize functions like printf and can optimize it to a call to puts in some cases). (This may have changed with C99; I haven't had a chance to look at the C99 spec yet.)
Similarly, it is irrelevant (except maybe in terms of performance, low-level debugging, etc.) whether a particular CL implementation uses a macro, function, or a single opcode in its built-in VM, to implement a particular operation that is part of the language (as long as it conforms to the spec). I consider such lower-level macros/functions to be part of the implementation, built-in, internal. OTOH, something like an interface to the sockets library I consider to be a reference to an external library, even though you use operations in such a libarary the same way you do the "built-in" operations, once the package as been loaded (and its symbols have been interned).
Re: FFI: With FFI, you can interface to just about anything. It's just that if you want that "anything" to do the things that I mentioned earlier, then it will have to be written in a language other than (Common) LISP. In addition, IIRC, FFI is an extension to CL, not part of the "standard" language, and may be implemented by different, uh, implementations in different ways.
Rereading the above, I can see that I am not expressing my position as clearly as I'd like to. Still, I hope that you can get the jist of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in the middle of creating a login account at technocrat.net, and had just hit the submit button, and these errors started popping up.
I thought that it was something that I did (maybe the signup process doesn't like spaces in user names?), and that it was screwing up only for me.
It's been broken now for a day or so.
I'ts "copyright", not "copywrite", so the past tense is "copyrighted", not "copywritten".
And if you don't think that "right" has a past tense, consider:
If a chair tips over and you set it back up, have you "written" the chair?
No, you've "righted" the chair.
To summarize: copyrighted, copyrighted, copyRIGHTED.
OK, I'm done now.
Can you imagine Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking getting into a drunken fistfight?
Hawking is confined to a wheelchair, and can barely move, so you'd expect him to lose.
However, Einstein is dead, which IMO gives Hawking a slight edge.
Their new password must have been pretty weak.
Yes!
This is much easier than the "Linux From Scratch" method that is currently being used.
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I just want to clarify that I am not against server-side scripting, where the environment is more tightly controlled; it's client-side scripting that I oppose.
Also, I have no objection if a site wants to cater to those who are not as security-concious as I, as long as they include <noscript> sections that provide similar functionality to the <script> sections.
JavaScript/ECMAScript is a huge gaping security hole in your browser.
Nine out of ten serious security advisories[1] are due to problems with scripting (and the temporary workaround until a fix is issued is frequently "disable JavaScript").
Any person who is serious about security will disable all browser scripting.
If a site insists that scripting be enabled in order to browse it, well then, I just won't browse it.
Instead, I'll go to some other site that doesn't demand that I compromise my system's security.
[1] Statistic pulled out of my rectal region, but my guess is that it's not far off.
There's more room in the GHz range.
I'd be more inclined to agree with him (or, at least, acknowledge some validity in his statement) had he used the phrase "others", or perhaps "other animals" or "other beings", instead of "other people".
"built" -> "build".
Sigh.
I'm still waitng for the one where you can built the crackhouse next to the elementary school.
If you are so concerned about your privacy, why are you revealing to everybody the state of your ass vis a vis hair density?
That depends on your point of view.
However, morality aside, there may be practical (e.g., biological and/or economic) reasons for trying to preserve microbial life.
P.S. If there are microbes there, then the planet isn't really dead, now is it?
I learned, as a child, that a comma was used, among other things, to represent a short pause.
(One of those other things was to indicate an "aside phrase" (I forget the "official" term), as in "The comma is intended, historically, to represent [...]", "I learned, as a child, that [...]", (short pause) and "a comma was used, among other things, to represent [...]".)
So "Apples, bananas, and grapes are fruit." is "more correct", because the length of the pause between "bananas" and "and" is roughly equivalent to the length of the pause between "Apples" and "bananas".
Now, it's possible that, in GB, you say "Apples, bananasandgrapes are fruit.", but, based on my extensive research into the English language as spoken in Great Britain (said research carried out mainly by watching "Are You Being Served?", "Are You Being Served Again?" (which, inexplicably, was entitled something different in your native land), "As Time Goes By", "BBC World News", speeches by and interviews with HRH Betty Windsor and/or her kids Chuck (esp. his show on Architecture) and Andy (esp. his show on British history), "Butterflies", "Dr. Who", Fergie's weight-loss commercials, "The Good Life", the "Harry Potter" movies, "Inspector Morse", "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"[1], "I, Caudius"[2], James Bond movies, "Keeping Up Appearances", the "Lord of the Ring" movies, Michael Wood-hosted documentaries, "Monty Python's Flying Circus", "My Fair Lady"[6], "Poirot"[3], "Prime Suspect", "Question Time"[4], "Red Dwarf", "Sherlock Holmes"[3], "The Stephen Hawing Lecture Tour"[5], "To the Manor Born", "The Vicar of Dibly", "Waiting For God", (short pause) and "The Young Ones"[5]), I suspect that you probably don't.
[1] BBC TV version.
[2] "Masterpiece Theatre" version.
[3] "Mystery!" version.
[4] Margaret Thatcher era; John Majors was boring, and Tony Blair is just too painful to watch (as he tries to be, simultaneously, liberal and conservative ("Labor" and "Tory")).
[5] Yeah, I put that one in as a joke.
[6] Rex Harrison movie version.
(Coincidentally, I played Henry Higgen's Butler (or is it "Butlre"?) in my High School's presentation of the musical play version of "My Fair Lady".)
Patrick J. Volkerding
Not only that, but the it was built in two weeks with a $100 budget.
The main problem with your idea is engine fumes.
IIRC, the fuel used in the engines (not sure if it's the main engines or just the maneuvering engines) is so toxic that the astronauts can't exit the orbiter after landing it until technicians have tested the air and made sure that any fumes have dispersed.
This is not an issue out in space, because any fumes quickly disperse into the vacuum of space, so the amount that can get into the pressurized part of the orbiter after, say, a space walk, is infinitesimal.
But put a big, pressurized bag around the orbiter, and the fumes can't disperse so well.
Other problems with your idea include the mass and volume of the bag and the air necessary to inflate it, how to deploy it without damaging the orbiter, how to seal it after you manage to get the thing around the orbiter, how to safely depressurize it afterwards, and how to re-stow it or discard it without tangling it up with the orbiter.
That surprises me.
I thought that NASA engineers documented everything.
I think that the safest thing to do would be to use some of the tile-repair "goop" to try to paste the protruding material flat against the orbiter tiles, thus providing a much lower profile for the airstream on re-entry.
This would avoid dangers associated with pulling on the material (e.g., loosened or loose tiles) or attempting to cut it (lacerated tiles).
I don't know how well the goop will adhere to the material or tiles, though, or, for that matter, whether or not the material is flexible enough to fold it against the tiles, so this idea may not be feasible.
For example, versions of C on machines that don't support floating-point (e.g., PDP-11) usually call support library routines to do floating-point operations.
I consider such routines to be part of the language implementation, and thus I consider floating point operations to be part of the C language, even when the underlying code calls library functions.
OTOH, to do I/O, a C program has to explicitly call functions such as printf, etc., so I/O is not part of the (ANSI) C language itself; i.e., C can't do I/O without calling (functions in) an external library (even if some compilers recognize functions like printf and can optimize it to a call to puts in some cases).
(This may have changed with C99; I haven't had a chance to look at the C99 spec yet.)
Similarly, it is irrelevant (except maybe in terms of performance, low-level debugging, etc.) whether a particular CL implementation uses a macro, function, or a single opcode in its built-in VM, to implement a particular operation that is part of the language (as long as it conforms to the spec).
I consider such lower-level macros/functions to be part of the implementation, built-in, internal.
OTOH, something like an interface to the sockets library I consider to be a reference to an external library, even though you use operations in such a libarary the same way you do the "built-in" operations, once the package as been loaded (and its symbols have been interned).
Re: FFI: With FFI, you can interface to just about anything.
It's just that if you want that "anything" to do the things that I mentioned earlier, then it will have to be written in a language other than (Common) LISP.
In addition, IIRC, FFI is an extension to CL, not part of the "standard" language, and may be implemented by different, uh, implementations in different ways.
Rereading the above, I can see that I am not expressing my position as clearly as I'd like to.
Still, I hope that you can get the jist of it.