Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
shoe fits, quacks like a duck, etc...
Re:Days of denial are over.
on
Baked Alaska
·
· Score: 2
and what are the effects of man-destroyed "sinks" for CO2 (rainforest, plankton, etc.) These aren't easy questions to answer.
Actually, these are easy questions to answer. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. So the more we diminish CO2 sinks in one area, the faster they grow in another. It's a fairly well balanced syste-- as it would have to be to have lasted as long as it has. The notion that we humans could actually "break" such a system is the most ludicrous form of arrogance. We're not nearly as powerful as we think, man.
but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 has been found to show greenhouse properties in laboratory experiments, but this information cannot rationally be extrapolated out to reach conclusions regarding a system as complex as our planet. True, a pyrex cylinder filled with 45% CO2 and 55% Nitrogen traps more heat than a cylinder filled with 100% Nitrogen; but we don't live in a pyrex cylinder, we live in the middle of a mind-bogglingly complex system. There are literally too many variables to make any firm conclusion. We can't even accurately predict weather more than 10 days in advance; what makes people think these speculative notions like "by 2050 the global temp will rise by 4 degrees" are any more accurate than a weather report in July predicting snow on Christmas Day?
You would have sounded like less of a fucking retard had you said:
And they pay for it too, what the hell do you think all those toll booths all over the interstates are for? Art?
First, Most of the interstate highway system doesn't have toll booths, fucknut. Drive outside Jersey (or whatever tiny world you live in) and you'll notice that toll roads aren't all that common in the Interstate Highway System. Only 2,230 miles out of the 42,800 mile Interstate highway system are toll roads (that's about 5%), and the toll money is used strictly for maintaining that one section of road. Basically, you have it ass-backwards: it's not that they decided to charge tolls on the interstate, it's that the DOT allowed toll roads into the interstate system because they were already there and building a parallel (free) road was essentially a waste of resources.
Second, the toll-free 95% of the Interstate highway system is maintained with federal money, so we're all paying for it. Even if the federal fuel tax revenues were enough, it still would be a case of light-users subsidizing heavy-users because fuel tax is paid whether you use the gas to drive on the interstate or not, and MOST vehicular travel is people driving within 5 miles of home, not on the everfucking INTERSTATE.
True, you won't be depriving anyone else of cable by stealing it but you will deprive the cable company of the money their service is worth.
This assumes I would pay for some or all of this service were I unable to access it for free.
Goods are not worth the sum of their raw materials, they are worth what the market is willing to pay them. If you steal cable then you are taking $X/month out of the cable company's revenue.
Be that as it may, watching cable for free does not diminish any of the cable company's material goods. If one discontinues one's free cable viewing, the cable company's revenues do not go up, do they? Therefore, watching free cable does not make their revenue go down.
Just because it costs the company nothing if you were to say split your neighbors cable and use it for yourself as well does not mean it's not theft.
By the very fact that no property of the cable company is diminished by unauthorized access of their SERVICE, it is, in fact, NOT THEFT. Theft, larceny, robbery-- these words refer specifically to the taking of physical property from someone. "Theft of service" is an oxymoron. If one forces a mechanic to fix one's car at gunpoint, is it theft? No. Assault and unlawful detention, but not theft. This hijacking of language by [cable/music/software] companies is intentional-- it's meant to elevate in the minds of the public the unauthorized access to services to the same level as breaking into a house and taking a TV. I'm not arguing that it's moral and right to access cable content for free, I'm just pointing out that just because they SAY they've lost money doesn't make it necessarily true.
Cars? Try state and federal taxes on gasoline. 1% of the drivers also pay for more than 16% of highway taxes
Campgrounds? Try per night rates.
Yeah, I know. I was mostly making a point about the statistical irrelevancy oftheir "1% use 16%" thing. They say it as if the low-end folks should be outraged by this "abuse", when in reality if these "P2P leeches" all went to DSL the low-enders would still be paying $50 a month, and the top 1% would still account for ~16% of the bandwidth used. It's a thinly-veiled excuse to squeeze a little more money out of the system, either via over-cap surcharges or redused bandwidth use. I just hate it when corps try to spin their greedy plots as Holy Crusades Against Evil.
Perhaps something's been overlooked here. Often any corporation's largest cost is found in wages and salaries. It's a good bet that for an ISP it's the help desk. Inquiring minds want to know how much of that slice is taken up by a very small segment of subscribers...
...and how much do you want to bet it's not those 1%-using-16% people who're calling up to ask the help desk why their AOL isn't working...
Your examples actually disprove the point your sympathetic too. Take the highways: what's the appropriate and common solution to a small number of drivers using a high proportion of road resources? Tolls in the more congested areas. That way the people that use it more, pay more.
Please note my specific example was the Interstate Highway System, which (for the most part) is built/maintained with federal money, according to federal rules, and doled out regardless of how much fuel tax money each state sends to the capitol (fuel taxes wouldn't cover the bill anyway). When you come right down to it, we're all paying for highway system. My point is, the 1% using 16% of the bandwidth are just part of the classic Bell Curve. I suspect that the bottom 1% of users consume 1/16% of the bandwidth, and likely 50% of the users account for (wow!) half the bandwidth used! The number is statistically meaningless. Flat-rate service always ALWAYS ALWAYS result in one end "subsidizing" the other.
Traffic snarls in Western cities can in part be blamed on the failure to charge "per byte", as it were; only now are they coming around to the idea, given solid theory and evidence that it helps.
As a life-long resident of one such city (Los Angeles) I can tell you it's not lack of toll roads that caused the traffic here. It's the lack of any sort of alternative to driving to work. People aren't "leeching road bandwidth" because it's free and they want all they can get, so charging them money only results in them not having as much money. The real solution is MORE BANDWIDTH, but there's no place to PUT more roads without invoking emminent domain and the local politics make that nearly impossible.
AT&T Broadband says on its system, 1% percent of users account for 16% of bandwidth consumption.
What bugs me is the way they throw out this stat as if it's astounding-- it's not. Look at any system used by numerous people and you'll see about the same distribution. Take the US interstate highway system, for example: I'd lay money that 1% of the drivers thereon account for more than 16% of the traffic. How about campgrounds? 1% of the population accounts for a whopping 90% of campground usage. Their complaint is statistically meaningless.
Cool, I'll be right over to run an extension cord from your house/apt to power my air conditioner. Or better yet, siphon gas from your car...
Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times must we go through this here on slashdot? Allow me to illustrate for the umpteenth time:
Electricity and gasoline are sold as goods (electricity is a virtual good, as it is paid for by quantity used). The Consumption of goods is a zero-sum equation: if you use one liter of gas or one kilowatt of electricity, I cannot use that liter or kilowatt. Cable TV service (like "music" or "software") isn't diminished by use. If you watch a program on cable TV, I can still watch the same program in my home without either of us experiencing any loss of viewing experience. Cable TV service is a service. Unauthorized access to this service is illegal, but it does not rise to the level of theft, as it does not result in material diminishment. Mind you, I make no claim that it's morally right or wrong to illegally access this service; I only wish for fools to stop posting replies saying "So I guess it's Ok if I come into your house and steal [$MATERIAL_GOODS] then, right?" whenever someone points out that pirating [cable|software|MP3s] does not automatically equal a monetary loss for the seller of same.
Re:The fact that it isn't clear...(a little spoila
on
Review: Insomnia
·
· Score: 1
Katz said it "isn't clear what happened to Hap". Perhaps he meant to write "isn't clear whether Dormer intentionally shot Hap", but that leaves us with the conclusion that Katz doesn't know how to write, which has the same result as before: the review is incorrect. In the end, I suppose it amounts to the same thing: Katz is lame.
That's why you buy some of those lame plastic things to put over the top of the key - they're supposed to make it easier to tell one key from another, but what they are really good for is covering up the do-not-duplicate warning. If the clerk can't see it, he won't abide by it.
If you absolutely must get that Do Not Dupe key copied, the absolute best way to do it is break the head off the key, take it in to a locksmith, and say "I broke my key. can you make me a couple copies?"
Most jurisdictions forbid the possession of lockpics by those other than licensed locksmiths and law enforcement.
Most jurisdictions don't even have a licensing program for locksmiths, much less require such a license to posess lock picks. I'm a locksmith and here in Los Angeles we only need a city permit for our key duplicating equipment (because burglars used to buy $800 key cutters before that, right?) and a state resale #. There is no state licensing for locksmiths. Associated Locksmiths Of America members have been debating for years whether to lobby for mandatory licensing, but so far most states require no certification whatsoever.
A DSL line is not set up the same way as a POTS line.
Nonsense. The utility of DSL is that it shares a plain copper pair with POTS. Now, if what you meant was that DSL doesn't use modulated audio to transmit data so it doesn't use any Plain Old Telephone Service systems (other than the Last Mile copper pair) then you are correct; however, that is irrelevant to the discussion as Madison Priest never claimed to be transmitting video via a modulated 48v signal-- all he claimed was that he was using a plain copper pair. In essence, he was claiming to have invented some sort of "super DSL" and banking on the fact that Bell Labs et al had been saying for years that the speeds DSL was providing over copper were impossible.
Including John Koch whom solved the century-old Four Color Problem
Ummm...the Four-Color Problem is not something one "solves". The "problem" was that the Four-Color Conjecture, while practically obvious to anyone, was very difficult to prove mathematically. And unless this guy changed his name, he isn't either of the dudes who proved the conjecture:
Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind?
Are you seriously questioning whether internal combustion engine powered road vehicles have been "a good thing"? Efficient, flexible transportation part of the backbone of civilization. How do you think your groceries get to the market? Your books to the bookstore? Your mail to your mailbox? Sure, they pollute, but what nowadays doesn't? Should we abandon electricity because power plants pollute? Maybe we should abandon books while we're at it: have you ever seen the nasty crap that comes out of a paper mill? Our technology is so intertwined that it's not really possible to throw any one part away without effectively throwing it all away. It's bloody simple-minded luddite-ism like that that infuriates me the most. What would you have us do, throw down the ladder by which we've ascended and then jump after it? Is it really "better" that we should live as a non-developing species, forever existing for the sole purpose of continuing to exist? Might as we'll crawl into a hole and die at that point.
I have been very dissapointed with the simpsons this season. Fox needs to fix it quick.
It's not Fox- it's Film Roman. A friend of mine works at Film Roman and he says that the writers for the Simpsons have been saying "this is the last season" for about three years. But when it comes time to write the next season's scripts, Fox brings in a huge wheelbarrow full of money and says "will this change your mind?" Invariably it does.
Heh. I'll go so far as to say that this guy's full of it. Besides the fact that he touts the efficacy of Homeopathy, which is the least credible "alternative" medicine, he also says he's the "Director of Particle Acceleration" (a bogus job title if I've ever heard one) at a university that doesn't really exist. Additionally he's attached the traditionally spoken honorific "Doctor" to his name, which is not the usual way of indicating such in written form. If he'd said:
Melvin Thusian, PhD.
University of Michigan
Director, High-Energy Physics Dept.
then MAYBE he would've been believable (except for the homeopathy part; he'd have to substitute aromatherapy to be credible).
Actually, it sounds like "dynamic GOTO position calculation". I don't think *any* paradigm wants to take credit for that. Static gotos were bad enuf. Read the original quote carefully: the tape header doesn't say where to find information on the tape, it defines how the information is structured. It's not a table of contents; it's a method of interpretation.
I don't know what to do about "BufferedImageMediaStreamWatcherHandlerFactory", though. If it's really an abstract factory for creating handlers to watchers to buffered mediastreams of images, then it's really a well-chosen name, but I don't think that's a pretty common abstraction that would end up all over your code (and if it was, I'm sure you would come up with a shorter name). It's just like "assistant for the the chief packaging master of buillon dice" (or translated into norwegian: overbuljongterningpakkemesterassistent, (a well known song by Øystein Sunde))), is actually a very good descriptive job-title, but if you were working with him a lot, you would just end up calling him the packaging assistant.
This is true, but what if the company (object library) had fifty "packaging assistants"? How would you tell someone to give a memo to one of them in particular? Likely you'd use the highly abstract and context-dependent Human Naming Convention and say "give this memo to Mike in packaging". This works great so long as A) packaging only has one "Mike", and B) your messenger knows who "Mike" is. Programming languages, however, require totally explicit instructions so you'd have to tell a computer messenger either this:
You essentially have two choices in Object naming: Give it an irritatingly long descriptive name, or give it an irritatingly obtuse abbreviated name. The difference is that the former is easier on beginners because it requires less "RTFM again" breaks, whereas the latter is easier on experienced coders who've already memorized the entire code library because it requires less typing and makes complex nested equations easier to read.
That's the way I see it anyway. But what do I know?
If you want to send a secret message to someone, you can use ordinary mail. It's a crime to open mail (or is it? since 9/11 they may hav changed this?)
Heh. It's a crime for us to open someone else's mail. When I was in the army I worked with some very sensitive information and it became quite obvious that our mail was being opened. Who's gonna prosecute the feds when they open your mail? The ones doing the opening are also in charge of prosecuting the crime of opening mail...
quo custodiet ipsos custodies
Re:This may mean nothing but...
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 1
I'm using AT&T Broadband internet (http://www.attbi.com), Some one sends me a.tar.gz file... or a.zip file. I, later on, get an e-mail asking if I got the file... I hadn't. He re-sends. I soon get both in my e-mail later that day.
Now I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but... since when do we get e-mails sent second, first? Why are e-mails with attachments taking so much longer to get to me, then e-mails without attachments? Anyone else notice this?
Dude, do you not remember that AT&T consolidated its mediaone.net and attbroadband.com email systems under attbi.com only two weeks ago? I'm surprised so many people are getting their email at all.
This is ridiculous. IANAL, but it seems to me that copyrighting music made from DNA sequences gives them exclusive rights to the reproduction of the music. Anyone who wanted to actually use the DNA sequence need only say "there's nothing musical about my research."
30,000 people die in the USA from gun related mishaps. 50% are sucide, accidents and murder making up the rest.
Lumping together suicides, accidents, and murders, be they with guns or with rat poison, is ludicrous. The three categories are unrelated in their causes. Besides, I don't think suicide and murder count as "mishaps"-- they're usually done on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
shoe fits, quacks like a duck, etc...
and what are the effects of man-destroyed "sinks" for CO2 (rainforest, plankton, etc.) These aren't easy questions to answer.
Actually, these are easy questions to answer. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. So the more we diminish CO2 sinks in one area, the faster they grow in another. It's a fairly well balanced syste-- as it would have to be to have lasted as long as it has. The notion that we humans could actually "break" such a system is the most ludicrous form of arrogance. We're not nearly as powerful as we think, man.
but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 has been found to show greenhouse properties in laboratory experiments, but this information cannot rationally be extrapolated out to reach conclusions regarding a system as complex as our planet. True, a pyrex cylinder filled with 45% CO2 and 55% Nitrogen traps more heat than a cylinder filled with 100% Nitrogen; but we don't live in a pyrex cylinder, we live in the middle of a mind-bogglingly complex system. There are literally too many variables to make any firm conclusion. We can't even accurately predict weather more than 10 days in advance; what makes people think these speculative notions like "by 2050 the global temp will rise by 4 degrees" are any more accurate than a weather report in July predicting snow on Christmas Day?
You would have sounded like less of a fucking retard had you said:
And they pay for it too, what the hell do you think all those toll booths all over the interstates are for? Art?
First, Most of the interstate highway system doesn't have toll booths, fucknut. Drive outside Jersey (or whatever tiny world you live in) and you'll notice that toll roads aren't all that common in the Interstate Highway System. Only 2,230 miles out of the 42,800 mile Interstate highway system are toll roads (that's about 5%), and the toll money is used strictly for maintaining that one section of road. Basically, you have it ass-backwards: it's not that they decided to charge tolls on the interstate, it's that the DOT allowed toll roads into the interstate system because they were already there and building a parallel (free) road was essentially a waste of resources.
Second, the toll-free 95% of the Interstate highway system is maintained with federal money, so we're all paying for it. Even if the federal fuel tax revenues were enough, it still would be a case of light-users subsidizing heavy-users because fuel tax is paid whether you use the gas to drive on the interstate or not, and MOST vehicular travel is people driving within 5 miles of home, not on the everfucking INTERSTATE.
I sound like a retard? At least I know how to look up shit to verify my claims, jackass.
True, you won't be depriving anyone else of cable by stealing it but you will deprive the cable company of the money their service is worth.
This assumes I would pay for some or all of this service were I unable to access it for free.
Goods are not worth the sum of their raw materials, they are worth what the market is willing to pay them. If you steal cable then you are taking $X/month out of the cable company's revenue.
Be that as it may, watching cable for free does not diminish any of the cable company's material goods. If one discontinues one's free cable viewing, the cable company's revenues do not go up, do they? Therefore, watching free cable does not make their revenue go down.
Just because it costs the company nothing if you were to say split your neighbors cable and use it for yourself as well does not mean it's not theft.
By the very fact that no property of the cable company is diminished by unauthorized access of their SERVICE, it is, in fact, NOT THEFT. Theft, larceny, robbery-- these words refer specifically to the taking of physical property from someone. "Theft of service" is an oxymoron. If one forces a mechanic to fix one's car at gunpoint, is it theft? No. Assault and unlawful detention, but not theft. This hijacking of language by [cable/music/software] companies is intentional-- it's meant to elevate in the minds of the public the unauthorized access to services to the same level as breaking into a house and taking a TV. I'm not arguing that it's moral and right to access cable content for free, I'm just pointing out that just because they SAY they've lost money doesn't make it necessarily true.
Cars? Try state and federal taxes on gasoline. 1% of the drivers also pay for more than 16% of highway taxes
Campgrounds? Try per night rates.
Yeah, I know. I was mostly making a point about the statistical irrelevancy oftheir "1% use 16%" thing. They say it as if the low-end folks should be outraged by this "abuse", when in reality if these "P2P leeches" all went to DSL the low-enders would still be paying $50 a month, and the top 1% would still account for ~16% of the bandwidth used. It's a thinly-veiled excuse to squeeze a little more money out of the system, either via over-cap surcharges or redused bandwidth use. I just hate it when corps try to spin their greedy plots as Holy Crusades Against Evil.
Perhaps something's been overlooked here. Often any corporation's largest cost is found in wages and salaries. It's a good bet that for an ISP it's the help desk.
Inquiring minds want to know how much of that slice is taken up by a very small segment of subscribers...
...and how much do you want to bet it's not those 1%-using-16% people who're calling up to ask the help desk why their AOL isn't working...
Yes, thank you. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, only you made it much better.
Your examples actually disprove the point your sympathetic too. Take the highways: what's the appropriate and common solution to a small number of drivers using a high proportion of road resources? Tolls in the more congested areas. That way the people that use it more, pay more.
Please note my specific example was the Interstate Highway System, which (for the most part) is built/maintained with federal money, according to federal rules, and doled out regardless of how much fuel tax money each state sends to the capitol (fuel taxes wouldn't cover the bill anyway). When you come right down to it, we're all paying for highway system. My point is, the 1% using 16% of the bandwidth are just part of the classic Bell Curve. I suspect that the bottom 1% of users consume 1/16% of the bandwidth, and likely 50% of the users account for (wow!) half the bandwidth used! The number is statistically meaningless. Flat-rate service always ALWAYS ALWAYS result in one end "subsidizing" the other.
Traffic snarls in Western cities can in part be blamed on the failure to charge "per byte", as it were; only now are they coming around to the idea, given solid theory and evidence that it helps.
As a life-long resident of one such city (Los Angeles) I can tell you it's not lack of toll roads that caused the traffic here. It's the lack of any sort of alternative to driving to work. People aren't "leeching road bandwidth" because it's free and they want all they can get, so charging them money only results in them not having as much money. The real solution is MORE BANDWIDTH, but there's no place to PUT more roads without invoking emminent domain and the local politics make that nearly impossible.
AT&T Broadband says on its system, 1% percent of users account for 16% of bandwidth consumption.
What bugs me is the way they throw out this stat as if it's astounding-- it's not. Look at any system used by numerous people and you'll see about the same distribution. Take the US interstate highway system, for example: I'd lay money that 1% of the drivers thereon account for more than 16% of the traffic. How about campgrounds? 1% of the population accounts for a whopping 90% of campground usage. Their complaint is statistically meaningless.
Cool, I'll be right over to run an extension cord from your house/apt to power my air conditioner. Or better yet, siphon gas from your car...
Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times must we go through this here on slashdot? Allow me to illustrate for the umpteenth time:
Electricity and gasoline are sold as goods (electricity is a virtual good, as it is paid for by quantity used). The Consumption of goods is a zero-sum equation: if you use one liter of gas or one kilowatt of electricity, I cannot use that liter or kilowatt. Cable TV service (like "music" or "software") isn't diminished by use. If you watch a program on cable TV, I can still watch the same program in my home without either of us experiencing any loss of viewing experience. Cable TV service is a service. Unauthorized access to this service is illegal, but it does not rise to the level of theft, as it does not result in material diminishment.
Mind you, I make no claim that it's morally right or wrong to illegally access this service; I only wish for fools to stop posting replies saying "So I guess it's Ok if I come into your house and steal [$MATERIAL_GOODS] then, right?" whenever someone points out that pirating [cable|software|MP3s] does not automatically equal a monetary loss for the seller of same.
Katz said it "isn't clear what happened to Hap". Perhaps he meant to write "isn't clear whether Dormer intentionally shot Hap", but that leaves us with the conclusion that Katz doesn't know how to write, which has the same result as before: the review is incorrect. In the end, I suppose it amounts to the same thing: Katz is lame.
That's why you buy some of those lame plastic things to put over the top of the key - they're supposed to make it easier to tell one key from another, but what they are really good for is covering up the do-not-duplicate warning. If the clerk can't see it, he won't abide by it.
If you absolutely must get that Do Not Dupe key copied, the absolute best way to do it is break the head off the key, take it in to a locksmith, and say "I broke my key. can you make me a couple copies?"
Most jurisdictions forbid the possession of lockpics by those other than licensed locksmiths and law enforcement.
Most jurisdictions don't even have a licensing program for locksmiths, much less require such a license to posess lock picks. I'm a locksmith and here in Los Angeles we only need a city permit for our key duplicating equipment (because burglars used to buy $800 key cutters before that, right?) and a state resale #. There is no state licensing for locksmiths. Associated Locksmiths Of America members have been debating for years whether to lobby for mandatory licensing, but so far most states require no certification whatsoever.
A DSL line is not set up the same way as a POTS line.
Nonsense. The utility of DSL is that it shares a plain copper pair with POTS. Now, if what you meant was that DSL doesn't use modulated audio to transmit data so it doesn't use any Plain Old Telephone Service systems (other than the Last Mile copper pair) then you are correct; however, that is irrelevant to the discussion as Madison Priest never claimed to be transmitting video via a modulated 48v signal-- all he claimed was that he was using a plain copper pair. In essence, he was claiming to have invented some sort of "super DSL" and banking on the fact that Bell Labs et al had been saying for years that the speeds DSL was providing over copper were impossible.
Including John Koch whom solved the century-old Four Color Problem
Ummm...the Four-Color Problem is not something one "solves". The "problem" was that the Four-Color Conjecture, while practically obvious to anyone, was very difficult to prove mathematically. And unless this guy changed his name, he isn't either of the dudes who proved the conjecture:
"In 1976, the conjecture was apparently proved by Wolfgang Haken and Kenneth Appel at the Univeristiy of Illinois..."
Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind?
Are you seriously questioning whether internal combustion engine powered road vehicles have been "a good thing"? Efficient, flexible transportation part of the backbone of civilization. How do you think your groceries get to the market? Your books to the bookstore? Your mail to your mailbox? Sure, they pollute, but what nowadays doesn't? Should we abandon electricity because power plants pollute? Maybe we should abandon books while we're at it: have you ever seen the nasty crap that comes out of a paper mill? Our technology is so intertwined that it's not really possible to throw any one part away without effectively throwing it all away. It's bloody simple-minded luddite-ism like that that infuriates me the most. What would you have us do, throw down the ladder by which we've ascended and then jump after it? Is it really "better" that we should live as a non-developing species, forever existing for the sole purpose of continuing to exist? Might as we'll crawl into a hole and die at that point.
I have been very dissapointed with the simpsons this season. Fox needs to fix it quick.
It's not Fox- it's Film Roman. A friend of mine works at Film Roman and he says that the writers for the Simpsons have been saying "this is the last season" for about three years. But when it comes time to write the next season's scripts, Fox brings in a huge wheelbarrow full of money and says "will this change your mind?" Invariably it does.
Heh. I'll go so far as to say that this guy's full of it. Besides the fact that he touts the efficacy of Homeopathy, which is the least credible "alternative" medicine, he also says he's the "Director of Particle Acceleration" (a bogus job title if I've ever heard one) at a university that doesn't really exist. Additionally he's attached the traditionally spoken honorific "Doctor" to his name, which is not the usual way of indicating such in written form. If he'd said:
Melvin Thusian, PhD.
University of Michigan
Director, High-Energy Physics Dept.
then MAYBE he would've been believable (except for the homeopathy part; he'd have to substitute aromatherapy to be credible).
Actually, it sounds like "dynamic GOTO position calculation". I don't think *any* paradigm wants to take credit for that. Static gotos were bad enuf.
Read the original quote carefully: the tape header doesn't say where to find information on the tape, it defines how the information is structured. It's not a table of contents; it's a method of interpretation.
I don't know what to do about "BufferedImageMediaStreamWatcherHandlerFactory", though. If it's really an abstract factory for creating handlers to watchers to buffered mediastreams of images, then it's really a well-chosen name, but I don't think that's a pretty common abstraction that would end up all over your code (and if it was, I'm sure you would come up with a shorter name). It's just like "assistant for the the chief packaging master of buillon dice" (or translated into norwegian: overbuljongterningpakkemesterassistent, (a well known song by Øystein Sunde))), is actually a very good descriptive job-title, but if you were working with him a lot, you would just end up calling him the packaging assistant.
m o)
This is true, but what if the company (object library) had fifty "packaging assistants"? How would you tell someone to give a memo to one of them in particular? Likely you'd use the highly abstract and context-dependent Human Naming Convention and say "give this memo to Mike in packaging". This works great so long as A) packaging only has one "Mike", and B) your messenger knows who "Mike" is. Programming languages, however, require totally explicit instructions so you'd have to tell a computer messenger either this:
BullionDiceMasterPackagingAssistant.GiveMemo(Me
...or this:
PackagingAssistantMike.GiveMemo(Memo)
You essentially have two choices in Object naming: Give it an irritatingly long descriptive name, or give it an irritatingly obtuse abbreviated name. The difference is that the former is easier on beginners because it requires less "RTFM again" breaks, whereas the latter is easier on experienced coders who've already memorized the entire code library because it requires less typing and makes complex nested equations easier to read.
That's the way I see it anyway. But what do I know?
If you want to send a secret message to someone, you can use ordinary mail. It's a crime to open mail (or is it? since 9/11 they may hav changed this?)
Heh. It's a crime for us to open someone else's mail. When I was in the army I worked with some very sensitive information and it became quite obvious that our mail was being opened. Who's gonna prosecute the feds when they open your mail? The ones doing the opening are also in charge of prosecuting the crime of opening mail...
quo custodiet ipsos custodies
I'm using AT&T Broadband internet (http://www.attbi.com), Some one sends me a .tar.gz file... or a .zip file. I, later on, get an e-mail asking if I got the file... I hadn't. He re-sends. I soon get both in my e-mail later that day.
Now I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but... since when do we get e-mails sent second, first?
Why are e-mails with attachments taking so much longer to get to me, then e-mails without attachments? Anyone else notice this?
Dude, do you not remember that AT&T consolidated its mediaone.net and attbroadband.com email systems under attbi.com only two weeks ago? I'm surprised so many people are getting their email at all.
This is ridiculous. IANAL, but it seems to me that copyrighting music made from DNA sequences gives them exclusive rights to the reproduction of the music. Anyone who wanted to actually use the DNA sequence need only say "there's nothing musical about my research."
30,000 people die in the USA from gun related mishaps. 50% are sucide, accidents and murder making up the rest.
Lumping together suicides, accidents, and murders, be they with guns or with rat poison, is ludicrous. The three categories are unrelated in their causes. Besides, I don't think suicide and murder count as "mishaps"-- they're usually done on purpose.