Why not teach the teachers Octave? In many cases, the teacher inherits a MATLAB ciriculum, and really can't explain a whole lot of the scripts or syntax.
Well, it means not drinking at age 17 in a country where the drinking age is 21. I'm sure there's other better examples of stupid pictures recruiters would dislike on the internet, but that particular example is both common and indefensible. If you're already partying and binge drinking in high school, I can't imagine yourself making a dramatic voluntary change in college.
Your examples are silly; placing pornography of a highschool student online is highly likely to be child pornography, and carries a ten year sentence minimum in the US. In light of that, I don't think it's socially acceptable to record it, let alone put it on the net. In contrast, I can think of a lot of things that you'd see as socially unacceptable in high school that are perfectly acceptable to college recruiters. The problem is simply publishing without consent; I imagine some people would hate seeing pictures of them in Boy Scout uniforms published to their peers.
Well, I admit I've never read the C FAQ. But I'd love to see the contortions one must make to explain why you cant return pointers to auto variables. These are the same sort of people who get angry when people confuse "pass by reference" for "passing references by value".
The problem with C is that it requires a decent explanation of computer architecture to understand; no other language is quite this bad. This leads to explanations about the stack versus heap and other technical considerations that no other language FAQ needs to explain. Meanwhile, beginners become frustrated, angry that you're lecturing them on some boring low level details that they're certain don't matter, because they never have elsewhere. This is why the best way to learn C is to learn assembly first, then decide there must be better ways.
It pains me that the lead developer, Jeff Atwood, has never learned C. In spite of naming his site "StackOverflow"! Well, I guess it proves the old adage "Those who can, do. Those who can't, stack overflow."
Teaching security is hard. In a more ideal world, your students adore math and critical thinking, and would love to sign up for a course on cryptography and computer security with all those pre-requisites. And TAs would grade programs with an eye to all forms of flaws, be it database normalization, documentation or injection.
The depressing reality is that students don't have any passion if it isn't related to video games, and teaching "intro to databases" is about the least impressive role I know of in CS, short of perhaps the "cs 101: microsoft office" courses that CS departments get pressed into offering.
Wal-Mart is known for their massive infrastructure at corporate, logging the sales of their product and warehouse inventory in real time (or very close). At one point my alma mater received a donation of an 82 processor system from them; Pentium Pros, presumably ousted for Xeons by 2000. I don't envy the graduate student employed to make such a beast run to where it's worth having powered on!
I'm sure there's dumbass field technicians out there that you'd have to interact with as a tenant of Walmart, but I only hear praise for their internal IT machine. Which side of the Cat-5 debate were you on?
The problem is that the official icon is more usable than the community edition icon, which still has limitations. Ubuntu didn't always ship the branded icon, but it's clear that nobody realizes at first that the firefox quicklaunch icon is a web browser. It's like a joke that requires you to call it a "world wide web broswer", or remember what WWW is supposed to stand for. But hell if I know what to do about it. A page in the NYtimes with iceweasel icons promoting open source web browsers?
It's really incredibly sad what they're doing; phoenix was an unofficial project and they had to rename the project twice in order to make this branding thing possible again.
Why give up a system where you can fly across the GUI, knowing precisely where everything is and have become totally accustomed to doing things quickly because of this knowledge, to another system where you basically have to relearn a large portion, JUST because of something trivial as the activation of XP?
Because eventually, your employer will be picking up Vista anyways?
Interestingly, this is a recursive benchmark, a place where v8 is noted to perform well. If v8 generates floating point instructions, that might also explain some of the performance. While this benchmark is likely suitable for floating point, it's not clear to me that your apps use heavy recursion.
Ideally we could just compare generated code and see which should be faster, but the speed of JIT is also a factor that must be accounted for.
Because their incredible v8 engineers didn't target 64bit arches before release. Since javascript is a major portion of the WWW now and drives some of the UI, there is no 64bit build. Enjoy!
"They do this because it allows others to fix things for them and help create interoperable systems."
Fix things for them, that might happen on occasion, but has anyone created an "interoperable system" based on that source?
From what I've heard, OSX isn't very POSIX smart (sync is implemented as noop) and behavior changes dramatically between releases. I also recall reading that the macFUSE/proc implementation was based on unpublished APIs. I don't think it was the Darwin source that made it work.
Then I suggest you look into forms and faxes, because it's impossible. Even a problem as simple as screensize means a difference in layout. PDF and ps solved this whole perfect layout thing, but as it turns out, it's damn near impossible to write for.
Fundamentally, a binary package is a set of files to be installed in specific locations. Those specific locations are built into relationships between files, both within packages and between packages. Between packages is an important part of the equation -- it allows the entire system to run a set of shared binary libraries. If every application carried it's own version of gtk or other libraries and didn't share RAM, the modern desktop would be unworkable.
What companies want is a single binary to run on "Linux", the way a single binary runs on "Windows". But it's not just a matter of writing alien, which can convert RPM binary archives into.deb archives. You need binary compatible libraries!
There's nothing in it for data recovery companies to participate. Their customers are law enforcement, so why should a company doing strong data recovery bother proving that criminals need to use a secure delete mechanism?
Last I checked, Two Scoops was still in production after ten years, and the margins terrible. In contrast, computer equipment moves rapidly. This is most apparent in chip fabrication, but also in final computer assembly. The fact is, you can't spend the time wringing out production efficiencies in a product with a 3 year life span. Especially when assembly is such a small part of the cost anyways, it just doesn't make sense to focus on that rather than reducing part costs.
Coase's theorem is the relevant economic concept, about when firms choose to hire employees (do it themselves) versus go to the market. And there are ton of contract manufacturers driving prices down. By letting these guys focus on the cost of operating their plants (which plenty run several of), Dell can focus on financing and marketing and pricing features you and I want, rather than pursue slim improvements in margins that are the staple of commodity manufacturing.
The truth is, Dell pursued production too much, at the expense of margins. By selling off the factories, they can move the balance between share of sales and prices much faster. Just order less and let the contract manufacturer deal with what to do with the downtime.
Privacy policies need a PhD to decipher, or just an bachelors? I'd love to run around saying I have a PhD when I only have a bachelors, since clearly nobody cares about the difference...
"They" didn't use it to analyze literal traffic. "They" used it to analyze the flow of communications, for things like who talks to who. If you have monitoring in place, you can uncover communication hubs that are a) critical to the flow of information and b) are likely command centers who's destruction would leave opposing military momentarily crippled.
The wikipedia stuff is a bit stronger than mere traffic analysis. It is similar, though. We know the contents of edits, and which page they intend to edit. Rather than just noticing communication with wikipedia increasing for both McCain and Palin, we noice that offices were hitting both pages in greater frequency than others. Correlating edits requires a bit of a redefinition of "traffic" to make the connection.
Indeed, the PDF paper says this is measuring the rate of filtering AFTER using Spaumhaus black holes, and the measured rate is their custom "Cloudmark" spam detection tool. Importantly, if their tool sucks enough that people opt out of it entirely, all email is considered "not-spam". But as long as these effects are not influenced by the first letter, that's okay.
Unfortunately, the paper tries very hard to present a very silly notion about 'a' versus 'z'. The important concept here isn't order, it's letter frequency, and they should have sorted the letters by that to plot their regression.
Effectively spam is a combination of email harvesting and email guessing. Harvesting email addreses contributes to spam, but probably builds lists closely resembling the distribution of valid inboxes. Guessing attacks generally do not reflect the distribution of letters used in the English language (the language of the ISP's host nation, and presumably most of the users and domains hosted). The assumption isn't that these attacks stop before they make it to Z, but that they overweight z*@example.com. So more spam is sent to those addresses per valid inbox than more common letters. And the paper goes on to say a lot of those land in nonexistant mailboxes relative to more populated leading inbox letters.
They go on to try to quantify the difference but seem to fail for various reasons, including the aforementioned spamhaus.
I believe his point is that you can modify BSD licensed works, and license your changes under the more restrictive GPL. The BSD disclaimer still holds, and the additional one does as well. What you cannot generally do is remove the BSD disclaimer or copyright notice. The original author still holds copyright over the parts you didn't change!
The wireless controversy was a great deal trickier than a mere Slashdot summary can contain: some places in the source code suggested it was available under BSD or GPL, rather than both, and that led to a Linux kernel hacker picking GPL and dropping the dual offer, much to the outrage of the BSD developers who felt unable to accept those changes into their projects.
Complying with the GPL is simple: when you ship binaries based on GPL code, provide the source you used to build them. It's only when people think they can get away with not providing the source because they're not technically linking to GPL'd code or otherwise violate the spirit of the agreement that it gets complex. Do you disagree, that shipping source is a sufficient action to comply with the GPL?
#2 seems more likely, but I'd phrase it: "People who've used Linux, but never actually read the GPL or informed their clients of their obligations, figuring they could just wing it."
Slashdot Mirror
Why not teach the teachers Octave? In many cases, the teacher inherits a MATLAB ciriculum, and really can't explain a whole lot of the scripts or syntax.
Well, it means not drinking at age 17 in a country where the drinking age is 21. I'm sure there's other better examples of stupid pictures recruiters would dislike on the internet, but that particular example is both common and indefensible. If you're already partying and binge drinking in high school, I can't imagine yourself making a dramatic voluntary change in college.
Your examples are silly; placing pornography of a highschool student online is highly likely to be child pornography, and carries a ten year sentence minimum in the US. In light of that, I don't think it's socially acceptable to record it, let alone put it on the net. In contrast, I can think of a lot of things that you'd see as socially unacceptable in high school that are perfectly acceptable to college recruiters. The problem is simply publishing without consent; I imagine some people would hate seeing pictures of them in Boy Scout uniforms published to their peers.
Well, I admit I've never read the C FAQ. But I'd love to see the contortions one must make to explain why you cant return pointers to auto variables. These are the same sort of people who get angry when people confuse "pass by reference" for "passing references by value".
The problem with C is that it requires a decent explanation of computer architecture to understand; no other language is quite this bad. This leads to explanations about the stack versus heap and other technical considerations that no other language FAQ needs to explain. Meanwhile, beginners become frustrated, angry that you're lecturing them on some boring low level details that they're certain don't matter, because they never have elsewhere. This is why the best way to learn C is to learn assembly first, then decide there must be better ways.
It pains me that the lead developer, Jeff Atwood, has never learned C. In spite of naming his site "StackOverflow"! Well, I guess it proves the old adage "Those who can, do. Those who can't, stack overflow."
Teaching security is hard. In a more ideal world, your students adore math and critical thinking, and would love to sign up for a course on cryptography and computer security with all those pre-requisites. And TAs would grade programs with an eye to all forms of flaws, be it database normalization, documentation or injection.
The depressing reality is that students don't have any passion if it isn't related to video games, and teaching "intro to databases" is about the least impressive role I know of in CS, short of perhaps the "cs 101: microsoft office" courses that CS departments get pressed into offering.
Wal-Mart is known for their massive infrastructure at corporate, logging the sales of their product and warehouse inventory in real time (or very close). At one point my alma mater received a donation of an 82 processor system from them; Pentium Pros, presumably ousted for Xeons by 2000. I don't envy the graduate student employed to make such a beast run to where it's worth having powered on!
I'm sure there's dumbass field technicians out there that you'd have to interact with as a tenant of Walmart, but I only hear praise for their internal IT machine. Which side of the Cat-5 debate were you on?
The problem is that the official icon is more usable than the community edition icon, which still has limitations. Ubuntu didn't always ship the branded icon, but it's clear that nobody realizes at first that the firefox quicklaunch icon is a web browser. It's like a joke that requires you to call it a "world wide web broswer", or remember what WWW is supposed to stand for. But hell if I know what to do about it. A page in the NYtimes with iceweasel icons promoting open source web browsers?
It's really incredibly sad what they're doing; phoenix was an unofficial project and they had to rename the project twice in order to make this branding thing possible again.
Because eventually, your employer will be picking up Vista anyways?
Interestingly, this is a recursive benchmark, a place where v8 is noted to perform well. If v8 generates floating point instructions, that might also explain some of the performance. While this benchmark is likely suitable for floating point, it's not clear to me that your apps use heavy recursion.
Ideally we could just compare generated code and see which should be faster, but the speed of JIT is also a factor that must be accounted for.
Because their incredible v8 engineers didn't target 64bit arches before release. Since javascript is a major portion of the WWW now and drives some of the UI, there is no 64bit build. Enjoy!
Well, since he wound up in court over it, I'd say that yes, he was a black hat. A rebel with a cause, if you will.
"They do this because it allows others to fix things for them and help create interoperable systems."
Fix things for them, that might happen on occasion, but has anyone created an "interoperable system" based on that source?
From what I've heard, OSX isn't very POSIX smart (sync is implemented as noop) and behavior changes dramatically between releases. I also recall reading that the macFUSE /proc implementation was based on unpublished APIs. I don't think it was the Darwin source that made it work.
How is it that a company can generate their own solar power cheaper than contracting it to the market?
Then I suggest you look into forms and faxes, because it's impossible. Even a problem as simple as screensize means a difference in layout. PDF and ps solved this whole perfect layout thing, but as it turns out, it's damn near impossible to write for.
Fundamentally, a binary package is a set of files to be installed in specific locations. Those specific locations are built into relationships between files, both within packages and between packages. Between packages is an important part of the equation -- it allows the entire system to run a set of shared binary libraries. If every application carried it's own version of gtk or other libraries and didn't share RAM, the modern desktop would be unworkable.
What companies want is a single binary to run on "Linux", the way a single binary runs on "Windows". But it's not just a matter of writing alien, which can convert RPM binary archives into .deb archives. You need binary compatible libraries!
There's nothing in it for data recovery companies to participate. Their customers are law enforcement, so why should a company doing strong data recovery bother proving that criminals need to use a secure delete mechanism?
Last I checked, Two Scoops was still in production after ten years, and the margins terrible. In contrast, computer equipment moves rapidly. This is most apparent in chip fabrication, but also in final computer assembly. The fact is, you can't spend the time wringing out production efficiencies in a product with a 3 year life span. Especially when assembly is such a small part of the cost anyways, it just doesn't make sense to focus on that rather than reducing part costs.
Coase's theorem is the relevant economic concept, about when firms choose to hire employees (do it themselves) versus go to the market. And there are ton of contract manufacturers driving prices down. By letting these guys focus on the cost of operating their plants (which plenty run several of), Dell can focus on financing and marketing and pricing features you and I want, rather than pursue slim improvements in margins that are the staple of commodity manufacturing.
The truth is, Dell pursued production too much, at the expense of margins. By selling off the factories, they can move the balance between share of sales and prices much faster. Just order less and let the contract manufacturer deal with what to do with the downtime.
Privacy policies need a PhD to decipher, or just an bachelors? I'd love to run around saying I have a PhD when I only have a bachelors, since clearly nobody cares about the difference...
In what way is Gecko heavy-per-process that shared libraries wouldn't solve?
I can name several forks that were positive:
* Xorg
* gcc/ecgs
* apache
* Ubuntu
* Firefox
* Inkscape
* Wireshark
Can you name as many "bad forks"?
"They" didn't use it to analyze literal traffic. "They" used it to analyze the flow of communications, for things like who talks to who. If you have monitoring in place, you can uncover communication hubs that are a) critical to the flow of information and b) are likely command centers who's destruction would leave opposing military momentarily crippled.
The wikipedia stuff is a bit stronger than mere traffic analysis. It is similar, though. We know the contents of edits, and which page they intend to edit. Rather than just noticing communication with wikipedia increasing for both McCain and Palin, we noice that offices were hitting both pages in greater frequency than others. Correlating edits requires a bit of a redefinition of "traffic" to make the connection.
Indeed, the PDF paper says this is measuring the rate of filtering AFTER using Spaumhaus black holes, and the measured rate is their custom "Cloudmark" spam detection tool. Importantly, if their tool sucks enough that people opt out of it entirely, all email is considered "not-spam". But as long as these effects are not influenced by the first letter, that's okay.
Unfortunately, the paper tries very hard to present a very silly notion about 'a' versus 'z'. The important concept here isn't order, it's letter frequency, and they should have sorted the letters by that to plot their regression.
Effectively spam is a combination of email harvesting and email guessing. Harvesting email addreses contributes to spam, but probably builds lists closely resembling the distribution of valid inboxes. Guessing attacks generally do not reflect the distribution of letters used in the English language (the language of the ISP's host nation, and presumably most of the users and domains hosted). The assumption isn't that these attacks stop before they make it to Z, but that they overweight z*@example.com. So more spam is sent to those addresses per valid inbox than more common letters. And the paper goes on to say a lot of those land in nonexistant mailboxes relative to more populated leading inbox letters.
They go on to try to quantify the difference but seem to fail for various reasons, including the aforementioned spamhaus.
I believe his point is that you can modify BSD licensed works, and license your changes under the more restrictive GPL. The BSD disclaimer still holds, and the additional one does as well. What you cannot generally do is remove the BSD disclaimer or copyright notice. The original author still holds copyright over the parts you didn't change!
The wireless controversy was a great deal trickier than a mere Slashdot summary can contain: some places in the source code suggested it was available under BSD or GPL, rather than both, and that led to a Linux kernel hacker picking GPL and dropping the dual offer, much to the outrage of the BSD developers who felt unable to accept those changes into their projects.
Complying with the GPL is simple: when you ship binaries based on GPL code, provide the source you used to build them. It's only when people think they can get away with not providing the source because they're not technically linking to GPL'd code or otherwise violate the spirit of the agreement that it gets complex. Do you disagree, that shipping source is a sufficient action to comply with the GPL?
#2 seems more likely, but I'd phrase it: "People who've used Linux, but never actually read the GPL or informed their clients of their obligations, figuring they could just wing it."