I saw an average flaw density of 24 flaws per megabyte of executable code and a median flaw density of 3 flaws per megabyte of executable code.
Seriously? I don't claim to be learned in the art and science of software QA, but WTF is up with this? Apparently, a relative handful of programs are pulling the average quality way, way down. Is there no way to identify these abortions and abort them?
I believe that would be a "no" unless you consider parading your message past Google, who probably keeps a bigger file on you than any other entity, private. And it might be a worse than that--saying it's only Google that sees the message assumes that Google doesn't decrypt the message in one facility, send it from that data center to another in the clear, then re-encrypt and send to your recipient. Whose to say your mail server is in the same facility as his just because both accounts are with Google?
I dread that we will see another Kent State before this is over.
You're not the only one. The other day I was watching a televised report of one of the recent cases of police "over-zealousness" with my wife. Assuming she was paying attention to the TV, and in a reference to the rising tension in the country, I muttered, "Four dead in O-Hi-O." Apparently she had been lost in her own thoughts, because when she realized what I had just said, she jerked her head around and said, "Not again!"
I would assume that you meant "homocentric" (instead of "homophobic") except that word is already taken. Perhaps your macro accidentally captured a variable?
Fortunately, this "technology" is so primitive that it's worse than useless for its purpose. For instance, if I want to know what variant of "mother-fucker" I will slip through the filter, I just scan the list for suggestions until I note that "mothafucka" is blocked, but "motherfucka" isn't. If I have an irresistible urge to blaspheme, I might note that "goddamn" is blocked, but its synonym "goddamned" is not. Also, "Blow me, you dipshit," seems to be A-Okay.
But, what really sucks about it, as usual, is the damage it does to legitimate expression. Saying "orgasm" is a crime? I can't write "vagina" or "smut"? "Retard" might be an offensive noun, but I don't know anybody who objects to the verb.
I second this post. There are too many options/variables when you mow a large irregular space and too many possibilities that won't be considered by one-algorithm-fits-all solutions. How much is your mower's maneuverability degraded as speed goes up--would you be better off with a solution that had more straight lines but let you go faster? How about that little patch that sticks off the northwest corner--are you better off fitting it into the big pattern, or do you leave it until last, then deadhead over to get it separately? What is your system for trimming up the portions your big mower can't get to (or are there any of those?)--is it better to get every last bit you can with the zero-turn, or since you have to get the walk-behind out anyway, are you just wasting time getting every last blade you can with the big mower?
I think trying to solve this with a computer is like writing a program to compose an email to your mother. You probably get better results faster if you just do it yourself.
Your parent's use of the term exponential growth is correct. From an article linked in the article you sited:
Exponential growth (including exponential decay) occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. In the case of a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals it is also called geometric growth or geometric decay (the function values form a geometric progression).
Any graph that uses the independent variable as a positive exponent in the dependent variable is going to blow through the roof sooner or later.
Of course, this doesn't mean that extrapolation is a valid means of prediction. TFA has plenty of problems as prognostication. But its use of "exponential growth" is in accordance with general usage.
Synopsis: Nobody has any idea what the specifics of this guy's employment arrangement were, nor how the employer came to be in possession of the disputed code. Several people have asked for more details, but the picture remains murky. All suggestions and comments--well-intentioned though they may be--are therefore based on speculation. (Oh, and prostitution either is or is not a victimless crime or not-crime.)
Dude, it's the internet. Extra points for copyright infringement.
That said, this must surely be analogous to having someone send you random shit in the mail that you never ordered. Now you own it--throw the bill in the trash.
I certainly don't regard the FAA as an intelligence agency.
Not much of an insight. Perhaps that's why I said, "The closest I've ever gotten to being in an intelligence agency was taking the tour at the FBI in D.C." Still, the job does require Secret clearance (which requires investigation by a bona fide intelligence agency), and the FAA does not (intentionally) permit any history of illicit drug use.
Yet, oddly enough, the organisations still manage to function and nothing happens to indicate a serious failure of operation. Perhaps you overestimated the extent of incompetence, or were yourself finding something hard to understand and assumed someone else was acting irrationally?
I'm not sure you're following the game. This conversation all started with an article about U.S. intelligence agencies paying a man US$20,000,000 to detect and decode (presumably) steganographic messages in news broadcasts. That charlatans can weasel their way into the most sensitive parts of the government on this side of the pond is, if not a proven fact, at least a given for the purposes of our little chat here.
The closest I've ever gotten to being in an intelligence agency was taking the tour at the FBI in D.C. about 20 years ago. But I did spend 25 years working for the FAA, which is responsible for ensuring the safety of aviation in the U.S. (presumably without choking off air travel to a trickle), and I saw examples of ignorance and incompetence in positions of authority and consequence that have scarred me for life. Most people don't know anything, and they don't know anything about what they might know if they did know anything, and they don't know any way to figure out the extent of their ignorance if they did want to know (which they don't).
As a humorous aside, here's an example of what passes for "security" in the U.S.: a supervisor of mine (we'll call him Tom, since that's his name) told the story of how, when he had been in the agency for just a couple of years, a friend of his broke up with his wife. The wife got angry and called the ATC center where we worked and told management that her (future ex-)husband and his buddies (including, naturally, Tom) had smoked marijuana in her presence. This, of course, started a witch hunt which ended with Tom being interviewed by his superior. It went something like this:
Tom's Boss: Tom, we hear you've smoked pot. Is that true?
Tom: Yes.
Tom's Boss: We can't fire you for that because we can't prove it, but since you admitted it to me we'll have to fire you for falsifying government documents.
Tom: What documents?
Tom's Boss: Your SF-171 Application for Government Employment. Where it asks if you've used illegal drugs, you said "no."
Tom: No, I didn't. I said yes.
Tom's Boss: Huh?
Tom: When I filled out the SF-171, I said I had used marijuana.
Tom's Boss: You did?
Tom: Yes.
Tom's Boss: Oh.
And that was it. As far as I know (I'm retired now), Tom still works there, 30 years after the PATCO strike opened up a position for him. And that, my friend, is what passes for due diligence in the U.S. government.
Fun fact: my first wife was so acquainted with the effects of the various recreational drugs that she could have told me what you're on just be reading your baffling and ungrammatical prose.
Hey genius, you do realize that Windows XP is still being sold, right? That brand new computers are shipping by the thousand every single day with Windows XP as the OEM-installed operating system? Can you seriously claim that it's alright for them to just walk away from a product they are still shipping because they have better things to do with their time? Did you give your position even five seconds of thought?
You can inform the FAA to issue a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) and you can get your flight permitted, all of the ham groups know how to do this. You can get a fine for not informing the FAA if your payload is over a certain weight.
You can, and you should, provide this information to the FAA. Rest assured, however, that no meaningful action will be taken in response. It's all based on the big sky theory (which, it should be noted, has a pretty good record in this matter).
When my wife and prepared to homeschool our kids back in 2001, we both talked a lot about unschooling (yes, the term was in use that far back and longer). It intrigued us. At one point we may even have convinced ourselves that we were going to give it a try. But a funny thing happened on the way to unschool. By the time our kids were done with their reading and writing and arithmetic lessons, they didn't have much more time for learning through play than any other kids did.
Apparently our common sense was stronger than we gave it credit for. No way were we going to let our kids not learn the three R's. In time, we added the usual history and geography and science and so on, and though we never did subscribe to anybody else's curriculum, ours ended up looking pretty standard.
We did eventually join a homeschool group to give our kids a way to meet other kids, and that group included a few unschooled children. We saw nothing to make us think we had erred in actually educating our kids. The unschoolers weren't unpleasant to be around; they just didn't know much, and even the other kids could see it.
[This is all in the past tense because our kids started public school this year -- eighth grade. They're on par with the kids in the AP classes in English (excuse me, Language Arts), and algebra. The other classes aren't tracked (grouped, stratified, whatever), so kids of all abilities are in the same classes, and ours are ahead of many of their classmates in those areas. They're experiencing a bit of culture shock, but overall we're pleased with how it's going. FYI.]
Well, on the one hand, TFA denies this. Supposedly they tested women too, and they kept their shit together.
OTOH, I have to agree with you. My wife spent a couple weeks trying to get me to ask her out when we met. I'm slow, but I finally figured it out and asked for her number, and she forgot the digits. She said something like, "You'll have to get it out from the supervisor." (Yeah, we worked together.) I thought she was acting a bit too unimpressed, but I went out with her anyway -- later she told me that she had just gotten too nervous to remember her phone number.
I don't know about their being a norm, but they're certainly not unheard of. Per Wikipedia, Kevin Mitnick was treated in a similar fashion before his trial.
So, did anyone else who has seen District 9 start to laugh about halfway through the summary? It sounds about as complicated as the process the Prawns use to make fuel for their spaceships -- and probably has about as high a yield, too.
Why the hell are you summarizing the essay (or whatever it is) for him? What makes you think he'll read your post if he didn't bother with TFA? Because your post is shorter? It's still longer than a tweet, so by definition Too Long To Read.
I suggest that in the future you not muddy up someone's confusion with a concise statement of fact.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
Seriously? I don't claim to be learned in the art and science of software QA, but WTF is up with this? Apparently, a relative handful of programs are pulling the average quality way, way down. Is there no way to identify these abortions and abort them?
I believe that would be a "no" unless you consider parading your message past Google, who probably keeps a bigger file on you than any other entity, private. And it might be a worse than that--saying it's only Google that sees the message assumes that Google doesn't decrypt the message in one facility, send it from that data center to another in the clear, then re-encrypt and send to your recipient. Whose to say your mail server is in the same facility as his just because both accounts are with Google?
It's a quote, not his stated opinion. Are you sure he wasn't being ironic?
You're not the only one. The other day I was watching a televised report of one of the recent cases of police "over-zealousness" with my wife. Assuming she was paying attention to the TV, and in a reference to the rising tension in the country, I muttered, "Four dead in O-Hi-O." Apparently she had been lost in her own thoughts, because when she realized what I had just said, she jerked her head around and said, "Not again!"
Interesting times.
I would assume that you meant "homocentric" (instead of "homophobic") except that word is already taken. Perhaps your macro accidentally captured a variable?
FWIW, Doug McIlroy is generally credited with developing Unix pipes.
Fortunately, this "technology" is so primitive that it's worse than useless for its purpose. For instance, if I want to know what variant of "mother-fucker" I will slip through the filter, I just scan the list for suggestions until I note that "mothafucka" is blocked, but "motherfucka" isn't. If I have an irresistible urge to blaspheme, I might note that "goddamn" is blocked, but its synonym "goddamned" is not. Also, "Blow me, you dipshit," seems to be A-Okay.
But, what really sucks about it, as usual, is the damage it does to legitimate expression. Saying "orgasm" is a crime? I can't write "vagina" or "smut"? "Retard" might be an offensive noun, but I don't know anybody who objects to the verb.
People who think up shit like this suck.
Microsoft and Intuit
I second this post. There are too many options/variables when you mow a large irregular space and too many possibilities that won't be considered by one-algorithm-fits-all solutions. How much is your mower's maneuverability degraded as speed goes up--would you be better off with a solution that had more straight lines but let you go faster? How about that little patch that sticks off the northwest corner--are you better off fitting it into the big pattern, or do you leave it until last, then deadhead over to get it separately? What is your system for trimming up the portions your big mower can't get to (or are there any of those?)--is it better to get every last bit you can with the zero-turn, or since you have to get the walk-behind out anyway, are you just wasting time getting every last blade you can with the big mower?
I think trying to solve this with a computer is like writing a program to compose an email to your mother. You probably get better results faster if you just do it yourself.
Your parent's use of the term exponential growth is correct. From an article linked in the article you sited:
Any graph that uses the independent variable as a positive exponent in the dependent variable is going to blow through the roof sooner or later.
Of course, this doesn't mean that extrapolation is a valid means of prediction. TFA has plenty of problems as prognostication. But its use of "exponential growth" is in accordance with general usage.
Synopsis: Nobody has any idea what the specifics of this guy's employment arrangement were, nor how the employer came to be in possession of the disputed code. Several people have asked for more details, but the picture remains murky. All suggestions and comments--well-intentioned though they may be--are therefore based on speculation. (Oh, and prostitution either is or is not a victimless crime or not-crime.)
Dude, it's the internet. Extra points for copyright infringement.
That said, this must surely be analogous to having someone send you random shit in the mail that you never ordered. Now you own it--throw the bill in the trash.
I certainly don't regard the FAA as an intelligence agency.
Not much of an insight. Perhaps that's why I said, "The closest I've ever gotten to being in an intelligence agency was taking the tour at the FBI in D.C." Still, the job does require Secret clearance (which requires investigation by a bona fide intelligence agency), and the FAA does not (intentionally) permit any history of illicit drug use.
Yet, oddly enough, the organisations still manage to function and nothing happens to indicate a serious failure of operation. Perhaps you overestimated the extent of incompetence, or were yourself finding something hard to understand and assumed someone else was acting irrationally?
Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not sure you're following the game. This conversation all started with an article about U.S. intelligence agencies paying a man US$20,000,000 to detect and decode (presumably) steganographic messages in news broadcasts. That charlatans can weasel their way into the most sensitive parts of the government on this side of the pond is, if not a proven fact, at least a given for the purposes of our little chat here.
The closest I've ever gotten to being in an intelligence agency was taking the tour at the FBI in D.C. about 20 years ago. But I did spend 25 years working for the FAA, which is responsible for ensuring the safety of aviation in the U.S. (presumably without choking off air travel to a trickle), and I saw examples of ignorance and incompetence in positions of authority and consequence that have scarred me for life. Most people don't know anything, and they don't know anything about what they might know if they did know anything, and they don't know any way to figure out the extent of their ignorance if they did want to know (which they don't).
As a humorous aside, here's an example of what passes for "security" in the U.S.: a supervisor of mine (we'll call him Tom, since that's his name) told the story of how, when he had been in the agency for just a couple of years, a friend of his broke up with his wife. The wife got angry and called the ATC center where we worked and told management that her (future ex-)husband and his buddies (including, naturally, Tom) had smoked marijuana in her presence. This, of course, started a witch hunt which ended with Tom being interviewed by his superior. It went something like this:
Tom's Boss: Tom, we hear you've smoked pot. Is that true?
Tom: Yes.
Tom's Boss: We can't fire you for that because we can't prove it, but since you admitted it to me we'll have to fire you for falsifying government documents.
Tom: What documents?
Tom's Boss: Your SF-171 Application for Government Employment. Where it asks if you've used illegal drugs, you said "no."
Tom: No, I didn't. I said yes.
Tom's Boss: Huh?
Tom: When I filled out the SF-171, I said I had used marijuana.
Tom's Boss: You did?
Tom: Yes.
Tom's Boss: Oh.
And that was it. As far as I know (I'm retired now), Tom still works there, 30 years after the PATCO strike opened up a position for him. And that, my friend, is what passes for due diligence in the U.S. government.
Fun fact: my first wife was so acquainted with the effects of the various recreational drugs that she could have told me what you're on just be reading your baffling and ungrammatical prose.
Hey genius, you do realize that Windows XP is still being sold, right? That brand new computers are shipping by the thousand every single day with Windows XP as the OEM-installed operating system? Can you seriously claim that it's alright for them to just walk away from a product they are still shipping because they have better things to do with their time? Did you give your position even five seconds of thought?
Congratulations, fucktard. Worst post of the day.
You can, and you should, provide this information to the FAA. Rest assured, however, that no meaningful action will be taken in response. It's all based on the big sky theory (which, it should be noted, has a pretty good record in this matter).
I'm sure you're right. I'm new at this too.
When my wife and prepared to homeschool our kids back in 2001, we both talked a lot about unschooling (yes, the term was in use that far back and longer). It intrigued us. At one point we may even have convinced ourselves that we were going to give it a try. But a funny thing happened on the way to unschool. By the time our kids were done with their reading and writing and arithmetic lessons, they didn't have much more time for learning through play than any other kids did.
Apparently our common sense was stronger than we gave it credit for. No way were we going to let our kids not learn the three R's. In time, we added the usual history and geography and science and so on, and though we never did subscribe to anybody else's curriculum, ours ended up looking pretty standard.
We did eventually join a homeschool group to give our kids a way to meet other kids, and that group included a few unschooled children. We saw nothing to make us think we had erred in actually educating our kids. The unschoolers weren't unpleasant to be around; they just didn't know much, and even the other kids could see it.
[This is all in the past tense because our kids started public school this year -- eighth grade. They're on par with the kids in the AP classes in English (excuse me, Language Arts), and algebra. The other classes aren't tracked (grouped, stratified, whatever), so kids of all abilities are in the same classes, and ours are ahead of many of their classmates in those areas. They're experiencing a bit of culture shock, but overall we're pleased with how it's going. FYI.]
Well, on the one hand, TFA denies this. Supposedly they tested women too, and they kept their shit together.
OTOH, I have to agree with you. My wife spent a couple weeks trying to get me to ask her out when we met. I'm slow, but I finally figured it out and asked for her number, and she forgot the digits. She said something like, "You'll have to get it out from the supervisor." (Yeah, we worked together.) I thought she was acting a bit too unimpressed, but I went out with her anyway -- later she told me that she had just gotten too nervous to remember her phone number.
I suspect these guys devised a shitty test.
I don't know about their being a norm, but they're certainly not unheard of. Per Wikipedia, Kevin Mitnick was treated in a similar fashion before his trial.
Maybe you had to be there.
So, did anyone else who has seen District 9 start to laugh about halfway through the summary? It sounds about as complicated as the process the Prawns use to make fuel for their spaceships -- and probably has about as high a yield, too.
Dude, you are something else. I like your attitude, and I like that you can work "mean as scratch" into a post and still get modded up. Very cool.
Why the hell are you summarizing the essay (or whatever it is) for him? What makes you think he'll read your post if he didn't bother with TFA? Because your post is shorter? It's still longer than a tweet, so by definition Too Long To Read.
I suggest that in the future you not muddy up someone's confusion with a concise statement of fact.