You just want to do a simple operation on a whole bunch of files. Normally, you'd probably want a shell script, but since what you're doing (changing a bit) is fairly low level, you should probably consider a quick C program. I'll even block it out for you:
int main(int argc, char** argv) { // for each argument (that's a file)
{ // mmap the file // flip the bit (you know the offset, right?) // sync and un map the file
}
printf("Done!\n");
return 0; }
Now, that wasn't that hard, was it? You don't ALWAYS have to find third party tools to do your job for you.
It's called a double standard. Apple, and to a lesser extent Microsoft, can do no wrong when it comes to GUIs while Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Mostly it's a lot of BS and certainly not as black and white as that. "Usability" is a stupid term anyway since it relies exclusively on the individual using it (though there are some designs that everyone will find unusable and potentially some that everyone will find usable). The best "usability" solution in my opinion is one that can be customized to how any user wants to use it. Not pretty eye candy (even if it does look nice). Too bad pretty eye candy (and its screenshots) sells and customizability doesn't (at least not as well).
Oh, well. As long as I can still use Linux, I'm happy:)
Have you Meta Moderated recently? You have 30 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em! This page was generated by a Cadre of Elite Mummies for theCoder (23772).
On second thought, I think I like the new site better:)
freedom.gov is running IIS (our government money at work!). I think by default, IIS hands out cookies to each visitor to keep track of sessions (though I don't remember if it does anything with this information by default -- I think it's mostly for server side ASP stuff). You can always not accept the cookie.
Of course, it's been a couple years since I've had to work with IIS, so I may be remembering incorrectly...
Wow... I must be really "out of touch" where I am. I can see first run movies at (IMO) a fairly nice, new theater for $5/person (matinee or student discount, I think it's $7 for evenings regular). Or, if I can wait, I can see it a couple months later at the dollar theater for only $1. An honest to God, actual dollar theater. As a friend of mine said, that's the cheapest you'll ever see that movie (unless it's on TV, but they usually bastardize it there anyway). I've been going to a lot more movies ever since I found that place. I don't know how they stay in business, but it sure is nice seeing movies so cheap. And the best part about the dollar theater is that almost no one goes thre, so sometimes you have the whole theater almost entirely to yourself. I guess good things do come to those who wait.
In that case, wouldn't it be prudent restrict Microsoft from selling any products or services until an actual sentance is decided? I'd bet that would get the wheels of Justice turning a little faster. As long as it's "business as usual", Microsoft has little incentive to comply with any sort of sentance.
That's why there is an FAA (at least in the US; I'm not familiar with other countries' equivalents). Air trafic is pretty heavily controlled -- pilots are trained and licensed, flight plans have to be filed, radar stations track most every plane in the air. Commercial avaiation isn't actually all that different in this regard at all.
What web page are you looking at? According to http://www.fedscope.com/index.php: "FedScope v1 was released on October 6th, 2002". Last time I checked, that is today.
Glad I checked the source before moderating this post as Informative. Too bad more moderators don't do the same.
No, quantum cryptography ensures that only the intended receiver received the message. Anyone snooping the message would be detected by the receiver (it's complicated to explain, but it has to do with the rotation of the light wave (remember that photons are both particle and wave)). So, you don't send data over a quantum link, you send your temporary key. When both sides have the key (and know that no one else could have sniffed it), they can use regular channels to send the data encrypted with that key.
But no matter what AOL does, I will *never* have to use their service...
Don't be to sure. AOL owns Time-Warner, so right now, I'm paying them $90/month (cable TV + cable Internet). Since both are monopolies, I don't have much of a choice (except go without, but that's a lousy choice if I do want the product). Anyway, there may come a time when you become an AOL customer.
There was a show similar to that on NBC about a year ago called Lost. They took teams of people somewhere in the world, gave them a couple hundred bucks and a camera guy. Whichever team made it back to the Statue of Liberty first won. IIRC, this show aired slightly before 9/11 and had made the unfortunate decision to start the teams off in Afganistan. For some reason, I never saw another episode after the first one (that fact that the people were idiots probably didn't help either).
From the article, it sounds like their case is pretty weak. They pretty much say that the law is a bad law, but that's OK since there's nothing stopping Congress from making bad laws (they're right, but I don't think that's a great argument). They also contend that it's not for the courts to decide what's appropriate copyright law. I'd bet there's more than one justice that wouldn't take too kindly to that:)
Unfortunately, the defenders do have the Constitution on their side. Hopefully the Court will look at the trend of copyright extensions that effectively turn "limited" into "unlimited". Or they might question the retroactivity of the law (Congress isn't supposed to make retroactive laws). Or maybe they'll pull a Roe v. Wade and stike down the law just beacuse they don't like it:)
Kind of like how MS doesn't own the processor and is hence in no position to dictate their "features" like Pallidum?
Now, I'm the first to cheer at Linux's success, but I also think that AOL is going to be the next MS (in the same way the MS was the next IBM). Hell, in some day, we (the tech community) may even be cheering for MS the same way we cheer for IBM.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I'm always leery of large companies who think they know better then their customers.
The problem here is that the site in question is (presumably) not hate speech. I don't think there is a problem labeling a true hate speech site as such, but here, SurfControl has essentially slandered the site by calling it a hate site. It would be as if I went to all my friends and said that zpengo is a racist, hate-mongering son-of-a-bitch and none of his posts should be viewed. Since this is a false statement that I would have told to other people, we're two thirds of the way to slander. Now, you probably wouldn't care that much, since that statement doesn't really hurt you. But what if it did? Then, there would be damages, and you could sue me (or course, IANAL, but that's the general idea as I understand it).
For the site in question, they already have the first two parts -- SurfControl has publicly slandered them (I guess, technically, it would be libel since it's written). The hard part would be to prove damages. Sure, some people can't get to their site from some places, but is that enough to constitute damages? Perhaps just the damage to their reputation is enough? That's where real lawyers and the court system come into play.
Also, some people have commented that it seems contradictory that a Libertarian would be seeking government redress. While I'm not a Libertarian and I don't know all of their policies, I don't think it would necessairly be against their views. Libertarians seem to stand less government intrusion in our lives. When two people have an honest conflict (such as the site and SurfControl), or a crime has been committed, the courts get involved to deal with the situation. If that's incorrect, then I guess I've seriously misjudged the Libertarian party.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. A fried of mine once bought some stuff from an online retailer using a debit card. He had enough money in the account to cover the purchase, but the retailer screwed up and charged too much. The bank hit him with large overdraft fees, compounded by the fact that he didn't check his account status for a while after he had made the purchase. He had no idea anything was wrong until he got his banks statement showing the overdraft and all the fees. Fortunately, since it was the retailer's mistake, they paid the fees, but don't think that just because you don't have money in the account the bank won't take money out of it. Especially when they stand to make lots of money in fees.
After all, according to "The Truth" ads, you can make glowing mice simply by making them smoke cigarettes. And with a name like "The Truth", it must be true, right?:)
Perhaps he should look at the TI-36X. I got the solar powered model since I didn't want to worry about batteries. It certainly isn't as simple as the given one, but it seems to do almost everything it does (except shifting). While the A-F buttons aren't dedicated to that most of the time, they are when it's in Hex mode. It also has a 10 digit display (most calcs only have 8). I've actually bought two, since I lost the first one. Personally, it's the calculator I reach for whenever I need to do any quick calculations (or base conversion stuff). I suppose the only requirement it doesn't adequately fit is only doing what the poster's current one does (but is that really such a problem for us computer geeks?)
Timmeh, in post 4185950 , pointed to this video file that shows the setup and booting of Linux on the X-box. It would be better if it showed them taking the x-box out of a sealed package first (i.e., no modifications), but this is still pretty good (and I don't know if it's possible without mods anyway).
What about "Aaa.java" vs. "AAA.java"? Java classes are case sensitive, meaning the files must be also. I know I've run into problems before with distinct Java classes that work fine on a UNIX platform (with case sensitive filenames) being brought onto a Windows platform where the two classes can no longer coexist. Sure, Java could be changed, but why should it? For some people who can't understand that "Aaa.java" and "AAA.java" are TWO different file names? I've never run into a person who couldn't understand that, once they've been told.
Just like most of UNIX/Linux's "user unfriendliness", it's mearly a difference from what (most) people are used to in the Windows World(TM). Personally, I know I've had more problems with case insensitivity (because I wanted to have two different files with just different cases) than with case sensitive systems. YMMV.
I will reveal [the secret to faster than light travel] on October 18th 2003 at 12:00 GMT.
I can't wait!:P
"Sure, faster than light travel is theoretically impossible... but it's really cool!" -- Bill Nye, the Science Guy, in the Cyberspace Mountain ride at DisneyQuest.
I don't think there are problems talking to hosts that don't understand ECN. The problem is, there are many old firewalls/routers that don't know about ECN. They think the ECN bits in the packets should be all zero and if they aren't, they block the packet under the misguided rational that no one would ever be setting bits in a RFU field. Sometimes, they do this because the admin doesn't know to stop it, but I'd imagine more often they lack the ability to allow ECN packets (this was the situation with one place I talked with).
Turning on ECN isn't the problem. The problem lies in old firewalls/routers that disallow ECN packets.
Fortunately, if you use Linux, you can easily disable ECN at run time: echo "0" >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, my money's on the second coming :)
It's called a double standard. Apple, and to a lesser extent Microsoft, can do no wrong when it comes to GUIs while Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Mostly it's a lot of BS and certainly not as black and white as that. "Usability" is a stupid term anyway since it relies exclusively on the individual using it (though there are some designs that everyone will find unusable and potentially some that everyone will find usable). The best "usability" solution in my opinion is one that can be customized to how any user wants to use it. Not pretty eye candy (even if it does look nice). Too bad pretty eye candy (and its screenshots) sells and customizability doesn't (at least not as well).
:)
Oh, well. As long as I can still use Linux, I'm happy
Hmmm... that's funny... for me it says:
:)
Have you Meta Moderated recently?
You have 30 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em!
This page was generated by a Cadre of Elite Mummies for theCoder (23772).
On second thought, I think I like the new site better
freedom.gov is running IIS (our government money at work!). I think by default, IIS hands out cookies to each visitor to keep track of sessions (though I don't remember if it does anything with this information by default -- I think it's mostly for server side ASP stuff). You can always not accept the cookie.
Of course, it's been a couple years since I've had to work with IIS, so I may be remembering incorrectly...
Wow... I must be really "out of touch" where I am. I can see first run movies at (IMO) a fairly nice, new theater for $5/person (matinee or student discount, I think it's $7 for evenings regular). Or, if I can wait, I can see it a couple months later at the dollar theater for only $1. An honest to God, actual dollar theater. As a friend of mine said, that's the cheapest you'll ever see that movie (unless it's on TV, but they usually bastardize it there anyway). I've been going to a lot more movies ever since I found that place. I don't know how they stay in business, but it sure is nice seeing movies so cheap. And the best part about the dollar theater is that almost no one goes thre, so sometimes you have the whole theater almost entirely to yourself. I guess good things do come to those who wait.
In that case, wouldn't it be prudent restrict Microsoft from selling any products or services until an actual sentance is decided? I'd bet that would get the wheels of Justice turning a little faster. As long as it's "business as usual", Microsoft has little incentive to comply with any sort of sentance.
No, OTP is like a nuclear bomb -- really good at blowing things up, but can only be used once!
That's why there is an FAA (at least in the US; I'm not familiar with other countries' equivalents). Air trafic is pretty heavily controlled -- pilots are trained and licensed, flight plans have to be filed, radar stations track most every plane in the air. Commercial avaiation isn't actually all that different in this regard at all.
What web page are you looking at? According to http://www.fedscope.com/index.php: "FedScope v1 was released on October 6th, 2002". Last time I checked, that is today.
Glad I checked the source before moderating this post as Informative. Too bad more moderators don't do the same.
No, quantum cryptography ensures that only the intended receiver received the message. Anyone snooping the message would be detected by the receiver (it's complicated to explain, but it has to do with the rotation of the light wave (remember that photons are both particle and wave)). So, you don't send data over a quantum link, you send your temporary key. When both sides have the key (and know that no one else could have sniffed it), they can use regular channels to send the data encrypted with that key.
But no matter what AOL does, I will *never* have to use their service...
Don't be to sure. AOL owns Time-Warner, so right now, I'm paying them $90/month (cable TV + cable Internet). Since both are monopolies, I don't have much of a choice (except go without, but that's a lousy choice if I do want the product). Anyway, there may come a time when you become an AOL customer.
You've apparently never battled before the Supreme Court :)
There was a show similar to that on NBC about a year ago called Lost. They took teams of people somewhere in the world, gave them a couple hundred bucks and a camera guy. Whichever team made it back to the Statue of Liberty first won. IIRC, this show aired slightly before 9/11 and had made the unfortunate decision to start the teams off in Afganistan. For some reason, I never saw another episode after the first one (that fact that the people were idiots probably didn't help either).
From the article, it sounds like their case is pretty weak. They pretty much say that the law is a bad law, but that's OK since there's nothing stopping Congress from making bad laws (they're right, but I don't think that's a great argument). They also contend that it's not for the courts to decide what's appropriate copyright law. I'd bet there's more than one justice that wouldn't take too kindly to that :)
:)
Unfortunately, the defenders do have the Constitution on their side. Hopefully the Court will look at the trend of copyright extensions that effectively turn "limited" into "unlimited". Or they might question the retroactivity of the law (Congress isn't supposed to make retroactive laws). Or maybe they'll pull a Roe v. Wade and stike down the law just beacuse they don't like it
Kind of like how MS doesn't own the processor and is hence in no position to dictate their "features" like Pallidum?
Now, I'm the first to cheer at Linux's success, but I also think that AOL is going to be the next MS (in the same way the MS was the next IBM). Hell, in some day, we (the tech community) may even be cheering for MS the same way we cheer for IBM.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I'm always leery of large companies who think they know better then their customers.
The problem here is that the site in question is (presumably) not hate speech. I don't think there is a problem labeling a true hate speech site as such, but here, SurfControl has essentially slandered the site by calling it a hate site. It would be as if I went to all my friends and said that zpengo is a racist, hate-mongering son-of-a-bitch and none of his posts should be viewed. Since this is a false statement that I would have told to other people, we're two thirds of the way to slander. Now, you probably wouldn't care that much, since that statement doesn't really hurt you. But what if it did? Then, there would be damages, and you could sue me (or course, IANAL, but that's the general idea as I understand it).
For the site in question, they already have the first two parts -- SurfControl has publicly slandered them (I guess, technically, it would be libel since it's written). The hard part would be to prove damages. Sure, some people can't get to their site from some places, but is that enough to constitute damages? Perhaps just the damage to their reputation is enough? That's where real lawyers and the court system come into play.
Also, some people have commented that it seems contradictory that a Libertarian would be seeking government redress. While I'm not a Libertarian and I don't know all of their policies, I don't think it would necessairly be against their views. Libertarians seem to stand less government intrusion in our lives. When two people have an honest conflict (such as the site and SurfControl), or a crime has been committed, the courts get involved to deal with the situation. If that's incorrect, then I guess I've seriously misjudged the Libertarian party.
Or you could patch your HTTPS server. Or, if you're not using HTTPS, you could turn it off and/or block port 443. Wouldn't either of those be easier?
I wouldn't be too sure of that. A fried of mine once bought some stuff from an online retailer using a debit card. He had enough money in the account to cover the purchase, but the retailer screwed up and charged too much. The bank hit him with large overdraft fees, compounded by the fact that he didn't check his account status for a while after he had made the purchase. He had no idea anything was wrong until he got his banks statement showing the overdraft and all the fees. Fortunately, since it was the retailer's mistake, they paid the fees, but don't think that just because you don't have money in the account the bank won't take money out of it. Especially when they stand to make lots of money in fees.
After all, according to "The Truth" ads, you can make glowing mice simply by making them smoke cigarettes. And with a name like "The Truth", it must be true, right? :)
Perhaps he should look at the TI-36X. I got the solar powered model since I didn't want to worry about batteries. It certainly isn't as simple as the given one, but it seems to do almost everything it does (except shifting). While the A-F buttons aren't dedicated to that most of the time, they are when it's in Hex mode. It also has a 10 digit display (most calcs only have 8). I've actually bought two, since I lost the first one. Personally, it's the calculator I reach for whenever I need to do any quick calculations (or base conversion stuff). I suppose the only requirement it doesn't adequately fit is only doing what the poster's current one does (but is that really such a problem for us computer geeks?)
Timmeh, in post 4185950 , pointed to this video file that shows the setup and booting of Linux on the X-box. It would be better if it showed them taking the x-box out of a sealed package first (i.e., no modifications), but this is still pretty good (and I don't know if it's possible without mods anyway).
What about "Aaa.java" vs. "AAA.java"? Java classes are case sensitive, meaning the files must be also. I know I've run into problems before with distinct Java classes that work fine on a UNIX platform (with case sensitive filenames) being brought onto a Windows platform where the two classes can no longer coexist. Sure, Java could be changed, but why should it? For some people who can't understand that "Aaa.java" and "AAA.java" are TWO different file names? I've never run into a person who couldn't understand that, once they've been told.
Just like most of UNIX/Linux's "user unfriendliness", it's mearly a difference from what (most) people are used to in the Windows World(TM). Personally, I know I've had more problems with case insensitivity (because I wanted to have two different files with just different cases) than with case sensitive systems. YMMV.
I will reveal [the secret to faster than light travel] on October 18th 2003 at 12:00 GMT.
:P
I can't wait!
"Sure, faster than light travel is theoretically impossible... but it's really cool!" -- Bill Nye, the Science Guy, in the Cyberspace Mountain ride at DisneyQuest.
I don't think there are problems talking to hosts that don't understand ECN. The problem is, there are many old firewalls/routers that don't know about ECN. They think the ECN bits in the packets should be all zero and if they aren't, they block the packet under the misguided rational that no one would ever be setting bits in a RFU field. Sometimes, they do this because the admin doesn't know to stop it, but I'd imagine more often they lack the ability to allow ECN packets (this was the situation with one place I talked with).
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn
Turning on ECN isn't the problem. The problem lies in old firewalls/routers that disallow ECN packets.
Fortunately, if you use Linux, you can easily disable ECN at run time:
echo "0" >