We should teach them if they like it... I taught myself and am teaching myself to code because i like it, i'm not very good at it yet but i'm learning to be better, and most people who really like something have the care and motivation to better themselves and do well at that thing.
For most people, things that are forcibly taught are taken no further than the explicit level of proficiency required to pass whatever test awaits them at the end of the teaching period. And after that, many details and insights of what was taught fades away.
However If it is voluntarily, then not only will the teaching be more effective, but it will form a basis for the person to likely excel by themselves far beyond the proficiency attained by the explicit teachings.
Of course this can apply to anything, but just as much to code. If and when i have a child and i find that coding sparks their curiosity then i will most certainly help them learn about it, but i would never force them to learn it, because once they are not interested it becomes pointless, and energy would be better spent on helping them to learn about whatever else interests them other than chocolate bunny rabbits and video games. It's not even really important if they end up using it, i just think that nurturing curiosity and self learning is very valuable because that's where someone will always learn and enjoy the most, it's a delicate balance trying to teach someone but not kill their curiosity at the same time. The question of an appropriate age is something better answered by someone who has a good understanding of the development of the brain.
It's like eating an elephant: take one bite at a time. Pick a little bit that you think you can tackle and have a go at it. Then take on another bit. And another. Don't be afraid to go back and redo if you find out you're wrong; everyone's wrong sometimes, you've just got to try again.
Well that sort of matches what i've been doing so far which is good.
Initially in complex designs i was naively and iteratively re-writing the whole thing which was painful and brief thankfully. Then eventually iteratively re-writing modules after identifying the dependancy of modules upon other modules and building a hierarchy of dependence with the roots of that hierarchy as the most important parts that must be well defined and complete before delving into successive levels, but then of course some prior knowledge of the workings of the higher level modules and even their existence is still needed to determine the spec of the lowest level modules so it seems that some kind of prototyping or experimentation is required on larger projects.
That's what i've deduced thus far and hopefully that's not too far off what a professional might call along the lines of good basic design, but I was just wondering if there exists some well established theories and models that i could study in the form of a good book. I agree with what you say about when to teach it but there must be some material to teach surely, otherwise theres some much needed text that an accomplished programmer needs to get writing.
Don't follow the crowd--or your favorite crowd. Think for yourself.
I don't know where you drew that conclusion from but i assure you i follow no crowd. Anyway, throughout your response you seem to have missed my key point. So i'll try to make myself a bit clearer and more explicit, and then you can see if it changes your argument.
I wasn't simply announcing the principle of verification as some kind of Indoctrination, i was analysing it's assumptions to make my key point in relation to the existence of God which is: to question the origin of ones proposition. Also you seem to have misinterpreted the principle of verification and much of the source of your argument stems from there, so that seems like a good place to begin:
The essence of your interpretation:
....that anything which cannot be empirically proven to exist must not exist
This is not what verificationism proposes... it proposes that if it cannot be proven or disproven then it is meaningless, not that it is true or false (it can be ether, but it must be possible to find it to be true or false). Now what i was asking is, although it sounds reasonable, why should a proposition be meaningless in that case (whether it's to do with God or anything else for that matter). To answer that, consider these statements and my analysis of them:
(A) There exists an unknown quantity of "things" that we do not yet know.
(B) There also exists an an unknown quantity of "things" that we will never know and never be able to prove or disprove because they are unreachable and cannot affect us in any way.
(C) There are also "things" that are fabrications of the human mind that do not exist other than in the realm of human imagination.
These three statements are logically sound and true. now lets determine each of their classifications by verificationism:
(A) by definition is within our capability to know, so any proposition that fits this category is verifiable, there for it is classified as meaningful.
(B) by definition we can never know, any proposition that fits this category is unverifiable, there for it is classified as meaningless.
(C) by definition can be anything we imagine that is also false, some of these fabrications are grounded in reality and verifiable, others are misconceived or intentionally fictitious and to far removed from reality to be verifiable, propositions from this category can be ether meaningful or meaningless respectively.
A classic example of a "meaningful" verifiable case of C is the pseudoscience "Homeopathy" which was irrefutably disproven.
So how does the meaningful classification of verificationism relate to my point about questioning the origin of a proposition?.. propositions from all of the above categories are borne out of imagination, but the origin of that imagination (the effect that caused it) can be different. Proven propositions (in category A) are caused by the same phenomenon affecting us directly or indirectly. Disproven propositions (in category C) can be caused by a phenomenon affecting us in category A... think placebo (A) and homeopathy (C). Now look at category B... It is not possible to be affected by a "thing" in category B, by definition, therefor the cause of any proposition that unwittingly fitted the description of a "thing" in category B could not have been from the same truth that it proposes (this is the essence of my point). Unverifiable propositions in category C are essentially the same with the omission of the "thing".
So the meaningless classification attributes to verifiability and by extension the relationship between the cause of a proposition and it's proposed truth. By the logic that if it is unverifiable, there can be no effect to measure which means there can also be no effect to cause for the proposition in the first place, which means the cause did not originate from the proposed truth. The probability of a misco
I wish i had started earlier, but i have found that starting out older has some advantages for self learning such as being able to identify what you need or want to learn more easily...
What you are describing is something i identified as what i thought was the hardest and most creative and interesting part of coding for me, and i'm still not sure how to accurately describe it, architecting? engineering? designing?.
I don't think the programming itself at a more discrete level is necessarily easier or less useful though, especially when it involves some hardcore math, it can be just as challenging and creative but at a much lower level... then again i find the more common and simpler problems only require a less creative process of iterative deduction to arrive at the few best solutions possible.
Figuring out the grand design of a complex idea can leave beginners like me paralysed, I can understand and value concepts like modularity but on their own it just feels vague when trying to come up with a design from little experience. Can you suggest some good material on code design? I want to learn the rules before breaking them so speak so i'm craving some quality recourses on this topic.
You miss understand me. Not a browser on a phone (WebOS let you use HTML and CSS and Javascript.. basically a browser), Javascript runtime on a phone with access to native APIs, and AFAIK that already exists in android.
Using science as a tool within religion? as harmonious as their intentions might be; i would describe them as "ignorantly agnostic"... Acknowledging science as a useful tool is acknowledging it as a rational way of deducing and validating evolving theories (no pun intended) about reality from empirical evidence... which is and always has been in direct conflict with religious belief; a lack of empirical evidence and a lack of logical reasoning.
If they are thought to be truly compatible then they are not well understood.
It's not entirely unreasonable to come to the conclusion that science could be used to validate religion though... After all, observing science, when people come up with a new ideas; hypotheses are borne. Scientific method is then used to help verify these, if they accumulate a substantial body of supporting evidence they ascend to the less fallible state of "theory". However the problem with using concepts of reality proposed by a religion as a hypothesis for scientific analysis, is that by definition many of their concepts such as "God" are not verifiable:
The "Principle of Verification" (A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1971), for something to be meaningful it must be verifiable: it must be possible to ether prove or disprove it. If nether is possible then it is a meaningless proposition. This might initially seem like an easy way out of considering things that are not possible to verify but it is much deeper than that: Why is it meaningless?
Look at how hypotheses are formed for a moment: they are attempts to explain a phenomenon (an observable occurrence that is yet unexplained). This means hypotheses are grounded in reality, they are not necessarily true but they arise from something that exists in one form or another, which means it's possible to test (verify) them. They have meaning because the mind that formed them had empirical cause to come up with an explanation.
Now i'm going to use the spaghetti monster example... if i postulate that there exists such a creature, that it floats about in the sky and is invisible eating invisible spaghetti all day, and by definition there are no possible means to measure it's existence, then it is obviously unverifiable. So then if it's not possible to measure it's existence in any way, upon what basis do i have to form my hypothesis, there must have been some empirical phenomenon that caused me to come up with this hypothesis, after all i'm trying to argue that it's real right?
Of course if we're talking about the concept of God, then there certainly is a phenomenon that causes people to come up with it, but it's quite obviously not empirical, not verifiable and not grounded in reality, the phenomenon is entirely phycological that is the only verifiable truth in it, and i find that acceptable, i don't mind... as a shared human phycology, not as a literal being but a shared feeling. What i don't find acceptable and I can't stand is all of the militant fictitious narration that accompanies that feeling in the form of religion, and i'm far from alone in that feeling, call it my god if you will.
Make a great simple programming environment that runs on desktops or laptops that plugs right in, but it should also be easy to write scripts on the phone itself.
Why re-invent the wheel, JavaScript is the fastest most widely supported scripting language there is. it's easy to use and already exists on every computer that has a browser, it's also pre-installed on every smart phone.
While OS X (Darwin) has bits of FreeBSD and NetBSD, it can't count those for source inheritance of UNIX as they are based on 386BSD which had functional inheritance of AT&T's UNIX and none of it's source. Although AT&T and co made sure to include plenty of 386BSD and derivatives code into their UNIX after. The difference being that while there is (at some points in history at least) portions of same source between them, it's all from the BSD's to the AT&T descendants, the other way around wouldn't make FreeBSD free anymore. Darwin is UNIX only because of POSIX and not because of BSD but because for some reason Apple found value in adhering to that specification.
UrT 4.x is not a fork of idTech3, and it is a drop in content replacement, hence (originally) a mod... Also i got banned because i shared the script with everyone rather than keeping it to myself, also the script didn't do anything out of the ordinary, all within the bounds of the game, it just used console commands, look up quake3 scripts which are widely used and accepted... that is essentially what i was doing.
According to his twitter page (also linked on urbanterror.info) he works at Valve: https://twitter.com/b1naryth1ef. If true then it's not like he was doing this for money, they must have pissed him off pretty good.
What does being grammatically correct have to do with being knowledgable in a specific part of computing history. For your information I know the difference and i've always had difficulty remembering to only use the apostrophe on one, if you want to discredit me entirely on that basis then i'm not interested in your opinion. I'm not an expert but the guy who assembled this is... would you discredit him as an expert if you found an inevitable grammatical error in his writing somewhere. I hope you understand rhetoric... do not reply otherwise i will assume troll... i also hope my excessive use of ellipsis do not melt your grammatically pedantic brain... or do i... go away useless person
More like you add some sprinkles to everyones already free icecream then be a dick to everyone and take away the free icecream and expect people not to tip over your sprinkle truck so they can make their own sprinkles.
Interesting:P RaidR is the site admin i mentioned in my last post (no i'm not fond of him, and so are others it seems), here's the email sent from one of the perpetrators
umad?
turns out u guys dont own us
the community fights back
we wont take your s***
u ban us from ur game
u hide your codes
u run
stop
its time for the community to take over
you let idiots like elf and raider run your servers and you expect security
you expect me to run away from a home ipd box
i lold.
you wont figure out how i got in
you wont rid yourselfs of me
guess what happens next
you loose control
no more dictatorship
no more closed source
only community
only success
no more fs
goodbye fs
we wont miss you
Link to source removed as it's a criminal act and we can't verify it's free from viruses.
good bye
It kind of is a dictatorship, not that it's wrong with a developer in general... but when it's a free game based on an open source engine and the next one is closed... and the admin is a massive dick... yeah i'd wana fork it too.
That's the old version your looking at, a great game none the less... it's just a mod for the idTech3 engine.
The new game is based on the old one in spirit but uses a new engine with much upgraded graphics, and is closed source, although maybe idTech3 based?
I really liked the old game but got banned from the new account system for writing weapon switching scripts, ironic when UrT is itself a big ol' hack, alas the entire site is run by a single overlord with a very dogmatic view on hacking of any kind, so i said screw them i'm sticking with the old one, so i'm not much surprised at this given the group contains those kind of people. They should've open sourced it anyway, the account system would've been enough to handle wallhackers and whatnot.
The annoyance and confusion displayed in replies to this article all stem from the fact that mentioning 'UNIX' on it's own without clarification can be ambiguous. Though a reasonable meaning can be assumed in this case. So here is some clarification in a digestible order for those unaware of the complexity involved in the use of the term... For the short version skip to the bottom.
UNIX
UNIX is the name of AT&T's original OS and is unofficially used to refer to it's many source derivatives through commercial vendors. However most of these can also officially be called UNIX, see POSIX bellow...
UNIX is a trademark that is currently owned by The Open Group. This organisation maintains the POSIX specification, and certifies systems that conform to the specification allowing them to officially use the UNIX trademark. The purpose of POSIX is to maintain compatibility between Unix variants: It is possible for any system (source derivative of AT&T's or not) to comply to this specification, become certified and use the UNIX trademark.
So in the strictest of sense UNIX refers only to POSIX compliant systems (This is at least what The Open Group would like), this will mostly include systems that are also source derivatives of AT&T's Unix. However it also includes those that are not, a usefully complex and deceiving example is Apple's OS X base system "Darwin" which is POSIX compliant and can be officially called UNIX (and has been)... It would be easy to assume that this is through some kind of source inheritance (which it isn't even though it is... read on): Darwin like most has a complicated ancestral tree, but can be described loosely as a combination of FreeBSD, NextStep and the Mach Kernel (XNU), each with their own complex history. Looking closer at FreeBSD this is where the potential inheritance appears, however firstly: FreeBSD is Unix-Like and does comply with POSIX, secondly: it is not a source derivative of AT&T's Unix (even though it is)... just to prevent follow up posts here's why: The three famous BSD's are all derivatives of 386BSD, the precursor to this short lived BSD was an attempt to create a system functionally identical to AT&T's but without any of AT&T's source, thus being free, they replaced almost all of the files and then removed the remaining to produce 386BSD. However! AT&T's Unix and variants have all used various portions of 386BSD and it's derivative's code many times, which means they share source but not the way around most people think, which is why FreeBSD is free or course... This is the part that gets many people confused about FreeBSD and why many end up calling it UNIX, many official POSIX compliant UNIX variants (including AT&T's) contain code directly from FreeBSD, however it came from FreeBSD, and more importantly FreeBSD is not POSIX compliant... ok i think i've hammered that in enough now.
UNIX-Like
As mentioned above a system must conform to the POSIX specification to use the UNIX trademark, those that do not but have similarities are bundled into the UNIX-Like category, these should never be called just "UNIX"... not because it's infringing on the official trademark, but because it doesn't conform to the specification and creates confusion, a line must be drawn somewhere, that's the whole point of POSIX. Linux doesn't conform to POSIX and it doesn't try to, it has it's own specification, there are many similarities in the spec and that is why they are called UNIX-Like along with FreeBSD, Minix et-cetera. Unfortunately they are quite commonly referred to as UNIX anyway, and this ads to the already confusing scenario above.
The Steady Decline Implicitly
The article means UNIX (as in derivative and POSIX) on the server platform where it has long been, for the few that are not commonly used on server platforms can be ignored due to context. Linux and co are not included, that should be clear by now.
The fault is certainly not with Huawei, however unlike MI5 it is for hire... They are a company closely affiliated with the chinese government and suspected as a tool to push it's agenda. You can't hire MI5 nor would any other country want to. Huawei is effectively a company that is controlled by an "MI5" That you could hire ignorantly... which is the case here.
Also factually speaking, it is known that Huawei networking hardware has come preloaded with backdoors in the past. That alone should be enough to discount them as a trustworthy supplier for equipment at an ISP.
Title: "Google Storing WLAN Passwords In the Clear"
Post: "So far it's not known whether the passwords are stored encrypted"
fuck you "husemann", i don't care if this is about google or MS that everyone loves to hate, it's BS and so are you. by your logic I might as well make this post:
Airbags cause heads to fill with raisins and explode:
... it is not yet known if airbags cause heads to fill with raisins and explode.
<pedantry> "Continent" is an ambiguous word, it's explicit meaning can only be derived through association with one of the defining conventions. Also the non-"member states" are known as countries. EU !== US </pedantry>
Given that "continent" in the least strict sense just means very large land mass, it's not much of a stretch to loosely describe the EU and US as two continents given the proportion of land or definition of continent they occupy (Europe, Americas).
There may be people who do not want to see porn online and wish to be protected from that. That is fine, but it should be a voluntary decision. Unless the person is a minor, in which case it is the parents' decision.
Precisely, every corner of the world, a country, even a neighbourhood, is not necessarily safe or appropriate for children, the internet is an extension of that world in terms of information. It is however a lot more accessible than the real world.
But in order to do this, you need to have the content classified. Now it boils down to who has to pay for maintaining this classification. You cannot just require the sites themselves to do that, because some of them will be outside your jurisdiction, and some of them may not have an interest in being correctly classified. Once you have the classification, getting it applied to the right set of people is not all that hard. But don't force it upon grown ups, who do not want it.
Im' sure many different forms of this concept exist already and i'm pretty sure i've seen it advertised on various "internet security" packages, I think OS X has some kind of built in parental mode, whether or not that extends to the web i don't know.
Anyway, the solution: A white list is maintained.... The web is too vast to make a blacklist practical, so a white list upholds the restriction of undesirable content at the sacrifice of lagging additions to the list and vast omissions. However so long as the white list has a specific target audience (i.e. kids) then the list should be easier to satisfy with desirable content.
How that list is maintained is the hard part, but the most sensible would be collaboratively by the end users (i.e. parents), that way the list can grow according to demand (yes kids have to ask permission if they find something that's not on the list). Implementation doesn't really matter... make a White list first, make a way to collaboratively maintain the list, secondary (and subjectively) is the placement of that list... if you want it for your whole house then stick it on the router, if your kid has their own devices that move to various access points then put it on their devices and disallow them root access (if your kid knows enough to circumvent this then they are probably old enough for porn not to irreversibly rot their brain anyway, not that such a thing ever happened). Even putting it at the ISP as an opt in is plausible.... what is not ok is subjecting the whole world to it by forcing search engines to implement it, it's also futile because it would just create dammand for less restricted search engines that would inevitably spawn in places that *your country* government does not have jurisdiction over.
My mistake... still i always find it a bit odd when people pick out that detail... I mean the most accurate description would be a hybrid microkernel. I know apparently windows used or uses a microkernel scaffold in a completely monolithic way, but my understanding was that although XNU doesn't do the fancy device driver servers that it still acts like a microkernel in other ways which end up being useful for security, memory management comes to mind, maybe someone more knowledgable of XNU can enlighten us of what is and isn't a microkernel in the functionality of XNU as apposed to the structure.
Just to be annoying and argue both sides:D I recall that there are many places in the complex inheritance tree where the UNIX System integrates source from various BSDs' along the way after the 386BSD separation. Taking that into consideration it would be more accurate to call the UNIX Systems' a source descendant of BSD:P but essentially the descendants of 386BSD do have source code that is in UNIX Systems, the difference is however that UNIX inherited it from the BSDs' not the other way around... I don't want to suggest an analogy for that in nature O_o
Assuming you intended to reply to my post which mentions mach...
I just wrote "mach kernel" not "microkernel", i probably should have said XNU. I know that XNU is derived from a version of mach prior to mach's full microkernel implementation which turned out to be very slow. However XNU is still a microkernel in some useful ways, the big way that it doesn't operate as a microkernel is it's monolithic treatment of device drivers... but Darwin mainly being used for the basis of MacOS, this turned out to not be too much of a big deal given the small number of supported devices theoretically allowing for the production of higher quality device drivers, theoretically being the key word having experienced the result of a few Mac OS kext bugs myself, but device drivers are never perfect. The only thing we have to look forward to for solving this is Minix 3 which appears to have a reasonable performance sacrifice and some pretty awesome concepts for surviving with horribly buggy device drivers.
On the other hand Darwin certified and blessed as a bona fide official UNIX. And Darwrin is derived from BSD.
Darwin is POSIX compliance meaning it can use the UNIX name, it is possible to write a completely separate system and gain POSIX compliance, it is merely a certification of compliance to a specification not of an inheritance to UNIX the operating system. Also darwin is derived from a great many things including a large portion of freeBSD and the mach kernel, not that it matters.
Genetically, the various BSDs are direct descendents of UNIX. The ancestral tree might not be all that clean, but no one outside of a mythical Ozzie and Harriet world can claim the same about their family either. Legally I can't call NetBSD a UNIX, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
I disagree, if you want to use genetics as the analogy, the source code (genes) are separate, even the way processes are performed is different, the functionality and interfaces are the only thing which is the same, that is a substantial step up from source code... if you look to nature for an analogy of this functional mimicry; the best fit i see is Batesian Mimicry.
My goal here isn't to strive at pedantism, i'm just pointing out that the inheritance here is functional not litteral, and then the very long evolution of that 386BSD "UNIX clone" to the various systems it has formed today make the word UNIX more of a classification than a litteral inheritance.
Slashdot Mirror
We should teach them if they like it... I taught myself and am teaching myself to code because i like it, i'm not very good at it yet but i'm learning to be better, and most people who really like something have the care and motivation to better themselves and do well at that thing.
For most people, things that are forcibly taught are taken no further than the explicit level of proficiency required to pass whatever test awaits them at the end of the teaching period. And after that, many details and insights of what was taught fades away.
However If it is voluntarily, then not only will the teaching be more effective, but it will form a basis for the person to likely excel by themselves far beyond the proficiency attained by the explicit teachings.
Of course this can apply to anything, but just as much to code. If and when i have a child and i find that coding sparks their curiosity then i will most certainly help them learn about it, but i would never force them to learn it, because once they are not interested it becomes pointless, and energy would be better spent on helping them to learn about whatever else interests them other than chocolate bunny rabbits and video games. It's not even really important if they end up using it, i just think that nurturing curiosity and self learning is very valuable because that's where someone will always learn and enjoy the most, it's a delicate balance trying to teach someone but not kill their curiosity at the same time. The question of an appropriate age is something better answered by someone who has a good understanding of the development of the brain.
It's like eating an elephant: take one bite at a time. Pick a little bit that you think you can tackle and have a go at it. Then take on another bit. And another. Don't be afraid to go back and redo if you find out you're wrong; everyone's wrong sometimes, you've just got to try again.
Well that sort of matches what i've been doing so far which is good.
Initially in complex designs i was naively and iteratively re-writing the whole thing which was painful and brief thankfully. Then eventually iteratively re-writing modules after identifying the dependancy of modules upon other modules and building a hierarchy of dependence with the roots of that hierarchy as the most important parts that must be well defined and complete before delving into successive levels, but then of course some prior knowledge of the workings of the higher level modules and even their existence is still needed to determine the spec of the lowest level modules so it seems that some kind of prototyping or experimentation is required on larger projects.
That's what i've deduced thus far and hopefully that's not too far off what a professional might call along the lines of good basic design, but I was just wondering if there exists some well established theories and models that i could study in the form of a good book. I agree with what you say about when to teach it but there must be some material to teach surely, otherwise theres some much needed text that an accomplished programmer needs to get writing.
Don't follow the crowd--or your favorite crowd. Think for yourself.
I don't know where you drew that conclusion from but i assure you i follow no crowd. Anyway, throughout your response you seem to have missed my key point. So i'll try to make myself a bit clearer and more explicit, and then you can see if it changes your argument.
I wasn't simply announcing the principle of verification as some kind of Indoctrination, i was analysing it's assumptions to make my key point in relation to the existence of God which is: to question the origin of ones proposition. Also you seem to have misinterpreted the principle of verification and much of the source of your argument stems from there, so that seems like a good place to begin:
The essence of your interpretation:
....that anything which cannot be empirically proven to exist must not exist
This is not what verificationism proposes... it proposes that if it cannot be proven or disproven then it is meaningless, not that it is true or false (it can be ether, but it must be possible to find it to be true or false). Now what i was asking is, although it sounds reasonable, why should a proposition be meaningless in that case (whether it's to do with God or anything else for that matter). To answer that, consider these statements and my analysis of them:
(A) There exists an unknown quantity of "things" that we do not yet know.
(B) There also exists an an unknown quantity of "things" that we will never know and never be able to prove or disprove because they are unreachable and cannot affect us in any way.
(C) There are also "things" that are fabrications of the human mind that do not exist other than in the realm of human imagination.
These three statements are logically sound and true. now lets determine each of their classifications by verificationism:
(A) by definition is within our capability to know, so any proposition that fits this category is verifiable, there for it is classified as meaningful.
(B) by definition we can never know, any proposition that fits this category is unverifiable, there for it is classified as meaningless.
(C) by definition can be anything we imagine that is also false, some of these fabrications are grounded in reality and verifiable, others are misconceived or intentionally fictitious and to far removed from reality to be verifiable, propositions from this category can be ether meaningful or meaningless respectively.
A classic example of a "meaningful" verifiable case of C is the pseudoscience "Homeopathy" which was irrefutably disproven.
So how does the meaningful classification of verificationism relate to my point about questioning the origin of a proposition?.. propositions from all of the above categories are borne out of imagination, but the origin of that imagination (the effect that caused it) can be different. Proven propositions (in category A) are caused by the same phenomenon affecting us directly or indirectly. Disproven propositions (in category C) can be caused by a phenomenon affecting us in category A... think placebo (A) and homeopathy (C). Now look at category B... It is not possible to be affected by a "thing" in category B, by definition, therefor the cause of any proposition that unwittingly fitted the description of a "thing" in category B could not have been from the same truth that it proposes (this is the essence of my point). Unverifiable propositions in category C are essentially the same with the omission of the "thing".
So the meaningless classification attributes to verifiability and by extension the relationship between the cause of a proposition and it's proposed truth. By the logic that if it is unverifiable, there can be no effect to measure which means there can also be no effect to cause for the proposition in the first place, which means the cause did not originate from the proposed truth. The probability of a misco
I wish i had started earlier, but i have found that starting out older has some advantages for self learning such as being able to identify what you need or want to learn more easily...
What you are describing is something i identified as what i thought was the hardest and most creative and interesting part of coding for me, and i'm still not sure how to accurately describe it, architecting? engineering? designing?.
I don't think the programming itself at a more discrete level is necessarily easier or less useful though, especially when it involves some hardcore math, it can be just as challenging and creative but at a much lower level... then again i find the more common and simpler problems only require a less creative process of iterative deduction to arrive at the few best solutions possible.
Figuring out the grand design of a complex idea can leave beginners like me paralysed, I can understand and value concepts like modularity but on their own it just feels vague when trying to come up with a design from little experience. Can you suggest some good material on code design? I want to learn the rules before breaking them so speak so i'm craving some quality recourses on this topic.
You miss understand me. Not a browser on a phone (WebOS let you use HTML and CSS and Javascript .. basically a browser), Javascript runtime on a phone with access to native APIs, and AFAIK that already exists in android.
Using science as a tool within religion? as harmonious as their intentions might be; i would describe them as "ignorantly agnostic"... Acknowledging science as a useful tool is acknowledging it as a rational way of deducing and validating evolving theories (no pun intended) about reality from empirical evidence... which is and always has been in direct conflict with religious belief; a lack of empirical evidence and a lack of logical reasoning.
If they are thought to be truly compatible then they are not well understood.
It's not entirely unreasonable to come to the conclusion that science could be used to validate religion though... After all, observing science, when people come up with a new ideas; hypotheses are borne. Scientific method is then used to help verify these, if they accumulate a substantial body of supporting evidence they ascend to the less fallible state of "theory". However the problem with using concepts of reality proposed by a religion as a hypothesis for scientific analysis, is that by definition many of their concepts such as "God" are not verifiable:
The "Principle of Verification" (A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, 1971), for something to be meaningful it must be verifiable: it must be possible to ether prove or disprove it. If nether is possible then it is a meaningless proposition. This might initially seem like an easy way out of considering things that are not possible to verify but it is much deeper than that: Why is it meaningless?
Look at how hypotheses are formed for a moment: they are attempts to explain a phenomenon (an observable occurrence that is yet unexplained). This means hypotheses are grounded in reality, they are not necessarily true but they arise from something that exists in one form or another, which means it's possible to test (verify) them. They have meaning because the mind that formed them had empirical cause to come up with an explanation.
Now i'm going to use the spaghetti monster example... if i postulate that there exists such a creature, that it floats about in the sky and is invisible eating invisible spaghetti all day, and by definition there are no possible means to measure it's existence, then it is obviously unverifiable. So then if it's not possible to measure it's existence in any way, upon what basis do i have to form my hypothesis, there must have been some empirical phenomenon that caused me to come up with this hypothesis, after all i'm trying to argue that it's real right?
Of course if we're talking about the concept of God, then there certainly is a phenomenon that causes people to come up with it, but it's quite obviously not empirical, not verifiable and not grounded in reality, the phenomenon is entirely phycological that is the only verifiable truth in it, and i find that acceptable, i don't mind... as a shared human phycology, not as a literal being but a shared feeling. What i don't find acceptable and I can't stand is all of the militant fictitious narration that accompanies that feeling in the form of religion, and i'm far from alone in that feeling, call it my god if you will.
Make a great simple programming environment that runs on desktops or laptops that plugs right in, but it should also be easy to write scripts on the phone itself.
Why re-invent the wheel, JavaScript is the fastest most widely supported scripting language there is. it's easy to use and already exists on every computer that has a browser, it's also pre-installed on every smart phone.
While OS X (Darwin) has bits of FreeBSD and NetBSD, it can't count those for source inheritance of UNIX as they are based on 386BSD which had functional inheritance of AT&T's UNIX and none of it's source. Although AT&T and co made sure to include plenty of 386BSD and derivatives code into their UNIX after. The difference being that while there is (at some points in history at least) portions of same source between them, it's all from the BSD's to the AT&T descendants, the other way around wouldn't make FreeBSD free anymore. Darwin is UNIX only because of POSIX and not because of BSD but because for some reason Apple found value in adhering to that specification.
UrT 4.x is not a fork of idTech3, and it is a drop in content replacement, hence (originally) a mod... Also i got banned because i shared the script with everyone rather than keeping it to myself, also the script didn't do anything out of the ordinary, all within the bounds of the game, it just used console commands, look up quake3 scripts which are widely used and accepted... that is essentially what i was doing.
According to his twitter page (also linked on urbanterror.info) he works at Valve: https://twitter.com/b1naryth1ef. If true then it's not like he was doing this for money, they must have pissed him off pretty good.
What does being grammatically correct have to do with being knowledgable in a specific part of computing history. For your information I know the difference and i've always had difficulty remembering to only use the apostrophe on one, if you want to discredit me entirely on that basis then i'm not interested in your opinion. I'm not an expert but the guy who assembled this is... would you discredit him as an expert if you found an inevitable grammatical error in his writing somewhere. I hope you understand rhetoric... do not reply otherwise i will assume troll... i also hope my excessive use of ellipsis do not melt your grammatically pedantic brain... or do i... go away useless person
More like you add some sprinkles to everyones already free icecream then be a dick to everyone and take away the free icecream and expect people not to tip over your sprinkle truck so they can make their own sprinkles.
Interesting :P RaidR is the site admin i mentioned in my last post (no i'm not fond of him, and so are others it seems), here's the email sent from one of the perpetrators
umad? turns out u guys dont own us the community fights back we wont take your s*** u ban us from ur game u hide your codes u run stop its time for the community to take over you let idiots like elf and raider run your servers and you expect security you expect me to run away from a home ipd box i lold. you wont figure out how i got in you wont rid yourselfs of me guess what happens next you loose control no more dictatorship no more closed source only community only success no more fs goodbye fs we wont miss you Link to source removed as it's a criminal act and we can't verify it's free from viruses. good bye
It kind of is a dictatorship, not that it's wrong with a developer in general... but when it's a free game based on an open source engine and the next one is closed... and the admin is a massive dick... yeah i'd wana fork it too.
That's the old version your looking at, a great game none the less... it's just a mod for the idTech3 engine.
The new game is based on the old one in spirit but uses a new engine with much upgraded graphics, and is closed source, although maybe idTech3 based?
I really liked the old game but got banned from the new account system for writing weapon switching scripts, ironic when UrT is itself a big ol' hack, alas the entire site is run by a single overlord with a very dogmatic view on hacking of any kind, so i said screw them i'm sticking with the old one, so i'm not much surprised at this given the group contains those kind of people. They should've open sourced it anyway, the account system would've been enough to handle wallhackers and whatnot.
The annoyance and confusion displayed in replies to this article all stem from the fact that mentioning 'UNIX' on it's own without clarification can be ambiguous. Though a reasonable meaning can be assumed in this case. So here is some clarification in a digestible order for those unaware of the complexity involved in the use of the term... For the short version skip to the bottom.
UNIX
UNIX is the name of AT&T's original OS and is unofficially used to refer to it's many source derivatives through commercial vendors. However most of these can also officially be called UNIX, see POSIX bellow...
UNIX is a trademark that is currently owned by The Open Group. This organisation maintains the POSIX specification, and certifies systems that conform to the specification allowing them to officially use the UNIX trademark. The purpose of POSIX is to maintain compatibility between Unix variants: It is possible for any system (source derivative of AT&T's or not) to comply to this specification, become certified and use the UNIX trademark.
So in the strictest of sense UNIX refers only to POSIX compliant systems (This is at least what The Open Group would like), this will mostly include systems that are also source derivatives of AT&T's Unix. However it also includes those that are not, a usefully complex and deceiving example is Apple's OS X base system "Darwin" which is POSIX compliant and can be officially called UNIX (and has been)... It would be easy to assume that this is through some kind of source inheritance (which it isn't even though it is... read on): Darwin like most has a complicated ancestral tree, but can be described loosely as a combination of FreeBSD, NextStep and the Mach Kernel (XNU), each with their own complex history. Looking closer at FreeBSD this is where the potential inheritance appears, however firstly: FreeBSD is Unix-Like and does comply with POSIX, secondly: it is not a source derivative of AT&T's Unix (even though it is)... just to prevent follow up posts here's why: The three famous BSD's are all derivatives of 386BSD, the precursor to this short lived BSD was an attempt to create a system functionally identical to AT&T's but without any of AT&T's source, thus being free, they replaced almost all of the files and then removed the remaining to produce 386BSD. However! AT&T's Unix and variants have all used various portions of 386BSD and it's derivative's code many times, which means they share source but not the way around most people think, which is why FreeBSD is free or course... This is the part that gets many people confused about FreeBSD and why many end up calling it UNIX, many official POSIX compliant UNIX variants (including AT&T's) contain code directly from FreeBSD, however it came from FreeBSD, and more importantly FreeBSD is not POSIX compliant... ok i think i've hammered that in enough now.
UNIX-Like
As mentioned above a system must conform to the POSIX specification to use the UNIX trademark, those that do not but have similarities are bundled into the UNIX-Like category, these should never be called just "UNIX"... not because it's infringing on the official trademark, but because it doesn't conform to the specification and creates confusion, a line must be drawn somewhere, that's the whole point of POSIX. Linux doesn't conform to POSIX and it doesn't try to, it has it's own specification, there are many similarities in the spec and that is why they are called UNIX-Like along with FreeBSD, Minix et-cetera. Unfortunately they are quite commonly referred to as UNIX anyway, and this ads to the already confusing scenario above.
The Steady Decline Implicitly
The article means UNIX (as in derivative and POSIX) on the server platform where it has long been, for the few that are not commonly used on server platforms can be ignored due to context. Linux and co are not included, that should be clear by now.
The fault is certainly not with Huawei, however unlike MI5 it is for hire... They are a company closely affiliated with the chinese government and suspected as a tool to push it's agenda. You can't hire MI5 nor would any other country want to. Huawei is effectively a company that is controlled by an "MI5" That you could hire ignorantly... which is the case here.
Also factually speaking, it is known that Huawei networking hardware has come preloaded with backdoors in the past. That alone should be enough to discount them as a trustworthy supplier for equipment at an ISP.
seriously what the fuck...
Title: "Google Storing WLAN Passwords In the Clear"
Post: "So far it's not known whether the passwords are stored encrypted"
fuck you "husemann", i don't care if this is about google or MS that everyone loves to hate, it's BS and so are you. by your logic I might as well make this post:
Airbags cause heads to fill with raisins and explode:
... it is not yet known if airbags cause heads to fill with raisins and explode.
<pedantry> "Continent" is an ambiguous word, it's explicit meaning can only be derived through association with one of the defining conventions. Also the non-"member states" are known as countries. EU !== US </pedantry>
Given that "continent" in the least strict sense just means very large land mass, it's not much of a stretch to loosely describe the EU and US as two continents given the proportion of land or definition of continent they occupy (Europe, Americas).
No one in their right mind would attempt to create a black list, you create a white list... read my post above.
There may be people who do not want to see porn online and wish to be protected from that. That is fine, but it should be a voluntary decision. Unless the person is a minor, in which case it is the parents' decision.
Precisely, every corner of the world, a country, even a neighbourhood, is not necessarily safe or appropriate for children, the internet is an extension of that world in terms of information. It is however a lot more accessible than the real world.
But in order to do this, you need to have the content classified. Now it boils down to who has to pay for maintaining this classification. You cannot just require the sites themselves to do that, because some of them will be outside your jurisdiction, and some of them may not have an interest in being correctly classified. Once you have the classification, getting it applied to the right set of people is not all that hard. But don't force it upon grown ups, who do not want it.
Im' sure many different forms of this concept exist already and i'm pretty sure i've seen it advertised on various "internet security" packages, I think OS X has some kind of built in parental mode, whether or not that extends to the web i don't know.
Anyway, the solution: A white list is maintained.... The web is too vast to make a blacklist practical, so a white list upholds the restriction of undesirable content at the sacrifice of lagging additions to the list and vast omissions. However so long as the white list has a specific target audience (i.e. kids) then the list should be easier to satisfy with desirable content.
How that list is maintained is the hard part, but the most sensible would be collaboratively by the end users (i.e. parents), that way the list can grow according to demand (yes kids have to ask permission if they find something that's not on the list). Implementation doesn't really matter... make a White list first, make a way to collaboratively maintain the list, secondary (and subjectively) is the placement of that list... if you want it for your whole house then stick it on the router, if your kid has their own devices that move to various access points then put it on their devices and disallow them root access (if your kid knows enough to circumvent this then they are probably old enough for porn not to irreversibly rot their brain anyway, not that such a thing ever happened). Even putting it at the ISP as an opt in is plausible.... what is not ok is subjecting the whole world to it by forcing search engines to implement it, it's also futile because it would just create dammand for less restricted search engines that would inevitably spawn in places that *your country* government does not have jurisdiction over.
My mistake... still i always find it a bit odd when people pick out that detail... I mean the most accurate description would be a hybrid microkernel. I know apparently windows used or uses a microkernel scaffold in a completely monolithic way, but my understanding was that although XNU doesn't do the fancy device driver servers that it still acts like a microkernel in other ways which end up being useful for security, memory management comes to mind, maybe someone more knowledgable of XNU can enlighten us of what is and isn't a microkernel in the functionality of XNU as apposed to the structure.
Just to be annoying and argue both sides :D I recall that there are many places in the complex inheritance tree where the UNIX System integrates source from various BSDs' along the way after the 386BSD separation. Taking that into consideration it would be more accurate to call the UNIX Systems' a source descendant of BSD :P but essentially the descendants of 386BSD do have source code that is in UNIX Systems, the difference is however that UNIX inherited it from the BSDs' not the other way around... I don't want to suggest an analogy for that in nature O_o
You should get 5 points for that, i had that coming :D
Assuming you intended to reply to my post which mentions mach...
I just wrote "mach kernel" not "microkernel", i probably should have said XNU. I know that XNU is derived from a version of mach prior to mach's full microkernel implementation which turned out to be very slow. However XNU is still a microkernel in some useful ways, the big way that it doesn't operate as a microkernel is it's monolithic treatment of device drivers... but Darwin mainly being used for the basis of MacOS, this turned out to not be too much of a big deal given the small number of supported devices theoretically allowing for the production of higher quality device drivers, theoretically being the key word having experienced the result of a few Mac OS kext bugs myself, but device drivers are never perfect. The only thing we have to look forward to for solving this is Minix 3 which appears to have a reasonable performance sacrifice and some pretty awesome concepts for surviving with horribly buggy device drivers.
On the other hand Darwin certified and blessed as a bona fide official UNIX. And Darwrin is derived from BSD.
Darwin is POSIX compliance meaning it can use the UNIX name, it is possible to write a completely separate system and gain POSIX compliance, it is merely a certification of compliance to a specification not of an inheritance to UNIX the operating system. Also darwin is derived from a great many things including a large portion of freeBSD and the mach kernel, not that it matters.
Genetically, the various BSDs are direct descendents of UNIX. The ancestral tree might not be all that clean, but no one outside of a mythical Ozzie and Harriet world can claim the same about their family either. Legally I can't call NetBSD a UNIX, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
I disagree, if you want to use genetics as the analogy, the source code (genes) are separate, even the way processes are performed is different, the functionality and interfaces are the only thing which is the same, that is a substantial step up from source code... if you look to nature for an analogy of this functional mimicry; the best fit i see is Batesian Mimicry.
My goal here isn't to strive at pedantism, i'm just pointing out that the inheritance here is functional not litteral, and then the very long evolution of that 386BSD "UNIX clone" to the various systems it has formed today make the word UNIX more of a classification than a litteral inheritance.