If the user can choose on who he trusts, then it is okay. In my fedora computer I can easily install install a new source to my software and say that all packages signed by this source is okay to go in. I can also de-install a default source if they show that they are not trustworthy.
If the windows user has the same set of choices, then it is okay, but if MS is the only one who can bless application to install or run without warnings in the windows plataform and there is nothing I joe user can do to change this, then I believe it is a problem.
Just imagine if MS will give its blessing to all the open source software that is available now for windows. The answer is no, and the author will probably naver even ask for such bless for the simple fact the it will cost money. Now if the windows user could just say to his system that the software package with the signature of that John Doe who happen to signs all kinds of open source software and distributes them in his site, then it is fine. Just like I can install software from Livna that packages software that redhat simply don't want, and will never do, to distribute due to legal problems.
I agree 100%, the browser definatly should have a sand box. It should be able to write in a single directory, a "downloads" and pehaps a "tmp" also. This limitations should be inherited by all programs that it runs.
This is impossible, since fraudulent clicks can be in every aspect equal to true clicks. First there is no clear definition on what is a fraudulent click, google and the target site only see an ip, a user-agent among some other http fields and a timestamp of the time that several things were loaded and clicked.
One can argue that with some statistics one can find a site that is using automated clicking by using a network of infected computers. This would show as a unusual amout of clicking, but if the bad guy knows statistic he can gradually climb his click rate, and a non-fraudulent site could have a surge of users into clicking an add when he appears in slashdot, digg, boing-boing or any other high-trafic site that links other sites.
One can clearly separate some fraudulent clicks, if many users clicks the add in less then the time to read anything on the page for instance. Other possibility is when an ip clicks on thousands and thousands of adds in a few minutes, even if those adds are from diferent people.
In short, it is always possible to catch some fraud in this model, but if the fraud is clever enought there is no way it will be caught. Remember that even users that are non-afiliated to the site that want to support it and click the add could acount to a click fraud, and this is somewhat similar to a user who happens to find an add interesting.
Re:Does it have a "healing brush"?
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
I belive that those will arrive with the "GEGL" library. This library is being coded to be a base of future 'gimp's and it model all image manipulations with a graph of operations. For more info check it out in http://www.gegl.org/.
You do relise that a new domain takes exactly 7 days to be older then 7 days, or it takes X days to become X days old. If you put a random number of days, spamer will simply wait for this number of days before they will spam the site. In fact google already does this in a sense, younger sites have a lower page-rank then older similar sites.
I do agree that extremely new sites with weird domains names should be scrutinised before entering the engine.
Oh... but that creates yet another conspiracy: that NASA and the government had more computing power available to them in 1969 than modern movie studios with huge render farms have today. And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy. (insert rolling eyes expression here).
You forgot that animation can be done without computers, all the disney classics (up to alladin) were made without them. Sure it would take a fine animator that can paint a photo-realistic frame, shoot it, alter it slightly, shoot it again and so on. This would take years and years to make, each second of footage has 24 frames in TV or worst 50 half-frames that are interlaced, so a minute of this animation would compromise at least 1440 frames of foto-realistic original art. Very hard, very improbable, but possible if enought artist are hired and enouth time, a few years pehaps, is alocated to the production.
hehehe I still think that men was on the moon, though.:-D
My dream medium would be a disk that could hold as little as a normal CD but it would be able to survive for hundreds or thousands years. People tens of thousand of years ago stored their data in stone tablets and we can still read them today, today's data is stored mainly in digital medium that will be dead in a few years, but as the data looses it's importance it you begin to fade away. I can imagine that in a few thousands of years from now the 20th century will be akin to the dark ages, no one will know anything about what happend.
Also posterity problems aside, I would like to backup data and forget about it until it is actually needed. This is my dream.
I totally agree with you, hanging else's are awful style. I like to use doxygen style of comments, and for comments inside the functions I tend to make them as little as possible. Sometime is more useful to make things clear in the code.
Surely that switching styles is yet a bit harder, it should be possible to do it. But while we don't have this panacea, why not using tabs for identation? I certainly don't know why this pratice is so much hated, for me is the only pratice that makes sence. It makes easy for computers to parse it, so they know the intention of the author and can then format the best way.
I don't agree, I believe that a tab character in a file should simply mean ident this line. This would help people in the, because it is an expected behaviour and the width of the the displayed tab can be configured. If I get a source code made following this advice it would show as the author likes not how I wished to see them.
If everyone see a file as they want, everyone would be satisfied, woudn't? I mean I believe that everyone actually uses some sort of auto-identation and the tab key when that fails, right? So in fact we have the editor program figuring out when we need an identation, and we correct him when he does some mistake. Why on earth the same editor makes things easier to others editors to figure out how to show the file???
By the same standard, why should the coder care if there is a "tab" character or a few space character? If the code is layed out in the way he or she want's to visualize. I just think it is better that a single character represent a identation and not a random number of spaces. If a code file is encoded with tabs for identation my editor, be it vi, emacs or every single IDE can figure out where are the identations and apply my preference as how far should those identation should be shown.
No but many people know better then me on how should I look at code, after all they are the holder of the holy truth and so they ident with spaces, or even worst with a mix of spaces and tabs that only work if you set the tabstops to a weird number like 3 or 7 (sure I am exagerating here), that is anoying...
What I believe is that every one has a preference, and computer are smart enougth to layout the code as you prefer. This article is about that, editors choosing the best way to display a program.
It also makes sense to separate the implementation from the interface definition, in C/C++ world is the.h/.c(.cpp,.cxx,.cc,.c*) files. This is good becuase people using the class should not depend on the actual implementation, that could change in the future, so it is better if it's not shown directly on the screenm when the file is opened.
In fact I find easier to read a class that has no implementation details mixed in the definition, more members can fit in the same screen and they can even be organized in a functionality way. On the other hand, is easier to deal with only one file and not have to search for the implementation of a given file arround in a second file. All in all, for the people implementing a class, inlined definition is better, for people using the class separated is better, in my opinion at least.
I think that this is good, I aways thought that tabs for identation is simply a better idea just because it made simple for people to see the code the way they feel more conforable with. I don't think 'styles' is a problem, it is just the oposite, imagine if we could make a "style sheet" of some sort and apply to the code and sudenly all the code you load into your editor is styled as you liked?
I use the command line program ident to apply my style to other people's code, sure I don't send them this way I read the code and then just 'undo' before altering the file. But all of this would simply be better if we could style the code without touching it.
Second, even if it could be computed accurately, it's not clear that it's meaningful. While tracing the mitochondrial line through female ancestry, or the Y line through male ancestry, indicates a meaningful point of common origin which expanded outward, when you are talking about tracing through either parental line you are discussing a mixing in which genes are not simply spread, but are also diluted. If one guy from where Germany is now spontaneously teleported to where Argentina is now around 5,000 years ago and had a child, it is quite possible that his genes would have been diluted to the point where not a single one of his genes survived to modern times. (A calculation which considers that 1/2 of a parent's genes disappear with each child, and that depends only on the growth of the number of surviving descendents at each step in comparison to the local population.) So even if a statistical argument can show a common ancestor for a group, that does not mean that members of that group have any significant or even non-zero number of genes from this common ancestor when considering the mixed case.
But this dilution is exactly why one of the discussions about this article states that the real most recent common ancestor (MRCA) would appear, probably, much more recently then the date that DNA states. This might not seem useful, after all if this ancestor has not leaved DNA evidence what use is it? There are several, knowing for instance that difference of time between an actual CA (common ancestor) and a DNA CA could help understand better the propagation of characteristics and the spreading of DNA.
It is interesting, and would be nice to know more precisely just when those points are in history. It is nice in a philosophical way, we all are related, and our relation does not have to go as far as a theoretical "Adam and Eve", this common ancestor could be a few thousands of years ago. People are mixed, but unfortunately many people like to think that exists castes of "pure blood", this proves that this is a lie.
I don't thing this acertion means what you think it means, it dosen't mean that this common ancestor is the only one, it only means that there is a person that lived from 2000 to 5000 years ago that is in everyones that live today's family tree. Sure there are roots that go along side this branch that has this common person that could go much, much farter in time.
What anthropologists have placed is probably the oldest common ancestor that lived, what this research has stablished is the first one, or the most recent. This is somewhat similar to the Kevin Bacon game, supose we could trace our families perfectly, how long to the past we would have to go to find a common person? That is the question.
The paper, I read a part of it divides the ancestors in three groups:
People who are decedents of all people that lives today.
People who are decedents of some people that lives today.
People who are decedents of no one who lives today.
Depending on how we set this simulation, there will be also three time regions and the year that they correnpond, considering the moderated parameters to the simulation, are the following:
Times where all people are ancestor of either some or none : today ~ 1500 BC
Times where all people are ancestor of any of the three categories : 1500BC ~ 5500BC
Times where all people are ancestor of either all or none : before 5500BC
It is not faulty, the article states that just to ignite the curiosity, in fact it does go on to state that this trilions of ancestors are only possible because the same person appear over and over again in the familly tree. In fact this so called family 'tree' has many cilcles, that is the point of the holle article, that a common person should appear if you go far enought in the past and this person apparently is only a few thousands of years.
The point is that if one person that enter this iland and start mating with the locals will have introduced all her linage into this pool. So after some generations all the people from that location will have this person who was introduced in it's family tree, those persons also have thousands and thousands of others, but they all have this single common person who has came from abroad.
The point, as far as I understood is that if you go back far enougth you will find someone who is in everyone's family tree, from everywhere in the world.
Well said, I was going to answer this but you said much of what I would have said in a better and less "karma point loosing" way, ehehe. But I was also going to sujest that copyright should be a right that could only apply to people, enterprizes and other could buy rights to use them but never stop the author, or authors, to sell the work to somebody else. I also believe that copyright should die with the author, or at least with the last author of the work.
I don't buy it that the beatles songs are now owned by Michael Jackson, or that the actual ministry of culture of Brazil, Gilberto Gil, that has made several pop songs in the past could not make his own music creative commons, becuase warner did not allow him. Copyright should protect authors and not deep money, scumbags like the RIAA associates.
A totalitary govern can break in, with people and guns, into data centers and make them give the databases to be searched. So you're safe while you trust the goverment to not go out and seek the information actively, but once the tide change there is no such security.
I would guess that even without a single key there would be enouth information about someone stored in the databases of several services that could give enouth information to totalitarian and paranoid governors to persecute people.
If there is one key that bind's all the information you had on many, many sites they will have enougth information to know who is for and who is against the new order. Even if 50% or 60% of korean sites are hosted offshore, the remaining 40% of the sites will be enouth for a data mining operation by the opressor govern.
The problem here is the single key, not the information on the central database.
Why there isn't a signal that would make the phone enter automaticly the quiet mode? Sure assholes could still answer their phones, but they can talk to each other all the same, so I guess that some assholism is quite inevitable. I aways put my cellphone in the silent mode, sometimes I get a scare in the middle of the movie, I then simply decline the call and after the movie I can still look at who was calling.
Now, Vancorps, your position is rather radical. There are always middle grounds. I am sure that there are times that you're unreachable, and if there aren't such times I fell very sorry for you.
Sure it does not erradicate arlegies, and in your case it seems clear that you've got them running on your family. But here it is common sense that children that were raised with animal pets have less alergies then children that had not. Some children doctors do adivise that the over sanitary environments that some mother want is bad, they even have a common joke for this. This doctors would sugest that the child need victamin "S" for "sujeira" witch is dirt in portuguese.
Slashdot Mirror
If the user can choose on who he trusts, then it is okay. In my fedora computer I can easily install install a new source to my software and say that all packages signed by this source is okay to go in. I can also de-install a default source if they show that they are not trustworthy.
If the windows user has the same set of choices, then it is okay, but if MS is the only one who can bless application to install or run without warnings in the windows plataform and there is nothing I joe user can do to change this, then I believe it is a problem.
Just imagine if MS will give its blessing to all the open source software that is available now for windows. The answer is no, and the author will probably naver even ask for such bless for the simple fact the it will cost money. Now if the windows user could just say to his system that the software package with the signature of that John Doe who happen to signs all kinds of open source software and distributes them in his site, then it is fine. Just like I can install software from Livna that packages software that redhat simply don't want, and will never do, to distribute due to legal problems.
I agree 100%, the browser definatly should have a sand box. It should be able to write in a single directory, a "downloads" and pehaps a "tmp" also. This limitations should be inherited by all programs that it runs.
This is impossible, since fraudulent clicks can be in every aspect equal to true clicks. First there is no clear definition on what is a fraudulent click, google and the target site only see an ip, a user-agent among some other http fields and a timestamp of the time that several things were loaded and clicked.
One can argue that with some statistics one can find a site that is using automated clicking by using a network of infected computers. This would show as a unusual amout of clicking, but if the bad guy knows statistic he can gradually climb his click rate, and a non-fraudulent site could have a surge of users into clicking an add when he appears in slashdot, digg, boing-boing or any other high-trafic site that links other sites.
One can clearly separate some fraudulent clicks, if many users clicks the add in less then the time to read anything on the page for instance. Other possibility is when an ip clicks on thousands and thousands of adds in a few minutes, even if those adds are from diferent people.
In short, it is always possible to catch some fraud in this model, but if the fraud is clever enought there is no way it will be caught. Remember that even users that are non-afiliated to the site that want to support it and click the add could acount to a click fraud, and this is somewhat similar to a user who happens to find an add interesting.
I belive that those will arrive with the "GEGL" library. This library is being coded to be a base of future 'gimp's and it model all image manipulations with a graph of operations. For more info check it out in http://www.gegl.org/.
You do relise that a new domain takes exactly 7 days to be older then 7 days, or it takes X days to become X days old. If you put a random number of days, spamer will simply wait for this number of days before they will spam the site. In fact google already does this in a sense, younger sites have a lower page-rank then older similar sites.
I do agree that extremely new sites with weird domains names should be scrutinised before entering the engine.
You forgot that animation can be done without computers, all the disney classics (up to alladin) were made without them. Sure it would take a fine animator that can paint a photo-realistic frame, shoot it, alter it slightly, shoot it again and so on. This would take years and years to make, each second of footage has 24 frames in TV or worst 50 half-frames that are interlaced, so a minute of this animation would compromise at least 1440 frames of foto-realistic original art. Very hard, very improbable, but possible if enought artist are hired and enouth time, a few years pehaps, is alocated to the production.
hehehe I still think that men was on the moon, though.
My dream medium would be a disk that could hold as little as a normal CD but it would be able to survive for hundreds or thousands years. People tens of thousand of years ago stored their data in stone tablets and we can still read them today, today's data is stored mainly in digital medium that will be dead in a few years, but as the data looses it's importance it you begin to fade away. I can imagine that in a few thousands of years from now the 20th century will be akin to the dark ages, no one will know anything about what happend.
Also posterity problems aside, I would like to backup data and forget about it until it is actually needed. This is my dream.
I totally agree with you, hanging else's are awful style. I like to use doxygen style of comments, and for comments inside the functions I tend to make them as little as possible. Sometime is more useful to make things clear in the code.
Surely that switching styles is yet a bit harder, it should be possible to do it. But while we don't have this panacea, why not using tabs for identation? I certainly don't know why this pratice is so much hated, for me is the only pratice that makes sence. It makes easy for computers to parse it, so they know the intention of the author and can then format the best way.
I don't agree, I believe that a tab character in a file should simply mean ident this line. This would help people in the, because it is an expected behaviour and the width of the the displayed tab can be configured. If I get a source code made following this advice it would show as the author likes not how I wished to see them.
If everyone see a file as they want, everyone would be satisfied, woudn't? I mean I believe that everyone actually uses some sort of auto-identation and the tab key when that fails, right? So in fact we have the editor program figuring out when we need an identation, and we correct him when he does some mistake. Why on earth the same editor makes things easier to others editors to figure out how to show the file???
By the same standard, why should the coder care if there is a "tab" character or a few space character? If the code is layed out in the way he or she want's to visualize. I just think it is better that a single character represent a identation and not a random number of spaces. If a code file is encoded with tabs for identation my editor, be it vi, emacs or every single IDE can figure out where are the identations and apply my preference as how far should those identation should be shown.
No but many people know better then me on how should I look at code, after all they are the holder of the holy truth and so they ident with spaces, or even worst with a mix of spaces and tabs that only work if you set the tabstops to a weird number like 3 or 7 (sure I am exagerating here), that is anoying...
What I believe is that every one has a preference, and computer are smart enougth to layout the code as you prefer. This article is about that, editors choosing the best way to display a program.
It also makes sense to separate the implementation from the interface definition, in C/C++ world is the .h/.c(.cpp,.cxx,.cc,.c*) files. This is good becuase people using the class should not depend on the actual implementation, that could change in the future, so it is better if it's not shown directly on the screenm when the file is opened.
In fact I find easier to read a class that has no implementation details mixed in the definition, more members can fit in the same screen and they can even be organized in a functionality way. On the other hand, is easier to deal with only one file and not have to search for the implementation of a given file arround in a second file. All in all, for the people implementing a class, inlined definition is better, for people using the class separated is better, in my opinion at least.
I think that this is good, I aways thought that tabs for identation is simply a better idea just because it made simple for people to see the code the way they feel more conforable with. I don't think 'styles' is a problem, it is just the oposite, imagine if we could make a "style sheet" of some sort and apply to the code and sudenly all the code you load into your editor is styled as you liked?
I use the command line program ident to apply my style to other people's code, sure I don't send them this way I read the code and then just 'undo' before altering the file. But all of this would simply be better if we could style the code without touching it.
The only problem I see in dreamhost is that every change I make thakes a lot of time to be applied, so it is a pain to know if it worked or not.
But this dilution is exactly why one of the discussions about this article states that the real most recent common ancestor (MRCA) would appear, probably, much more recently then the date that DNA states. This might not seem useful, after all if this ancestor has not leaved DNA evidence what use is it? There are several, knowing for instance that difference of time between an actual CA (common ancestor) and a DNA CA could help understand better the propagation of characteristics and the spreading of DNA.
It is interesting, and would be nice to know more precisely just when those points are in history. It is nice in a philosophical way, we all are related, and our relation does not have to go as far as a theoretical "Adam and Eve", this common ancestor could be a few thousands of years ago. People are mixed, but unfortunately many people like to think that exists castes of "pure blood", this proves that this is a lie.
What anthropologists have placed is probably the oldest common ancestor that lived, what this research has stablished is the first one, or the most recent. This is somewhat similar to the Kevin Bacon game, supose we could trace our families perfectly, how long to the past we would have to go to find a common person? That is the question.
The paper, I read a part of it divides the ancestors in three groups:
Depending on how we set this simulation, there will be also three time regions and the year that they correnpond, considering the moderated parameters to the simulation, are the following:
If you do like math you should take a look in the paper (pdf format, 468Kb).
It is not faulty, the article states that just to ignite the curiosity, in fact it does go on to state that this trilions of ancestors are only possible because the same person appear over and over again in the familly tree. In fact this so called family 'tree' has many cilcles, that is the point of the holle article, that a common person should appear if you go far enought in the past and this person apparently is only a few thousands of years.
The point is that if one person that enter this iland and start mating with the locals will have introduced all her linage into this pool. So after some generations all the people from that location will have this person who was introduced in it's family tree, those persons also have thousands and thousands of others, but they all have this single common person who has came from abroad.
The point, as far as I understood is that if you go back far enougth you will find someone who is in everyone's family tree, from everywhere in the world.
Well said, I was going to answer this but you said much of what I would have said in a better and less "karma point loosing" way, ehehe. But I was also going to sujest that copyright should be a right that could only apply to people, enterprizes and other could buy rights to use them but never stop the author, or authors, to sell the work to somebody else. I also believe that copyright should die with the author, or at least with the last author of the work.
I don't buy it that the beatles songs are now owned by Michael Jackson, or that the actual ministry of culture of Brazil, Gilberto Gil, that has made several pop songs in the past could not make his own music creative commons, becuase warner did not allow him. Copyright should protect authors and not deep money, scumbags like the RIAA associates.
You read about the exploding laptop, haven't you?
A totalitary govern can break in, with people and guns, into data centers and make them give the databases to be searched. So you're safe while you trust the goverment to not go out and seek the information actively, but once the tide change there is no such security.
I would guess that even without a single key there would be enouth information about someone stored in the databases of several services that could give enouth information to totalitarian and paranoid governors to persecute people.
If there is one key that bind's all the information you had on many, many sites they will have enougth information to know who is for and who is against the new order. Even if 50% or 60% of korean sites are hosted offshore, the remaining 40% of the sites will be enouth for a data mining operation by the opressor govern.
The problem here is the single key, not the information on the central database.
Why there isn't a signal that would make the phone enter automaticly the quiet mode? Sure assholes could still answer their phones, but they can talk to each other all the same, so I guess that some assholism is quite inevitable. I aways put my cellphone in the silent mode, sometimes I get a scare in the middle of the movie, I then simply decline the call and after the movie I can still look at who was calling.
Now, Vancorps, your position is rather radical. There are always middle grounds. I am sure that there are times that you're unreachable, and if there aren't such times I fell very sorry for you.
Sure it does not erradicate arlegies, and in your case it seems clear that you've got them running on your family. But here it is common sense that children that were raised with animal pets have less alergies then children that had not. Some children doctors do adivise that the over sanitary environments that some mother want is bad, they even have a common joke for this. This doctors would sugest that the child need victamin "S" for "sujeira" witch is dirt in portuguese.
And Brazil wasn't even playing it's best. :-P
You should check this http://www.gibix.net/projects/nspluginwrapper pluggin wrapper, it sometime have a few hickups but most of the time it works quite well. :-D