This is one of the reasons why, on my Windows box, my local username is "root". If it gets embedded somewhere, this doesn't tell people much. (Just to add to the confusion, it's a normal user account, not an "administrator".)
Wouldn't that just bring up a menu to "Lock" / "Switch User" / "Log Off" / "Change Password" / "Start Task Manager", plus options to Change Ease of Access, Cancel, Restart, Sleep or Shutdown?
That's not what it does on my computer, but then, I'm using Windows, whereas you're obviously using Windows. These two operating systems have dramatically different UI's. (I wish I was joking...)
So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.
RTFS: "The infrared camera can be tuned to pick out the Oleic acid levels through a whole slab..."
Alas, tastiness is not an objective trait. However, with the understanding that a trait is subjective, one can make objective measurements of how many subjects relate to an object in a particular way. One could presumably therefore objectively determine which tomatoes will taste zesty to the largest number of people.
Yes. Now they will develop a method to inject this fat throughout all cuts of meat, so any test would indicate all the meat at the grocery store is 'best'....
Well, if it's true that it improves the flavor of meat, then this is, in fact, a good idea. That wouldn't be a case of deceiving the test, but of genuinely improving the quality of the meat.
Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules.... but
if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and
dollars are gone
You are suffering from the "sunk costs" fallacy. Those years and dollars are gone, not "if its cancelled", they're gone, period. The question is, what is the best way to proceed from where we are today. If the Ares program is not a good investment, then we shouldn't throw any more money at this. This is equally true whether we've spent nothing or spent a trillion dollars...
I mean if Jupiter’s surface temperature is below 200 degrees Celsius (and i bet it is), and since it’s also a brown dwarf...
Jupiter is not a brown dwarf. It orbits the Sun.
Also, what about Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, who just as much count as brown dwarfs,
Correct, insofar as "just as much count" correctly notes that none of these bodies are brown dwarves.
... since they are mainly built like a star.
How something is built does not alone define its astronomical classification. If the Earth orbited a gas giant, it would be a moon rather than a planet. If Titan did not orbit Saturn but orbited the Sun, it would be a planet, not a moon. If Jupiter would flying free through interstellar space with no star to orbit, it would be a brown dwarf. But in fact, it is not.
What would a brown dwarf do if it passed close by to earth... since they are hard to detect I can assume we wouldn't see it coming.
Um, it would be a lot easier to see coming than the planet Jupiter. What makes a brown dwarf hard to detect is that it's not close to a star (if it was, it would be a large exoplanet instead). Obviously it one was passing close by Earth, it would be close to a star (the Sun) and would be extremely easy to detect. "Impossible to miss" would be a better description. Depending on how close, it would likely be the brightest object in the sky, visible in broad daylight, for a few centuries before it got too close.
I think that by "sub-stellar body" they mean something not orbiting a star.
From the summary (not even the article!): "The object known as SDSS1416+13B is in a wide orbit around a somewhat brighter and warmer brown dwarf, SDSS1416+13A"
Obviously you're literate in the most basic sense. So why not put that ability to use, genius?
Alas, it's not clear that you are literate in even the most basic sense. XD
There was a lot of Google love at one time. Still is, really. There's also a large herd of people who are dreadfully concerned with being nonconformist, and consider themselves superior for being against what everyone else is for. Naturally, the beasts in this herd have become knee-jerk Google critics, since nothing makes you look like the sophisticated iconoclast like being gullible enough to believe every tinfoil theory put forward about Google. Obviously you're not naive if you automatically believe every conspiracy theory, right? "Look at me! I'm immune to their propaganda and see through all their evil plans! I'm so much more brilliant than the rest of you sheep."/eyeroll
The problem being, when Paul Vixie says, "DNS was designed to express facts, not policies," he's either asserting a particular policy should be forced on all administrators, or asserting that the "facts" are something other than what they are on today's internet. Alas, this is far from the only example of Vixie attempting to enforce his policy decisions on others, while pretending it's some factual dispute and of course his idea of the way things should are the "facts" about the way it is.
So how do I redirect the user to the server that is closest to them without knowing their ip?
Firstly, geographical proximity has nothing to do with quality of connectivity. (Some helpful fellow slashdotter pointed that to me, a few days back). So, redirecting user to nearest server doesn't help much. In fact, it could even slow down connectivity because of the computation involved in calculating proximities.
Secondly, the existing system works just fine for location-based DNS redirection.
Firstly, getting the user's/24 IP address does not give you geographical proximity (without substantial additional work), instead it gives you the kind of "network proximity" that is precisely the kind of information that does aid you in directly them to a "closer" (in network terms) server.
Secondly, your second point is... bizarre. The existing system simply doesn't offer this ability at all, you have to rig up some kind of kludge to get something like it, at the cost of all lot of additional IP traffic and complexity to get the same effect this would allow much more simply. If "works just fine" means "doesn't do this at all, really", then you're correct, otherwise, you're just plain wrong here.
My good AC, I actually think you aren't a Google astroturf, but how naive can this be? Google is a public corporation whose fiduciary duty is to make money for their shareholders, not make the intertubes flow more smoothly, unless that causes Google to make more money.
...and if you don't see how that causes Google to make more money, you're an idiot. Extra points for calling someone "naive" for not being as gullible as you.
Yes. This would be using DNS to give you the best IP address to connect to if you want to browse a particular site. DNS shouldn't be used to associate a name with an IP address unless it's done randomly.../sarcasm
So basically what you are saying is, let's find any way this can be marginally useful and attribute it to the only reason why Google is doing this and disregard everything else, thus they are not evil.
So basically what you are saying is, let's just assume Google's aim here is to strengthen censorship in Iran.
(Yes, I know what I'm saying is stupid. I'm making a stupid statement in response to a stupid statement to highlight just how stupid the statement I'm replying to was.)
Liberal and conservative are totally different over there. Liberal means anti-government intervention, conservative means the opposite.
This more or less tracks with America. Democrats want to tax me more, Republicans want to take control of my body and tell me who I can and can't marry. I support Democrats because I oppose intrusive government.
Dude, the editor takes care of that for you. Why micromanage spaces and alignment when that's what computers are good for? There's a reason things like ReSharper exist. I never ever use tabs (option is set to insert spaces instead), and I've never had to deal with any of these issues the "tabs not spaces" crowed insist exist if you use spaces.
So, what you're saying is, as long as you're using the right editor, it'll take care of these things for you, it's only a problem for people who pull it up in a different editor that doesn't do the same micromanagement yours does. I point this out not because you're in any way wrong, but for some reason fans of using spaces instead of tabs often complain that the way different editors deal with tabs is a problem, while acting as if this isn't a problem in the other direction. Personally, I find the behavior of tabs across editors to be far more consistent than the way spaces are treated, because some editors do exactly as your does (and should), but more do not, or they do some random subset of all the nice things they ought to do, like making a single delete drop a whole indent level, or just a space, or how the arrow moves through them, e.g go one space? one indent level? go directly to the first non-space? Will it even let me arrow back beyond the first non-space character? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes a space at a time, sometimes an indent level at a time, etc. There's no good argument to be made in favor of either spaces or tabs in which one cites inconsistent editor behavior, it cuts both ways, but space-indenters always seem to cite these inconsistencies as if it somehow only affects tabs and not spaces.
It's still possible with spaces - writing a script that counts the number of spaces at the beginning of each line, divides by N, and multiplies the result by M is trivial in any scripting language. I suspect it would be a one-liner in Perl.
Been there, done that. Sounds like a nice theory, doesn't work in practice, since despite however much they might protest otherwise, space indenters are sloppy, and you will find that your trivial script is flummoxed by the fact that people who start by indenting for spaces for one level indent anywhere from seven to nine for two levels deep, ten to fourteen for three levels deep, etc, with increasing imprecision until you actually get overlap and it's not clear at what indent level code should be based on the number of spaces. Sure, you can figure it out, but it's not something that can be done with a trivial script.
Not really. The tab key still works, you understand, it just inserts the appropriate number of spaces.
Yes, and then later when I go to edit the line, I have to hit the arrow key or delete key a bazillion times when I should have only needed to hit it once because some nimrod put twelve spaces where three tabs would have sufficed. The tab key works just fine, but the arrow keys, the delete key, and every other key on the keyboard is screwed, and you end up using MANY more keystrokes dealing with the godforsaken mess that was created...
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the reasons why, on my Windows box, my local username is "root". If it gets embedded somewhere, this doesn't tell people much. (Just to add to the confusion, it's a normal user account, not an "administrator".)
Wouldn't that just bring up a menu to "Lock" / "Switch User" / "Log Off" / "Change Password" / "Start Task Manager", plus options to Change Ease of Access, Cancel, Restart, Sleep or Shutdown?
That's not what it does on my computer, but then, I'm using Windows, whereas you're obviously using Windows. These two operating systems have dramatically different UI's. (I wish I was joking...)
So you prompt the sellers to spray each piece with Oleic acid to make their display look extra-tasty. It needs to be a more sophisticated, hard-to-fool algorithm than that.
RTFS: "The infrared camera can be tuned to pick out the Oleic acid levels through a whole slab ..."
Alas, tastiness is not an objective trait. However, with the understanding that a trait is subjective, one can make objective measurements of how many subjects relate to an object in a particular way. One could presumably therefore objectively determine which tomatoes will taste zesty to the largest number of people.
Yes. Now they will develop a method to inject this fat throughout all cuts of meat, so any test would indicate all the meat at the grocery store is 'best'....
Well, if it's true that it improves the flavor of meat, then this is, in fact, a good idea. That wouldn't be a case of deceiving the test, but of genuinely improving the quality of the meat.
Years of work have gone in Ares I,5 and the capsules. ... but
if its cancelled and NASA have to restart then those years and
dollars are gone
You are suffering from the "sunk costs" fallacy. Those years and dollars are gone, not "if its cancelled", they're gone, period. The question is, what is the best way to proceed from where we are today. If the Ares program is not a good investment, then we shouldn't throw any more money at this. This is equally true whether we've spent nothing or spent a trillion dollars...
I mean if Jupiter’s surface temperature is below 200 degrees Celsius (and i bet it is), and since it’s also a brown dwarf...
Jupiter is not a brown dwarf. It orbits the Sun.
Also, what about Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, who just as much count as brown dwarfs,
Correct, insofar as "just as much count" correctly notes that none of these bodies are brown dwarves.
... since they are mainly built like a star.
How something is built does not alone define its astronomical classification. If the Earth orbited a gas giant, it would be a moon rather than a planet. If Titan did not orbit Saturn but orbited the Sun, it would be a planet, not a moon. If Jupiter would flying free through interstellar space with no star to orbit, it would be a brown dwarf. But in fact, it is not.
What would a brown dwarf do if it passed close by to earth... since they are hard to detect I can assume we wouldn't see it coming.
Um, it would be a lot easier to see coming than the planet Jupiter. What makes a brown dwarf hard to detect is that it's not close to a star (if it was, it would be a large exoplanet instead). Obviously it one was passing close by Earth, it would be close to a star (the Sun) and would be extremely easy to detect. "Impossible to miss" would be a better description. Depending on how close, it would likely be the brightest object in the sky, visible in broad daylight, for a few centuries before it got too close.
From the summary (not even the article!): "The object known as SDSS1416+13B is in a wide orbit around a somewhat brighter and warmer brown dwarf, SDSS1416+13A"
Obviously you're literate in the most basic sense. So why not put that ability to use, genius?
Alas, it's not clear that you are literate in even the most basic sense. XD
There is no car analogy.
:o
Where is BadAnalogyGuy when you need him...
What's with the irrational Google hating?
There was a lot of Google love at one time. Still is, really. There's also a large herd of people who are dreadfully concerned with being nonconformist, and consider themselves superior for being against what everyone else is for. Naturally, the beasts in this herd have become knee-jerk Google critics, since nothing makes you look like the sophisticated iconoclast like being gullible enough to believe every tinfoil theory put forward about Google. Obviously you're not naive if you automatically believe every conspiracy theory, right? "Look at me! I'm immune to their propaganda and see through all their evil plans! I'm so much more brilliant than the rest of you sheep." /eyeroll
The problem being, when Paul Vixie says, "DNS was designed to express facts, not policies," he's either asserting a particular policy should be forced on all administrators, or asserting that the "facts" are something other than what they are on today's internet. Alas, this is far from the only example of Vixie attempting to enforce his policy decisions on others, while pretending it's some factual dispute and of course his idea of the way things should are the "facts" about the way it is.
Why the fuck would anyone want to use Google for DNS, instead of something closer (e.g. either their ISP or even a box on their very own LAN)?
Sadly, Google's DNS is something closer than the DNS server my ISP tells me to use if I don't want them hijacking misses.
s/directly/directing/
So how do I redirect the user to the server that is closest to them without knowing their ip?
Firstly, geographical proximity has nothing to do with quality of connectivity. (Some helpful fellow slashdotter pointed that to me, a few days back). So, redirecting user to nearest server doesn't help much. In fact, it could even slow down connectivity because of the computation involved in calculating proximities.
Secondly, the existing system works just fine for location-based DNS redirection.
Firstly, getting the user's /24 IP address does not give you geographical proximity (without substantial additional work), instead it gives you the kind of "network proximity" that is precisely the kind of information that does aid you in directly them to a "closer" (in network terms) server.
Secondly, your second point is... bizarre. The existing system simply doesn't offer this ability at all, you have to rig up some kind of kludge to get something like it, at the cost of all lot of additional IP traffic and complexity to get the same effect this would allow much more simply. If "works just fine" means "doesn't do this at all, really", then you're correct, otherwise, you're just plain wrong here.
My good AC, I actually think you aren't a Google astroturf, but how naive can this be? Google is a public corporation whose fiduciary duty is to make money for their shareholders, not make the intertubes flow more smoothly, unless that causes Google to make more money.
...and if you don't see how that causes Google to make more money, you're an idiot. Extra points for calling someone "naive" for not being as gullible as you.
Yes. This would be using DNS to give you the best IP address to connect to if you want to browse a particular site. DNS shouldn't be used to associate a name with an IP address unless it's done randomly... /sarcasm
-1 Too Much Tinfoil
So basically what you are saying is, let's find any way this can be marginally useful and attribute it to the only reason why Google is doing this and disregard everything else, thus they are not evil.
So basically what you are saying is, let's just assume Google's aim here is to strengthen censorship in Iran.
(Yes, I know what I'm saying is stupid. I'm making a stupid statement in response to a stupid statement to highlight just how stupid the statement I'm replying to was.)
Liberal and conservative are totally different over there. Liberal means anti-government intervention, conservative means the opposite.
This more or less tracks with America. Democrats want to tax me more, Republicans want to take control of my body and tell me who I can and can't marry. I support Democrats because I oppose intrusive government.
NASA needs more +20 Spirit Gems.
Normally I don't advise that one gems for Spirit, but NASA is in a class of their own. They know how to get the best out of their spec. ;)
TFAs should not provide us with bad car analogies. That takes all the fun out of coming up with them ourselves! >:(
Dude, the editor takes care of that for you. Why micromanage spaces and alignment when that's what computers are good for? There's a reason things like ReSharper exist. I never ever use tabs (option is set to insert spaces instead), and I've never had to deal with any of these issues the "tabs not spaces" crowed insist exist if you use spaces.
So, what you're saying is, as long as you're using the right editor, it'll take care of these things for you, it's only a problem for people who pull it up in a different editor that doesn't do the same micromanagement yours does. I point this out not because you're in any way wrong, but for some reason fans of using spaces instead of tabs often complain that the way different editors deal with tabs is a problem, while acting as if this isn't a problem in the other direction. Personally, I find the behavior of tabs across editors to be far more consistent than the way spaces are treated, because some editors do exactly as your does (and should), but more do not, or they do some random subset of all the nice things they ought to do, like making a single delete drop a whole indent level, or just a space, or how the arrow moves through them, e.g go one space? one indent level? go directly to the first non-space? Will it even let me arrow back beyond the first non-space character? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes a space at a time, sometimes an indent level at a time, etc. There's no good argument to be made in favor of either spaces or tabs in which one cites inconsistent editor behavior, it cuts both ways, but space-indenters always seem to cite these inconsistencies as if it somehow only affects tabs and not spaces.
It's still possible with spaces - writing a script that counts the number of spaces at the beginning of each line, divides by N, and multiplies the result by M is trivial in any scripting language. I suspect it would be a one-liner in Perl.
Been there, done that. Sounds like a nice theory, doesn't work in practice, since despite however much they might protest otherwise, space indenters are sloppy, and you will find that your trivial script is flummoxed by the fact that people who start by indenting for spaces for one level indent anywhere from seven to nine for two levels deep, ten to fourteen for three levels deep, etc, with increasing imprecision until you actually get overlap and it's not clear at what indent level code should be based on the number of spaces. Sure, you can figure it out, but it's not something that can be done with a trivial script.
fewer keystrokes,
Not really. The tab key still works, you understand, it just inserts the appropriate number of spaces.
Yes, and then later when I go to edit the line, I have to hit the arrow key or delete key a bazillion times when I should have only needed to hit it once because some nimrod put twelve spaces where three tabs would have sufficed. The tab key works just fine, but the arrow keys, the delete key, and every other key on the keyboard is screwed, and you end up using MANY more keystrokes dealing with the godforsaken mess that was created...