It behaves predictably across editors and allows easy changing of width for various programmers.
I'm amazed that you can utter this with a straight face. "behaves predictably" and "allows easy changing of width" are pretty much diametrically opposed concepts, at least if you actually share your code with any other human being....
Actually, the concepts go quite well together, and it's the latter part about easily changing widths that makes it much easier to share your code with others. Why do you think the concepts are opposed? Are you confusing "behaves predictably" with "appears identically", two completely orthogonal concepts?
It should be noted that at least half of the arguments you make are exactly identical to arguments I always make, save that they're arguments for using tabs instead of spaces. The one that annoys me the most is how using spaces utterly messes up cursor movement. Ugh. Fixing the problem should be easy, but it's frequently a pain, as a quick find/replace macro to restore sanity to the file often reveals just how sloppy space-indenters usually are. Tab indenters use one tab for one indent level, two tabs for two indent levels, etc. Space indenters say they use four space for one indent level, eight for two levels, etc, but any attempt to clean up their code quickly reveals that sometimes they use seven or nine accidentally, or a poor cut and paste or something, who knows, all I know is whenever I find extraordinarily sloppy indenting, sure enough, it's the product of one of those sloppy space-indenters. Tab-indented code always comes up pretty clean. Replacing all those spaces with tabs, making the code much easier to maintain, is one of the things I always do before recommitting the code.
Eh? That sounds almost exactly backwards. Back in the 80s, I don't know anyone who preferred spaces. We used tabs because any decent text editor let you set them as you liked, and tab meant indent, a semantic meaning that made sense in the context of a source code file. Getting into the 90s, however, you started seeing people coding in primitive GUI environments that were horrid at getting formatting to work right, people wanted to start cutting and pasting rather than marking and copying/moving blocks of text like you do in a text editor, and things would turn into horrid messes if you used tabs instead of spaces, so these younger "new people" started insisting people use spaces instead of tabs because they couldn't figure out how to use a proper text editor that didn't resemble a word processor. It's these young people who never figured out how to properly use a text editor that started insisting on spaces, while us old-timers never had a problem with tabs.
Some people also work at night and browse at odd hours you know. Just because it doesn't coincide with your personal ratrace schedule means nothing.
I have lived in 6 countries and it's readily noticeable to anyone that people keep different schedules in different places. Don't try to apply your limited little world on everyone else.
Um, that was my point. Try some reading comprehension. The facts you've just stated should spread the traffic out, and thus do not explain worldwide time-coordinated spikes.
No, I'm suggesting that people who work across timezones are aware of other people's schedules and organise their own to coordinate.
Actually, that'd be the opposite of what you were previously suggesting. You're replacing "a seeming semi-concert" caused by people tending to do the same thing at the same time of day with actual, intentional coordination.
of them to a company called Quova, who gave me back full location info on every 40th one.
Well, there you have it.
Interesting. Under what conditions would a sampling of every 40th packet on a server that sees millions of packets per hour differ from a true random selection from the same sample? How would random sources from every country on the planet coordinate in such a way that causes particular packets always show up in the (n*40)th position?
Any competent programmer could have sampled the data, used whois to get location, and then used about 1000 different programs to visualize the data just as well. (Like Crystal Reports or Seagate.)
How do you use whois to get the geographic location of an IP address? I know how to get the mailing address of a registrant this way, but that's an utterly unrelated question...
... Really I don't care what the site was, it just seems like there's no valid reason for anyone to have raw data rather than aggregated data outside that department.
Cool. Write your senators and tell them that (a) you want them to raise your taxes, and (b) you want the extra money to be used to hire IT experts for every government office to analyze firewall traffic.
[If you aren't agreeable to (a), then don't bother whining about it.]
If that was the case, it you would see a more gradual decline in the traffic and not so regular usage across the board.
You would also see gradual buildups from at least some of the countries. If a major news event sent everyone to one particular website, you would immediately see *some* traffic from everywhere, but at any given time, a third of the world is asleep, and from those countries, you're just catching the night-owls, the traffic would increase as people started waking up and getting the news.
I'm guessing GP didn't even look at the video. It looks nothing like a new event triggered spike. People from every country hit the site one hour, then don't the next hour or two, then do again? Uh huh. Sorry, that's not even a good guess...
If we assume the video conference included people from all of those countries, who all endeavored to join at the same time GMT regardless of local time, and they keep conferencing for several days without sleeping, then yes, that would account for those horizontal lines that suddenly get thick at the first vertical stripe and continue until the end of the five-day period. That definitely makes sense... ~
Computers are used by people. People who wake up, work, play, sleep, have weekends, business holidays, religious holidays, events and a pantheon of other reasons why they might act in seeming semi-concert.
You're suggesting that for the five day period in question, the majority of people work up at the same time GMT? Not 7am local time, but 9pm GMT everywhere in the world? Or did you just not actually look at the video (which shows spikes of data from every country in the world at the same time)? "Timezone effects" should eliminate these sorts of lines, not cause them, by spreading that kind of activity out over 24 hours.
Sounds like it was obscure enough to me. If a user just happened to be using that password they would have never known it was magic unless they thought to try it on another user id.
...while sitting at a computer in Facebook's offices.
I must admit I used to work for a company that used a similar magic password, too. Ours was based on "Emperor Joshua Norton". The problem with it isn't that it's a security issue, the problem is the lack of accountability. (Well, okay, that's a security issue, too, but a different one.) Like Facebook, we eventually replaced it with a system where employees logged into their own account, then hit a button to become logged in as the customer, so they could still do exactly what they could before, but we knew who was really doing it. As an added bonus, they didn't need to remember the magic password. It turns out, a lot of people have never heard of Emperor Norton! In retrospect I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was...
Exactly what I was thinking. Dogs attack cats for the same reason lions attack cheetahs. They don't even eat them if they kill them, they just kill them if they can catch them (which isn't often, except for the poor kittens).
No, the extra $300 is what you pay for ordering all those parts and preparing an assembly line to make computers but in quantities of less than millions. Certain costs are largely the same whether you're making five hundred computers or five million computers, so they cost more on a per unit basis when you're in the former category rather than the latter. Other costs scale, but not linearly. You can't make a computer with all the same parts as that Acer for the same price unless you're making and selling as many computers as Acer.
Actually Section 109 gives you permission to lend a book.
No. Section 109 clarifies that copyright law does not take away your right to lend a book. You never needed permission before copyright law, and you still don't after.
You "material difference" is an irrelevant one to the main point. Both potentially cost the publisher the opportunity to sell a book to someone, because said person read it for free instead. Whether in the end there's one copy sitting on a book shelf, one copy sitting on a hard drive, or three copies sitting on three hard drives makes no difference to the point that was being made.
Uhm, thats funny, it would seem that every person on the planet with a basic understanding of electricity is wrong then.
No, but a lot of people who think they do (but actually don't) would think so.
Electrical current is the movement of electrons between atoms, it most certainly involves movement of electrons.
It certainly does involve the movement of electronics, yes. However, the speed at which the current moves is not the same as the speed at which the electrons move, much like the speed of an ocean wave has little to do with and generally greatly exceeds the speed of the water molecules involved, despite the fact that waves are the movement of water molecules.
The only thing you know is that the random number you just generated by measuring the states of the particles is a bitwise inverse of the random number they either got or will get when they measured or eventually do measure the state of their particles. Which you knew would be the case before they even left. You do know what both your number is and what their number is, sure, so in a sense by measuring your side you've determined what they will measure on their side (or possibly already did measure). This is spooky and almost sounds useful until you realize a far easier way to communicate the exact same information would be to determine the random number before they leave, and put it in a sealed envelope which you only open when they get to their destination. You "transmit" the same amount of information just as usefully that way, it just doesn't sound as fun when you take out the "spooky" bits...
Nope. It's certainly true that the entanglement causes the collapse in superposition to "communicate" the state of one to the other, so the entangled particles can be said to "communicate" their state instantly across any distance. However, since you can't control which way the superposition is going to collapse, there's no way you can use this effect to transmit information.
Escape velocity is 11.2km/s, to reach 11.2km/s with a 30 meter barrel you would need...
The idea is to put something into orbit, not to fire it into deep space, never to be seen again, so there's absolutely no reason you want to reach 11.2km/s. Try rerunning your numbers using the actual figures rather than numbers you pulled out of your butt. The proposed barrel length is 1100m, and the velocity coming out of the barrel would be 6m/s.
Slashdot Mirror
It behaves predictably across editors and allows easy changing of width for various programmers.
I'm amazed that you can utter this with a straight face. "behaves predictably" and "allows easy changing of width" are pretty much diametrically opposed concepts, at least if you actually share your code with any other human being. ...
Actually, the concepts go quite well together, and it's the latter part about easily changing widths that makes it much easier to share your code with others. Why do you think the concepts are opposed? Are you confusing "behaves predictably" with "appears identically", two completely orthogonal concepts?
It should be noted that at least half of the arguments you make are exactly identical to arguments I always make, save that they're arguments for using tabs instead of spaces. The one that annoys me the most is how using spaces utterly messes up cursor movement. Ugh. Fixing the problem should be easy, but it's frequently a pain, as a quick find/replace macro to restore sanity to the file often reveals just how sloppy space-indenters usually are. Tab indenters use one tab for one indent level, two tabs for two indent levels, etc. Space indenters say they use four space for one indent level, eight for two levels, etc, but any attempt to clean up their code quickly reveals that sometimes they use seven or nine accidentally, or a poor cut and paste or something, who knows, all I know is whenever I find extraordinarily sloppy indenting, sure enough, it's the product of one of those sloppy space-indenters. Tab-indented code always comes up pretty clean. Replacing all those spaces with tabs, making the code much easier to maintain, is one of the things I always do before recommitting the code.
Eh? That sounds almost exactly backwards. Back in the 80s, I don't know anyone who preferred spaces. We used tabs because any decent text editor let you set them as you liked, and tab meant indent, a semantic meaning that made sense in the context of a source code file. Getting into the 90s, however, you started seeing people coding in primitive GUI environments that were horrid at getting formatting to work right, people wanted to start cutting and pasting rather than marking and copying/moving blocks of text like you do in a text editor, and things would turn into horrid messes if you used tabs instead of spaces, so these younger "new people" started insisting people use spaces instead of tabs because they couldn't figure out how to use a proper text editor that didn't resemble a word processor. It's these young people who never figured out how to properly use a text editor that started insisting on spaces, while us old-timers never had a problem with tabs.
Well, sure, if you're going to count raw numbers. There's like four or even eight spaces for every tab. :p
Some people also work at night and browse at odd hours you know. Just because it doesn't coincide with your personal ratrace schedule means nothing.
I have lived in 6 countries and it's readily noticeable to anyone that people keep different schedules in different places. Don't try to apply your limited little world on everyone else.
Um, that was my point. Try some reading comprehension. The facts you've just stated should spread the traffic out, and thus do not explain worldwide time-coordinated spikes.
No, I'm suggesting that people who work across timezones are aware of other people's schedules and organise their own to coordinate.
Actually, that'd be the opposite of what you were previously suggesting. You're replacing "a seeming semi-concert" caused by people tending to do the same thing at the same time of day with actual, intentional coordination.
of them to a company called Quova, who gave me back full location info on every 40th one.
Well, there you have it.
Interesting. Under what conditions would a sampling of every 40th packet on a server that sees millions of packets per hour differ from a true random selection from the same sample? How would random sources from every country on the planet coordinate in such a way that causes particular packets always show up in the (n*40)th position?
Any competent programmer could have sampled the data, used whois to get location, and then used about 1000 different programs to visualize the data just as well. (Like Crystal Reports or Seagate.)
How do you use whois to get the geographic location of an IP address? I know how to get the mailing address of a registrant this way, but that's an utterly unrelated question...
Where can one get a list of IP addresses for countries like China and India so that server admins like myself can block these countries entirely?
If I block all Canadian IP addresses, will I no longer have to view comments from clueless server admins like yourself?
It seems quite stupid to give some random, untrustworthy company access to the IP address data of visitors of a government network.
Government offices rarely give data to random, untrustworthy companies. They have specific companies they contract with.
That probably violated a few privacy laws.
Why do you say that? Which privacy laws mandate the government may never hire private sector contractors?
... Really I don't care what the site was, it just seems like there's no valid reason for anyone to have raw data rather than aggregated data outside that department.
Cool. Write your senators and tell them that (a) you want them to raise your taxes, and (b) you want the extra money to be used to hire IT experts for every government office to analyze firewall traffic.
[If you aren't agreeable to (a), then don't bother whining about it.]
If that was the case, it you would see a more gradual decline in the traffic and not so regular usage across the board.
You would also see gradual buildups from at least some of the countries. If a major news event sent everyone to one particular website, you would immediately see *some* traffic from everywhere, but at any given time, a third of the world is asleep, and from those countries, you're just catching the night-owls, the traffic would increase as people started waking up and getting the news.
I'm guessing GP didn't even look at the video. It looks nothing like a new event triggered spike. People from every country hit the site one hour, then don't the next hour or two, then do again? Uh huh. Sorry, that's not even a good guess...
If we assume the video conference included people from all of those countries, who all endeavored to join at the same time GMT regardless of local time, and they keep conferencing for several days without sleeping, then yes, that would account for those horizontal lines that suddenly get thick at the first vertical stripe and continue until the end of the five-day period. That definitely makes sense... ~
Computers are used by people. People who wake up, work, play, sleep, have weekends, business holidays, religious holidays, events and a pantheon of other reasons why they might act in seeming semi-concert.
You're suggesting that for the five day period in question, the majority of people work up at the same time GMT? Not 7am local time, but 9pm GMT everywhere in the world? Or did you just not actually look at the video (which shows spikes of data from every country in the world at the same time)? "Timezone effects" should eliminate these sorts of lines, not cause them, by spreading that kind of activity out over 24 hours.
Sounds like it was obscure enough to me. If a user just happened to be using that password they would have never known it was magic unless they thought to try it on another user id.
...while sitting at a computer in Facebook's offices.
I must admit I used to work for a company that used a similar magic password, too. Ours was based on "Emperor Joshua Norton". The problem with it isn't that it's a security issue, the problem is the lack of accountability. (Well, okay, that's a security issue, too, but a different one.) Like Facebook, we eventually replaced it with a system where employees logged into their own account, then hit a button to become logged in as the customer, so they could still do exactly what they could before, but we knew who was really doing it. As an added bonus, they didn't need to remember the magic password. It turns out, a lot of people have never heard of Emperor Norton! In retrospect I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was...
The only man to have ever beaten Chuck Norris? Bruce Lee.
Wow, they must both have been spectacular actors to pull off that flight of fantasy... ;)
Exactly what I was thinking. Dogs attack cats for the same reason lions attack cheetahs. They don't even eat them if they kill them, they just kill them if they can catch them (which isn't often, except for the poor kittens).
No, the extra $300 is what you pay for ordering all those parts and preparing an assembly line to make computers but in quantities of less than millions. Certain costs are largely the same whether you're making five hundred computers or five million computers, so they cost more on a per unit basis when you're in the former category rather than the latter. Other costs scale, but not linearly. You can't make a computer with all the same parts as that Acer for the same price unless you're making and selling as many computers as Acer.
Actually Section 109 gives you permission to lend a book.
No. Section 109 clarifies that copyright law does not take away your right to lend a book. You never needed permission before copyright law, and you still don't after.
You "material difference" is an irrelevant one to the main point. Both potentially cost the publisher the opportunity to sell a book to someone, because said person read it for free instead. Whether in the end there's one copy sitting on a book shelf, one copy sitting on a hard drive, or three copies sitting on three hard drives makes no difference to the point that was being made.
Uhm, thats funny, it would seem that every person on the planet with a basic understanding of electricity is wrong then.
No, but a lot of people who think they do (but actually don't) would think so.
Electrical current is the movement of electrons between atoms, it most certainly involves movement of electrons.
It certainly does involve the movement of electronics, yes. However, the speed at which the current moves is not the same as the speed at which the electrons move, much like the speed of an ocean wave has little to do with and generally greatly exceeds the speed of the water molecules involved, despite the fact that waves are the movement of water molecules.
The only thing you know is that the random number you just generated by measuring the states of the particles is a bitwise inverse of the random number they either got or will get when they measured or eventually do measure the state of their particles. Which you knew would be the case before they even left. You do know what both your number is and what their number is, sure, so in a sense by measuring your side you've determined what they will measure on their side (or possibly already did measure). This is spooky and almost sounds useful until you realize a far easier way to communicate the exact same information would be to determine the random number before they leave, and put it in a sealed envelope which you only open when they get to their destination. You "transmit" the same amount of information just as usefully that way, it just doesn't sound as fun when you take out the "spooky" bits...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already?
Nope. It's certainly true that the entanglement causes the collapse in superposition to "communicate" the state of one to the other, so the entangled particles can be said to "communicate" their state instantly across any distance. However, since you can't control which way the superposition is going to collapse, there's no way you can use this effect to transmit information.
Err, that's 6km/s, obviously... XD
Escape velocity is 11.2km/s, to reach 11.2km/s with a 30 meter barrel you would need ...
The idea is to put something into orbit, not to fire it into deep space, never to be seen again, so there's absolutely no reason you want to reach 11.2km/s. Try rerunning your numbers using the actual figures rather than numbers you pulled out of your butt. The proposed barrel length is 1100m, and the velocity coming out of the barrel would be 6m/s.