for an organization the size of the air force, and with the mandate it has, there is nothing laughable or overly ambitious about say, creating and implementing your own supersecure protocol, and supporting it within its subnet
Personally, I like them, It saves our troops' lives and I'd really would like to know what the Taliban are thinking when a robot comes for them.
You know what else would save our troops' lives? Not going to war. How would using robots tell us what the Taliban are thinking? Are these mind reading robots?
Moreover, just suggesting that they would re-write an existing portal (that may not even really need SL technology) simply because a new technology came out makes no sense.
Yet Microsoft has insisted that everyone rewrite, or add significant maintenance and testing cycles, to websites when each new version of IE comes out that doesn't support standards.
I have to disagree, for whatever "normal sized data sets" means. Admittedly anecdotal, but I was once getting unacceptable performance from MySQL on a 400+ million row table with a few simple joins, and it turned out to be faster to export all the data to flat text, import it into an SQLite database and run the entire thing in SQLite. Same hardware, same OS, otherwise idle machine. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to investigate exactly what the cause was for the slowdown in MySQL, perhaps it could have used an "optimize table" or two, but the execution plan appeared legit, we just chalked it up to MySQL being comparatively slow to SQLite.
why call it "gedit" instead of just edit? Yes, I know, to point out that it runs under Gnome, but most people outside the Linux community don't care about that difference
Oh, like iPhoto, iDVD, iTunes, part of the iLife package. iPod, iMac, iPhone. Unless Apple decides to not name them with the prefixing i, like Garageband or the uninspired AppleTV name. Or that all the Microsoft Office products are prefixed with "Microsoft" as part of their official name.
Maybe we could rename emacs and vim to "edit". Giving things generic, non-distinctive names makes it less confusing, after all. I'll start referring to all my friends as "Joe" too.
Seems like a double standard to say that we shouldn't outlaw hammers because someone could use one as a weapon, while also saying that certain types of information should be restricted because someone could use it to harass someone. It's the act that should be illegal or restricted, not the access to the information.
Journalists also need to consider if a story is even worth reporting unless they have, and can/want to provide all the information. Otherwise it's just a "something happened to someone somewhere" headline. Independent of attempts to protect the sources, is a story that is incomplete one that is worth telling? Leaving details out just leads to speculation (by either the reporter or the audience), and speculation seems to go against good reporting.
Even better, use the version of the library in the filename, and symlinks to the latest version. The old version continues to exist (or can be removed without conflicting) while the new version is available as the common, unversioned named to new programs that are started. You can even keep old versions around for compatiblity's sake (compat-libstdc++, for example).
Setting this up is what ldconfig does. Why doesn't Windows have this capability (or is the answer the 8.3 limit on filenames still: I notice that most of windows\system{,32} is composed of 8.3 dll names)? Admittedly, this isn't used as often as it could be with Linux library packaging (because of other development compatibility issues (witness packages like libgnomeprint22), and the lack of a "release" version field that ldconfig knows about), but the capability is there.
Or you could read the above message as "I'm not even feeling lucky enough to type 'sqlite database engine' into google and hit 'I'm feeling lucky', I'd much rather type 40 additional words into a textbox on slashdot.
The plan is to shake out cross-site scripting bugs in the most popular search engines (think Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask.com)
Uh, thanks for explaining what a search engine is, in order to stave off the inevitable questions of "What's a search engine? Why do the editors think we know this?".
magic quotes ain't helping though either, but I suppose seeing backslashes littering the output (as is common on many websites) is better than SQL injection. The magic quotes setting, and the concept behind and naming of the stripslashes function, is so confusing that it's best to just turn off magic quotes, don't use stripslashes, and manually make sure you either quote everything (hard) or use prepared statements (much easier).
You forgot the bit where, if you spent time in the computer software section at Walmart reading the marketing material on the back of the box and didn't download the software, you have to take the disc out of the box, throw out a bunch of tree-killing filler, put it in your "cup holder", and use the "foot pedal" to initiate the installation.
"localhost for IT Pros"? Oh, I get it, "Home for IT PROS", except right below the logo and the tagline, there is a navbar where the first item is "Home", so I can click to go the home of my home? "~ FOR IT PROS" would have made much more sense, except that's only for UNIX weinies, but "%PROFILEDIR% for IT PROS" is harder to read.
Aggreg8: By Marketing, for Tech Users.
... but ISPs keep treating it like it is. If this kind of web-browser-error-messages-are-so-hard-to-understa nd-whaaaa-mommmy-hold-my-hand problem is so important, it can be done using proxying. Just have everyone who doesn't know how to type or can't understand the message "the domain ww.exampel.com couldn't be found" set the proxy settings in their browser. Or if you know your user base is composed of a bunch of idiots, use transparent proxying (obviously less effective with https traffic, but then significant changes to DNS, such as this is, effectively breaks https and what little trust you do get from https anyway). Can't proxy settings be served via DHCP or something too? This would provide all the advantages of dynamic configurations based on user/client machine (mac address) without even having to walk non-technical users through the process of changing their proxy settings in the browser.
On the other hand, if SRV records had been used initially to publicize HTTP servers, then only those records would need to be overloaded to provide this kind of service. At least then it would be restricted to DNS queries related to HTTP traffic, although still not ideal.
I figured that the bandwagon being refered to in that bad analogy was the one that all users in that 945,000 range are on. The analogies from 945258 (of course) and 945545 were both pretty bad.
I'm not about to put my slashdot userid up against the 2,975 users with ids less than mine. Yes, you beat me, but you also don't work with me... (at least, I don't think you do, heh).
Circumventing copyright protection should not be illegal. US copyright law grants the enduser the right to make a backup copy of any copyrighted material he owns. Also anyone is free to make copies of uncopyrighted material. The DMCA clearly violates established consumers rights.
So now there's confusion between "copy protection" and "copyright protection". How do you circumvent "copyright protection"? By passing new laws? By being acquited? Since when is the "end user" the same as the owner of a copyrighted work? The owner of a copyrighted work can make as many copies for whatever purpose as they see fit, backup or not. And of course anyone is free to make copies of uncopyrighted material -- uncopyrighted material is not copyrighted, essentially in the public domain.
How can you tell it's from last year? Slashdot has never had the year displayed in any of the dates. And apparently this isn't considered a bug or even an oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, old Apple ads like this one devalued the term "supercomputer".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEG0RLzhDA
They're doing it with IPv6, right?
Personally, I like them, It saves our troops' lives and I'd really would like to know what the Taliban are thinking when a robot comes for them.
You know what else would save our troops' lives? Not going to war. How would using robots tell us what the Taliban are thinking? Are these mind reading robots?
Someone's been watching too much Star Trek.
Yet Microsoft has insisted that everyone rewrite, or add significant maintenance and testing cycles, to websites when each new version of IE comes out that doesn't support standards.
I have to disagree, for whatever "normal sized data sets" means. Admittedly anecdotal, but I was once getting unacceptable performance from MySQL on a 400+ million row table with a few simple joins, and it turned out to be faster to export all the data to flat text, import it into an SQLite database and run the entire thing in SQLite. Same hardware, same OS, otherwise idle machine. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to investigate exactly what the cause was for the slowdown in MySQL, perhaps it could have used an "optimize table" or two, but the execution plan appeared legit, we just chalked it up to MySQL being comparatively slow to SQLite.
Yeah, and if you write proprietary software then you don't need to be concerned with licensing because no one will know you're stealing their code.
Seems like a double standard to say that we shouldn't outlaw hammers because someone could use one as a weapon, while also saying that certain types of information should be restricted because someone could use it to harass someone. It's the act that should be illegal or restricted, not the access to the information. Journalists also need to consider if a story is even worth reporting unless they have, and can/want to provide all the information. Otherwise it's just a "something happened to someone somewhere" headline. Independent of attempts to protect the sources, is a story that is incomplete one that is worth telling? Leaving details out just leads to speculation (by either the reporter or the audience), and speculation seems to go against good reporting.
Yeah, this was covered in Fight Club.
Either
"No need to read 1984 anymore, we're living it."
or
"They don't let kids read 1984 anymore, might give 'em some ideas"
What he said!
Even better, use the version of the library in the filename, and symlinks to the latest version. The old version continues to exist (or can be removed without conflicting) while the new version is available as the common, unversioned named to new programs that are started. You can even keep old versions around for compatiblity's sake (compat-libstdc++, for example).
Setting this up is what ldconfig does. Why doesn't Windows have this capability (or is the answer the 8.3 limit on filenames still: I notice that most of windows\system{,32} is composed of 8.3 dll names)? Admittedly, this isn't used as often as it could be with Linux library packaging (because of other development compatibility issues (witness packages like libgnomeprint22), and the lack of a "release" version field that ldconfig knows about), but the capability is there.
Or you could read the above message as "I'm not even feeling lucky enough to type 'sqlite database engine' into google and hit 'I'm feeling lucky', I'd much rather type 40 additional words into a textbox on slashdot.
magic quotes ain't helping though either, but I suppose seeing backslashes littering the output (as is common on many websites) is better than SQL injection. The magic quotes setting, and the concept behind and naming of the stripslashes function, is so confusing that it's best to just turn off magic quotes, don't use stripslashes, and manually make sure you either quote everything (hard) or use prepared statements (much easier).
The misunderstanding of "can" in CAN-SPAM is the same as the misunderstanding of "free" in "free software".
You forgot the bit where, if you spent time in the computer software section at Walmart reading the marketing material on the back of the box and didn't download the software, you have to take the disc out of the box, throw out a bunch of tree-killing filler, put it in your "cup holder", and use the "foot pedal" to initiate the installation.
... but ISPs keep treating it like it is. If this kind of web-browser-error-messages-are-so-hard-to-understa nd-whaaaa-mommmy-hold-my-hand problem is so important, it can be done using proxying. Just have everyone who doesn't know how to type or can't understand the message "the domain ww.exampel.com couldn't be found" set the proxy settings in their browser. Or if you know your user base is composed of a bunch of idiots, use transparent proxying (obviously less effective with https traffic, but then significant changes to DNS, such as this is, effectively breaks https and what little trust you do get from https anyway). Can't proxy settings be served via DHCP or something too? This would provide all the advantages of dynamic configurations based on user/client machine (mac address) without even having to walk non-technical users through the process of changing their proxy settings in the browser.
On the other hand, if SRV records had been used initially to publicize HTTP servers, then only those records would need to be overloaded to provide this kind of service. At least then it would be restricted to DNS queries related to HTTP traffic, although still not ideal.
I figured that the bandwagon being refered to in that bad analogy was the one that all users in that 945,000 range are on. The analogies from 945258 (of course) and 945545 were both pretty bad.
I'm not about to put my slashdot userid up against the 2,975 users with ids less than mine. Yes, you beat me, but you also don't work with me... (at least, I don't think you do, heh).
Then I will. These analogies suck.
(Sorry, we were just wagging our dicks today at work over who had the lowest slashdot userid, and I won by a wide margin).
Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials, an all around great book, has a great depiction of the puppeteers.
Circumventing copyright protection should not be illegal. US copyright law grants the enduser the right to make a backup copy of any copyrighted material he owns. Also anyone is free to make copies of uncopyrighted material. The DMCA clearly violates established consumers rights.
So now there's confusion between "copy protection" and "copyright protection". How do you circumvent "copyright protection"? By passing new laws? By being acquited? Since when is the "end user" the same as the owner of a copyrighted work? The owner of a copyrighted work can make as many copies for whatever purpose as they see fit, backup or not. And of course anyone is free to make copies of uncopyrighted material -- uncopyrighted material is not copyrighted, essentially in the public domain.
How can you tell it's from last year? Slashdot has never had the year displayed in any of the dates. And apparently this isn't considered a bug or even an oversight.