Hmm, twenty two is an odd base to work in but I suppose it's still valid.
I thought twentytwo was even. In all bases except base one.
Must be in at least base 3; the "2" symbol isn't used in any base less than that (except for the very weird fractional bases that some mathematicians insist on using).
Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to pay for IPv4 addresses for their public services and pay for some mechanism to allow their users to access servers on the IPv4 internet is free to sit back and watch as they lose the ability to sell to many of their customers and buy from many of their suppliers over the internet. Of course by chosing this path they have a good chance of going broke (or getting overridden in a shareholder revolt) sooner rather than later but it is their choice to make.
But you're failing to understand the scale of the problem. A large corp benefits from moving to IPv6 because it gets rid of the problem of running out of addresses allocated to them even allowing for NAT. The 10.*.*.* address space just isn't that large when you've got lots of employees and lots of virtualization. Yes, you can use NAT within NAT within NAT, but it all gets rather horrific very quickly.
Now, if only we hadn't compounded the problem by using our own hacked versions of NAT, firewalls and DNS systems (Why?! Why?!) this would have been a no-brainer...
Yep, which is a pretty weak reason to celebrate. If Eolas has the power, there's nothing preventing any other company from gaining that power, too.
Nothing in law anyway. They'd still have to actually have something that they can sue over or the court will throw it out immediately.
This is why it's a bad idea to blind-rage against any company.
Oh, there are a few that it's worth saving the ire for, ones that have a history of killing employees, customers and the general public through their lax safety controls or their corrupt entanglements with crooked governments. Let's save the rage for where it's actually justified.
Sentencing is not about deterrence. It is about punishment.
Sentencing has many purposes, including both punishment (persuading the convicted that they did the wrong thing and really shouldn't do it again) and deterrence (persuading others of that). It is also used to protect the general public (more in the case of violent crimes or the various types of fraud) and to pay restitution to the injured parties.
If Northern Sea ever freezes to such depths that can break the ship.
That's not going to freeze unless there's a major change of ocean currents. Right now, it hardly ever gets below 4C in the winter because of the Gulf Stream (which not only keeps the water warmer than it other would be, but also keeps it moving) so ice is exceptionally unlikely except in sheltered coastal locations. Not that you'd want to fall in though; the water's still quite cold enough in winter to kill rapidly.
And it's only an "if" because it might not happen for many millions of years and who knows if our ancestors will be around then.
Ancestors? My grandparents are long dead, and I'd be rather startled if my parents were to live for millions of years. If they're going to do that, I'd hope that they'd do so in good health; getting massively old while being in pain from aging would be horrible. Maybe medicine will allow this to happen, but it's rather far into the realm of science fiction at this point...
It has some uses (see other replies), and it's OK if you have strong regulation of the service providers.
The UK has such strong regulation of this area precisely because of abuse of the capability in the past; there was a spate of premium charges for various tricky things a number of years back (in the '90s IIRC) and so action was taken to stop fraudsters from getting the money. The core of the regulation is a mandatory delay (minimum 1 month?) between when the charge appears on the customer's bill and when the money reaches the owner of the premium service, which gives time for abuse to show up and be stomped on by the authorities, with restitution made as appropriate. Because it's hard to cash out with a fraudulent service, the UK isn't an attractive place for those wanting to do this sort of thing. The fact that it also stops this sort of thing is just a side-benefit.
The down-side is that legitimate providers have to eat their costs for a while before they get the income arising from their service offering...
You've proved that you're denser than most with that comment.
But apart from the obvious joke flying far over your head, you're missing the point that you just spread polling stations out as necessary. Around each polling station you'll have enough people to staff it, because it should be serving a sufficient number of electors. Sure, that means they'll be further apart and serve smaller numbers in deepest Montana than in urban Philadelphia, but you'll cope somehow. It's not rocket science; vote counting can scale pretty well.
Whatever your voting problems are, population density is not one of them.
I can only assume this guy is either a moron who believes in homeopathy, or, more likely, he is receiving bribes from companies that make homeopathic products.
Living in the UK and bearing in mind his previously-demonstrated talents at the Department of Culture, I'm going with the moron theory. After all, I'm a believer in evidence-based politics...
That's why you both ought to be using tabstops after all. It lets everyone use the indentation level they are most comfortable with.
Alas, that doesn't actually work too well in practice because of what happens with continuation lines where alignment to preceding lines is used (a common tactic).
If you worry about crossing the magical 80 character column width limit, don't. Those folks who care about it are the same who use 2 space indentation anyway.
I like 80 columns. It lets me have more source files open and visible at once. (Before you ask, adding an extra screen is great! Lets me have even more files open at once!) What's more, if you're working remotely then 80 columns tends to get forced on you anyway. If it's a serious problem, either your identifiers are hilariously long or you're probably putting too much on a line or making your code too logically indented (too many nested loops or conditionals); refactoring into smaller functional units is the solution in any case.
Embeding all images in original document using data URI's (~1.37x overhead to data size but no latency impact), the site will download in 10*100*1,37/1280 = 1,07 seconds
The size overhead would be likely not much of an issue; the data URIs would compress quite reasonably back down to something close to the originating data size (assuming a compressed data format, of course, but that's the overwhelmingly common case). Reworking the math to allow for the compression takes the download time estimate back to 0.78s; that's about ~40% faster, not ~20% faster as you had worked out.
On the other hand, I suspect your calculations are an oversimplification anyway due to the fact that a full TCP initiation handshake isn't required for every image due to connection reuse and pipelining, and there's the possibility to do parallel downloading of the containing document (through use of the HTTP Range header) and so on. Plus there's the effect of caches, and using CSS sprites to reduce the per-image overhead, and a whole bunch of other things that I can't think of right now. But data URLs can most certainly be part of the mix.
Python seems to be between 10 and 20 times more expressive than Java.
Formally, they're about the same. Both are Turing-complete languages (abstractly, within the bounds imposed by existing on a physical system) and both have gigantic numbers of third-party libraries available that let an awful lot of stuff be done. It's probably the case that Python handles dynamism better, and Java is easier to optimize; those are features that are usually antithetical anyway.
That is, a line of Python does a lot more than a line of Java.
That's a foolish measure to use as a metric of expressivity, given that different languages have different levels of terseness anyway. (Otherwise you'd end up eulogizing Perl6, and you wouldn't want that! Or maybe even J, and that makes most developers' brains hurt with its terseness.)
Don't try to dress up your preferences with pseudo-scientific claims. Just say "I like Python more than Java; it suits the way I think about problems" and let it go at that. (Myself? I happen to prefer Java to Python, but neither is anything like my favorite. Like it matters to you.)
I've gone paperless, so I have tax returns, medical info, SSNs, etc on my laptop. Full Disk Encryption means I don't have to worry about it.
As long as you also have backups (with whatever encryption on them that you desire/need) as well, you're right. But don't underestimate the power of disks to fail. I've had a disk fail on me once, and I only lost a week of work (and thankfully most of that was committed to an external source repository, so it wasn't actually lost at all) because I had a backup on an external device. If you're keeping stuff that it is important to retain a copy of, make an extra copy. (Do it, do it today!)
Data security is not just about protecting against malicious humans.
Brother printers particularly are good, the cartridges (at least all the ones I've seen) are just ink receptacles, they have no electronics, just put more ink in job done.
I've had good experiences with Canon (or at least with the model of Canon I've got, an i560x). The ink cartridges are just ink tanks (with a bit of sponge to control the ink flow); the level detection is done with a little prism built into the wall of the cartridge, and I believe that it depends on measuring how much light is absorbed by the ink due to evanescent waves, or perhaps due to the difference in refractive index between air and ink. Clever use of physics, cheap solution, and the ink is readily available (especially if you're willing to use generic inks).
Exposure to light can reduce production of a hormone known to have its production reduced by exposure to light.
Not just that. Backlit displays tend to be more blue in color than most home lighting, which is the part of the spectrum that most affects melatonin production (a reasonably well-known effect). Which puts this all in "No shit, Sherlock" territory. Or an undergraduate project.
Producing something orderly is a whole different question, and unless you happen to have an infinite number of monkeys at your disposal, the chance of that happening in a finite period of time is pretty damn improbable.
Also remember this: an infinite number of monkeys will produce an infinite amount of shit pretty much instantly. Finding what you're looking for amid all the excrement will be very difficult.
If it was possible to prevent all security holes, this wouldn't be a bad idea. However, it is provably impossible to do so.
This is utterly gut-wrenchingly wrong. Do you write PHP for a living? That's a language community which uses faux CS statements to mentally justify delivering insecure crap.
To prove a program correct, all you have to do is show that it will only ever do correct things, that if given an input that is illegal, it will be guaranteed to be rejected (in a defined fashion). Program correctness is usually either pretty tractable (unless you do something evil like creating a program that is only correct if it is wrong and vice versa; such things are evil but not actually written normally) or coupled to the difficulty of proving some nasty piece of math. Moreover, a very large fraction of programs do not use complex theorems: they are wholly tractable.
Which isn't to say that they're easy to prove. Making a proven-correct program usually starts from the basis of invariants over operations and a very thorough grasp of what is actually happening and where. A large pile of code spaghetti (or its OO equivalent: code ravioli) is always going to be awfully hard to grasp.
In our ever accelerating world of innovation isn't 20 years ridiculously long now?
Not for something really innovative. But if it's something that many people can invent independently within a few months of each other, it's hardly very innovative, is it? The very core of the problem is that it is too easy to get a low-quality patent (which then acts as a license to cause mischief).
That's part of the post metadata, the part that is copyright Geeknet and not EdwinFeed. Consequently, your claim wouldn't work in the first place as you'd be suing the wrong person...
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, twenty two is an odd base to work in but I suppose it's still valid.
I thought twentytwo was even. In all bases except base one.
Must be in at least base 3; the "2" symbol isn't used in any base less than that (except for the very weird fractional bases that some mathematicians insist on using).
Shooting down small rockets and artillery shells has been demonstrated, but the laser system takes three semitrailers.
So, somewhat practical for mounting on a warship at the moment, but not on anything much smaller?
Just occurred to me that I honestly have no idea what the current version of IE might be. I think I've used it maybe twice in the last year?
Woah! IE still exists? Really?
Why do so many people assume there is competition in the ISP market in all locations?
Either there is competition, or there is a market opportunity.
Just sayin'
Any ISP/corp that doesn't want to pay for IPv4 addresses for their public services and pay for some mechanism to allow their users to access servers on the IPv4 internet is free to sit back and watch as they lose the ability to sell to many of their customers and buy from many of their suppliers over the internet. Of course by chosing this path they have a good chance of going broke (or getting overridden in a shareholder revolt) sooner rather than later but it is their choice to make.
But you're failing to understand the scale of the problem. A large corp benefits from moving to IPv6 because it gets rid of the problem of running out of addresses allocated to them even allowing for NAT. The 10.*.*.* address space just isn't that large when you've got lots of employees and lots of virtualization. Yes, you can use NAT within NAT within NAT, but it all gets rather horrific very quickly.
Now, if only we hadn't compounded the problem by using our own hacked versions of NAT, firewalls and DNS systems (Why?! Why?!) this would have been a no-brainer...
Yep, which is a pretty weak reason to celebrate. If Eolas has the power, there's nothing preventing any other company from gaining that power, too.
Nothing in law anyway. They'd still have to actually have something that they can sue over or the court will throw it out immediately.
This is why it's a bad idea to blind-rage against any company.
Oh, there are a few that it's worth saving the ire for, ones that have a history of killing employees, customers and the general public through their lax safety controls or their corrupt entanglements with crooked governments. Let's save the rage for where it's actually justified.
Sentencing is not about deterrence. It is about punishment.
Sentencing has many purposes, including both punishment (persuading the convicted that they did the wrong thing and really shouldn't do it again) and deterrence (persuading others of that). It is also used to protect the general public (more in the case of violent crimes or the various types of fraud) and to pay restitution to the injured parties.
You need to blame either Apple or Microsoft.
And then, one day later, submit an almost-identical story that just blames the other one.
If Northern Sea ever freezes to such depths that can break the ship.
That's not going to freeze unless there's a major change of ocean currents. Right now, it hardly ever gets below 4C in the winter because of the Gulf Stream (which not only keeps the water warmer than it other would be, but also keeps it moving) so ice is exceptionally unlikely except in sheltered coastal locations. Not that you'd want to fall in though; the water's still quite cold enough in winter to kill rapidly.
And it's only an "if" because it might not happen for many millions of years and who knows if our ancestors will be around then.
Ancestors? My grandparents are long dead, and I'd be rather startled if my parents were to live for millions of years. If they're going to do that, I'd hope that they'd do so in good health; getting massively old while being in pain from aging would be horrible. Maybe medicine will allow this to happen, but it's rather far into the realm of science fiction at this point...
(The word you were looking for is "descendants".)
It has some uses (see other replies), and it's OK if you have strong regulation of the service providers.
The UK has such strong regulation of this area precisely because of abuse of the capability in the past; there was a spate of premium charges for various tricky things a number of years back (in the '90s IIRC) and so action was taken to stop fraudsters from getting the money. The core of the regulation is a mandatory delay (minimum 1 month?) between when the charge appears on the customer's bill and when the money reaches the owner of the premium service, which gives time for abuse to show up and be stomped on by the authorities, with restitution made as appropriate. Because it's hard to cash out with a fraudulent service, the UK isn't an attractive place for those wanting to do this sort of thing. The fact that it also stops this sort of thing is just a side-benefit.
The down-side is that legitimate providers have to eat their costs for a while before they get the income arising from their service offering...
You've proved that you're denser than most with that comment.
But apart from the obvious joke flying far over your head, you're missing the point that you just spread polling stations out as necessary. Around each polling station you'll have enough people to staff it, because it should be serving a sufficient number of electors. Sure, that means they'll be further apart and serve smaller numbers in deepest Montana than in urban Philadelphia, but you'll cope somehow. It's not rocket science; vote counting can scale pretty well.
Whatever your voting problems are, population density is not one of them.
I can only assume this guy is either a moron who believes in homeopathy, or, more likely, he is receiving bribes from companies that make homeopathic products.
Living in the UK and bearing in mind his previously-demonstrated talents at the Department of Culture, I'm going with the moron theory. After all, I'm a believer in evidence-based politics...
That's why you both ought to be using tabstops after all. It lets everyone use the indentation level they are most comfortable with.
Alas, that doesn't actually work too well in practice because of what happens with continuation lines where alignment to preceding lines is used (a common tactic).
If you worry about crossing the magical 80 character column width limit, don't. Those folks who care about it are the same who use 2 space indentation anyway.
I like 80 columns. It lets me have more source files open and visible at once. (Before you ask, adding an extra screen is great! Lets me have even more files open at once!) What's more, if you're working remotely then 80 columns tends to get forced on you anyway. If it's a serious problem, either your identifiers are hilariously long or you're probably putting too much on a line or making your code too logically indented (too many nested loops or conditionals); refactoring into smaller functional units is the solution in any case.
Embeding all images in original document using data URI's (~1.37x overhead to data size but no latency impact), the site will download in 10*100*1,37/1280 = 1,07 seconds
The size overhead would be likely not much of an issue; the data URIs would compress quite reasonably back down to something close to the originating data size (assuming a compressed data format, of course, but that's the overwhelmingly common case). Reworking the math to allow for the compression takes the download time estimate back to 0.78s; that's about ~40% faster, not ~20% faster as you had worked out.
On the other hand, I suspect your calculations are an oversimplification anyway due to the fact that a full TCP initiation handshake isn't required for every image due to connection reuse and pipelining, and there's the possibility to do parallel downloading of the containing document (through use of the HTTP Range header) and so on. Plus there's the effect of caches, and using CSS sprites to reduce the per-image overhead, and a whole bunch of other things that I can't think of right now. But data URLs can most certainly be part of the mix.
Python seems to be between 10 and 20 times more expressive than Java.
Formally, they're about the same. Both are Turing-complete languages (abstractly, within the bounds imposed by existing on a physical system) and both have gigantic numbers of third-party libraries available that let an awful lot of stuff be done. It's probably the case that Python handles dynamism better, and Java is easier to optimize; those are features that are usually antithetical anyway.
That is, a line of Python does a lot more than a line of Java.
That's a foolish measure to use as a metric of expressivity, given that different languages have different levels of terseness anyway. (Otherwise you'd end up eulogizing Perl6, and you wouldn't want that! Or maybe even J, and that makes most developers' brains hurt with its terseness.)
Don't try to dress up your preferences with pseudo-scientific claims. Just say "I like Python more than Java; it suits the way I think about problems" and let it go at that. (Myself? I happen to prefer Java to Python, but neither is anything like my favorite. Like it matters to you.)
Did you type it in while at the hotel, trusting them not to have a camera?
Why are you taking high-security data to a low-security location in the first place? You fail Security-101.
I've gone paperless, so I have tax returns, medical info, SSNs, etc on my laptop. Full Disk Encryption means I don't have to worry about it.
As long as you also have backups (with whatever encryption on them that you desire/need) as well, you're right. But don't underestimate the power of disks to fail. I've had a disk fail on me once, and I only lost a week of work (and thankfully most of that was committed to an external source repository, so it wasn't actually lost at all) because I had a backup on an external device. If you're keeping stuff that it is important to retain a copy of, make an extra copy. (Do it, do it today!)
Data security is not just about protecting against malicious humans.
Brother printers particularly are good, the cartridges (at least all the ones I've seen) are just ink receptacles, they have no electronics, just put more ink in job done.
I've had good experiences with Canon (or at least with the model of Canon I've got, an i560x). The ink cartridges are just ink tanks (with a bit of sponge to control the ink flow); the level detection is done with a little prism built into the wall of the cartridge, and I believe that it depends on measuring how much light is absorbed by the ink due to evanescent waves, or perhaps due to the difference in refractive index between air and ink. Clever use of physics, cheap solution, and the ink is readily available (especially if you're willing to use generic inks).
Exposure to light can reduce production of a hormone known to have its production reduced by exposure to light.
Not just that. Backlit displays tend to be more blue in color than most home lighting, which is the part of the spectrum that most affects melatonin production (a reasonably well-known effect). Which puts this all in "No shit, Sherlock" territory. Or an undergraduate project.
Producing something orderly is a whole different question, and unless you happen to have an infinite number of monkeys at your disposal, the chance of that happening in a finite period of time is pretty damn improbable.
Also remember this: an infinite number of monkeys will produce an infinite amount of shit pretty much instantly. Finding what you're looking for amid all the excrement will be very difficult.
Just deleting the network drivers would be enough. It'd simultaneously make the internet a better place too...
If it was possible to prevent all security holes, this wouldn't be a bad idea. However, it is provably impossible to do so.
This is utterly gut-wrenchingly wrong. Do you write PHP for a living? That's a language community which uses faux CS statements to mentally justify delivering insecure crap.
To prove a program correct, all you have to do is show that it will only ever do correct things, that if given an input that is illegal, it will be guaranteed to be rejected (in a defined fashion). Program correctness is usually either pretty tractable (unless you do something evil like creating a program that is only correct if it is wrong and vice versa; such things are evil but not actually written normally) or coupled to the difficulty of proving some nasty piece of math. Moreover, a very large fraction of programs do not use complex theorems: they are wholly tractable.
Which isn't to say that they're easy to prove. Making a proven-correct program usually starts from the basis of invariants over operations and a very thorough grasp of what is actually happening and where. A large pile of code spaghetti (or its OO equivalent: code ravioli) is always going to be awfully hard to grasp.
In our ever accelerating world of innovation isn't 20 years ridiculously long now?
Not for something really innovative. But if it's something that many people can invent independently within a few months of each other, it's hardly very innovative, is it? The very core of the problem is that it is too easy to get a low-quality patent (which then acts as a license to cause mischief).
That's part of the post metadata, the part that is copyright Geeknet and not EdwinFeed. Consequently, your claim wouldn't work in the first place as you'd be suing the wrong person...