Try a new full featured distribution (The kind you could expect a non-tech to use) on old hardware, and it is as slow as XP.
Strip it down so that it only includes the functionality of XP and it'll still fly. You can hardly compare XP to a full-blown Kubuntu system featurewise.
OK. Name a person - one will suffice - that can read every entry in the IOCCC and truly understand them.
But beyond that, mastery implies perfect knowledge. I doubt that anyone, even K&R, knows every interesting and useful idiom and can use them at will. It's obvious that you can become an expert at C, but master? I truly don't think so.
Python is the only programming language I know that requires a primer in the use of the space bar, tab key and enter key before you can write working code.
No; Python requires you to use a programmer's editor. Got vim? You're fine. Emacs? No problem. Notepad? Problem.
If you're really a programmer, your editor already solved this issue for you.
Since I'm taking the online course in AP Computer Science next year, I have yet to figure out how one would do programming without a compiler installed.
Just so you know, computer science has almost nothing to do with programming. You'll write some code to explore compsci concepts, sure, but no respectable college will make that the focus of your degree. I mention this because there were a lot of surprised freshmen at my school, and I'd like to help you not be one of them.
I have experience in HTML, C, C++, and Java. I have not mastered any yet, but still working on it.
Apprentice: "I still have so much to learn..."
Intermediate: "I know this language inside and out!"
Expert: "I still have so much to learn..."
If you think you've mastered a language, you haven't. Don't let yourself forget that.
My company isn't about to switch away from Exchange in the near future. Instead, I created a jail inside the FreeBSD webserver we were already using, installed Postfix, said a few incantations, and watched in delight as the CPU use percentage on the Exchange server fell back from three digits to one.
The Postfix server never dies unexpectedly (99.99+% uptime last year, including maintenance downtime) and we automatically have a backup MX for when Exchange falls over - incoming mail just spools up in Postfix until Exchange comes back online. There have been no problems whatsoever, and my boss thanked me for eliminating our spam (and reliability) problems. Don't rule it out until you check into it!
As far as I am concerned, the "tagging beta" should filter out all the "troll", "stupid", "evil", "FUD", and other non-helpful tags, because they are not objective descriptions to classify the article, but only negative opinion (and I think we can all read and form our own opinions).
I can see your point about "troll", but strongly disagree about your other examples. In a story about SCO trying to scare Linux users, "fud" is perfectly reasonable - the story is about FUD, which is different than saying the story is FUD.
Similarly with Sony suing a 2-year-old and "evil", or people planning to power their homes with tree electricity and "stupid"; the tags refer to the stories' subject and not the stories themselves.
And finally, there are quite a few real troll stories around here. If the closing sentence is "Once again, Bush wants you to die", or "Microsoft probably sacrifices babies", then a "troll" tag is perfectly reasonable.
If all else fails, if you have tagging privileges then use them to vote against the ones you dislike. I've done it (successfully) several times.
During the Depression, my dad's uncle worked his way across the countryside as a dog-buttsqueezer. "Howdy, mister farmer," he'd say. "Do you have any dogs that need a squeezin'?" And the farmer would call out the family hound and other various hangers on to have their butts squeezed.
Tough way to make a nickel - his price per butt - but I guess it beat the bread lines.
Take letters on the keyboard next to 'qwfkadpmqz' to get 'asriseonas' which is then combined with 'Jaeotpcgream' to form 'jaeotpcgreamasriseonas'
...which is clearly an anagram for "masons jar epic ogre at sea", referring to their role in overthrowing the British empire through a series of clever but obscure naval battles.
what's wrong with INBOUND:BLOCK ALL - OUTBOUND:ALLOW ALL?
The fact that it doesn't include OUTBOUND:BLOCK NOT FROM MY NETBLOCK before the final allow. If your network is running on 192.168/16, there's no reason to allow outbound packets with source addresses in 10/8 - unless you like participating in DDOS botnets.
Yes, because authentication is a whole different beast from accounting. I don't care so much that you accessed a resource with a different userid than we issued to you, but I care a whole awful lot about the fact that I can't tell who updated Salary.xls last Saturday at 2:34 PM.
If you think this stuff doesn't matter, then trade paychecks with someone who makes the same as you, and attempt to simultaneously cash them at the same back. Since the amounts are the same, the bank shouldn't care, right?
My company implemented my blocking methods and saw an instant reduction in spam from a deluge to a tiny trickle. The three most effective filters are:
Requiring HELO,
Rejecting non-FQDN HELO strings ("foo.bar" will get you in, but "myleetmailserver" won't), and
Rejecting HELO strings that blatantly lie (you're not "localhost" or my public IP address, no matter how many times you ask).
More and more ISPs are starting to implement the same compliance checks. Would any of these reject your system's mail? Several of our customers had misconfigured outbound servers and we helped them fix their systems. We were only early adopters, though; if we hadn't caught the problem then a major ISP or five would have started rejecting their email without being so helpful.
Maybe VZ is in the right this time. Are you sure they're not?
I stopped accepting spam and wrote an article about it. Free tools exist today to restrict almost all UCE, so I'm not sure why there's a great rush to fix a non-broken system by replacing it with a giant unknown.
The one giant problem that your idea (and others like it) fail to address is non-support for bulk sending. One of my clients regularly sends about 60,000 copies of his monthly newsletter to opt-in customers. The current system allows him to spool out mail at a pace his system can handle. Your system encourages his server to ignite at 8:15 AM whenever all his recipients get to work, check their mail, and simultaneously attempt to download the message.
I'd like to say it's a nice idea, but it's really not. It has horrid failure modes that are far too common.
Nope. Given a decent internet connection, you can pull a movie down in about 10 - 30 minutes. It would take 5+ hours to rip & recode it myself.
You have 5Mb broadband and a Pentium 2? I can rip/strip/recode a full-length DVD in an hour on my wife's 800MHz iMac, which is pretty competitive with the times you list (assuming that the first torrent is actually decent and you don't have to re-download).
I'm not saying that you should! I don't, personally. But if you were standing in front of a judge trying to explain your actions, I don't think he'd be impressed by the logic. The argument boils down to the idea that it's faster and easier to download a movie than to run a backup program (which is perfectly legal) and rip out the parts you don't want. Even if you and I think that's true, the law is unlikely to accept that as a valid excuse.
Again, I don't care how much you download. The MPAA is so seriously heinous that I have zero sympathy for them and their complaints. However, I still think you should be able to defend your beliefs if called to the carpet for breaking the law (however silly it may be), and in my opinion this rationale doesn't do that.
If I download a ripped movie, I get the movie I want without the crap. It starts the moment I put it in the player.
OK, I'm with you on that one. However, given that you can fairly easily rip your own DVDs to remove that contents, probably with little more effort required to download an illicit copy, that's a pretty specious justification for not buying.
US video game sales were over $10 billion in 2005. The point I'm trying to make is that video games are about as mainstream as you can possibly get, and not just the province of a few kids in their parents' basements. I liked "The X Files" (show and movie), but although it was wildly popular amongst geeks, but I don't think it's in any "top 10 popular shows" lists.
No BSDer has been willing to reproduce the tests, as it will only confirm what the marketplace has already decided... Linux is the superior OS.
...but still inferior to Windows, right? I mean, we're only looking at number of installations, after all. Furthermore, McDonald's clearly has the best hamburger and Velveeta beats Hoffman's Super Sharp.
I like Linux. I'm typing this on a Gentoo box. However, I'd never pretend that it's better in every single aspect than any other OS in existence. The BSD guys have a few tricks up their sleeve, and even Redmond manages to get things right on rare occasion.
Oh, so all 50,000 of you can go see the movie and it'll be a phenomenal failure. I hate movies that suck to someone who "doesn't get it" or who "hasn't read the book" or "hasn't played the game". We have a word for those kind of movies: crap.
You mean like how The X Files only grossed $189 million? Yes, there's clearly no business logic behind making entertainment that appeals to niche audiences.
In short, Ebert isn't the target audience. Those of us who've played through all the games and are eagerly hoping for a new one are. Some of us like the extra backstory (and would even call it "plot development") as it contributes to the enjoyment of the franchise, not just the movie itself.
I don't hate on the guy for having a different opinion than I'm likely to, but do find it annoying that he judges movies by criteria that the people who will actually want to see them won't have.
On the other hand, he has something of a point. For example, we didn't need to know that midichlorians are responsible for The Force. Sometimes it's easy to cross the line between backstory and stupidity.
Something that takes 4+ operations compared to a way of doing it with only 2 operations and you get less problems = performance gains that add up.
And sometimes someone comes up with a way that takes 128 operations but boosts throughput dramatically. For instance, the "new" anticipatory IO scheduler deliberately adds delays after reads before seeking. Although that would actually cripple certain pathological cases, it actually increases normal workload throughput by a large amount.
Amateurs write complex algorithms. Advanced programmers replace them with simple ones. Experts replace those with complex ones. Simple is nice, sometimes, but isn't always the clear winner.
In his press release, Mr. Gonzales brought up the statistic that "one in five children has been solicited online".
The original quote that I heard was that "one in five teenagers has been solicited online". Last time I checked, it's legally OK to chat up an 18 year old.
But even if my memory was wrong and they really did mean younger kids, the next obvious question is: how many have been solicited in real life? Given that the definition of sexual harassment has been repeatedly diluted to the point that being asked out by an unattractive person counts, I'd dare say that almost 100% of us have been solicited (or a solicitor per their definition) at least once.
Pound the table all you want, but it simply isn't "just the way it is".
Yes, it is. I didn't just throw a 1.0737GB memory stick in a server.
This was fine as long as they were only interacting with other computer geeks. When computers spilled over into the world at large, however, this little shortcut conflicted with the way the terms were/are used by everyone else.
When the day comes that I need to convert between grams and bytes, then I'll agree with you. Until then, computer units are only used when discussing computer units. It makes absolutely no sense to force a base-10 numbering system onto a base-2 world.
Since the traditional (powers of ten) definition has both seniority and wider usage, it is now winning out, and rightly so.
Oh, please. The only place where it's "winning" is among drive manufacturers who noticed that they can claim an extra 7% capacity without technically lying.
If you feel strongly about the issue, though, then please invent a new unit of measure that doesn't sound completely idiotic, as though the speaker has a speech impediment. I will not say gibibytes - it ain't gonna happen - but I might be convinced to use tenbytes (2^10), twenbytes (2^20), thirbytes (2^30), or some other wholly distinct system.
Slashdot Mirror
Strip it down so that it only includes the functionality of XP and it'll still fly. You can hardly compare XP to a full-blown Kubuntu system featurewise.
OK. Name a person - one will suffice - that can read every entry in the IOCCC and truly understand them.
But beyond that, mastery implies perfect knowledge. I doubt that anyone, even K&R, knows every interesting and useful idiom and can use them at will. It's obvious that you can become an expert at C, but master? I truly don't think so.
No; Python requires you to use a programmer's editor. Got vim? You're fine. Emacs? No problem. Notepad? Problem.
If you're really a programmer, your editor already solved this issue for you.
Just so you know, computer science has almost nothing to do with programming. You'll write some code to explore compsci concepts, sure, but no respectable college will make that the focus of your degree. I mention this because there were a lot of surprised freshmen at my school, and I'd like to help you not be one of them.
I have experience in HTML, C, C++, and Java. I have not mastered any yet, but still working on it.
Apprentice: "I still have so much to learn..."
Intermediate: "I know this language inside and out!"
Expert: "I still have so much to learn..."
If you think you've mastered a language, you haven't. Don't let yourself forget that.
The Postfix server never dies unexpectedly (99.99+% uptime last year, including maintenance downtime) and we automatically have a backup MX for when Exchange falls over - incoming mail just spools up in Postfix until Exchange comes back online. There have been no problems whatsoever, and my boss thanked me for eliminating our spam (and reliability) problems. Don't rule it out until you check into it!
I can see your point about "troll", but strongly disagree about your other examples. In a story about SCO trying to scare Linux users, "fud" is perfectly reasonable - the story is about FUD, which is different than saying the story is FUD.
Similarly with Sony suing a 2-year-old and "evil", or people planning to power their homes with tree electricity and "stupid"; the tags refer to the stories' subject and not the stories themselves.
And finally, there are quite a few real troll stories around here. If the closing sentence is "Once again, Bush wants you to die", or "Microsoft probably sacrifices babies", then a "troll" tag is perfectly reasonable.
If all else fails, if you have tagging privileges then use them to vote against the ones you dislike. I've done it (successfully) several times.
Tough way to make a nickel - his price per butt - but I guess it beat the bread lines.
...which is clearly an anagram for "masons jar epic ogre at sea", referring to their role in overthrowing the British empire through a series of clever but obscure naval battles.
The fact that it doesn't include OUTBOUND:BLOCK NOT FROM MY NETBLOCK before the final allow. If your network is running on 192.168/16, there's no reason to allow outbound packets with source addresses in 10/8 - unless you like participating in DDOS botnets.
Your post would be more believable if anyone really thought that Atari had testers.
Yes, because authentication is a whole different beast from accounting. I don't care so much that you accessed a resource with a different userid than we issued to you, but I care a whole awful lot about the fact that I can't tell who updated Salary.xls last Saturday at 2:34 PM.
If you think this stuff doesn't matter, then trade paychecks with someone who makes the same as you, and attempt to simultaneously cash them at the same back. Since the amounts are the same, the bank shouldn't care, right?
More and more ISPs are starting to implement the same compliance checks. Would any of these reject your system's mail? Several of our customers had misconfigured outbound servers and we helped them fix their systems. We were only early adopters, though; if we hadn't caught the problem then a major ISP or five would have started rejecting their email without being so helpful.
Maybe VZ is in the right this time. Are you sure they're not?
I stopped accepting spam and wrote an article about it. Free tools exist today to restrict almost all UCE, so I'm not sure why there's a great rush to fix a non-broken system by replacing it with a giant unknown.
The one giant problem that your idea (and others like it) fail to address is non-support for bulk sending. One of my clients regularly sends about 60,000 copies of his monthly newsletter to opt-in customers. The current system allows him to spool out mail at a pace his system can handle. Your system encourages his server to ignite at 8:15 AM whenever all his recipients get to work, check their mail, and simultaneously attempt to download the message.
I'd like to say it's a nice idea, but it's really not. It has horrid failure modes that are far too common.
You have 5Mb broadband and a Pentium 2? I can rip/strip/recode a full-length DVD in an hour on my wife's 800MHz iMac, which is pretty competitive with the times you list (assuming that the first torrent is actually decent and you don't have to re-download).
I'm not saying that you should! I don't, personally. But if you were standing in front of a judge trying to explain your actions, I don't think he'd be impressed by the logic. The argument boils down to the idea that it's faster and easier to download a movie than to run a backup program (which is perfectly legal) and rip out the parts you don't want. Even if you and I think that's true, the law is unlikely to accept that as a valid excuse.
Again, I don't care how much you download. The MPAA is so seriously heinous that I have zero sympathy for them and their complaints. However, I still think you should be able to defend your beliefs if called to the carpet for breaking the law (however silly it may be), and in my opinion this rationale doesn't do that.
OK, I'm with you on that one. However, given that you can fairly easily rip your own DVDs to remove that contents, probably with little more effort required to download an illicit copy, that's a pretty specious justification for not buying.
US video game sales were over $10 billion in 2005. The point I'm trying to make is that video games are about as mainstream as you can possibly get, and not just the province of a few kids in their parents' basements. I liked "The X Files" (show and movie), but although it was wildly popular amongst geeks, but I don't think it's in any "top 10 popular shows" lists.
...but still inferior to Windows, right? I mean, we're only looking at number of installations, after all. Furthermore, McDonald's clearly has the best hamburger and Velveeta beats Hoffman's Super Sharp.
I like Linux. I'm typing this on a Gentoo box. However, I'd never pretend that it's better in every single aspect than any other OS in existence. The BSD guys have a few tricks up their sleeve, and even Redmond manages to get things right on rare occasion.
You mean like how The X Files only grossed $189 million? Yes, there's clearly no business logic behind making entertainment that appeals to niche audiences.
I don't hate on the guy for having a different opinion than I'm likely to, but do find it annoying that he judges movies by criteria that the people who will actually want to see them won't have.
On the other hand, he has something of a point. For example, we didn't need to know that midichlorians are responsible for The Force. Sometimes it's easy to cross the line between backstory and stupidity.
And sometimes someone comes up with a way that takes 128 operations but boosts throughput dramatically. For instance, the "new" anticipatory IO scheduler deliberately adds delays after reads before seeking. Although that would actually cripple certain pathological cases, it actually increases normal workload throughput by a large amount.
Amateurs write complex algorithms. Advanced programmers replace them with simple ones. Experts replace those with complex ones. Simple is nice, sometimes, but isn't always the clear winner.
The original quote that I heard was that "one in five teenagers has been solicited online". Last time I checked, it's legally OK to chat up an 18 year old.
But even if my memory was wrong and they really did mean younger kids, the next obvious question is: how many have been solicited in real life? Given that the definition of sexual harassment has been repeatedly diluted to the point that being asked out by an unattractive person counts, I'd dare say that almost 100% of us have been solicited (or a solicitor per their definition) at least once.
Yes, it is. I didn't just throw a 1.0737GB memory stick in a server.
This was fine as long as they were only interacting with other computer geeks. When computers spilled over into the world at large, however, this little shortcut conflicted with the way the terms were/are used by everyone else.
When the day comes that I need to convert between grams and bytes, then I'll agree with you. Until then, computer units are only used when discussing computer units. It makes absolutely no sense to force a base-10 numbering system onto a base-2 world.
Since the traditional (powers of ten) definition has both seniority and wider usage, it is now winning out, and rightly so.
Oh, please. The only place where it's "winning" is among drive manufacturers who noticed that they can claim an extra 7% capacity without technically lying.
If you feel strongly about the issue, though, then please invent a new unit of measure that doesn't sound completely idiotic, as though the speaker has a speech impediment. I will not say gibibytes - it ain't gonna happen - but I might be convinced to use tenbytes (2^10), twenbytes (2^20), thirbytes (2^30), or some other wholly distinct system.
The short answer is that a Murder tries to present a unified system image, which is important if you use a lot of things like shared folders.