Another problem here is that we risk discovering ourselves. If an unknown to science microbe or bacteria is brought to Mars and later discovered, we might be "looking into the mirror."
After "Sharon - Massacra in Libanon" the new Sharon game is here with more blood and more action. You are a warlord in the Middle East and you control a holy territory called Israel, or at least almost. A small ethnic grouping called Palestinians are still resisting dominance.
Your task is to control the Palestinians. You must keep their leader Arafat trapped while occupying the remaining landzones of Palestinian residence. There are though several challenges to overcome:
* The more Palestinians you kill, the more suicide bombers will explode
in your civil areas. This is bad if you loose the grip on the
local and international medias.
* International observers will try to gain access to Arafat and will
damage the control of the international medias.
* Local human rights groups will try to pursuade the local media to
give bad press.
The game is over if Arafat breaks loose, if local media makes you loose the next election or if international press makes US and Europe invade Israel.
This game is a tactical game but with a lot of war action and scary scenery. If you like shoot'm'all games without too much political complexity, this is the game for you. If you want more political game play, change the game settings and you will have additional peace talks and UN hearings. This is though not nessessary for simple gaming.
Don't miss Sharon II. Available from all major outlets.
Though files can be read and written, the "macros"--small programs used to automate tasks in Microsoft Office--won't necessarily run in StarOffice, Sun said.
If I write a piece of software under the BSD license and big ugly Microsoft comes and "steals" my code, then there will not be anything left for the the little guy?
It doesn't make sense! Even if billions of bucks are put into some public coding, the coding is still there. If Microsoft uses it as they see fit, that is linking it to their own code, the original code is as free as ever.
Look at it this way: I write 30,000 lines of code. This code is fine and can be used in a larger project of maybe 3,000,000 lines of code, should these 30,000 lines determines how the rest should be licensed?
It is a matter of choice, but for public money I would prefer that a non-political license is used, like the BSD, so some may use it in a GPL project, others in their own way. That is freedom.
This is the big deceed of the "real" computerworld, but is part of any analysis in an "academical" computerworld.
It is possible to write errorfree code! But you need to be systematic about it, and you probably want to use a language that aids you in that. I hear a lot of people say: "I like C, since I can have the freedom to do [some way of shooting yourself in the foot]!". Well, go ahead and realize what you will be fixing for the next 30 years! Most bugs in software could have been avoided, since the the pitholes have been described for the last 20 years.
Yuck! even the so-called "progressive" part of the (non-academical) IT-world is buying the Microsoft view of "fixing the holes as we find them". Good it isn't aviational systems you build.
So you honestly believe that we need to agree an a single email client and everyone should be expected to use that one client?
No one expects that! What the dispute is about is this: Should there be sensible defaults that the knowledged user may choose to change?
Look at two other OS'es: FreeBSD and Windows. They both have a core system and the ability to add other stuff. This is great. I may assume a lot about the system, and it is true, unless the user has molested the system.
Linux is different for the good and the bad. Let us look at RedHat (which I use at happen to kinda like): What is core here? What is part of a canonical RedHat? Well, it depends... There is no such thing called core. How much is well maintained, "port" maintained, and what is just included for the fatness? I don't know!
Many developers ask themselves this question too, esp. the commercial developers, since they must know, what to expect as a bare minimum, and what is needed to be supplied.
I don't know how intelligent the ZDnet writer meant his question, but I know, that I find it difficult to find the fine lines that sepparate the inner packages from the outer ones.
The reason that ribbon cables are flat is to preserve the phase relationships of multiple signals in a cable while at the same time reducing in-cable interference to a reasonable level.
So what you should do is only to separate the two and two. No, it is not twisted pairs (they are not twisted:-) ) and they are not real balanced in the DM sense, but the current going out of the one is suppose to run back in the other, which happens to be a ground wire. If it was suppose to be a real DM, it should mirror the signal wire.
Re:Huge crytography implications!
on
Does P = NP?
·
· Score: 1
> So if P=NP, then RSA breaks
Rubbish! RSA only depends on that it is *hard* to factorize integers. If the polynomial is aggressive enough RSA may still be effective.
Have you ever worked with O(n^16) algorithms? They are P allright but . . .
I have heard that Ferrari is using Scandia trucks for delivering cars. Do they eat their own dog food?
No, and for a reason. Ferrari do cars that go fast. Scandia do heavy load trucks. I don't expect and low feelings at Ferrari about this. (And the CEO of Scandia may even drive a Ferrari with pleasure, and not a truck.)
So, what am I saying (if it holds true that MS is using UNIX products): They have bought a legacy of wellrunning on-line services, that carefully have been designed to exploit the advantages of the components on which it resides. If they ever port them to they own platform, it will more or less be a new product.
BUT..., why don't they admit, that what they are good at, is the desktop system and the ==whoouish== configurations, and not the POTIS (plain old TCP/IP services) when they pop packets like a railgun.
That would be a whole lot easier and more honest too.
They could just shut off their servers and go home.
Bandwidth costs money. The number of applications which support the CDDB concept has increased tremendously since it's initiation. Consider for instance Microsoft's media player which ships with Win98/Win2000 now includes CDDB access.
We're talking millions of users out there. Do you seriously think someone's home DSL can handle this?
There is no way that the service could ever be sustained without some sort of commercial venture.
The problem came into this world, when CDDB decided that you could not mirror it. If it could freely be mirrored, it would be mirrored by anyone, who just thought it could be fun. A simple Perl script could direct request to the nearest.
Distribution is really the answer here, but this is insane. The Danish telephone company, Tele Danmark, thought that they could charge people for using there web based phone books, but immidiately a number of portals began to build up the same service, and they eventually had to give in and make it a free (sponsored) service.
There seem to be three rules that seem to spin us all down this spiral:
The more hassle it is to protest, the less likely is it that people will do it.
The fewer people that protests, the lesser impact will it have and therefore lesser encouraging to do it again.
The more times people previously have settled with things, the more likely they are to do it again.
I find it harder and harder to get going on "standing up", but it is not because I have changed my mind, but because the rules above now applies to me -- sadly enough.
If English language should have had any impact on the design of a structural language, the syntax would be more like.
Consider this:
old_a=a;
b=func(&a);
if (a>b)
a=old_a;
Well if the language should be more natural it would look more like this:
old_a => a./* put old_a into a. */
&a @ func => b./* give addr. of a to func and
execute and put the return
into b. */
a>b ? old_a => a : ./* Is a > b ? then put old_a
into a. */
The abstraction in the (C like) programming language comes from math more than from the
natural language and is far more infruenced by math notation than English.
Even OOP is far from the natural language (maybe except Perl). If we try to write a sentence like "Peter gave his Mother the basket" would likely look like this in C++
Peter->give(basket, Mother);
But despite the order of words, the logic is quite different. What is "basket" here? it is a variable holding a reference to an object. Why is it name basket, a part from giving us a clue here? Well, it probably is a generic object pointer that could refer to anything else than the basket. How is basket related to Peter? Is it part of his "inventory"?
Now more like it, but we are now leaving the abstraction, that natural language gives. Experiments have been made to make a language less formal, but often they strand on being ambigeous, an issue we deal with in everyday communication without a thought, but if our language wasn't ambigeous, we would be very longish and convoluted in expressing even simple meanings.
Our language consists of three basic kinds of utterations: Statements ("I am hungry.", "The boy was naughty to his Mother"), questions ("Are you hungry?", "To whom was the boy naughty?"), and imperatives ("Pass the butter!", "Please be nice to your Mother!"). Even when questions are expressed like statements ("I wonder if you know how it hurts.") or imperatives like questions ("Would you mind to be more causeous?") we still destinct them quite well, and no further kinds utterations exists.
But computer languages are often separated into query languages, declarative languages and imperative languages and they don't mix well. Look at the C++ example; the imperative language cannot express a (real) statement: I have come to know, that Peter gave his Mother the basket. Even questions are not questions, they are requests for boolean evaluation.
AI is getting better and better results in simulate a conversation, but it is not suited for programming languages, because a program is not a conversation. I ask the computer a question in a program, but an intelligent answer requires an understanding of the context and can hardly be used as a condition, since the answer may be "It depends on other premises."
An idea is, that programming should within time be substituted with communicating values and wishes, that in a fuzzy way gets to actions by the computer that will make us happy, like a manager communicating with his secretary. This may happen some day.
Slashdot Mirror
2002-06-11 15.46.17: [notice] Rebooting Sidney.australia.matrix
2002-06-11 15.46.32: [error] Sidney.australia.matrix bootstrapping failed
2002-06-11 15.46.33: [panic] scp root@Sidney.australia.matrix:/home/{neo,morpheus,
2002-06-11 15.46.36: [restore] Sidney.australia.matrix reloaded
2002-06-11 15.46.37: [warning] Older version overwrite (Agent Smith 2.0 -> 1.0)
Another problem here is that we risk discovering ourselves. If an unknown to science microbe or bacteria is brought to Mars and later discovered, we might be "looking into the mirror."
This is really an issue.
SHARON II - Fencing Arafat
After "Sharon - Massacra in Libanon" the new Sharon game is here with more
blood and more action. You are a warlord in the Middle East and you control
a holy territory called Israel, or at least almost. A small ethnic grouping
called Palestinians are still resisting dominance.
Your task is to control the Palestinians. You must keep their leader Arafat
trapped while occupying the remaining landzones of Palestinian residence.
There are though several challenges to overcome:
* The more Palestinians you kill, the more suicide bombers will explode
in your civil areas. This is bad if you loose the grip on the
local and international medias.
* International observers will try to gain access to Arafat and will
damage the control of the international medias.
* Local human rights groups will try to pursuade the local media to
give bad press.
The game is over if Arafat breaks loose, if local media makes you loose the
next election or if international press makes US and Europe invade
Israel.
This game is a tactical game but with a lot of war action and scary scenery.
If you like shoot'm'all games without too much political complexity, this
is the game for you. If you want more political game play, change the game
settings and you will have additional peace talks and UN hearings. This is
though not nessessary for simple gaming.
Don't miss Sharon II. Available from all major outlets.
Sightseeren putting packets in das hand, bei vatching das blinklights!
I wonder why anybody really want to live in United States. I am glad that I don't. It must be a dread. Warm feelings to you all, I hope you vote.
Hmm . . .
It doesn't make sense! Even if billions of bucks are put into some public coding, the coding is still there. If Microsoft uses it as they see fit, that is linking it to their own code, the original code is as free as ever.
Look at it this way: I write 30,000 lines of code. This code is fine and can be used in a larger project of maybe 3,000,000 lines of code, should these 30,000 lines determines how the rest should be licensed?
It is a matter of choice, but for public money I would prefer that a non-political license is used, like the BSD, so some may use it in a GPL project, others in their own way. That is freedom.
Because he is aroused by mail delivery :-P
Sorry, bad joke, back to the cage
It is possible to write errorfree code! But you need to be systematic about it, and you probably want to use a language that aids you in that. I hear a lot of people say: "I like C, since I can have the freedom to do [some way of shooting yourself in the foot]!". Well, go ahead and realize what you will be fixing for the next 30 years! Most bugs in software could have been avoided, since the the pitholes have been described for the last 20 years.
Yuck! even the so-called "progressive" part of the (non-academical) IT-world is buying the Microsoft view of "fixing the holes as we find them". Good it isn't aviational systems you build.
- Figure out which files and libraries the deamon needs, that is at least libc and
/etc/passwd and most likely some more.
- Make a rooted environment at e.g.
/var/named/chroot with the derectories, libraries, files and data. If the deamon calls other programs copy them too.
- TRIM everything down to (nearly) nothing. No other entries in the passwd file that root, bin and the like and (doh!) * in the passwd fields!
- start the deamon like chroot
/sbin/named ... and the deamon will believe that the worlds top is /var/named/chroot.
You can run any deamon like this, apache, sendmail, finger and whatever.Look at two other OS'es: FreeBSD and Windows. They both have a core system and the ability to add other stuff. This is great. I may assume a lot about the system, and it is true, unless the user has molested the system.
Linux is different for the good and the bad. Let us look at RedHat (which I use at happen to kinda like): What is core here? What is part of a canonical RedHat? Well, it depends... There is no such thing called core. How much is well maintained, "port" maintained, and what is just included for the fatness? I don't know!
Many developers ask themselves this question too, esp. the commercial developers, since they must know, what to expect as a bare minimum, and what is needed to be supplied.
I don't know how intelligent the ZDnet writer meant his question, but I know, that I find it difficult to find the fine lines that sepparate the inner packages from the outer ones.
I knew that! With the plug-in model of the IE, sooner or later it would allow for Inferno to be released out on the Internet.
So what you should do is only to separate the two and two. No, it is not twisted pairs (they are not twisted :-) ) and they are not real balanced in the DM sense, but the current going out of the one is suppose to run back in the other, which happens to be a ground wire. If it was suppose to be a real DM, it should mirror the signal wire.
> So if P=NP, then RSA breaks
Rubbish! RSA only depends on that it is *hard* to factorize integers. If the polynomial is aggressive enough RSA may still be effective.
Have you ever worked with O(n^16) algorithms? They are P allright but . . .
Follow the white rabbit!
Each time I hear about this and that and the other company forms an agenda to make a common effort ot achive something, it never happens.
But sometimes it spins off neat projects afterwards (like Multics -> UNIX)
I have heard that Ferrari is using Scandia trucks for delivering cars. Do they eat their own dog food?
No, and for a reason. Ferrari do cars that go fast. Scandia do heavy load trucks. I don't expect and low feelings at Ferrari about this. (And the CEO of Scandia may even drive a Ferrari with pleasure, and not a truck.)
So, what am I saying (if it holds true that MS is using UNIX products): They have bought a legacy of wellrunning on-line services, that carefully have been designed to exploit the advantages of the components on which it resides. If they ever port them to they own platform, it will more or less be a new product.
BUT..., why don't they admit, that what they are good at, is the desktop system and the ==whoouish== configurations, and not the POTIS (plain old TCP/IP services) when they pop packets like a railgun.
That would be a whole lot easier and more honest too.
Distribution is really the answer here, but this is insane. The Danish telephone company, Tele Danmark, thought that they could charge people for using there web based phone books, but immidiately a number of portals began to build up the same service, and they eventually had to give in and make it a free (sponsored) service.
I have come to the conclusion, that the worst thing that can happen to CDDB is that the database is littered with erroneous entries.
If we all decided to fill in data that wasn't correct, the base would render to be totally useless.
Just an idea.
There seem to be three rules that seem to spin us all down this spiral:
- The more hassle it is to protest, the less likely is it that people will do it.
- The fewer people that protests, the lesser impact will it have and therefore lesser encouraging to do it again.
- The more times people previously have settled with things, the more likely they are to do it again.
I find it harder and harder to get going on "standing up", but it is not because I have changed my mind, but because the rules above now applies to me -- sadly enough.If English language should have had any impact on the design of a structural language, the syntax would be more like.
Consider this:
old_a=a;
b=func(&a);
if (a>b)
a=old_a;
Well if the language should be more natural it would look more like this:
old_a => a. /* put old_a into a. */ /* give addr. of a to func and
execute and put the return
into b. */ /* Is a > b ? then put old_a
into a. */
&a @ func => b.
a>b ? old_a => a : .
The abstraction in the (C like) programming language comes from math more than from the natural language and is far more infruenced by math notation than English.
Even OOP is far from the natural language (maybe except Perl). If we try to write a sentence like "Peter gave his Mother the basket" would likely look like this in C++
Peter->give(basket, Mother);
But despite the order of words, the logic is quite different. What is "basket" here? it is a variable holding a reference to an object. Why is it name basket, a part from giving us a clue here? Well, it probably is a generic object pointer that could refer to anything else than the basket. How is basket related to Peter? Is it part of his "inventory"?
object = Peter->loose_item_by_name("basket");
Peter->give(Mother, object);
Now more like it, but we are now leaving the abstraction, that natural language gives. Experiments have been made to make a language less formal, but often they strand on being ambigeous, an issue we deal with in everyday communication without a thought, but if our language wasn't ambigeous, we would be very longish and convoluted in expressing even simple meanings.
Our language consists of three basic kinds of utterations: Statements ("I am hungry.", "The boy was naughty to his Mother"), questions ("Are you hungry?", "To whom was the boy naughty?"), and imperatives ("Pass the butter!", "Please be nice to your Mother!"). Even when questions are expressed like statements ("I wonder if you know how it hurts.") or imperatives like questions ("Would you mind to be more causeous?") we still destinct them quite well, and no further kinds utterations exists.
But computer languages are often separated into query languages, declarative languages and imperative languages and they don't mix well. Look at the C++ example; the imperative language cannot express a (real) statement: I have come to know, that Peter gave his Mother the basket. Even questions are not questions, they are requests for boolean evaluation.
AI is getting better and better results in simulate a conversation, but it is not suited for programming languages, because a program is not a conversation. I ask the computer a question in a program, but an intelligent answer requires an understanding of the context and can hardly be used as a condition, since the answer may be "It depends on other premises."
An idea is, that programming should within time be substituted with communicating values and wishes, that in a fuzzy way gets to actions by the computer that will make us happy, like a manager communicating with his secretary. This may happen some day.
And who cares! I have seen this a thousand times, every tenth articles gets a go on /.
/. along with comments? I would def. mod this article down.
Why can't we moderate articles at