Ah, see there? You were informed and didn't even know it. The problem isn't with quoting the integer. The problem is with using double quote marks to indicate a value when it's proper to use single quote marks.
The SQL *should* read: "UPDATE candidates SET votes=0 WHERE name='Your Opposing Candidate';"
and could just as easily read: "UPDATE candidates SET votes='0' WHERE name='Your Opposing Candidate';"
OR "UPDATE "candidates" SET votes='0' WHERE "name"='Your Opposing Candidate';"
Double quotes are for field names. Some SQL parsers will accept double quotes around values, but that's above and beyond standard SQL, so it's best to just not do it.
No way, I was being informative! Check the moderations, you silly person:-)
And to all you guys with the "it's OK in MySQL" and "it's OK in Access"... Please go take your medication. Like the U.S. government would use Access or MySQL in a voting system.
They wouldn't... would they? Please, say something... you're scaring me!
>> but didn't see anything about open >> source code... they can't seriously >> be relying on security through obscurity...
Since when did closed-source automatically mean security through obscurity? If software becomes less secure when people can see the source, then it's insecure, sure, but just because people can't see the source does not automatically mean it is insecure.
I've been impressed for the most part with.net. I do have a couple of gripes though.
The collection classes are horribly inconsistent. After working with the c++ STL containers, the.net ones are kind of a joke. I really miss the b-tree based dictionary (map in the STL). Sometimes it's nice to have the collection do the sorting for you, and hashes don't. The list classes are a bit confusing; are they lists or arrays? The documentation doesn't tell you what the performance specs are, so it's tough to tell, and sometimes it's really important to know and choose properly.
The IO classes are a bit limited, mostly I think because of limitations in the underlying IO subsystem in Windows. You can't do async IO on anonymous pipes (which the std handles are), and if you're unfortunate enough to have to deploy on the old DOS32 crap (WinME and earlier), you can't do async IO on disk files either.
There doesn't seem to be a way to wait for either an IO to complete or a window message to arrive. This is provided for in the Win32 API, but not in.net, and it can make GUI apps difficult to write if you need async IO.
How could the environmentalists be happy about device that spews about a gazillion pounds of nauxious fumes into the atmosphere? Hey, at least that 2 pound piece of foam that falls off was made without freon. All is good.
Around here (Seattle), we have Dick's (don't be juvenile, now). They make their fries from fresh taters - you can watch em slice those babies up through the window sometimes. If you've never had fresh french fries, you're really missing out.
Plus, you can go on and on about how you're having Dick's for dinner ad nauseum. It's juvenile and fun:-)
What happens to light that loses all its energy to red shift, as would happen during attempted escape from a black hole? I've always thought of light as *bending* until it falls back toward the center of gravity, which seems to fit well with the idea that light bends as it passes by a mass. By your explanation, light passing by a mass should actually blue shift during approach and red shift again as it retreats. Does it not actually change direction?
I know what you think the problem is, but you didn't look deep enough.
You see, by definition, the bums get the quarters for free; they are given to them. That's what makes them bums. Therefore, the net cost to the bums for the rooms was still zero, making it free, as your parent poster correctly stated.
And before you start, I would like to point out that saying that it still cost *someone* something (like the people giving out free quarters), making the rooms non-free, would just be pedantic. So forget it.
I agree with that. We need to stop playing around IN space and start figuring out how to GET TO space. The current technology of huge rockets, tiny payloads, and massive bills is getting us nowhere. Once we can put practically anything we want into space for lass than a few billion dollars, then we can go back to building big useful space stations (uh, not small toy ones). Once we have efficient technology for getting us into orbit, and big useful space stations in which spacecraft can be built and repaired, then we can go play around on Mars.
It doesn't really seem that NASA can do it. The political incentives aren't there anymore. If the private sector can make money at it, then that's who should do it. NASA could become a regulating agency, and could purchase real estate on launches just like anyone else wanting to get to space. Just because the technology is in the hands of private business doesn't mean space can't still be explored for the sake of exploration.
Yeah, when I started reading the blurb, I was expecting the punch line to be that it was really Linux re-done in asm or something. We're conditioned here on/. I guess.
Actually, I don't care much about the cost in that respect. I prefer to build my own machines from scratch. I've never owned an off-the-shelf computer. As far as I know, it's next to impossible to build macs that way.
But if I could do it that way, it would be more expensive, because I play the hand-me-down game with computer parts, which wouldn't work too well with a mixed-hardware setup.
On the other hand, maybe it will happen. The *only* reason I don't have a copy of OSX is because I don't want to mess with another hardware platform, and a more expensive one at that. If OSX ran on x86, I'd at least have tried it. I suspect I'm not alone here.
If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters
It's interesting that religion is the product of that very thing. In the human sense, nothing is real. We're just a pile of elementery particals which are perhaps just energy fields of some kind. Is the universe real at all in a sense we, as humans, care about? No, and that is why religion exists; to soften reality to something the average human can stomach and accept as real. So I think it's a bit ironic, the notion that the very reason for religion to exist could be its very undoing. It would also be pretty pathetic if a movie could trigger such a thing:-)
"...it's a security risk beyond measure if people could see the source..."
When will people realize that truly secure software is not compromised in the least when people see the code? In other words, if seeing the source gives a hacker a leg up, that code is either buggy or poorly designed. Period. It's that simple.
Is Linux perfect? No. Is any reasonably complex software perfect? No. But open source does at least as much to help the people trying to secure the code as it does for the people trying to break it.
On a separate note, the government is the last place I want to see closed-source software used. I feel that as a citizen of a democracy, I have the inherent right to see what's being done and how.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that this /. headline is full of hot air then?
Ah, see there? You were informed and didn't even know it. The problem isn't with quoting the integer. The problem is with using double quote marks to indicate a value when it's proper to use single quote marks.
The SQL *should* read:
"UPDATE candidates SET votes=0 WHERE name='Your Opposing Candidate';"
and could just as easily read:
"UPDATE candidates SET votes='0' WHERE name='Your Opposing Candidate';"
OR
"UPDATE "candidates" SET votes='0' WHERE "name"='Your Opposing Candidate';"
Double quotes are for field names. Some SQL parsers will accept double quotes around values, but that's above and beyond standard SQL, so it's best to just not do it.
No way, I was being informative! Check the moderations, you silly person :-)
And to all you guys with the "it's OK in MySQL" and "it's OK in Access"... Please go take your medication. Like the U.S. government would use Access or MySQL in a voting system.
They wouldn't... would they? Please, say something... you're scaring me!
>> but didn't see anything about open
>> source code... they can't seriously
>> be relying on security through obscurity...
Since when did closed-source automatically mean security through obscurity? If software becomes less secure when people can see the source, then it's insecure, sure, but just because people can't see the source does not automatically mean it is insecure.
> UPDATE candidates SET votes="0"
> WHERE name="Your Opposing Candidate";
ERROR: Attribute "0" not found
Better check your SQL before going into voter fraud.
>> fleeing the Cylon tranny
The Cylons never really caught up... maybe if they had installed an overdrive?
I've been impressed for the most part with .net. I do have a couple of gripes though.
.net ones are kind of a joke. I really miss the b-tree based dictionary (map in the STL). Sometimes it's nice to have the collection do the sorting for you, and hashes don't. The list classes are a bit confusing; are they lists or arrays? The documentation doesn't tell you what the performance specs are, so it's tough to tell, and sometimes it's really important to know and choose properly.
.net, and it can make GUI apps difficult to write if you need async IO.
The collection classes are horribly inconsistent. After working with the c++ STL containers, the
The IO classes are a bit limited, mostly I think because of limitations in the underlying IO subsystem in Windows. You can't do async IO on anonymous pipes (which the std handles are), and if you're unfortunate enough to have to deploy on the old DOS32 crap (WinME and earlier), you can't do async IO on disk files either.
There doesn't seem to be a way to wait for either an IO to complete or a window message to arrive. This is provided for in the Win32 API, but not in
>> make the environmentalists happy
How could the environmentalists be happy about device that spews about a gazillion pounds of nauxious fumes into the atmosphere? Hey, at least that 2 pound piece of foam that falls off was made without freon. All is good.
Around here (Seattle), we have Dick's (don't be juvenile, now). They make their fries from fresh taters - you can watch em slice those babies up through the window sometimes. If you've never had fresh french fries, you're really missing out.
:-)
Plus, you can go on and on about how you're having Dick's for dinner ad nauseum. It's juvenile and fun
> "White Castle Cheesburgers Are Yummy"
Tell me where to get these "White Castle Cheeseburgers"! Tell me tell me tell me!!! I can't return to my normal life until you TELL ME!!!
You limit youself. I find that any problem can be solved with some combination of duct tape, electrical tape, and/or bailing wire.
> carry this stuff around like a condom?
Why not? I bet you could use it AS a condom.
So will T4 or T5 be the prequel to the Matrix?
What happens to light that loses all its energy to red shift, as would happen during attempted escape from a black hole? I've always thought of light as *bending* until it falls back toward the center of gravity, which seems to fit well with the idea that light bends as it passes by a mass. By your explanation, light passing by a mass should actually blue shift during approach and red shift again as it retreats. Does it not actually change direction?
"Oh yes, I see", said the blind man to his deaf son.
Do the rules of the Turing test actually state that the tester has to be a human? I can't be bothered to go look.
You see, by definition, the bums get the quarters for free; they are given to them. That's what makes them bums. Therefore, the net cost to the bums for the rooms was still zero, making it free, as your parent poster correctly stated.
And before you start, I would like to point out that saying that it still cost *someone* something (like the people giving out free quarters), making the rooms non-free, would just be pedantic. So forget it.
I agree with that. We need to stop playing around IN space and start figuring out how to GET TO space. The current technology of huge rockets, tiny payloads, and massive bills is getting us nowhere. Once we can put practically anything we want into space for lass than a few billion dollars, then we can go back to building big useful space stations (uh, not small toy ones). Once we have efficient technology for getting us into orbit, and big useful space stations in which spacecraft can be built and repaired, then we can go play around on Mars.
It doesn't really seem that NASA can do it. The political incentives aren't there anymore. If the private sector can make money at it, then that's who should do it. NASA could become a regulating agency, and could purchase real estate on launches just like anyone else wanting to get to space. Just because the technology is in the hands of private business doesn't mean space can't still be explored for the sake of exploration.
Mozilla maybe, but you'd never fit emacs into that amount of memory.
Hey, how about a virtual machine implimented IN emacs, now that I'd like to see.
Yeah, when I started reading the blurb, I was expecting the punch line to be that it was really Linux re-done in asm or something. We're conditioned here on /. I guess.
Actually, I don't care much about the cost in that respect. I prefer to build my own machines from scratch. I've never owned an off-the-shelf computer. As far as I know, it's next to impossible to build macs that way.
But if I could do it that way, it would be more expensive, because I play the hand-me-down game with computer parts, which wouldn't work too well with a mixed-hardware setup.
On the other hand, maybe it will happen. The *only* reason I don't have a copy of OSX is because I don't want to mess with another hardware platform, and a more expensive one at that. If OSX ran on x86, I'd at least have tried it. I suspect I'm not alone here.
I *told* you, you weren't going to like it very much...
When will people realize that truly secure software is not compromised in the least when people see the code? In other words, if seeing the source gives a hacker a leg up, that code is either buggy or poorly designed. Period. It's that simple.
Is Linux perfect? No. Is any reasonably complex software perfect? No. But open source does at least as much to help the people trying to secure the code as it does for the people trying to break it.
On a separate note, the government is the last place I want to see closed-source software used. I feel that as a citizen of a democracy, I have the inherent right to see what's being done and how.