May 30th, 2007 - Google, Dojo, and SitePen announce porting effort to move the Dojo Offline APIs on top of Google Gears. The current download is using the older Dojo Offline runtime, which we will be deprecating moving into the future. The ported Dojo Offline will be available in two weeks.
At Google you will not know who your manager is going to be. Further, you may not even know which group you will work with. But the beautiful thing is that your manager doesn't matter that much. I work at Google and I don't speak to my manager that often about what I'm up to (even though we're in the same office), most everything is decided between the SEs and we inform the manager from time to time on what's going on. Your manager can't hurt you at review times either because he has a 1/n vote for n around 5 or 6 on what score you would get (of course if you didn't do your job, your other reviewers - your peers, would give you bad scores). So in such an environment you are not too dependent on what manager you have, and you enjoy working with a lot of people in different departments without any red tapes.
What do you think Artificial Intelligence is based on? It needs to learn from something after all. I think you are confusing it with "data mining" in this case, which human tagging simplifies.
I suspect that terms that have been used a lot become marked in the "off limits" column, so naturally the next iteration of partners will have to refine upon them in order to score
It'd be rather silly for a compiler to produce binary code directly. All compilers I know produce assembly code and then assemble it with an assembler into binary code.
If it's bytecode or interpreted languages that you speak of, then the VM or the interpreter are written in binary (assembled in some way) and without them the programs they interpret wouldn't run.
It's just a Russian thing (not even in all cyrillic languages). For example bread is hleb, but Hamburg is Gamburg, Henry is Genry. That's the typical thing that happens to foreign words.
Well, I am not saying that this is how this works, but in theory the following is possible:
B = sender A = receiver C, D = intermediaries
We assume that intermediaries cannot be held liable for their intermediacy. Thus the "vulnerable" parties are A and B. Thus A and B must be protected from any other party, including each other.
For any sent packets that are UDP-spoofed, (spoof) appears after the step number.
Here's a scenario that achieves that: 1. A selects intermediary C, and requests customer id Q; C associates Q to A's IP address. 2. (spoof) A sends search request R for an object O to D. R contains customer id H, C's IP address, and key K. 3. D broadcasts request to entire network. 4. B receives request R and decides it can satisfy it. 5. (spoof) B encrypts object O with key K and sends it to C. 6. C forwards encrypted O to A.
Now, let's analyze it: C does not know the address of B, thus B is protected from C. C also does not know the content of O as it is encrypted, thus A is protected from C. D does not know the address of A, thus A is protected from D. Since D has broadcast the request further on, D does not know that B has replied, thus B is protected from D. As a corollary, B is also protected from A.
Further indirection and cloaking can be introduced to avoid the situation where both C and D are in on the game, in which case A will be detected.
I have to disagree that distros are at fault. I am maintaining kde subversion ebuilds and can tell you that many of the KDE modules are interdependent and libraries are not properly abstracted. In fact, if you've looked at the KDE split ebuilds that you mention, you would see some ugly stuff done to make things work. So, while it's doable, KDE does not exactly facilitate modularity. And that's why their sources are distributed in bundles.
On the grand scale of 50 mil, not too many people do that. In fact it is much more common with Konqueror (as much fewer websites filter Mozilla out) and Opera.
I think it is called "complementary copy". The magazine you speak of must be Gloria Steinem's Ms. Magazine.
Ambiguous statement or geography error?
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
"He discussed via e-mail his move to Portland, the state of Linux and MicHe discussed via e-mail his move to Portland, the state of Linux and Microsoft."
I had to reread this several times, until I realize that he doesn't refer to Portland as the "state" of Linux and Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
From the link you posted:
May 30th, 2007 - Google, Dojo, and SitePen announce porting effort to move the Dojo Offline APIs on top of Google Gears. The current download is using the older Dojo Offline runtime, which we will be deprecating moving into the future. The ported Dojo Offline will be available in two weeks.
Arabs are anti-Semites? Did you know that Arabs *are* Semites?
Better yet, add Google Apps for your domain and there'll be no need to forward.
Google does pay for health insurance, but the plan is not as good as Microsoft's and perhaps that's why it's never noted.
Google doesn't use SuSE. Goobuntu, Red Hat, MacOS X, Windows are pretty much the only OS used at Google atm.
At Google you will not know who your manager is going to be. Further, you may not even know which group you will work with. But the beautiful thing is that your manager doesn't matter that much. I work at Google and I don't speak to my manager that often about what I'm up to (even though we're in the same office), most everything is decided between the SEs and we inform the manager from time to time on what's going on. Your manager can't hurt you at review times either because he has a 1/n vote for n around 5 or 6 on what score you would get (of course if you didn't do your job, your other reviewers - your peers, would give you bad scores). So in such an environment you are not too dependent on what manager you have, and you enjoy working with a lot of people in different departments without any red tapes.
This is not true. Employees are encouraged to spend 20% time, but it's not required nor enforced in any way.
Google doesn't have hiring managers, get your facts straight.
What do you think Artificial Intelligence is based on? It needs to learn from something after all. I think you are confusing it with "data mining" in this case, which human tagging simplifies.
I suspect that terms that have been used a lot become marked in the "off limits" column, so naturally the next iteration of partners will have to refine upon them in order to score
Only the ones linked to
What a poor excuse!
It'd be rather silly for a compiler to produce binary code directly. All compilers I know produce assembly code and then assemble it with an assembler into binary code.
If it's bytecode or interpreted languages that you speak of, then the VM or the interpreter are written in binary (assembled in some way) and without them the programs they interpret wouldn't run.
insightful
Trader Joe's Natural Mountain Spring Water explicitly states "DO NOT REFILL".
Yes it can, since strings in lisp are sequences, and you can easily point to their cdr which might be in the middle of the string.
MOD PARENT UP. Extremely funny (ref: matrioshki)
No,
It's just a Russian thing (not even in all cyrillic languages). For example bread is hleb, but Hamburg is Gamburg, Henry is Genry. That's the typical thing that happens to foreign words.
Well, I am not saying that this is how this works, but in theory the following is possible:
B = sender
A = receiver
C, D = intermediaries
We assume that intermediaries cannot be held liable for their intermediacy. Thus the "vulnerable" parties are A and B. Thus A and B must be protected from any other party, including each other.
For any sent packets that are UDP-spoofed, (spoof) appears after the step number.
Here's a scenario that achieves that:
1. A selects intermediary C, and requests customer id Q; C associates Q to A's IP address.
2. (spoof) A sends search request R for an object O to D.
R contains customer id H, C's IP address, and key K.
3. D broadcasts request to entire network.
4. B receives request R and decides it can satisfy it.
5. (spoof) B encrypts object O with key K and sends it to C.
6. C forwards encrypted O to A.
Now, let's analyze it:
C does not know the address of B, thus B is protected from C.
C also does not know the content of O as it is encrypted, thus A is protected from C.
D does not know the address of A, thus A is protected from D.
Since D has broadcast the request further on, D does not know that B has replied, thus B is protected from D. As a corollary, B is also protected from A.
Further indirection and cloaking can be introduced to avoid the situation where both C and D are in on the game, in which case A will be detected.
I have to disagree that distros are at fault. I am maintaining kde subversion ebuilds and can tell you that many of the KDE modules are interdependent and libraries are not properly abstracted. In fact, if you've looked at the KDE split ebuilds that you mention, you would see some ugly stuff done to make things work. So, while it's doable, KDE does not exactly facilitate modularity. And that's why their sources are distributed in bundles.
On the grand scale of 50 mil, not too many people do that. In fact it is much more common with Konqueror (as much fewer websites filter Mozilla out) and Opera.
Doubling itself is an exponential increase.
I think it is called "complementary copy". The magazine you speak of must be Gloria Steinem's Ms. Magazine.
"He discussed via e-mail his move to Portland, the state of Linux and MicHe discussed via e-mail his move to Portland, the state of Linux and Microsoft."
I had to reread this several times, until I realize that he doesn't refer to Portland as the "state" of Linux and Microsoft.
I hope this comment hints you towards the answer:
1 00 21090
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118658&cid=