If the documentation's canonical form is XML or SGML, then it's really no big deal to specify a CSS stylesheet. The LDP could use one, and if it's properly done, there would be virtually no issue about customizing it for your needs.
I doubt anyone would be confused if they went to a store and saw Windows next to Lindows.
How many people go to a store and buy Windows or Lindows at all? The numbers for *both* products pale in comparison to preinstalls. This kind of case has virtually nothing to do with what happens inside stores -- it's about marketing, "mindshare", and maintaining some rights over what MS feels ought to be treated like a trademark.
I'd like to see a guy pick up an actual AWM and hold it on his shoulder (you know, without unfolding the bipod and stabilizing it that way, while looking at that/absolutely motionless/ crosshair at his opponent who's about 50m away, for about 5 seconds.
At least in DoD, there's some bob and sway on the crosshair.
The idea that the theory that the current species we see have been largely shaped through evolution via natural selection (to get specific) and the Big Bang" theory go "hand in hand" doesn't seem at all supported. Even if the universe as a whole has been around forever, that wouldn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred in our little neighborhood. Depending on how widely you cast your net over theories when you label them as versions of the "big bang" theory (inflationary theories, etc.), there are lots of alternatives that have some support and their evidence does not stand or fall with the evidence for natural selection.
And even if the Big Bang theory is largely correct, it could be that other mechanisms have shaped current organisms (again, you might count Lamarckism as a mere variant on Darwin).
The theories concern two different things, so it's no surpise that they don't stand or fall together.
So I don't buy it.
Subtle? Is this the same show where Peter turns to Brian (the dog) in a bar and says, "Wait a minute! You can talk?" followed by a good ten-second no-action whatsoever pause?/me damns Tommy Tutone.
I didn't say that what they were doing was legal; you're right, they haven't produced any evidence, which they are obligated to do. No matter how you slice it, it's a dumb move, and if the case ends up before a judge, they'll pay for it. So why do it? The idea is to avoid having to go in front of a judge -- make IBM want to make it just go away, via settlement or buyout, without having to do loads of hard work preparing for the legal case.
I am reasoably confident that nobody at SCO is talking to Darl McBride about "running diffs on the source tree."
I'm sure that part of SCO's strategy behind not telling IBM where they've found infringing code ( apart from the possibility that the claim is complete bollocks) is to make IBM spend lots of money figuring out where it is. Such a code audit costs lots of money, thus giving IBM incentive to do whatever it takes to make the nuisance go away. If so, then, SCO underestimated IBM's willingness to win the case.
Interesting n'all, but I wonder about the "averaging" algorithm they used; it seems to create a lot of symmetry, which is apparently one of the major factors in "beauty."
One other dubitable tidbit there has to do with the skin tone and clarity of those "average" folks. Given any point on the face, the vast majority of us don't have any kind of "blemish" or "spot" or what have you there, so averaging it out for each point would produce no blemish. However, a person without *any* such "imperfections" is decidedly not average (read: "typical").
Yes, and if you read sites like Slashdot, you'll notice that RedHat is also providing the backbone for the Fedora Project which is essentially unsupported Red Hat. Hey, they will even provide ISOs and the bandwidth whereby they can be downloaded. Evil bastards.
Reread that page. I think you'll find they're not citizens under the law. Though I'd love it if they were, then we could toss 'em in the slammer when they break a law.
I'm not a huge fan of Dreamweaver, but it does not generate crap like that. 'Course, 98% of what I do is hand-crafted, using the code view. Hell, not even sure why I use it. Now, why are my web pages full of extraneous:xs ?
Re:Does it tell you when NOT to use EJB?
on
Bitter EJB
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Indeed, it does. It's a major part of the book -- a good hunk of chapter one discusses whether you should use EJB at all (it's kind of a "cut through the marketing hype" sort of treatment). And they don't let up after that -- the authors don't like entity beans much at all; from the intro to Ch. 8 Bitter Alternatives:
We won't really illustrate [ in this chapter ] how to use or misuse a major EJB feature. Instead, we'll show you why EJB entity beans should be avoided and suggest alternatives.
The key to the post at the top of this thread is the mention of unintended consequences. We've already seen how laws dealing with technical subjects get misinterpreted by the courts; what exactly is going to count as spam under this law? What forms of communication will it affect, and how? Damn straight, I don't want to go to jail for making a programming or configuration mistake that sends out a bunch of unsolicited email and somehow falls under the legal definition, or judge's interpretation thereof, of "spam." { I don't want to make that sort of mistake at all, but if I do, there are other ways of dealing with me }.
Yeah, maybe a more corporate image, like a bounding Steve Ballmer yelling (ok, mouthing) "Developers! Developers!" over and over again, would be just the ticket here.
Seriously, I don't think the fire-breathing dragon thing is really that much of an issue. Like a spinning, swirling "e" is really any better or more self-explanatory? The big problem is that most people don't really know Mozilla exists, because they don't care as much as you or I, about what they use. I think the "it's not used because it's not used," factor is much weightier than the mascot.
I wouldn't say it makes no sense; after all, a literal quantum leap is a discrete change of state, and thus contrasts with a continuous incremental change (drift). Schrdinger's Cat makes use of the idea (which, apparently, its author thought ridiculous) of a discrete change in quantum state that has a macroscopic upshot.
I wonder whether there's a power usage trade off, though; the more CPU you're using, the more an (e.g.) Intel mobile chip is going to be in "full speed" mode, right? So CPU usage *could* be an issue if you like to use a laptop on batteries. Can anybody more knowledgable weigh in on this?
I can see from the point of view of planning transit outlays how being able to link every trip to a specific user would be useful; say, it turns out that people who live in Islington tend to use the system only on weekdays, while those in the West End only use it on weekends.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's not creepy and eminiently abusable, but there are uses.
I think we ought to give serious consideration to the hypothesis that it's the reverse vampires. [/simpsons reference that isn't already tired, I hope]
and that was a "d'oh" posting problem (did you forget to preview?)
void get_salt_from_password(ulong *res,const char *password)
{
res[0]=res[1]=0;
if (password)
{
while (*password)
{
ulong val=0;
uint i;
for (i=0 ; i < 8 ; i++)
val=(val << 4)+char_val(*password++);
*res++=val;
}
}
return;
}
Sorry folks!
The offending code is posted in the article; it makes no use of C libraries:
void get_salt_from_password(ulong *res,const char *password)
{
res[0]=res[1]=0;
if (password)
{
while (*password)
{
ulong val=0;
uint i;
for (i=0 ; i
Looks like pretty much of a "d'oh!" coding error.
Re:Something I've never understood...
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Nobody's talking about the legality of copying small parts for fair use.
Even if fair use covers simply ripping parts out of someone else's work and inserting it into something you present to someone else as your own, when you do it in an academic paper, is called plagiarism.
Slashdot Mirror
If the documentation's canonical form is XML or SGML, then it's really no big deal to specify a CSS stylesheet. The LDP could use one, and if it's properly done, there would be virtually no issue about customizing it for your needs.
I'd like to see a guy pick up an actual AWM and hold it on his shoulder (you know, without unfolding the bipod and stabilizing it that way, while looking at that /absolutely motionless/ crosshair at his opponent who's about 50m away, for about 5 seconds.
At least in DoD, there's some bob and sway on the crosshair.
For that, wouldn't you need a network connection to get to IMDB?
I have to complete the joke cycle: "Ray Bourque," who is of course Robert's illegitimate son.
The idea that the theory that the current species we see have been largely shaped through evolution via natural selection (to get specific) and the Big Bang" theory go "hand in hand" doesn't seem at all supported. Even if the universe as a whole has been around forever, that wouldn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred in our little neighborhood. Depending on how widely you cast your net over theories when you label them as versions of the "big bang" theory (inflationary theories, etc.), there are lots of alternatives that have some support and their evidence does not stand or fall with the evidence for natural selection. And even if the Big Bang theory is largely correct, it could be that other mechanisms have shaped current organisms (again, you might count Lamarckism as a mere variant on Darwin). The theories concern two different things, so it's no surpise that they don't stand or fall together. So I don't buy it.
Subtle? Is this the same show where Peter turns to Brian (the dog) in a bar and says, "Wait a minute! You can talk?" followed by a good ten-second no-action whatsoever pause? /me damns Tommy Tutone.
Well, if you're male, you might be able to come up with one more thing ...
I didn't say that what they were doing was legal; you're right, they haven't produced any evidence, which they are obligated to do. No matter how you slice it, it's a dumb move, and if the case ends up before a judge, they'll pay for it. So why do it? The idea is to avoid having to go in front of a judge -- make IBM want to make it just go away, via settlement or buyout, without having to do loads of hard work preparing for the legal case.
I am reasoably confident that nobody at SCO is talking to Darl McBride about "running diffs on the source tree." I'm sure that part of SCO's strategy behind not telling IBM where they've found infringing code ( apart from the possibility that the claim is complete bollocks) is to make IBM spend lots of money figuring out where it is. Such a code audit costs lots of money, thus giving IBM incentive to do whatever it takes to make the nuisance go away. If so, then, SCO underestimated IBM's willingness to win the case.
Interesting n'all, but I wonder about the "averaging" algorithm they used; it seems to create a lot of symmetry, which is apparently one of the major factors in "beauty." One other dubitable tidbit there has to do with the skin tone and clarity of those "average" folks. Given any point on the face, the vast majority of us don't have any kind of "blemish" or "spot" or what have you there, so averaging it out for each point would produce no blemish. However, a person without *any* such "imperfections" is decidedly not average (read: "typical").
Yes, and if you read sites like Slashdot, you'll notice that RedHat is also providing the backbone for the Fedora Project which is essentially unsupported Red Hat. Hey, they will even provide ISOs and the bandwidth whereby they can be downloaded. Evil bastards.
Reread that page. I think you'll find they're not citizens under the law. Though I'd love it if they were, then we could toss 'em in the slammer when they break a law.
I'm not a huge fan of Dreamweaver, but it does not generate crap like that. 'Course, 98% of what I do is hand-crafted, using the code view. Hell, not even sure why I use it. Now, why are my web pages full of extraneous :xs ?
Lessee:
Group A says "Microsoft is bad because they only give you one way to do things"
Group B says "Microsoft is bad because they give you too many ways to do things"
You say it's therefore obvious, since both A and B are subgroups of C, that the members of group C hate Microsoft "for any reason."
Did you notice that it was different people in group A and group B? It's not like there's a party line everybody's supposed to adhere to!
The key to the post at the top of this thread is the mention of unintended consequences. We've already seen how laws dealing with technical subjects get misinterpreted by the courts; what exactly is going to count as spam under this law? What forms of communication will it affect, and how? Damn straight, I don't want to go to jail for making a programming or configuration mistake that sends out a bunch of unsolicited email and somehow falls under the legal definition, or judge's interpretation thereof, of "spam." { I don't want to make that sort of mistake at all, but if I do, there are other ways of dealing with me }.
Yeah, maybe a more corporate image, like a bounding Steve Ballmer yelling (ok, mouthing) "Developers! Developers!" over and over again, would be just the ticket here. Seriously, I don't think the fire-breathing dragon thing is really that much of an issue. Like a spinning, swirling "e" is really any better or more self-explanatory? The big problem is that most people don't really know Mozilla exists, because they don't care as much as you or I, about what they use. I think the "it's not used because it's not used," factor is much weightier than the mascot.
I wouldn't say it makes no sense; after all, a literal quantum leap is a discrete change of state, and thus contrasts with a continuous incremental change (drift). Schrdinger's Cat makes use of the idea (which, apparently, its author thought ridiculous) of a discrete change in quantum state that has a macroscopic upshot.
I wonder whether there's a power usage trade off, though; the more CPU you're using, the more an (e.g.) Intel mobile chip is going to be in "full speed" mode, right? So CPU usage *could* be an issue if you like to use a laptop on batteries. Can anybody more knowledgable weigh in on this?
I can see from the point of view of planning transit outlays how being able to link every trip to a specific user would be useful; say, it turns out that people who live in Islington tend to use the system only on weekdays, while those in the West End only use it on weekends. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not creepy and eminiently abusable, but there are uses.
I think we ought to give serious consideration to the hypothesis that it's the reverse vampires. [/simpsons reference that isn't already tired, I hope]
and that was a "d'oh" posting problem (did you forget to preview?) void get_salt_from_password(ulong *res,const char *password) { res[0]=res[1]=0; if (password) { while (*password) { ulong val=0; uint i; for (i=0 ; i < 8 ; i++) val=(val << 4)+char_val(*password++); *res++=val; } } return; } Sorry folks!
The offending code is posted in the article; it makes no use of C libraries: void get_salt_from_password(ulong *res,const char *password) { res[0]=res[1]=0; if (password) { while (*password) { ulong val=0; uint i; for (i=0 ; i Looks like pretty much of a "d'oh!" coding error.
Nobody's talking about the legality of copying small parts for fair use.
Even if fair use covers simply ripping parts out of someone else's work and inserting it into something you present to someone else as your own, when you do it in an academic paper, is called plagiarism.