That's not a "best practices" approach. Strings in javascript are immutable. Every time you add a padding character, you create a new object, point the symbol to the new one, and delete the old.
A more optimal solution is to create an 80-character string, and append a substring of that to the original string.
Whoever wrote this book has no clue as to how javascript works.
Chapter 9 covers the ways to handle forms and modify web pages. The most useful recipes (at least, for me) were the last two, which showed how to hide and display form elements on the fly, and how to modify selection lists based on other form element entries.
If it takes you half the book just to get there, this isn't a cook-book unless it's a "For Dummies."
The C++ Cookbook was equally disappointing. I'm sorry I bought it.
In fact, the ONLY good cookbook was the Perl one.
This book is a dumb idea, when half the stuff written in it can't be used. It's a "let's put out a book out to cover this and hopefully people will bite" rather than "this topic demands coverage - let's get a book out."
Statute of limitations is LONG over, and I'm sure that both Maxis and EA (who produced the later titles) are happy I bought the rest of the series, and talked it up to others. A happy paying customer spreading good word of mouth is the best advertising you can get.
By simply doing it you are stealing from someone else who you would have otherwise paid for entertainment in some form.
Or, in many people's case, simply not bothered and found something else to do, like go visit a friend, read a book from the library, take the dogs for a walk...
if pirating didn't exist you would use a fraction of that time on entertainment, it all adds up.
I don't see it. Someone pirated a few videos I made, a layout and some css (they were too stupid to file my copyright notice from a few of the files). Did *I* lose anything? No. I found it funny that someone would actually steal what they could have had for free by asking nicely. Instead, I'm getting some free publicity, and the thief will have some problems if anyone asks him to make some more videos and pictures like that...
Ever bought somethinge, given it a cursory look over, it seems okay, but a few days later when you actually go to use it, it really sucks? Or found out that the demo version was more fun than the full version (Speedball 2 comes to mind)?
I'm not saying they should. What I *am* saying is that the "pirated app" numbers don't translate directly to anything else - not lost revenue, not even potential lost customers - some people pirate stuff just because they can, without even bothering to check first to see if it's something they might want.
Case in point - way back in the DOS days, a friend insisted I try simcity. I though the game concept was silly, but gave it a whirl. I went on to buy Simcity 2000, Simcity 3000 Deluxe, Simcity 4 + Rush hour, and Simcity for the Wii. I also bought a few other maxis games, all stemming from that one floppy.
However, if I had had to buy the original game first, none of those sales would have happened. Not one.
Some of us *do* want to reward publishers who produce good stuff - we just don't want to get sucked in by nice artwork and a bogus description that turns into an almost-immediate lunchbag letdown.
More important, what was the legitimate rate for the US. If 99% of the legitimate installs are from the US, then the US has a piracy rate under 62%.
However, this also ignores the simple fact that most of the people who pirated an app wouldn't have shelled out money for it. Are you going to buy something if you can't at least kick the tires first?
And let's be honest - a lot of these utilities should eventually make their way into the OS anyway.
I beat it first try, and it just sits there. Apparently, 1023 bytes isn't big enough to say "You win". (And it can't be that good - I haven't played chess in decades).
It happens all the time. Diabetic retinopathy is treated with a laser to seal off blood vessels that are growing on the forward surface of the retina. Get your first iris scan before treatment, get your eyeballs zapped, and you are no longer you.
Then again, how are you going to do a scan when there's spots of blood floating around at random? Like looking through a fence at close range, the person won't notice as much as the scanner will - which is why patients tend to ignore it as much as possible - the thought of someone sucking all the juice out of your eyeball and replacing it, or sticking needles in it to inject stuff, is scary. Very scary.
If a student who is auditing the class is better able to stimulate intelligent discussion, everyone benefits. You want to be spoon-fed? You're holding the class back.
Also, the teacher IS giving permission. The paying students have no say in the matter, since the teacher is the one who determines the teaching environment. Auditing classes is a normal part of education.
NO, it's not. If you ask the teacher and they say okay, then it's okay. The idea is
since you're not a student, if you cause problems, you're a lot easier to boot out,
if you're auditing the class, you're probably more interested in it (and more interesting) than most of the students who are just there for the grade
next semester, you enroll in the class, skipp all the classes, write the exams, get your grade. Teacher is happy, school is happy, you're hapy
So no, auditing a class isn't stealing - you won't get the credit unless you pay for it.
Also, auditing a class at the same time as you're taking one of the stupid prerequisites is a good way to cut down on wasted time - just skip the prereuqisite except for the tests and coursework requirements.
And of course if they're part of a couple, have a kid, and split up, they have yet another debt. Gubbiment takes a third, student loads take a third, other debts take a third, child support takes a third... must be the new math.
So expect to see many of these grad go bankrupt to get rid of the government and other debt, and still have to pay out 2/3 of their income.
I only know one person who is actually using their education for what they got it in the first place - and that's because of government restrictions imposed in the medical field.
Nobody else - not even engineers, are using their education in their current job.
In fact, during a recession it's a barrier to getting work, because they figure you'll jump ship when the economy picks up and you get a better offer. It's called "being over-qualified" and it happens every down-turn.
So lie about your education - say you dropped out to get into what you're doing now because you enjoy it, not because you went to school for it.
Also, I never said that they claimed to have used any forensic science - I said that they claimed to have "forensic evidence."
They do not.
They don't have any such "forensic evidence" - all they have is a statement matching an IP to a user account. That does not, by itself, prove anything. Heck, it's not even admissible in court without a witness to testify to it.
Their claim that an open wifi is illegal is equally bogus.
Threats of legal action ae an exemption to extortion. (Nice little racket, isn't it?)
However, when they step beyond the bounds of the law - for example, threatening to sue for monetary damages without actually being able to show any monetary damages OR statutory damages, and falsely claim to have forensic evidence, when the server logs in question were not yet properly analysed (sorry, but saying that a log shows that ip 11.22.33.44 was used at such-and-such a date, without any analysis having been performed to see if the date and time are correct, that the traffic transmitted was actually the content in question, and that the ip matched that person's computer (not their account), and falsely claiming that it is illegal to have an open wifi connection, they are now into extortion.
You don't get it, do you? Whether they follow through with the threat is irrelevant, same as whether you walk out of a bank with the money is irrelevant after you say "This is a hold-up" and stick a gun in the teller's face and keep it there, or then put the gun away and say "Please fill up this sack with money."
Heck, you don't even need to have a real gun.
You don't even have to have a fake gun.
Just the act of saying "I have a gun" is sufficient to be charged with armed robbery once they give you the money.
The application of scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal investigations.
Sometimes called simply forensics, forensic science encompasses many different fields of science, including anthropology, biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics, medicine, pathology, phonetics, psychiatry, and toxicology.
The related term criminalistics refers more specifically to the scientific collection and analysis of physical evidence in criminal cases. This includes the analysis of many kinds of materials, including blood, fibers, bullets, and fingerprints. Many law enforcement agencies operate crime labs that perform scientific studies of evidence. The largest of these labs is run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Forensic scientists often present Expert Testimony to courts, as in the case of pathologists who testify on causes of death and engineers who testify on causes of damage from equipment failure, fires, or explosions.
Modern forensic science originated in the late nineteenth century, when European criminal investigators began to use fingerprinting and other identification techniques to solve crimes. As the field of science expanded in scope throughout the twentieth century, its application to legal issues became more and more common. Because nearly every area of science has a potential bearing on the law, the list of areas within forensic science is long.
Again, a letter from BT is not "forensic evidence", any more than a letter from YOU would be. By itself, it proves nothing, and can't even be used as evidence.
All that's irrelevant. They made a specific claim - that they had "forensic evidence" - and they don't. A letter from British Telecom saying that IP address W.X.Y.Z was used at such and such a time and date is not forensic evidence. There's no scientific testing involved.
Legally, any attempt to get someone to do something by means of threats, etc except the threat of legal action is extortion. That's why you can threaten to sue someone, and it's not extortion. However, the way these were done crossed over the line, in that they also included false claims of having "forensic evidence", as well as the implied threat of public humiliation for being accused of downloading gay porn, and for asking for an arbitrary amount, rather than saying "these are the damages we've suffered." That last one is a killer - you cannot just ask for money - it has to be in relation to damages.
Stores had a policy of catching teen-age shoplifters, then sending their parents a demand letter saying they wanted $300 for some nebulous "costs". The judges rightfully threw it out. When someone does you harm, you're entitled to be compensated. You may even be entitled to exemplary damages. However, unless there's an amount that is set by statute (which is why they're known as "statutory damages"), you can't just "pull a number out of the air."
Trying to get what you, as a lawyer, should know the law does not allow, is extortion because your threat of legal action is being used to commit a crime. You no longer enjoy the "except threat of legal action" exemption.
No, actually, making false accusations in the hope of obtaining money is extortion. While the threat of legal action is specifically exempt, the threat of public embarrassment (accusing old people of downloading a gay porn video called "Army Fuckers") is not.
Also, given that they claim to have "forensic computer evidence" when they do not (sorry, a date and time from a server log, without the hard disk in the server being removed to preserve the "evidence", and a proper chain of custody, is not "forensic evidence").
Slashdot Mirror
A more optimal solution is to create an 80-character string, and append a substring of that to the original string.
Whoever wrote this book has no clue as to how javascript works.
If it takes you half the book just to get there, this isn't a cook-book unless it's a "For Dummies."
The C++ Cookbook was equally disappointing. I'm sorry I bought it.
In fact, the ONLY good cookbook was the Perl one.
This book is a dumb idea, when half the stuff written in it can't be used. It's a "let's put out a book out to cover this and hopefully people will bite" rather than "this topic demands coverage - let's get a book out."
Statute of limitations is LONG over, and I'm sure that both Maxis and EA (who produced the later titles) are happy I bought the rest of the series, and talked it up to others. A happy paying customer spreading good word of mouth is the best advertising you can get.
Or, in many people's case, simply not bothered and found something else to do, like go visit a friend, read a book from the library, take the dogs for a walk ...
I don't see it. Someone pirated a few videos I made, a layout and some css (they were too stupid to file my copyright notice from a few of the files). Did *I* lose anything? No. I found it funny that someone would actually steal what they could have had for free by asking nicely. Instead, I'm getting some free publicity, and the thief will have some problems if anyone asks him to make some more videos and pictures like that ...
Ever bought somethinge, given it a cursory look over, it seems okay, but a few days later when you actually go to use it, it really sucks? Or found out that the demo version was more fun than the full version (Speedball 2 comes to mind)?
Case in point - way back in the DOS days, a friend insisted I try simcity. I though the game concept was silly, but gave it a whirl. I went on to buy Simcity 2000, Simcity 3000 Deluxe, Simcity 4 + Rush hour, and Simcity for the Wii. I also bought a few other maxis games, all stemming from that one floppy.
However, if I had had to buy the original game first, none of those sales would have happened. Not one.
Some of us *do* want to reward publishers who produce good stuff - we just don't want to get sucked in by nice artwork and a bogus description that turns into an almost-immediate lunchbag letdown.
After all, your beginners science class taught that "focus" is where the sons raise meat.
However, this also ignores the simple fact that most of the people who pirated an app wouldn't have shelled out money for it. Are you going to buy something if you can't at least kick the tires first?
And let's be honest - a lot of these utilities should eventually make their way into the OS anyway.
I beat it first try, and it just sits there. Apparently, 1023 bytes isn't big enough to say "You win". (And it can't be that good - I haven't played chess in decades).
No, he wasn't.
Then again, how are you going to do a scan when there's spots of blood floating around at random? Like looking through a fence at close range, the person won't notice as much as the scanner will - which is why patients tend to ignore it as much as possible - the thought of someone sucking all the juice out of your eyeball and replacing it, or sticking needles in it to inject stuff, is scary. Very scary.
Let's face it - an all-in-one smartphone called the UniPhone would be cool. Opps - too late again!
Also, the teacher IS giving permission. The paying students have no say in the matter, since the teacher is the one who determines the teaching environment. Auditing classes is a normal part of education.
So no, auditing a class isn't stealing - you won't get the credit unless you pay for it.
Also, auditing a class at the same time as you're taking one of the stupid prerequisites is a good way to cut down on wasted time - just skip the prereuqisite except for the tests and coursework requirements.
So expect to see many of these grad go bankrupt to get rid of the government and other debt, and still have to pay out 2/3 of their income.
Nobody else - not even engineers, are using their education in their current job.
In fact, during a recession it's a barrier to getting work, because they figure you'll jump ship when the economy picks up and you get a better offer. It's called "being over-qualified" and it happens every down-turn.
So lie about your education - say you dropped out to get into what you're doing now because you enjoy it, not because you went to school for it.
They do not.
They don't have any such "forensic evidence" - all they have is a statement matching an IP to a user account. That does not, by itself, prove anything. Heck, it's not even admissible in court without a witness to testify to it.
Their claim that an open wifi is illegal is equally bogus.
Maybe you should read their demands first.
What they got from BT is not admissible without human testimony. So, sop being stupid.
They have NO "forensic evidence."
However, when they step beyond the bounds of the law - for example, threatening to sue for monetary damages without actually being able to show any monetary damages OR statutory damages, and falsely claim to have forensic evidence, when the server logs in question were not yet properly analysed (sorry, but saying that a log shows that ip 11.22.33.44 was used at such-and-such a date, without any analysis having been performed to see if the date and time are correct, that the traffic transmitted was actually the content in question, and that the ip matched that person's computer (not their account), and falsely claiming that it is illegal to have an open wifi connection, they are now into extortion.
It's why they're being investigated.
Heck, you don't even need to have a real gun.
You don't even have to have a fake gun.
Just the act of saying "I have a gun" is sufficient to be charged with armed robbery once they give you the money.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/forensic-evidence.html
A letter from BT is NOT "forensic evidence". http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Forensic+analysis
Again, a letter from BT is not "forensic evidence", any more than a letter from YOU would be. By itself, it proves nothing, and can't even be used as evidence.
All that's irrelevant. They made a specific claim - that they had "forensic evidence" - and they don't. A letter from British Telecom saying that IP address W.X.Y.Z was used at such and such a time and date is not forensic evidence. There's no scientific testing involved.
Stores had a policy of catching teen-age shoplifters, then sending their parents a demand letter saying they wanted $300 for some nebulous "costs". The judges rightfully threw it out. When someone does you harm, you're entitled to be compensated. You may even be entitled to exemplary damages. However, unless there's an amount that is set by statute (which is why they're known as "statutory damages"), you can't just "pull a number out of the air."
Trying to get what you, as a lawyer, should know the law does not allow, is extortion because your threat of legal action is being used to commit a crime. You no longer enjoy the "except threat of legal action" exemption.
Also, given that they claim to have "forensic computer evidence" when they do not (sorry, a date and time from a server log, without the hard disk in the server being removed to preserve the "evidence", and a proper chain of custody, is not "forensic evidence").
This is why BritGov is investigating them.
Also, let's face it ... it's easy to get a geek.
Or if you're esthetically challenged -