That may be true, but what are the chances they're going to use SDL instead of a Quartz Extreme based solution. AFAIK there is no Quartz Extreme renderer for Linux yet.
That and most of the Y2K problems were just display errors, not bugs in the actual calculations going on under the scenes. 2038 is much scarier and is a lot more difficult to fix. In fact the best way to fix the problem is probably to switch to a 64 bit representation of time, but thus far not too many people have made moves in that direction. Switching to 64 bits is not as easy as it might sound either, since lots of programs use timestamps and many of them make assumptions as to the size of their time fields. I do wish APIs would start to get transition structures (time_t64 or something) in place that people could start using now. If you do it early enough you can save yourself a lot of headaches down the road.
The big problem of course is that most people figure their code won't be in use in 2038 and don't care. I'll be right about retirement age by then. Crap, I just realized I'm going to be the grizzled old guy they call when this problem finally rolls around. One of those crusty old farts that knows C (just like the crusty COBOL farts that got a lot of jobs back in 1999 for a few months).
Yeah, that the whole point of uPnP. Usually these games use UDP streams on random ports to communicate, so if both players are behind a NAT it can be a problem.
The annoying thing about it is that applications (especially games!) are written these days assuming you're either directly connected or behind a uPNP router. I had a hell of a time trying to get C&C3 working over my BSD based router because it assumed I was using uPNP.
Dang. I got it to compile on FreeBSD 7 (with a bit of tweaking, there were a lot of assumptions about the locations of libraries) but it craps out with an X11 error when I try to start it.
One of the best arguments I've ever heard about Creationism is this:
Science is about understanding the world we live in. (Get them to agree on this, it should be easy)
If you took a modern day scientist and put him in a time machine set for 1000 years ago. When he arrived he would be able to teach the local scientists a world of knowledge. This is science in action, during those 1000 years we have learned a lot about the world and how it works.
Now, take a creationist and put him in the same time machine to go back 1000 years. What would he be able to teach the scholars of the era? Nothing. Creationism has discovered nothing in those 1000 years. That is why it is not a science.
Oh, and "Intelligent Design"? Everybody knows that is creationism, stop trying to bullshit me.
Don't try this on ID folks or people trying to get Creationism into the schools. They are immune to logic and will probably just attack you back with some nonsequitor. This argument is to be used on any rational people who you think might be swayed by the used car salesman pitch given by some ID folks because, as you noted, it does sound reasonable on the surface.
IMHO, it is a mistake to argue the tenants of evolution (solid though they may be), because the creationists will break out those stupid "gap" arguments and you'll be stuck in an endless cycle of proof and rebuttal. It's far better to just cut their legs out from under them and make it clear how creationism (and ID) are not science at all. They don't follow the scientific method and thus do not belong in a science classrom. In fact they are harmful in a science classroom because they confuse children as to what actually constitutes science. You don't want to spend the first month teaching the scientific method and then immediately start talking about something that is based on dogma with no observations, hypothesis, or even theories.
It's not exactly a tax break for the rich, it actually increases the taxes for everybody who doesn't send their kids to private school because you still have to fund the public schools and private schools never draw enough kids away from the system to actually lower the costs. It's basically a tax on the poor and middle class that goes to the rich.
The crazy logic that website uses hurts my brain. Most of the rebuttals read like timecube or are complete non-sequitors. Do you have an example of a good rebuttal on there that doesn't read like it was written by a crazy person? I really don't want to click through 5000 links trying to find the one coherent argument.
I wish I had modpoints to give you since the trolls appear to be beating your post down as best they can. I got suckered into the creationism trolls once on Slashdot, I'm not going to let it happen again.
Hint: Those crazy people who actually want evolution banned don't read Slashdot.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell CV is in this context. It appears to be some sort of resume or something. acronymfinder.com was of no help for a change.
I'm not sure I trust real world C++ news coming from Bjarne Stroustrup (sorry I mangled his name), I mean that's the guy who still thinks the C++ Template syntax is beautiful. Plus, it's entirely possible his perception is skewed a bit with regards to his own baby.
Exactly. The fact that the exit polling matched up with the precinct results makes the probability of vote fraud pretty low in my mind. I'm also willing to believe human error on the Ron Paul ticket because, hey, it's Ron Paul. He's a joke candidate anyway. The votes they put back on the ballot had no effect on the primary vote as a whole so any allegations of fraud would have to be modified to allegations of incompetent fraud.
The downside of CV transmissions is that they can't handle high torque very well. With a 30HP motor this isn't a problem, but it's the reason you don't see them in full size cars very often.
I thought he was finally using his veto because the congress was in control of the Democrats again. It was pretty clear to me that the White House had a pretty firm grip on congressional Republicans and they never passed anything that didn't meet his approval beforehand. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing since it wastes everyone's time to have the president veto something and send it back to Congress.
Well, free accounts have pretty low limits on the amount of money you can purchase/sell in a month, so unless you're interested in laundering your money $20 at a time I don't think it's going to work very well. Plus, LL keeps records on all of those transactions so it's not a very good laundering service.
The problem with that plan is when someone checks their bank account, notices a problem, and the investigation comes right back to your systems before you have a chance to extract maximum damage. Unless of course you get put in charge of investigating the irregularity.
My guess is that they have backups, but it would have taken a considerable amount of time to restore 70 servers, and there's a nonzero chance that the backups for at least a few of them were broken.
I agree. Border agents will disagree though. Unless it's in a diplomatic immunity pouch, they tend to want to get their grubby hands on it. There are probably laws about this but the laws also let the border agents turn people away for any reason they feel like.
No, you are perfectly in your rights to refuse to decrypt your data. They'll just confiscate your laptop instead, or you can turn around and go back home.
Frankly, this seems untenable to me. What if you ship your data separately? To me it just seems like an extension of the policy where Border Guards can pretty much do whatever they want. As anybody who has had to do more than tell the guard you're only going over the border for a daytrip can attest, those guys don't care one whit about your privacy or anything like that. They have a job to stop certain things from entering the country and you're just an annoyance they have to deal with to get their job done.
Wow, I must not have achieved OO enlightenment yet, since to me OO languages have been basically procedural languages with forced abstraction. If you're not designing something procedurally with OO, how are you doing it? Do you design your programs functionally (everything is a method call, no iterating)? I have to admit that my only "OO Language" experiance is with C++ and Java (languages with OO like features like Perl don't count of course) so maybe I'm just out of the loop.
I've always thought that people who unabashedly claim that OO is for everything need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. While the extra layer of abstraction gives you a lot of flexibility and theoretically makes it easier to reuse the code (in practice you have to design something to be reusable in any language, random code from a program will almost always have to be modified if it was not designed with reusablility in mind in the first place, or it was trivial to begin with), there is also a cost in making the execution path more difficult to trace (especially with heavily threaded programs) and to introduce uncertainty in the program that doesn't exist with non-OO languages (virtual methods!). That said, I think the benefits outweigh the costs in large programs in general, but it's never good to ignore the weaknesses in your current approach, since only by knowing the weaknesses can you minimize them.
Also, I have never seen someone use a functional language outside of an academic setting. I know the last time I used one was in college, and while it was absolutely wonderful for the little toy program I built I thought that it was a lot harder to design the program originally and that it made the most tedious (but important!) part of programming (input verification, sanity checks, resource management) even more tedious and difficult. Admittedly, the language I was using was a toy language (Scheme) so maybe full blown Lisp solves these problems, but it was ridiculously hard to verify an input against a regular expression or other such mechanism in Scheme, especially if you were doing it a dozen times in your program. My professor deducted big points if he could formulate an input that could crash your program or produce bogus output though (and he just loved circular references in tree data, 8 bit input, letters instead of numbers, and input strings long enough to blow away most input buffers if you weren't careful).
IMHO, this is a problem with NTP. It's really hard to figure out if it's working or not and the documentation is obtuse and spends page after page going on about security features nobody wants to deal with (it's hard enough to get NTP working without the security stuff). While I admire the difficulty in getting clocks synchronized down to the picosecond over the internet, some work on the UI would be greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately, most of Alton's stuff is "up to four hours", which might well be a case of "the FDA is very very anal about this even though the odds of actually getting sick in this window are vanishingly small", but it rules out the make it in the morning option. I'm not even talking about 10 minute meals here, but if it takes longer than 90 minutes it just isn't practical for me.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true, but what are the chances they're going to use SDL instead of a Quartz Extreme based solution. AFAIK there is no Quartz Extreme renderer for Linux yet.
Possibly, but I doubt the Mac port is using X11 for the display, so a port to Linux probably wouldn't be as easy as you think.
That and most of the Y2K problems were just display errors, not bugs in the actual calculations going on under the scenes. 2038 is much scarier and is a lot more difficult to fix. In fact the best way to fix the problem is probably to switch to a 64 bit representation of time, but thus far not too many people have made moves in that direction. Switching to 64 bits is not as easy as it might sound either, since lots of programs use timestamps and many of them make assumptions as to the size of their time fields. I do wish APIs would start to get transition structures (time_t64 or something) in place that people could start using now. If you do it early enough you can save yourself a lot of headaches down the road.
The big problem of course is that most people figure their code won't be in use in 2038 and don't care. I'll be right about retirement age by then. Crap, I just realized I'm going to be the grizzled old guy they call when this problem finally rolls around. One of those crusty old farts that knows C (just like the crusty COBOL farts that got a lot of jobs back in 1999 for a few months).
Yeah, that the whole point of uPnP. Usually these games use UDP streams on random ports to communicate, so if both players are behind a NAT it can be a problem.
These chips are causing you Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?
The annoying thing about it is that applications (especially games!) are written these days assuming you're either directly connected or behind a uPNP router. I had a hell of a time trying to get C&C3 working over my BSD based router because it assumed I was using uPNP.
Dang. I got it to compile on FreeBSD 7 (with a bit of tweaking, there were a lot of assumptions about the locations of libraries) but it craps out with an X11 error when I try to start it.
One of the best arguments I've ever heard about Creationism is this:
Science is about understanding the world we live in. (Get them to agree on this, it should be easy)
If you took a modern day scientist and put him in a time machine set for 1000 years ago. When he arrived he would be able to teach the local scientists a world of knowledge. This is science in action, during those 1000 years we have learned a lot about the world and how it works.
Now, take a creationist and put him in the same time machine to go back 1000 years. What would he be able to teach the scholars of the era? Nothing. Creationism has discovered nothing in those 1000 years. That is why it is not a science.
Oh, and "Intelligent Design"? Everybody knows that is creationism, stop trying to bullshit me.
Don't try this on ID folks or people trying to get Creationism into the schools. They are immune to logic and will probably just attack you back with some nonsequitor. This argument is to be used on any rational people who you think might be swayed by the used car salesman pitch given by some ID folks because, as you noted, it does sound reasonable on the surface.
IMHO, it is a mistake to argue the tenants of evolution (solid though they may be), because the creationists will break out those stupid "gap" arguments and you'll be stuck in an endless cycle of proof and rebuttal. It's far better to just cut their legs out from under them and make it clear how creationism (and ID) are not science at all. They don't follow the scientific method and thus do not belong in a science classrom. In fact they are harmful in a science classroom because they confuse children as to what actually constitutes science. You don't want to spend the first month teaching the scientific method and then immediately start talking about something that is based on dogma with no observations, hypothesis, or even theories.
It's not exactly a tax break for the rich, it actually increases the taxes for everybody who doesn't send their kids to private school because you still have to fund the public schools and private schools never draw enough kids away from the system to actually lower the costs. It's basically a tax on the poor and middle class that goes to the rich.
The crazy logic that website uses hurts my brain. Most of the rebuttals read like timecube or are complete non-sequitors. Do you have an example of a good rebuttal on there that doesn't read like it was written by a crazy person? I really don't want to click through 5000 links trying to find the one coherent argument.
I wish I had modpoints to give you since the trolls appear to be beating your post down as best they can. I got suckered into the creationism trolls once on Slashdot, I'm not going to let it happen again.
Hint: Those crazy people who actually want evolution banned don't read Slashdot.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell CV is in this context. It appears to be some sort of resume or something. acronymfinder.com was of no help for a change.
I'm not sure I trust real world C++ news coming from Bjarne Stroustrup (sorry I mangled his name), I mean that's the guy who still thinks the C++ Template syntax is beautiful. Plus, it's entirely possible his perception is skewed a bit with regards to his own baby.
Exactly. The fact that the exit polling matched up with the precinct results makes the probability of vote fraud pretty low in my mind. I'm also willing to believe human error on the Ron Paul ticket because, hey, it's Ron Paul. He's a joke candidate anyway. The votes they put back on the ballot had no effect on the primary vote as a whole so any allegations of fraud would have to be modified to allegations of incompetent fraud.
The downside of CV transmissions is that they can't handle high torque very well. With a 30HP motor this isn't a problem, but it's the reason you don't see them in full size cars very often.
I think it's like the VW Microbus, the front crumple zone is actually the driver's legs.
I thought he was finally using his veto because the congress was in control of the Democrats again. It was pretty clear to me that the White House had a pretty firm grip on congressional Republicans and they never passed anything that didn't meet his approval beforehand. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing since it wastes everyone's time to have the president veto something and send it back to Congress.
Well, free accounts have pretty low limits on the amount of money you can purchase/sell in a month, so unless you're interested in laundering your money $20 at a time I don't think it's going to work very well. Plus, LL keeps records on all of those transactions so it's not a very good laundering service.
The problem with that plan is when someone checks their bank account, notices a problem, and the investigation comes right back to your systems before you have a chance to extract maximum damage. Unless of course you get put in charge of investigating the irregularity.
My guess is that they have backups, but it would have taken a considerable amount of time to restore 70 servers, and there's a nonzero chance that the backups for at least a few of them were broken.
I agree. Border agents will disagree though. Unless it's in a diplomatic immunity pouch, they tend to want to get their grubby hands on it. There are probably laws about this but the laws also let the border agents turn people away for any reason they feel like.
No, you are perfectly in your rights to refuse to decrypt your data. They'll just confiscate your laptop instead, or you can turn around and go back home.
Frankly, this seems untenable to me. What if you ship your data separately? To me it just seems like an extension of the policy where Border Guards can pretty much do whatever they want. As anybody who has had to do more than tell the guard you're only going over the border for a daytrip can attest, those guys don't care one whit about your privacy or anything like that. They have a job to stop certain things from entering the country and you're just an annoyance they have to deal with to get their job done.
Wow, I must not have achieved OO enlightenment yet, since to me OO languages have been basically procedural languages with forced abstraction. If you're not designing something procedurally with OO, how are you doing it? Do you design your programs functionally (everything is a method call, no iterating)? I have to admit that my only "OO Language" experiance is with C++ and Java (languages with OO like features like Perl don't count of course) so maybe I'm just out of the loop.
I've always thought that people who unabashedly claim that OO is for everything need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. While the extra layer of abstraction gives you a lot of flexibility and theoretically makes it easier to reuse the code (in practice you have to design something to be reusable in any language, random code from a program will almost always have to be modified if it was not designed with reusablility in mind in the first place, or it was trivial to begin with), there is also a cost in making the execution path more difficult to trace (especially with heavily threaded programs) and to introduce uncertainty in the program that doesn't exist with non-OO languages (virtual methods!). That said, I think the benefits outweigh the costs in large programs in general, but it's never good to ignore the weaknesses in your current approach, since only by knowing the weaknesses can you minimize them.
Also, I have never seen someone use a functional language outside of an academic setting. I know the last time I used one was in college, and while it was absolutely wonderful for the little toy program I built I thought that it was a lot harder to design the program originally and that it made the most tedious (but important!) part of programming (input verification, sanity checks, resource management) even more tedious and difficult. Admittedly, the language I was using was a toy language (Scheme) so maybe full blown Lisp solves these problems, but it was ridiculously hard to verify an input against a regular expression or other such mechanism in Scheme, especially if you were doing it a dozen times in your program. My professor deducted big points if he could formulate an input that could crash your program or produce bogus output though (and he just loved circular references in tree data, 8 bit input, letters instead of numbers, and input strings long enough to blow away most input buffers if you weren't careful).
IMHO, this is a problem with NTP. It's really hard to figure out if it's working or not and the documentation is obtuse and spends page after page going on about security features nobody wants to deal with (it's hard enough to get NTP working without the security stuff). While I admire the difficulty in getting clocks synchronized down to the picosecond over the internet, some work on the UI would be greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately, most of Alton's stuff is "up to four hours", which might well be a case of "the FDA is very very anal about this even though the odds of actually getting sick in this window are vanishingly small", but it rules out the make it in the morning option. I'm not even talking about 10 minute meals here, but if it takes longer than 90 minutes it just isn't practical for me.