Yeah...md5 is not "compression" of any sort... in fact hashes are the direct opposite (well in my laymans expression of it), they should bear as little relation as possible to the inputs.
Given the finite nature of hashes and the (relatively) infinite possibilities...there are an infinite amount of things that could possibly result in that particular hash. You may have to consume the entire matter of the universe several times over to count them.
Improving the circumstances of your existence is self-improvement, and self-improvement is, IMHO, compulsory....
On the other hand, you shouldn't be an ass while you're doing it. If slacking in your cushy white-collar job means some worthless paperwork won't be done on time, then great. If you are a doctor and you slack, may you rot in hell.
That is exactly what I mean. It is one thing to slack because to do otherwise would be equally pointless. It is another thing to slack just because you are disgruntled with your lot and don't want to find anything better to do, which just means everybody else has to pull your load. At that point, the least you could do is just quit. There is something I find morally repugnant about doing honest work BADLY (which is not necessarily to say I mind doing dishonest crap-work badly). For example, although I lean left and support unions, I just get a terrible odor from intentional "slowdowns". You either work, or you don't work in protest. You don't be dishonest about it and fake like your doing hard work but really just are calculatingly slacking.
Slacking must be principled. If you have a pointless job and are going nowhere, ok, slack. On the other hand, if you have a white collar job that allows you to sit in a padded adjustible height chair and browse the internet, you are probably already better off than the vast majority of humanity. It means that some other chump has to pick up the slack because you decide to take out your ennui about the dismal nihilism of life in your workplace instead of confining such gestures to solitary binge drinking on weekends, like the rest of us schmoes do.
And if you are going to slack, slack productively! Become an activist or a political grafitti artist or something so the rest of us slobs have something amusing to look out on through our windows.
No, we have lots of Television and Radio. We have two types of traditional Radio (AM/FM) but we also have "internet radio" (recurse on that!).
Similarly we have Television that is broadcast, mind-bendingly over Radio waves, as well as Television over coaxial-cables and Television through some digital medium, generically called video.
I think the Radio analogy is the better of the two because we can say "there is a radio broadcast" without having to capitalize Radio...as it is understood that when you use the term generically, you mean the whole darn concept. Just like when I say "internet worm" I don't usually have to specify Internet because it is obvious I am talking about any and all "internet".
1) Reliable line workers who have to provide fixed features and solve well understood problems within some time limit to satisfy a business need. These guys don't [have to] do anything particularly innovative but instead consume the innovations others create. I see these in mostly administrative systems.
2) Those who actually create new, theoretical solutions and frameworks, and aren't necessarily responsible for pushing a given product out the door.
The former you can automate to some extent, which is where drag and drop and automated framework integration and tools makes sense.
In your scenario I would presume it would be developer #2 creating the library for developer #1. It's typically harder to create a good reusable library than to simply use one. Perhaps #2 is the engine and car designer vs. the assembler. I don't know, I didn't plan on my analogy having to go that far:p
this is simple - it's the difference between the mass production line worker, and a master craftsman.
It would be foolish to say that there is no place whatsoever for one or the other type of worker in the programming ecology (extrapolate this analogy to society and economics at your own risk).
What is interesting to me is dynamic optimization of long-running processes through a dynamic jit/unjit. Java has one, but as far as I know Mono/.Net does not (all the compilation is up-front, not while it runs).
I think a lot of these performance comparisons will become moot in the face of a runtime optimizer because who's static optimizations are better than others' won't matter when you have an optimizer that operates at runtime and dynamically inspects what code is actually being executed and optimizes that. I sure hope Mono/.NET get a dynamic runtime optimizer. It will make all these arguments pointless.
Huh? IronPython is even faster that the normal C impl, so I guess it was more a contest of the Parrot VM than it is php vs. python. Don't worry, I have faith Parrot will be as good as the other VMs (Java, Mono) and at least on par with, but most probably faster, than a hand-rolled php engine.
Wow, 11:1 glide ratio...that's impressive. From the looks of them, 747s and 777s look like rocks with wings. I would have expected them to just fall out of the sky if they lost power. I guess maybe I'll feel "safer" now.
...because if it is hard to write the documentation, that is a clue that the software itself perhaps isn't designed in the best manner...and we couldn't have shocking revelations like that now could we...
Hi, thanks for (potentially) clearing this up. P2P does indeed make sense for *lookup* and *rendezvous* but little or no sense for direct communication. Most of the VOIP stacks I have looked at (yeah, I forget all the obscure acronyms and spec numbers), deal a lot with how to just arrange the call in the first place...the rest is just cake.
Why would you want to route point to point calls through a peer to peer network when you can just set up your own personal (or shared) ventrilo server and talk to anybody you want? Routing a latency-sensitive application through p2p just seems dumb.
Yes I know. More concisely it can be said that there is no private property except for the grace of government who protects you from maurauding bandits and pillagers. So it is not purely a god-given right, but a contract with the rest of society. As such, there are reasons why society would not allow you to 1) destroy property that might otherwise be useful to society (e.g. currency) 2) allow you to "horde" property which you yourself are making no legitimate use of. The same thing could be said about Bill Gates buying gigantic amounts of land and destroying them for fun. Technically it's "his property" right?
Considering that electronic copies are esentially free, there is no such thing as rarity, and the idea of a "rare" digital copy being "scarce" is farcical. THAT YOU ARE NOT SELLING IT IS AN ADMISSION THAT IT IS NOT WORTH MUCH TO YOU. If it was really worth something throw up a quick site and charge a cheap price so people can download the old game. I really have little sympathy for the argument "well, we're not actually doing anything with this but sitting on it and preventing others from having it but WAIT IT'S OURS ALL OURS MY PRECIOUS!"
Something to think about: why (philosophically) is destroying money (property that YOU OWN) a crime?
Title 18 United States Code, Section 333
Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
I didn't miss anything. I loved it. Interesting lies are still more interesting than boring truths.
In fact I think this sort of cultural hijacking and mixture is really neat. But it should be seen for what it is - an amusing lie. I sure would hate to burn lots of time trying to figure something out and then discover it was just carefully organized astroturfing and I was just used as a tool. The fundamental question is of participation in such cultural creation - can you only consume (as in a big trick to get you to see a movie or buy a product) or can you also produce and redistribute.
I agree the Evan Chan story was better than the movie which went completely insane about 2/3 in.
Yeah, my instant gut reaction is that "this is all astroturfing and you are getting dumber by even thinking about it". It's sort of unfortunate to live with this perpetual skepticism. You know when chernobyl motorbike lady broke? Well it was sent around the office, and I made a comment about never being able to trust anything off the internet, and guess what, that was a hoax too.
I'm with George on this one. While you potentially COULD spend MASSIVE man hours inventing rube-goldberg schemes to do all sorts of reverse proxying, I think security-through-brokenness is not a wise direction. Once the internet is fixed, THEN proper security can be again placed on it (there is nothing preventing people from running firewalls on IPv6 after all).
If my car doors are stuck, I don't recline in comfort and muse on how "secure" my car is. I get it fixed and then install a security system.
Aren't "frequent" flyers the ones we care the least about? I mean, if you are dead from hijacking a plane, you typically don't go on many more flights.
"Roger, this passenger has taken 2000 flights in the last 10 years...you know...I have this suspicion he is UP TO SOMETHING!"
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah...md5 is not "compression" of any sort... in fact hashes are the direct opposite (well in my laymans expression of it), they should bear as little relation as possible to the inputs.
Given the finite nature of hashes and the (relatively) infinite possibilities...there are an infinite amount of things that could possibly result in that particular hash. You may have to consume the entire matter of the universe several times over to count them.
So no, it ain't gonna happen.
Slacking must be principled. If you have a pointless job and are going nowhere, ok, slack. On the other hand, if you have a white collar job that allows you to sit in a padded adjustible height chair and browse the internet, you are probably already better off than the vast majority of humanity. It means that some other chump has to pick up the slack because you decide to take out your ennui about the dismal nihilism of life in your workplace instead of confining such gestures to solitary binge drinking on weekends, like the rest of us schmoes do.
And if you are going to slack, slack productively! Become an activist or a political grafitti artist or something so the rest of us slobs have something amusing to look out on through our windows.
Well, maybe he was talking about those disagreeable Old Europe countries, not the amicable New Europe countries that have such bubbly dispositions.
No, we have lots of Television and Radio. We have two types of traditional Radio (AM/FM) but we also have "internet radio" (recurse on that!).
Similarly we have Television that is broadcast, mind-bendingly over Radio waves, as well as Television over coaxial-cables and Television through some digital medium, generically called video.
I think the Radio analogy is the better of the two because we can say "there is a radio broadcast" without having to capitalize Radio...as it is understood that when you use the term generically, you mean the whole darn concept. Just like when I say "internet worm" I don't usually have to specify Internet because it is obvious I am talking about any and all "internet".
Well, I see two classes of programmers:
:p
1) Reliable line workers who have to provide fixed features and solve well understood problems within some time limit to satisfy a business need. These guys don't [have to] do anything particularly innovative but instead consume the innovations others create. I see these in mostly administrative systems.
2) Those who actually create new, theoretical solutions and frameworks, and aren't necessarily responsible for pushing a given product out the door.
The former you can automate to some extent, which is where drag and drop and automated framework integration and tools makes sense.
In your scenario I would presume it would be developer #2 creating the library for developer #1. It's typically harder to create a good reusable library than to simply use one. Perhaps #2 is the engine and car designer vs. the assembler. I don't know, I didn't plan on my analogy having to go that far
this is simple - it's the difference between the mass production line worker, and a master craftsman.
It would be foolish to say that there is no place whatsoever for one or the other type of worker in the programming ecology (extrapolate this analogy to society and economics at your own risk).
Nurse we need the defibrillator stat! We're about to lose this joke!
What is interesting to me is dynamic optimization of long-running processes through a dynamic jit/unjit. Java has one, but as far as I know Mono/.Net does not (all the compilation is up-front, not while it runs).
I think a lot of these performance comparisons will become moot in the face of a runtime optimizer because who's static optimizations are better than others' won't matter when you have an optimizer that operates at runtime and dynamically inspects what code is actually being executed and optimizes that. I sure hope Mono/.NET get a dynamic runtime optimizer. It will make all these arguments pointless.
woops, confoozled my guido-van-rossums with my rasmus-lerdorfs...
Huh? IronPython is even faster that the normal C impl, so I guess it was more a contest of the Parrot VM than it is php vs. python. Don't worry, I have faith Parrot will be as good as the other VMs (Java, Mono) and at least on par with, but most probably faster, than a hand-rolled php engine.
Wow, 11:1 glide ratio...that's impressive. From the looks of them, 747s and 777s look like rocks with wings. I would have expected them to just fall out of the sky if they lost power. I guess maybe I'll feel "safer" now.
AAAAa aaagh...get out of heeeere! you duplicate!</Mya-Rudolph-Impersonating-Donatella-Ve rsace>
Have you tried beatings? If it doesn't work, at least it's exercise.
Well, for you that is.
...because if it is hard to write the documentation, that is a clue that the software itself perhaps isn't designed in the best manner...and we couldn't have shocking revelations like that now could we...
Hi, thanks for (potentially) clearing this up. P2P does indeed make sense for *lookup* and *rendezvous* but little or no sense for direct communication. Most of the VOIP stacks I have looked at (yeah, I forget all the obscure acronyms and spec numbers), deal a lot with how to just arrange the call in the first place...the rest is just cake.
Why would you want to route point to point calls through a peer to peer network when you can just set up your own personal (or shared) ventrilo server and talk to anybody you want? Routing a latency-sensitive application through p2p just seems dumb.
Yes I know. More concisely it can be said that there is no private property except for the grace of government who protects you from maurauding bandits and pillagers. So it is not purely a god-given right, but a contract with the rest of society. As such, there are reasons why society would not allow you to 1) destroy property that might otherwise be useful to society (e.g. currency) 2) allow you to "horde" property which you yourself are making no legitimate use of. The same thing could be said about Bill Gates buying gigantic amounts of land and destroying them for fun. Technically it's "his property" right?
Something to think about: why (philosophically) is destroying money (property that YOU OWN) a crime?
"And in your cynicism, you missed"
I didn't miss anything. I loved it. Interesting lies are still more interesting than boring truths.
In fact I think this sort of cultural hijacking and mixture is really neat. But it should be seen for what it is - an amusing lie. I sure would hate to burn lots of time trying to figure something out and then discover it was just carefully organized astroturfing and I was just used as a tool. The fundamental question is of participation in such cultural creation - can you only consume (as in a big trick to get you to see a movie or buy a product) or can you also produce and redistribute.
I agree the Evan Chan story was better than the movie which went completely insane about 2/3 in.
slashback
article
Yeah, my instant gut reaction is that "this is all astroturfing and you are getting dumber by even thinking about it". It's sort of unfortunate to live with this perpetual skepticism. You know when chernobyl motorbike lady broke? Well it was sent around the office, and I made a comment about never being able to trust anything off the internet, and guess what, that was a hoax too.
I'm with George on this one. While you potentially COULD spend MASSIVE man hours inventing rube-goldberg schemes to do all sorts of reverse proxying, I think security-through-brokenness is not a wise direction. Once the internet is fixed, THEN proper security can be again placed on it (there is nothing preventing people from running firewalls on IPv6 after all).
If my car doors are stuck, I don't recline in comfort and muse on how "secure" my car is. I get it fixed and then install a security system.
oh no, a threat from a slashdotter...i'm sure the secret service is trembling
Aren't "frequent" flyers the ones we care the least about? I mean, if you are dead from hijacking a plane, you typically don't go on many more flights.
"Roger, this passenger has taken 2000 flights in the last 10 years...you know...I have this suspicion he is UP TO SOMETHING!"