Why is it kids who were spoilt rotten think that I had a rotten childhood. If you wanna live through your kids, go for it, but it's society that is going to have to deal with the little bastards when they grow up. Like I'm having to deal with you right now.
Well duh, stealing anything from a competitor is pointless. It's not like software developers come up with big giant secrets that are the lifeblood of the company that, if revealed, would lead to the downfall of mankind. It's only pointy headed managers who think that. My company could give its competitors our source code and there'd be nothing they could do with it. That's the thing about copyright law.
Only if you've lost unit tests or something else that you don't distribute. If 100% of your source is included in class files that you can get access to you can retreive 100% of your source will little to no effort. Naming local variables and writing comments is no effort. Now native executables, that's a different story.. there's so much information missing that the reverse engineering effort is significant, even for the original developers. Oh, and BTW, we weren't talking about recovering lost source code, we were talking about source code "security", or in the case of unobsfucated java class files (and.NET) the lack there-of. But I do appreciate a good gab about source code recovery, so thanks.
The only thing missing is the names of local variables and the comments. If you're distributing your program unobsfucated (and studies have shown that 99% of companies do) then they already have your source code.
When my generation was growing up, our parents did whatever the hell they felt like doing and the kids came along for the ride. Nowadays parents spend all weekend with their kids. School holidays are a "nightmare" because they feel the need to take their annual holidays from work at the same time and take the kids out or away on vacation. That Atari 400 you had, do you remember what time of year you got it? Christmas right? Or maybe your birthday? Or maybe a combined birthday/christmas present? That was because your parents didn't have much money right? Wrong. It's because our parents didn't spend 98% of the salary on buying shit for us kids. They had their own lives. When us kids asked if they could have a new bike, or some other toy, our parents openly laughed at us and told us to save up our pocket money or see if the neighbours wanted any chores done, or wait until our birthday/christmas. These days a kid just has to whine loud enough and parents cave in. So to answer your question, when's the best time to expose kids to technology? After they've begged you for a computer for at least six months or a year. Then buy em a cheap second hand one and tell em to make do. Cause if you don't they'll just get bored with it and next they'll be demanding an xbox and an ipod and a psp.
Uhuh, so you're suggesting that you receive no benefit from there being a fresh batch of teenagers entering the workforce every year. We all enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries and, as any mathematician will tell you, its a game for the young. Maybe someday we'll reverse the aging process and the effect children have on society will become negative, but until then we can either continue our hand-off, see no evil, hear no evil approach to introducing children to society or we can encourage parents to utilize the services of a professional child carer - and no, I'm not talking about a school teacher!
The whole concept of marriage is outdated and unsuitable for modern life. We don't live on farms anymore. Our children are not free labor to harvest our crops anymore. As much as I hate to admit it, children are a public good. They should be supported by taxes.
You hardly need a perpetual motion machine for that. Just some 98% efficient solar panels or a form of nuclear power that uses unregulated minerals would do it. It's funny, when I first learned how nuclear reactors worked as a kid I was shocked at how rediculously primitive they are. I remember asking my school teacher why they had to heat water and couldn't just generate electricity directly. Later in life I learned even moreso how primitive nuclear technology is.. we don't even control the emission of nuetrons, they just pop out randomly and we try to soak them up so the reaction doesn't get too hot or run out.
Well, ya know, if NASA were run by the military we'd already have nuclear-fission powered spacecraft keeping dutiful watch of the skies. Maybe in a few decades time but it'll still all be robots I'm thinking.
Bwahahaha.. you poor son of bitch. The only people Saddam had killed was politicians who failed to recognise his power or Kurds, who have been planning an uprising for decades. Ordinary citizens of Iraq were free to live their life as they pleased. The vast majority of them considered themselves westerners. Now the Muslim extremists are back in power and this time they have the US army to back them up. Well done.
I live in one of those countries that has had its political system so thoroughly gamed that no opinion held by an individual can ever make it up to those in power. I believe they call them western countries now.
And why is this bad? perhaps you mean "under saddam women couldn't even work"?.
No. I meant what I said. Under Saddam a woman could hold a job, walk around without wearing clothes head to toe, talk to men other than her husband or brothers, and all without being harrassed by government officials. Whereas in every other country in the Muslim world tourists are threatened and attacked if they happen to be women and don't cover up or dare to look a man in the eye. Iraq was the exception to the Muslim rule and thanks to democracy it now looks set to fall into line.
Now I'm sure your religious study has taught you a different outlook on this issue, but by western thought no definition of freedom includes receiving threats and attacks for being a woman in public.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's a rocket club posing as a company for liability and tax purposes :) But they're having fun and that's all that matters.
it's popular enough already.
Why is it kids who were spoilt rotten think that I had a rotten childhood. If you wanna live through your kids, go for it, but it's society that is going to have to deal with the little bastards when they grow up. Like I'm having to deal with you right now.
I dont know what you're talking about and I'm thinking it's because you don't either.
Well duh, stealing anything from a competitor is pointless. It's not like software developers come up with big giant secrets that are the lifeblood of the company that, if revealed, would lead to the downfall of mankind. It's only pointy headed managers who think that. My company could give its competitors our source code and there'd be nothing they could do with it. That's the thing about copyright law.
Only if you've lost unit tests or something else that you don't distribute. If 100% of your source is included in class files that you can get access to you can retreive 100% of your source will little to no effort. Naming local variables and writing comments is no effort. Now native executables, that's a different story.. there's so much information missing that the reverse engineering effort is significant, even for the original developers. Oh, and BTW, we weren't talking about recovering lost source code, we were talking about source code "security", or in the case of unobsfucated java class files (and .NET) the lack there-of. But I do appreciate a good gab about source code recovery, so thanks.
The only thing missing is the names of local variables and the comments. If you're distributing your program unobsfucated (and studies have shown that 99% of companies do) then they already have your source code.
When my generation was growing up, our parents did whatever the hell they felt like doing and the kids came along for the ride. Nowadays parents spend all weekend with their kids. School holidays are a "nightmare" because they feel the need to take their annual holidays from work at the same time and take the kids out or away on vacation. That Atari 400 you had, do you remember what time of year you got it? Christmas right? Or maybe your birthday? Or maybe a combined birthday/christmas present? That was because your parents didn't have much money right? Wrong. It's because our parents didn't spend 98% of the salary on buying shit for us kids. They had their own lives. When us kids asked if they could have a new bike, or some other toy, our parents openly laughed at us and told us to save up our pocket money or see if the neighbours wanted any chores done, or wait until our birthday/christmas. These days a kid just has to whine loud enough and parents cave in. So to answer your question, when's the best time to expose kids to technology? After they've begged you for a computer for at least six months or a year. Then buy em a cheap second hand one and tell em to make do. Cause if you don't they'll just get bored with it and next they'll be demanding an xbox and an ipod and a psp.
Uhuh, so you're suggesting that you receive no benefit from there being a fresh batch of teenagers entering the workforce every year. We all enjoy the benefits of scientific discoveries and, as any mathematician will tell you, its a game for the young. Maybe someday we'll reverse the aging process and the effect children have on society will become negative, but until then we can either continue our hand-off, see no evil, hear no evil approach to introducing children to society or we can encourage parents to utilize the services of a professional child carer - and no, I'm not talking about a school teacher!
And the rest of society will end up paying for your half-assed parenting.
The whole concept of marriage is outdated and unsuitable for modern life. We don't live on farms anymore. Our children are not free labor to harvest our crops anymore. As much as I hate to admit it, children are a public good. They should be supported by taxes.
That's how it's spelt in the dialect of english I speak. And according to Google, there's about 1,540,000 of us who spell it that way.
I never do that, but if you'd like to see me in a costume you have only to ask.
You hardly need a perpetual motion machine for that. Just some 98% efficient solar panels or a form of nuclear power that uses unregulated minerals would do it. It's funny, when I first learned how nuclear reactors worked as a kid I was shocked at how rediculously primitive they are. I remember asking my school teacher why they had to heat water and couldn't just generate electricity directly. Later in life I learned even moreso how primitive nuclear technology is.. we don't even control the emission of nuetrons, they just pop out randomly and we try to soak them up so the reaction doesn't get too hot or run out.
How about every one of the binutils.. last time I checked there was more than 50.
Hey! I resemble that remark.
As the evidence shows, it doesn't make it all that much more efficient.
Call me crazy, but why bother coding it then? Isn't the trusted stability and consistency of glibc malloc() worth more than a minor speed increase?
Well, ya know, if NASA were run by the military we'd already have nuclear-fission powered spacecraft keeping dutiful watch of the skies. Maybe in a few decades time but it'll still all be robots I'm thinking.
Shut your hole, ya God damn Microsoft spy.
Bwahahaha.. you poor son of bitch. The only people Saddam had killed was politicians who failed to recognise his power or Kurds, who have been planning an uprising for decades. Ordinary citizens of Iraq were free to live their life as they pleased. The vast majority of them considered themselves westerners. Now the Muslim extremists are back in power and this time they have the US army to back them up. Well done.
You understand it as such because you didn't even read the article. Now shut your hole.
I live in one of those countries that has had its political system so thoroughly gamed that no opinion held by an individual can ever make it up to those in power. I believe they call them western countries now.
And why is this bad? perhaps you mean "under saddam women couldn't even work"?.
No. I meant what I said. Under Saddam a woman could hold a job, walk around without wearing clothes head to toe, talk to men other than her husband or brothers, and all without being harrassed by government officials. Whereas in every other country in the Muslim world tourists are threatened and attacked if they happen to be women and don't cover up or dare to look a man in the eye. Iraq was the exception to the Muslim rule and thanks to democracy it now looks set to fall into line.
Now I'm sure your religious study has taught you a different outlook on this issue, but by western thought no definition of freedom includes receiving threats and attacks for being a woman in public.
I'm sorry, what informed decisions do you have to make?