Most existing captchas are weaker in some more trivial way so the porn trick isn't necessary. The reason it matters is that the porn attack is pretty much unstoppable (it's the grandmaster problem) and low-cost enough that if captchas got more popular and less weak in other ways it or something like it will be the attack of choice. Captchas are technological dead-end, though they can be used in the short term as a way to make your site slightly harder to spam than everyone else's, as long as you don't care about screwing over the blind, people not set up to take images, and well-behaved bots.
I couldn't find any pci cards for ST-506, but the ST-11R neweBay is pretty available. ISA bus motherboards capable of at least running modern software available too, there's lots of special-purpose ISA only hardware around to keep support levels tolerable.
It's worth noting that all the congressmen who received the "Antrax letters" had voted against the Patriot Act.
Well, it would be worth noting, if it were true. The anthrax letters were mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who voted for the Patriot Act, just like every other Senator except Russ Feingold.
No, unexpected() is called when a function violates its exception specification. Throwing an exception with no handler down the stack causes terminate() to be called directly, and doesn't even guarantee the stack is unwound first. terminate() can be overridden, too, but I doubt you could do anything more useful in it than log an error and panic.
1) Outlaw templates for memory reasons? Could you please tell me what exactly templates have to with runtime (and so with memory requirements)? I tell you: nothing. They are just rules for generating code. They may slow down compilation and increase memory requirements of the compiler only.
In practice, templates can result in redundant code being produced and increasing the size of the executable's image by quite a bit. Theoretically better compilers and/or more carefully written tempate code could fix this.
Those aren't hidden malloc()s. those temporary objects are being constructed on the stack, and the constructor wouldn't have any overhead at all if you weren't putting a cout in there... unless you're writing objects that are expensive to copy-construct and passing them around in ways that get them copied, in which case "don't do that".
try
do_foo()
do_next_foo()
do_foo3()//continue on here for 10 lines catch a//handle a catch b//handle b...
Why are you doing this, if you want to handle errors where they happen? Why not:
try
do_foo() catch a // handle a right when it happens
if (unfixable)
throw;// rethrow (or throw something else with throw x;) try
do_next_foo() catch b // handle b right when it happens // etc...
The equivalent of your error-return based code. Of course, in the real world, most exceptions don't need to be caught explictly as the only error-handling code is resource cleanup or rolling-back half-complete operations, for which you aught to be using destructors. That's where exceptions are more useful than just an arcane alternate syntax for doing the same thing.
You can senselessly dump all your error handling code in the middle of nowhere using return-value error codes, too, if you really want to.
I think that's a bit backwards; ordinary user applications can just terminate ungracefully, and the kernel will clean up after them (close all open files, free memory, etc) if a section of kernel code runs into a problem, it has to roll back everything to a sane state before returning to the caller if there's going to be any hope for the entire kernel to keep going (without leaking). I believe right now the linux kernel mostly does this with an elaborate system of gotos and return value checking that's pretty much exactly what C++ stack-unwinding does, just by hand.
Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime [...]
Great, now I have to vote for Bush, since a vote for Kerry will be an endorsement of this neo-prohibitionist MADD bullshit.
Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?
Because that's what teenagers do, break stupid laws. You could learn something from them.
The next time you use a bottle of Heinz ketchup (catsup) for your "freedom fries", check to see where it has been bottled. (Hint: it's probably not inside the U.S.)
My bottle of Heinz ketchup says
MFD. IN U.S.A. BT HEINZ NORTH AMERICA DIVISION OF H.J. HEINZ CO., L.P., PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
It looks like all this thing does is replace the hard drive. Even if you don't have a drive sitting around with your semi-old computer, they cost less than the $150 this does, and it'll probably work on a weaker system than a pentium with 64MB ram.
Or are you paying for the software on the flash drive, too?
10% or more of the U.S. population live without health insurance in a country that pays the most of any western nation, in GDP/capital. Most people from other parts of the world view this as a bit perverse.
I'm one of them (although I think it's more than 10%). I don't have health insurance because it costs me more than it is worth. Short of taking some random rich guy's money to buy me health insurance (which is just a way of wasting someone else's money instead of wasting mine), I can't imagine any government program changing that. Am I mistaken?
The heroin program in Switzerland was so successful that when the right-wing party raised a referendum to eliminate it, the program was supported by a large majority of the popular vote. Something like 90% of herion addicts will never kick the habit. Addicts on the program were able to hold down jobs and return to productivity.
You've got a point here, although it seems to me the simplest solution would be to legalize heroin.
Diplomacy isn't a euphemism for ass-kissing. Subtle and less-than-subtle threats of violence are one way of forcing the other side to negotiate. It's entirely possible that Bush's Axis-of-evil line will be counterproductive, but it's also possible that North Korea is/was under the mistaken impression that they can get away with anything because the US finds a war with them unthinkable, and Bush needed to bluntly state the opposite in public.
Kim Jong-il is basically arguing: "If you don't give me what I want, I'll do something that hurts us both. I won't care because I'm crazy, but you'll care because you're rational and have more to lose." Bush has two choices for a response: "Ok, you win, we'll give you what you want if you play nice", and "In case you weren't paying attention, I'm crazy too. Make my day."
Bush has chosen the latter, and now there's a stalemate of both sides making improbable threats to back up their demands. Eventually one side will back down, and negotiate from a huge disadvantage.
No, as another poster said, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, declared nuclear powers (the US, UK, France, China, Russia) get to keep their weapons, non-nuclear powers agree not to develop nuclear weapons (and to allow IAEA inspections to make sure they're complying) in return for access to non-weapon nuclear materials/science/reactors, etc. and vague promises that nuclear weapons will not be used against non-nuclear states. NPT nations are not allowed to give nuclear technology to non-NPT nations.
Iran, Iraq and North Korea signed the NPT so they are not allowed to make nukes. (North Korea has since claimed not to be part of the NPT anymore, I don't know if the treaty allows that)
India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Israel refused to sign the treaty, so they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons on their own, and have no obligations to the IAEA. South Africa eventually gave up its nuclear weapons and joined the NPT.
I'm ready to bet that there will be a public shooting ala columbine soon with an assault rifle. Wanna bet 100$ that it will happen in the US within one year of the lift?
Too vague, and doesn't actually require an unbanned weapon to be used...
I'd take that bet, if it were made reasonably specific. How about this: "before Sept 14, 2005, there will be a shooting in the US where one private citizen kills more than 5 unarmed private citizens in less than 24 hours, using a weapon legally purchased, that was manufactured or imported after Sept. 13, 2004 that would have been illegal to manufacture or import on Sept 10, 2004"?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
If you can ban bombs, you can ban types of guns. There's no constitutional prefernce to one type of weapon over the other.
The 2nd Amendment says 'arms'. At the time this was written, that meant ordinary infantry weapons--swords, muskets, bows, spears, whatever. The government can regulate nuclear (and conventional) bombs and aircraft carriers in 2004 for the same reason it could regulate cannon and warships in the 1790s.
Picture a bunch of citizens running around with Ak-47s trying to take on the entire US military. That' looks like...
IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN!
The US isn't even trying to control Afghanistan. The only reason the US even has a chance to win in Iraq is that the anti-US insurgents are only popular in small parts of the country.
[[I won't even bring up the fact that only militias have the right to bear arms, not citizens. -- that's a huge flamewar right there]]
That's a good plan. Not bringing that up will greatly reduce the chance of making a fool of yourself.
That said, please note that I can't wait to go buy an M16!!! They are SO FREAKIN' COOL.
M16s are fully automatic weapons that weren't legal before the ban and won't be legal afterwards. There are civilian semi-auto clones of the M16 that have been availiable all through the ban period, it's only illegal to make new ones not sell or own them, and they were stockpiled so heavily that there's still no shortage 10 years later. There's no need to wait, unless some gun store is holding a post-ban sale just to celebrate.
The misaligned baseline look is an artifact of scanning a document at an angle. Text scanned at low resolution looks like that, including lots of pdf documents made from recently produced stuff that was extrememly unlikely to be printed using a golf-ball printer.
He was the guy who got the Canadian company to ship food from various places to Iraq back when that's what the U.N. was all about. [...] and he was going to get 10%. [...] Since then he's sold baby formula to Africa, used cars, and now he's in Kuwait organizing shipping to Iraq once again.
So, are there any other fringe benefits of being the nephew of Satan?
Yes. There has to be a majority for the house to pick a president, and if they fail to before the previous president's term ends (they have from noon on Jan 3, when their term and session begin, to noon on Jan 20, when the new presidential term begins), normal presidential succession decides who will be acting president until they work it out.
In any winner-takes all race, only the marginal voter (the hypothetical one guy who puts the winner 50%, or whatever the threshold is in that election) has a vote that really decides the election. Nobody else's vote, for or against the winner, matters.
Voting for one guy to be president insures that voting will be an all-or-nothing proposition, and there's no way to change how that one guy is picked that will change that.
Note that the electoral college system does not require that all votes go to one man, in Maine and Nebraska they can be split, and there's a referendum in Colorado that will change to proportionally split it's 9 votes.
Slashdot Mirror
Most existing captchas are weaker in some more trivial way so the porn trick isn't necessary. The reason it matters is that the porn attack is pretty much unstoppable (it's the grandmaster problem) and low-cost enough that if captchas got more popular and less weak in other ways it or something like it will be the attack of choice. Captchas are technological dead-end, though they can be used in the short term as a way to make your site slightly harder to spam than everyone else's, as long as you don't care about screwing over the blind, people not set up to take images, and well-behaved bots.
I couldn't find any pci cards for ST-506, but the ST-11R new eBay is pretty available. ISA bus motherboards capable of at least running modern software available too, there's lots of special-purpose ISA only hardware around to keep support levels tolerable.
It's worth noting that all the congressmen who received the "Antrax letters" had voted against the Patriot Act.
Well, it would be worth noting, if it were true. The anthrax letters were mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who voted for the Patriot Act, just like every other Senator except Russ Feingold.
Brooms aren't terribly useful on wall-to-wall carpet.
"some kind of function pointer system" is the usual answer. you basicly roll your own C++ virtual-function table.
No, unexpected() is called when a function violates its exception specification. Throwing an exception with no handler down the stack causes terminate() to be called directly, and doesn't even guarantee the stack is unwound first. terminate() can be overridden, too, but I doubt you could do anything more useful in it than log an error and panic.
1) Outlaw templates for memory reasons? Could you please tell me what exactly templates have to with runtime (and so with memory requirements)? I tell you: nothing. They are just rules for generating code. They may slow down compilation and increase memory requirements of the compiler only.
In practice, templates can result in redundant code being produced and increasing the size of the executable's image by quite a bit. Theoretically better compilers and/or more carefully written tempate code could fix this.
Those aren't hidden malloc()s. those temporary objects are being constructed on the stack, and the constructor wouldn't have any overhead at all if you weren't putting a cout in there... unless you're writing objects that are expensive to copy-construct and passing them around in ways that get them copied, in which case "don't do that".
A pointer to what though?
I think you just compare the virtual-table pointer that's already in the object. same virtual-table, same dynamic type.
You can senselessly dump all your error handling code in the middle of nowhere using return-value error codes, too, if you really want to.
I think that's a bit backwards; ordinary user applications can just terminate ungracefully, and the kernel will clean up after them (close all open files, free memory, etc) if a section of kernel code runs into a problem, it has to roll back everything to a sane state before returning to the caller if there's going to be any hope for the entire kernel to keep going (without leaking). I believe right now the linux kernel mostly does this with an elaborate system of gotos and return value checking that's pretty much exactly what C++ stack-unwinding does, just by hand.
A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime [...]
Great, now I have to vote for Bush, since a vote for Kerry will be an endorsement of this neo-prohibitionist MADD bullshit.
Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?
Because that's what teenagers do, break stupid laws. You could learn something from them.
The next time you use a bottle of Heinz ketchup (catsup) for your "freedom fries", check to see where it has been bottled. (Hint: it's probably not inside the U.S.)
My bottle of Heinz ketchup says
MFD. IN U.S.A. BT HEINZ NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION OF H.J. HEINZ CO., L.P., PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
Snopes agrees.
It looks like all this thing does is replace the hard drive. Even if you don't have a drive sitting around with your semi-old computer, they cost less than the $150 this does, and it'll probably work on a weaker system than a pentium with 64MB ram.
Or are you paying for the software on the flash drive, too?
All gunpowders have oxygen in them, and will combust just fine in an oxygen-free atmosphere (or in a vacuum for that matter)
10% or more of the U.S. population live without health insurance in a country that pays the most of any western nation, in GDP/capital. Most people from other parts of the world view this as a bit perverse.
I'm one of them (although I think it's more than 10%). I don't have health insurance because it costs me more than it is worth. Short of taking some random rich guy's money to buy me health insurance (which is just a way of wasting someone else's money instead of wasting mine), I can't imagine any government program changing that. Am I mistaken?
The heroin program in Switzerland was so successful that when the right-wing party raised a referendum to eliminate it, the program was supported by a large majority of the popular vote. Something like 90% of herion addicts will never kick the habit. Addicts on the program were able to hold down jobs and return to productivity.
You've got a point here, although it seems to me the simplest solution would be to legalize heroin.
Diplomacy isn't a euphemism for ass-kissing. Subtle and less-than-subtle threats of violence are one way of forcing the other side to negotiate. It's entirely possible that Bush's Axis-of-evil line will be counterproductive, but it's also possible that North Korea is/was under the mistaken impression that they can get away with anything because the US finds a war with them unthinkable, and Bush needed to bluntly state the opposite in public.
Kim Jong-il is basically arguing: "If you don't give me what I want, I'll do something that hurts us both. I won't care because I'm crazy, but you'll care because you're rational and have more to lose." Bush has two choices for a response: "Ok, you win, we'll give you what you want if you play nice", and "In case you weren't paying attention, I'm crazy too. Make my day."
Bush has chosen the latter, and now there's a stalemate of both sides making improbable threats to back up their demands. Eventually one side will back down, and negotiate from a huge disadvantage.
No, as another poster said, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, declared nuclear powers (the US, UK, France, China, Russia) get to keep their weapons, non-nuclear powers agree not to develop nuclear weapons (and to allow IAEA inspections to make sure they're complying) in return for access to non-weapon nuclear materials/science/reactors, etc. and vague promises that nuclear weapons will not be used against non-nuclear states. NPT nations are not allowed to give nuclear technology to non-NPT nations.
Iran, Iraq and North Korea signed the NPT so they are not allowed to make nukes. (North Korea has since claimed not to be part of the NPT anymore, I don't know if the treaty allows that)
India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Israel refused to sign the treaty, so they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons on their own, and have no obligations to the IAEA. South Africa eventually gave up its nuclear weapons and joined the NPT.
I'm ready to bet that there will be a public shooting ala columbine soon with an assault rifle. Wanna bet 100$ that it will happen in the US within one year of the lift?
Too vague, and doesn't actually require an unbanned weapon to be used...
I'd take that bet, if it were made reasonably specific. How about this: "before Sept 14, 2005, there will be a shooting in the US where one private citizen kills more than 5 unarmed private citizens in less than 24 hours, using a weapon legally purchased, that was manufactured or imported after Sept. 13, 2004 that would have been illegal to manufacture or import on Sept 10, 2004"?
If you can ban bombs, you can ban types of guns. There's no constitutional prefernce to one type of weapon over the other.
The 2nd Amendment says 'arms'. At the time this was written, that meant ordinary infantry weapons--swords, muskets, bows, spears, whatever. The government can regulate nuclear (and conventional) bombs and aircraft carriers in 2004 for the same reason it could regulate cannon and warships in the 1790s.
Picture a bunch of citizens running around with Ak-47s trying to take on the entire US military. That' looks like...
IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN!
The US isn't even trying to control Afghanistan. The only reason the US even has a chance to win in Iraq is that the anti-US insurgents are only popular in small parts of the country.
[[I won't even bring up the fact that only militias have the right to bear arms, not citizens. -- that's a huge flamewar right there]]
That's a good plan. Not bringing that up will greatly reduce the chance of making a fool of yourself.
That said, please note that I can't wait to go buy an M16!!! They are SO FREAKIN' COOL.
M16s are fully automatic weapons that weren't legal before the ban and won't be legal afterwards. There are civilian semi-auto clones of the M16 that have been availiable all through the ban period, it's only illegal to make new ones not sell or own them, and they were stockpiled so heavily that there's still no shortage 10 years later. There's no need to wait, unless some gun store is holding a post-ban sale just to celebrate.
The misaligned baseline look is an artifact of scanning a document at an angle. Text scanned at low resolution looks like that, including lots of pdf documents made from recently produced stuff that was extrememly unlikely to be printed using a golf-ball printer.
He was the guy who got the Canadian company to ship food from various places to Iraq back when that's what the U.N. was all about. [...] and he was going to get 10%. [...] Since then he's sold baby formula to Africa, used cars, and now he's in Kuwait organizing shipping to Iraq once again.
So, are there any other fringe benefits of being the nephew of Satan?
Yes. There has to be a majority for the house to pick a president, and if they fail to before the previous president's term ends (they have from noon on Jan 3, when their term and session begin, to noon on Jan 20, when the new presidential term begins), normal presidential succession decides who will be acting president until they work it out.
In any winner-takes all race, only the marginal voter (the hypothetical one guy who puts the winner 50%, or whatever the threshold is in that election) has a vote that really decides the election. Nobody else's vote, for or against the winner, matters.
Voting for one guy to be president insures that voting will be an all-or-nothing proposition, and there's no way to change how that one guy is picked that will change that.
Note that the electoral college system does not require that all votes go to one man, in Maine and Nebraska they can be split, and there's a referendum in Colorado that will change to proportionally split it's 9 votes.