Incompatibilities are disappearing at an alarming rate. Nowadays it's perfectly possible to develop a complex script on FF (appealing because of Firebug) and expect it to work with minimal if any modification on IE and Opera. Sure there are browser-specific functions, but they are almost invariably easy to avoid; the only real exceptions I can think of are different XML DOM methods, especially WRT namespaces.
Compare it to the days of IE5.5 vs Netscape 6 (the worst browser ever released) vs Netscape 4.7 and you can see what huge progress has been made.
Wait a minute...so the wife has to quit her job due to cock-based time constraints, and also the husband has to clean each and every cock.
Well surely that implies he'll not have time to work either? So who's going to earn money to feed them and pay the mortgage? I assume it's the African-Americans mentioned in the story - if so, why not mention this benevolence in the story - surely it's a mitigating factor? Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect the telling of this story has a racist bias.
Indeed, sorting is highly parallelisable. My point was that you can't change general algorithmic complexity by adding k more processor cores.
Regarding the other "he said n log n int O(n log n)" comment...well, that's already been answered (and with considerably more tact than I would have used).
Man, that's serious then. One would have thought that MS would make the Windows CD bootable so that users could gain access to some form of "recovery console".
I'm 23 years older than your son, and I think that IE is a far better browser than Firefox. Opera even better still. In fact the only reason that I ever use Firefox is because Firebug (a plugin, remember) is so damn good.
For every rendering bug in IE, I'll raise you a segfault or sluggishness from Firefox. I realise that being on Slashdot gives you the impression that everyone in the world loves Linux and Firefox and that the only reason people use Win and IE is because they are forced to (or know no better), but really there are a lot of people who actually like them - me included.
(Typed using Opera on Fedora, FYI. I'm not speaking out of ignorance here)
What is the ONE thing they all seemed to get worked up about, the one time the show tried to send a morale message? The evils of napster and how the geeks enslaved those poor stars.
How could you possibly not see how tongue-in-cheek that episode was?
The right answer is that in the majority of cases, people should be using prepared statements, so that they don't have to worry about whether or not they are escaping strings properly
Oh no, I just assumed that not everybody would be as credulous as the person who made the video. Of COURSE it's not scanning his PC, any more than you're really the 1,000,000th visitor to the webpage. It's nothing more complex than
window.confirm('Do you want to scan....');window.location.href='http://advert.com/pretend_to_scan.gif';
And yes, it asks you repeatedly. How is that "directly dangerous?" Annoying, yes (as the OP said), but not directly dangerous (as, once again, the OP said).
Yup. And it doesn't do anything "directly dangerous" as the parent said. It politely asks you to download and run a trojan. If you say no....nothing happens.
I wasn't talking about "cracker", it was his alteration of the word "hacker" that I was complaining about. Go back to the pre-ESR version and see how it changes (in the exact opposite direction to common usage, which is exactly what such a text is supposed to reflect).
And yes, you may have noticed I have something of a...dislike for ESR. That is because he's a pretty objectionable man - try reading through his blog some time. I assume he's still as raving mad as when he talked about feeing it would be his duty to murder a policeman if they tried to steal his porn. Or, if you can't be bothered, just consider he's the sort of person who unilaterally modifies "dictionary" definitions to suit his opinions.
Both. Note how the main reference cited is Eric Raymond's jargon file? Well if you go back to the versions before that massive twat took over (oh, find it yourself - it'd take me just as long), you'll notice that hacker used to be in there referring to people who break into systems. It was only when that self-aggrandising revisionist managed to gain control that it became "strongly deprecated".
So not only does it show that indeed it did always have a negative meaning, but it also proves the GP's point about what sort of tool argues against that usage.
Oh, just that by using instance variables your functions have destructive side-effects, not reentrant and all that. In the pure functional model, there are no such destructive changes and so you have the nice property that all functions in the system are isolated from each-other and only care about input parameters and return value(s). You could argue that instance variables were just a hack that sacrificed scope isolation to save having to pass so many arguments around.
Don't get me wrong, I use OO design for virtually all of my code and don't have a problem with using instance variables. I only mentioned it as I was talking about people thinking that OOP is "the correct" programming style, and wanted to give an example of why not everyone would find it "correct" at all.
OO/imperative/declarative/functional, strong/weak typing, vi/emacs...if people accept that there is more than one valid choice and that people have different valid opinions then the world would be a better place. If they went further and actually chose the right approach for the job then it would be better still.
I think the problem now is that OO is becoming the de facto "correct" way of programming. Now fair enough it does have some very nice features such as imposing strict interfaces, and logically grouping related code and data, but many people don't seem to realise it's not the only way. They regard anything non OO as hacky (which a functional programming evangelist would probaby find hilarious when you consider the implications of instance variables...but I digress).
So they come across an RDBMS, which is a completely different paradigm for data storage/integrity enforcing/query. It sure as hell isn't OO, and it doesn't fit 1-1 with their code written in the One True Proramming Style, and therefore is hacky and outdated.
Windows 95 was released over a decade ago. That should help to give you a bound on when the start/shutdown "joke" ceased to be funny or original.
Maybe you should branch into other areas of observational comedy: I hear Alanis Morissette has a song about things being ironic that is ripe for parody by a man of your talents.
No. Dare Obasanjo did. I realise that automatically distinguishing between a person writing on his blog and a multinational corporation may be difficult, but I'd have thought it was maybe easier when the bottom of the post reads:
This post does not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or future intentions of my employer. These are solely my personal opinions. If you are seeking official position statements from Microsoft, please go here.
I don't think you understand how modern encryption works. There are no clues in what sectors are used, because the entire volume is randomised when it's created. How do you tell the difference between a used encrypted sector and a randomised empty sector? You can't. Well, not unless (as I said in my first post) you know something other cryptographers don't.
When you see a 250GB encrypted volume, all you actually see is 250GB of effectively random bits. That could mean 250GB of pointless random data, a 250GB encrypted volume, a 100GB encrypted outer volume and 150GB hidden volume, or 10 different 25GB volumes. Without knowing the key(s) there's no way to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare it to the days of IE5.5 vs Netscape 6 (the worst browser ever released) vs Netscape 4.7 and you can see what huge progress has been made.
Well surely that implies he'll not have time to work either? So who's going to earn money to feed them and pay the mortgage? I assume it's the African-Americans mentioned in the story - if so, why not mention this benevolence in the story - surely it's a mitigating factor? Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect the telling of this story has a racist bias.
Regarding the other "he said n log n int O(n log n)" comment...well, that's already been answered (and with considerably more tact than I would have used).
Not without an infinite number of processors you don't.
It's more than "pretty close". Read RFC 2119.
It might just work! After all, their lawyers would be too busy laughing at your idea of a legal defence to get round to actually presenting a case.
My favourite part of that story is the first picture showing the news with the SHOCKING headline "Thief uses Internet".
Man, that's serious then. One would have thought that MS would make the Windows CD bootable so that users could gain access to some form of "recovery console".
For every rendering bug in IE, I'll raise you a segfault or sluggishness from Firefox. I realise that being on Slashdot gives you the impression that everyone in the world loves Linux and Firefox and that the only reason people use Win and IE is because they are forced to (or know no better), but really there are a lot of people who actually like them - me included.
(Typed using Opera on Fedora, FYI. I'm not speaking out of ignorance here)
How could you possibly not see how tongue-in-cheek that episode was?
You are banned from ever talking about operating systems. It's for your own good.
The HYPOTHESIS is that this is motivated by security concerns.
Conflating the two, as the summary does, is frankly retarded and exceptionally bad practice.
Yup. And it doesn't do anything "directly dangerous" as the parent said. It politely asks you to download and run a trojan. If you say no....nothing happens.
And yes, you may have noticed I have something of a...dislike for ESR. That is because he's a pretty objectionable man - try reading through his blog some time. I assume he's still as raving mad as when he talked about feeing it would be his duty to murder a policeman if they tried to steal his porn. Or, if you can't be bothered, just consider he's the sort of person who unilaterally modifies "dictionary" definitions to suit his opinions.
So not only does it show that indeed it did always have a negative meaning, but it also proves the GP's point about what sort of tool argues against that usage.
Oh, just that by using instance variables your functions have destructive side-effects, not reentrant and all that. In the pure functional model, there are no such destructive changes and so you have the nice property that all functions in the system are isolated from each-other and only care about input parameters and return value(s). You could argue that instance variables were just a hack that sacrificed scope isolation to save having to pass so many arguments around.
Don't get me wrong, I use OO design for virtually all of my code and don't have a problem with using instance variables. I only mentioned it as I was talking about people thinking that OOP is "the correct" programming style, and wanted to give an example of why not everyone would find it "correct" at all.
OO/imperative/declarative/functional, strong/weak typing, vi/emacs...if people accept that there is more than one valid choice and that people have different valid opinions then the world would be a better place. If they went further and actually chose the right approach for the job then it would be better still.
So they come across an RDBMS, which is a completely different paradigm for data storage/integrity enforcing/query. It sure as hell isn't OO, and it doesn't fit 1-1 with their code written in the One True Proramming Style, and therefore is hacky and outdated.
Le sigh.
Maybe you should branch into other areas of observational comedy: I hear Alanis Morissette has a song about things being ironic that is ripe for parody by a man of your talents.
This post does not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or future intentions of my employer. These are solely my personal opinions. If you are seeking official position statements from Microsoft, please go here.
What the pissing fuck is it about Platinum that makes it such a good universal catalyst?
Apple is finally catching up with BSD, Linux and Vista!
Except in some weakly typed languages, where (!==) == (!=) but (!==) !== (!=)
When you see a 250GB encrypted volume, all you actually see is 250GB of effectively random bits. That could mean 250GB of pointless random data, a 250GB encrypted volume, a 100GB encrypted outer volume and 150GB hidden volume, or 10 different 25GB volumes. Without knowing the key(s) there's no way to know.