"What about crypto monopoly? Don't you think that having just a couple of public-key algorithms based on the same math problem could lead to a catastrophe if cracked ?"
This doesn't follow any European-language grammar.
Huh? Those two sentences make perfect sense to me, and neither of them break any rules of English grammar (or even any rules of English style that I can think of). What do you think is wrong with them?
Hmmm... it wants those of us in DC to fax Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not only is she not a Senator, she doesn't even get a vote in the House. So, my tax dollars would be used to implement this law and I don't even have someone to bitch to.
I'm pretty sure the corporation system is not designed to let you create or purchase a shell corporation, commit illegal acts and rack up debts, and then just toss the shell corporation into bankruptcy and say "whoops all forgiven". But this looks to me exactly like what Canopy's trying to do. Is there not anything in the legal system to prevent this?
Well, that's a pessimistic way to put it, but the whole point of corporations going back to their invention in the renaissance was to allow individual profit while shielding the individuals from the risk associated with that profit.
No wonder the corporate world sucks, they put presentation above substance.
Maybe, but they also recognize that if you actually want to get something done, the last thing you need is a genius. I also wouldn't hire Einstein to build a bridge, you know?
Presentation itself is not important but if somebody breaks social expectations "just because", that probably means they won't work well in a team environment. It doesn't mean that they're stupid, or bad at what they do. It just means they can probably contribute more inventing stuff on their own then developing stuff in my office.
With a PG-13 rating, parents will be forced to go with their children to watch the movie
Not nationally, at least. A given theater manager may choose to require parental presence at a PG-13 movie but it's not part of the MPAA's system. Theaters have only agreed to enforce parental presence at R-rated movies and no children period at NC-17 movies. PG-13 is simply a stronger warning to parents than PG that they should consider whether or not their kids should see it.
Incidentally, a popular movie having an R rating usually bumps the sales of whatever G or PG-rated movies are playing at the same time. That's why Disney summer animations made so much money: kids couldn't buy a ticket to Terminator 2, but they could buy a ticket to the Lion King and then sneak into the T2 auditorium.
Thats a *disadvantage* as it is encouraging, er, 'wooly thinking'
No, having car and cdr in addition to first and rest encourages making a semantic distinction between using cons cells as cons cells and using them as lists. Just like having both nil and () encourages making a semantic distinction between an empty list and a false atom.
Besides which, just look at modern functional languages; its obvious that the excessive parenthisation in LISP is totally uneccesary.
OK, this one I really don't understand: here's some lisp code:
Hmmm... the C example has just as many parentheses as the lisp example. Oh, and it has to have commas too. Maybe "C" stands for "comma-dependent" or something.
I do have a theory of where the thing about "too many parentheses" comes from:
There are slightly more parentheses because a few lisp primitives are infix operators in other languages
lisp encourages a functional programming style, so most work is done by function calls rather than extended blocks of code
lisp programs are generally much shorter in terms of LOC than the equivalent program in another language. But, since roughly the same amount of work is being done, roughly the same number of functions are being called. So, while both a lisp and Java program might have 500 parenthesis pairs, the Java program spreads them out over 1000 lines while the lisp program puts them in 400 lines.
(values "lisp is one of the best tools for prototyping large applications" "lisp allows a programmer to use just about any programming philosophy: procedural, functional, object-oriented, aspect-oriented, etc. This gives you more flexibility in designing your project and doesn't give you artificial straightjackets" "despite myths to the contrary, lisp has excellent native code compilers and bindings to almost anything you can think of: databases, graphical toolkits, network protocols, system calls, etc.")
Man... I'd almost forgotten. the 5/6 libc switch was horrendous, much worse than the 2/3 gcc switch.
Another big problem was that a lot of the early proprietary Linux software vendors hopped on board right before both of those switches, so there were a boatload of closed-source apps requiring ecgs and a patched libc5 or some other bizarre combination.
Yes, gcl (formerly known as kyoto common lisp). But it doesn't need the assembler/linker part of the toolchain so it's packaged separately. But I think it is "Part of the GNU Compiler Collection", for what that's worth, and it does depend on GCC.
Well, in Civ sure the "engine" (if by that you mean "the most important loop that most of the development time went into") has nothing to do with the graphics (and in fact in civ it runs on the server).
But Game Engine normally means the rendering loop of the game, however simplistic it is. Freeciv has a "game engine" in that sense, but it's not why people play it (nor, incidentally, is Civ 3's rendering loop why people play that game).
Given that this is Nielson, you might consider how they measure television and radio statistics: through a variety of instruments including interviews, journals, and where technologically possible actual tracking, all of which are compared with each other and extrapolated across the whole population.
That kind of approach is very often accurate, though there have been some "Dewey Beats Truman" situations too.
You'll note that bundled APIs on OS X and Windows tend not to duplicate each other across a given set of installed programs.
OK, I don't know much about Mac but I have to call bullshit on Windows there. Windows packages are constantly rolling their own "common" DLLs, with slight differences, overwriting identically-named DLLs from other packages and clobbering that package's symbols. "DLL hell" wasn't just a clever assonance someone came up with.
ipchains -A input -s $MYNETWORKS -j ACCEPT
ipchains -A input -p tcp -dport 25 -j DENY
I mean, I suppose in theory IBM could DOS my ipchains, but this is rate-limited by what I'm capable of sending out, which is significantly less than ipchains could handle.
Caveat: I'm not a Windows guy so I may be overlooking a serious problem. However, it looks simple:
Create and register the service (let's take that as a given)
Go to the services applet or snap-in or whatever the hell they call them now
Right click on the service and bring up the properties dialog
Select the "general" tab and set "startup type" to "automatic"
Select the "log on" tab and enter the user you wish the service to run as. The user will be granted the right to log on as a service if he does not already have it.
Maybe I'm missing something but that seems to be what you're asking for (requires XP/2003 I think).
an almost as little known fact as that you can mount devices in Windows XP to "folders", similar to how it works in Linux.
Junctions actually go back to NT; XP was just the first to make it pretty easy to do.
The problem is that it makes some applications (like, say, Norton Antivirus) do Very Bad Things because they seem to think that since very few people know about junctions it's OK to assume every directory is an actual dentry and not a mount point.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I should have been more clear:
It would not be practical to communicate or write out the number that would represent long gzipped program.
It works for DeCSS because that algorithm's so ridiculously short. It would be hard to express a longer program as a number.
Huh? Those two sentences make perfect sense to me, and neither of them break any rules of English grammar (or even any rules of English style that I can think of). What do you think is wrong with them?
Plethora means "harmful excess". But thanks to Three Amigos people think it just means "a lot".
Hmmm... it wants those of us in DC to fax Eleanor Holmes Norton. Not only is she not a Senator, she doesn't even get a vote in the House. So, my tax dollars would be used to implement this law and I don't even have someone to bitch to.
Well, except /. of course....
That's what Gnumeric is for
Well, that's a pessimistic way to put it, but the whole point of corporations going back to their invention in the renaissance was to allow individual profit while shielding the individuals from the risk associated with that profit.
ADSI
Maybe, but they also recognize that if you actually want to get something done, the last thing you need is a genius. I also wouldn't hire Einstein to build a bridge, you know?
Presentation itself is not important but if somebody breaks social expectations "just because", that probably means they won't work well in a team environment. It doesn't mean that they're stupid, or bad at what they do. It just means they can probably contribute more inventing stuff on their own then developing stuff in my office.
Not nationally, at least. A given theater manager may choose to require parental presence at a PG-13 movie but it's not part of the MPAA's system. Theaters have only agreed to enforce parental presence at R-rated movies and no children period at NC-17 movies. PG-13 is simply a stronger warning to parents than PG that they should consider whether or not their kids should see it.
Incidentally, a popular movie having an R rating usually bumps the sales of whatever G or PG-rated movies are playing at the same time. That's why Disney summer animations made so much money: kids couldn't buy a ticket to Terminator 2, but they could buy a ticket to the Lion King and then sneak into the T2 auditorium.
...is submitting a story to /. the last revenge of the DDOS extortioner?
Funny, we *step people just think of them all as watered-down docks.
No, having car and cdr in addition to first and rest encourages making a semantic distinction between using cons cells as cons cells and using them as lists. Just like having both nil and () encourages making a semantic distinction between an empty list and a false atom.
OK, this one I really don't understand: here's some lisp code:
And here's the equivalent in C:Hmmm... the C example has just as many parentheses as the lisp example. Oh, and it has to have commas too. Maybe "C" stands for "comma-dependent" or something.
I do have a theory of where the thing about "too many parentheses" comes from:
(values
"lisp is one of the best tools for prototyping large applications"
"lisp allows a programmer to use just about any programming philosophy: procedural, functional, object-oriented, aspect-oriented, etc. This gives you more flexibility in designing your project and doesn't give you artificial straightjackets"
"despite myths to the contrary, lisp has excellent native code compilers and bindings to almost anything you can think of: databases, graphical toolkits, network protocols, system calls, etc.")
Man... I'd almost forgotten. the 5/6 libc switch was horrendous, much worse than the 2/3 gcc switch.
Another big problem was that a lot of the early proprietary Linux software vendors hopped on board right before both of those switches, so there were a boatload of closed-source apps requiring ecgs and a patched libc5 or some other bizarre combination.
Yes, gcl (formerly known as kyoto common lisp). But it doesn't need the assembler/linker part of the toolchain so it's packaged separately. But I think it is "Part of the GNU Compiler Collection", for what that's worth, and it does depend on GCC.
Well, in Civ sure the "engine" (if by that you mean "the most important loop that most of the development time went into") has nothing to do with the graphics (and in fact in civ it runs on the server).
But Game Engine normally means the rendering loop of the game, however simplistic it is. Freeciv has a "game engine" in that sense, but it's not why people play it (nor, incidentally, is Civ 3's rendering loop why people play that game).
Given that this is Nielson, you might consider how they measure television and radio statistics: through a variety of instruments including interviews, journals, and where technologically possible actual tracking, all of which are compared with each other and extrapolated across the whole population.
That kind of approach is very often accurate, though there have been some "Dewey Beats Truman" situations too.
OK, I don't know much about Mac but I have to call bullshit on Windows there. Windows packages are constantly rolling their own "common" DLLs, with slight differences, overwriting identically-named DLLs from other packages and clobbering that package's symbols. "DLL hell" wasn't just a clever assonance someone came up with.
ipchains -A input -s $MYNETWORKS -j ACCEPT
ipchains -A input -p tcp -dport 25 -j DENY
I mean, I suppose in theory IBM could DOS my ipchains, but this is rate-limited by what I'm capable of sending out, which is significantly less than ipchains could handle.
Caveat: I'm not a Windows guy so I may be overlooking a serious problem. However, it looks simple:
Maybe I'm missing something but that seems to be what you're asking for (requires XP/2003 I think).
Here is a link.
Or the PaX project being called off because of massive critical security holes?
Junctions actually go back to NT; XP was just the first to make it pretty easy to do.
The problem is that it makes some applications (like, say, Norton Antivirus) do Very Bad Things because they seem to think that since very few people know about junctions it's OK to assume every directory is an actual dentry and not a mount point.
The Ferengi.
Duh.