That optimization doesn't change the run-time complexity of the algorithm, it's still O(n^2). Usually bubble sort is taught without the optimization and once the student understands, you point out that particular optimization or try to get them to figure it out on their own.
I haven't yet run across a comp. sci. text that describes the bubble sort without the "optimization". I've always thought it was an intrinsic part of the bubble sort algorithm.
Just to point, we are talking about American Football, not Football. It's not the same.
American Football is real football, just as is Canadian Football. The rules are slightly different, but there's no reason to claim one is any more real than the other.
And there was *no* misunderstanding. The vice principal was monitoring the kids at their homes without notification to the students or the parents that the monior system could, and would, be used for such monitoring. This gets directly into basic constitutional issues of privacy: there's nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you're a mid-level bureaucrat with not the least concern for both published and legal guidelines and precedent.
According to the school, this was only done in the case of stolen or missing laptops. I think you give up a right to privacy when you steal a computer. The family that sued the school did so because the school found an image on a returned computer that concerned the administration, but turned out to be harmless. The parents jumped to the conclusion that the image was obtained via the remote monitoring system. No evidence was later introduced to back up the parents' claim.
No -- in the USA, only a prosecutor can file criminal charges. People sometimes say here, "I'm going to press charges," but that really just means cooperating with a prosecutor or attorney general. If your father punches you in a drunken fight, and you tell the cops you don't want to file charges, you better hope they want to cooperate... They can charge, or not charge, whoever they want. You have no control over it.
If you read the GPs post, you'll see (s)he said "Just because the feds won't file charges doesn't mean the students themselves or the local DA or state AG can't file civil or criminal charges." [emphasis added.]
I think the GP meant that the students would file the civil suits, and state or local prosecutors would file criminal charges.
Personally, I didn't think this case would amount to anything. Only one family claimed their kid was spied on, and what little evidence there was points to a misunderstanding. I've said so from the beginning, and I'm not surprised about this development.
This is why upload services should simply just strip out the un-needed info of the pictures. The original pictures still have the sometimes useful geolocation data, but your Facebook pictures won't.
But is it wise to be trusting your services (i.e. Facebook) to take these extra steps to protect your privacy? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an educated consumer base who can be careful what they upload in the first place? At the very least, the value of this information to marketers would make it unlikely that free, online services like Facebook would simply throw this valuable data away. It would make more sense for consumer electronic devices to do a better job of informing the user of what information is "hidden" in the media files they create, with a default off option for anything "hidden".
For one, injunctions against John Does are rare to be granted. Second they aren't asking for an injunction, they are asking for an injunction, federal marshals for enforcement, monetary damages and attorneys fees.
If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?
Secondly, many projects have rolling support options. Where features have a two version rolling window of support. If you were programming for Drupal 6 you probably should have been keeping an eye on Drupal 7 to see which calls/apis/etc were being discarded. This would have limited the amount of rework to move to Drupal 7.
The entire database abstraction layer is changing. I know of no way to write code that would be compatible with both Drupal 6 and Drupal 7 at the same time. For instance, db_fetch_object() is being dropped from Drupal 7, but the replacements aren't in Drupal 6. And it looks like the new way of doing things will require more code. Ditto for db_query()s that use SQL UPDATE or INSERT statements. Done in an entirely different way in Drupal 7 that wouldn't work in Drupal 6. That's the gist of my complaint. I'm still grateful that this wonderful product is freely available, and I appreciate the tremendous work that's gone into it. I just see the necessity for the kind of changes that are going into Drupal 7.
My 4.5 modules worked with 4.6 with no changes. My 4.6 modules worked with 4.7 with no changes. My 4.7 modules worked with 5 with very minor changes. My 5 modules worked with 6 with very small changes. I haven't tried porting any 6 modules to 7 yet, but looking at the list of modules that already support 7, I'm not quivering with fright at the prospect.
The API is not guaranteed not to change, but a lot of people work hard to make sure that the change is evolutionary and the thousands of automated tests help to make sure that
First of all, it isn't surprising that changes from 4.5->4.6->4.7 didn't require any rewriting of modules. Only major version number change break backward compatibility. I think the change to Drupal 7 will be bigger than the previous changes. The changes to the code I've written will be anything but minor. The entire database abstraction layer is changing. No more db_fetch_object for instance, and my code has about 50 calls to that function. Also, INSERT and UPDATE db_queries will need to change as they will be handled by special functions. And that's just the database stuff. There are a lot of other functions that are changing as well, see the documentation for just some of the changes.
...neither of which would satisfy the users that are still happy with Drupal 5.
They will be less happy when Drupal 7 comes out, because typically, only two versions are supported at once. Once D7 comes out, D5 support will most likely be dropped, meaning no more security updates.
This is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about Drupal: lack of backwards compatibility between versions. I just finished developing a site in Drupal 6 and it involved writing a lot of code. I am disappointed to see that many of the functions I call in the code are changed or eliminated in Drupal 7. At some point before Drupal 8 comes out, I'll have to update all that stuff, and I don't look forward to it!
Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice. Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.
No, but it may get you charged with reckless driving. A confession is a confession: it doesn't have to be uttered in court or in a police interrogation room. As to your hearsay comment, most jurisdictions have an exception to the hearsay rule when a defendant makes a declaration against his or her own interest.
I don't think you understand what "arbitrage" really means. By your logic, no new disruptive technologies could ever exist, unless they are priced as high as the product they're replacing. Arbitrage refers to differences in the prices of commodities or securities that are procured through different channels, and generally can be converted instantly. Building newer, more efficient products that can do a job more cheaply than its predecessors is called "progress" not "arbitrage".
It seems we have some politics here in Slashdot as well. This is a perfectly Insightful post that has been modded down. You may disagree with the sentiments expressed in the post, but that doesn't mean the points raised aren't valid. Personally, I don't think the courts have any role in determining what goes on in the classroom, any more than teachers should dictate what is/isn't allowed in the courtroom.
Who cares? Shouldn't you be respecting the wishes of the people who wrote this stuff and are giving it away free?
Frankly I don't like all this hunting for exceptions and ways around the GPL, it's abusive of the spirit in which this stuff was created.
I'm sorry, but we're talking about a very fundamental question of copyright law here, namely: does programming to an API constitute a derivative work? The answer to that question would have huge implications for both commercial and free software licenses.
Now, if out of the goodness of your heart you wish to respect the wishes of those who have contributed free software above and beyond what's required by copyright law, that's commendable. But in the present case, there might very well be a legal battle waged whose outcome could be critical.
I have great admiration for any who contribute free software that we can all use. But I do have profound disagreements with the philosophy behind the GPL (especially as contrasted to the LGPL.) It's one thing to choose how to license your own code; it's quite another to insist that others license their code the same way, simply because it may have some tenuous connection to your code. The present case may decide in legal terms just how strong that connection must be. This isn't a case of trying to weasel ones way around a license. It's a very fundamental point here, that needs to clarified by the courts.
Yes. Please read up on dynamic linking and the GPL and LGPL. The questions your asking have been asked, answered, and discussed by many people every day for the past twenty years.
Sally: TEACHER, I told Billy he could have my crackers yesterday if he'd give me his desser TODAAAAAAAY!
It is a good analogy, but what is a "desser"? At first I thought you meant to say "dresser", but kids don't usually trade in furniture. An Xbox-360 or something similar would make more sense here.
It could be the VCs want it to go forward. Zuckerberg right now maintains the majority share (that's my understanding), and I'll bet he's a pain to work with. Suppose this guy gets 85%, he's not going to want to run the company, he's going to let the VCs do it. Major win for them.
Depends if the 85% is a just a percentage of Zuckerberg's stake in the company, or 85% of the whole company, in which case he'd get a sizable chuck of the VCs' stake as well. That would suck for the VCs.
How about when someone posts online that they plan to go shoot up their school the next day?
The person who first uttered the threat is committing a crime, just as is the person who created the child pornography, if real children are abused. Are you suggesting it should be illegal to possess a copy of a threat that someone else made?
... people start using it for child pornography transfer and other things that SHOULD be illegal.
This is precisely why these things shouldn't be illegal. At least, possession and transfer of information (including child pornography) shouldn't be illegal. (Of course, abusing children to make child pornography should be illegal, and child pornography itself could very well be evidence of a crime.) The problem is, as soon as you make certain kinds of information illegal, then it would be impossible for ISPs to provide the kind of anonymity many of us would desire. Child pornography makes a wonderful excuse to impose strict data retention laws that affect a wide variety of users.
"A government source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, suggested that the websites in question may have had links to child porn, utility hacking guides, and terrorist activity.
Google has links to all those things. Why isn't it shut down?
Actually, this isn't meant as a permanent fix at all. This cap is a temporary solution to prevent excessive leakage in the event that a hurricane prevents them from collecting the oil that does escape. They are still going ahead with the relief valves which are intended to be the permanent solution. That said, I do hope the cap holds the oil for as long as necessary.
Now if there is other collaborating evidence then fine, that changes things. But to base it *only* on DNA, that was directed via a database search and little else, then collision is still a problem. The "two sets of dna in that test" are not independent, one of the samples of DNA was chosen because of similarities with the other piece with a family member via a database search.
But as you said, a DNA test looks at only a few of many available markers. So, once they zero in on the suspect and do a subsequent DNA test, they will have access to more DNA and can therefore find matches on other markers which were not used in the original test. The more different markers that are tested, the lower the chances of a false positive.
Slashdot Mirror
That optimization doesn't change the run-time complexity of the algorithm, it's still O(n^2). Usually bubble sort is taught without the optimization and once the student understands, you point out that particular optimization or try to get them to figure it out on their own.
I haven't yet run across a comp. sci. text that describes the bubble sort without the "optimization". I've always thought it was an intrinsic part of the bubble sort algorithm.
Just to point, we are talking about American Football, not Football. It's not the same.
American Football is real football, just as is Canadian Football. The rules are slightly different, but there's no reason to claim one is any more real than the other.
Once they're paying as much as people in any other first-world country, "beloved" will give way to "practical". And it brings in some nice cash too.
That would work great... until the next election! I don't think you realize just how much Americans love their cars.
And there was *no* misunderstanding. The vice principal was monitoring the kids at their homes without notification to the students or the parents that the monior system could, and would, be used for such monitoring. This gets directly into basic constitutional issues of privacy: there's nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you're a mid-level bureaucrat with not the least concern for both published and legal guidelines and precedent.
According to the school, this was only done in the case of stolen or missing laptops. I think you give up a right to privacy when you steal a computer. The family that sued the school did so because the school found an image on a returned computer that concerned the administration, but turned out to be harmless. The parents jumped to the conclusion that the image was obtained via the remote monitoring system. No evidence was later introduced to back up the parents' claim.
No -- in the USA, only a prosecutor can file criminal charges. People sometimes say here, "I'm going to press charges," but that really just means cooperating with a prosecutor or attorney general. If your father punches you in a drunken fight, and you tell the cops you don't want to file charges, you better hope they want to cooperate... They can charge, or not charge, whoever they want. You have no control over it.
If you read the GPs post, you'll see (s)he said "Just because the feds won't file charges doesn't mean the students themselves or the local DA or state AG can't file civil or criminal charges." [emphasis added.]
I think the GP meant that the students would file the civil suits, and state or local prosecutors would file criminal charges.
Personally, I didn't think this case would amount to anything. Only one family claimed their kid was spied on, and what little evidence there was points to a misunderstanding. I've said so from the beginning, and I'm not surprised about this development.
This is why upload services should simply just strip out the un-needed info of the pictures. The original pictures still have the sometimes useful geolocation data, but your Facebook pictures won't.
But is it wise to be trusting your services (i.e. Facebook) to take these extra steps to protect your privacy? Wouldn't it make more sense to have an educated consumer base who can be careful what they upload in the first place? At the very least, the value of this information to marketers would make it unlikely that free, online services like Facebook would simply throw this valuable data away. It would make more sense for consumer electronic devices to do a better job of informing the user of what information is "hidden" in the media files they create, with a default off option for anything "hidden".
For one, injunctions against John Does are rare to be granted. Second they aren't asking for an injunction, they are asking for an injunction, federal marshals for enforcement, monetary damages and attorneys fees.
If no one actually bootlegs the event, who pays the monetary damages and attorney fees?
Secondly, many projects have rolling support options. Where features have a two version rolling window of support. If you were programming for Drupal 6 you probably should have been keeping an eye on Drupal 7 to see which calls/apis/etc were being discarded. This would have limited the amount of rework to move to Drupal 7.
The entire database abstraction layer is changing. I know of no way to write code that would be compatible with both Drupal 6 and Drupal 7 at the same time. For instance, db_fetch_object() is being dropped from Drupal 7, but the replacements aren't in Drupal 6. And it looks like the new way of doing things will require more code. Ditto for db_query()s that use SQL UPDATE or INSERT statements. Done in an entirely different way in Drupal 7 that wouldn't work in Drupal 6. That's the gist of my complaint. I'm still grateful that this wonderful product is freely available, and I appreciate the tremendous work that's gone into it. I just see the necessity for the kind of changes that are going into Drupal 7.
My 4.5 modules worked with 4.6 with no changes. My 4.6 modules worked with 4.7 with no changes. My 4.7 modules worked with 5 with very minor changes. My 5 modules worked with 6 with very small changes. I haven't tried porting any 6 modules to 7 yet, but looking at the list of modules that already support 7, I'm not quivering with fright at the prospect.
The API is not guaranteed not to change, but a lot of people work hard to make sure that the change is evolutionary and the thousands of automated tests help to make sure that
First of all, it isn't surprising that changes from 4.5->4.6->4.7 didn't require any rewriting of modules. Only major version number change break backward compatibility. I think the change to Drupal 7 will be bigger than the previous changes. The changes to the code I've written will be anything but minor. The entire database abstraction layer is changing. No more db_fetch_object for instance, and my code has about 50 calls to that function. Also, INSERT and UPDATE db_queries will need to change as they will be handled by special functions. And that's just the database stuff. There are a lot of other functions that are changing as well, see the documentation for just some of the changes.
...neither of which would satisfy the users that are still happy with Drupal 5.
They will be less happy when Drupal 7 comes out, because typically, only two versions are supported at once. Once D7 comes out, D5 support will most likely be dropped, meaning no more security updates.
This is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about Drupal: lack of backwards compatibility between versions. I just finished developing a site in Drupal 6 and it involved writing a lot of code. I am disappointed to see that many of the functions I call in the code are changed or eliminated in Drupal 7. At some point before Drupal 8 comes out, I'll have to update all that stuff, and I don't look forward to it!
Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice. Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.
No, but it may get you charged with reckless driving. A confession is a confession: it doesn't have to be uttered in court or in a police interrogation room. As to your hearsay comment, most jurisdictions have an exception to the hearsay rule when a defendant makes a declaration against his or her own interest.
I don't think you understand what "arbitrage" really means. By your logic, no new disruptive technologies could ever exist, unless they are priced as high as the product they're replacing. Arbitrage refers to differences in the prices of commodities or securities that are procured through different channels, and generally can be converted instantly. Building newer, more efficient products that can do a job more cheaply than its predecessors is called "progress" not "arbitrage".
There is education and then there is training figure out which one you want and get it. Most everything these days is geared towards training.
The fact that the one course mentioned is titled "Web Design 1" answers that question.
It seems we have some politics here in Slashdot as well. This is a perfectly Insightful post that has been modded down. You may disagree with the sentiments expressed in the post, but that doesn't mean the points raised aren't valid. Personally, I don't think the courts have any role in determining what goes on in the classroom, any more than teachers should dictate what is/isn't allowed in the courtroom.
"Were any of those people judges?"
Who cares? Shouldn't you be respecting the wishes of the people who wrote this stuff and are giving it away free?
Frankly I don't like all this hunting for exceptions and ways around the GPL, it's abusive of the spirit in which this stuff was created.
I'm sorry, but we're talking about a very fundamental question of copyright law here, namely: does programming to an API constitute a derivative work? The answer to that question would have huge implications for both commercial and free software licenses.
Now, if out of the goodness of your heart you wish to respect the wishes of those who have contributed free software above and beyond what's required by copyright law, that's commendable. But in the present case, there might very well be a legal battle waged whose outcome could be critical.
I have great admiration for any who contribute free software that we can all use. But I do have profound disagreements with the philosophy behind the GPL (especially as contrasted to the LGPL.) It's one thing to choose how to license your own code; it's quite another to insist that others license their code the same way, simply because it may have some tenuous connection to your code. The present case may decide in legal terms just how strong that connection must be. This isn't a case of trying to weasel ones way around a license. It's a very fundamental point here, that needs to clarified by the courts.
Yes. Please read up on dynamic linking and the GPL and LGPL. The questions your asking have been asked, answered, and discussed by many people every day for the past twenty years.
Were any of those people judges?
Sally: TEACHER, I told Billy he could have my crackers yesterday if he'd give me his desser TODAAAAAAAY!
It is a good analogy, but what is a "desser"? At first I thought you meant to say "dresser", but kids don't usually trade in furniture. An Xbox-360 or something similar would make more sense here.
It could be the VCs want it to go forward. Zuckerberg right now maintains the majority share (that's my understanding), and I'll bet he's a pain to work with. Suppose this guy gets 85%, he's not going to want to run the company, he's going to let the VCs do it. Major win for them.
Depends if the 85% is a just a percentage of Zuckerberg's stake in the company, or 85% of the whole company, in which case he'd get a sizable chuck of the VCs' stake as well. That would suck for the VCs.
How about when someone posts online that they plan to go shoot up their school the next day?
The person who first uttered the threat is committing a crime, just as is the person who created the child pornography, if real children are abused. Are you suggesting it should be illegal to possess a copy of a threat that someone else made?
... people start using it for child pornography transfer and other things that SHOULD be illegal.
This is precisely why these things shouldn't be illegal. At least, possession and transfer of information (including child pornography) shouldn't be illegal. (Of course, abusing children to make child pornography should be illegal, and child pornography itself could very well be evidence of a crime.) The problem is, as soon as you make certain kinds of information illegal, then it would be impossible for ISPs to provide the kind of anonymity many of us would desire. Child pornography makes a wonderful excuse to impose strict data retention laws that affect a wide variety of users.
if you said what hobby and index is that. Doing so would surely catch more interest from the Slashdot crowd.
Maybe it's the type of magazines that people used to read "for the articles?"
And that's precisely the type of magazine that would catch the interest of the Slashdot crowd.
"A government source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, suggested that the websites in question may have had links to child porn, utility hacking guides, and terrorist activity.
Google has links to all those things. Why isn't it shut down?
Let's hope the fix holds.
Actually, this isn't meant as a permanent fix at all. This cap is a temporary solution to prevent excessive leakage in the event that a hurricane prevents them from collecting the oil that does escape. They are still going ahead with the relief valves which are intended to be the permanent solution. That said, I do hope the cap holds the oil for as long as necessary.
Now if there is other collaborating evidence then fine, that changes things. But to base it *only* on DNA, that was directed via a database search and little else, then collision is still a problem. The "two sets of dna in that test" are not independent, one of the samples of DNA was chosen because of similarities with the other piece with a family member via a database search.
But as you said, a DNA test looks at only a few of many available markers. So, once they zero in on the suspect and do a subsequent DNA test, they will have access to more DNA and can therefore find matches on other markers which were not used in the original test. The more different markers that are tested, the lower the chances of a false positive.
Privacy flaws in Chatroulette? Based on what I've seen on Chatroulette, these are not people who care much about privacy!