There's a simple reason why: Murphy's law states that if it can go wrong, it will. The desired result of your car-washing is to make it rain, so "going wrong" is it not raining, thus Murphy's law dictates that your plan will fail, and it will not rain. by a similar reasoning, any attempt to use Murphy's law to your advantage is doomed to failure, by the very effect that you are trying to exploit.
The cost of having USB in the computer is immaterial, yes, but the extra cost of USB keybopards & mice over PS/2 ones is not. The point is that the extra cost of the USB devices is more than the cost of having PS/2 interfaces in the computer, so it overall costs less to include PS/2 interfaces and use cheaper devices than to not have the PS/2 ports and therefore have to pay more for the devices. See?
Well, some people do. There's one fuckwit who I reported to the Advertising Standards Authority (who are a prime example of how useless industry self-regulation can be, but still worth a try) since their code of practice bans spamming, and they have come to the conclusion that the spammers "were not responsible for the recent spate of unsolicated marketing emails that they appeared to have been sending," even though the spammer all but admitted to me on the phone that it was them.
Except that, if a domain name has no MX, the A record is used instead.
Quoteth chapter & verse (RFC 2821, section 5):
"If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host."
So, any mail to a non-existant domain will be (attempted to) be delivered to 64.94.110.10, which helpfully has "Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon" running on port 25.
Simply because copyrighted material is introduced in court does NOT make it public domain for copying.
The court disagrees with you. From the original ruling:
"That she [Karin Spaink] now violates the copyright of any of the plaintiffs has not been made plausible. Insofar as she still is quoting literally from protected works, these passages are nothing more than quotes that, considering the context in which they are being used, fall under the exempt ruling of art. 15A of the Copyright Law." (Section 3, part 2)
The 1999 apeal court ruling states that
"...on the basis of art. 15a paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act Spaink is free to quote from OT I and OT II and from Ability in her home pages. That quoted by Spaink from the works concerned - only a relatively small part of the works to illustrate its argument, without it being a case of exploiting the works - stays within the bounds set by the law in this respect. She is thus not infringing the copyright of CST at present." (emphasis mine.)
There isn't a translation of Thursday's ruling available yet, so i can't tell you what it says (since i don't speak Dutch) but, given that the court upheald the previous rulings, I would imagine it's something fairly similar.
These rulings are, of course, refering to Dutch copyright law, and Spaink gives this translation of article 15 of the Dutch law:
"Publication or duplication of scientific or literary material, as well as works of art, by the Court or following a court order, is not considered to be a copyright infringement, unless this copyright is claimed explicitly by law in general, by decision or court order, or in particular cases as indicated on the work itself or at the publication of the material. However, the creator of the material continues to have the exclusive right to publish a compilation of his material, published by the Court or following a court order, even when such a proviso isn't made."
Speedy counting can be achived with paper ballots being counted by hand. And a modern society can cope perfectly well without knowing for months before the government changes.
Look at, for example, the UK, and the 1997 general election. The polls closed at 10pm on Thursday 1st May. The first result declared was the constituency of Sunderland South, at 10.46pm. At 3.15am on Friday 2nd May, the Labour Party won the seat that gave it an overall majority in the House of Commons (that is, 5 hours 15 mins after the polls closed.)
On the morning of Friday 2nd May 1997 (i.e. the day after the election,) Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, who by this time had a huge majority, went to Buckingham Palace where he became prime minister.
And, somehow, the British economy managed to cope with a new government coming into office quite literally overnight. Like it always does.
Incidentally, the last constituency to declare a result was Winchester, Hampshire, at 6.18pm, which the Liberal Democrats won from the Conservative Party by a majority of 2 votes (26,100 to 26,098)
But the NI number isn't commonly used for much except NI, so it is not a universal ID number. Compare with the US social security number, which (apparently) is used as a standard ID number in all sorts of places.
By "true anglo-saxon," I presume you mean Old English, the language spoken in Anglo-Saxon England prior to the Norman conquest of 1066. There's no shortage of Old English texts available, for example, the Lord's Prayer in Old English (10th century):
"fæder, u e on heofonum eardast,
geweorðad wuldres dreame. Sy inum weorcum halgad
noma nia bearnum; u eart nergend wera.
Cyme in rice wide, ond in rædfæst willa
aræred under rodores hrofe, eac on on rumre foldan.
Syle us to dæge domfæstne blæd,
hlaf userne, helpend wera,
one singalan, soðfæst meotod.
Ne læt usic costunga cnyssan to swiðe,
ac u us freodom gief, folca waldend,
from yfla gewham, a to widan feore."
(from http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/pater_n oster.html, which also has Middle English ["Oure fader that art in heuenis..."] early Modern English ["Our Father which art in heauen..."] and modern English ["Our Father, who art in heaven..."])
For other examples of Old English text, google is your friend.
not quite. for any non-zero value of x, both 0/x = 0 and x/0 = infinity (ok, technically, x/y -> infinity as y -> 0) are true. But when x=0, which do you use? The standard answer is to call 0/0 undefined.
Yeah, pretty much. Putting across a well-reasoned argument as to why software patents are bad is the way to get the message through to the politicians, not ranting at them.
(OK, so big wads of cash are the best way to get messages through to politicians, but failing the that...)
Unfortunatly, this report, from the Legal Affairs committee, does support software patents, ignoring the advice of the Industry committee, the Culture committee, and the vast majority of the response to their public consultation on the issue. Luckily, there is still time, as it has to pass the European parliament before coming EU law. So, to all European slashdotters, please make sure to contact your MEP about it (in a coherant, non-loony way) and explain why software patents are bad.
Re: Greedy change making algorithm - when optimal?
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
The point, I think, is that the greedy algorithm fails to provide that solution. Using the greedy algorithm would give a half crown, a shilling and a sixpence.
(btw, according to this page, a sixpence was a tanner, and 2 shillings was a florin.)
Why would different sizes of bank note inconvience you in the slightest? Is it inconvienent that different denominations of coin are different sizes? And how on Earth can different sizes of nate be both useful and inconvenient at the same time?
I think you miss my point. Quite clearly, a system with a global whitelist of senders who have responded correctly is useless, as it is easy for the spammer to get onto the whitelist and then spam everyone. So, a challenge must be issued to the same sender for each address they try to send mail to.
So, a spammer sends out spam that claims to be from $someoneElse. From the spammer's end, the spam gets through to anyone not using ahcallenge-response system, so the spam reaches sopme recipents, so the spammer is happy. The recipents who have a challenge-response system never see the spam, because the challenge goes unresponded. So far, so good. But what about $someoneElse? *boom* They get a shit-load of challenges to deal with (along with the shit-load of bounces they already gets.) Poor $someoneElse gets it real bad.
"But, $someoneElse's email will be protected by a challenge-response system, so they won't see those challenges," I hear you cry. Quite right, $someoneElse's mail server will send a challenge in response to the challenge it just recieved, and we all know what happens when auto-responders start sending each other email, don't we?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a simple reason why:
Murphy's law states that if it can go wrong, it will. The desired result of your car-washing is to make it rain, so "going wrong" is it not raining, thus Murphy's law dictates that your plan will fail, and it will not rain.
by a similar reasoning, any attempt to use Murphy's law to your advantage is doomed to failure, by the very effect that you are trying to exploit.
The cost of having USB in the computer is immaterial, yes, but the extra cost of USB keybopards & mice over PS/2 ones is not.
The point is that the extra cost of the USB devices is more than the cost of having PS/2 interfaces in the computer, so it overall costs less to include PS/2 interfaces and use cheaper devices than to not have the PS/2 ports and therefore have to pay more for the devices.
See?
Well, some people do. There's one fuckwit who I reported to the Advertising Standards Authority (who are a prime example of how useless industry self-regulation can be, but still worth a try) since their code of practice bans spamming, and they have come to the conclusion that the spammers "were not responsible for the recent spate of unsolicated marketing emails that they appeared to have been sending," even though the spammer all but admitted to me on the phone that it was them.
Except that, if a domain name has no MX, the A record is used instead.
Quoteth chapter & verse (RFC 2821, section 5):
"If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host."
So, any mail to a non-existant domain will be (attempted to) be delivered to 64.94.110.10, which helpfully has "Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon" running on port 25.
there's the Blitzed Open Proxy Monitor list.
Simply because copyrighted material is introduced in court does NOT make it public domain for copying.
The court disagrees with you. From the original ruling:
"That she [Karin Spaink] now violates the copyright of any of the plaintiffs has not been made plausible. Insofar as she still is quoting literally from protected works, these passages are nothing more than quotes that, considering the context in which they are being used, fall under the exempt ruling of art. 15A of the Copyright Law." (Section 3, part 2)
The 1999 apeal court ruling states that
"...on the basis of art. 15a paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act Spaink is free to quote from OT I and OT II and from Ability in her home pages. That quoted by Spaink from the works concerned - only a relatively small part of the works to illustrate its argument, without it being a case of exploiting the works - stays within the bounds set by the law in this respect. She is thus not infringing the copyright of CST at present. " (emphasis mine.)
There isn't a translation of Thursday's ruling available yet, so i can't tell you what it says (since i don't speak Dutch) but, given that the court upheald the previous rulings, I would imagine it's something fairly similar.
These rulings are, of course, refering to Dutch copyright law, and Spaink gives this translation of article 15 of the Dutch law:
"Publication or duplication of scientific or literary material, as well as works of art, by the Court or following a court order, is not considered to be a copyright infringement, unless this copyright is claimed explicitly by law in general, by decision or court order, or in particular cases as indicated on the work itself or at the publication of the material. However, the creator of the material continues to have the exclusive right to publish a compilation of his material, published by the Court or following a court order, even when such a proviso isn't made."
Speedy counting can be achived with paper ballots being counted by hand. And a modern society can cope perfectly well without knowing for months before the government changes.
Look at, for example, the UK, and the 1997 general election. The polls closed at 10pm on Thursday 1st May. The first result declared was the constituency of Sunderland South, at 10.46pm. At 3.15am on Friday 2nd May, the Labour Party won the seat that gave it an overall majority in the House of Commons (that is, 5 hours 15 mins after the polls closed.)
On the morning of Friday 2nd May 1997 (i.e. the day after the election,) Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, who by this time had a huge majority, went to Buckingham Palace where he became prime minister.
And, somehow, the British economy managed to cope with a new government coming into office quite literally overnight. Like it always does.
Incidentally, the last constituency to declare a result was Winchester, Hampshire, at 6.18pm, which the Liberal Democrats won from the Conservative Party by a majority of 2 votes (26,100 to 26,098)
American's (I am American) can't even spell aluminium correctly. :)
And here we have the classic Greengrocer's apostrophe. Plurals do not need an apostrophe, ok?
But the NI number isn't commonly used for much except NI, so it is not a universal ID number. Compare with the US social security number, which (apparently) is used as a standard ID number in all sorts of places.
(from http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/oe/pater_
For other examples of Old English text, google is your friend.
I think you'll find everyone copies their jokes from martingunnarsson ;-)
not quite.
for any non-zero value of x, both
0/x = 0
and
x/0 = infinity (ok, technically, x/y -> infinity as y -> 0)
are true.
But when x=0, which do you use? The standard answer is to call 0/0 undefined.
If they don't want people buying their songs individually, why do they sell singles?
Yeah, pretty much. Putting across a well-reasoned argument as to why software patents are bad is the way to get the message through to the politicians, not ranting at them.
(OK, so big wads of cash are the best way to get messages through to politicians, but failing the that...)
Unfortunatly, this report, from the Legal Affairs committee, does support software patents, ignoring the advice of the Industry committee, the Culture committee, and the vast majority of the response to their public consultation on the issue. Luckily, there is still time, as it has to pass the European parliament before coming EU law. So, to all European slashdotters, please make sure to contact your MEP about it (in a coherant, non-loony way) and explain why software patents are bad.
Isn't it obvious? There's the whole hurd of gnu's wanding around slashdot grunting, croaking, and going "ganoo."
Wish I had googled before posting
:-)
No you don't, you got twice as much karma doing it in two posts
You already can, with Mozilla, as this screenshot shows.
The point, I think, is that the greedy algorithm fails to provide that solution. Using the greedy algorithm would give a half crown, a shilling and a sixpence.
(btw, according to this page, a sixpence was a tanner, and 2 shillings was a florin.)
Why would different sizes of bank note inconvience you in the slightest? Is it inconvienent that different denominations of coin are different sizes? And how on Earth can different sizes of nate be both useful and inconvenient at the same time?
Context menus on menus?
Noooooooooooooooo...........
It's not right, I tells ya, it just aint right...
Mozilla does have a context menu for bookmarks, with (amongst other things) rename and delete.
So, what's broken about Mozilla's bookmarks?
ah-ha, a rabid rfc-ignorant.org user, I presume?
yeah, maybe the writer is a native Welsh speaker... :-)
I think you miss my point. Quite clearly, a system with a global whitelist of senders who have responded correctly is useless, as it is easy for the spammer to get onto the whitelist and then spam everyone. So, a challenge must be issued to the same sender for each address they try to send mail to.
So, a spammer sends out spam that claims to be from $someoneElse. From the spammer's end, the spam gets through to anyone not using ahcallenge-response system, so the spam reaches sopme recipents, so the spammer is happy. The recipents who have a challenge-response system never see the spam, because the challenge goes unresponded. So far, so good. But what about $someoneElse? *boom* They get a shit-load of challenges to deal with (along with the shit-load of bounces they already gets.) Poor $someoneElse gets it real bad.
"But, $someoneElse's email will be protected by a challenge-response system, so they won't see those challenges," I hear you cry. Quite right, $someoneElse's mail server will send a challenge in response to the challenge it just recieved, and we all know what happens when auto-responders start sending each other email, don't we?