It's time to implement CrimeNet, the anonymous DNS replacement. It could work via a central nameserver that you subscribe to and pay based on traffic to/from or maybe a p2p solution. Making false whois records illegal won't stop crap.
Knowlege of asm does not preclude knowlege of OO anymore than knowlege pastry making precludes knowlege of chess.
Anyway, OO is yesterday's buzzword. There are times when it's the only sane way to go, and others when a different approach would work as well. Probably everyone who understands OO has at one time been somewhat of an OO fanatic. But although it's a useful tool, there is life beyond OO.
People who don't know assembly often associate it with some kludger that, although they may be expert at obscure details of often obsolete technology, writes unreadable and unstructured code because they somehow can't resist obfusticating things with some special 'secret' non-portable 'performance enhancing' trick. This hypothetical kludger likes to apply their very limited knowlege of assembly to problems it is best left out of in an attempt to impress the younguns whose knowlege may be completely nonexistant.
This association between kludgy programmers and assembly is 100% BS. If anything, assembly is MUCH LESS forgiving than other languages of programmers with bad habits about structuring code. While most other languages provide things ( like subroutines ) that tend to provide structure in a standard way, the assembly programmer has no compiler to enforce this. The assembly programmer has only their own habits and comments to enforce structure and readability. If you can write good readable assembly, then your skills at structuring code can survive in any environment. If your assembly programs work, then they are structured. If they are not structured, they do not work, or they appear to but have serious bugs.
For the OO fanatics: OO does not conflict with asm. Remember that OO languages compile to an assembly representation.
In the same way that an assembly programmer might define subroutine-like goto labels that expect a pointer to some parameters to be passed in a certain standard-throughout-the-program register, one could, ( and compilers do ) define objects in some standard way in assembly.
Learning assembly teaches you the wisdom and value of all the helpful features that a higher level language provides. To get anything sizeable accomplished in a readable and relatively bug free way in assembly, you end up implementing those high level features yourself by convention.
Assembly teaches that good coding style does not need to be enforced by the language ( it really can't be ), it comes from within the programmer. The helpful features of high level languages hint at some good ideas though. The enforcing of certain style rules can be a check against typographical errors, but it can not make a bad programmer into a good one.
Perl also doesn't legislate or enforce things. It gains the power of flexibility, while providing high level features to those who can appreciate and use them. You can write really awful Perl code because of this, but you can also write really beautiful Perl code because of this. It depends on you.
Yeah, if you write the whole program, you will have had to consider dereferencing yourself, but most times in assembly, you push a couple parameter values into some registers and goto your dereferencing 'subroutine' which puts the array value conveniently in a register for you.
You would access the array using that 'subroutine', so you could forget about the mechanics of the actual dereferencing process. Maybe someone else would have written an nice 10 dimensional array member-access 'function' that you use, so you have no idea at all how the data in the array is stored. This is much the same as someone coding in C who doesn't even know assembly language.
I couldn't read the code the compiler generates. If I ever ran into a compiler bug, I would never know unless a later version of that compiler compiled my program w/o an apparent bug.
The thing is, I took a course on x86 Assembly in college. We wrote a bunch of assembly programs. I would tell people honestly, if they asked, that I know x86 assembly, but that I haven't used it for years. ( since that class actually ) It would be possible to debug a compiler if you were familiar with the way that compiler lays out code etc. Merely knowing what 'mov eax, 3' and suchlike means is not enough.
Take a string and tie a slipknot. Then insert a loop of the string into the loop of the slipknot you just tied. Then repeat by inserting another loop into your new loop. Repeat this until you have a chain of about 80 loops.
2) superstring theory
Put a loop into the loop before the last loop you made. Then put a loop into both the loop before that and the current loop. Continue backwards until youcomplete another row. A smooth hook shaped stick makes this easier. Make 22 more rows for a total of 24. The dimensions ( 80x24 ) are pleasing to the eye.
3) supersymetry
Notice that the left side is the same as the right side, and the top half is the same as the bottom half. If you don't have a hamster in need of a blanket, pull the string until the whole thing unravels. What fun! Try it with the universe.
They are switching from Courier to Times New Roman?!!! This sucks!
How are they going to construct ASCII art without a fixed width font? Plus wouldn't you expect a spy vs spy courier type person to carry secret documents written in Courier type? Geez! And 14 pt font??? That's frikken huge!! What ever happened to typewriter size font?
I agree, most people ( including me ) would take 1/2 * X dollars in cash over 1 * X dollars in stock options any day.
Options for a certainly valuable company like google might be discounted less, maybe 3/4 of cash, whereas most other companies stock options would be discounted by more being valued at 1/10 or less of cash. If google has been distributing stock options, and now they are delaying IPO, it can't be good for morale. They should offer to buy back the options for cash.
Why not make some sort of electrohydrodynamic drive? Like a lifter, or a glorified Ionic Breeze? It would resemble a jet engine with a wide intake and a small exhaust nozzle. Cone shaped, it would have stages where air would be accellerated-into-the-room ( ionic-breeze terminology ) and recharged and re-accellerated into the next 'room' at higher and higher speeds. The air, I imagine, could be accellerated to very high speeds this way and the whole thing could be powered by microwaves beamed from earth - no need to carry on board fuel for weather experiments in upper atmosphere or, depending on how efficient this is, maybe it would be possible to reach orbit that way by building up enough momentum to get to orbit before you left the atmosphere... I dunno....
Mentioning that movie reminds me of the robo-flesh-repairer that reconstructed her out of a few living cells from her glove.
If such a gizmo existed that could reconstruct you with all your memories intact, then I bet there would be extreme sports types who would for instance, skydive they wouldn't use parachutes because 'those are for wusses'. Real world/Road rules challenge could have immolation racing, where the contestants douse themselves with gasoline, and try to run as far as they can before they drop.
It's in vaccines. I'm sure it wouldn't be there if there weren't a good reason since mercury can be nasty stuff..
I used to play with mercury metal when I was a kid though and I don't seem to be throwing unbirthday parties or to be suffering any ill effects. I think as long as you don't heat it, don't react it with any chemicals, and wash your hands afterwards, and don't lose it in the carpet, mercury metal is a safe and facinating toy when played with occasionally ( like when a switch or thermometer happens to break )
Yes, the barrow-wights. That's where they get alot of their weapons isn't it? ( It's been a long time since I read the books. ) Strider just plops em on the bed in the room at the Bree Hilton in the movie.
Leaving out Tom-Bombadier was inevitable though - FOTR was the longset book and probably hardest to compress into a film. The Old Forest/Fangorn connection was therefore missed and we didn't get to see a willow tree eat a hobbit.
The only part of the solar system known to have an 'ecology' is earth. But isotopes can be detected in minute quantities. I'm sure an asteroid that was pelted by the exhaust from a nuke rocket would have very detectable levels of those isotopes. Also, ( and I am not an expert on this ) elements can be detected from a distance. A cloud of exhaust would probably skew things. People aren't going to be able track the orbits of radioactive exhaust for every nuclear powered space ship. They won't be able to be discounted.
As for nuclear powered spacecraft that do not vent radioisotopes, I have no problem with them in use outside the earth's atmosphere
As for point #4, you do change things by existing, but you can try to be intelligent about HOW you change things. If I lived on an island with only 20 coconut trees I would not burn them for light and warmth. I'd burn any other wood I could find even if it was inferior to palm trees.
Carbon 14 dating is very accurate for recent ( less than 10000 years) events. It can get you within a few years. There have been no natural uranium fires in that time period. But used to date events that happened millions of years ago, it is less precise. That is usually fine. It usually doesn't matter if a T-Rex died on a Monday or a Teusday after all. Also, natural uranium fires probably didn't spew crap into the air like a nuke blast, most of what was burning probably stayed in the ground.
You do know how plentiful Carbon 14 is on earth don't you? But the amount relative to Carbon 12 is what is important for dating which is why when the amount changes you can no longer use the radioactive decay rate of Carbon 14 to date things.
Of course the exhaust of a nuke rocket would be hotter than the other stuff in the solar system, but think about what 'hotter' means: Hot means 'rich in *highly* unstable isotopes'. Those short lived isotopes with half lives of only a few years are not the problem - they do not exist naturally because they would have completely decaysed by now, but other unstable isotopes with long half lives that might exist naturally in the solar system would also be emmitted. There is no way to distinguish a natural U235 atom from one emmitted by a nuclear rocket. They are precisely identical.
Avogadro's number is approx 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per mol. If you were to store an an exabyte of data in one mol of material then each byte would have a budget of about 600,000 atoms. That may be doable...
It's not putting out Uranuim, Thorium, Plutonium or other heavy elements. Those are produced in supernovae, and can tell a story that would be erased by a nuclear rocket.
The cost is $200, true. But would that get reported in them media? No. "Pranking script kiddies make companies buy inexpensive virus checker news at eleven" will always lose out to "Severe economic disaster caused my evil melicious Virus. The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling! news at eleven"
Slashdot Mirror
It's time to implement CrimeNet, the anonymous DNS replacement. It could work via a central nameserver that you subscribe to and pay based on traffic to/from or maybe a p2p solution. Making false whois records illegal won't stop crap.
Anyway, OO is yesterday's buzzword. There are times when it's the only sane way to go, and others when a different approach would work as well. Probably everyone who understands OO has at one time been somewhat of an OO fanatic. But although it's a useful tool, there is life beyond OO.
People who don't know assembly often associate it with some kludger that, although they may be expert at obscure details of often obsolete technology, writes unreadable and unstructured code because they somehow can't resist obfusticating things with some special 'secret' non-portable 'performance enhancing' trick. This hypothetical kludger likes to apply their very limited knowlege of assembly to problems it is best left out of in an attempt to impress the younguns whose knowlege may be completely nonexistant.
This association between kludgy programmers and assembly is 100% BS. If anything, assembly is MUCH LESS forgiving than other languages of programmers with bad habits about structuring code. While most other languages provide things ( like subroutines ) that tend to provide structure in a standard way, the assembly programmer has no compiler to enforce this. The assembly programmer has only their own habits and comments to enforce structure and readability. If you can write good readable assembly, then your skills at structuring code can survive in any environment. If your assembly programs work, then they are structured. If they are not structured, they do not work, or they appear to but have serious bugs.
For the OO fanatics: OO does not conflict with asm. Remember that OO languages compile to an assembly representation.
In the same way that an assembly programmer might define subroutine-like goto labels that expect a pointer to some parameters to be passed in a certain standard-throughout-the-program register, one could, ( and compilers do ) define objects in some standard way in assembly.
Learning assembly teaches you the wisdom and value of all the helpful features that a higher level language provides. To get anything sizeable accomplished in a readable and relatively bug free way in assembly, you end up implementing those high level features yourself by convention.
Assembly teaches that good coding style does not need to be enforced by the language ( it really can't be ), it comes from within the programmer. The helpful features of high level languages hint at some good ideas though. The enforcing of certain style rules can be a check against typographical errors, but it can not make a bad programmer into a good one.
Perl also doesn't legislate or enforce things. It gains the power of flexibility, while providing high level features to those who can appreciate and use them. You can write really awful Perl code because of this, but you can also write really beautiful Perl code because of this. It depends on you.
You would access the array using that 'subroutine', so you could forget about the mechanics of the actual dereferencing process. Maybe someone else would have written an nice 10 dimensional array member-access 'function' that you use, so you have no idea at all how the data in the array is stored. This is much the same as someone coding in C who doesn't even know assembly language.
The thing is, I took a course on x86 Assembly in college. We wrote a bunch of assembly programs. I would tell people honestly, if they asked, that I know x86 assembly, but that I haven't used it for years. ( since that class actually ) It would be possible to debug a compiler if you were familiar with the way that compiler lays out code etc. Merely knowing what 'mov eax, 3' and suchlike means is not enough.
int 21h
Actually it's crocheting..
Take a string and tie a slipknot. Then insert a loop of the string into the loop of the slipknot you just tied. Then repeat by inserting another loop into your new loop. Repeat this until you have a chain of about 80 loops.
2) superstring theory
Put a loop into the loop before the last loop you made. Then put a loop into both the loop before that and the current loop. Continue backwards until youcomplete another row. A smooth hook shaped stick makes this easier. Make 22 more rows for a total of 24. The dimensions ( 80x24 ) are pleasing to the eye.
3) supersymetry
Notice that the left side is the same as the right side, and the top half is the same as the bottom half. If you don't have a hamster in need of a blanket, pull the string until the whole thing unravels. What fun! Try it with the universe.
An entire lab that fits in a 1 femtometer cubed box.
Her boobs aren't as pert as you think, remember, the image is upside down.
... to Micheal Gross, who was in Tremors with Kevin Bacon...
How are they going to construct ASCII art without a fixed width font? Plus wouldn't you expect a spy vs spy courier type person to carry secret documents written in Courier type? Geez! And 14 pt font??? That's frikken huge!! What ever happened to typewriter size font?
Options for a certainly valuable company like google might be discounted less, maybe 3/4 of cash, whereas most other companies stock options would be discounted by more being valued at 1/10 or less of cash. If google has been distributing stock options, and now they are delaying IPO, it can't be good for morale. They should offer to buy back the options for cash.
Why not make some sort of electrohydrodynamic drive? Like a lifter, or a glorified Ionic Breeze? It would resemble a jet engine with a wide intake and a small exhaust nozzle. Cone shaped, it would have stages where air would be accellerated-into-the-room ( ionic-breeze terminology ) and recharged and re-accellerated into the next 'room' at higher and higher speeds. The air, I imagine, could be accellerated to very high speeds this way and the whole thing could be powered by microwaves beamed from earth - no need to carry on board fuel for weather experiments in upper atmosphere or, depending on how efficient this is, maybe it would be possible to reach orbit that way by building up enough momentum to get to orbit before you left the atmosphere... I dunno....
Uses sparkling clear limon flavored soda as coolant.
Lead is even deadlier when approaching your skull at 3 times the speed of sound.
If such a gizmo existed that could reconstruct you with all your memories intact, then I bet there would be extreme sports types who would for instance, skydive they wouldn't use parachutes because 'those are for wusses'. Real world/Road rules challenge could have immolation racing, where the contestants douse themselves with gasoline, and try to run as far as they can before they drop.
And of course, Gladiatore Violencia for dollars!
I used to play with mercury metal when I was a kid though and I don't seem to be throwing unbirthday parties or to be suffering any ill effects. I think as long as you don't heat it, don't react it with any chemicals, and wash your hands afterwards, and don't lose it in the carpet, mercury metal is a safe and facinating toy when played with occasionally ( like when a switch or thermometer happens to break )
Leaving out Tom-Bombadier was inevitable though - FOTR was the longset book and probably hardest to compress into a film. The Old Forest/Fangorn connection was therefore missed and we didn't get to see a willow tree eat a hobbit.
I see no problem with there being a Dorkswagon brand...
And since when does being functional preclude something from being art? How about a painted vase?
As for nuclear powered spacecraft that do not vent radioisotopes, I have no problem with them in use outside the earth's atmosphere
As for point #4, you do change things by existing, but you can try to be intelligent about HOW you change things. If I lived on an island with only 20 coconut trees I would not burn them for light and warmth. I'd burn any other wood I could find even if it was inferior to palm trees.
Carbon 14 dating is very accurate for recent ( less than 10000 years) events. It can get you within a few years. There have been no natural uranium fires in that time period. But used to date events that happened millions of years ago, it is less precise. That is usually fine. It usually doesn't matter if a T-Rex died on a Monday or a Teusday after all. Also, natural uranium fires probably didn't spew crap into the air like a nuke blast, most of what was burning probably stayed in the ground.
Of course the exhaust of a nuke rocket would be hotter than the other stuff in the solar system, but think about what 'hotter' means: Hot means 'rich in *highly* unstable isotopes'. Those short lived isotopes with half lives of only a few years are not the problem - they do not exist naturally because they would have completely decaysed by now, but other unstable isotopes with long half lives that might exist naturally in the solar system would also be emmitted. There is no way to distinguish a natural U235 atom from one emmitted by a nuclear rocket. They are precisely identical.
Avogadro's number is approx 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per mol. If you were to store an an exabyte of data in one mol of material then each byte would have a budget of about 600,000 atoms. That may be doable...
It's not putting out Uranuim, Thorium, Plutonium or other heavy elements. Those are produced in supernovae, and can tell a story that would be erased by a nuclear rocket.
Absolutely. You don't hear about banks without vaults, and you don't hear about large corporate networks without virus protection.
The cost is $200, true. But would that get reported in them media? No. "Pranking script kiddies make companies buy inexpensive virus checker news at eleven" will always lose out to "Severe economic disaster caused my evil melicious Virus. The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling! news at eleven"