However, if the US is permitted to encourage Iranians to break Iranian laws (c.f. Anonymizer store few days back), then surely all we need to do is for a bunch of Iranian programmers to perform the reverse engineering and everything's square again. You spit at our laws, we spit at yours. Win, win situation (apart from the litigious tossers involved, that is).
The particular misquote was from his FAQ on his 'DJBFFT' library. Seeing him lock horns with the 'FFTW' guys is quite fun. I decided to be fair, and tried both libraries. I then deleted FFTW.
Seeing him lock horns with Lenstra et al. regarding hardware for NFS factoring is equally fun. However, he's not had the time to prove that he's right on that issue. Yet.
Nope. Being shot in the head will stick with you for the rest of your life, which will be about a few seconds. Being shot in the hip will stick with you for the rest of your life. I hope your limp makes people laugh at you, and that in the winter months your arthritis is crippling.
I'm sure Anonymizer's intentions are purely altruistic.
To support my crack-induced opinion, I just had to just look at anonymiser.com's website:
Top left corner - logo + "Privacy is your Right" Top right corner - Login Username/Password Body of page - Private Surfing 2.1 $29.95
Total Net Shield $99.95
So: a) _Privacy_'s your right, but tell us who you are and b) Privacy's your _right_, but pay us money to help us give it to you.
To paraphrase one of the finest coders in existance:
" Don't modern compilers take care of optimisation?
Sure, if you don't care about speed. "
He also requests that you build his libraries with no more than -O1, because if the compiler starts trying to improve his code, it makes it worse (and yes, it is faster than anyone else's competing library at -O6).
Problem is, you need to start writing different C source for different architectures...
I remember that after a DoS, or other exploit was announced there was an outcry that Oracle shouldn't be allowed to get away with such a slogan. I thought the general feeling was that Oracle was claiming to be bullet-proof, protected from the outside world as well as internal failures.
However, go back to my parent post - my point was that it was a _boring_, _serious_ message, with a real payload, and with no dancing monkey boys, or meaningless littering butterflies.
Like alarge number of people, for along time there's been one particular mistake by others at the top of alist of things that annoy me. Why can't people be alittle more careful with their grammar? One has to draw aline somewhere, don't be aloser.
Anyway, I hope people of realised this is nothing to do with proper evolution. If this were to be proper evolution then the ability to write poems would be codified in the genes, and that would be crossed over and mutated. This is simply single poems that are being selected between. Therefore you could 'cheat' by simply inserting a Shakespearian sonnet into the gene pool, and it would be guaranteed to win every comparison. You can't inject "the ability to write Shakespearian sonnets" into the former gene pool because we don't know how to codify how to write such poems, and indeed that would be a far more interesting behaviour to try and evolve than just a single poem, which teaches us _nothing_.
I much prefer the evolutionary art page, as at least there you were evolving algorithms. I have no longer if that page still exists, I last looked there in about 1994.
Sorry to be so negative, but any old nonsense that breeds and is selected is called 'evolution' nowadays, which cheapens the concept.
For BOFHs sake avoid the glitzy bullshit. Publicity, however, shouldn't be avoided at all. Put forward a strong serious message. I guess a bit like the MS ad campaign which had the slogan "the/reliable/ windows NT", but with unlike that one it should have some basis in truth. (Cf. Oracle claiming to be crack-proof too.)
Just from """ 19500 visitors, up +40% from last year and the number of journalists covering the event increased twofold. """ We conclude there were ~14000 people last year, i.e. 5500 more people turned up.
Imagine if last year there were 8500 members of the public, and 5500 journos. And this year there were 8500 members of the public, and 11000 journos.
Sorry, there's no conclusion; I just wanted to insert some deliberate distortion. I in particularly like the idea of journos outnumbering their readership!
If you want high IPC (instructions per clock) then look at Alphas. DEC were the first company to hit 1.0 IPC mean on SPEC, and even had 2.0 IPC before anyone else. Having said that, now Intel has bought vast chunks of Alpha tech, the Itanic is pretty darn high IPC too.
Or both the sender and recipient have "profiles", and after a brief negotiation ("I strongly prefer to sound formal" + "I mildly prefer to hear chatty delivery" -> sound formal) the translations begin.
You heard it here first! (Or tenth, this comes under the category of "bleedin' obvious", IMHO, and thus non-patentable.)
"Kept it going this long"? They've already been reincarnated once anyway. This is MP3_v2.com. Roll on MP3_v3.com...
YAW. (purchaser of ~$500 worth of stuff from there)
Re:What's up with those OO examples??
on
PHP 5 Beta 1
·
· Score: 1
What's up with them? They're written by complete fucking idiots. (And I rarely swear.)
They're so fucking stupid they don't know what "overloading" means.
The "Overloadable Method calls and Property accesses" is *_NOT_* anything to do with overloading - it's to do with _overriding_.
I bet you they've never even heard of the LSP either.
This language is turning into a complete crock. It's written by people who haven't got a clue about how languages work. Anyone programming in PHP5 and claiming that they've programmed "OO" is seriously deluding themselves. They'll have a nasty shock when they meet other OO languages.
I have NT 4.0 for Dec Alpha. Not that I ever boot into it. Not that I ever reboot.
NT4 was supported on something like 5 architectures (Alpha, x86, MIPS, PPC, erm dunno). However apps were always distributed in binary form. It's _nothing_ to do with the CPU architecture, it's to do with the windows mentality. Or at least the first 6 letters of it.
If you want 64-bits, buy yourself a 21064-powered DEC from 1993. Yes _ten_ years old. Going for a song on E-bay (they're practically worthless, I won't deny that, but they're lovely machines).
And if you want speed too - looking at the Open SSL benchmarks for 21264 alphas (EV67), it looks like 4-year old Alphas can beat last year's Intel/AMD chips if coded well enough.
64-bit is 1990s technology. Intel and AMD are just slow to adopt it. (Or so say MIPS, Power, Sparc, HP-PA, and Axp.)
I've worked on large projects that used an OO language, and an OO design, where there were _11_ different abstract "linked list" base classes (huge project started in 1992 before the STL was around, but still being worked on 11 years later in its maintanance phase).
If that's code re-use, then my arsehole's a lilly.
However, I don't think you sharpenned your claws quite enough, as you didn't attack
"Grady Booch is one of the Big Names in Software Engineering"
to which I think you should have said something like:
"Pah, Grady Booch is a slimy little bugger who'll change his view on what's best for everyone every couple of years such that he can bring out a new book with a new 'methodology', with a new graphical representation that's different enough from what has come before that you are _obliged_ to shell out another couple of hundred dollars to buy the accompanying piece of software to permit you to use that methodology." or something. Don't feel you have to hold back - this is Slashdot!
Slashdot Mirror
However, if the US is permitted to encourage Iranians to break Iranian laws (c.f. Anonymizer store few days back), then surely all we need to do is for a bunch of Iranian programmers to perform the reverse engineering and everything's square again. You spit at our laws, we spit at yours. Win, win situation (apart from the litigious tossers involved, that is).
YAW.
Professor Daniel Bernstein. ( http://cr.yp.to/ )
The particular misquote was from his FAQ on his 'DJBFFT' library.
Seeing him lock horns with the 'FFTW' guys is quite fun.
I decided to be fair, and tried both libraries. I then deleted FFTW.
Seeing him lock horns with Lenstra et al. regarding hardware for NFS factoring is equally fun. However, he's not had the time to prove that he's right on that issue. Yet.
YAW.
Exactly.
"This will stick with me the rest of my life."
Nope. Being shot in the head will stick with you for the rest of your life, which will be about a few seconds. Being shot in the hip will stick with you for the rest of your life. I hope your limp makes people laugh at you, and that in the winter months your arthritis is crippling.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
YAW.
How can you say such things!
I'm sure Anonymizer's intentions are purely altruistic.
To support my crack-induced opinion, I just had to just look at anonymiser.com's website:
Top left corner - logo + "Privacy is your Right"
Top right corner - Login Username/Password
Body of page - Private Surfing 2.1 $29.95
Total Net Shield $99.95
So:
a) _Privacy_'s your right, but tell us who you are
and
b) Privacy's your _right_, but pay us money to help us give it to you.
YAW.
Right on!
To paraphrase one of the finest coders in existance:
" Don't modern compilers take care of optimisation?
Sure, if you don't care about speed. "
He also requests that you build his libraries with no more than -O1, because if the compiler starts trying to improve his code, it makes it worse (and yes, it is faster than anyone else's competing library at -O6).
Problem is, you need to start writing different C source for different architectures...
YAW.
Great post. Big hand.
"I'm not sure that, say, RSA encryption would *ever* have been developed without a patent system to provide encouragement."
Not even in GCHQ, by Ellis and Cocks, 7 years before Rivest Shamir and Adelman?
YAW.
Yeah, "unbreakable Oracle" was it.
I remember that after a DoS, or other exploit was announced there was an outcry that Oracle shouldn't be allowed to get away with such a slogan. I thought the general feeling was that Oracle was claiming to be bullet-proof, protected from the outside world as well as internal failures.
However, go back to my parent post - my point was that it was a _boring_, _serious_ message, with a real payload, and with no dancing monkey boys, or meaningless littering butterflies.
YAW.
Like alarge number of people, for along time there's been one
particular mistake by others at the top of alist of things
that annoy me. Why can't people be alittle more careful with
their grammar? One has to draw aline somewhere, don't be aloser.
YAW.
It's still up, and still fast!
Anyway, I hope people of realised this is nothing to do with proper evolution. If this were to be proper evolution then the ability to write poems would be codified in the genes, and that would be crossed over and mutated. This is simply single poems that are being selected between. Therefore you could 'cheat' by simply inserting a Shakespearian sonnet into the gene pool, and it would be guaranteed to win every comparison. You can't inject "the ability to write Shakespearian sonnets" into the former gene pool because we don't know how to codify how to write such poems, and indeed that would be a far more interesting behaviour to try and evolve than just a single poem, which teaches us _nothing_.
I much prefer the evolutionary art page, as at least there you were evolving algorithms. I have no longer if that page still exists, I last looked there in about 1994.
Sorry to be so negative, but any old nonsense that breeds and is selected is called 'evolution' nowadays, which cheapens the concept.
YAW.
At a Linux fair? Why Suomea or Svenska, of course.
YAW.
Part yes, part no.
/reliable/ windows NT", but with unlike that one it should have some basis in truth. (Cf. Oracle claiming to be crack-proof too.)
For BOFHs sake avoid the glitzy bullshit. Publicity, however, shouldn't be avoided at all. Put forward a strong serious message.
I guess a bit like the MS ad campaign which had the slogan "the
Avoid the monkey-boy dancing gimps, at least.
Has he been sectioned yet?
YAW.
Just from
"""
19500 visitors, up +40% from last year and the number of journalists covering the event increased twofold.
"""
We conclude there were ~14000 people last year, i.e. 5500 more people turned up.
Imagine if last year there were 8500 members of the public, and 5500 journos. And this year there were 8500 members of the public, and 11000 journos.
Sorry, there's no conclusion; I just wanted to insert some deliberate distortion. I in particularly like the idea of journos outnumbering their readership!
YAW.
Well spotted, it's an FP IPC (or CPI) test.
If you want high IPC (instructions per clock) then look at Alphas. DEC were the first company to hit 1.0 IPC mean on SPEC, and even had 2.0 IPC before anyone else. Having said that, now Intel has bought vast chunks of Alpha tech, the Itanic is pretty darn high IPC too.
YAW.
Quake had it - I "say" 'F10', and it gets translated to 'you bastard' before transmission.
YAW
Or both the sender and recipient have "profiles", and after a brief negotiation ("I strongly prefer to sound formal" + "I mildly prefer to hear chatty delivery" -> sound formal) the translations begin.
You heard it here first! (Or tenth, this comes under the category of "bleedin' obvious", IMHO, and thus non-patentable.)
YAW.
Why am I anonymous?
Slashdot (or Opera) is broken.
YAW.
(You're All Wrong)
"Kept it going this long"? ...
They've already been reincarnated once anyway.
This is MP3_v2.com.
Roll on MP3_v3.com
YAW. (purchaser of ~$500 worth of stuff from there)
What's up with them? They're written by complete fucking idiots. (And I rarely swear.)
They're so fucking stupid they don't know what "overloading" means.
The "Overloadable Method calls and Property accesses" is *_NOT_* anything to do with overloading - it's to do with _overriding_.
I bet you they've never even heard of the LSP either.
This language is turning into a complete crock. It's written by people who haven't got a clue about how languages work. Anyone programming in PHP5 and claiming that they've programmed "OO" is seriously deluding themselves. They'll have a nasty shock when they meet other OO languages.
YAW.
Isn't the simplest way to just use "Alias"
/article /processor.php
Alias
(or something like that) and then use the 1st hack in the article?
Note - I've never used it, I'm just guessing, but have considered using it, and am open to advice.
YAW.
"__set() looks like copy-and-paste of __get() that didn't get finished"
;-)
Ah, welcome to the heady world of "code reuse"
YAW.
"Windows comes on one architecture"
I have NT 4.0 for Dec Alpha. Not that I ever boot into it. Not that I ever reboot.
NT4 was supported on something like 5 architectures (Alpha, x86, MIPS, PPC, erm dunno). However apps were always distributed in binary form. It's _nothing_ to do with the CPU architecture, it's to do with the windows mentality. Or at least the first 6 letters of it.
YAW.
Pretty please.
It's a very interesting and pithy summary of the situation, and opened my eyes, certainly.
YAW.
If you want 64-bits, buy yourself a 21064-powered DEC from 1993.
Yes _ten_ years old. Going for a song on E-bay (they're practically worthless, I won't deny that, but they're lovely machines).
And if you want speed too - looking at the Open SSL benchmarks for 21264 alphas (EV67), it looks like 4-year old Alphas can beat last year's Intel/AMD chips if coded well enough.
64-bit is 1990s technology. Intel and AMD are just slow to adopt it. (Or so say MIPS, Power, Sparc, HP-PA, and Axp.)
YAW.
Woo woo!
I've worked on large projects that used an OO language, and an OO design, where there were _11_ different abstract "linked list" base classes (huge project started in 1992 before the STL was around, but still being worked on 11 years later in its maintanance phase).
If that's code re-use, then my arsehole's a lilly.
However, I don't think you sharpenned your claws quite enough, as you didn't attack
"Grady Booch is one of the Big Names in Software Engineering"
to which I think you should have said something like:
"Pah, Grady Booch is a slimy little bugger who'll change his view on what's best for everyone every couple of years such that he can bring out a new book with a new 'methodology', with a new graphical representation that's different enough from what has come before that you are _obliged_ to shell out another couple of hundred dollars to buy the accompanying piece of software to permit you to use that methodology." or something. Don't feel you have to hold back - this is Slashdot!
YAW.
[VMS/NT/...] "but under the hood it's totally different."
However, _under the hood_, Linux looks and smells like Unix, surely?
YAW.