While you're right on the "das", it's doubtful that a dictionary crack would fix it. Since "das" is also his U of Wisc NetID (ref. the e-mail address at the bottom of the page), it's more likely that the password is the same as his U of Wisc password.
So... Anyone up for breaking into the U of Wisc password database?
Good luck with that. However, the link you provided was to the College of Engineering computer network, which is entirely separate from both DoIT (where Dave Schroeder works) and from the campus wide NetID. And a NetID won't get you onto the DoIT network, nor the CAE network. And test.doit.wisc.edu probably doesn't use the DoIT network for login information...
Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
Which Macintosh Computer do you know of that did NOT ship with Mac OS?
That's not relevant. A lot of software lists hardware requirements. However, nowhere on the retail OS X box does it say that it is being sold as an upgrade.
Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
You are missing the obvious, again: "The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS."
Where is your quote from? I don't see it on either of the following:
It's true that all supported computers came with some Macintosh OS. However, I still don't see any place where Apple states that they are selling Tiger only as an "upgrade".
Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
The retail boxes are technically upgrades.
What's your source for this? Go to the Apple's online store: they list hardware requirements, but no software requirements.
If you are doing OSS for direct financial reward, you'll be disappointed.
That's just not true. Take a look at the developer lists for major OSS projects, such as gcc. There are a lot of people working on these projects for Red Hat, IBM, SUSE, Apple, various academic and government agencies, etc. Plenty of people (myself included) are paid well for OSS work.
So...your contention is that you drink coffee at a temperature that will cause severe burns to the inside of your mouth.
And you're calling him a moron.
Have you ever had a cup of coffee? At the proper temperature, coffee WILL burn your mouth if you try to gulp it down. That's why non-morons SIP their coffee, rather than pouring it down their throats (or on their crotches).
It doesn't taste better that way because you CAN'T drink it
Fair enough. I like my brewed coffee to be very hot (~200 F), but I do let it cool a bit before I drink it. (Coffee tastes best to me when it's just cool enough to sip, but still much too hot to gulp.) If I'm driving and can't carefully sip the coffee, it has to cool a lot before I can drink it. On the other hand, when I buy coffee to go, I want it to be very hot so that by the time I get to where I'm going, the coffee is still drinkable. I can always let hot coffee cool down, but once coffee's lukewarm, it's worthless.
People have been citing the McDonalds coffee lawsuit since it happened as an example of stupid lawsuits, and I don't know how many times I've had to point this out to people:
You're a fucking moron. Really. I know you like playing the smarter-than-thou "I know the real facts" type, but the truth is this: coffee is hot. It's supposed to be hot. When I buy coffee, I expect it to be really goddamn hot, so that it won't be lukewarm by the time I take my first sip.
Here's the deal: you pour coffee on yourself, you get burned. Whose fault is that? It sure as hell ain't the fault of the person who made the coffee. Once again, COFFEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT. REALLY HOT.
Now, why did McDonalds keep their coffee so hot? BECAUSE IT TASTES BETTER THAT WAY! Because some of us (people who understand that coffee should be HOT) prefer it like that.
Yes, McDonalds had been sued before. Morons (like yourself) often believe that their own stupidity entitles them to some sort of windfall. And you know what? These days, it often does, since it's easier and cheaper to settle than to fight the allegations in court. You never know when you will end up with a jury of FUCKING MORONS (like yourself) who will award millions to someone when the injure themselves due to their own STUPIDITY.
Not sure if you're joking or not, but it's fairly clear that Twain is expression admiration for Cooper's accomplishments in the guise of criticism. Typical Twain really, very clever, I was just a bit unsure from your post whether you got it or not.
Yeah, Twain sure snuck that by me. I'd never even suspected that this was praise:
"Cooper's word-sense was singularly dull. When a person has a poor ear
for music he will flat and sharp right along without knowing it. He
keeps near the tune, but it is not the tune. When a person has a poor
ear for words, the result is a literary flatting and sharping; you
perceive what he is intending to say, but you also perceive that he
doesn't say it. This is Cooper. He was not a word-musician. His ear
was satisfied with the approximate word. I will furnish some
circumstantial evidence in support of this charge . .."
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. In the future, I'll try to look beyond what is written to see, uh, something else?
Heed the word "forced". If you're a porn-star, you may at any time quit the business and never return to that line of work. They can't "force" you to remain undressed.
Yes, and in the context of the post to which I was replying, one would be free to leave the university that was "forcing" students to provide nude pictures. What's your point?
The problem that the ID people face is that Intelligent Design is irrelevant to the study of the issue. In fact, the only real question is are seemingly random mutations truly random or the work of some higher power? And the answer is, it doesn't matter.
I disagree. To fully understand evolution, we need to look at why these mutations occur. Now, I probably misunderstand a lot of things having to do with evolution. (I'm a mathematician, not a scientist.) But the Darwinian view of evolution by random mutations seems ludicrous to me. By all means, try to convince me otherwise. Show me a reasonable mathematical model for evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an advocate of creationism or intelligent design. I'm just saying that the mechanism for evolution is much more complex (and much more interesting!) than the strict Darwinians believe.
I'm tempted to agree with the ID advocates on one thing: that the theory of evolution has some big holes, and these should be discussed in science classrooms. Maybe not in high school, though, for the same reason we don't confuse high school students learning introductory physics with discussions about how classical mechanics isn't actually correct.
Similarly, why should any sane person be happy about having to put together documents in the typographical equivalent of assembly language?
Honestly, how would you design a complete, powerful typesetting system that lets users do anything, but is ridiculously easy to use? TeX is a typesetting language, not a word processor. TeX works fine with WYSIWYG front-ends (Scientific Workplace, lyx, TeXmacs, etc).
Look, numbnuts, it's not about "dumbing things down", it's about the principles of good design. It's not the 60's anymore. Why do I have to typeset documents in a markup language that looks absolutely disgusting, and has all the grace and verbosity of XML? I just want to get things done, I don't want to wrestle a 5 ton monster every time I have to meet a submission deadline.
That has nothing to do with good design. Knuth wrote an amazingly versatile program for type-setting math. He provided the means for creating almost any document one can imagine. Quit whining that he didn't also create some GUI point & drool front-end for you. The program does exactly what it was intended to do. There are collections of templates and macros, as well as handful of WYSIWYG TeX processors, and for some people, these are enough. But what Knuth did was write a versatile program that can handle almost anything you throw at it. Yeah, he didn't spend another year writing a simpler front-end for people like you. That's not poor design.
But hey, let's see your brilliantly designed, bug-free (or close to it), still-going-strong-after-more-than-15-years project. The one with an interface that even you can handle, but with every option an advanced user could want. That magical piece of software that suits everybody's needs perfectly. Put up or shut up, champ.
I think it's clear that you have not had to typeset a substantial number of scientific documents in TeX/LaTeX.
No, I like TeX precisely because I do have to do a lot of mathematical type-setting. Yes, TeX could be dumbed down, but at the cost of losing a lot of control. TeX was well-designed for its target audience. The same goes for TAOCP. Why should everything be dumbed for you & "the unwashed masses"?
Knuth and Graham are both reasonably good at writing books, but awful at writing software - Knuth because TeX is one of the most poorly designed, difficult to use, impractical pieces of software I've ever had the displeasure of using
Ahh, so because you're too stupid to use TeX, Knuth's success in creating a useful, reliable, and elegant system for math typesetting qualifies him as awful at writing software. Huh.
Serious gamblers (and to a much lesser extent, moderate lottery players) are counting on Lady Luck and some mysterious force that might smile upon them for once
No, serious gamblers count on fish who are counting on Lady Luck.
The only point of gambling is that it's a tax for being bad at math
Gee, that's clever, did you come up with that yourself? Do you know anything about gambling? I know more than a couple mathematicians (myself included) who have made a nice profit playing poker. And no, we don't only take money from people who are bad at math; successful poker requires math, strategy, discipline & composure, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Java doesn't. Everything is passed by value.
More precisely, C++ is a superset of C.
More precisely? That's exactly the same thing: B is a superset of A if and only if A is a subset of B.
So... Anyone up for breaking into the U of Wisc password database?
Good luck with that. However, the link you provided was to the College of Engineering computer network, which is entirely separate from both DoIT (where Dave Schroeder works) and from the campus wide NetID. And a NetID won't get you onto the DoIT network, nor the CAE network. And test.doit.wisc.edu probably doesn't use the DoIT network for login information...
That's not relevant. A lot of software lists hardware requirements. However, nowhere on the retail OS X box does it say that it is being sold as an upgrade.
Where is your quote from? I don't see it on either of the following:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/A ppleStore?productLearnMore=MA190Z/A
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/
It's true that all supported computers came with some Macintosh OS. However, I still don't see any place where Apple states that they are selling Tiger only as an "upgrade".
What's your source for this? Go to the Apple's online store: they list hardware requirements, but no software requirements.
That's just not true. Take a look at the developer lists for major OSS projects, such as gcc. There are a lot of people working on these projects for Red Hat, IBM, SUSE, Apple, various academic and government agencies, etc. Plenty of people (myself included) are paid well for OSS work.
And you're calling him a moron.
Have you ever had a cup of coffee? At the proper temperature, coffee WILL burn your mouth if you try to gulp it down. That's why non-morons SIP their coffee, rather than pouring it down their throats (or on their crotches).
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=7 1
Fair enough. I like my brewed coffee to be very hot (~200 F), but I do let it cool a bit before I drink it. (Coffee tastes best to me when it's just cool enough to sip, but still much too hot to gulp.) If I'm driving and can't carefully sip the coffee, it has to cool a lot before I can drink it. On the other hand, when I buy coffee to go, I want it to be very hot so that by the time I get to where I'm going, the coffee is still drinkable. I can always let hot coffee cool down, but once coffee's lukewarm, it's worthless.
You're a fucking moron. Really. I know you like playing the smarter-than-thou "I know the real facts" type, but the truth is this: coffee is hot. It's supposed to be hot. When I buy coffee, I expect it to be really goddamn hot, so that it won't be lukewarm by the time I take my first sip.
Here's the deal: you pour coffee on yourself, you get burned. Whose fault is that? It sure as hell ain't the fault of the person who made the coffee. Once again, COFFEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT. REALLY HOT.
Now, why did McDonalds keep their coffee so hot? BECAUSE IT TASTES BETTER THAT WAY! Because some of us (people who understand that coffee should be HOT) prefer it like that.
Yes, McDonalds had been sued before. Morons (like yourself) often believe that their own stupidity entitles them to some sort of windfall. And you know what? These days, it often does, since it's easier and cheaper to settle than to fight the allegations in court. You never know when you will end up with a jury of FUCKING MORONS (like yourself) who will award millions to someone when the injure themselves due to their own STUPIDITY.
I don't remember the day I first found a bug in gcc. I have only a vague recollection of the first bug I introduced into gcc . . . :)
Yeah, Twain sure snuck that by me. I'd never even suspected that this was praise:
"Cooper's word-sense was singularly dull. When a person has a poor ear for music he will flat and sharp right along without knowing it. He keeps near the tune, but it is not the tune. When a person has a poor ear for words, the result is a literary flatting and sharping; you perceive what he is intending to say, but you also perceive that he doesn't say it. This is Cooper. He was not a word-musician. His ear was satisfied with the approximate word. I will furnish some circumstantial evidence in support of this charge . . ."
Thanks for pointing out my mistake. In the future, I'll try to look beyond what is written to see, uh, something else?
I'll not whine about such company.
I would. Check out what Mark Twain had to say: Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences.
Yes, and in the context of the post to which I was replying, one would be free to leave the university that was "forcing" students to provide nude pictures. What's your point?
Bullshit. What about the (legal) pornography industry?
Still making payments on those Monster cables, eh?
I disagree. To fully understand evolution, we need to look at why these mutations occur. Now, I probably misunderstand a lot of things having to do with evolution. (I'm a mathematician, not a scientist.) But the Darwinian view of evolution by random mutations seems ludicrous to me. By all means, try to convince me otherwise. Show me a reasonable mathematical model for evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an advocate of creationism or intelligent design. I'm just saying that the mechanism for evolution is much more complex (and much more interesting!) than the strict Darwinians believe.
I'm tempted to agree with the ID advocates on one thing: that the theory of evolution has some big holes, and these should be discussed in science classrooms. Maybe not in high school, though, for the same reason we don't confuse high school students learning introductory physics with discussions about how classical mechanics isn't actually correct.
Not very good with logic, are you?
Honestly, how would you design a complete, powerful typesetting system that lets users do anything, but is ridiculously easy to use? TeX is a typesetting language, not a word processor. TeX works fine with WYSIWYG front-ends (Scientific Workplace, lyx, TeXmacs, etc).
That has nothing to do with good design. Knuth wrote an amazingly versatile program for type-setting math. He provided the means for creating almost any document one can imagine. Quit whining that he didn't also create some GUI point & drool front-end for you. The program does exactly what it was intended to do. There are collections of templates and macros, as well as handful of WYSIWYG TeX processors, and for some people, these are enough. But what Knuth did was write a versatile program that can handle almost anything you throw at it. Yeah, he didn't spend another year writing a simpler front-end for people like you. That's not poor design.
But hey, let's see your brilliantly designed, bug-free (or close to it), still-going-strong-after-more-than-15-years project. The one with an interface that even you can handle, but with every option an advanced user could want. That magical piece of software that suits everybody's needs perfectly. Put up or shut up, champ.
No, I like TeX precisely because I do have to do a lot of mathematical type-setting. Yes, TeX could be dumbed down, but at the cost of losing a lot of control. TeX was well-designed for its target audience. The same goes for TAOCP. Why should everything be dumbed for you & "the unwashed masses"?
Ahh, so because you're too stupid to use TeX, Knuth's success in creating a useful, reliable, and elegant system for math typesetting qualifies him as awful at writing software. Huh.
No, serious gamblers count on fish who are counting on Lady Luck.
Gee, that's clever, did you come up with that yourself? Do you know anything about gambling? I know more than a couple mathematicians (myself included) who have made a nice profit playing poker. And no, we don't only take money from people who are bad at math; successful poker requires math, strategy, discipline & composure, etc.