Absolutely correct. But never forget, what America has done in the past is good (Hoover Dam anyone?), if another nation out of similar reasons wants to do the same, it is bad.
Well, there are plenty of Americans unhappy about the colorado river, Glen Canyon in southern Utah, etc. I'm sure these are mostly the same Americans as are upset about Three Gorges, as I don't think the mainstream US cares about it much at all. (As if there's anything we could do about China anyways).
If it is really no different then by definition it offers no advantages. To the extent that it offeres advantages it is indeed different so the disadvantages must be weighed along with the advantages.
Metal detectors are a complete non-starter. Are they going to have people put their wallet and wristwatch into a little bin that goes around the detector like at the airport? I might go through that once if it were unexpected, just to save the evening. But I'd never return to the theater again.
Untrue. Getting to the moon is difficult to replicate. There's a reason why we haven't been back, it's because we likely can't anymore. I'd dig up the article from NASA but I'm lazy.
The only thing we "can't" do is summon the resolve to spend billions and risk lives on a 60's era gag.
AOLs threat to dump MSIE is their biggest bargaining chip against Microsoft. I don't think AOL put 3/4 Bn into mozilla, so maybe it wasn't such a bad investment after all.
As I remember it there's no constitutional guarantee of anonymity, why people keep assuming that if they're on the net they're entitled to that right I don't know.
I really bothers me that people think the Constitution is an attempt to enumerate each of our rights. That's a horribly destructive assumption.
I read this after a previous slashdot recommendation, and I'm afraid I have to un-recommend it. There just isn't as much story as verbiage. In fact Stoll's pursuit contribution to the case amounted to 1) detecting the intruder and 2) dogging the cops to do a wiretap and make the bust, which we never learn much about. I din't find it all that technically intriguing.
Is novelty really the be-all and end-all? Established sports like football and tennnis don't change their rules around all the time to keep things fresh. I'll bet there will always be eg a quake-like shooters, because that's an activity that people enjoy. It doesn't necessarily need to be changed.
Granted single-player games probably can't be that way.
Personally I hope they do go metereed bandwidth.. because them myself and 99.99% of the net users out there will likely see their bill drop...
Maybe, maybe not. The last mile bandwidth costs about the same whether it is heavily or lightly utilized, and the long-haul bandwidth is super cheap and always getting cheaper. And in the US at least Internet access is increasingly dominated by cable companies that don't reduce prices, ever, for any reason.
In short, yes there may be bandwidth caps, but don't expect cable and telcos to share the savings with you.
... but on the other hand, won't the window repairman then spend the money on those more productive uses anyways?
This is something about economics I do not understand - basically, when to allow terms to cancel, and when not.
Some say trickle-down economics is bad because it gives to the rich; others say that doesn't matter because they'll do business with the middle class.
Some say globalization is bad becasue it means jobs done here will be done elsewhere; others say that doesn't matter because we'll have cheaper goods and move on to more cutting-edge industries.
Some say tax cuts are bad because it grows the deficit, others say that doesn't matter because it will stimulate the economy, leading to surplus in the near future.
The list goes on and on. If everything were really based on "equal and opposite" type reactions, it wouldn't matter what we did, so that can't be right. But it seems there's no real way of guaging the transferrence of effects, and deciding when to cut off the evaluation.
Nobody ever said it was a conspiracy. Ballmer just thinks he's better served by investing in something other than Microsoft. It's just interesting to see what he thinks of the company's prospects.
I don't much like lpd. To me it is one of those crufty old programs that never seems to work right, never gives informative error messages, and whose configuration is arcane. Other nominees: ntp and sendmail. (And yes, I'm sure they're all wonderful once you've mastered them).
Weird war, wasn't it? I was following websites from Russia, Europe, the US, and the Middle East, and everybody seemed to agree that the war was bogging down and that the administration had misjudged badly. One memorable phrase: "The Rumsfeld doctrine of underwhelming force" (a play on the "Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.") Then the next day we won the war.
Re:Security features in a language?
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
Some may call writing in C a security risk. Inherently, it isn't. C just gives the programmer more rope to either make a better knot or make a better noose, as they see fit. The first ten to twenty lines of nearly every C function I write go like this: return failure if this parameter isn't sane; return failure if that parameter isn't sane; return failure if any persistent context isn't consistent with how we were called; try to allocate all resources required for the function and return failure if any of those allocations failed. Some other languages may automate some of that. But as a security auditor, I'm going to want to see all that.
I think everybody agrees that it is in theory possible to write bug-free code in any language. But IMHO you must accept that fact that you are going to make a mistake once in every N statements. Naturally N will vary a lot depending on what you're trying to code and how good you are, but N is definitely not infinity. That means a bigger codebase will probably have more exploits. It means programs with lots of similar or redundant code (eg error checking code) will deteriorate more quickly in maintainence.
Not much of the code that exists will ever recieve the scrutiny that the linux kernel does, yet lo and behold, many more errors are discovered in the kernel whenever somebody thinks of a new way to look for them.
If you are worried about security auditing, I would think the soundness of languages like OCaml would be very appealing. ML, at least, is provably free of undefined behavior. Now that is cool! Does it mean your programs will always function correctly? Of course not, but of all things that could go wrong, quite a few can be ruled out with a high degree of confidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Geeze, next they'll be dropping scheme in favor of VB!
A lot of the time when people complain about a company trying to make money it's because said company has actually done something bad. It does happen.
(Nevermind that nuclear bombs come in lots of different sizes, that never stops anybody.)
(And yes, I am fully aware of Godwin's "Law," and it's garbage if it's interpreted to preclude meaningful discussion on the topic).
If it is really no different then by definition it offers no advantages. To the extent that it offeres advantages it is indeed different so the disadvantages must be weighed along with the advantages.
Screw that, I prefer to speed most of the time and so do most other people.
Metal detectors are a complete non-starter. Are they going to have people put their wallet and wristwatch into a little bin that goes around the detector like at the airport? I might go through that once if it were unexpected, just to save the evening. But I'd never return to the theater again.
I don't think movies get a rating accidentally. Rather, they will insert or remove material as necessary to get the rating they want.
AOLs threat to dump MSIE is their biggest bargaining chip against Microsoft. I don't think AOL put 3/4 Bn into mozilla, so maybe it wasn't such a bad investment after all.
I read this after a previous slashdot recommendation, and I'm afraid I have to un-recommend it. There just isn't as much story as verbiage. In fact Stoll's pursuit contribution to the case amounted to 1) detecting the intruder and 2) dogging the cops to do a wiretap and make the bust, which we never learn much about. I din't find it all that technically intriguing.
Granted single-player games probably can't be that way.
In short, yes there may be bandwidth caps, but don't expect cable and telcos to share the savings with you.
This is something about economics I do not understand - basically, when to allow terms to cancel, and when not.
Some say trickle-down economics is bad because it gives to the rich; others say that doesn't matter because they'll do business with the middle class.
Some say globalization is bad becasue it means jobs done here will be done elsewhere; others say that doesn't matter because we'll have cheaper goods and move on to more cutting-edge industries.
Some say tax cuts are bad because it grows the deficit, others say that doesn't matter because it will stimulate the economy, leading to surplus in the near future.
The list goes on and on. If everything were really based on "equal and opposite" type reactions, it wouldn't matter what we did, so that can't be right. But it seems there's no real way of guaging the transferrence of effects, and deciding when to cut off the evaluation.
I would think people who jump quickly between employers would be considered higher risk for transferring proprietary technology.
Actually my complaint with ntp is more in the "informative error messages" department. That and the output of ntpq also cryptic.
No, Billy Gates went to Harvard. Though he didn't graduate.
Nobody ever said it was a conspiracy. Ballmer just thinks he's better served by investing in something other than Microsoft. It's just interesting to see what he thinks of the company's prospects.
I don't much like lpd. To me it is one of those crufty old programs that never seems to work right, never gives informative error messages, and whose configuration is arcane. Other nominees: ntp and sendmail. (And yes, I'm sure they're all wonderful once you've mastered them).
Weird war, wasn't it? I was following websites from Russia, Europe, the US, and the Middle East, and everybody seemed to agree that the war was bogging down and that the administration had misjudged badly. One memorable phrase: "The Rumsfeld doctrine of underwhelming force" (a play on the "Powell doctrine of overwhelming force.") Then the next day we won the war.
Not much of the code that exists will ever recieve the scrutiny that the linux kernel does, yet lo and behold, many more errors are discovered in the kernel whenever somebody thinks of a new way to look for them.
If you are worried about security auditing, I would think the soundness of languages like OCaml would be very appealing. ML, at least, is provably free of undefined behavior. Now that is cool! Does it mean your programs will always function correctly? Of course not, but of all things that could go wrong, quite a few can be ruled out with a high degree of confidence.
(I'm sure not ALL older people print a lot, but all the prolific printers I know are older).