When I asked about the differences a few months ago, the Vodafone customer service told me: "The information on your Vodafone account online is the real usage. Numbers from data usage apps are not reliable." But I highly doubt that I used 36 MB over the last day of the month, so it seems that within Vodafone they have different systems.
Most likely the numbers in their on-line usage monitor are not truly up-to-date. The Vodafone website here in the Netherlands is not always the best example of engineering.
I have been toying with a site idea. Your account name is your public key fingerprint. You public nicname is whatever you use in the message. Your login is validated because everything you send is signed wiht the key that matches the fingerprint (and encrypted with my public key for transmision). Input to user form is constrained and validated within those constraints (to prevent padding attacks).
I would then have a database "key x","paid through date y".
Sure, I couldn't sell any farmed data a-la facebook, but suppoena requests woudl be a breze... "here's your hex dump..."
If you accept payments, wouldn't those keys still be linked to contact information and/or payment transactions?
The "TODO" flag isn't what's wrong there, the "this" part is. It's obvious that the TODO relates to the nearby code (this, not that). It's still not obvious what needs to be fixed. It could be a lack of performance, error handling, input validation. Some use-cases/states/values might not be covered/tested/identified or implemented. But the answer is always: why. Ask yourself "why am I adding a comment here" and the answer is the perfect comment.
No. You have to be reasonably prepared for it, that's all. It's futile to worry about things you cannot control. Or those you can control, because then you just have to take necessary actions. Worrying is never the right solution.
People not so long ago would have said that about many of the things we take for granted today.
And those people were right, for dozens of generations to come. What we might achieve in 2300 is not relevant today. Sure, we must try to continue scientific and technologic progress. With both revolutionary discoveries and evolutionary practical solutions. But constructing a planet, as of now, is indeed totally out of reach.
What we have to show for is just a single permanently inhabited construction in orbit, just one dozen of men on the moon in total and an growing but still insignificant number of unmanned landings on other bodies orbiting Sol. While I'm hopeful our descendents could create an artificial planet, I have to agree with GP that we, the humans alive as we speak, will most certainly not.
I wrote find-issues.sh, a script that extracts comments of a certain type within the code and then groups them by file. Downside: your code files change when you register a bug. Upside: when done right, your bug description is next to the code that needs fixing.
Obviously won't work for distributed development, but for single-coder projects, it's really been useful to me. Note some assumptions and grep magic to exclude third-party files and other non-code files.
if [ "x${LASTFILE}" != "x${FILE}" ]; then
if [ "x${LASTFILE}" != "x1" ]; then
echo
fi
printf "%s:\n" "${FILE}"
LASTFILE=${FILE}
fi
printf "%5s:%s\n" "${LEVEL}" "${COMMENT}" done
You underestimate the influence of mavens. The average user is not going to drop dollars on a phone or phone plan if their favourite tech expert doesn't like it.
True, but the mavens are not motivated by hatred against Microsoft. They are motivated because:
1. iOS and Android have been proven to work. 2. iOS and Android have a large ecosphere of apps. And tech users. And non-tech users. 3. iOS this and Android that.
Apple, Samsung and HTC have repeatedly been on the top of "best phone" lists for years now. Nokia's Windows phone is not being ignored because it is worse or disliked, it is being ignored because no one has one in the first place to offer a recommendation. Under those circumstances it's not good enough to compete, one has to be better. And it's not significantly better.
Facebook is not just a social network, it's consumer groupware. Compare it to television or telephone, not to Myspace and other previous offerings focusing solely on the social factor.
I expect the following:
- provides ticketing for events. - a store for media content and app content. - even a premium subscription model to remove ads (hi Slashdot!).
Assuming the compromised database had proper hashing with per-user salts, you are right. In any other case, the vulnerability here was the third-party storage and not the password strength. (On top of password re-use, of course).
If the people of Pakistan truly did not like it, they could change their government through revolution, within the framework of their country's legal system, or just leave.
I fail to understand how people can say that they belong to a Christian sect and claim to agree with the good things and not the bad. Your religion forbids this.
I agree that it is confusing how ambiguous the term Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) has become and that an elaborately filtered or revised denomination would be very beneficial to non-believers and possible even more so the believers themselves. But the majority of modern day believers indeed applying filters is ultimately a lot more important.
This is such a childish view. The Long Long Ago trope is merely stage setting. The adults here are talking about the fundamental humanist differences, not where it was SET.
I don't think it's childish at all. Star Trek wasn't just coincidentally dealing with us, humans. While it included a great deal of generic humanist issues, most of them purposefully reflected on actual human social issues. Quite often it explicitely explored the differences or lack thereof between humanoids in general and homo sapiens sapiens specifically. Maybe the background of Star Wars was merely stage setting, but in Star Trek it was a deliberate choice. If that allows a greater or different audience to relate to the stories and reflect on them, or the same more intimately, then the setting is all but irrelevant.
If they were smart, they would stop overestimating the value of the Atari trademark. Most mobile gamers are too young to have a positive reaction to the name itself. The rest are probably old and experienced enough to realise their past achievements are not relevant today. Just find a new name. It is actually possible to launch a succesful brand with a name unknown twenty years ago, you know.
The entire thing about being online is that text communication does not include any identifiable clues. You can't see the face, you can't hear the voice, you can't even measure the timing of the key strikes.
The same has probably once been said about paper. But then we invented pesky technologies such as photography, handwriting identification, watermarking, and fingerprinting... there is nothing inherently anonymous or private about digital communication. Privacy can exist due to technologic constraints and designs can be made to counteract advances in (digital) forensics, but privacy is inherently incompatible with any kind of exchange. Bits are routed, waves have signal strength, fotons cause sight, mass attracts other particles. If you want to be truly anonymous, be Schroedinger's cat.
I don't know what your talking about, then again I don't befriend/follow/circle the stupid of the world that much. If you stick to networking with actual friends, peers and organisations of interest, the social networks are a much happier place.
Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.
As a beginner, you're not refactoring OOP abstract classes to optimise compiler performance in a distributed system.
You edit string values generated by simple if/else statements in trivial pieces of code. And you can do that in nearly any language. You pick up more details as you progress. If you don't progress or lose interest, you're not a programmer. If you are, any language will do to find out.
Slashdot Mirror
HTC lets you do this already by flipping your phone. Both are just a motion sensor output value linked to operating state.
When I asked about the differences a few months ago, the Vodafone customer service told me: "The information on your Vodafone account online is the real usage. Numbers from data usage apps are not reliable." But I highly doubt that I used 36 MB over the last day of the month, so it seems that within Vodafone they have different systems.
Most likely the numbers in their on-line usage monitor are not truly up-to-date. The Vodafone website here in the Netherlands is not always the best example of engineering.
I have been toying with a site idea. Your account name is your public key fingerprint. You public nicname is whatever you use in the message. Your login is validated because everything you send is signed wiht the key that matches the fingerprint (and encrypted with my public key for transmision). Input to user form is constrained and validated within those constraints (to prevent padding attacks).
I would then have a database "key x","paid through date y".
Sure, I couldn't sell any farmed data a-la facebook, but suppoena requests woudl be a breze... "here's your hex dump..."
If you accept payments, wouldn't those keys still be linked to contact information and/or payment transactions?
The "TODO" flag isn't what's wrong there, the "this" part is. It's obvious that the TODO relates to the nearby code (this, not that). It's still not obvious what needs to be fixed. It could be a lack of performance, error handling, input validation. Some use-cases/states/values might not be covered/tested/identified or implemented. But the answer is always: why. Ask yourself "why am I adding a comment here" and the answer is the perfect comment.
No. You have to be reasonably prepared for it, that's all. It's futile to worry about things you cannot control. Or those you can control, because then you just have to take necessary actions. Worrying is never the right solution.
People not so long ago would have said that about many of the things we take for granted today.
And those people were right, for dozens of generations to come. What we might achieve in 2300 is not relevant today. Sure, we must try to continue scientific and technologic progress. With both revolutionary discoveries and evolutionary practical solutions. But constructing a planet, as of now, is indeed totally out of reach.
What we have to show for is just a single permanently inhabited construction in orbit, just one dozen of men on the moon in total and an growing but still insignificant number of unmanned landings on other bodies orbiting Sol. While I'm hopeful our descendents could create an artificial planet, I have to agree with GP that we, the humans alive as we speak, will most certainly not.
I wrote find-issues.sh, a script that extracts comments of a certain type within the code and then groups them by file. Downside: your code files change when you register a bug. Upside: when done right, your bug description is next to the code that needs fixing.
Obviously won't work for distributed development, but for single-coder projects, it's really been useful to me.
Note some assumptions and grep magic to exclude third-party files and other non-code files.
#!/bin/sh
LASTFILE=""
egrep -ri "(WARNING|HACK|FIXME|TODO|BUG)" . | egrep -vi "(\.git|debug|/third-party|/locale|/prettify|doc/|/jquery-|lib/s3.php|/jwysiwyg/|^./(.*)\.(txt|conf|xml):(.*))" | while read LINE ; do
FILE=`echo "${LINE}" | cut -d":" -f1`
DATA=`echo "${LINE}" | cut -d":" -f2- | cut -d"/" -f3-`
LEVEL=`echo "${DATA}" | cut -d":" -f1`
COMMENT=`echo "${DATA}" | cut -d":" -f2-`
if [ "x${LASTFILE}" != "x${FILE}" ]; then
if [ "x${LASTFILE}" != "x1" ]; then
echo
fi
printf "%s:\n" "${FILE}"
LASTFILE=${FILE}
fi
printf "%5s:%s\n" "${LEVEL}" "${COMMENT}"
done
You underestimate the influence of mavens. The average user is not going to drop dollars on a phone or phone plan if their favourite tech expert doesn't like it.
True, but the mavens are not motivated by hatred against Microsoft. They are motivated because:
1. iOS and Android have been proven to work.
2. iOS and Android have a large ecosphere of apps. And tech users. And non-tech users.
3. iOS this and Android that.
Apple, Samsung and HTC have repeatedly been on the top of "best phone" lists for years now. Nokia's Windows phone is not being ignored because it is worse or disliked, it is being ignored because no one has one in the first place to offer a recommendation. Under those circumstances it's not good enough to compete, one has to be better. And it's not significantly better.
Facebook is not just a social network, it's consumer groupware. Compare it to television or telephone, not to Myspace and other previous offerings focusing solely on the social factor.
I expect the following:
- provides ticketing for events.
- a store for media content and app content.
- even a premium subscription model to remove ads (hi Slashdot!).
You act like We have a say. Wake up.
There is no Berlin wall surrounding the USA. You are free to leave.
Countries like mine (Netherlands) would be happy to have skilled workers from the western world.
Bad idea. There would be no Slashdot left with all the editors posting dupes.
Well done. Pointing out that inability of the iPhone is funny, flamebait and interesting all at once.
Assuming the compromised database had proper hashing with per-user salts, you are right. In any other case, the vulnerability here was the third-party storage and not the password strength. (On top of password re-use, of course).
If the people of Pakistan truly did not like it, they could change their government through revolution, within the framework of their country's legal system, or just leave.
Or just not send HTTP requests to facebook.com?
I fail to understand how people can say that they belong to a Christian sect and claim to agree with the good things and not the bad. Your religion forbids this.
I agree that it is confusing how ambiguous the term Christian (or Muslim, for that matter) has become and that an elaborately filtered or revised denomination would be very beneficial to non-believers and possible even more so the believers themselves. But the majority of modern day believers indeed applying filters is ultimately a lot more important.
In Matthew and Luke, Jesus frequently advocates violence or condemns those who do not submit to him. Like father, like son.
I like most modern day Christians a whole lot better.
This is such a childish view. The Long Long Ago trope is merely stage setting. The adults here are talking about the fundamental humanist differences, not where it was SET.
I don't think it's childish at all. Star Trek wasn't just coincidentally dealing with us, humans. While it included a great deal of generic humanist issues, most of them purposefully reflected on actual human social issues. Quite often it explicitely explored the differences or lack thereof between humanoids in general and homo sapiens sapiens specifically. Maybe the background of Star Wars was merely stage setting, but in Star Trek it was a deliberate choice. If that allows a greater or different audience to relate to the stories and reflect on them, or the same more intimately, then the setting is all but irrelevant.
They should build a robot 120 times taller than a human. It could run a marathon in a minute, or LA-NY in an hour and a half.
The difference is that they ban both, and more.
If they were smart, they would stop overestimating the value of the Atari trademark. Most mobile gamers are too young to have a positive reaction to the name itself. The rest are probably old and experienced enough to realise their past achievements are not relevant today. Just find a new name. It is actually possible to launch a succesful brand with a name unknown twenty years ago, you know.
The entire thing about being online is that text communication does not include any identifiable clues. You can't see the face, you can't hear the voice, you can't even measure the timing of the key strikes.
The same has probably once been said about paper. But then we invented pesky technologies such as photography, handwriting identification, watermarking, and fingerprinting... there is nothing inherently anonymous or private about digital communication. Privacy can exist due to technologic constraints and designs can be made to counteract advances in (digital) forensics, but privacy is inherently incompatible with any kind of exchange. Bits are routed, waves have signal strength, fotons cause sight, mass attracts other particles. If you want to be truly anonymous, be Schroedinger's cat.
I don't know what your talking about, then again I don't befriend/follow/circle the stupid of the world that much. If you stick to networking with actual friends, peers and organisations of interest, the social networks are a much happier place.
Terrorists use eight year old kids as vessel for their explosives, precisely because security is sometimes lowered for obviously innocent types. Not to say I appreciate the security bloatfest of the past decade, absolutely not... but being old or disabled is not a "get out of security checkpoints free" card and never should be. Can't respond on the individual case, I wasn't there.
As a beginner, you're not refactoring OOP abstract classes to optimise compiler performance in a distributed system.
You edit string values generated by simple if/else statements in trivial pieces of code. And you can do that in nearly any language. You pick up more details as you progress. If you don't progress or lose interest, you're not a programmer. If you are, any language will do to find out.
Cuddly, furry ones. And trouser snakes.