Yeah, but about as likely as winning the lottery every week of your life, while every hot female in the world beats a path to your door (and you didn't tell them about winning the lottery), hell reaches absolute zero and pigs go supersonic. Perhaps if you had an infinite improbability drive...
I saw Paul McGann while cycling to work this morning... Saw him a couple of weeks ago in Sainsburys too. I thought he was a pretty good Doctor. But then I quite liked Colin Baker too, so maybe I am mad or something. Anyway, Tom Baker was almost everyone's favourite, and Sylvester McCoy was the worst... Stupid question mark wearing mumble mumble...
What, the fact that they put something in a field explicitly marked "This field may also contain information needed by certain extensions to the Kerberos protocol." in RFC1510??? And then, only when talking to another Microsoft server? Oh, but because it's Microsoft, they're not allowed to. Grow up. The only thing they did wrong was to put a license agreement in the way of reading their document describing the changes. That was a bit of a PR blunder, sure. But you didn't need to know the information to interoperate, it was just an optimisation between cooperating Windows hosts.
Why would you buy it from Bill? You still have it. You wrote it, remember? Everyone still has it, it is in the public domain. Bill added value to it and he wants to charge you, but he doesn't have a gun pointed at your head. That's what I don't understand about all these GPL arguments. It's just like the file sharing argument - I haven't stolen this mp3, because you still have it. I haven't deprived you of it. So in the same way, if I take your GPL'd code and use it in a way that you don't like, what's the problem? You still have the code and you can still do what you like with it.
Absolutely. There are a fair number of female artists in the industry (we have one now, and we had one on Tomb Raider [and she did design many of the puzzles]). There are not too many women doing game design. Roberta Williams is the most famous, ummm and in fact I don't know of any others, although I am sure there are a few. Reading the comments so far, it's clear that more than a few of the guys have ridiculously charicatured, stereotypical ideas of "how women think". I'm sure we all tread that particular road to enlightenment but I don't ever expect to reach the end. The best game you can make is one you want to play yourself. If (some) women are dissatisfied with what men think they want, they need to start making their own games.
I was one of the Tomb Raider developers, but I didn't make Lara's breasts... Personally I think they detracted from the other, more positive sides of her character. She's smart, independent, athletic, things that a woman can control about herself (without surgery...) I think the marketing let her down, but that's a long story:-( Yes, it's interesting what you said about school, I had a similar situation. Not being an athletic type myself I had to do community service instead of sports at college. I went to the induction meeting and guess what, I was the only guy there amongst 30 women. I ended up teaching primary school children to type on a BBC Micro. They wouldn't let me near the mentally handicapped children. (Sorry, I don't know the PC term for that)
I guess you've never seen Kornelia in action? In terms of parallel activities, she's clearly:
* Collecting every pickup on the level - to make sure you don't * Looking to see which way you flee - and planning a route the other way around the level to meet up with you again * Choosing a nice spot for your new asshole * Making a shopping list for tomorrow
Re:Swapping Values Without Using a Temporary Varia
on
The Python Cookbook
·
· Score: 2
I believe swingkid may be referring to the fact that if a and b are aliased to the same location in memory, the "trick" will go wrong (zeroing the value). But why would you swap something with itself? It would be almost impossible to achieve the aliasing in C, the only ways I can think of are: 1) swap(a,a); 2) union {int a; int b;} u; 3) #define b a [or anything similar, i.e. int* b; b= swap(a,*b);] I would say that if you are swapping something with itself, you have a problem with your algorithm.
Re:Might actually be an interesting book to check
on
The Python Cookbook
·
· Score: 2
No, he doesn't, although he could have worded it better. QuArK is not implemented in Python. Scripting is implemented in QuArK, using an embedded Python interpreter. Smack!
On level ground, about the same speed... Unless the passengers stick their heads out of the windows. It will take longer to reach top speed, though. Tyre friction will increase due to the extra weight, unless you pump some more air in, but you don't want a blowout at 180mph! Having said that, this thing has 8 wheels so you might be OK...
Absolutely not! That is the whole point of this technique. It is (statistically) impossible to retransmit the messages without the sender and receiver being aware of the tap.
It's the way you measure the polarisation of the photons. For example, they might be 0 or 90 degrees, and if you are measuring them like that, you could reproduce the photons. But if you were looking for 45 or 135 degree polarisation, you would just get random results. Or you could be looking for 0 or 90, but they are sent 45 or 135. You can't measure both because you only have a single photon to play with. That's the theory anyway, it is hard to generate single photons! But that is the basis of the whole thing.
You don't use this method to send your secret message, you use it to send a random one time pad. If it is intercepted, you just send a new one. You keep doing this until your recipient gets one that was not intercepted. Then you encrypt your secret message with this (now known to be secret) one time pad and Bob's Alice's uncle. The one problem I see with this is that Eve (the eavesdropper) can effectively DoS Alice and Bob's communication, by intercepting everything, thus stopping them from ever agreeing on a private key.
If Open Source claims that it is somehow better at dealing with this sort of thing, and it turns out that it isn't, then it deserves the "damage" you speak of. Why should Open Source be immune from criticism? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I know being part of the British Isles is not the same as being part of the UK(...), that's why I wrote what I did. The other dependencies are NOT part of Great Britain or Northern Ireland, they are dependent territories. Look it up. The word "of" in the sentence you quoted means "which are associated with", not "which are part of".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but about as likely as winning the lottery every week of your life, while every hot female in the world beats a path to your door (and you didn't tell them about winning the lottery), hell reaches absolute zero and pigs go supersonic.
Perhaps if you had an infinite improbability drive...
I saw Paul McGann while cycling to work this morning... Saw him a couple of weeks ago in Sainsburys too.
I thought he was a pretty good Doctor. But then I quite liked Colin Baker too, so maybe I am mad or something.
Anyway, Tom Baker was almost everyone's favourite, and Sylvester McCoy was the worst... Stupid question mark wearing mumble mumble...
Anyone got a mirror?
Sorry, the 6502 was pipelined.
What, the fact that they put something in a field explicitly marked "This field may also contain information needed by certain extensions to the Kerberos protocol." in RFC1510???
And then, only when talking to another Microsoft server?
Oh, but because it's Microsoft, they're not allowed to. Grow up.
The only thing they did wrong was to put a license agreement in the way of reading their document describing the changes. That was a bit of a PR blunder, sure. But you didn't need to know the information to interoperate, it was just an optimisation between cooperating Windows hosts.
Why would you buy it from Bill? You still have it. You wrote it, remember? Everyone still has it, it is in the public domain. Bill added value to it and he wants to charge you, but he doesn't have a gun pointed at your head.
That's what I don't understand about all these GPL arguments. It's just like the file sharing argument - I haven't stolen this mp3, because you still have it. I haven't deprived you of it. So in the same way, if I take your GPL'd code and use it in a way that you don't like, what's the problem? You still have the code and you can still do what you like with it.
It's not even stealing, because you haven't deprived the original owner of the code.
Absolutely. There are a fair number of female artists in the industry (we have one now, and we had one on Tomb Raider [and she did design many of the puzzles]).
There are not too many women doing game design. Roberta Williams is the most famous, ummm and in fact I don't know of any others, although I am sure there are a few.
Reading the comments so far, it's clear that more than a few of the guys have ridiculously charicatured, stereotypical ideas of "how women think".
I'm sure we all tread that particular road to enlightenment but I don't ever expect to reach the end.
The best game you can make is one you want to play yourself. If (some) women are dissatisfied with what men think they want, they need to start making their own games.
I was one of the Tomb Raider developers, but I didn't make Lara's breasts... Personally I think they detracted from the other, more positive sides of her character. She's smart, independent, athletic, things that a woman can control about herself (without surgery...) I think the marketing let her down, but that's a long story :-(
Yes, it's interesting what you said about school, I had a similar situation. Not being an athletic type myself I had to do community service instead of sports at college. I went to the induction meeting and guess what, I was the only guy there amongst 30 women. I ended up teaching primary school children to type on a BBC Micro. They wouldn't let me near the mentally handicapped children. (Sorry, I don't know the PC term for that)
Actually one of the two level designers (Heather Gibson) was a woman, as was the script writer (Vicky Arnold).
Guys like shooting stuff, cos they're good at it.
I guess you've never seen Kornelia in action? In terms of parallel activities, she's clearly:
* Collecting every pickup on the level - to make sure you don't
* Looking to see which way you flee - and planning a route the other way around the level to meet up with you again
* Choosing a nice spot for your new asshole
* Making a shopping list for tomorrow
I believe swingkid may be referring to the fact that if a and b are aliased to the same location in memory, the "trick" will go wrong (zeroing the value).
But why would you swap something with itself?
It would be almost impossible to achieve the aliasing in C, the only ways I can think of are:
1) swap(a,a);
2) union {int a; int b;} u;
3) #define b a
[or anything similar, i.e. int* b; b= swap(a,*b);]
I would say that if you are swapping something with itself, you have a problem with your algorithm.
No, he doesn't, although he could have worded it better.
QuArK is not implemented in Python.
Scripting is implemented in QuArK, using an embedded Python interpreter.
Smack!
Why not?
Perhaps you are confusing top speed with acceleration?
On level ground, about the same speed... Unless the passengers stick their heads out of the windows. It will take longer to reach top speed, though. Tyre friction will increase due to the extra weight, unless you pump some more air in, but you don't want a blowout at 180mph! Having said that, this thing has 8 wheels so you might be OK...
Absolutely not! That is the whole point of this technique. It is (statistically) impossible to retransmit the messages without the sender and receiver being aware of the tap.
It's the way you measure the polarisation of the photons. For example, they might be 0 or 90 degrees, and if you are measuring them like that, you could reproduce the photons. But if you were looking for 45 or 135 degree polarisation, you would just get random results. Or you could be looking for 0 or 90, but they are sent 45 or 135. You can't measure both because you only have a single photon to play with. That's the theory anyway, it is hard to generate single photons! But that is the basis of the whole thing.
You don't use this method to send your secret message, you use it to send a random one time pad. If it is intercepted, you just send a new one. You keep doing this until your recipient gets one that was not intercepted. Then you encrypt your secret message with this (now known to be secret) one time pad and Bob's Alice's uncle.
The one problem I see with this is that Eve (the eavesdropper) can effectively DoS Alice and Bob's communication, by intercepting everything, thus stopping them from ever agreeing on a private key.
If Open Source claims that it is somehow better at dealing with this sort of thing, and it turns out that it isn't, then it deserves the "damage" you speak of. Why should Open Source be immune from criticism? Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I know being part of the British Isles is not the same as being part of the UK(...), that's why I wrote what I did.
The other dependencies are NOT part of Great Britain or Northern Ireland, they are dependent territories. Look it up. The word "of" in the sentence you quoted means "which are associated with", not "which are part of".
Tony Blair eloquent? Compared to GWB, I guess... You don't have to suffer him as a Prime Minister...
Since almost all of the British media do what you are complaining about, why are you singling out the BBC?
There was actually an item on the front page a couple of days ago about the Labour MP's, maybe you missed it.
Mars Climate Orbiter<cough>
OK, I checked, and it doesn't... Concorde only goes supersonic when it gets to the water. This is why it has so few routes.