This is precisely why I'm using GnuTLS for a project I'm working on right now. The documentation is fairly complete, with lots of examples, and (probably) every function described. I'm not totally sure about a comparison between GnuTLS vs. OpenSSL in terms of speed or functionality, but as long as the code works well, good documentation can make the difference between using something and not using something.
Seriously. Also, was "I'm about to buy a Manhattan penthouse" just a way of saying "BTW, I'm fucking rich ROFLMAO???" Because If you're that worried about this Manhattan penthouse, and you can afford to buy a Manhattan penthouse at all, then you can probably afford to buy a different Manhattan penthouse.
Or even better, why not ask them to actually apply the law equally, even when it's politically unfavorable for them?
I'm fairly sure I've heard calls for revolution and secession from certain members of the Teabagging Party. I seriously hope, but seriously doubt, that the Teabaggers of South Carolina will be prosecuted under this law. It certainly applies to them, but don't look to the Republicans of South Carolina for any consistency whatsoever.
What a ridiculous, hypocritical abomination and affront to the basic principles of the Constitution.
When people follow only the wrong half of the sermon, is it the Pope's fault?
In a word: yes. You don't need religion to convince people to stop killing each other or to use birth control . But we do have religion, and lots of people turn to it for consolation and instruction. And that means people who are in positions of religious power have a moral responsibility to spread accurate information and to stop promoting this reckless over-expansion of humankind.
Every time the Pope utters the words, "Using condoms is a sin and/or ineffective," he must know that he is, merely by speaking, pushing millions of people that much closer to death and drastically exacerbating the population problem. This is reckless behavior.
I'm with you that people don't see to understand the motivation for empiricism or the scientific method, but I think that's an overly complex explanation why.
Science *is* somewhat an act of creativity, but in a different respect. In order to explain observation, one has to creatively intuit the path to the precise explanation in novel, non-obvious ways. Einstein was creative in his science, and he was also a brilliant scientist.
You say, one has to try to create a cohesive narrative of a process. Well, yes, that's what science aims to do. What people don't seem to understand is that not all explanations are created equal, which is where I agree with you again. There is a critical difference between a framework that does explain and predict observation and is falsifiable and one that isn't. People by and large don't seem to get that.
I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but a lot of people here seem to be taking the position that "We want manned space travel as soon as possible - and the only way we can get it that way is through continued state sponsorship of space projects." Unfortunately, we're not going to be sending transports back and forth to Mars any time soon, stocking up our treasury with precious metals. Our nation is going bankrupt, exploratory space travel in the near term is going to be a financial loser simply in terms of our national budget, and we really, really need to find ways to rein in our enormous debt or else we're going to be in deep shit in the long term. I say this as a fiscal liberal, not some teabagger.
And so the question needs to be asked why the hell does our government need to continue as the sole sponsor of space when we could legitimately start privatizing that function right away, saving our budget billions and billions of dollars? Given our financial problems, what is so goddamn urgent about it?
Yes, it will take longer to get there, but we need to traverse the path between here and commercial spaceflight sometime and now is just a good time as any.
Deficit hawks (again, talking about others) always propose cutting programs, but when it comes to pinpointing an actual program they'd be willing to sacrifice they start dragging their feet . Well, cutting a huge chunk of NASA would be a tough choice, but fiscally I'd say it's the responsible choice.
One accident and the whole thing is going to be held back 50 years.
Don't think that's true at all.. If it were I don't believe we would have manned, commercial aircraft at all. Do you know how many accidents occured between when the Wright brothers first flew and when the first jetliners took off? Even today airlines which experience a catastrophic jetliner crash don't necessarily go out of business. Sure, there's a chilling effect towards flying that hurts the airline commercially but it eventually dissipates, pretty quickly.
"If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics."
The upside to this is that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. The downside to this is also that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me." It's a tough marketing job from there on out. As science has skepticism as a built-in requirement, people will always doubt its findings more than the claims of religion or the promises of politicians. Of course, science has the added benefit of being difficult to understand, much unlike the prescriptions of religion. This all creates a situation where knowledge and rational skepticism actually have no political force, and their antitheses, ignorance and hysteria, drive our political discussion.
If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.
This is equivalent to saying, "I bet if you got rid of all the customers who ADORE X, the average adoration of X would go down."
If you think the only reason someone could like Apple is slavish groupthink, this makes sense. However, I tend to think that if millions of people like something, there must be something there to like. And while this may not change the fact that I don't like it, it at least will help me understand why others might.
That's a good point. Kubuntu now comes with 4.x releases, but when I started using it it didn't seem finished enough to warrant the entire distribution changing versions...I use 3.x at work and the difference in terms of functionality was rather stark. There is nothing wrong with taking a couple of point releases to polish off this software, but the distribution probably should have kept 3.x officially until at least the 4.4 release.
Then again, the number of bugs that were spotted because of being released on such a wide scale probably did help accelerate the repair process...Is the benefit of wide release enough to outweigh the risk of having the entire brand tarnished?
The Nazis were nationalist, corporatists and social darwinists - fascists. They called themselves socialists - national socialist - but their chief ideological enemy was communist socialism. The Nazis were much closer to fascists than socialists.
Besides telling us something that we should all already know - it is actually quite hard to become rich - some of the stories are either more complex than the author is letting on, or quite obviously a result of bad business sense.
1.
"It's kind of a crapshoot," says Demeter, who spent the last two weekends partying in Las Vegas and New York. "I think we've reached a point where people are thinking I shouldn't quit my day job for this."
But it did allow him to quit his dayjob! If not simply on the initial revenues from the application, then from the capital gains made possible by those initial earnings.
2.
The application(Trip Cubby) garnered top-shelf reviews, a spot on Apple's "What's Hot" list, and earned Barnard more than $45,000 in revenue in less than three months. Then came the expenses: $29,000 for programmers, $15,000 living costs, $14,000 to Apple, $7,000 for marketing, $5,000 for legal and administrative services, $4,000 for logo and Web-site art, and $1,800 in loan repayment.
The application sounds very useful, but the features described on the App Store site all seem like something I could code alone in a few months, if not less. So why did this guy not invest the time to learn how to code this project, thus sparing the $29,000 in extra programming? Or, if he did, why did he feel it necessary to hire outside programmers to add to what seems like a straightforward application? If he had simply gone it alone, he might be well in the black right now, even if you include the marketing costs.
3.
In 2009, Ethan Nicholas left a job with Sun Microsystems after making $800,000 in just five months with his simple artillery game called iShoot. Today, the App Store icon from North Carolina is himself staring down the barrel of a gun, struggling to produce another hit game after iShoot was buried by competitors and copycats.
Where did the $800,000 go? Are we to assume that this money simply vanished? If not, then this person sounds pretty successful to me, and "staring down the barrel of a gun" seems just a tad over the top. It seems like they've either left out details or spun them for the sake of a sensational, contrarian narrative. I know - the media never does that, right?
Actually that's the one area where Google Wave might actually be the next evolutionary step after e-mail, while Facebook and Twitter are not even close to being suitable replacements: Server federation and an open protocol specification(namely, XMPP). Allowing me to send a message to anyone@some.org is probably the best thing about e-mail, and it is something that will never be implemented by Facebook, as it goes against their entire business model.
In contrast, Wave has been built around this ability, and thus it stands a chance of succeeding e-mail. I'm not saying this will occur quickly - it took 40 years for e-mail to become entrenched - but it could happen.
The writer builds his entire argument on the idea that, like highways, building network capacity produces a phenomenon called "induced traffic". The more roads you build, the traffic they attract, producing an unending(but not really) cycle of expansion and congestion.
Setting aside the obvious dissimilarities between network traffic and highway traffic, what he fails to mention is that there's an upper limit to induced because, as usual, there are a finite number of people and cars. If it really was the case that highways inevitably congested no matter how many you build, all of our highways - not just the ones outside of major metro areas during rush hour - would be chronically congested, at all times. But they aren't. This is because there is an upper limit on how much people drive no matter how many highways are available for them to use, and there is an upper limit on how many people drive to begin with.
Similarly, the Internet would have grinded to a halt long ago if building out capacity wasn't at least a partial solution, if not a complete solution, to the problem. Most broadband users have unlimited access as well, and while some tax the network disproportionately, the Internet's infrastructure is able to support it.
Why the author thinks the same principle doesn't apply to iPhones is beyond me. Yes, people will do more data-intensive things on a faster network. But there's an upper limit to how much data can be transferred by a single iPhone user in one month anyway, even if the user is transferring data 24/7, 7 days a week. if the network is built to handle the upper-limit of the most data-intensive users even in a hypothetical "induced traffic" scenario, this won't be a problem.
The whole traffic analogy belongs in the "The Ted Stevens Dumptruck of Bad Analogies," and Slate should stop publishing articles about shit it doesn't know about.
It sounds like exactly the kind of overwrought, self-conscious bullshit that induces dry heaves in high school writing class.
Maybe they should keep the required number of words, but change the maximum word length to 3 syllables. Any student worth their salt should be able to write a compelling 500 word essay in simple but still descriptive language. Hemingway did it...why can't you?
Actually, scratch that.
"The world I come from is full of oak trees and rain, warm cats on cold nights, and raucous college parties across the street"
contains no words with more than two syllables, but I still want to retch after reading it.
I'm all for letting any non-maleficent app through without some ridiculous approval process, but some common sense restrictions should be applied. Shouldn't Palm at least be checking to see if the apps are malware?
'The problem with offering OpenGL access to Javascript is that Javascript isn't a good language for fast matrix math. Also, authoring tools will have to be developed. You can't effectively author 3D content in a text editor.'
That's why there needs to be improvement either in just in time compilation of Javascript or in Java 3D graphics support....an interpreted language is just not going to be able to keep up with progress in the arena of 3d web applications. You're going to need to have an extremely portable, lightweight compiled language doing a lot of these operations.
Particularly the language "totally different place."
Neurons in a "totally different place" will fire....this kind of language doesn't comfort me about the prospect of sticking electrodes into my brain. "We're not totally sure which neurons we're firing. It could be the ones we're touching with this little wire or it could be ones in a totally different place.. I guess we'll find out, huh?!?!" ï If my neurosurgeon said that to me as he started drilling into my skull I would be wanting to strongarm my way out of the OR.... ïIf only I could get my head out of this damn Clockwork Orange device...
Slashdot Mirror
This is precisely why I'm using GnuTLS for a project I'm working on right now. The documentation is fairly complete, with lots of examples, and (probably) every function described. I'm not totally sure about a comparison between GnuTLS vs. OpenSSL in terms of speed or functionality, but as long as the code works well, good documentation can make the difference between using something and not using something.
Seriously. Also, was "I'm about to buy a Manhattan penthouse" just a way of saying "BTW, I'm fucking rich ROFLMAO???" Because If you're that worried about this Manhattan penthouse, and you can afford to buy a Manhattan penthouse at all, then you can probably afford to buy a different Manhattan penthouse.
Or even better, why not ask them to actually apply the law equally, even when it's politically unfavorable for them?
I'm fairly sure I've heard calls for revolution and secession from certain members of the Teabagging Party. I seriously hope, but seriously doubt, that the Teabaggers of South Carolina will be prosecuted under this law. It certainly applies to them, but don't look to the Republicans of South Carolina for any consistency whatsoever.
What a ridiculous, hypocritical abomination and affront to the basic principles of the Constitution.
You don't need to know how the brain works at its lowest levels to have AI. Since we know what the brain does, we can copy and simulate its design.
In the process, however, we will learn a lot more about how it does work.
When people follow only the wrong half of the sermon, is it the Pope's fault?
In a word: yes. You don't need religion to convince people to stop killing each other or to use birth control . But we do have religion, and lots of people turn to it for consolation and instruction. And that means people who are in positions of religious power have a moral responsibility to spread accurate information and to stop promoting this reckless over-expansion of humankind.
Every time the Pope utters the words, "Using condoms is a sin and/or ineffective," he must know that he is, merely by speaking, pushing millions of people that much closer to death and drastically exacerbating the population problem. This is reckless behavior.
I'm with you that people don't see to understand the motivation for empiricism or the scientific method, but I think that's an overly complex explanation why.
Science *is* somewhat an act of creativity, but in a different respect. In order to explain observation, one has to creatively intuit the path to the precise explanation in novel, non-obvious ways. Einstein was creative in his science, and he was also a brilliant scientist.
You say, one has to try to create a cohesive narrative of a process. Well, yes, that's what science aims to do. What people don't seem to understand is that not all explanations are created equal, which is where I agree with you again. There is a critical difference between a framework that does explain and predict observation and is falsifiable and one that isn't. People by and large don't seem to get that.
HTTP would not be here either. So this guy wouldn't be able to spread this nonsense, and we wouldn't have to shut him down.
I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but a lot of people here seem to be taking the position that "We want manned space travel as soon as possible - and the only way we can get it that way is through continued state sponsorship of space projects." Unfortunately, we're not going to be sending transports back and forth to Mars any time soon, stocking up our treasury with precious metals. Our nation is going bankrupt, exploratory space travel in the near term is going to be a financial loser simply in terms of our national budget, and we really, really need to find ways to rein in our enormous debt or else we're going to be in deep shit in the long term. I say this as a fiscal liberal, not some teabagger.
And so the question needs to be asked why the hell does our government need to continue as the sole sponsor of space when we could legitimately start privatizing that function right away, saving our budget billions and billions of dollars? Given our financial problems, what is so goddamn urgent about it?
Yes, it will take longer to get there, but we need to traverse the path between here and commercial spaceflight sometime and now is just a good time as any.
Deficit hawks (again, talking about others) always propose cutting programs, but when it comes to pinpointing an actual program they'd be willing to sacrifice they start dragging their feet . Well, cutting a huge chunk of NASA would be a tough choice, but fiscally I'd say it's the responsible choice.
Don't think that's true at all.. If it were I don't believe we would have manned, commercial aircraft at all. Do you know how many accidents occured between when the Wright brothers first flew and when the first jetliners took off? Even today airlines which experience a catastrophic jetliner crash don't necessarily go out of business. Sure, there's a chilling effect towards flying that hurts the airline commercially but it eventually dissipates, pretty quickly.
"If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics."
The upside to this is that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. The downside to this is also that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me." It's a tough marketing job from there on out. As science has skepticism as a built-in requirement, people will always doubt its findings more than the claims of religion or the promises of politicians. Of course, science has the added benefit of being difficult to understand, much unlike the prescriptions of religion. This all creates a situation where knowledge and rational skepticism actually have no political force, and their antitheses, ignorance and hysteria, drive our political discussion.
If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.
This is equivalent to saying, "I bet if you got rid of all the customers who ADORE X, the average adoration of X would go down."
If you think the only reason someone could like Apple is slavish groupthink, this makes sense. However, I tend to think that if millions of people like something, there
must be something there to like. And while this may not change the fact that I don't like it, it at least will help me understand why others might.
That's a good point. Kubuntu now comes with 4.x releases, but when I started using it it didn't seem finished enough to warrant the entire distribution changing versions...I use 3.x at work and the difference in terms of functionality was rather stark. There is nothing wrong with taking a couple of point releases to polish off this software, but the distribution probably should have kept 3.x officially until at least the 4.4 release.
Then again, the number of bugs that were spotted because of being released on such a wide scale probably did help accelerate the repair process...Is the benefit of wide release enough to outweigh the risk of having the entire brand tarnished?
Someone mod this funny.
Discuss.
The Nazis were nationalist, corporatists and social darwinists - fascists. They called themselves socialists - national socialist - but their chief ideological enemy was communist socialism. The Nazis were much closer to fascists than socialists.
Besides telling us something that we should all already know - it is actually quite hard to become rich - some of the stories are either more complex than the author is letting on, or quite obviously a result of bad business sense.
1.
But it did allow him to quit his dayjob! If not simply on the initial revenues from the application, then from the capital gains made possible by those initial earnings.
2.
The application sounds very useful, but the features described on the App Store site all seem like something I could code alone in a few months, if not less. So why did this guy not invest the time to learn how to code this project, thus sparing the $29,000 in extra programming? Or, if he did, why did he feel it necessary to hire outside programmers to add to what seems like a straightforward application? If he had simply gone it alone, he might be well in the black right now, even if you include the marketing costs.
3.
Where did the $800,000 go? Are we to assume that this money simply vanished? If not, then this person sounds pretty successful to me, and "staring down the barrel of a gun" seems just a tad over the top. It seems like they've either left out details or spun them for the sake of a sensational, contrarian narrative. I know - the media never does that, right?
Actually that's the one area where Google Wave might actually be the next evolutionary step after e-mail, while Facebook and Twitter are not even close to being suitable replacements: Server federation and an open protocol specification(namely, XMPP). Allowing me to send a message to anyone@some.org is probably the best thing about e-mail, and it is something that will never be implemented by Facebook, as it goes against their entire business model.
In contrast, Wave has been built around this ability, and thus it stands a chance of succeeding e-mail. I'm not saying this will occur quickly - it took 40 years for e-mail to become entrenched - but it could happen.
The writer builds his entire argument on the idea that, like highways, building network capacity produces a phenomenon called "induced traffic". The more roads you build, the traffic they attract, producing an unending(but not really) cycle of expansion and congestion.
Setting aside the obvious dissimilarities between network traffic and highway traffic, what he fails to mention is that there's an upper limit to induced because, as usual, there are a finite number of people and cars. If it really was the case that highways inevitably congested no matter how many you build, all of our highways - not just the ones outside of major metro areas during rush hour - would be chronically congested, at all times. But they aren't. This is because there is an upper limit on how much people drive no matter how many highways are available for them to use, and there is an upper limit on how many people drive to begin with.
Similarly, the Internet would have grinded to a halt long ago if building out capacity wasn't at least a partial solution, if not a complete solution, to the problem. Most broadband users have unlimited access as well, and while some tax the network disproportionately, the Internet's infrastructure is able to support it.
Why the author thinks the same principle doesn't apply to iPhones is beyond me. Yes, people will do more data-intensive things on a faster network. But there's an upper limit to how much data can be transferred by a single iPhone user in one month anyway, even if the user is transferring data 24/7, 7 days a week. if the network is built to handle the upper-limit of the most data-intensive users even in a hypothetical "induced traffic" scenario, this won't be a problem.
The whole traffic analogy belongs in the "The Ted Stevens Dumptruck of Bad Analogies," and Slate should stop publishing articles about shit it doesn't know about.
This is yet another case of a Slate writer writing about something that they clearly don't understand.
It sounds like exactly the kind of overwrought, self-conscious bullshit that induces dry heaves in high school writing class.
Maybe they should keep the required number of words, but change the maximum word length to 3 syllables. Any student worth their salt should be
able to write a compelling 500 word essay in simple but still descriptive language. Hemingway did it...why can't you?
Actually, scratch that.
contains no words with more than two syllables, but I still want to retch after reading it.
I never said Palm was evil on either side of this gesture.
If you criticize somebody make sure you review their side of the argument so you're not attacking a straw man.
I'm all for letting any non-maleficent app through without some ridiculous approval process, but some common sense restrictions should be applied. Shouldn't Palm at least be checking to see if the apps are malware?
Are you surprised?
This is the country where sharing anything has been dismissed as 'communism', and straight-up avarice has been turned into the highest good.
'The problem with offering OpenGL access to Javascript is that Javascript isn't a good language for fast matrix math. Also, authoring tools will have to be developed. You can't effectively author 3D content in a text editor.'
That's why there needs to be improvement either in just in time compilation of Javascript or in Java 3D graphics support....an interpreted language is just not going to be able to keep up with progress in the arena of 3d web applications. You're going to need to have an extremely portable, lightweight compiled language doing a lot of these operations.
Particularly the language "totally different place."
Neurons in a "totally different place" will fire....this kind of language doesn't comfort me about the prospect of sticking electrodes into my brain. "We're not totally sure which neurons we're firing. It could be the ones we're touching with this little wire or it could be ones in a totally different place.. I guess we'll find out, huh?!?!"
ï
If my neurosurgeon said that to me as he started drilling into my skull I would be wanting to strongarm my way out of the OR....
ïIf only I could get my head out of this damn Clockwork Orange device...