I will never understand why some team owners think that blacking out home games is a good idea.
As far as I'm concerned, they're doing us a favor. Instead of having one of the 3 Sunday games showing our local loser, we get a chance to watch a premier matchup for the week.
Now if someone could only figure out a way to convince the NFL to black out their away games...
Any scenario where the moon is hit by something large enough to end the tides, would almost certainly also result in large chunks of debris falling out of orbit. Prolly more of an immediate problem than lack of tides...
Without tides, the oceans would become large pools of stagnant water
I am not an oceanographer (but I'm willing to play one on/.), but it seems to me that the sun's heating action is at least as important to maintaining ocean currents as the moon's tidal action. Of course, the afore-mentioned falling debris could certainly cause a lot of dust to be ejected into the atmosphere, forest fires putting soot, ash, and smoke into the air, and causing a nuclear-winter like situation.
It would all go downhill after that.
Yah. Either way, I'm guessing it wouldn't be a happy time.
Usually this fact will trump any other consideration, especially in the minds of those who only have to deal with how fast (or slow) the application actually runs under load.
The main reason I've found not to use stored procedures is in cases (like complex searches) where a dynamically generated SELECT statement will beat any sort of attempt at a generic stored procedure search hands down.
Some time ago, I did some work on a middle tier for some PHBs who got infected with the "stored procedures == faster" meme in a big way. The big sticking point with this was the complex searches they wanted to support, which could be done very quickly and relatively simply with a dynamic SELECT, but became very slow, complex (and thus bug prone) when we attempted a stored procedure implementation. I'm not sure we (the development team) ever really convinced them doing it dynmaically was the right way to go; we just wore them down to the point where they finally dropped the issue.
(PS, to any PHBs who think I might be talking about you: if you keep quite, no one will ever know)
The real slippery slope we are headed down is the one where freedom of speech is elevated to such a degree that exhibitionist and foul-mouthed 'entertainers' safe to broadcast their trash into my home, and where child pornographers are safe to work the web.
Quote the article poster:
Richard Dreyfuss offered these choice words as part of a prepared statement, 'It is inescapably censorship...'
This is such a load of bull. There are plenty of places the show could be presented -- various cable channels, movie theaters (with the appropriate rating), even direct to video/dvd.
I don't have any kids of my own, but I can sure sympathise with the parents that don't have to explain why Janet Jackson flashed her boob on the superbowl, or why Richard Dryfus wants to drop the f-bomb on the same network that broadcasts 'Sesamie Street'.
If you're willing to code in 6502 ASM, virtually all of the C64's 64K is usable (*). I once wrote a 6502 assembler that used the RAM 'under' the Kernel image to store its data.
(*) Some, of course (like the memory used to hold what's displayed on the screen) has fixed use, but most can be used generally.
technically, commutitivity is tested whether or not (x)(y)(inv(x))(inv(y)) = 1
Not so.
<math-geek> A binary operator R is said to be commutative for any two values x and y, if and only if
x R y = y R x
Note, in particular, it does not require that x or y have inverses -- thus, multiplying by zero is commutative, even though 1/0 is undefined.
</math-geek>
The Nigerian scam stuff is just a drop in the bucket . Most of the junk I get is offers to sell prescription drugs (or "herbal" variants thereof), and the Swen virus (tho it seems like Swen is finally starting to drop off...)
I can see why they'd want Google (name recognition + superior software technology). But why would they go after a who-dat like Looksmart? Has it really gotten to the point where 'innovation' in Redmond means 'wait for someone else to invent, then by them out'?
Yes and if it spontaneously blows up killing people around it because of a design defect in the gas tank, it isn't the responsibility of the person who owns the car.
It is if the manufacturer has issued a recall (car:recall::software:patch).
You can't operate a computer online with an OS that hasn't at one point or another had some remote exploit in some piece of software.
So? That shouldn't absolve the user from doing what it takes to minimize and/or eliminate the problems (installing patches, running hardware and software firewalls, staying away from insecure apps). It's just not that hard.
So if everyone gets infected, does everyone get fined? I think it's ridiculous to get fined at all, let alone getting fined for deficiencies in software/you/ didn't write.
Why not? If you drive, you're responsible for the safe operation of your car, even if you didn't build it yourself.
The fact is, if people start getting fined for running insecure software,
They're going to be more careful about keeping their system patches up-to-date, and
They're going to start demanding more secure software from the people who do write software.
He took the binary code and inferred a C language program that would produce the same code. Very clever, but I thought reverse engineering worked on a functional level.
Well, this is definitely not a 'clean room' reverse engineering.
To do a clean room implementation, you need to have two teams:
The first team digs into the implementation, and produces a document specifying the interface.
The second team uses the specification produced by the first team to create an implementation.
This is a clean-room implementation when the only communication between the two teams is via the specification: A) No one who sees the original implementation works on the new implementation and B) No one who works on the new implementation looks at the original implementation
What BASIC had that limitation? Surely none that I ever used as a kid (mid 80s).
The BASIC on the Commodore C64/C128 did. The BASIC on the TI-99/4 did. The BASIC on the PDP-11/45 where I first programmed did by default (you could issue an EXTEND keyword to allow longer identifiers -- back then I didn't see why you'd want to bother with all that typing...)
Of course this money would be much better spent on education, health and infrastructure.
'Where there is no vision, the people perish.' If we wait to follow our dreams until all our problems are solved, we'll never follow any of them...
It's also worth pointing out that the USan moon program produced advances in technology and sciences that are generally useful outside of the narrow scope of going to the moon. These benefits, in turn, certainly helped education, health, and infrastructure.
Space technologies have obvious military applications
Every tool ever invented can also be used as a weapon, one way or another. That doesn't invalidate its usefulness as a tool.
defy a cop to spot the date on a 3 inch square while the car is traveling 65
You don't need cops to deal with this. Just use the same automated system they use now to ticket people for running red lights. It can scan the liscense plate, do a db lookup, and ticket anyone without a current permit.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if someone could only figure out a way to convince the NFL to black out their away games...
The mean distance between the Earth and moon is 384,400 kilometers. 1,000,000 miles is about 1,609,000 kilometers, so the asteroid will come within about 4.2 earth-moon distances.
The main reason I've found not to use stored procedures is in cases (like complex searches) where a dynamically generated SELECT statement will beat any sort of attempt at a generic stored procedure search hands down.
Some time ago, I did some work on a middle tier for some PHBs who got infected with the "stored procedures == faster" meme in a big way. The big sticking point with this was the complex searches they wanted to support, which could be done very quickly and relatively simply with a dynamic SELECT, but became very slow, complex (and thus bug prone) when we attempted a stored procedure implementation. I'm not sure we (the development team) ever really convinced them doing it dynmaically was the right way to go; we just wore them down to the point where they finally dropped the issue.
(PS, to any PHBs who think I might be talking about you: if you keep quite, no one will ever know)
Quote the article poster:
This is such a load of bull. There are plenty of places the show could be presented -- various cable channels, movie theaters (with the appropriate rating), even direct to video/dvd.I don't have any kids of my own, but I can sure sympathise with the parents that don't have to explain why Janet Jackson flashed her boob on the superbowl, or why Richard Dryfus wants to drop the f-bomb on the same network that broadcasts 'Sesamie Street'.
Who needs CBS, if I can just tune my tv to hdtv://csi.tv/latest-episode?
(Implementation of the hdtv: protocol is left as an exercise for the interested reader).
Step 6: Road runner gets away (again!)
Sorry, I hadda do it.
(*) Some, of course (like the memory used to hold what's displayed on the screen) has fixed use, but most can be used generally.
<math-geek>
Note, in particular, it does not require that x or y have inverses -- thus, multiplying by zero is commutative, even though 1/0 is undefined.A binary operator R is said to be commutative for any two values x and y, if and only if
</math-geek>
I can see why they'd want Google (name recognition + superior software technology). But why would they go after a who-dat like Looksmart? Has it really gotten to the point where 'innovation' in Redmond means 'wait for someone else to invent, then by them out'?
The fact is, if people start getting fined for running insecure software,
- They're going to be more careful about keeping their system patches up-to-date, and
- They're going to start demanding more secure software from the people who do write software.
Both of these are good things.It looks like your plane is crashing. Would you like to call someone and make a dying utterance?
To do a clean room implementation, you need to have two teams:
- The first team digs into the implementation, and produces a document specifying the interface.
- The second team uses the specification produced by the first team to create an implementation.
This is a clean-room implementation when the only communication between the two teams is via the specification: A) No one who sees the original implementation works on the new implementation and B) No one who works on the new implementation looks at the original implementation- Variable names limited to two characters
- Only data types are integers and strings
- No structured data types, only (fixed size) arrays
- No names in control flow, just GOTO 100 and GOSUB 9000. No parameters for subroutines.
- Plus, it was typically interpreted, for extra slowness at run time.
It's worse than assembly. At least in assembly, you can have longer identifiers, and use them in data and control flow statements.It's also worth pointing out that the USan moon program produced advances in technology and sciences that are generally useful outside of the narrow scope of going to the moon. These benefits, in turn, certainly helped education, health, and infrastructure.
Every tool ever invented can also be used as a weapon, one way or another. That doesn't invalidate its usefulness as a tool.No way I'm getting one of these. The screen is just way too large. I'm holding out for the Palm OS Pinky Ring.