What's wrong with using the programming language which is best for the job, which he seems to have found is Python? Does it threaten your existence as a great l33t C programmer (Look at me, I use -Wall, I'm BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU) that Python might have an advantage over C?
It must be that Taco decided we already have enough news today, and didn't want another Mozilla story on top of this one - so he posted the link to Bugzilla, bringing it down and preventing 0.9.4 from being released. How deviously clever.
Either that or he's just stupid (this evidence is supported by the fact that he keeps posting links to MozillaQuest) and had no idea his idiocy would singlehandedly set back the release of 0.9.4.
Do you know the zip codes of those houses? I can take a two-minute walk down the street and be in a new 9-digit zip code.
In fact, now I've been informed that the 9-digit zip code plus the last _two digits_ of your house number is enough to uniquely determine your address. So it's very likely you live next to the boundary of three 9-digit zips.
You can already use a number as a mailing address.
It is extremely unlikely that there will be a duplicate house number within a 9-digit zip code, which usually narrows the area down to a street or neighborhood. So you simply put the house number and the 9-digit zip, resulting in a complete address which looks like 4871 13068-4310. (I just made this up. I seriously doubt this is someone's real address.)
However, postal addresses in the usual form have lots of redundancy built in (especially using the name). In the purely numeric form, if you get one digit wrong, the mail is definitely not going to get to its intended destination.
So, by the way that's phrased, either you have no idea what the number of bits per instruction has to do with anything, or you're dumbing down your language because you think the rest of Slashdot doesn't.
"G4 has 128 bits in it! Bits make computer go fast! Bits good!"
Cool. I just tried that - I encoded a picture to PNM (a very straightforward image format with an easy to reproduce header), gave that image as input to lame, decoded it with mpg123, and added the PNM header back into the picture.
What came out was a really fuzzy image, shifted to the left, and with entirely wonky colors. But what amazes me is that the objects in the picture are distinguishable at all.
Have you run a download on a 28.8 modem recently? As long as you're downloading compressed data (so that modem compression doesn't compress it further), the speed does in fact max out around 2.8k/s.
If there are 8 bits per byte, then that means you can download compressed data on a 28.8 modem at 3.6k/s. Which I'll believe more readily than the subject of this article, but not much.
The "4 bytes for every 1024" you quote is only if no packets need to be retransmitted. That's probably where the 20% comes in.
DVD video is already compressed. Their "gigabyte" must be of something less compressed than DVD.
However, you're not so far off. To download at 28800 bits per second, they'd have to fit a 2 hour movie into 20 megabytes, whereas it would be 4 GB on DVD. A 2000:1 jump in compression is not something I'll accept casually.
You fail to understand the principles of SavainScience. "Reproducibility" is an artifact of the so-called "scientific method", which is obviously a hoax perpetuated by the science whores. And "citing", of course, is just another word for "supporting another science whore", and not a tactic that the great Louis would stoop to.
(closed-captioned for the humor impaired) [The above is sarcasm.]
Ah, so that explains the complete lack of scientific rigor on the linked page in your sig. If you played by their rules, you'd be a "science whore"!
I get it now! You're not a crackpot who's been trolling forever on USENET and now turning to Slashdot, you're just taking a valiant stand against every single other scientist alive, who all incidentally happen to be wrong, and some dead ones like Newton too - I mean, you obviously don't trust his "calculus" enough to do something foolish like using it correctly.
This is my rant. I've said what I had to say. You can mod me down now.
Hey cool, does that mean you're not going to give this rant ever again? I trust that as the only honest scientist in existence, you will keep your word.
If someone could make a GUI version of Mutt, I'd use it. As long as it was still as fast, configurable, and featureful. GUIs can, after all, fit more information on the screen.
However, no GUI client even comes close to the usability of Mutt.
Until then, I will not consider GUI to be equivalent with progress.
Re:Bugs?? Hehe? This is fore me.
on
Evolution Bug-Hunt!
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's sad to see a text-based e-mail user caught in the Pine trap.
Set aside a few hours and learn to use Mutt. It's open source (Pine isn't), and it does everything Pine can do (except for Pine's brain-dead menu system) plus a lot more. You'll thank yourself later.
RPN on an old calculator and RPN on a computer are extremely different.
On old HP calculators, you could only ever see the bottom item on the stack. Using these calculators was difficult because you had to think about "registers" that you couldn't see.
A good RPN calculator on a computer (or an HP graphing calculator) lets you see almost everything that goes on with the stack. This is when RPN begins to make sense.
And if you're _programming_ in an RPN language like Forth, then the stack is what you make it. If you switch things around on the stack at bizarre times, it will be hard to work with. If you think of stack slots like function inputs and outputs, it's easy to work with.
But you did hit on what are probably the main reasons Forth isn't used: tradition, and the fact that Forth is closer to assembly than C, and as such it would not be obfuscated enough in binary form.
That's a feature. If you had managed to send an e-mail to Mike Angelo and gotten a reply, your inbox might have had a stupidity overload and caused all the other messages you would ever recieve to spontaneously turn into badly-formatted sources of misinformation with ugly and irrelevant blue buttons on the side.
Now aren't you glad Mozilla sacrificed its own process to protect you from this horrible fate?
Netscape 6.1 isn't called "Navigator" anywhere. It's just called "Netscape", showing that in this wonderful language of ours a name can have two different referents with no problem at all.
I think these "hardcore gamers" have been lying to you. Saying they use Linux makes them look more l33t. It's better for serving, definitely - but in terms of actually playing games, there's no advantage to using Linux and several disadvantages.
There are lots of things that Linux absolutely blows Windows away at. Gaming isn't one of them.
It seems that students could easily get a 5 (the highest possible score) on the AP exam without being ever able to write a working program.
That's already the case on the Computer Science AP in C++. Looking at samples of grades for the free-response section shows that students get 9 out of 9 points for code which wouldn't even compile. If they completely miss the concept they can get 6 out of 9.
The Computer Science AP was the easiest 5 I ever got - even though I was supposed to have studied their "Marine Biology Case Study" (wow, we can increment and decrement a variable and say that we're modeling the motion of one-dimensional discrete fish!) beforehand and I only first looked at it during the test.
An large number of people in this discussion are entirely missing the point of what Farid does.
Let's put it this way. If Farid alone can crack a variety of steganography, then the NSA or whoever it is who really want to invade your privacy. If he was trying to crack RSA or DES or PDF's ROT13 encryption, he would be praised - do you really think that steganography is somehow special?
So the article was rather uninformative. I've met Farid. He's a very cool guy. He's working against things like SDMI - which is a form of steganography. As part of a lecture he gave, he showed how to defeat various watermarking techniques for images (without getting arrested, even.)
Consider that when you say "battling steganography is battling privacy! We must hate him!" you are using the same logic that put the DMCA in place. Congratulations.
However, the $2000 charge is absolutely unreasonable. This issue would have blown over quickly if Adobe had simply said "Change your name or we'll sue you," which is outright NICE compared to "Change your name and give us $2000 NOW or we (or rather, our scum-sucking "independent" lawyer) sue you for even more money." --
Slashdot Mirror
That is flamebait of the worst sort.
What's wrong with using the programming language which is best for the job, which he seems to have found is Python? Does it threaten your existence as a great l33t C programmer (Look at me, I use -Wall, I'm BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU) that Python might have an advantage over C?
It must be that Taco decided we already have enough news today, and didn't want another Mozilla story on top of this one - so he posted the link to Bugzilla, bringing it down and preventing 0.9.4 from being released. How deviously clever.
Either that or he's just stupid (this evidence is supported by the fact that he keeps posting links to MozillaQuest) and had no idea his idiocy would singlehandedly set back the release of 0.9.4.
Do you know the zip codes of those houses? I can take a two-minute walk down the street and be in a new 9-digit zip code.
In fact, now I've been informed that the 9-digit zip code plus the last _two digits_ of your house number is enough to uniquely determine your address. So it's very likely you live next to the boundary of three 9-digit zips.
You can already use a number as a mailing address.
It is extremely unlikely that there will be a duplicate house number within a 9-digit zip code, which usually narrows the area down to a street or neighborhood. So you simply put the house number and the 9-digit zip, resulting in a complete address which looks like 4871 13068-4310. (I just made this up. I seriously doubt this is someone's real address.)
However, postal addresses in the usual form have lots of redundancy built in (especially using the name). In the purely numeric form, if you get one digit wrong, the mail is definitely not going to get to its intended destination.
So, by the way that's phrased, either you have no idea what the number of bits per instruction has to do with anything, or you're dumbing down your language because you think the rest of Slashdot doesn't.
"G4 has 128 bits in it! Bits make computer go fast! Bits good!"
Sorry, that was a myth perpetuated by the "Green Party USA", a group which named itself that to create confusion with Nader's party. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/081700-02.ht m
What came out was a really fuzzy image, shifted to the left, and with entirely wonky colors. But what amazes me is that the objects in the picture are distinguishable at all.
Have you run a download on a 28.8 modem recently? As long as you're downloading compressed data (so that modem compression doesn't compress it further), the speed does in fact max out around 2.8k/s.
If there are 8 bits per byte, then that means you can download compressed data on a 28.8 modem at 3.6k/s. Which I'll believe more readily than the subject of this article, but not much.
The "4 bytes for every 1024" you quote is only if no packets need to be retransmitted. That's probably where the 20% comes in.
DVD video is already compressed. Their "gigabyte" must be of something less compressed than DVD.
However, you're not so far off. To download at 28800 bits per second, they'd have to fit a 2 hour movie into 20 megabytes, whereas it would be 4 GB on DVD. A 2000:1 jump in compression is not something I'll accept casually.
You fail to understand the principles of SavainScience. "Reproducibility" is an artifact of the so-called "scientific method", which is obviously a hoax perpetuated by the science whores. And "citing", of course, is just another word for "supporting another science whore", and not a tactic that the great Louis would stoop to.
(closed-captioned for the humor impaired) [The above is sarcasm.]
I get it now! You're not a crackpot who's been trolling forever on USENET and now turning to Slashdot, you're just taking a valiant stand against every single other scientist alive, who all incidentally happen to be wrong, and some dead ones like Newton too - I mean, you obviously don't trust his "calculus" enough to do something foolish like using it correctly.
Hey cool, does that mean you're not going to give this rant ever again? I trust that as the only honest scientist in existence, you will keep your word.
If someone could make a GUI version of Mutt, I'd use it. As long as it was still as fast, configurable, and featureful. GUIs can, after all, fit more information on the screen.
However, no GUI client even comes close to the usability of Mutt.
Until then, I will not consider GUI to be equivalent with progress.
It's sad to see a text-based e-mail user caught in the Pine trap.
Set aside a few hours and learn to use Mutt. It's open source (Pine isn't), and it does everything Pine can do (except for Pine's brain-dead menu system) plus a lot more. You'll thank yourself later.
How does it assist "communication" if you put "random" words in "quotes"?
Sorry if I was unclear. When I say "registers", I mean slots on the stack.
RPN on an old calculator and RPN on a computer are extremely different.
On old HP calculators, you could only ever see the bottom item on the stack. Using these calculators was difficult because you had to think about "registers" that you couldn't see.
A good RPN calculator on a computer (or an HP graphing calculator) lets you see almost everything that goes on with the stack. This is when RPN begins to make sense.
And if you're _programming_ in an RPN language like Forth, then the stack is what you make it. If you switch things around on the stack at bizarre times, it will be hard to work with. If you think of stack slots like function inputs and outputs, it's easy to work with.
But you did hit on what are probably the main reasons Forth isn't used: tradition, and the fact that Forth is closer to assembly than C, and as such it would not be obfuscated enough in binary form.
That's a feature. If you had managed to send an e-mail to Mike Angelo and gotten a reply, your inbox might have had a stupidity overload and caused all the other messages you would ever recieve to spontaneously turn into badly-formatted sources of misinformation with ugly and irrelevant blue buttons on the side.
Now aren't you glad Mozilla sacrificed its own process to protect you from this horrible fate?
Netscape 6.1 isn't called "Navigator" anywhere. It's just called "Netscape", showing that in this wonderful language of ours a name can have two different referents with no problem at all.
You lose.
I think these "hardcore gamers" have been lying to you. Saying they use Linux makes them look more l33t. It's better for serving, definitely - but in terms of actually playing games, there's no advantage to using Linux and several disadvantages.
There are lots of things that Linux absolutely blows Windows away at. Gaming isn't one of them.
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS to the rescue!
That's already the case on the Computer Science AP in C++. Looking at samples of grades for the free-response section shows that students get 9 out of 9 points for code which wouldn't even compile. If they completely miss the concept they can get 6 out of 9.
The Computer Science AP was the easiest 5 I ever got - even though I was supposed to have studied their "Marine Biology Case Study" (wow, we can increment and decrement a variable and say that we're modeling the motion of one-dimensional discrete fish!) beforehand and I only first looked at it during the test.
An large number of people in this discussion are entirely missing the point of what Farid does.
Let's put it this way. If Farid alone can crack a variety of steganography, then the NSA or whoever it is who really want to invade your privacy. If he was trying to crack RSA or DES or PDF's ROT13 encryption, he would be praised - do you really think that steganography is somehow special?
So the article was rather uninformative. I've met Farid. He's a very cool guy. He's working against things like SDMI - which is a form of steganography. As part of a lecture he gave, he showed how to defeat various watermarking techniques for images (without getting arrested, even.)
Consider that when you say "battling steganography is battling privacy! We must hate him!" you are using the same logic that put the DMCA in place. Congratulations.
And here we have the ambiguities of English causing me to interpret your sentence as exactly the opposite of what you meant.
--
The GhostScript PDF interpreter has been around for a long time. It's called "gv".
--
I agree that KIllustrator should change its name.
However, the $2000 charge is absolutely unreasonable. This issue would have blown over quickly if Adobe had simply said "Change your name or we'll sue you," which is outright NICE compared to "Change your name and give us $2000 NOW or we (or rather, our scum-sucking "independent" lawyer) sue you for even more money."
--