(Large fonts, as far as I am concerned, either (a) dont make much difference or (b) devalue the use of a higher resolution.)
Larger fonts at a higher res don't devaule the use of higher res at all. I have a 14.1" laptop screen that is 1400x1050. I have the font sizes for the correct DPI of my screen (ie, using more pixels than a lower-res monitor but having the same physical size)... and it looks a million times better than a lower res display. The fonts are far smoother and crisper. Looking at fonts on my display vs a lower res LCD is like night and day. Very nice on the eyes.
I'm one of those people that gave RoR a gander and didn't really care for it. Most people looking at rails, I suspect, are already experienced with other frameworks... yet all the tutorials focus on is how easy it is to slap together cookie cutter database frontends in 10 minutes and how easy the scaffolding makes life (at least when I tried months ago). I've been doing web apps for a while now... showing me how easy it is to build a recipe database is really not very impressive. My suggestion would be that somebody write a more in-depth tutorial that focuses on some of the ways rails is fundamentally different and better and leave off the nasty scaffolding entirely and just explain what's really going on.
stepping around the flagpole. of course a layer 7 firewall could block all IM client's trying to go through any port.
Until the IM clients start speaking perfectly legitimate HTTP over port 80 (a la XMLRPC or SOAP or HTun or the like). All the firewall can do is look at traffic and make sure it conforms to a specific protocol, but that doesn't mean the traffic is desireable.
No firewall will ever be able to look at traffic and say with certainty "this is legitimate business-related stuff" or "this is somebody BSing with their friends" or "this is someone trying to get a trojan horse in here" or "this is someone trying to post trade secrets"...
Bluetooth is a propietary technology; standardisation is being worked upon (IEEE 801.15). There are several patents involved on the technology, therefore companies that wish to use it sign a licensing agreement
But he wasn't using any patent, just distributing factual information about some products out there...
Well, if he agreed to it, then yes it would be illegal. They're called contracts. However if it is just the usual kind of license "agreement" as the software industry usually uses that term then sure, those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But we don't know what kind this is...
Excuse me... have I stumbled into the wrong conference room^H^H^H^H^H...programming language? You are talking about Python, right - the language that *begins* by forcing a style of indentation....? No?
I knew somebody would start bitching about the indentation. The indentation is just Python's syntax for denoting block structure. It doesn't remove any power from the programmer, it is just a different syntax. Does Perl (5, anyway) grant the freedom to denote blocks with indents instead of curly braces? No? So does that aspect make it less expressive than python? No, it is just a different syntax.
The freedom of the language has nothing to do with its syntactic cleanliness.
That's off. On the contrary, having a flexible grammar allows you to do, well, flexible things. I for instance was able to throw together my own data modelling syntax using Perl's function prototypes. When the language is willing to *bend over backwards* to accomodate you, no matter how unreasonably outrageous of a demand you make, you can twist it into he wildest contortions and pure art emerges.
Perhaps I worded that wrong. What I meant and should have said was: A clean, simple syntax (or as you deemed it, paternalistic") does not imply lack of power or expressiveness. See Lisp for example, which has less syntax than perl or python.
But anyway, getting down to specifics, I'm not sure about your perl prototypes example. Prototypes in perl have a few different effects: some degree of compile-time type checking, ability to imply pass-by-reference (irrelelvant in python since, like Java, almost everything is a reference anyway) and making paren-less function calls even less clear.
Me too.:) And expanding that wonderful philosophy to the language itself, that is exactly why I don't like Python--I like the freedom of Perl (even if it results in syntactical messiness... but that freedom of expression leads to some of the most elegant code in the world, in a non-syntactical sense). I don't want some paternalistic syntax dictating how I should best express using the langauge.
The freedom of the language has nothing to do with its syntactic cleanliness. I don't know what makes you say Python dictates how you express yourself. If you had said Java instead I might agree more. Python is very clean and simple, but dictates very little at a higher level.
- The end of the film story is similar in spirit to the end of the animated series, just under different circumstances
End of the series? as in End Sinister? At the end of that episode aeon uses trevor's invention and wipes out the future human race, then knocks trevor out and takes him back into the time capsule with her. I don't see the similarities at all.
- The Relicle and Aeon climbing up its tail is right out of "War," although it has a different purpose in that episode
You should watch that episode more closely. That isn't the Relical in War, and that isn't Aeon climbing up into it (I think that's Aeon's father). The Relical comes out of the comic book, but like everything else its underlying purpose was completely changed in the movie.
But I thought they did a pretty credible job in keeping the same feeling.
Were you watching the same original series I was? The movie didn't keep the same feeling at all. All of those other things you listed are very minor things in comparison to the deep ways in which the movie & series differed.
Trevor's character: completely different. In the movie, he's a soft, good-natured scientist at heart. In the original series he's a true megalomaniac.
Trevor & Aeon's relationship: It was always a love/hate on/off thing in the series. They never developed that stable warm-hearted loving relationship in the series.
Monica: In the movie, the Monicans are some underground secret rebelion. In the series, Monica is a nation. Monica was Brega's equal and opposite (like Aeon and Trevor).
Cloning: The whole thing with the world continuing on via cloning alone was never in the originals. Trevor's cloning experiments were just that and not the human race's sole method of procreation.
The walls: In the movie, the walls separate the city from the natural world which has become out of control and must be held back from the city with walls and pesticides. In the originals, the purpose of the walls was to divide Monica from Bregna.
I'm sure I could think of a lot more if I saw the movie again...
Theism guarantees you nothing. You take it on faith that you will go to some heaven when you die. By definition, theism/religion in general is not an empircal fact. If it were, it would be science, not religion and it would not require any faith of you.
They also pointed me to their press release on the subject. Lo and behold if their press release was not taken word for word and put on the BBC and tagged with a different author. When I brought this to the attention of the BBC reporter he started ignoring me.
Stateful packet filtering has nothing to do with the application layer... a fireall that is stateful alone can't ensure that only HTTP runs on port 80.
And block outgoing connections from unknown ports? That isn't going to accomplish anything. Source ports are usually allocated dynamically.
Proseuting someone for breaking the law isn't censorship. Stop screaming censorship you fucking idiot, or you'll dilute the word so much no one will listen when something is actually censored. Since you think it is censorship, you're too stupid to be allowed to participate in the decision.
First of all, they are not clearly breaking the law. Most of these cases have been acquitted. I'm not sure if any have been sucessfully prosecuted, in fact.
But yeah, whatever. With your logic, the government never has and never will censor anything anyway. A law will simply be passed by the religious right or naieve soccer moms (or "for the children") that says "you can't say this anymore". "It isn't censorship - its the law!"... probably exactly what they will say.
I guess I would be proud to pay taxes for truly universal access to information too, but unfortunately the government doesn't seem to be in the business of doing that these days.
No, the government wouldn't censor the internet for the very reason that it is a "pull" media.
Wrong... way wrong. The government already is censoring the internet. Maintainers of privately owned and privately hosted porn websites are being prosecuted for violating obscenity laws. Most of them even have non-obscene splash pages informing the visitor of the nature of the content. "pull media" in every sense of the word. They don't give a shit. They'll send in the FBI scumbags to confiscate your property and throw you in jail even if your site merely contained TEXT.
If they're doing this now to sites that are privately owned and hosted, just imagine how much easier it will be for them to do it when part of the medium is government owned.
There is no fundamental difference to me, and universal access to information is the kind of thing I would be proud to pay taxes for.
The government doesn't provide "universal access to information" now through libraries (no obscenity) and it won't through wifi, at least not for very long.
In all fairness, if im paying tuition, I want whats best for me, not only what I think I want at the moment. Do I want a future in what im interested, or a shit grade but all the erotic stories online.
If you have so little self-control that you can't keep yourself from wasting time on the Internet every chance you get, you're probably better off not being in school anyway.
On the last statement, you are summarizing 1-1 nat vs. 1-many. In most cases, it is 1-many (even if the many==1) and outside in, if there is no connection in place, the packet is dropped out of necessity. Why? It doesn't know what machine on the back is supposed to receive the packet.
It isn't dropped if the incoming packet is addressed directly to the machine on the inside. It will pass right through.
That said, what you are considering a "network and transport layer" firewall will do exactly what a nat device in 1-many mode will.
No... a firewall will actually drop incoming connections in the above scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Larger fonts at a higher res don't devaule the use of higher res at all. I have a 14.1" laptop screen that is 1400x1050. I have the font sizes for the correct DPI of my screen (ie, using more pixels than a lower-res monitor but having the same physical size)... and it looks a million times better than a lower res display. The fonts are far smoother and crisper. Looking at fonts on my display vs a lower res LCD is like night and day. Very nice on the eyes.
I'm one of those people that gave RoR a gander and didn't really care for it. Most people looking at rails, I suspect, are already experienced with other frameworks... yet all the tutorials focus on is how easy it is to slap together cookie cutter database frontends in 10 minutes and how easy the scaffolding makes life (at least when I tried months ago). I've been doing web apps for a while now... showing me how easy it is to build a recipe database is really not very impressive. My suggestion would be that somebody write a more in-depth tutorial that focuses on some of the ways rails is fundamentally different and better and leave off the nasty scaffolding entirely and just explain what's really going on.
Just like how an "order of magnitude" in computer science is a power of 2, but most other places it is a power of 10.
Until the IM clients start speaking perfectly legitimate HTTP over port 80 (a la XMLRPC or SOAP or HTun or the like). All the firewall can do is look at traffic and make sure it conforms to a specific protocol, but that doesn't mean the traffic is desireable.
No firewall will ever be able to look at traffic and say with certainty "this is legitimate business-related stuff" or "this is somebody BSing with their friends" or "this is someone trying to get a trojan horse in here" or "this is someone trying to post trade secrets"...
You're right. Clearly his time is much better spent replying to posts about a TV show on slashdot.
But he wasn't using any patent, just distributing factual information about some products out there...
Well, if he agreed to it, then yes it would be illegal. They're called contracts. However if it is just the usual kind of license "agreement" as the software industry usually uses that term then sure, those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. But we don't know what kind this is...
What I'm curious about is what is this license agreement and did the guy running this list agree to it?
I knew somebody would start bitching about the indentation. The indentation is just Python's syntax for denoting block structure. It doesn't remove any power from the programmer, it is just a different syntax. Does Perl (5, anyway) grant the freedom to denote blocks with indents instead of curly braces? No? So does that aspect make it less expressive than python? No, it is just a different syntax.
Perhaps I worded that wrong. What I meant and should have said was: A clean, simple syntax (or as you deemed it, paternalistic") does not imply lack of power or expressiveness. See Lisp for example, which has less syntax than perl or python.
But anyway, getting down to specifics, I'm not sure about your perl prototypes example. Prototypes in perl have a few different effects: some degree of compile-time type checking, ability to imply pass-by-reference (irrelelvant in python since, like Java, almost everything is a reference anyway) and making paren-less function calls even less clear.
The freedom of the language has nothing to do with its syntactic cleanliness. I don't know what makes you say Python dictates how you express yourself. If you had said Java instead I might agree more. Python is very clean and simple, but dictates very little at a higher level.
End of the series? as in End Sinister? At the end of that episode aeon uses trevor's invention and wipes out the future human race, then knocks trevor out and takes him back into the time capsule with her. I don't see the similarities at all.
You should watch that episode more closely. That isn't the Relical in War, and that isn't Aeon climbing up into it (I think that's Aeon's father). The Relical comes out of the comic book, but like everything else its underlying purpose was completely changed in the movie.
Were you watching the same original series I was? The movie didn't keep the same feeling at all. All of those other things you listed are very minor things in comparison to the deep ways in which the movie & series differed.
Trevor's character: completely different. In the movie, he's a soft, good-natured scientist at heart. In the original series he's a true megalomaniac.
Trevor & Aeon's relationship: It was always a love/hate on/off thing in the series. They never developed that stable warm-hearted loving relationship in the series.
Monica: In the movie, the Monicans are some underground secret rebelion. In the series, Monica is a nation. Monica was Brega's equal and opposite (like Aeon and Trevor).
Cloning: The whole thing with the world continuing on via cloning alone was never in the originals. Trevor's cloning experiments were just that and not the human race's sole method of procreation.
The walls: In the movie, the walls separate the city from the natural world which has become out of control and must be held back from the city with walls and pesticides. In the originals, the purpose of the walls was to divide Monica from Bregna.
I'm sure I could think of a lot more if I saw the movie again...
Theism guarantees you nothing. You take it on faith that you will go to some heaven when you die. By definition, theism/religion in general is not an empircal fact. If it were, it would be science, not religion and it would not require any faith of you.
If any of us are alive in 100 years it will be entirely thanks to science and medical advances.
I'm an atheist, have been for 10+ years... yup, I still seem to be alive. My dad's been an athiest his whole life, now 60 and in fine shape.
It appears your statement is completely wrong...
That was most likely not plagarism. The company that made that press release most likely paid that reporter to pass it off as legitimate journalism.
Stateful packet filtering has nothing to do with the application layer... a fireall that is stateful alone can't ensure that only HTTP runs on port 80.
And block outgoing connections from unknown ports? That isn't going to accomplish anything. Source ports are usually allocated dynamically.
First of all, they are not clearly breaking the law. Most of these cases have been acquitted. I'm not sure if any have been sucessfully prosecuted, in fact.
But yeah, whatever. With your logic, the government never has and never will censor anything anyway. A law will simply be passed by the religious right or naieve soccer moms (or "for the children") that says "you can't say this anymore". "It isn't censorship - its the law!"... probably exactly what they will say.
Yes.
I guess I would be proud to pay taxes for truly universal access to information too, but unfortunately the government doesn't seem to be in the business of doing that these days.
Wrong... way wrong. The government already is censoring the internet. Maintainers of privately owned and privately hosted porn websites are being prosecuted for violating obscenity laws. Most of them even have non-obscene splash pages informing the visitor of the nature of the content. "pull media" in every sense of the word. They don't give a shit. They'll send in the FBI scumbags to confiscate your property and throw you in jail even if your site merely contained TEXT.
If they're doing this now to sites that are privately owned and hosted, just imagine how much easier it will be for them to do it when part of the medium is government owned.
The government doesn't provide "universal access to information" now through libraries (no obscenity) and it won't through wifi, at least not for very long.
That's because the US is already falling to Christian fundamentalism. Not much difference.
Use of recursion to ensure the unmaintainability of code... interesting technique.
If you have so little self-control that you can't keep yourself from wasting time on the Internet every chance you get, you're probably better off not being in school anyway.
I don't know, but the US can't do that itself.
It isn't dropped if the incoming packet is addressed directly to the machine on the inside. It will pass right through.
No... a firewall will actually drop incoming connections in the above scenario.