I know you're trying to be funny, but: Yes. Sort of. Mainstream religions promise a reward for "good deeds" {conveniently for the priests, the reward is invariably promised after death}. The body's integral pain control system gives a more immediate reward for "good deeds". Applying game theory to social interactions within the context of predatory animals who live in packs {e.g. wolves, humans} suggests that it's possible that altruism could have a natural origin. The prerequisites are a broad tolerance band, the ability to learn from experience, and for an individual's life expectancy to span several generations. Which is exactly what we notice in pack-dwelling predators.
In that case expect it to be prohibited by the moral police the moment it becomes available outside of the lab. With a name like "opiorphin", the drug war overlords probably have their eye on it this very moment. What a terrible choice of name - it sounds like a combination of "opium" and "morphine" that just screams, "prohibit me and throw the users in jail!"
I'm guessing there's a good reason why it's got that name; the article is a bit light on details but it could well be an endorphin.
[C]hronic pain users can adapt themselves to very large doses with no apparent ill effects, and have a very high quality of life and normal life span, provided they have continued access and don't have to put up with unpredictable and irregular supplies.....
Oh, yes indeed. Even long-term recreational use is possible for some individuals (most of the known problems associated with recreational heroin use owe more to illegality than to any pharmacological property of the drug itself). The problem is, as you point out, a puritanical attitude amongst those in authority.
[Heroin] itself is quite cheap. The problem is the prohibition and its enforcement, which makes it extremely expensive (and hugely profitable for the dealers).
Indeed; the normal operation of the market is distorted by criminalisation; there is no incentive to provide quality assurance.
I find it doubtful that you could have an effective painkiller that wasn't usable recreationally.
The human body's pain regulatory system is tightly bound up with a behaviour-rewarding system. Certain actions which are evolutionarily beneficial (to the species or the tribe, even if not to the individual) trigger a release of endorphins, the body's own homebrew morphine analogues which are also produced in response to pain. When an individual is not in pain, stimulation of the endorphin receptors produces a highly pleasurable sensation.
Opiates such as morphine or heroin are chemically similar enough to endorphins to bind to the same receptors. This makes them good painkillers. It also makes them good ways to induce pleasurable sensations for recreational purposes.
Beside any psychological effect (which may well be habit-forming in its own right), continued over-use of opiates can cause a reduction in the body's endorphin production. When the artificial painkillers wear off, the body is not ready with natural painkillers and so normal bodily functions produce heightened sensations -- the blood can be felt flowing through arteries, the ends of bones can be felt moving past one another, and so on. The exact manifestation of symptoms is a person-to-person variable. Most people find this state unbearable and so seek out more opiates rather than wait for the body's endorphin production to stabilise. This is physical dependence (the body cannot function normally without drugs). At £1 a breath, a heroin habit is not a cheap habit unless you are a rich rock star.
Some people have found that they can naturally produce endorphins in more than sufficient quantities to mask pain, and actually deliberately harm themselves to trigger an endorphin release. (Gripping ice cubes tightly in the hands is one of the least-dangerous ways to cause temporary pain sensations and so trigger endorphin production, and is recommended by some agencies for persistent self-harm practitioners). Others have found that by deliberately performing (what they perceive to be) altruistic acts (such as helping an old lady across the road, whether or not she actually wants to cross the road), they can stimulate endorphin production.
Unless the pain-relieving and pleasure-inducing properties of endorphins are separable, any painkiller that attempts to mimic their action will be both usable recreationally and doubly habit-forming.
And then you need a system where (1) the loser pays both sides' costs and (2) not one penny changes hands until the final verdict, after the exhaustion of all appeals, is accepted by both parties.
There is even some concern that current copyright law allows for works to be subsequently removed from the public domain (if they are still within their original copyright term).
I think we need a new law establishing that once a Work has entered the Public Domain -- whether by explicit request of the author, the passage of time or as the result of a court order -- then all Derivative Works based on that Work are also in the Public Domain, and therefore uncopyrightable. (And there would be no need then for the GPL: the Public Domain would be afforded equivalent protection against unwanted proprietary Derivative Works by the Law of the Land.)
In practice, once a Work has entered the Public Domain, under the present system anyone is entitled to create a Derivative Work and will then own the copyright on that Derivative Work. So while a Work remains in the Public Domain (and if a law extending copyright comes in one day too late to protect a Work, the Original Work still enters the Public Domain -- mumble mumble Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law mumble mumble) anyone can make a Derivative Work and will automatically own the copyright thereupon. If a Work is dedicated to the Public Domain by some deliberate act, then withdrawn from the Public Domain by the former copyright holder, anyone who had made a Derivative Work while the Work was in the Public Domain would still legally own the copyright on their Derivative Work. In order to prove that a copyright violation had taken place, you would have to prove that the Derivative Work was made while the Original Work was still subject to copyright (mumble mumble act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence mumble mumble time when it was committed mumble mumble). It shouldn't be hard to convince a jury that there is Reasonable Doubt as to whether the work in question was in fact subject to copyright when the Derivative Work was made.
Yes, but nothing stops you using software as long as it was acquired legitimately. It's true that you have to make a copy of it in the computer's memory in order to use it, but making that copy is considered "fair dealing" -- meaning, the law of the land does not forbid it.
Read it again. I wasn't suggesting open-sourcing OS X. I was suggesting open-sourcing OS XI, a hypothetical successor which probably will break legacy compatibility and run only on Intel-based machines. (Such a move will probably also give a speed boost; right now, Apple apps have to have both PowerPC and Intel code segments. The data -- text and graphics -- will be shared, but every Apple application is dragging around some redundant code; and whatever it's doing, it ain't making it any faster.)
There's next to nothing to be gained by selling software; the simple fact is that people are only going to pirate it anyway. Up until now, Mac OS has required a hardware-based protection device -- an actual Mac machine with an electrically-different architecture -- which somewhat limited the options for piracy. But now Apple are using Intel processors, there's a huge hacker challenge factor there, and even if there are a few electrical differences -- things like memory mapping and I/O port assignments -- they will be insignificant compared to the different instruction set (it's quite feasible to, say, search and replace all instances of 0x0378 with 0x03bc, and you don't even need the source code to do it). Someone will get Mac OS running on generic hardware -- and even if the whitehats know to stop at proof-of-concept, you can bet the blackhats will go further. Apple might as well save themselves most of the effort -- sell a few shiny boxes with stamped discs for the few people that actually give a rat's arse, but rely on the existing independent distribution network to do the majority of the work for them.
It's in almost nobody's interest (except ordinary people's, yours and mine; and we are mere pawns in the game) for that truth to be out. If it's believed that The Authorities have a method for recovering overwritten data from a hard drive, they won't have to admit the use of..... shall we say..... other techniques they might be using to recover data. If they are not content with mere overwriting as a method of making data unrecoverable (even though it is), it makes The Enemy think that they may know how to get it back. And anything that recommends destruction of used HDDs (either directly, or through increased wear and tear due to needless overwrite passes), sells more new HDDs.
Quick noob-friendly secure file erasure instructions for Windows: (1) Don't delete anything yet, (2) create lots of junk files until you run out of room, (3) delete the files you want rid of, (4) create more junk files -- now the only place they can possibly be going is over the top of the files you deleted at step (3), (5) defragmentate the drive, (6) delete all the junk files.
I reckon Apple would do better to have Mac OS XI as true open source -- as in GPL or, if they've really got the bollocks, BSD licence. They could continue to make truly wonderful hardware like the iPod range, and supply the all-important drivers to allow it to be used to its full potential with OS XI Macs. Imagine Apple printers, built like old HPs and running on cheap generic bulk ink. Imagine Apple scanners, that actually work. Right now, nobody is making peripherals that are anything but crap; and the market has no choice but to put up with this. An Open Source Mac OS XI could be spread far and wide. Running it on cheap no-name hardware is going to be a no-brainer. Being Open Source, Apple won't then have to worry about piracy. Instead they can concentrate on making stuff that actually works.
The business world seems to have gone advertising crazy!
People don't want adverts. People do not want adverts on TV; that is why we used to have VCRs, before the advent of DVD+RW and Sky Plus. Anything worth watching got recorded, and the advertisements got the fast-forward button. With Sky Plus you can start recording, wait ten minutes or so (the total amount of advert breaks in the programme minus the anticipated amount of time spending re-watching good bits), start watching from the beginning, and fast-forward through the breaks.
People do not want adverts on the radio, which is why it's so good that Radio Two is the first station up from the bottom of the dial.
People don't want adverts in magazines and newspapers, and will turn the page and miss a good story rather than see an advertisement.
People don't want adverts on the internet. Hence the popularity of various advert-blocking and flash-blocking Firefox extensions, the use of "block images from this server" and {for the full-on geek} Squid. Even people without advert-blocking software will navigate away from a site which tries to bombard them with images.
I don't think I'm alone in saying that I would much rather pay cash up front for the phone calls I am going to make, than watch advertisements.
You don't even need to physically destroy the hard disk drives. Even a single overwrite makes data unrecoverable, Gutmann paper notwithstanding. I have this on the advice of a data recovery specialist who has had to explain this to a pissed-off customer.
When inserting e-mail addresses into web pages, I use a little bit of PHP code to generate a unique user part with a suffix representing the time, date and IP address of the looking-up machine. People who harvest e-mail addresses usually sell them on; so once I've received spam at a particular unique address and blocked that address in my.procmailrc, that's several spams I won't ever have to bother with.
Note that you need a proper ISP -- that means one with virtually-hosted e-mails and PHP. Even better would be a static IP address and reverse DNS, so you can run your own MX.
Here's the code;
<? function spamjavelin($address, $link) { global $HTTP_SERVER_VARS; $alpha = "abcdefghjklmnpqrstuvwxyz1234567890"; $packed_ip = ""; $ip_array = split('\.',$HTTP_SERVER_VARS['REMOTE_ADDR']); foreach ($ip_array as $i=>$j) { $packed_ip.= sprintf("%02X",$j); }; $packed_time = date("y") % 10 . $alpha[date("m")-1] . $alpha[date("d")-1] . $alpha[date("H")-1]. date("i") . date("s"); list($user,$domain) = split("@", $address); $new_address = $user . "-" . $packed_time . $packed_ip . "@" . $domain; return($link ? "<A HREF=\"mailto:$new_address\">$new_address</A>" : $new_address); }; function sj($address) { echo spamjavelin($address,1); ?> To display your e-mail address as a link, use the following:
<? sj("myname@mypatch.myisp.co.uk") ?>
and it will be automagickally transformed into something like myname-6lnh502155BD0B02@mypatch.myisp.co.uk !
The name of the charity gives it away: Christian Aid.
An irrational belief in imaginary beings which demonstrably cannot exist is commonly called a delusion. This is a form of psychosis. Let's not call a spade an entrenching tool; let's call these people what they are. Delusional Psychotic aid. And you can't expect a psychotic to make rational choices.
By the way, if it ever came down to it, I'd rather starve than accept food from a christian.
There will always be Unix systems; and as long as there is Unix, there will be Perl.
.Net is a blip in the grand scheme of things. Microsoft's dominance will come to an end. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but soon. If Vista doesn't kill Microsoft, whatever they try next surely will. There's a world out there that isn't prepared to put up with the kind of shit Microsoft are trying on. Linux is ready for the desktop, and BSD still has life in it yet. The world will be very quick to forget that Microsoft ever even existed. If you get the.Net programming job, great, but it will end sometime. Microsoft have all their own standards; meaning when Microsoft go les Roberts vers le haut, which they will, nothing you have learned will be applicable anywhere else. Yes, that means there will be a whole lot of wasted knowledge in the world. Don't be caught out by it.
Perl lets you get the job done, pretty much independent of what the job may even be. It's old-fashioned, for sure; but then, it doesn't have to be trendy. It works well enough not to have to try any harder. And you'll be picking up Unix system administration skills, which are highly transferrable.
Ha ha! C'est très drôle et je vous offre les meilleurs voeux! Mais je crains qu'il sera perdu sur la plupart des Slashdotters, qui sont des Barbariens avec une seule langue (qu'ils parlent même moins bien que ma grandemère fume les cigares) et qui déstestent irrationnellement tous les étrangers.
The last lappie I bought (a Packard Bell, from Dixons, in either 2003 or 2004; and very probably the last machine ever to have been fitted with an audio Line In port) came with XP Home preinstalled. I was told by Dixons that I could not get a refund for the Windows, as I had paid £0 for the software anyway.
This is good news, though. Dell have even started using AMD processors (just before Intel brought out the AMD-beating Core 2 Duo; coincidence? I think not). I might actually consider buying a Dell.
Hah. Do you really think potato crisps won't be banned within the next 10 years?
They tries to introduce healthy meals in schools, kids didn't like the food. So this happened. And this. Didn't take a crystal ball to see this coming, did it?
Some or other Tart Magazine recently carried a review of 20 ready meals. They had some half-famous foreign chef award star ratings based on taste. An anonymous nutritionist gave separate advice based on levels of fat / salt / sugar. In every category, the nutritionist rated highest the meals the chef gave only one or two stars.
Now they've all but banned smoking, "unhealthy" food is the next target. The real agenda is to impose a tax on food to replace the cigarette tax (which is not working, now people can import fags from the continent; but on the continent, only unemployed people get state-funded medical treatment, and anybody who is working has to have medical insurance. So tobacco duty is lower there). It will start out as being a tax on unhealthy food. The demonisation of "obesity" (in a country where 9 women out of ten are trying to lose weight and the tenth is too proud to admit it) is nothing more than an exercise in grooming the public to accept such a tax. The truth is once such a tax is in place, it will be widened in scope until even a salt-free, sugar-free, fat-free, taste-free organic rocket salad is taxed as heavily as a box of Bensons.
The problem is that you can't build anything anywhere in the UK without someone protesting. Ten years ago when they were trying to build the Newbury Bypass, the protestors (very, very few of whom actually came from Newbury, BTW) were chanting "Homes not roads". Today, the protestors are active whenever someone tries to build houses. When they tried to build factories in the past, at least the locals would generally support the effort on the basis that a new factory would bring jobs to the area. Now if you tried to build a factory, you'd get rent-a-mob outsiders protesting against it and the locals would also most probably be protesting that the factory would bring immigrants to the area.
Building a reservoir essentially involves digging a very large hole and filling it with water, incidentally drowning any cute fluffy bunnies et anal. that can't be bothered to learn to swim. (Actually, you have to do more than that; for a start, you have to undercut the hole to avoid evaporation, but we'll simplify things a little here.) So you'll get various groups of protestors turning up with their own agendas. Maybe they will be too preoccupied with in-fighting amongst the various factions ("you aren't a True Believer, you're only concerned about the value of your house and you eat m**t!" "Well you aren't even local, you've nothing to be worried about, you can just sod off back to where you came from and live off my taxes" "Yeah? Well how many diggers have you sabotaged?") to do any serious protesting.
But it's not just the protestors you have to worry about, it's the workers and working conditions. You can't dig big holes in the winter, because it rains and they just fill up with water. And you can't dig holes in the summer, because it's dusty, thirsty work; the workers need showers and drinks, but there's a water shortage on.....
I personally think "Rosie" (as in short for "Rosie Lee", which is rhyming slang for "tea") would be a better name for a fork of Java (itself being named after a slang name for coffee). But then, I also thought "DFlat" would be a good name for the open source version of C# (assuming, of course, that you are using even-tempered tuning).
An individual who has the right to own slaves could be considered "more free" (assuming for a moment that freedom could be quantified meaningfully) than an individual who has no right to own slaves. However, in a nation where individuals are allowed to own slaves, the average level of freedom may well be rather less than in a nation where individuals are not allowed to own slaves, and some would use the minimum level of freedom as a criterion for judgement.
On the one hand, you could say that the people who don't like the GPL are too lazy to write their own closed-source software from scratch; they want to base it on GPL software, but the GPL exists precisely to present that kind of thing. On the other hand, you could say that the people who prefer the GPL to BSD-style licences are just being lazy and don't want to put in the effort to make an Open Source clone of any closed-source fork the Hoarders may come up with. Both sides have a point..... also, the GPL is rather long-winded:
Figures are lines, words, characters. Note that the GPL uses 12x as many characters and 13x as many words as the BSD licence, so the BSD licence must contain longer words than the GPL. Each licence can, however, be summarised using just four words -- in fact, the same four words, just arranged in a different order! The BSD licence boils down to "sharing is not stealing", while the GPL boils down to "not sharing is stealing".
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're trying to be funny, but: Yes. Sort of. Mainstream religions promise a reward for "good deeds" {conveniently for the priests, the reward is invariably promised after death}. The body's integral pain control system gives a more immediate reward for "good deeds". Applying game theory to social interactions within the context of predatory animals who live in packs {e.g. wolves, humans} suggests that it's possible that altruism could have a natural origin. The prerequisites are a broad tolerance band, the ability to learn from experience, and for an individual's life expectancy to span several generations. Which is exactly what we notice in pack-dwelling predators.
Or, if Microsoft had their way, teach a man to fish and you can sell him expensive, proprietary bait for life .....
I find it doubtful that you could have an effective painkiller that wasn't usable recreationally.
The human body's pain regulatory system is tightly bound up with a behaviour-rewarding system. Certain actions which are evolutionarily beneficial (to the species or the tribe, even if not to the individual) trigger a release of endorphins, the body's own homebrew morphine analogues which are also produced in response to pain. When an individual is not in pain, stimulation of the endorphin receptors produces a highly pleasurable sensation.
Opiates such as morphine or heroin are chemically similar enough to endorphins to bind to the same receptors. This makes them good painkillers. It also makes them good ways to induce pleasurable sensations for recreational purposes.
Beside any psychological effect (which may well be habit-forming in its own right), continued over-use of opiates can cause a reduction in the body's endorphin production. When the artificial painkillers wear off, the body is not ready with natural painkillers and so normal bodily functions produce heightened sensations -- the blood can be felt flowing through arteries, the ends of bones can be felt moving past one another, and so on. The exact manifestation of symptoms is a person-to-person variable. Most people find this state unbearable and so seek out more opiates rather than wait for the body's endorphin production to stabilise. This is physical dependence (the body cannot function normally without drugs). At £1 a breath, a heroin habit is not a cheap habit unless you are a rich rock star.
Some people have found that they can naturally produce endorphins in more than sufficient quantities to mask pain, and actually deliberately harm themselves to trigger an endorphin release. (Gripping ice cubes tightly in the hands is one of the least-dangerous ways to cause temporary pain sensations and so trigger endorphin production, and is recommended by some agencies for persistent self-harm practitioners). Others have found that by deliberately performing (what they perceive to be) altruistic acts (such as helping an old lady across the road, whether or not she actually wants to cross the road), they can stimulate endorphin production.
Unless the pain-relieving and pleasure-inducing properties of endorphins are separable, any painkiller that attempts to mimic their action will be both usable recreationally and doubly habit-forming.
And then you need a system where (1) the loser pays both sides' costs and (2) not one penny changes hands until the final verdict, after the exhaustion of all appeals, is accepted by both parties.
In practice, once a Work has entered the Public Domain, under the present system anyone is entitled to create a Derivative Work and will then own the copyright on that Derivative Work. So while a Work remains in the Public Domain (and if a law extending copyright comes in one day too late to protect a Work, the Original Work still enters the Public Domain -- mumble mumble Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law mumble mumble) anyone can make a Derivative Work and will automatically own the copyright thereupon. If a Work is dedicated to the Public Domain by some deliberate act, then withdrawn from the Public Domain by the former copyright holder, anyone who had made a Derivative Work while the Work was in the Public Domain would still legally own the copyright on their Derivative Work. In order to prove that a copyright violation had taken place, you would have to prove that the Derivative Work was made while the Original Work was still subject to copyright (mumble mumble act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence mumble mumble time when it was committed mumble mumble). It shouldn't be hard to convince a jury that there is Reasonable Doubt as to whether the work in question was in fact subject to copyright when the Derivative Work was made.
Yes, but nothing stops you using software as long as it was acquired legitimately. It's true that you have to make a copy of it in the computer's memory in order to use it, but making that copy is considered "fair dealing" -- meaning, the law of the land does not forbid it.
Read it again. I wasn't suggesting open-sourcing OS X. I was suggesting open-sourcing OS XI, a hypothetical successor which probably will break legacy compatibility and run only on Intel-based machines. (Such a move will probably also give a speed boost; right now, Apple apps have to have both PowerPC and Intel code segments. The data -- text and graphics -- will be shared, but every Apple application is dragging around some redundant code; and whatever it's doing, it ain't making it any faster.)
There's next to nothing to be gained by selling software; the simple fact is that people are only going to pirate it anyway. Up until now, Mac OS has required a hardware-based protection device -- an actual Mac machine with an electrically-different architecture -- which somewhat limited the options for piracy. But now Apple are using Intel processors, there's a huge hacker challenge factor there, and even if there are a few electrical differences -- things like memory mapping and I/O port assignments -- they will be insignificant compared to the different instruction set (it's quite feasible to, say, search and replace all instances of 0x0378 with 0x03bc, and you don't even need the source code to do it). Someone will get Mac OS running on generic hardware -- and even if the whitehats know to stop at proof-of-concept, you can bet the blackhats will go further. Apple might as well save themselves most of the effort -- sell a few shiny boxes with stamped discs for the few people that actually give a rat's arse, but rely on the existing independent distribution network to do the majority of the work for them.
It's in almost nobody's interest (except ordinary people's, yours and mine; and we are mere pawns in the game) for that truth to be out. If it's believed that The Authorities have a method for recovering overwritten data from a hard drive, they won't have to admit the use of ..... shall we say ..... other techniques they might be using to recover data. If they are not content with mere overwriting as a method of making data unrecoverable (even though it is), it makes The Enemy think that they may know how to get it back. And anything that recommends destruction of used HDDs (either directly, or through increased wear and tear due to needless overwrite passes), sells more new HDDs.
Quick noob-friendly secure file erasure instructions for Windows: (1) Don't delete anything yet, (2) create lots of junk files until you run out of room, (3) delete the files you want rid of, (4) create more junk files -- now the only place they can possibly be going is over the top of the files you deleted at step (3), (5) defragmentate the drive, (6) delete all the junk files.
I reckon Apple would do better to have Mac OS XI as true open source -- as in GPL or, if they've really got the bollocks, BSD licence. They could continue to make truly wonderful hardware like the iPod range, and supply the all-important drivers to allow it to be used to its full potential with OS XI Macs. Imagine Apple printers, built like old HPs and running on cheap generic bulk ink. Imagine Apple scanners, that actually work. Right now, nobody is making peripherals that are anything but crap; and the market has no choice but to put up with this. An Open Source Mac OS XI could be spread far and wide. Running it on cheap no-name hardware is going to be a no-brainer. Being Open Source, Apple won't then have to worry about piracy. Instead they can concentrate on making stuff that actually works.
Note I didn't bother to write a decoder for the information strings, because I learned to decode them in my head
The business world seems to have gone advertising crazy!
People don't want adverts. People do not want adverts on TV; that is why we used to have VCRs, before the advent of DVD+RW and Sky Plus. Anything worth watching got recorded, and the advertisements got the fast-forward button. With Sky Plus you can start recording, wait ten minutes or so (the total amount of advert breaks in the programme minus the anticipated amount of time spending re-watching good bits), start watching from the beginning, and fast-forward through the breaks.
People do not want adverts on the radio, which is why it's so good that Radio Two is the first station up from the bottom of the dial.
People don't want adverts in magazines and newspapers, and will turn the page and miss a good story rather than see an advertisement.
People don't want adverts on the internet. Hence the popularity of various advert-blocking and flash-blocking Firefox extensions, the use of "block images from this server" and {for the full-on geek} Squid. Even people without advert-blocking software will navigate away from a site which tries to bombard them with images.
I don't think I'm alone in saying that I would much rather pay cash up front for the phone calls I am going to make, than watch advertisements.
You don't even need to physically destroy the hard disk drives. Even a single overwrite makes data unrecoverable, Gutmann paper notwithstanding. I have this on the advice of a data recovery specialist who has had to explain this to a pissed-off customer.
When inserting e-mail addresses into web pages, I use a little bit of PHP code to generate a unique user part with a suffix representing the time, date and IP address of the looking-up machine. People who harvest e-mail addresses usually sell them on; so once I've received spam at a particular unique address and blocked that address in my .procmailrc, that's several spams I won't ever have to bother with.
.= sprintf("%02X",$j);
Note that you need a proper ISP -- that means one with virtually-hosted e-mails and PHP. Even better would be a static IP address and reverse DNS, so you can run your own MX.
Here's the code;
<?
function spamjavelin($address, $link) {
global $HTTP_SERVER_VARS;
$alpha = "abcdefghjklmnpqrstuvwxyz1234567890";
$packed_ip = "";
$ip_array = split('\.',$HTTP_SERVER_VARS['REMOTE_ADDR']);
foreach ($ip_array as $i=>$j) {
$packed_ip
};
$packed_time = date("y") % 10 . $alpha[date("m")-1] . $alpha[date("d")-1]
. $alpha[date("H")-1]. date("i") . date("s");
list($user,$domain) = split("@", $address);
$new_address = $user . "-" . $packed_time . $packed_ip . "@" . $domain;
return($link ? "<A HREF=\"mailto:$new_address\">$new_address</A>" : $new_address);
};
function sj($address) {
echo spamjavelin($address,1);
?>
To display your e-mail address as a link, use the following:
<? sj("myname@mypatch.myisp.co.uk") ?>
and it will be automagickally transformed into something like myname-6lnh502155BD0B02@mypatch.myisp.co.uk !
Indeed. I think the problem is not so much with the colour of people's skin, as with the thickness.
The name of the charity gives it away: Christian Aid.
An irrational belief in imaginary beings which demonstrably cannot exist is commonly called a delusion. This is a form of psychosis. Let's not call a spade an entrenching tool; let's call these people what they are. Delusional Psychotic aid. And you can't expect a psychotic to make rational choices.
By the way, if it ever came down to it, I'd rather starve than accept food from a christian.
Yeah, but they're only the Windows versions. No toc/dat files for PlayStation 1 (chipped, with RGB cable so can handle NTSC or PAL games).
Unless anyone has had them running under WINE?
There will always be Unix systems; and as long as there is Unix, there will be Perl.
.Net programming job, great, but it will end sometime. Microsoft have all their own standards; meaning when Microsoft go les Roberts vers le haut, which they will, nothing you have learned will be applicable anywhere else. Yes, that means there will be a whole lot of wasted knowledge in the world. Don't be caught out by it.
.Net is a blip in the grand scheme of things. Microsoft's dominance will come to an end. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but soon. If Vista doesn't kill Microsoft, whatever they try next surely will. There's a world out there that isn't prepared to put up with the kind of shit Microsoft are trying on. Linux is ready for the desktop, and BSD still has life in it yet. The world will be very quick to forget that Microsoft ever even existed. If you get the
Perl lets you get the job done, pretty much independent of what the job may even be. It's old-fashioned, for sure; but then, it doesn't have to be trendy. It works well enough not to have to try any harder. And you'll be picking up Unix system administration skills, which are highly transferrable.
Actually, it was World War II. You fail it. Have a nice day.
Ha ha! C'est très drôle et je vous offre les meilleurs voeux! Mais je crains qu'il sera perdu sur la plupart des Slashdotters, qui sont des Barbariens avec une seule langue (qu'ils parlent même moins bien que ma grandemère fume les cigares) et qui déstestent irrationnellement tous les étrangers.
The last lappie I bought (a Packard Bell, from Dixons, in either 2003 or 2004; and very probably the last machine ever to have been fitted with an audio Line In port) came with XP Home preinstalled. I was told by Dixons that I could not get a refund for the Windows, as I had paid £0 for the software anyway.
This is good news, though. Dell have even started using AMD processors (just before Intel brought out the AMD-beating Core 2 Duo; coincidence? I think not). I might actually consider buying a Dell.
Hah. Do you really think potato crisps won't be banned within the next 10 years?
They tries to introduce healthy meals in schools, kids didn't like the food. So this happened. And this. Didn't take a crystal ball to see this coming, did it?
Some or other Tart Magazine recently carried a review of 20 ready meals. They had some half-famous foreign chef award star ratings based on taste. An anonymous nutritionist gave separate advice based on levels of fat / salt / sugar. In every category, the nutritionist rated highest the meals the chef gave only one or two stars.
Now they've all but banned smoking, "unhealthy" food is the next target. The real agenda is to impose a tax on food to replace the cigarette tax (which is not working, now people can import fags from the continent; but on the continent, only unemployed people get state-funded medical treatment, and anybody who is working has to have medical insurance. So tobacco duty is lower there). It will start out as being a tax on unhealthy food. The demonisation of "obesity" (in a country where 9 women out of ten are trying to lose weight and the tenth is too proud to admit it) is nothing more than an exercise in grooming the public to accept such a tax. The truth is once such a tax is in place, it will be widened in scope until even a salt-free, sugar-free, fat-free, taste-free organic rocket salad is taxed as heavily as a box of Bensons.
The problem is that you can't build anything anywhere in the UK without someone protesting. Ten years ago when they were trying to build the Newbury Bypass, the protestors (very, very few of whom actually came from Newbury, BTW) were chanting "Homes not roads". Today, the protestors are active whenever someone tries to build houses. When they tried to build factories in the past, at least the locals would generally support the effort on the basis that a new factory would bring jobs to the area. Now if you tried to build a factory, you'd get rent-a-mob outsiders protesting against it and the locals would also most probably be protesting that the factory would bring immigrants to the area.
.....
Building a reservoir essentially involves digging a very large hole and filling it with water, incidentally drowning any cute fluffy bunnies et anal. that can't be bothered to learn to swim. (Actually, you have to do more than that; for a start, you have to undercut the hole to avoid evaporation, but we'll simplify things a little here.) So you'll get various groups of protestors turning up with their own agendas. Maybe they will be too preoccupied with in-fighting amongst the various factions ("you aren't a True Believer, you're only concerned about the value of your house and you eat m**t!" "Well you aren't even local, you've nothing to be worried about, you can just sod off back to where you came from and live off my taxes" "Yeah? Well how many diggers have you sabotaged?") to do any serious protesting.
But it's not just the protestors you have to worry about, it's the workers and working conditions. You can't dig big holes in the winter, because it rains and they just fill up with water. And you can't dig holes in the summer, because it's dusty, thirsty work; the workers need showers and drinks, but there's a water shortage on
I personally think "Rosie" (as in short for "Rosie Lee", which is rhyming slang for "tea") would be a better name for a fork of Java (itself being named after a slang name for coffee). But then, I also thought "DFlat" would be a good name for the open source version of C# (assuming, of course, that you are using even-tempered tuning).
An individual who has the right to own slaves could be considered "more free" (assuming for a moment that freedom could be quantified meaningfully) than an individual who has no right to own slaves. However, in a nation where individuals are allowed to own slaves, the average level of freedom may well be rather less than in a nation where individuals are not allowed to own slaves, and some would use the minimum level of freedom as a criterion for judgement.
..... also, the GPL is rather long-winded:
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD
On the one hand, you could say that the people who don't like the GPL are too lazy to write their own closed-source software from scratch; they want to base it on GPL software, but the GPL exists precisely to present that kind of thing. On the other hand, you could say that the people who prefer the GPL to BSD-style licences are just being lazy and don't want to put in the effort to make an Open Source clone of any closed-source fork the Hoarders may come up with. Both sides have a point
$ wc
340 2968 17992
$ wc
26 225 1499
Figures are lines, words, characters. Note that the GPL uses 12x as many characters and 13x as many words as the BSD licence, so the BSD licence must contain longer words than the GPL. Each licence can, however, be summarised using just four words -- in fact, the same four words, just arranged in a different order! The BSD licence boils down to "sharing is not stealing", while the GPL boils down to "not sharing is stealing".