When I read THIS article, I gotta say, that fear makes me think more like this guy and I'm suddenly feeling the need to buy AMD chips for the hell of it. I know it's wrong. I've bought AMD and VIA chips for the last decade because the 10% difference in price or performance, depending on the time period, does not affect me much (so you get 31 fps instead of 33 who cares) and AMD has acted like a model company in comparison to Intel. AMD might as well be jesus when you put it up against Intel.
It's called voting with your wallet. It's pretty much the only thing you as a single consumer can do to affect these large companies, the other being to spread the Word. Not only is it the right thing to do, it's your responsibility to consider who you are buying from.
Except the inserted script can just close whatever tags you are using... for instance if you have:
[outer] [inner noscript=true] insert here [/inner] [/outer]
They can just insert "[/inner] badscript [inner]" and it still parses correctly. It may not render well, but the script still runs and they can cover over areas that don't render or fix it in the DOM with their script. To counter, the noscript tag could have a random value in the that must be the same in the close -- this way they would have to guess what the value is in order for the parser to actually turn scripting back on. Like this:
[outer] [inner] [noscript id=1203526/] insert here [noscript id=1203526/] [/inner] [/outer]
But the only real ultimate solution is not mixing scripts inline with the layout though.
Re:Distributed version control gaining ground in F
on
Linus on GIT and SCM
·
· Score: 1
There's one trick to getting performance from monotone, which is to flip a switch on your workspace to make it use timestamps (like SVN does) instead of always re-hashing every file to see if it's different. For small projects, the rehash is best since it is certain. With timestamps on unix if you make changes in 1 sec, for example copying a different version right after a update (which can happen btw) then version control will not check in your changes and they can be lost.
Once you enable timestamps with monotone pretty much all operations are faster than subversion. Even reverting can be faster in practice because the server typically has the files in ram vs your workstation which has to seek all over the place to make copies. Depending on your setup of course.
Monotone is not slow anymore, and it keeps a much tidier and smaller repository. So small that in just a little more space than SVN's spare copies of all HEAD files for the past revision you can have all revision on your workstation. Why anybody would use subversion is beyond me... Linus is right on this one.
I was thinking more in direction of "non-destructive fuckup of compromised machine", like say a machine you've trojaned. Make it hell to figure out how and what you've done. If you want to prevent forensic investigation on your own machine, encryption is much better than obfuscation. Well lets see, Mr. Anderson has a huge encrypted file and his computer asks for his private key when it boots up vs. Mr. Anderson with a bunch of files with messed up timestamps. The formers says "I'm guilty" whereas the latter says "Poor me I got hacked.. and they put lots of bad stuff on my computer too!". Just because it's a jury of your peers doesn't mean they aren't incompetent boobs that will convict just because they feel like you probably did "something".
Sure the fact that there is no actual evidence against you *should* get the case dismissed right away, but I doubt it would. I bet the prosecutor would be even more inclined to prosecute since he 'knows' you must have done something and you aren't going to get a plea because they know you have something they want, so they'll club you over the head with a life sentence so they can get the key. Or just keep you in jail indefinitely until you give the key, which they can do... although jail is a lot better than prison from what I understand.
Best not to do something convictable... but in today's world it's pretty hard to know what could be a crime. The police seem to just arrest first and then figure out if there's any crime because even they don't know. Hell they just arrested somebody for paying with $2 bills for Christ's sake. Welcome to the land of the free.
Penn & Teller debunked this one So let me get this straight, you're taking the word of people who make their living tricking people with sleight of hand, mirrors, misdirection, and anything else they can come up with?
Wow. Just... wow.
You need to try the legs-separated-from-body thing at home now, because 'fooled by a watermellon' isn't sexy enough for a Darwin award.
And I do blame those people who voted for Bush. A lot.
People say Hilary voted for the occupation, so blame her. Well she's only 1/100th of the senate, but more to the point it passed 77-32, so she is 1/27th responsible. Now say you know somebody in Florida 2k, it was about 550 votes difference so any voters in Florida that voted for Bush is 1/275 responsible. Those who didn't vote are 1/20th as responsible as Edwards.
Or in other words, voters in Florida are almost as responsible for this mess as a senator. So, yeah, we should blame them for this and if you know somebody that voted for Bush you need to remind them ever single chance you get that it's in no small part their fault. Every time then complain about the war ask them why they voted for it. Every time they say how bad the debt is ask them why they voted for it.
Consider a cat of the Schroedinger subspecies. In the experiment, it is neither alive nor dead until observed. A rock, positioned near the detection apparatus, can observe the result. So for the rock, the cat is either alive or dead. But until YOU observe the rock, you don't know whether the rock is happy that the cat is alive, or sad that the cat will never again rub it's tail against the quartz inclusion on the rock's lower anterior surface. The quantum wave-function describing the cat has collapsed with respect to the rock, but to you the quantum wave-function of the cat and the rock are now entangled; in fact, by observing the rock and causing its quantum wave function to collapse, you will also cause the quantum wave function of the cat to collapse... but in both cases, it is collapsing for YOU, the observer. Every other observer has to make them collapse for themselves by either observing something the cat/rock, or observing something that has already collapsed those wave-functions for itself.
Why didn't you say that before? That makes a lot more sense.
It actually makes too much sense. God does not play dice or make spooky action at a distance, but what he does do is write his simulation using dynamic programming. Once we discover enough about quantum mechanics and how the simulation advances we should be able to exploit it and at least crash God's hard drive or cause a universe denial of service attack (UDoS). Then we can extort him by holding the universe hostage until he gives us magical powers.
It's simply not true that Mac need that much memory. I was doing development work on G3 and G4 macs with 768mb memory and typically >512mb was disk cache. If you need 1gb let alone "another 1GB bar" then it is for video editing or some other profession, in which case that has nothing to do with the OS. Further, from 10.0 --> 10.4 at least the OS requirements got smaller (windows took less ram, etc).
My experience is that in general Macs *with* the fancy UI took less resources than XP without. I haven't used an Intel mac yet though, or vista, so can't comment on the current state.
You've never heard of tom st. denis? It's pretty obvious what he was hired to do at AMD given his past works. Libtomcrypt anyone?? Seriously what bridge have you been living?
8. once you have finished a project, rewrite it in a better way.
9. repeat 8 until you can't figure out a better design
10. remove *all* cruft in you final solution
goto 8
Seriously the best thing you can do is to try to make your code better. It doesn't help much to just keep programming more and more stuff. Once you get more experience you'll also understand that 'smallest' or 'fastest' isn't always best, for instance when you need to add changes or when somebody else needs to take over or when a solution in LISP is 3 lines whereas your C version is 5k loc and only runs 2% faster.
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEARN C++.
Programming in C++, like programming for Windows, can instantly turn otherwise decent programmers into the worst of the worst. It's like garlic... once you take it in it's only a matter of time before you end up stinking from every pore in your body.
All Java is slow Compared to C++, yes, it typically is. But it's usually within 20-30%, sometimes a bit worse, sometiems a bit better. In some rare cases, Java can even beat machine-code compiled languages. Actually currently pretty much all Java programs are faster than equivalent C++ ones. Add array bounds checks on all access, use use only references instead of pointers, and don't allow objects to be used after their memory is free'd and your C++ program will grind to a halt.
The only time a Java program ever crashes is due to a bug in the JVM. The only time it ever introduces a security bug is when the application's logic is wrong (ie only high-level defects not buffer overflows and stacks).
A C++ program that is uncrashable and secure will be much slower than the Java equivalent.
the best example here is Smalltalk, which is as prototypical an OOP language as you can get What exactly do you mean by prototypical? Smalltalk was one of the later of that round of object oriented languages and none of the major successful languages are modeled after it. Smalltalk coined the word 'object-oriented' and 'wimp' where Simula 67 paved the way for Modula, Java,.NET, Ada, C++, and others.
The Solaris kernel needs a *lot* of work. It has some cool features like D-trace, but don't expect anybody to be able to jump in and write stuff for it since it is very poorly documented. This guide sure seems like a good start on dtrace: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/dtrace/
Not to mention that dtrace isn't a just kernel tool. It can obtain information from the kernel but it also does probes within user space programs and across programs.
I don't think most Sun engineers know what comments are for.... With the Linux kernel... The code is fairly well organized and generally well documented. I've done a fair amount of kernel programming across major unix systems and they are all weak re: documentation and comments. The Linux kernel code is just not well documented. I would say it is slightly better than *bsd and solaris but only because of the random information you can pick up on the google, definitely not for the in-code comments. And Sun engineers are great with comments when it matters, for instance look at java's src.zip.
ZFS also sounds like it needs work and may be a bit overhyped. The ZFS code is rather difficult to follow, again due to the lack of any comments or meaningful variable or function names. The source for pretty much any filesystem in Linux kernel is 'rather difficult to follow'. If there's a universal constant that's it. Seriously you probably put a lot of time and effort into your post, but it sure comes off sounding like uninformed fanboi trolling. I'm a little bit surprised you went off on all that ranting stuff and didn't even mention where the control/caps key s were.
Where that keyword tells the gc to use a separate allocation area for these objects. It's not hard to overcome the special challenges of kernel-level code in a safe language, it just takes a small amount of creativity. It's not like it hasn't been done before with Self, JavaOS, Singularity, etc.
The actual reasons why operating system are not written in safe languages today is a little bit of stupidity and a lot that user apps are written in unsafe languages. Making some random C program run fast inside a safe kernel is like making a safe language run well inside a C kernel; the right kinds of features you need just aren't there to make it fast. It's hard to realize the benefits of a safe kernel, like say being able to add fine-grained callbacks aka event listeners (this is essentially impossible with a C-based kernel due to separate memory spaces) when the vast majority of existing code could never use it. Just imagine how file change notification would be done with a safe kernel (ie addFileChangeListener -> done) vs the contortions and hideousness of inotify.
Being a practicing mormon is a real argument against Romney for president. Unlike many religions there is actual hard evidence that mormonism is a) made up, b) founded as a cult, c) still a cult, just a really big one now, and d) full of crap. If you don't believe me go do the research. Look up the facts about being thrown out of Missouri for burning down a newspaper press (ie terrorism), or the Egyptian scrolls (Rosetta stone? hello?), or the misspellings in the bibles (multiple versions) that were supposedly transcribed letter by letter from god himself (yeah that's right god doesn't know how to spell), or their bible that until 1976 said that people were black because that is god's way of telling us they are evil. Or any number of other absurd things. Don't even ask what goes on in the temples.
You know what? I don't want a president who believes fundamentally in something objectively false. I want a president who has a track record of making rational decisions based on facts, that doesn't just accept whatever he was taught growing up (for instance that black people are evil and can't get into heaven except as slaves), and goes out of his way to get the whole story. That's not a mormon, almost by definition. I guess Romney would be a tiny bit better than having a frat boy / cheerleader as president though.
1. As a reader you don't have to see the endless bickering about controversies.
2. You can write about what you are expert in, even if society says you are 'just' a blue collar drone and shouldn't be 'allowed' to have a voice.
3. Editors have to actually read and handle changes if they want to preserve their own unpopular views.
4. Improving free and open source information is both visible and important.
5. Summarizing publishing articles in peer-reviewed venues is important, although less visible.
6. Citations are flexible and applied as-needed instead of in a draconian system.
7. Even unskilled editors can make useful improvements to unpopular topics.
8. My work might get replaced with a better version. I might learn from this how to write more effectively
9. Articles can be cited at any edit, or the most recent version can be read.
10. Different languages can write articles in their own style and flavor.
11. Most people intuitively 'get' that the information is 'free' without having to read the license.
12. Open source software looks better in screenshots.
13. You won't get arrested for reading certain topics, unless you are in China.
14. My edits are weighed based on how much I am willing to stand behind them.
15. Decentralization. Editors can make changes without having to pass an arbitrary 'style' test. Style can evolve over time.
16. When the same problems that USENET, mailing lists, and forums have come up, I can revert the changes and start over.
17. Left wing is closer to the neutral point of view.
18. There is a lot of work to be done, so I can feel good about making important contributions even though I am not a 'journalist' with a 'journalist id card' or formal training.
19. Vandalism, and pseudo-vandalism reminds me that there are more important things than "my" article.
20. Nobody makes me edit Wikipedia, I do it because I like to.
There I fixed it for you (please use the talk page for further discussion on these points). If you want to be a pessimist then you can always see the so-called 'half glass full' even when something is really really great. And wikipedia is freakin awesome, and mostly for the same reasons you say are problems.
Seriously, as a C coder I can think of any number of times when a variable's value depended on who (which function) observed it. With some very carefully constructed test cases and of course gdb macros is was even possible to alter the contents of this variable to cause information to seem to appear in other places far away. I even found through this 'spooky sigaction at a distance' that I was able to affect computations in other functions entirely.
Of course it wasn't magic. The whole theory of quantum mechanics is based on a bug in the universe.
I do already contribute *plenty* to citizendium, by contributing articles and edits and money to wikipedia to fund you guys mirroring their content.
Now you here pandering for more than that? What a high opinion of yourselves you must have.
Re:If he has his cellphone...
on
Jim Gray Is Missing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No. Apparently this sort of device hasn't been invented yet, or surely they would have saved James Kim. Now why the rescue workers don't have this kind of thing is a good question. Even if it can't handle calls but can just give a direction to the phone's 'ping' it would be good enough to find people with.
Sorry for the language but it's a load of crap to say the delay is a thing of the past. I have bought a lot of compact fluorescents and what is so annoying is that it is impossible to tell what the fuck kind of bulb you are going to get before you buy it. The claims on the packaging seem to be just made up out of thin air.
I've got some 6500k bulbs that are "instant on" to maybe 15% brightness and finally get fully bright after 5 minutes (can watch the dark part of the tube slowly get brighter so am sure it takes that long). I have others that come on after 1 second at pretty much full brightness, others that come on after 1/2 second at partial brightness ("instant on" sometimes mean 1/2 second btw). I've got new bulbs that come on quick but are "thin" where I can see flickering for a few minutes... the overhead 60 hz lights make me sick and I can tell 120hz light from the 10khz ones so I am a little more sensitive than average. But still.
And then on top of that the electronic ones say *don't* use it in a completely enclosed fixture. Well too bad that those are exactly the lights I want to leave on the longest. And it's dumb to say "oh buy the $2 more costly brand its worth it" -- you shouldn't have to shop around to get a freakin' light that isn't defective. I've never had an incandescent from any manufacturer have any quirk other than varying lifetime. They are just solid, instant light. I *want* to use CFL, if only they didn't suck so much.
I guess he's never heard of Home Depot or Lowes. The basic idea behind those stores is that yes people can be their own plumber, electrician, mason, handyman, etc, for many basic tasks and that people want these things to be more accessible to them. Millions of people can write things in Java or its kind without lots of training and expertise.
This must be threatening to Bjarne for some reason. I submit that it is only in C++ where even a few months training is dangerous.
Also somebody should point out that the original CD track is a kind of 'radix' compression into 44k/s samples of the original sound. So it's not like the question is "lossy or not?" it's "how much loss is okay?".
The problem is the bugs that they use to install and do what they do. Your implication that 'every worm, trojan, and rootkit only uses officially documented APIs' is just absurd. Why apply any security patches at all if the answer is just not to click "OK"?
The user's environment could be restructured so that clicking "open this program" does not allow it to escape and mess up the whole system. So while a user may install google toolbar, and it may report to google everything done, and it may crack passwords and do DoS against some advertiser who didn't pay, when the user selects "Remove google toolbar" it is guarenteed to be gone. But you cannot do this when any program can be hacked at the lowest levels simply because it is written in an unsafe language.
Even high level code like javascript could be constructed to cause a failure in the interpreter, written in an unsafe language, and then escape whatever restrictions are supposedly placed on it (like only being able to run as javascript code for instance).
We're taking the wrong approach to security. You can fight the symptoms like we have been doing and this will cost a LOT and never really make the system secure. Or you can fight a cause and however much it costs you that problem is solved for good.
Virus scanners, network behavior analyzers, "app armor", stack canaries, random load addresses, nothing. 'Search and destroy' the spybots? Please. The biggest problem is C and all the other non-typesafe languages. Safe languages simply trade a certain amount of performance for the impossibility of buffer overflows, underflows, stack 'smashing', heap corruption, double-free's, pointer arithmetic errors, and all of the other low-level attacks. Everything at that level is toast in Java or in "managed" C# for instance.
This entire class of low-level flaws can be solved completely. Then it's just the higher-level problems like impersonating web pages, xss, some trojans, that kind of thing. Still a problem, yeah, but without the entire class of automatic propagation it is so much less of one.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called voting with your wallet. It's pretty much the only thing you as a single consumer can do to affect these large companies, the other being to spread the Word. Not only is it the right thing to do, it's your responsibility to consider who you are buying from.
Except the inserted script can just close whatever tags you are using... for instance if you have:
[outer] [inner noscript=true]
insert here
[/inner] [/outer]
They can just insert "[/inner] badscript [inner]" and it still parses correctly. It may not render well, but the script still runs and they can cover over areas that don't render or fix it in the DOM with their script. To counter, the noscript tag could have a random value in the that must be the same in the close -- this way they would have to guess what the value is in order for the parser to actually turn scripting back on. Like this:
[outer] [inner] [noscript id=1203526/]
insert here
[noscript id=1203526/] [/inner] [/outer]
But the only real ultimate solution is not mixing scripts inline with the layout though.
There's one trick to getting performance from monotone, which is to flip a switch on your workspace to make it use timestamps (like SVN does) instead of always re-hashing every file to see if it's different. For small projects, the rehash is best since it is certain. With timestamps on unix if you make changes in 1 sec, for example copying a different version right after a update (which can happen btw) then version control will not check in your changes and they can be lost.
Once you enable timestamps with monotone pretty much all operations are faster than subversion. Even reverting can be faster in practice because the server typically has the files in ram vs your workstation which has to seek all over the place to make copies. Depending on your setup of course.
Monotone is not slow anymore, and it keeps a much tidier and smaller repository. So small that in just a little more space than SVN's spare copies of all HEAD files for the past revision you can have all revision on your workstation. Why anybody would use subversion is beyond me... Linus is right on this one.
Sure the fact that there is no actual evidence against you *should* get the case dismissed right away, but I doubt it would. I bet the prosecutor would be even more inclined to prosecute since he 'knows' you must have done something and you aren't going to get a plea because they know you have something they want, so they'll club you over the head with a life sentence so they can get the key. Or just keep you in jail indefinitely until you give the key, which they can do... although jail is a lot better than prison from what I understand.
Best not to do something convictable... but in today's world it's pretty hard to know what could be a crime. The police seem to just arrest first and then figure out if there's any crime because even they don't know. Hell they just arrested somebody for paying with $2 bills for Christ's sake. Welcome to the land of the free.
Wow. Just... wow.
You need to try the legs-separated-from-body thing at home now, because 'fooled by a watermellon' isn't sexy enough for a Darwin award.
And I do blame those people who voted for Bush. A lot.
People say Hilary voted for the occupation, so blame her. Well she's only 1/100th of the senate, but more to the point it passed 77-32, so she is 1/27th responsible. Now say you know somebody in Florida 2k, it was about 550 votes difference so any voters in Florida that voted for Bush is 1/275 responsible. Those who didn't vote are 1/20th as responsible as Edwards.
Or in other words, voters in Florida are almost as responsible for this mess as a senator. So, yeah, we should blame them for this and if you know somebody that voted for Bush you need to remind them ever single chance you get that it's in no small part their fault. Every time then complain about the war ask them why they voted for it. Every time they say how bad the debt is ask them why they voted for it.
Why didn't you say that before? That makes a lot more sense.
It actually makes too much sense. God does not play dice or make spooky action at a distance, but what he does do is write his simulation using dynamic programming. Once we discover enough about quantum mechanics and how the simulation advances we should be able to exploit it and at least crash God's hard drive or cause a universe denial of service attack (UDoS). Then we can extort him by holding the universe hostage until he gives us magical powers.Yes, I play a quantum theorist on t.v.
It's simply not true that Mac need that much memory. I was doing development work on G3 and G4 macs with 768mb memory and typically >512mb was disk cache. If you need 1gb let alone "another 1GB bar" then it is for video editing or some other profession, in which case that has nothing to do with the OS. Further, from 10.0 --> 10.4 at least the OS requirements got smaller (windows took less ram, etc).
My experience is that in general Macs *with* the fancy UI took less resources than XP without. I haven't used an Intel mac yet though, or vista, so can't comment on the current state.
You've never heard of tom st. denis? It's pretty obvious what he was hired to do at AMD given his past works. Libtomcrypt anyone?? Seriously what bridge have you been living?
8. once you have finished a project, rewrite it in a better way.
9. repeat 8 until you can't figure out a better design
10. remove *all* cruft in you final solution
goto 8
Seriously the best thing you can do is to try to make your code better. It doesn't help much to just keep programming more and more stuff. Once you get more experience you'll also understand that 'smallest' or 'fastest' isn't always best, for instance when you need to add changes or when somebody else needs to take over or when a solution in LISP is 3 lines whereas your C version is 5k loc and only runs 2% faster.
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEARN C++.
Programming in C++, like programming for Windows, can instantly turn otherwise decent programmers into the worst of the worst. It's like garlic... once you take it in it's only a matter of time before you end up stinking from every pore in your body.
The only time a Java program ever crashes is due to a bug in the JVM. The only time it ever introduces a security bug is when the application's logic is wrong (ie only high-level defects not buffer overflows and stacks).
A C++ program that is uncrashable and secure will be much slower than the Java equivalent.
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/dtrace/
Not to mention that dtrace isn't a just kernel tool. It can obtain information from the kernel but it also does probes within user space programs and across programs. I don't think most Sun engineers know what comments are for.
"alloc final class PacketBuffer ..."
Where that keyword tells the gc to use a separate allocation area for these objects. It's not hard to overcome the special challenges of kernel-level code in a safe language, it just takes a small amount of creativity. It's not like it hasn't been done before with Self, JavaOS, Singularity, etc.
The actual reasons why operating system are not written in safe languages today is a little bit of stupidity and a lot that user apps are written in unsafe languages. Making some random C program run fast inside a safe kernel is like making a safe language run well inside a C kernel; the right kinds of features you need just aren't there to make it fast. It's hard to realize the benefits of a safe kernel, like say being able to add fine-grained callbacks aka event listeners (this is essentially impossible with a C-based kernel due to separate memory spaces) when the vast majority of existing code could never use it. Just imagine how file change notification would be done with a safe kernel (ie addFileChangeListener -> done) vs the contortions and hideousness of inotify.
Being a practicing mormon is a real argument against Romney for president. Unlike many religions there is actual hard evidence that mormonism is a) made up, b) founded as a cult, c) still a cult, just a really big one now, and d) full of crap. If you don't believe me go do the research. Look up the facts about being thrown out of Missouri for burning down a newspaper press (ie terrorism), or the Egyptian scrolls (Rosetta stone? hello?), or the misspellings in the bibles (multiple versions) that were supposedly transcribed letter by letter from god himself (yeah that's right god doesn't know how to spell), or their bible that until 1976 said that people were black because that is god's way of telling us they are evil. Or any number of other absurd things. Don't even ask what goes on in the temples.
You know what? I don't want a president who believes fundamentally in something objectively false. I want a president who has a track record of making rational decisions based on facts, that doesn't just accept whatever he was taught growing up (for instance that black people are evil and can't get into heaven except as slaves), and goes out of his way to get the whole story. That's not a mormon, almost by definition. I guess Romney would be a tiny bit better than having a frat boy / cheerleader as president though.
20 Answers for why not to edit Wikipedia
1. As a reader you don't have to see the endless bickering about controversies.
2. You can write about what you are expert in, even if society says you are 'just' a blue collar drone and shouldn't be 'allowed' to have a voice.
3. Editors have to actually read and handle changes if they want to preserve their own unpopular views.
4. Improving free and open source information is both visible and important.
5. Summarizing publishing articles in peer-reviewed venues is important, although less visible.
6. Citations are flexible and applied as-needed instead of in a draconian system.
7. Even unskilled editors can make useful improvements to unpopular topics.
8. My work might get replaced with a better version. I might learn from this how to write more effectively
9. Articles can be cited at any edit, or the most recent version can be read.
10. Different languages can write articles in their own style and flavor.
11. Most people intuitively 'get' that the information is 'free' without having to read the license.
12. Open source software looks better in screenshots.
13. You won't get arrested for reading certain topics, unless you are in China.
14. My edits are weighed based on how much I am willing to stand behind them.
15. Decentralization. Editors can make changes without having to pass an arbitrary 'style' test. Style can evolve over time.
16. When the same problems that USENET, mailing lists, and forums have come up, I can revert the changes and start over.
17. Left wing is closer to the neutral point of view.
18. There is a lot of work to be done, so I can feel good about making important contributions even though I am not a 'journalist' with a 'journalist id card' or formal training.
19. Vandalism, and pseudo-vandalism reminds me that there are more important things than "my" article.
20. Nobody makes me edit Wikipedia, I do it because I like to.
There I fixed it for you (please use the talk page for further discussion on these points). If you want to be a pessimist then you can always see the so-called 'half glass full' even when something is really really great. And wikipedia is freakin awesome, and mostly for the same reasons you say are problems.
Seriously, as a C coder I can think of any number of times when a variable's value depended on who (which function) observed it. With some very carefully constructed test cases and of course gdb macros is was even possible to alter the contents of this variable to cause information to seem to appear in other places far away. I even found through this 'spooky sigaction at a distance' that I was able to affect computations in other functions entirely.
Of course it wasn't magic. The whole theory of quantum mechanics is based on a bug in the universe.
Then again, my black hole dumped core.
I do already contribute *plenty* to citizendium, by contributing articles and edits and money to wikipedia to fund you guys mirroring their content.
Now you here pandering for more than that? What a high opinion of yourselves you must have.
No. Apparently this sort of device hasn't been invented yet, or surely they would have saved James Kim. Now why the rescue workers don't have this kind of thing is a good question. Even if it can't handle calls but can just give a direction to the phone's 'ping' it would be good enough to find people with.
Did you mean: Evil
Sorry for the language but it's a load of crap to say the delay is a thing of the past. I have bought a lot of compact fluorescents and what is so annoying is that it is impossible to tell what the fuck kind of bulb you are going to get before you buy it. The claims on the packaging seem to be just made up out of thin air.
I've got some 6500k bulbs that are "instant on" to maybe 15% brightness and finally get fully bright after 5 minutes (can watch the dark part of the tube slowly get brighter so am sure it takes that long). I have others that come on after 1 second at pretty much full brightness, others that come on after 1/2 second at partial brightness ("instant on" sometimes mean 1/2 second btw). I've got new bulbs that come on quick but are "thin" where I can see flickering for a few minutes... the overhead 60 hz lights make me sick and I can tell 120hz light from the 10khz ones so I am a little more sensitive than average. But still.
And then on top of that the electronic ones say *don't* use it in a completely enclosed fixture. Well too bad that those are exactly the lights I want to leave on the longest. And it's dumb to say "oh buy the $2 more costly brand its worth it" -- you shouldn't have to shop around to get a freakin' light that isn't defective. I've never had an incandescent from any manufacturer have any quirk other than varying lifetime. They are just solid, instant light. I *want* to use CFL, if only they didn't suck so much.
I guess he's never heard of Home Depot or Lowes. The basic idea behind those stores is that yes people can be their own plumber, electrician, mason, handyman, etc, for many basic tasks and that people want these things to be more accessible to them. Millions of people can write things in Java or its kind without lots of training and expertise.
This must be threatening to Bjarne for some reason. I submit that it is only in C++ where even a few months training is dangerous.
Also somebody should point out that the original CD track is a kind of 'radix' compression into 44k/s samples of the original sound. So it's not like the question is "lossy or not?" it's "how much loss is okay?".
The problem is the bugs that they use to install and do what they do. Your implication that 'every worm, trojan, and rootkit only uses officially documented APIs' is just absurd. Why apply any security patches at all if the answer is just not to click "OK"?
The user's environment could be restructured so that clicking "open this program" does not allow it to escape and mess up the whole system. So while a user may install google toolbar, and it may report to google everything done, and it may crack passwords and do DoS against some advertiser who didn't pay, when the user selects "Remove google toolbar" it is guarenteed to be gone. But you cannot do this when any program can be hacked at the lowest levels simply because it is written in an unsafe language.
Even high level code like javascript could be constructed to cause a failure in the interpreter, written in an unsafe language, and then escape whatever restrictions are supposedly placed on it (like only being able to run as javascript code for instance).
We're taking the wrong approach to security. You can fight the symptoms like we have been doing and this will cost a LOT and never really make the system secure. Or you can fight a cause and however much it costs you that problem is solved for good.
Virus scanners, network behavior analyzers, "app armor", stack canaries, random load addresses, nothing. 'Search and destroy' the spybots? Please. The biggest problem is C and all the other non-typesafe languages. Safe languages simply trade a certain amount of performance for the impossibility of buffer overflows, underflows, stack 'smashing', heap corruption, double-free's, pointer arithmetic errors, and all of the other low-level attacks. Everything at that level is toast in Java or in "managed" C# for instance.
This entire class of low-level flaws can be solved completely. Then it's just the higher-level problems like impersonating web pages, xss, some trojans, that kind of thing. Still a problem, yeah, but without the entire class of automatic propagation it is so much less of one.