(do you really want the guy who's writing your medical records system to know about optimal register allocation-- REALLY?!)
I realize that you intended this as a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway. I don't care if that guy (or gal) knows about optimal register allocation, but I agree that it shouldn't be required for such a task. Still, writing code that minimizes the chance of buffer exploits or other common security issues isn't that hard, and I'd hoe that whoever wrote my medical records system knew enough to do that.
I don't know about anybody else, but the first thing I thought of when I read TFS was SELinux. The only difference, really, is that instead of having the OS preventing various files from being accessed in insecure fashions, it prevents programs from doing insecure things to its own data. It's an interesting idea, but it's based on the assumption that you can't ever trust programmers to Do Things The Right Way. Of course, when you look at all of the buffer overflow exploits in Windows, it does begin to look like they're right but wouldn't it be better to teach proper programming technique in the first place?
Fair Use and piracy look exactly the same to a neutral observer.
In a word, no. Buying a CD, ripping it and putting the music in.mp3 format on your iPod is Fair Use. Posting those.mp3s to a warez site so that other people can use them for free is copyright infringement, often referred to as "piracy."
I'd like to see them come up with one or more classes that isn't sex linked. In most other games you can play almost all classes as either male or female. Why is Blizzard so obsessed with gender-based classes?
Personally, I like Gnofract 4D. It's quick, has a nice point 'n click interface and it's easy to save images for later use or sharing. I use if on Fedora 13, but there are Windows and Mac versions as well.
Had I given a speech about how we had to, like, fight the proprietary power, man, it would have gone nowhere.
Exactly. The suits aren't concerned with the ideology, they're concerned with the bottom line. Show them how you can save both time and money and you've got them hooked because that's what interests them.
You hate them for something they're not guilty of.
No, I don't hate them for that, or for anything else. I think that some of what they're doing is wrong, but, unlike you, I'm adult enough to separate my dislike of some of their actions from what I think of them as people.
AIUI, those documents contain the names of people in Afghanistan who are giving information to the US. Publishing the documents without redacting the names tells the Taliban exactly who to kill. Does that answer your question?
My feeling exactly. Wikileaks has conflated the public "right to know" with an imaginary "need to know," and decided that this right is more important than the lives of the people named in the documents. IMAO, they've consistently shown a complete lack of common sense and a reckless disregard for the danger they're exposing people to. The fact that something is classified as Secret or Top Secret isn't enough of a reason to leak it; it should only be leaked (Again, IMAO.) if it's been classified for all the wrong reasons. Yes, we all know of times when things have been classified because that's the easiest way to cover up mistakes, and things like that deserve leaking, but leaking the names and locations of people who are helping the US to fight terrorists is Simply Wrong.
if you haven't been infected with a virus before then you haven't been on the internet long enough.
Is twenty years or more long enough? I ask because I've been on-line at least that long and I've never had a virus on my computer. Of course, I've been running Linux for the last several years, but I was on-line with various versions of Windows for most of that time and kept all of them clean.
Not all of them. It's not unheard of, or even uncommon for winners to be self-nominated. I remember back in 1996 when the award in Public Health went to a pair of doctors who'd nominated themselves for a paper they'd published about a case of VD he'd treated for a Norwegian ship captain. He won because it turned out that said captain had caught the disease at sea from an inflatable partner.
It's not even counter-intuitive, at least, not to me. In the Navy, decks topside are painted with something called "non-skid," a mixture of paint and sand. (Five gallons of the stuff have only two gallons of liquid; the rest is pigment and sand.) You'd think that this would be enough to keep people from slipping on wet decks, but I can assure you from personal experience that it's not always! Of course, the deck was not only wet, it was moving when I lost my footing. Wearing coarse socks over my shoes may well have added just enough traction to keep me standing that day because anything that gives you more traction on a wet surface is going to help.
Exactly. Of course, their bias is liberal, so the Slashtards never complain about it. In fact, I personally doubt that most of them are aware that it's a bias at all.
If it's a lack of "objective journalism" that's the problem, then Fox hardly stands alone atop that dung heap.
The problem isn't that Fox news isn't objective. The problem is that they have a conservative bias and all of the liberals here think that's a good reason to hate them.
I rather thought you did. Of course, he was a 19th Century President, and outside of our discussion. As I wrote earlier, I remember the Carter Years directly and as an adult, and I think he was a piss-poor President, much worse than Bush Jr. Not that I think either Bush was that great, mind you, but having lived through all of their administrations I'd have to say that Carter was the worst of the three.
Harding merely allowed the secessionist southern senators to allocate money to the south after secession, a crime of inaction rather than a premeditated attack of the Constitution.
Sorry for replying twice, but this just caught my eye. You do realize, don't you, that Warren Gamaliel Harding was president from 1921 through 1923 and wasn't even born until slightly after the Civil War?
I am pretty sure you are repeating other people opinions without critical thought with a flippant nod to conservatives so I'll forgive you, but only barely.
As a matter of fact, I was in my mid-20s when Carter was elected. Personally, I found him an embarrassment because he was such a wishy-washy wimp. About the only good thing I, or most of my friends have to say about him is that he made sure that Harding didn't go down in history as the worst President of the 20th Century. If you're a Democrat, you have him to blame for the three consecutive Republican terms that followed, so I'd be a tad cautious about praising him, if I were you.
I asked a friend about that once. He claims that he's not an actor, he just plays one in movies sometimes. What happens is that you audition for a union production and get picked. Then, you tell the production company that you're not in the union yet, but are willing to join. They give you a form to take over to the union offices that says that they'll hire you if (and only if) you join the union, and the union signs you up.
You make the assumption that someone working at JPL will always work at JPL. People get transferred to other jobs within thier organizations all the time. And there are parts of NASA that do work for DOD (putting secret satellites into orbit leaps to mind, there are probably many others).
You seem to be under the impression that JPL is part of NASA. It isn't; it's part of CalTech, and has a contract from NASA to conduct America's unmanned exploration of space. How do I know? I know because I worked at JPL back in the mid-80s and have several friends who either work there now or did at some time.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that you intended this as a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway. I don't care if that guy (or gal) knows about optimal register allocation, but I agree that it shouldn't be required for such a task. Still, writing code that minimizes the chance of buffer exploits or other common security issues isn't that hard, and I'd hoe that whoever wrote my medical records system knew enough to do that.
I don't know about anybody else, but the first thing I thought of when I read TFS was SELinux. The only difference, really, is that instead of having the OS preventing various files from being accessed in insecure fashions, it prevents programs from doing insecure things to its own data. It's an interesting idea, but it's based on the assumption that you can't ever trust programmers to Do Things The Right Way. Of course, when you look at all of the buffer overflow exploits in Windows, it does begin to look like they're right but wouldn't it be better to teach proper programming technique in the first place?
In a word, no. Buying a CD, ripping it and putting the music in .mp3 format on your iPod is Fair Use. Posting those .mp3s to a warez site so that other people can use them for free is copyright infringement, often referred to as "piracy."
And yet, TFA referred to each class in gender-specific ways as though some were male, others female.
I'd like to see them come up with one or more classes that isn't sex linked. In most other games you can play almost all classes as either male or female. Why is Blizzard so obsessed with gender-based classes?
Personally, I like Gnofract 4D. It's quick, has a nice point 'n click interface and it's easy to save images for later use or sharing. I use if on Fedora 13, but there are Windows and Mac versions as well.
Exactly. The suits aren't concerned with the ideology, they're concerned with the bottom line. Show them how you can save both time and money and you've got them hooked because that's what interests them.
That's easy enough to fix. All it takes is a prosecution for false advertising and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle.
No, I don't hate them for that, or for anything else. I think that some of what they're doing is wrong, but, unlike you, I'm adult enough to separate my dislike of some of their actions from what I think of them as people.
AIUI, those documents contain the names of people in Afghanistan who are giving information to the US. Publishing the documents without redacting the names tells the Taliban exactly who to kill. Does that answer your question?
My feeling exactly. Wikileaks has conflated the public "right to know" with an imaginary "need to know," and decided that this right is more important than the lives of the people named in the documents. IMAO, they've consistently shown a complete lack of common sense and a reckless disregard for the danger they're exposing people to. The fact that something is classified as Secret or Top Secret isn't enough of a reason to leak it; it should only be leaked (Again, IMAO.) if it's been classified for all the wrong reasons. Yes, we all know of times when things have been classified because that's the easiest way to cover up mistakes, and things like that deserve leaking, but leaking the names and locations of people who are helping the US to fight terrorists is Simply Wrong.
Clearly we haven't. Now stop calling me Shirley!
Tell that to Bill Gates. I rather suspect he'd disagree with you once he stopped laughing.
Is twenty years or more long enough? I ask because I've been on-line at least that long and I've never had a virus on my computer. Of course, I've been running Linux for the last several years, but I was on-line with various versions of Windows for most of that time and kept all of them clean.
Not all of them. It's not unheard of, or even uncommon for winners to be self-nominated. I remember back in 1996 when the award in Public Health went to a pair of doctors who'd nominated themselves for a paper they'd published about a case of VD he'd treated for a Norwegian ship captain. He won because it turned out that said captain had caught the disease at sea from an inflatable partner.
It's not even counter-intuitive, at least, not to me. In the Navy, decks topside are painted with something called "non-skid," a mixture of paint and sand. (Five gallons of the stuff have only two gallons of liquid; the rest is pigment and sand.) You'd think that this would be enough to keep people from slipping on wet decks, but I can assure you from personal experience that it's not always! Of course, the deck was not only wet, it was moving when I lost my footing. Wearing coarse socks over my shoes may well have added just enough traction to keep me standing that day because anything that gives you more traction on a wet surface is going to help.
Exactly. Of course, their bias is liberal, so the Slashtards never complain about it. In fact, I personally doubt that most of them are aware that it's a bias at all.
The problem isn't that Fox news isn't objective. The problem is that they have a conservative bias and all of the liberals here think that's a good reason to hate them.
I rather thought you did. Of course, he was a 19th Century President, and outside of our discussion. As I wrote earlier, I remember the Carter Years directly and as an adult, and I think he was a piss-poor President, much worse than Bush Jr. Not that I think either Bush was that great, mind you, but having lived through all of their administrations I'd have to say that Carter was the worst of the three.
In other words, since before the average Slashdotter was born.
Sorry for replying twice, but this just caught my eye. You do realize, don't you, that Warren Gamaliel Harding was president from 1921 through 1923 and wasn't even born until slightly after the Civil War?
As a matter of fact, I was in my mid-20s when Carter was elected. Personally, I found him an embarrassment because he was such a wishy-washy wimp. About the only good thing I, or most of my friends have to say about him is that he made sure that Harding didn't go down in history as the worst President of the 20th Century. If you're a Democrat, you have him to blame for the three consecutive Republican terms that followed, so I'd be a tad cautious about praising him, if I were you.
I asked a friend about that once. He claims that he's not an actor, he just plays one in movies sometimes. What happens is that you audition for a union production and get picked. Then, you tell the production company that you're not in the union yet, but are willing to join. They give you a form to take over to the union offices that says that they'll hire you if (and only if) you join the union, and the union signs you up.
I'm no fan of his, but I wouldn't go quite that far. Personally, I'd say that both Harding and Carter were far worse.
You seem to be under the impression that JPL is part of NASA. It isn't; it's part of CalTech, and has a contract from NASA to conduct America's unmanned exploration of space. How do I know? I know because I worked at JPL back in the mid-80s and have several friends who either work there now or did at some time.