So you're saying that realistically, they believe that although they should only teach creationism in school (where the earth is 6,000 years old), they *really* believe that the earth is 4 and a half billion years old?
The word "only" makes that jump pretty small, although all generalizations are bad...oh, wait.
Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.
I disagree about your description of this industry. "Important" is not a word I would use. There are already ample marketing methods available to people who want to sell stuff. If you doubt this, turn on the radio or TV, or surf the net.
The fact that a "do-not-call" registry was thought up doesn't mean additional lost revenue for the telemarketing industry, it means I don't have to listen to an assinine sales pitch for however many seconds it takes for me to get my "no thanks" in. Marketers are required to remove you from any calling lists at your request, and this list streamlines that process, and helps everyday people that (like me) don't buy anything from anybody who calls uninvited.
This doesn't necessarily mean the end of telemarketing as an economical way of doing business, only 50 million of the over 250 million people living in the US signed up.
I don't mind people selling me things, but I *do* mind being interrupted in order for them to do it.
Somehow, I doubt the "do not call" list will be most people's deciding factor in the election. Even for people who don't just vote straight along party lines.
I blow up your car while attempting to steal it. I ask you to take financial responsibility for the damage your car caused to my body when it blew up. You refuse. I take you to court. I win, and you are forced by the court to assume responsibility for actions you had no control over.
That's what can happen in the system, because we allow people to ignore their responsibilities, and don't always have sufficient checks in place for lawsuits that fly in the face of our sensibilities.
Here's the thing, and there's really no getting around this. You shouldn't *have* to do anything at all to your DNS servers (assuming they were functioning correctly before), to keep them working normally.
The DNS is not a program created by Verisign that they sell to people. It's not a service created by verisign that they allow people to use. It *is* a standard for allowing various conversions between ip addresses and other information that is commonly used because of the wild success of the internet as a communications medium.
Verisign has a contract to run some servers that respond to DNS queries about the.com and.net zones. They don't own them, they don't own the service, and they are not a standards body that can dictate changes to the operation of a public directory service.
I'm glad that you've patched your BIND, since it takes eyeballs away from Sitefinder, but I'm horrified that such a step was necessary. A private company has just decided that they can use a public service that their competitors have no access to in order to generate advertising revenue. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
Allright...pick my nits. Yes, I said small, then trivial. (sigh)
When I'm comparing languages, I tend to compare how well suited they are to the task at hand, which was the whole point of my saying the stuff about "blah...Perl...Java...parser...computationally intensive". The useless loop is a fairly trivial example, but certainly not the only one I can think of. Other trivial examples are left as an exercise to the reader.
I'm familiar with perlguts, and a little bit familiar with C (not much, I admit). Why would I not use Perl for doing "intensive" text parsing? From what I've seen, lots of programmers seem to think it performs pretty well...
I will definitely try ^C ^V'ing the link.
That's not a troll...it corresponds with one of the opinions in the article, as a matter of fact. I suppose if you're modding based on the beginning of the article alone, you'd see it as such, but hey, since when do moderators read the article.
There was no problem...There are a number of unscrupulous registrars that also host tld's, and Verisign has recently proved itself to be the most sickeningly ballsy of them. If Verisign is allowed to generate revenue from a service that could never be competed against (and this specific one can't, without screwing things up worse than they already are), then why don't we just hand them the "keys to the internet" and walk away. Greed *is* foolishness, in this case as well as the one you pointed out.
If selfless people existed, we might discuss what they could produce. That said, there are many generous people who are also intelligent and hard working that have made huge contributions to the computing world. As a result of them, we have the Internet, Web sites, Linux, and various less-well-known projects and products.
I call bullshit on this one. Verisign is being greedy and abusing their stewardship. They don't own.com or.net, but they are making decisions for all of us that do own a part of it. If my $35.00 doesn't go to support those "willingly-provided" DNS servers, then why did I pay it? The solution is to roll back the clock 14 days and not have this "Service" implemented. If Verisign wants typos to drive traffic, they should do what everyone else is forced to do, and buy a browser.
First of all, your "easy to learn" comparison is asymmetric: you didn't include the term "well" in the Perl version. Secondly, I, personally, think that Java is easier to learn than Perl. I also don't think I'm the only one who thinks so.
You're right...I forgot to delete the word "well" from the first of those statements. I think it'd be a lot easier to teach the average person to write a "hello world" in Perl than Java. Just my opinion, as you have your own.
Though I'm not sure what you mean by "small programs", but the "Great Computer Language Shootout" suggests a high amount of variation between languages (language implementations, actually) for very small programs.
I haven't see this shootout article (and apparently won't be able to at that link...look for yourself), but based on personal experience, trivial programs tend to benchmark similarly (count to a billion, stop.).
This is because a web crawler isn't very computationally intensive. You're probably be waiting for I/O most of the time. It's because of this, and not because it's "long-running", that the performances are comparable.
Not really. Write a few text parsers in Perl and Java and you'll see that the "computationally intensive" advantage for Java doesn't exist. Different languages are there for several reasons:
Programming style
purpose
ease-of-use
cost
Java is cheap (free), multipurpose, and difficult to learn to use well, but suitable for large applications.
Perl is cheap (free), multipurpose, and easy to learn to use, but difficult to create large, maintainable apps with (subject to change with Perl 6?)
As far as how a program performs, unless you're doing a lot of FP math, most small programs of similar function written by programmers of similar skill in a given language will be fairly even, performance-wise.
If you *are* doing a lot of FP math, you're probably using FORTRAN, and nobody really understands FORTRAN, anyway...do they?
Actually, most of the sites that repeat each other agree on it. Some of the few in which minimal research effort has been expended agree that Murpy's quote is something like "If there is more than one way to do a thing, and one of those ways will result in catastrophe, someone will do it". Check here for an example (Sometimes, it's a good idea to go beyond the first page of Google's search results).
I can't help being a Murphy zealot, my sig expects it of me.;)
Why the desire to release exploit code immediately instead of waiting 30 days for people to hear of the patch? Does a person's 1337ness points go up or something? Are they trolling for work at a security company? Or are they hoping for visitors to their commercial security web site advertising their services?
Here's a hint. Ever see how many slashdotters try to get firstus-postus?
ANd most of those people who don't understand a DNS error in their web browser are using Internet explorer, which gives a similar search page. Verisign (not Verizon...god, why am I responding to an AC, anyway) doesn't own the.com and.net domains space, they just run the servers that give out name-server IP addresses for those domains.
They are taking advantage of the fact that they run those servers and are driving traffic to their site in a monopolistic and predatory manner while breaking many relied-upon services that expect a certain response (NXDOMAIN) when a domain doesn't exist. The site design is irrelevant, and what they have done is essentially hijack the.com and.net domains and squat on EVERY unregistered domain name out there.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "only" makes that jump pretty small, although all generalizations are bad...oh, wait.
I disagree about your description of this industry. "Important" is not a word I would use. There are already ample marketing methods available to people who want to sell stuff. If you doubt this, turn on the radio or TV, or surf the net.
The fact that a "do-not-call" registry was thought up doesn't mean additional lost revenue for the telemarketing industry, it means I don't have to listen to an assinine sales pitch for however many seconds it takes for me to get my "no thanks" in. Marketers are required to remove you from any calling lists at your request, and this list streamlines that process, and helps everyday people that (like me) don't buy anything from anybody who calls uninvited.
This doesn't necessarily mean the end of telemarketing as an economical way of doing business, only 50 million of the over 250 million people living in the US signed up.
I don't mind people selling me things, but I *do* mind being interrupted in order for them to do it.
Somehow, I doubt the "do not call" list will be most people's deciding factor in the election. Even for people who don't just vote straight along party lines.
I'll take Jan. 7, 2004
That's what can happen in the system, because we allow people to ignore their responsibilities, and don't always have sufficient checks in place for lawsuits that fly in the face of our sensibilities.
Thank god...I can keep my tank-tops...
Slashdot speling rulles!
The DNS is not a program created by Verisign that they sell to people. It's not a service created by verisign that they allow people to use. It *is* a standard for allowing various conversions between ip addresses and other information that is commonly used because of the wild success of the internet as a communications medium.
Verisign has a contract to run some servers that respond to DNS queries about the .com and .net zones. They don't own them, they don't own the service, and they are not a standards body that can dictate changes to the operation of a public directory service.
I'm glad that you've patched your BIND, since it takes eyeballs away from Sitefinder, but I'm horrified that such a step was necessary. A private company has just decided that they can use a public service that their competitors have no access to in order to generate advertising revenue. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
Thank god somebody else noticed that. I was doubting my understanding of the internet for a moment...surely he just misspoke, right?
When I'm comparing languages, I tend to compare how well suited they are to the task at hand, which was the whole point of my saying the stuff about "blah...Perl...Java...parser...computationally intensive". The useless loop is a fairly trivial example, but certainly not the only one I can think of. Other trivial examples are left as an exercise to the reader.
I'm familiar with perlguts, and a little bit familiar with C (not much, I admit). Why would I not use Perl for doing "intensive" text parsing? From what I've seen, lots of programmers seem to think it performs pretty well... I will definitely try ^C ^V'ing the link.
That's not a troll...it corresponds with one of the opinions in the article, as a matter of fact. I suppose if you're modding based on the beginning of the article alone, you'd see it as such, but hey, since when do moderators read the article.
I think I just found a company I hate as much as SCO.
If selfless people existed, we might discuss what they could produce. That said, there are many generous people who are also intelligent and hard working that have made huge contributions to the computing world. As a result of them, we have the Internet, Web sites, Linux, and various less-well-known projects and products.
I call bullshit on this one. Verisign is being greedy and abusing their stewardship. They don't own .com or .net, but they are making decisions for all of us that do own a part of it. If my $35.00 doesn't go to support those "willingly-provided" DNS servers, then why did I pay it? The solution is to roll back the clock 14 days and not have this "Service" implemented. If Verisign wants typos to drive traffic, they should do what everyone else is forced to do, and buy a browser.
You're right...I forgot to delete the word "well" from the first of those statements. I think it'd be a lot easier to teach the average person to write a "hello world" in Perl than Java. Just my opinion, as you have your own.
Though I'm not sure what you mean by "small programs", but the "Great Computer Language Shootout" suggests a high amount of variation between languages (language implementations, actually) for very small programs.
I haven't see this shootout article (and apparently won't be able to at that link...look for yourself), but based on personal experience, trivial programs tend to benchmark similarly (count to a billion, stop.).
DAMN!!!
Trolled.
By an AC.
AGAIN!
Not really. Write a few text parsers in Perl and Java and you'll see that the "computationally intensive" advantage for Java doesn't exist. Different languages are there for several reasons:
Java is cheap (free), multipurpose, and difficult to learn to use well, but suitable for large applications.
Perl is cheap (free), multipurpose, and easy to learn to use, but difficult to create large, maintainable apps with (subject to change with Perl 6?)
As far as how a program performs, unless you're doing a lot of FP math, most small programs of similar function written by programmers of similar skill in a given language will be fairly even, performance-wise.
If you *are* doing a lot of FP math, you're probably using FORTRAN, and nobody really understands FORTRAN, anyway...do they?
Isn't that an example of the law? (Well, Finagle's Law, in that case..."Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong")
I thought Moore's Law had something to do with a character named "Jaws" being required in a given James Bond movie...
I can't help being a Murphy zealot, my sig expects it of me. ;)
Hey, I say it every day ;)
Here's a hint. Ever see how many slashdotters try to get firstus-postus?
Two questions:
(I'm guessing grape goes best, but that's just a guess)
WTF is that all about? Where is *my* signature?
You mean: "Every sperm is sacred...". I think it's been too long since somebody watched "The Meaning of Life".
They are taking advantage of the fact that they run those servers and are driving traffic to their site in a monopolistic and predatory manner while breaking many relied-upon services that expect a certain response (NXDOMAIN) when a domain doesn't exist. The site design is irrelevant, and what they have done is essentially hijack the .com and .net domains and squat on EVERY unregistered domain name out there.
I can't either, althought I could this morning...is Qwest your ISP? (I'm trying to find out if they are officially blocking the IP upstream).