Have you realized that the first generation of hackers is starting to reach that age?
It's a huge loss for the world. Ritchie was a genius, a great man, and he helped change the world forever in the right direction.
C and Unix changed the entire world. The popularization of computing, moving it away from the universities and into the private space of companies and homes started with C and Unix. It revolutionized Operating System and software design in general completely, indirectly giving birth to just about every technology on your computer right now.
A brilliant man, a fellow Hacker and Atheist has died today. He will be missed.
The city I live in, the second largest in South America, was funded in 1536, and we've been calling ourselves Americans ever since.
Names are allowed to change overtime, but this particular name (America) hasn't changed. Only US citizens have mistakenly used that name as their own. It isn't.
You are 100% right. The use that the US makes of the word America pisses me off immensely. Specially since they pretend that "The Americas" is the word for the entire continent.
And this subject is not up for debate, we can proof conclusively who is right:
America was named after Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci sometime in the 15th century. It was named so by the Spanish, who called the entire continent "America". Not "The Americas" or anything else, just plain America. 4 centuries later a group of independent states in the northern part of America unite to form a country, a coalition of states. They name themelves The United States of America. because they were a bunch of states, that united, and happened to be in America. If they had been in Africa, they would have called themselves The United States of Africa. Of course, the "of" in the name implies that they are within that territory, a part of it. So, everybody called American to anyone within the entire continent, and America to the continent itself. It wasn't until the end of the 18th century that some US citizens started thinking of themselves as Americans, and with the meaning of "American" during WWI and WWII, the deal was settled for English speakers. Of course, that doesn't change the meaning of the word, or the fact that it's wrong for US citizens to use it to refer to themselves exclusively.
I consider that the best for the human race is the extinction of whatever species it is you belong to. You and all your stupid christian friends.
Then we can focus on our long term survival. And even if we can't accomplish that, and a huge meteorite crashes into our planet next week killing us all, we will die happy without a bunch of stupid self righteous faggots like yourself pissing us off all the fucking time.
Doesn't it bother you when you are trying to finish a piece of work, and you have to focus on some lesser parts, but you can't because some other huge piece is missing, and it just bothers you so much that you can't focus on anything else?
It does happen to me. When I code, I use placeholders all the time. Some important class I haven't written yet, a piece of gui, etc. I just hardcode a little piece of code, that I know it's not the real deal, but it allows me to forget about that at the moment and focus on the other stuff at hand.
We all do the same thing when we accept some that we need to abstract something and just let it be. For instance, you don't know the full details of the processor you are using, but you just attribute it to the Intel god, assume it's perfect, and get back to debugging your code.
To Einstein, god was just a placeholder for things he haven't got figured out yet.
God doesn't exist is a fact. There was no concept of a god until humans came around, and proposed the idea of a god. They described in detail what god is, several times, in a completely contradicting manner. None of those descriptions holds any water, since they are all falsifiable in one way or another. Mainly, those propositions for the existence of a god are the only reason we have to believe it might exist, and we can explain what motivated those people to make up this ridiculous lies. Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates that a god might exist, and incredible amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, only an extremely obtuse person would claim that god exists, and only extraordinary evidence would make that believe not as laughable. Since no kind of evidence has been presented, and most people that claim that god exists suffer from a number of other delusions that can be shown and explained through various sciences, I'm completely qualified to claim that there are no gods.
Actually, we should reject all biblical teachings.
Don't kill unless it's convenient? Don't rape unless an angel tells you to? Murder people who believe in a different imaginary dude in the sky? Be a sick, powerless, mediocre, poor motherfucker who accomplishes nothing because some imaginary bearded dude says that's good for you? Economically support a murderous, corrupt organization made up of a bunch of holy child molesters? Fuck religion. Not only is it absolute weapons-grade bullshit, it's teachings are also horrible and unethical.
I have one simple rule that defines the best ethical code ever. Just one commandment: Follow logic. That's it. Logic will tell you that you shouldn't kill other people unless you wanna be killed, it'll tell you that what's good for everyone is also good for you, it'll tell you that you are going to die, and your life will be meaningless unless you immortalize yourself in the general success of the human race and therefore you'll do what's good for everyone, and it'll also tell you to stay the fuck away from any holier-than-thou dude with an awful weird hat.
First of all, god doesn't exist, and no conscious entity created the universe or life.
So, because there is no god, I'm an Atheist. Now, if god did exist, I would fight him 'till my last breath. If a god did exist, he is an evil motherfucker, and his intentions are against what I consider the best for the human race, therefore I would feel compelled to destroy him.
A device (station A) that waits until a certain date, then captures certain information, then transmits it in the form of a bunch of neutrinos through a particle accelerator, it reaches station B a billionth of a second earlier, then the B retransmits this to station C, let's say B takes less than a billionth of a second to react and send the packet to station C, you would have gone further than a billionth of a second back. Then, B and C keep doing this until we get to the desired date.
It would be easy to calculate how much time back we can gain per iteration of this circuit, and therefore obtain a start/end date pair. From the spectators pov, he would start the instrument, and immediately get a reading from far away in the future.
Probably not at all possible, but I'd love to read a short hard-sci-fi story about the subject.
Concept is copyleft in case anyone actually has the time, skill and desire to write it. Just send me a PDF so I can enjoy it;)
Absolutely. I own a software and hardware dev company. We are firmly opossed to software patents. I find the idea laughable. I know competition will try to implement the features I include, and I'll do the same. That drives innovation, and helps create both formal and ad-hoc standards. Whenever I include a feature that noone has included before, I try to make as complete as possible, and we start working on an update right on release date, knowing I still have to compete We don't own a single patent, and we develop both proprietary and GPL products. We have earned a nice marketshare playing fair, we give our customers free updates for life, and we free most of our code. If you want to play fair, you don't need no stinking patents.
There are bad programmers everywhere, but yes, the concentration of bad coders in Java, ASP, VB, C# and anything.net related is 10 times that of any other language.
Why are we keeping documents in printed form at all?
When was the last time you created a document outside of a computer?
30 years ago:
- People typed up a document in their typewritter - Used a copier machine to duplicate as necessary - Faxed it
Now:
- People type up a document in their computer, then print it - Use a copier machine to duplicate as necessary - Fax it
When it should be:
- People type up a document in their computer, share digitally as required.
There is no need to ever put it on paper to begin with. And in the odd case when you really do have something only on paper, then you can use a fucking scanner, it'll surely won't happen very often.
Why are we even signing things anymore, when a digital signature would be a lot more secure and convenient?
Replacing a fax machine with a scanner + internet connection is just as retarded. It's the very fucking idea of keeping documents on paper that must go. We have desktop computers, laptops, tablets, digital frames and cellphones, and you can get your documents on all of those devices, instantly. Why the fuck do people print anymore is the real question.
The death of half of the population would be the best thing that could happen to any city in the world.
Why do you call yourself a Hacker?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 1
Or allow others to call you that?
You are a cracked, not a hacker. And at that, you are just a script kiddie. You haven't ever found a single vulnerability, and you haven't developed a single exploit. You relied on social engineering and script-kiddie techniques.
Why do you give Hackers a bad image? Certainly the figure of a script-kiddie who has done obvious attacks, was quickly discovered, ran away, was found and served prision time, then used his fame to make money as a security consultant, is incompatible with the average Hacker, who contributes to society by writing Free Software, works in an area he loves earning honest money, and only seldomly murders his wife and buries her in the woods.
Please stop calling yourself a hacker, you are nothing but a script kiddie.
Their hands aren't tied. It used to be different, it got to this point precisely because people put up with it, nobody is willing to risk anything, and they'll accept what their superiors tell them like sheep.
The difference between a worker and a professional is that a professional doesn't follow orders blindly, his profession and ethics come first, regardless of what the Ministry of Truth or the fucking pope tells him.
It's because nobody says anything, and just goes with "my hands are tied" and complies that nothing ever changes, and the whole world is going down the drain of censorship, power abuse and corporate control over everything.
Isn't it beautiful how everybody is involved in the process, except the actual fucking kids?
Ethics are socially constructed. Only then rules will mean something to a member of a society.
If the rules are created and imposed by someone else, they are just religious morals. By doing this, you are preventing kids from actually creating their own set of ethics, and preventing them from actually feeling those rules as their own. They just see it as yet another stupid restriction put on by their omnipotent overlords, and they'll do everything they can to break those rules as soon as you look the other way.
By preventing kids from the unspeakable horror of using a word that adults with imaginary friends in the sky consider "dirty" you are stripping those kids from the one chance in life they have to become Ethical subjects instead of just obedient students.
Slashdot Mirror
Except we atheists know that we are going to die, unlike religious fools who believe they'll live forever on top of a cloud.
Not only that, the architect behind NT was of VMS fame.
Of course, that backfired badly.
Have you realized that the first generation of hackers is starting to reach that age?
It's a huge loss for the world. Ritchie was a genius, a great man, and he helped change the world forever in the right direction.
C and Unix changed the entire world. The popularization of computing, moving it away from the universities and into the private space of companies and homes started with C and Unix. It revolutionized Operating System and software design in general completely, indirectly giving birth to just about every technology on your computer right now.
A brilliant man, a fellow Hacker and Atheist has died today. He will be missed.
THIS.
Came here to explain this. Thank you. WTH are the editors allowing some jerk to post "how are you supposed to ever find out about this?".
This site looks less like /. every day.
The city I live in, the second largest in South America, was funded in 1536, and we've been calling ourselves Americans ever since.
Names are allowed to change overtime, but this particular name (America) hasn't changed. Only US citizens have mistakenly used that name as their own. It isn't.
You are 100% right. The use that the US makes of the word America pisses me off immensely. Specially since they pretend that "The Americas" is the word for the entire continent.
And this subject is not up for debate, we can proof conclusively who is right:
America was named after Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci sometime in the 15th century. It was named so by the Spanish, who called the entire continent "America". Not "The Americas" or anything else, just plain America. 4 centuries later a group of independent states in the northern part of America unite to form a country, a coalition of states. They name themelves The United States of America. because they were a bunch of states, that united, and happened to be in America. If they had been in Africa, they would have called themselves The United States of Africa. Of course, the "of" in the name implies that they are within that territory, a part of it. So, everybody called American to anyone within the entire continent, and America to the continent itself. It wasn't until the end of the 18th century that some US citizens started thinking of themselves as Americans, and with the meaning of "American" during WWI and WWII, the deal was settled for English speakers. Of course, that doesn't change the meaning of the word, or the fact that it's wrong for US citizens to use it to refer to themselves exclusively.
No, his name was Robert Paulson
Thanks!, I'll look into it.
I consider that the best for the human race is the extinction of whatever species it is you belong to. You and all your stupid christian friends.
Then we can focus on our long term survival. And even if we can't accomplish that, and a huge meteorite crashes into our planet next week killing us all, we will die happy without a bunch of stupid self righteous faggots like yourself pissing us off all the fucking time.
It was a placeholder.
Doesn't it bother you when you are trying to finish a piece of work, and you have to focus on some lesser parts, but you can't because some other huge piece is missing, and it just bothers you so much that you can't focus on anything else?
It does happen to me. When I code, I use placeholders all the time. Some important class I haven't written yet, a piece of gui, etc. I just hardcode a little piece of code, that I know it's not the real deal, but it allows me to forget about that at the moment and focus on the other stuff at hand.
We all do the same thing when we accept some that we need to abstract something and just let it be. For instance, you don't know the full details of the processor you are using, but you just attribute it to the Intel god, assume it's perfect, and get back to debugging your code.
To Einstein, god was just a placeholder for things he haven't got figured out yet.
God doesn't exist is a fact. There was no concept of a god until humans came around, and proposed the idea of a god. They described in detail what god is, several times, in a completely contradicting manner. None of those descriptions holds any water, since they are all falsifiable in one way or another. Mainly, those propositions for the existence of a god are the only reason we have to believe it might exist, and we can explain what motivated those people to make up this ridiculous lies. Furthermore, there is nothing that indicates that a god might exist, and incredible amounts of evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, only an extremely obtuse person would claim that god exists, and only extraordinary evidence would make that believe not as laughable. Since no kind of evidence has been presented, and most people that claim that god exists suffer from a number of other delusions that can be shown and explained through various sciences, I'm completely qualified to claim that there are no gods.
Any questions?
Actually, we should reject all biblical teachings.
Don't kill unless it's convenient? Don't rape unless an angel tells you to? Murder people who believe in a different imaginary dude in the sky? Be a sick, powerless, mediocre, poor motherfucker who accomplishes nothing because some imaginary bearded dude says that's good for you? Economically support a murderous, corrupt organization made up of a bunch of holy child molesters? Fuck religion. Not only is it absolute weapons-grade bullshit, it's teachings are also horrible and unethical.
I have one simple rule that defines the best ethical code ever. Just one commandment: Follow logic.
That's it. Logic will tell you that you shouldn't kill other people unless you wanna be killed, it'll tell you that what's good for everyone is also good for you, it'll tell you that you are going to die, and your life will be meaningless unless you immortalize yourself in the general success of the human race and therefore you'll do what's good for everyone, and it'll also tell you to stay the fuck away from any holier-than-thou dude with an awful weird hat.
May Joe Pesci bless you.
First of all, god doesn't exist, and no conscious entity created the universe or life.
So, because there is no god, I'm an Atheist. Now, if god did exist, I would fight him 'till my last breath. If a god did exist, he is an evil motherfucker, and his intentions are against what I consider the best for the human race, therefore I would feel compelled to destroy him.
No, he's just 14. One day, he'll eventually grow up and feel embarrassed about this.
Don't worry about it, scientists will increase the speed of light in 2208 anyway.
Nice concept for a short story:
A device (station A) that waits until a certain date, then captures certain information, then transmits it in the form of a bunch of neutrinos through a particle accelerator, it reaches station B a billionth of a second earlier, then the B retransmits this to station C, let's say B takes less than a billionth of a second to react and send the packet to station C, you would have gone further than a billionth of a second back. Then, B and C keep doing this until we get to the desired date.
It would be easy to calculate how much time back we can gain per iteration of this circuit, and therefore obtain a start/end date pair. From the spectators pov, he would start the instrument, and immediately get a reading from far away in the future.
Probably not at all possible, but I'd love to read a short hard-sci-fi story about the subject.
Concept is copyleft in case anyone actually has the time, skill and desire to write it. Just send me a PDF so I can enjoy it ;)
Absolutely. I own a software and hardware dev company. We are firmly opossed to software patents. I find the idea laughable. I know competition will try to implement the features I include, and I'll do the same. That drives innovation, and helps create both formal and ad-hoc standards. Whenever I include a feature that noone has included before, I try to make as complete as possible, and we start working on an update right on release date, knowing I still have to compete We don't own a single patent, and we develop both proprietary and GPL products. We have earned a nice marketshare playing fair, we give our customers free updates for life, and we free most of our code. If you want to play fair, you don't need no stinking patents.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Python-Charmer.aspx
There are bad programmers everywhere, but yes, the concentration of bad coders in Java, ASP, VB, C# and anything .net related is 10 times that of any other language.
You are missing the real problem.
Why are we keeping documents in printed form at all?
When was the last time you created a document outside of a computer?
30 years ago:
- People typed up a document in their typewritter
- Used a copier machine to duplicate as necessary
- Faxed it
Now:
- People type up a document in their computer, then print it
- Use a copier machine to duplicate as necessary
- Fax it
When it should be:
- People type up a document in their computer, share digitally as required.
There is no need to ever put it on paper to begin with. And in the odd case when you really do have something only on paper, then you can use a fucking scanner, it'll surely won't happen very often.
Why are we even signing things anymore, when a digital signature would be a lot more secure and convenient?
Replacing a fax machine with a scanner + internet connection is just as retarded. It's the very fucking idea of keeping documents on paper that must go. We have desktop computers, laptops, tablets, digital frames and cellphones, and you can get your documents on all of those devices, instantly. Why the fuck do people print anymore is the real question.
For ages we've wondered why anyone would purchase windows or sign any kind of deal with microsoft. This Explains why: They were drunk.
The death of half of the population would be the best thing that could happen to any city in the world.
Or allow others to call you that?
You are a cracked, not a hacker. And at that, you are just a script kiddie. You haven't ever found a single vulnerability, and you haven't developed a single exploit. You relied on social engineering and script-kiddie techniques.
Why do you give Hackers a bad image? Certainly the figure of a script-kiddie who has done obvious attacks, was quickly discovered, ran away, was found and served prision time, then used his fame to make money as a security consultant, is incompatible with the average Hacker, who contributes to society by writing Free Software, works in an area he loves earning honest money, and only seldomly murders his wife and buries her in the woods.
Please stop calling yourself a hacker, you are nothing but a script kiddie.
Their hands aren't tied. It used to be different, it got to this point precisely because people put up with it, nobody is willing to risk anything, and they'll accept what their superiors tell them like sheep.
The difference between a worker and a professional is that a professional doesn't follow orders blindly, his profession and ethics come first, regardless of what the Ministry of Truth or the fucking pope tells him.
It's because nobody says anything, and just goes with "my hands are tied" and complies that nothing ever changes, and the whole world is going down the drain of censorship, power abuse and corporate control over everything.
Isn't it beautiful how everybody is involved in the process, except the actual fucking kids?
Ethics are socially constructed. Only then rules will mean something to a member of a society.
If the rules are created and imposed by someone else, they are just religious morals. By doing this, you are preventing kids from actually creating their own set of ethics, and preventing them from actually feeling those rules as their own. They just see it as yet another stupid restriction put on by their omnipotent overlords, and they'll do everything they can to break those rules as soon as you look the other way.
By preventing kids from the unspeakable horror of using a word that adults with imaginary friends in the sky consider "dirty" you are stripping those kids from the one chance in life they have to become Ethical subjects instead of just obedient students.