First off, yes, in closed quarters--in a crowd, in a classroom--a knife is as if not more effective than a gun. Blades can do severe damage.
Defending against a knife attack is trivial. I don't carry a knife because it's a liability: I will abandon the knife in a struggle and move to bare fists, and then I am fighting a guy with a knife. On the other hand, if a guy brings a knife at me, I'm more confident I'll take it from him than anything. It's a win-win scenario: I avoid an attacker with a knife, or I'm free to take his. Knives inflict a minimum damage--cuts, stabs, but not bruises and simple pain--and don't provide dexterity for locks and throws; they are less-optimal as a weapon than my fists.
If a bad guy pulls a gun at distance, you have to notice and react before it's leveled at you. That's not reliable. If you try to pull your gun in a close fist fight, your arm can be trapped (easily) and the gun can be liberated from your possession; likewise if some dude jumps you and tries to pull a gun after he has your attention--it's a liability. Guns are not useful for defense, unless you're like Spike and use it to block a katana from some awesome crazy ninja.
If a bad guy jumps you with a knife, pulling your gun out is too slow. Wipe yourself off, man; you're dead. If he has a baseball bat, same deal, but you might notice this sooner if he attacks from a further distance and gives you time to get it out... or not. It's trivial to defend against either of these with your hands.
Guns work great at a moderate distance. Three meters. If you can keep three meters and draw a firearm against a melee-armed man, you have control. At shorter distance, you have liability.
Weighted gloves have pelletized iron in them. They have the mass to absorb the impulse, and the flexibility to deadblow it. You could gel pad the gun, fire with the other hand, or use a low-recoil pistol with a modified grip to catch the recoil with wrist flex rather than buttressing against the wrist.
Also, you can wash your hands or wear gloves (which you dispose of) to avoid a residue test.
All that shit happened to WinAmp in C, and anything in Python. Objective-C has a much better system for polymorphism, making plug-in architecture easier.
Why not give your employees equity in the company; then, when you sell, they get a chunk, you leave with a much bigger pile, you found a new company, and anyone who liked the deal can leave and come to your new company? A string of selling the shit you already sold xD
Many people moved away from RHEL because RHEL is shit. Everyone who uses RHEL and CentOS uses extra repositories like EPEL and ElRepo to get shit that's already in Fedora, but stripped out of RHEL.
It's software. The proposal is to ban you from installing things, which doesn't help anything. What helps is a default setting for servers and a tuning setting for single- and multi-user desktops.
I have. Soldiers like to double as recruiters, and I unload on them when they try to drag me into their bullshit--especially the army folks, the cannon fodder we send out to die first, the most expendable and the most self-important. I also know infantrymen I went to high school with, who still act like we're in high school; except in high school I never punched the shit out of these people, so it was time to play catch-up and put them in their place. Apparently I'm harder than Iraq.
Nobody has ever protected me in the military. Nobody. If you think going to Afghanistan prevented the boots from landing on the ground here, you're an idiot.
Gee, I have a medical problem, and I like widget. I know you should use gadget to treat medical problem, but I want to use widget. Can you give me widget for this?
You're looking at PTSD. The Zen guys have a discount for veterans. Mind you, veterans are the most entitled, self-absorbed, over-worshiped segment of our society; but this is medical treatment for people with a medical condition. I don't mind being helpful, but I don't want to compromise the integrity of my social position on the topic of veterans by appearing concerned because they're specifically veterans.
That doesn't tell anyone why it's favorable to write 'a = [long equation]' than '[long equation] => a'. In mathematics, it's also the ability to rapidly assess flow in long, algorithmic calculations.
There's nothing easy about getting various H/W setup on Linux even with the best distro.
What era do you live in? I've been using Ubuntu since inception and, since the second or third release, it's been better with hardware than Windows. I never really look at the HCL. This is distinctly different from Mandrake 7.2 trying to figure out if I need ALSA or OSS and then not getting either to actually play sound (and then sound suddenly stops working why?).
And this is an option that is only valid if they want to do the same things they do at the office which is probably not the case.
How do you think Windows became the de-facto home operating system?
Python's list comprehension is extremely strange when you really get into it, but also one of my favorite features of the language. It's possibly the best single feature of the language.
I always liked the target-first approach of Intel. Like strcpy(dst, src). I know I'm mucking with (dst) string, and not doing anything with (src). The same with (MOV %eax, 0xdeadbeef).
Imagine strcpy(src,dst), which many people would say is more logical because you're saying "Perform a string copy from (src) to (dst)." We say "Copy from source to destination" all the time--it's how we think, right? And then: strncpy(src,dst,32). So with strcpy(), the last argument is the thing we mess with; while strncpy() it's some argument in the middle.
This is why strcpy(dst,src) and strncpy(dst,src,len) are set: the first argument is the target. These calls immediately tell you what they actually change. printf() changes nothing, but uses the first argument as its format--it emits a modified content of the first argument based on subsequent arguments; sprintf() changes the first argument to a modified copy of the second argument using all further arguments. If something is changed, it's the first things that are changed.
In Intel assembly, a glance down the left side of the screen rapidly tells you what's roughly going on. You don't need to read the whole line; you just look at opcodes and targets, quickly recognizing which opcodes modify their targets. This immediately tells you flow; and attaching the source data for the modification provides you with logic. This is less decoding than trying to interpret an individual opcode, rearrange it in your head, extract its behavior, extract its logic, and build incrementally with that.
That's not a food problem. Eventually I will finish the site with charts and graphs and the math showing everything, as well as careful transitional plans, and we can get on to eliminating homelessness and hunger. I've already solved these problems.
Coffee is terrible. It has caffeine. If it had a high load of sulbutiamine instead, it would be a non-addictive anti-fatigue drink with no withdraw or tolerance properties.
It's funny, because I can inject a genetic modification using a cassette on one of a small number of bacteria, and get the correct results; then I can duplicate them perfectly by TEM analysis of pollen and seed and fertilization; and then call it "organic" and "non-GMO" even though the output is equivalent.
NDN looks like a scheme to tag data and change networks from "addressing a particular node" to "addressing data". This is like changing the Post Office such that a person addresses a particular letter sent to them, rather than having a house number where letters get delivered.
Computer addresses with DNS on top make sense: it's easy to subdivide and route, and name translation allows humans to interact with it. NDN looks like it's trying to make the names the addresses, and make the URIs the names, and make the routers act as caches, and hope it all works; but then how do I address a *computer*? How do I ask for anything other than HTTP?
NDN looks like p2pwww stuff I designed back in 2004, except trying to implement as a network protocol on the routers, rather than an application protocol on the nodes. Even then, I specified digital signatures, encryption, and network namespace isolation: you could have an ICANNWeb which signed certificates for each name (i.e. Microsoft) and, on ICANNWeb, you would put out a message (P2P) for Microsoft://www/windowsxp/support.aspx and get back responses for (have|know|home)--node has a copy recent as per [date], node knows who has a copy recent as per [date], node knows the home is [address]--and select from there. Each resource would be digitally signed with generation date stamp and expiration date stamp, and a new generation date stamp overrides an earlier expiration date stamp.
In short: you'd get on a Gnutella-like network, perform a search, and be told where the resource is. Data was such that you could identify newer, identical, and expired resources. Your node could say, "0-3 hops", then "4-6 hops", incrementally crawling the network; or "3 hops past first response, limit 10". Usually if a node knows another node has a copy, that other node also knows several (it got its copy somehow--by its own request). If a node locates nodes with multiple versions, it provides outdated nodes with provable evidence that they're outdated, so they can drop their caches and learn some other node has a more up-to-date copy. Likewise, when those nodes are queried, they will then re-query the nodes they know have copies, and update them: an update doesn't trigger this cycle--too much traffic.
That's application-level. A locatable, self-caching network which encapsulates all resources in digital signatures and allows for namespaces. It sounds like that's what they're trying to accomplish, but in the transport layer.
Slashdot Mirror
I would bet money a 4-year-old could learn to beat you at Go.
Kindle-spritz.
Wow this guy is a complete idiot.
First off, yes, in closed quarters--in a crowd, in a classroom--a knife is as if not more effective than a gun. Blades can do severe damage.
Defending against a knife attack is trivial. I don't carry a knife because it's a liability: I will abandon the knife in a struggle and move to bare fists, and then I am fighting a guy with a knife. On the other hand, if a guy brings a knife at me, I'm more confident I'll take it from him than anything. It's a win-win scenario: I avoid an attacker with a knife, or I'm free to take his. Knives inflict a minimum damage--cuts, stabs, but not bruises and simple pain--and don't provide dexterity for locks and throws; they are less-optimal as a weapon than my fists.
If a bad guy pulls a gun at distance, you have to notice and react before it's leveled at you. That's not reliable. If you try to pull your gun in a close fist fight, your arm can be trapped (easily) and the gun can be liberated from your possession; likewise if some dude jumps you and tries to pull a gun after he has your attention--it's a liability. Guns are not useful for defense, unless you're like Spike and use it to block a katana from some awesome crazy ninja.
If a bad guy jumps you with a knife, pulling your gun out is too slow. Wipe yourself off, man; you're dead. If he has a baseball bat, same deal, but you might notice this sooner if he attacks from a further distance and gives you time to get it out... or not. It's trivial to defend against either of these with your hands.
Guns work great at a moderate distance. Three meters. If you can keep three meters and draw a firearm against a melee-armed man, you have control. At shorter distance, you have liability.
Weighted gloves have pelletized iron in them. They have the mass to absorb the impulse, and the flexibility to deadblow it. You could gel pad the gun, fire with the other hand, or use a low-recoil pistol with a modified grip to catch the recoil with wrist flex rather than buttressing against the wrist.
Also, you can wash your hands or wear gloves (which you dispose of) to avoid a residue test.
Learn to play Go.
All that shit happened to WinAmp in C, and anything in Python. Objective-C has a much better system for polymorphism, making plug-in architecture easier.
Why not give your employees equity in the company; then, when you sell, they get a chunk, you leave with a much bigger pile, you found a new company, and anyone who liked the deal can leave and come to your new company? A string of selling the shit you already sold xD
You sound like you want Gentoo.
Many people moved away from RHEL because RHEL is shit. Everyone who uses RHEL and CentOS uses extra repositories like EPEL and ElRepo to get shit that's already in Fedora, but stripped out of RHEL.
It's software. The proposal is to ban you from installing things, which doesn't help anything. What helps is a default setting for servers and a tuning setting for single- and multi-user desktops.
Saurbraten, based on Cube 2, based on Cube. Quake, but you can modify the level during play. It's from the 90s.
I have. Soldiers like to double as recruiters, and I unload on them when they try to drag me into their bullshit--especially the army folks, the cannon fodder we send out to die first, the most expendable and the most self-important. I also know infantrymen I went to high school with, who still act like we're in high school; except in high school I never punched the shit out of these people, so it was time to play catch-up and put them in their place. Apparently I'm harder than Iraq.
So much for "easy target".
Nobody has ever protected me in the military. Nobody. If you think going to Afghanistan prevented the boots from landing on the ground here, you're an idiot.
Gee, I have a medical problem, and I like widget. I know you should use gadget to treat medical problem, but I want to use widget. Can you give me widget for this?
You're looking at PTSD. The Zen guys have a discount for veterans. Mind you, veterans are the most entitled, self-absorbed, over-worshiped segment of our society; but this is medical treatment for people with a medical condition. I don't mind being helpful, but I don't want to compromise the integrity of my social position on the topic of veterans by appearing concerned because they're specifically veterans.
That doesn't tell anyone why it's favorable to write 'a = [long equation]' than '[long equation] => a'. In mathematics, it's also the ability to rapidly assess flow in long, algorithmic calculations.
There's nothing easy about getting various H/W setup on Linux even with the best distro.
What era do you live in? I've been using Ubuntu since inception and, since the second or third release, it's been better with hardware than Windows. I never really look at the HCL. This is distinctly different from Mandrake 7.2 trying to figure out if I need ALSA or OSS and then not getting either to actually play sound (and then sound suddenly stops working why?).
And this is an option that is only valid if they want to do the same things they do at the office which is probably not the case.
How do you think Windows became the de-facto home operating system?
Python's list comprehension is extremely strange when you really get into it, but also one of my favorite features of the language. It's possibly the best single feature of the language.
A ? B : C;
ABC, ?:;
I always liked the target-first approach of Intel. Like strcpy(dst, src). I know I'm mucking with (dst) string, and not doing anything with (src). The same with (MOV %eax, 0xdeadbeef).
Imagine strcpy(src,dst), which many people would say is more logical because you're saying "Perform a string copy from (src) to (dst)." We say "Copy from source to destination" all the time--it's how we think, right? And then: strncpy(src,dst,32). So with strcpy(), the last argument is the thing we mess with; while strncpy() it's some argument in the middle.
This is why strcpy(dst,src) and strncpy(dst,src,len) are set: the first argument is the target. These calls immediately tell you what they actually change. printf() changes nothing, but uses the first argument as its format--it emits a modified content of the first argument based on subsequent arguments; sprintf() changes the first argument to a modified copy of the second argument using all further arguments. If something is changed, it's the first things that are changed.
In Intel assembly, a glance down the left side of the screen rapidly tells you what's roughly going on. You don't need to read the whole line; you just look at opcodes and targets, quickly recognizing which opcodes modify their targets. This immediately tells you flow; and attaching the source data for the modification provides you with logic. This is less decoding than trying to interpret an individual opcode, rearrange it in your head, extract its behavior, extract its logic, and build incrementally with that.
superweeds
Dude, just go to Japan. Kudzu and shit.
That's not a food problem. Eventually I will finish the site with charts and graphs and the math showing everything, as well as careful transitional plans, and we can get on to eliminating homelessness and hunger. I've already solved these problems.
Coffee is terrible. It has caffeine. If it had a high load of sulbutiamine instead, it would be a non-addictive anti-fatigue drink with no withdraw or tolerance properties.
The space age is merely an extension of ballistic missile rocketry.
It's funny, because I can inject a genetic modification using a cassette on one of a small number of bacteria, and get the correct results; then I can duplicate them perfectly by TEM analysis of pollen and seed and fertilization; and then call it "organic" and "non-GMO" even though the output is equivalent.
We need to leverage our core competencies to open new opportunities in content-centric networking!
NDN looks like a scheme to tag data and change networks from "addressing a particular node" to "addressing data". This is like changing the Post Office such that a person addresses a particular letter sent to them, rather than having a house number where letters get delivered.
Computer addresses with DNS on top make sense: it's easy to subdivide and route, and name translation allows humans to interact with it. NDN looks like it's trying to make the names the addresses, and make the URIs the names, and make the routers act as caches, and hope it all works; but then how do I address a *computer*? How do I ask for anything other than HTTP?
NDN looks like p2pwww stuff I designed back in 2004, except trying to implement as a network protocol on the routers, rather than an application protocol on the nodes. Even then, I specified digital signatures, encryption, and network namespace isolation: you could have an ICANNWeb which signed certificates for each name (i.e. Microsoft) and, on ICANNWeb, you would put out a message (P2P) for Microsoft://www/windowsxp/support.aspx and get back responses for (have|know|home)--node has a copy recent as per [date], node knows who has a copy recent as per [date], node knows the home is [address]--and select from there. Each resource would be digitally signed with generation date stamp and expiration date stamp, and a new generation date stamp overrides an earlier expiration date stamp.
In short: you'd get on a Gnutella-like network, perform a search, and be told where the resource is. Data was such that you could identify newer, identical, and expired resources. Your node could say, "0-3 hops", then "4-6 hops", incrementally crawling the network; or "3 hops past first response, limit 10". Usually if a node knows another node has a copy, that other node also knows several (it got its copy somehow--by its own request). If a node locates nodes with multiple versions, it provides outdated nodes with provable evidence that they're outdated, so they can drop their caches and learn some other node has a more up-to-date copy. Likewise, when those nodes are queried, they will then re-query the nodes they know have copies, and update them: an update doesn't trigger this cycle--too much traffic.
That's application-level. A locatable, self-caching network which encapsulates all resources in digital signatures and allows for namespaces. It sounds like that's what they're trying to accomplish, but in the transport layer.
I know. My Twitter feed shows my bank account number on the sidebar, so I have to go incognito.