it would be perfect for medical devices like pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, or other implanted devices
Well, I suppose that's ok then, but it won't stop the jokes.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind some grammar nazi slamming TFA for using "implanted" redundantly and confusingly, as if pacemakers might not all be implanted.
Not today, thank you. Perhaps you could come around tomorrow, or maybe the day after? I'll check my calendar, but later, ok?
Re:"Paltry" is probably a poor choice of words
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No. Being the largest single vendor is not the same as being larger than all other vendors combined. Apple may be larger than RedHat, and larger than Mandrake, and larger than Slackware, and larger than Debian, but that doesn't make Apple bigger than all of them combined.
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't presume that because you disagree with the court, that you are right. You aren't the legal scholar. If they defined "unusual" once, they can define it again. If they defined "national consensus", they can redefine it. They allowed segregation once, they disallowed it later. If you don't like it, tough. You aren't the legal scholar.
They specifically ruled, not because of personal likes and dislikes, but because the constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments. It may or may not be cruel, but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by. What are they supposed to do, interpret "cruel" and "unusual" by 1780 standards?
Whether or not you think it cruel or unusual is irrelevant unless you are one of the nine. If you don't like it, tough. They didn't just decide arbitrarily, they based it on logic and reasoning. To slur them because you disagree is just as bad as being an activist judge.
I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
See, there's this pesky document called the federal constitution, which overrides state constitutions, even when those state constitutions have been written by supermajorities. It prevents states from doing obnoxious things such as, oh, re-implementing slavery.
Now let me guess. If the federal constitution were amended to define marriage as between man and woman only, do you think states should be able to override that to allow gay marriage? And if so, would other states then be required (as the federal constitution says) to recognize those marriages as legal?
If at any point you want states to be able to override the federal constitution, then what's the point of a federal constitution?
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
I used to have hundreds, if not thousands, of bookmarks, but even before Google, I realized that 90% of them could be found again by a search. The added benefit is that if the site moves, or a better site comes along, the search automatically finds them too.
Sometimes people don't know what they don't know, and excuse me for sounding like a certain politician, but it happens all the time. When people know they are ignorant, and don't go looking for an answer, then they are stupid; but sometimes they don't realize there is more to a subject, and so are ignorant without knowing; they are ignorant about their own ignorance.
For instance, you didn't know that you were ignorant about how people can be ignorant about how ignorant they are. But now you do know, and you have no excuse for bringing the subject up again.
See, I don't even see why poison spreads. Yes, if aohell.com were dumb enough to ask lameproducts.com if it knows who shopping.yahoo.com is, then I can see the poison spreading, but there are two related unanswered questions... what would it take to get aohell.com to ask lameproducts.com who shopping.yahoo.com is, and why would aohell.com even trust some unrelated site in the first place so that it could be tricked into asking?
But maybe that's why Windows and old BIND sites are susceptible. Maybe it ws some optimization, like thinking, hey, I've got ten more sites to look up, I'll ask this unknown DNS server just on the off chance.... maybe back in the old slow days, it was a speedup, to save all the time involved for new separate connections for each lookup.
djbdns dvides what BIND does into two entirely separate programs. One, tinydns, is authoratitive for its specific domains and nothing else. It might even drop all requests for anything else, I am not sure. The second program, dnscache, queries other, authoratative, name servers, and returns complete dns lookups. It will only query authoratative name servers; it will discard responses that are not authoratative.
DJB makes a big point in his documentation for djbdns about this. I get the impression that other (all? most? older?) name servers can be poisoned because they will accept non-authoratative answers as gospel.
For instance... suppose you look up www.yahoo.com. You should start by asking the root servers for com, choose one of them to ask about yahoo, choose one of them to ask about www.
That seems so common sense to me that I do not quite understand DJB's complaint, yet apparently there are servers which will cache other addresses for which they are not authoratative. If I ask, say, plugh.com who is www.yahoo.com, and it has recently looked that up, it will pass it along to me as if it really really knew. djbdns will not, it will instead tell me to look it up properly.
How plugh.com gets bogus info for www.yahoo.com to start with is another question that I do not have any understanding of.
At least I think that is some of the flavor of cache poisoning.
The separate power plug requires a wall wart. They could instead use a different wall wart which ended in a USB plug with power pins only, I bet. Then one wall wart would work with any device, you wouldn't have to worry about plugging the cell phone into the PDA's wall wart and fry the innards.
But USB power is limited. It might be too limited for recharging a cell phone.
8 months of daylight savings, 4 months standard? What happens next year, when they get REALLY serious about the energy crisis. Will they extend it to 10 months of daylight savings, 2 months standard?
Sheesh. I'd much rather dump daylight savings altogether. If we should go to work earlier, do it, don't fake it with the "spring forward, fall back" nonsense.
A new probe will have different sensors and there will be hell to pay scientifically trying to calibrate the two to get comparable readings. They've had this problem with satellites in low earth orbit where they can compare each against known ground data. It's a lot harder when it takes the probe ten or twenty years to get to a position that the other has long since visited, if it can even be considered the same place at all.
Considering how much money government wastes on utter nonsense, threatening to throw out the Voyagers just to save $4M is bluff at its best. How much do you think that jet flight back to DC from Texas cost, the one for Bush to sign the unconstitutional interference with the courts over Terri Schiavo?
That's just the smoke screen. What they really want is a small government that leaves them alone to do what businessman do. I suppose in some sense they really don't care about the size of the governemnt, as long as it doesn't interfere with their businesses and doesn't tax them. If they could have a huge big government like that, funded by who knows what and doing who knows what, they'd go for it.
Bush is trying to undermine government. He and his ilk want to reduce government to one tenth its size. They know they can't do that directly; as much as people like to rail against the government, it's always against the other fella's programs, not their own. So instead, he is doing his best to bust the budget and make things so bad that it will have to shrink. At least that's their thinking. It is, as you might suspect, just as flawed as all their other thinking.
Why the war? Not just to finish daddy's war and show how manly he is, but also to run expenses sky high and crowd out the popular programs. Who can argue for kid education or health when national security is at stake?
Why privatize social security? To preempt the small real reforms that would fix it, and to bust the budget.
Why throw out $4M programs producing invaluable results? To show that when tough choices have to be made, he can make them, and to put on a show of trying to cut the budget while the billion dollar wastes continue to bust the other end wide open. It's like a stage magician, waving one hand around to distract the audience while the other hand quietly goes about its nefarious work of switching things around unnoticed.
Bush threatens to cut funds to show how tough he is.
NASA threatens to cut good programs to call his bluff.
Unfortunately, the Bushies have no sense of proportion and will be quite happy to carry thru with their cuts. It will be up to Congress to save these programs, but again, the Bushies are just stupid enough to let the program sink to show who's who.
Reverse engineering is understanding the behavior without looking at the innards, strictly from observing its behavior under different conditions. You could compare decompiling to learning the DNA of a critter and reverse engineering to making that critter do various things and observing what happens.
Yes, please, don't be a retard. Heaven knows there are enough of them already.
The US has elections at fixed intervals for fixed terms. Most other democracies, I believe, follow the parliamentary system, where the king, or president, who is the equivalent of an elected king, chooses someone from the party with the most memmbers of parliament to become prime minister, the equivalent of the US president. The prime minister picks various members of his party to become the ministers, unlike the US where cabinet secretaries are picked from anywhere.
The government thus formed has some fixed maximum time in office, say 5 years, but the prime minister can also call an election whenever he wants, usually when the polls look the best. In the current Canadian case, he may call elections soon so they can be held before the inquiry results are published. I think any election called by the prime minister before the time limit is a snap election.
Elections can also be forced by the opposition party mustering enough votes for a vote of no confidence, and possibly by the mostly powerless president or king dissolving the curent parliament.
But being from the US, I may well have things slightly cockeyed.
You also have hidden agenda and assumptions. Maybe next time you should try to look at posts as if they are just what they seem, no more and no less.
The point of my post was to realize that a hidden assumption may not be necessary, and further, if there is one hidden assumption, there may be others. The goal is not to use Linux, nor is it to use Windows. The goal is to find ways of helping his mother "regardless of cost", not meaning to outspend Donald Trump, but to consider $500 on a new computer.
Of course, if he has other reasons for not wanting non-Windows software, that is his business. But he needs to reconsider all his base assumptions if he has such an obvious contradiction in them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh. They could have rewritten it with just one use of the word "implanted". It's just an economy of words things, doncha know ...
it would be perfect for medical devices like pacemakers, implanted defibrillators, or other implanted devices
Well, I suppose that's ok then, but it won't stop the jokes.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind some grammar nazi slamming TFA for using "implanted" redundantly and confusingly, as if pacemakers might not all be implanted.
Science is about refusing to accept lack of knowledge and trying to figure things out.
Religion is about rejoicing in lack of knowledge and refusing to figure things out.
Not today, thank you. Perhaps you could come around tomorrow, or maybe the day after? I'll check my calendar, but later, ok?
No. Being the largest single vendor is not the same as being larger than all other vendors combined. Apple may be larger than RedHat, and larger than Mandrake, and larger than Slackware, and larger than Debian, but that doesn't make Apple bigger than all of them combined.
Don't presume that because I disagree with the court, that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Don't presume that because you disagree with the court, that you are right. You aren't the legal scholar. If they defined "unusual" once, they can define it again. If they defined "national consensus", they can redefine it. They allowed segregation once, they disallowed it later. If you don't like it, tough. You aren't the legal scholar.
They specifically ruled, not because of personal likes and dislikes, but because the constitution says no cruel and unusual punishments. It may or may not be cruel, but it has been getting more and more unusual as the years have gone by. What are they supposed to do, interpret "cruel" and "unusual" by 1780 standards?
Whether or not you think it cruel or unusual is irrelevant unless you are one of the nine. If you don't like it, tough. They didn't just decide arbitrarily, they based it on logic and reasoning. To slur them because you disagree is just as bad as being an activist judge.
I DO have a problem with federal courts arbitrarily reading their own values into the Constitution and overriding the decisions of even state supermajorities.
See, there's this pesky document called the federal constitution, which overrides state constitutions, even when those state constitutions have been written by supermajorities. It prevents states from doing obnoxious things such as, oh, re-implementing slavery.
Now let me guess. If the federal constitution were amended to define marriage as between man and woman only, do you think states should be able to override that to allow gay marriage? And if so, would other states then be required (as the federal constitution says) to recognize those marriages as legal?
If at any point you want states to be able to override the federal constitution, then what's the point of a federal constitution?
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
Would that be activism, bunky?
I used to have hundreds, if not thousands, of bookmarks, but even before Google, I realized that 90% of them could be found again by a search. The added benefit is that if the site moves, or a better site comes along, the search automatically finds them too.
Sometimes people don't know what they don't know, and excuse me for sounding like a certain politician, but it happens all the time. When people know they are ignorant, and don't go looking for an answer, then they are stupid; but sometimes they don't realize there is more to a subject, and so are ignorant without knowing; they are ignorant about their own ignorance.
For instance, you didn't know that you were ignorant about how people can be ignorant about how ignorant they are. But now you do know, and you have no excuse for bringing the subject up again.
See, I don't even see why poison spreads. Yes, if aohell.com were dumb enough to ask lameproducts.com if it knows who shopping.yahoo.com is, then I can see the poison spreading, but there are two related unanswered questions ... what would it take to get aohell.com to ask lameproducts.com who shopping.yahoo.com is, and why would aohell.com even trust some unrelated site in the first place so that it could be tricked into asking?
.... maybe back in the old slow days, it was a speedup, to save all the time involved for new separate connections for each lookup.
But maybe that's why Windows and old BIND sites are susceptible. Maybe it ws some optimization, like thinking, hey, I've got ten more sites to look up, I'll ask this unknown DNS server just on the off chance
:-) and thanks, it looked odd while typing ...
djbdns dvides what BIND does into two entirely separate programs. One, tinydns, is authoratitive for its specific domains and nothing else. It might even drop all requests for anything else, I am not sure. The second program, dnscache, queries other, authoratative, name servers, and returns complete dns lookups. It will only query authoratative name servers; it will discard responses that are not authoratative.
... suppose you look up www.yahoo.com. You should start by asking the root servers for com, choose one of them to ask about yahoo, choose one of them to ask about www.
DJB makes a big point in his documentation for djbdns about this. I get the impression that other (all? most? older?) name servers can be poisoned because they will accept non-authoratative answers as gospel.
For instance
That seems so common sense to me that I do not quite understand DJB's complaint, yet apparently there are servers which will cache other addresses for which they are not authoratative. If I ask, say, plugh.com who is www.yahoo.com, and it has recently looked that up, it will pass it along to me as if it really really knew. djbdns will not, it will instead tell me to look it up properly.
How plugh.com gets bogus info for www.yahoo.com to start with is another question that I do not have any understanding of.
At least I think that is some of the flavor of cache poisoning.
The separate power plug requires a wall wart. They could instead use a different wall wart which ended in a USB plug with power pins only, I bet. Then one wall wart would work with any device, you wouldn't have to worry about plugging the cell phone into the PDA's wall wart and fry the innards.
But USB power is limited. It might be too limited for recharging a cell phone.
8 months of daylight savings, 4 months standard? What happens next year, when they get REALLY serious about the energy crisis. Will they extend it to 10 months of daylight savings, 2 months standard?
Sheesh. I'd much rather dump daylight savings altogether. If we should go to work earlier, do it, don't fake it with the "spring forward, fall back" nonsense.
A new probe will have different sensors and there will be hell to pay scientifically trying to calibrate the two to get comparable readings. They've had this problem with satellites in low earth orbit where they can compare each against known ground data. It's a lot harder when it takes the probe ten or twenty years to get to a position that the other has long since visited, if it can even be considered the same place at all.
Considering how much money government wastes on utter nonsense, threatening to throw out the Voyagers just to save $4M is bluff at its best. How much do you think that jet flight back to DC from Texas cost, the one for Bush to sign the unconstitutional interference with the courts over Terri Schiavo?
That's just the smoke screen. What they really want is a small government that leaves them alone to do what businessman do. I suppose in some sense they really don't care about the size of the governemnt, as long as it doesn't interfere with their businesses and doesn't tax them. If they could have a huge big government like that, funded by who knows what and doing who knows what, they'd go for it.
Bush is trying to undermine government. He and his ilk want to reduce government to one tenth its size. They know they can't do that directly; as much as people like to rail against the government, it's always against the other fella's programs, not their own. So instead, he is doing his best to bust the budget and make things so bad that it will have to shrink. At least that's their thinking. It is, as you might suspect, just as flawed as all their other thinking.
Why the war? Not just to finish daddy's war and show how manly he is, but also to run expenses sky high and crowd out the popular programs. Who can argue for kid education or health when national security is at stake?
Why privatize social security? To preempt the small real reforms that would fix it, and to bust the budget.
Why throw out $4M programs producing invaluable results? To show that when tough choices have to be made, he can make them, and to put on a show of trying to cut the budget while the billion dollar wastes continue to bust the other end wide open. It's like a stage magician, waving one hand around to distract the audience while the other hand quietly goes about its nefarious work of switching things around unnoticed.
Bush threatens to cut funds to show how tough he is.
NASA threatens to cut good programs to call his bluff.
Unfortunately, the Bushies have no sense of proportion and will be quite happy to carry thru with their cuts. It will be up to Congress to save these programs, but again, the Bushies are just stupid enough to let the program sink to show who's who.
Reverse engineering is understanding the behavior without looking at the innards, strictly from observing its behavior under different conditions. You could compare decompiling to learning the DNA of a critter and reverse engineering to making that critter do various things and observing what happens.
Yes, please, don't be a retard. Heaven knows there are enough of them already.
The US has elections at fixed intervals for fixed terms. Most other democracies, I believe, follow the parliamentary system, where the king, or president, who is the equivalent of an elected king, chooses someone from the party with the most memmbers of parliament to become prime minister, the equivalent of the US president. The prime minister picks various members of his party to become the ministers, unlike the US where cabinet secretaries are picked from anywhere.
The government thus formed has some fixed maximum time in office, say 5 years, but the prime minister can also call an election whenever he wants, usually when the polls look the best. In the current Canadian case, he may call elections soon so they can be held before the inquiry results are published. I think any election called by the prime minister before the time limit is a snap election.
Elections can also be forced by the opposition party mustering enough votes for a vote of no confidence, and possibly by the mostly powerless president or king dissolving the curent parliament.
But being from the US, I may well have things slightly cockeyed.
we're geeks, can't we make a sophisticated April's Fools trickery?
We? What you mean by we, kemo sabe?
Or maybe you're just saving your special talents for another year.
And your own post helps him ... how?
You also have hidden agenda and assumptions. Maybe next time you should try to look at posts as if they are just what they seem, no more and no less.
The point of my post was to realize that a hidden assumption may not be necessary, and further, if there is one hidden assumption, there may be others. The goal is not to use Linux, nor is it to use Windows. The goal is to find ways of helping his mother "regardless of cost", not meaning to outspend Donald Trump, but to consider $500 on a new computer.
Of course, if he has other reasons for not wanting non-Windows software, that is his business. But he needs to reconsider all his base assumptions if he has such an obvious contradiction in them.
cost is not a factor
we are limited to Windows software
If cost is not a factor, why eliminate the possibility of buying a cheap PC for Linux or even (gasp!) a Mac?
Maybe you need to look deeper into your limits here. You just may have more of these preconceived unneccesary limits.