Other than the stripped naked part which seems unnecessary if you're in a blast-proof container, I'd be all for it. They could load the planes far more, if you can't bomb your way out they don't have to search you as much, end result is air travel should (in theory) get cheaper.
Of course there's no such thing as blast-proof, only blast-resistant, and once you get past the resistance it stops being a container and starts being shrapnel. I guess the trick would be to make it blast-resistant enough that you can't fit enough explosives in there to blow it up.
vsftpd has always been excellent for me--you can limit the anonymous user in a number of ways, and by default it's extremely locked down (may not even be enabled at all, can't remember, but if it's disabled, even when you enable it it's still very locked down).
More routable IPs means it is harder to route them.
Not necessarily. Fragmentation is the biggest issue--you can very often collapse a huge number of routes down to one since you only have to worry about the next hop. Resolve those routes as soon as you get the tables, then for everything that shares a prefix, collapse it into a single route. If there's small chunks taken out of it that need to go elsewhere, put them higher up in the priority list.
But, as we start to run out of addresses, an ISP who needs 4 million addresses is going to have to scrounge from hundreds of tiny prefixes that still exist instead of getting a large contiguous block of addresses. Route collapsing isn't going to have nearly as much effect in that case.
If IPv6 significantly reduces the address pressure, and it should unless those giving out prefixes are completely incompetent, complex routing tables will be able to be made simpler again. There will still be fragmentation issues for PI addresses, but hopefully those are all under a single dedicated prefix so they at least don't make the rest of the space worse as well.
Don't buy fridges that lock their doors (silly American idea? I don't know but ours are just magnetic catches and they work just fine - even my 2-year-old can open it).
Try every refrigerator before 1956 when the American Congress passed the Refrigerator Safety Act. Of course, to be fair in-home refrigerators did start here, so we should be responsible for fixing them up, even though I'm sure a locking door was good enough for your grandparents and they didn't need some new-fangled magnetic gasket, by golly.
If Microsoft's knee-jerk reaction is the wrong one, well, that's to be expected. They're assholes by nature. But, if after sleeping on it (and consulting with their lawyers and engineers and finding out there's nothing they can do that won't eat up every cent of profit they might have made on the thing) they come up with the right decision, I'm willing to forget their previous stance. Keep it up long enough, and they might even earn some goodwill.
I hear all the time how terrible Subversion is at branching and merging, but I can't really see any issues with it. Am I missing something, or is this all based on pre-1.5, when it didn't have merge tracking? Granted, it was fairly brain-dead to not track what revision a branch occurred in or what revision it was last merged to a particular other branch (or the head), but as far as I can tell, comparing it to AccuRev which I use at work heavily and is supposed to be fantastic at merging (it's... ok), there's little difference beyond the terminology.
Can somebody explain what it handles so badly? I feel like I'm not missing something I should be. I like Subversion, probably just because I know it, and use it for my home projects, but if there was an actual benefit (and decent cross-platform tools, TortiseSVN is fantastic, I love working on my linux box but doing graphical diffs on the same working copy over a Samba share) I'd love to switch to something better--I know I said I like Subversion, but it's more like how you like a kevlar vest, it's better than the alternative, which in this simile is bullet holes in my torso.
Yes, assholes manage to convince themselves they've been wronged in all sorts of ways. It makes the crocodile tears more realistic. Women are practically magicians at it. I guess you've never seen a woman get angry at her boyfriend for catching her cheating? It's art.
I didn't pay any attention at all to this when the initial article went by, don't even remember it.
Awesome, then you're just as qualified to make judgements as the lady who stole the article is to decide what's public domain.
I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.
I'll give you a hint: There's more than one person on Slashdot.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.
Although I have no doubt you could find someone on Slashdot that supports re-publishing someone else's music for their own financial gain, you might have a hard time finding two. Even stealing music for personal use is not exactly supported.
This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell. Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.
This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.
Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?
If that's honestly the way you think, you must get taken in a lot. "I didn't know I couldn't do that" is practically the International Order of Shysters and Crooks rallying cry.
Based on the statement/apology her little magazine was teetering on the brink already, and now it's toppled over it. It's more an amusement than anything to most of us - I mean, I find it interesting, but I don't think it's exactly a tragedy.
I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.
For her, it's a tragedy.
Um, good? Fuck her? Also, didn't you just try to garner sympathy by claiming that it was given away for free at grocery stores? Was it a labor of love, a hobby, or was it a business? Because stealing is a lot less forgivable when you're making or even trying to make money off it, but having your hobby (where your hobby is stealing other people's work) shut down isn't quite the tragedy having your livelihood shut down is. You seem to want it both ways, but forgot to read your own post.
Since when are commuter jets nationally critical infrastructure? There's literally nothing else other than the terminals and jets (and passengers, of course) that are more vulnerable to someone past security than someone outside of the secured area.
Until there is a standard for VMs to interface with operating systems, there will never be a good VM. I don't concede that OS-independence is a goal worth the compromises that need to be taken otherwise.
No, I hate Java because its results have utterly failed to deliver on its promises. Every app I've ever encountered has been an incomplete, slow, buggy mess. When I run a java app, I brace for the inevitable crash, or blank dialog box, or backtrace popup. It uses its own implementation of commonly OS-provided functionality, which is rife with incompatibilities with the default implementation, all with the justification that doing it that way allows things to "just run". Maybe in theory, but in practice, no, nothing "just runs". Eclipse? Used it a ton. Loved the idea, but it was slow, looked like crap, and when it didn't crash I'd click on a menu item and... nothing. Eclipse took the hide errors approach. What went wrong? No idea.
What was that LDAP editor? I don't remember, haven't used in a year or two. Loved the idea, seems pretty simple to write an LDAP editor and it's a mystery to me why there's so few of them, and why every last free one I've tried was a massive piece of shit, but there it is.
How about something more server-side? Ever worked with OpenFire? Crash crash crash, and when it didn't crash it leaked memory like a Java app, and when it didn't leak individual modules would fail to run with an incomprehensible error in the log, and when they ran they required that I follow some arcane set of steps to get it to accept a new root cert because it didn't use the built-in OS certs, or worked like shit with the DB because they didn't just wrap the system provided interface library, they wrote their own implementation of it.
I could go on, but I only care enough for three examples. I understand that the fault is on the developers, but here's the thing--I'm a developer, and I write good software. That's not to say I don't make mistakes or have bugs, but I handle errors gracefully and never throw them away, I use OS-provided libraries and widget set whenever they exist, I follow specifications... and Java? It just doesn't appeal to me on an aesthetic level. I know that's a flimsy... hell, it's not even a reason, I don't know what it is, but from what I can tell, it attracts lazy developers. I work with one. He constructs these massive abstractions, with factories and patterns and best practices... and despite all the smart stuff he does, it ends up shitty. Those practices and patterns and abstractions aren't there to make it work well, they're there as a look-how-smart-i-am jerk-off. He writes a stub function, and never implements it, and promotes it like that. He doesn't test edge cases. He'll size one element by pixel, and another that should be the same size as the other, he'll size by em, and tweak it until they match. He never bothered to learn CSS properly, because he's "not a web developer" (uh yes you are, that's what you do, you write a web app all day long, you're just not a very good one) so he writes his rules by guessing, like a 3-year-old trying to hammer the square into a circular hole. He throws away errors. His architecture is nice, if massively overcomplicated, but he couldn't finish something right if his life depended on it--and he loves Java. He writes that way in C# because that's what we work with, but if he was writing an open-source app, he'd do it in Java. I have no explanation for it, but Java attracts those sort of developers.
There are exceptions to the rule, but languages just seem to cause, or attract, certain... accents. Java, Python, and Ruby, I'd put in one category. C stands firmly in its own category. C++, Python, and C# could almost make up another, although they're just a little too different, so I don't really think of them that way. Ruby and Perl... I don't know. I can only call them accents, and I can't put firm words on it, but they make programs that feel similar somehow, and attract developers that work in similar ways.
The end result is, like someone who was beaten regularly by a drill sergeant with that specific Army qu
You don't need to fear a consequence to not desire it, or more strongly, desire not having that consequence.
I feel no fear standing on a curb next to a busy freeway, but I know that if I jump out into traffic, I will likely be killed or maimed. I do not want to be killed or maimed, therefore I don't jump out into traffic no matter how much I don't want to wait to cross the road. It's more than possible to make rational self-preservation decisions, it's done all the time.
A child might need fear to stop from crossing the road or yelling at their boss, but an adult shouldn't. I think maybe you're thinking of a more abstract form of fear than what your brain squeezes out when you get that jolt or nauseous feeling in your stomach. If you feel actual fear at woman's slap, I feel sorry for you.
I have, however, seen fear absolutely destroy people. Just yesterday, I watched someone argue the wrong point here at work because they feared looking dumb--there was no rationality about it, he was flat wrong, and when I talked to him later in a much less antagonistic way than the person he was originally arguing with, he saw it my way. Sometimes, people don't have someone to give them an "out" so they'll let that fear run them right into the ground even when they know they're wrong. I've seen fear of rejection turn people into bitter, lonely people, and fear of failure turn people into people who never try anything.
Finally, being fearless doesn't mean being amoral. I don't not rape everything in sight because I fear the repercussions, I don't rape because it's a horrific thing to do to a person.
Lacking fear would suck when it's time to run from a bear, or stay awake all night to guard against zombies, but honestly ask yourself when the last time that jab in the gut really helped you out in today's society?
You're awfully confident, but I promise you you're wrong.
Here's a starter: You can't store a string in a statically-typed integer variable. Its type is determined at compile time. One language that has support for both concepts, C#, added support for type inference with the "var" keyword, and then later added support for dynamic types with the "dynamic" keyword. C++0x (more like C++0xff amirite) will support type inference, but not dynamic typing. I'll even save you the trouble of looking it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference
You should also look up the definition of heuristically. There is no language I know of that will allow any ambiguity in an inferred type--it is a set series of rules, with either a deterministic outcome or a complile-time error. That's not to say they can't use heuristics to make a guess as an optimization, but when you say it's chosen heuristically that implies that it's the base algorithm.
As an end note, I'm being polite because you sound like you might be going into the field, and when people misunderstand basic concepts it makes my job suck, and calling you a willfully ignorant asshole isn't going to help anything. Hopefully learning that you don't know everything will encourage you to not be so certain you understand things you don't, and you'll be more careful in the future so the rest of us aren't stuck cleaning up some horrible mess of code.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that site is either a fake or the work of a schizophrenic, right?
If you don't realize that, watch out. Because you're next.
Other than the stripped naked part which seems unnecessary if you're in a blast-proof container, I'd be all for it. They could load the planes far more, if you can't bomb your way out they don't have to search you as much, end result is air travel should (in theory) get cheaper.
Of course there's no such thing as blast-proof, only blast-resistant, and once you get past the resistance it stops being a container and starts being shrapnel. I guess the trick would be to make it blast-resistant enough that you can't fit enough explosives in there to blow it up.
vsftpd has always been excellent for me--you can limit the anonymous user in a number of ways, and by default it's extremely locked down (may not even be enabled at all, can't remember, but if it's disabled, even when you enable it it's still very locked down).
More routable IPs means it is harder to route them.
Not necessarily. Fragmentation is the biggest issue--you can very often collapse a huge number of routes down to one since you only have to worry about the next hop. Resolve those routes as soon as you get the tables, then for everything that shares a prefix, collapse it into a single route. If there's small chunks taken out of it that need to go elsewhere, put them higher up in the priority list.
But, as we start to run out of addresses, an ISP who needs 4 million addresses is going to have to scrounge from hundreds of tiny prefixes that still exist instead of getting a large contiguous block of addresses. Route collapsing isn't going to have nearly as much effect in that case.
If IPv6 significantly reduces the address pressure, and it should unless those giving out prefixes are completely incompetent, complex routing tables will be able to be made simpler again. There will still be fragmentation issues for PI addresses, but hopefully those are all under a single dedicated prefix so they at least don't make the rest of the space worse as well.
Malnutrition has dulled your sense of smell?
If it becomes any sort of successful, with both feet I'm sure.
Don't buy fridges that lock their doors (silly American idea? I don't know but ours are just magnetic catches and they work just fine - even my 2-year-old can open it).
Try every refrigerator before 1956 when the American Congress passed the Refrigerator Safety Act. Of course, to be fair in-home refrigerators did start here, so we should be responsible for fixing them up, even though I'm sure a locking door was good enough for your grandparents and they didn't need some new-fangled magnetic gasket, by golly.
If Microsoft's knee-jerk reaction is the wrong one, well, that's to be expected. They're assholes by nature. But, if after sleeping on it (and consulting with their lawyers and engineers and finding out there's nothing they can do that won't eat up every cent of profit they might have made on the thing) they come up with the right decision, I'm willing to forget their previous stance. Keep it up long enough, and they might even earn some goodwill.
The small startups are using NoSQL because there is, more and more, a push in the web app market to store data which does not fit into any schema.
R'lyeh is apparently the new Silicon Valley.
I hear all the time how terrible Subversion is at branching and merging, but I can't really see any issues with it. Am I missing something, or is this all based on pre-1.5, when it didn't have merge tracking? Granted, it was fairly brain-dead to not track what revision a branch occurred in or what revision it was last merged to a particular other branch (or the head), but as far as I can tell, comparing it to AccuRev which I use at work heavily and is supposed to be fantastic at merging (it's ... ok), there's little difference beyond the terminology.
Can somebody explain what it handles so badly? I feel like I'm not missing something I should be. I like Subversion, probably just because I know it, and use it for my home projects, but if there was an actual benefit (and decent cross-platform tools, TortiseSVN is fantastic, I love working on my linux box but doing graphical diffs on the same working copy over a Samba share) I'd love to switch to something better--I know I said I like Subversion, but it's more like how you like a kevlar vest, it's better than the alternative, which in this simile is bullet holes in my torso.
What special needs does a website have for versioning that isn't covered by the usual tools?
Yes, assholes manage to convince themselves they've been wronged in all sorts of ways. It makes the crocodile tears more realistic. Women are practically magicians at it. I guess you've never seen a woman get angry at her boyfriend for catching her cheating? It's art.
I didn't pay any attention at all to this when the initial article went by, don't even remember it.
Awesome, then you're just as qualified to make judgements as the lady who stole the article is to decide what's public domain.
I'm really confused by the Slashdot ethics sometimes.
I'll give you a hint: There's more than one person on Slashdot.
If the subject were copyright infringement of music, we'd all be in support (or at least sympathize with) the infringing party.
But it's not, it's stuff off web sites, and we identify with producing that, so we think the infringing party is the evil doer.
Although I have no doubt you could find someone on Slashdot that supports re-publishing someone else's music for their own financial gain, you might have a hard time finding two. Even stealing music for personal use is not exactly supported.
This is (was) a two-person organization putting out a tiny little magazine that was given out for free at the grocery store, so far as I can tell. Imagine your mom and her next-door neighbor putting out a magazine, assuming your mom barely knows anything about copyright.
This lady assumed that if it's free to get it's free to use and free to redistribute. For people who aren't hip-deep in the thing, the Internet can definitely give that impression.
Who makes up something as goofy as "the Internet is in the public domain" if they don't think it's true?
If that's honestly the way you think, you must get taken in a lot. "I didn't know I couldn't do that" is practically the International Order of Shysters and Crooks rallying cry.
Based on the statement/apology her little magazine was teetering on the brink already, and now it's toppled over it. It's more an amusement than anything to most of us - I mean, I find it interesting, but I don't think it's exactly a tragedy.
I've had small businesses fail. It's like a death in the family. It's awful.
For her, it's a tragedy.
Um, good? Fuck her? Also, didn't you just try to garner sympathy by claiming that it was given away for free at grocery stores? Was it a labor of love, a hobby, or was it a business? Because stealing is a lot less forgivable when you're making or even trying to make money off it, but having your hobby (where your hobby is stealing other people's work) shut down isn't quite the tragedy having your livelihood shut down is. You seem to want it both ways, but forgot to read your own post.
Are you kidding? Easy access to a lake of fire? If that isn't cheap energy I don't know what is.
Since when are commuter jets nationally critical infrastructure? There's literally nothing else other than the terminals and jets (and passengers, of course) that are more vulnerable to someone past security than someone outside of the secured area.
Until there is a standard for VMs to interface with operating systems, there will never be a good VM. I don't concede that OS-independence is a goal worth the compromises that need to be taken otherwise.
No, I hate Java because its results have utterly failed to deliver on its promises. Every app I've ever encountered has been an incomplete, slow, buggy mess. When I run a java app, I brace for the inevitable crash, or blank dialog box, or backtrace popup. It uses its own implementation of commonly OS-provided functionality, which is rife with incompatibilities with the default implementation, all with the justification that doing it that way allows things to "just run". Maybe in theory, but in practice, no, nothing "just runs". Eclipse? Used it a ton. Loved the idea, but it was slow, looked like crap, and when it didn't crash I'd click on a menu item and ... nothing. Eclipse took the hide errors approach. What went wrong? No idea.
What was that LDAP editor? I don't remember, haven't used in a year or two. Loved the idea, seems pretty simple to write an LDAP editor and it's a mystery to me why there's so few of them, and why every last free one I've tried was a massive piece of shit, but there it is.
How about something more server-side? Ever worked with OpenFire? Crash crash crash, and when it didn't crash it leaked memory like a Java app, and when it didn't leak individual modules would fail to run with an incomprehensible error in the log, and when they ran they required that I follow some arcane set of steps to get it to accept a new root cert because it didn't use the built-in OS certs, or worked like shit with the DB because they didn't just wrap the system provided interface library, they wrote their own implementation of it.
I could go on, but I only care enough for three examples. I understand that the fault is on the developers, but here's the thing--I'm a developer, and I write good software. That's not to say I don't make mistakes or have bugs, but I handle errors gracefully and never throw them away, I use OS-provided libraries and widget set whenever they exist, I follow specifications ... and Java? It just doesn't appeal to me on an aesthetic level. I know that's a flimsy ... hell, it's not even a reason, I don't know what it is, but from what I can tell, it attracts lazy developers. I work with one. He constructs these massive abstractions, with factories and patterns and best practices ... and despite all the smart stuff he does, it ends up shitty. Those practices and patterns and abstractions aren't there to make it work well, they're there as a look-how-smart-i-am jerk-off. He writes a stub function, and never implements it, and promotes it like that. He doesn't test edge cases. He'll size one element by pixel, and another that should be the same size as the other, he'll size by em, and tweak it until they match. He never bothered to learn CSS properly, because he's "not a web developer" (uh yes you are, that's what you do, you write a web app all day long, you're just not a very good one) so he writes his rules by guessing, like a 3-year-old trying to hammer the square into a circular hole. He throws away errors. His architecture is nice, if massively overcomplicated, but he couldn't finish something right if his life depended on it--and he loves Java. He writes that way in C# because that's what we work with, but if he was writing an open-source app, he'd do it in Java. I have no explanation for it, but Java attracts those sort of developers.
There are exceptions to the rule, but languages just seem to cause, or attract, certain ... accents. Java, Python, and Ruby, I'd put in one category. C stands firmly in its own category. C++, Python, and C# could almost make up another, although they're just a little too different, so I don't really think of them that way. Ruby and Perl... I don't know. I can only call them accents, and I can't put firm words on it, but they make programs that feel similar somehow, and attract developers that work in similar ways.
The end result is, like someone who was beaten regularly by a drill sergeant with that specific Army qu
You don't need to fear a consequence to not desire it, or more strongly, desire not having that consequence.
I feel no fear standing on a curb next to a busy freeway, but I know that if I jump out into traffic, I will likely be killed or maimed. I do not want to be killed or maimed, therefore I don't jump out into traffic no matter how much I don't want to wait to cross the road. It's more than possible to make rational self-preservation decisions, it's done all the time.
A child might need fear to stop from crossing the road or yelling at their boss, but an adult shouldn't. I think maybe you're thinking of a more abstract form of fear than what your brain squeezes out when you get that jolt or nauseous feeling in your stomach. If you feel actual fear at woman's slap, I feel sorry for you.
I have, however, seen fear absolutely destroy people. Just yesterday, I watched someone argue the wrong point here at work because they feared looking dumb--there was no rationality about it, he was flat wrong, and when I talked to him later in a much less antagonistic way than the person he was originally arguing with, he saw it my way. Sometimes, people don't have someone to give them an "out" so they'll let that fear run them right into the ground even when they know they're wrong. I've seen fear of rejection turn people into bitter, lonely people, and fear of failure turn people into people who never try anything.
Finally, being fearless doesn't mean being amoral. I don't not rape everything in sight because I fear the repercussions, I don't rape because it's a horrific thing to do to a person.
Lacking fear would suck when it's time to run from a bear, or stay awake all night to guard against zombies, but honestly ask yourself when the last time that jab in the gut really helped you out in today's society?
I have literally never thought that. Fuck Java, I've hated it since 1996 and if there is a hell for intangibles I hope it burns there.
At least the mods are doing a good job.
You're awfully confident, but I promise you you're wrong.
Here's a starter: You can't store a string in a statically-typed integer variable. Its type is determined at compile time. One language that has support for both concepts, C#, added support for type inference with the "var" keyword, and then later added support for dynamic types with the "dynamic" keyword. C++0x (more like C++0xff amirite) will support type inference, but not dynamic typing. I'll even save you the trouble of looking it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_inference
You should also look up the definition of heuristically. There is no language I know of that will allow any ambiguity in an inferred type--it is a set series of rules, with either a deterministic outcome or a complile-time error. That's not to say they can't use heuristics to make a guess as an optimization, but when you say it's chosen heuristically that implies that it's the base algorithm.
As an end note, I'm being polite because you sound like you might be going into the field, and when people misunderstand basic concepts it makes my job suck, and calling you a willfully ignorant asshole isn't going to help anything. Hopefully learning that you don't know everything will encourage you to not be so certain you understand things you don't, and you'll be more careful in the future so the rest of us aren't stuck cleaning up some horrible mess of code.
Plaid is already used by Herpagonnasyphillaids.
I'm not sure you know what type inference is. I'll give you a hint, it's evaluated at compile-time.
Millennia even.
Where in upstate NY exactly? Because I've flown to Boston from Rochester a number of times, for about $80 each way.
JetBlue or Airtran, I can't remember which one.