The worst thing about the SRX77 (don't own) and SRX87 (do own), is that the wireless doesn't work under Linux yet. I've tried the suggestion on the Linux-Laptop page, and didn't get anywhere. It's a nice little machine otherwise.
I'm completely comfortable moving around with either keyboard. Instead of memorizing movements, I now memorize the keys themselves, and have possibly moved into having two sets of memorized movements. It's all a matter of what you've trained yourself to do.
Oddly enough, I sometimes look at the keyboard (which is in qwerty) when I'm typing dvorak. I suspect a psychologist might be interested in that:)
Re:User input could solve problems
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
I suspect that Google could use the use of their cache to get some of this data--if you click on the cache, it was probably relevant to the search. Similarly if you click on the category link that they sometimes have.
Well, we are taught that goto is harmful, but like most things, they're only harmful when abused. For instance, one nice thing about Java is labelled continue statements for nested loops. This is just a goto, possibly with some hidden code. Yet, it's extremely useful--otherwise, you'd have to go through convoluted logic to check what you should do.
Trying to do something similar to try {} finally {} with gotos might be a bad idea because it introduces many gotos, but it's incredibly useful for breaking out of nested loops.
Well, I think the original poster was referring to using public access points (or even private ones that you have to pay to use) for work purposes. Just remember to tunnel everything through ssh.
If you're doing this on your own time and with your own money, then computer costs could be a determining factor. If it's a work computer--no problem with money there, but your own money? Maybe you have kids that need new clothes, instead? Or perhaps your wife's birthday is coming up? Or perhaps you just got out of college? Or perhaps you owe money for a mortgage or car loan? Or perhaps you just got laid off? Just because you can't afford to buy a new computer doesn't mean you can't or don't make a living coding.
I believe it's up to the student, usually, to take the initiative and ask to take those kinds of tests, if they're even available, which can often depend on the department, the faculty, etc...
Besides, just because you can do a lot of practical stuff, doesn't mean you'll know the theoretical stuff which may the only thing being tested.
There are rail type systems that don't have conductors. Look at Vancouver, BC, Canada's Skytrain. No conductors, and the trains are fairly neat. They do have roving security and cameras though. Installing a camera in each 'pod' would probably go a long way in preventing vandalism--after all, do conductors really do anything besides conduct?
True, that's what the article says. But "exact duplications of computer code" may simply refer to duplications at a lower level than merely the source code. It seems unlikely that a reporter would make this distinction, unless they were particularly tech savvy. I suspect that in this case, it isn't true, since Eislet mentions things like "commas in the same place...", but even that leaves leeway for things like different variable names being accounted for.
Later on in the article, it talks about similarities, not exact duplications. Eislet himself mentions only "similarities," not duplicates, although he could be talking about only partial duplication.
Well, I assume that the cheating detector looks at intermediate compilation steps, or pseudo compilation steps. This would eliminate the easier ways of fooling a checker. In fact, I would guess it looks at things like number of functions, similar errors in similar functions, how the code gets compiled (unoptimized)--looking at the assembly code or if you have a custom 'cheat compiler', you could look at what modules it outputs.
While there may be many ways to do a thing, real cheaters can't be bothered to understand what code does in order to significantly change things.
Regarding your example, I can interpret it as ironic--particularly if you're not the one being punched or doing the punching. In this case, it might be an example of dramatic or maybe tragic irony.
In any case, the example you give hints at a greater story, which will probably result in more irony (whether the funny or tragic type).
In a culture where advertisements are as much entertainment as the shows to which they are attached, they provide a service like any other entertainment review site.
Exactly. Even reading somebody else's code is a pain--what about reading some compiler's machine code? Even if you disassemble it, you get assembly code; although that might be easier for those who _do_ write programs in assembly, which is another class of craziness, itself. Nevertheless, it looks like an ugly job.
Does that mean that you're running the computation a bunch of times each second, and 99.8% of the 'output' molecules give the right answer? So you could never be 100% sure that you got the right answer?
Actually, I've found that putting ext3 (in/etc/fstab) with no ext3 support will automagically mount as ext2. I've also heard that having something like ext3,ext2 will work, but I've never tried it.
Oh, and to check if you have ext3 you can also use tune2fs -l/dev/blah and look for the has_journal flag in the Filesystem features field.
For your root filesystem, you may also see something like VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem).
Don't do something because you think it will pay well. Money's important, but if you're going to be unhappy, then your code will be crappy, and team morale will suffer and your company will suffer, which means your pay will suffer, or you won't get promoted, or you won't get raises, or you'll be fired. This leads you to hate your job more, and you end up in a little cycle. It probably isn't worth it, although that's a decision that you have to make.
Just a possibly interesting data point. I played Unreal Tournament with 2.4.12-ac5 and 2.4.10 (both from Debian). 2.4.10 always seems to work fine for extended periods of Lan play (as both a client and server), whereas the 2.4.12-ac5 choked after a few games--the swap ended up being nearly all used up.
Of course, this was hardly a scientific test, but I think I'll stick to something proven for now.
Slashdot Mirror
The worst thing about the SRX77 (don't own) and SRX87 (do own), is that the wireless doesn't work under Linux yet. I've tried the suggestion on the Linux-Laptop page, and didn't get anywhere. It's a nice little machine otherwise.
Sapphire on platinum looks fantastic. My wife loves it, and clearly, she said "yes".
I'm completely comfortable moving around with either keyboard. Instead of memorizing movements, I now memorize the keys themselves, and have possibly moved into having two sets of memorized movements. It's all a matter of what you've trained yourself to do.
Well, you can find the map and address details at: http://www.accrc.org/p2.htm
The address details are copied below.
The ACCRC is located at 5725 International BLVD. Building D.
Oakland, CA 94621
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 2167
Oakland CA 94621
Oddly enough, I sometimes look at the keyboard (which is in qwerty) when I'm typing dvorak. I suspect a psychologist might be interested in that :)
I suspect that Google could use the use of their cache to get some of this data--if you click on the cache, it was probably relevant to the search. Similarly if you click on the category link that they sometimes have.
Well, we are taught that goto is harmful, but like most things, they're only harmful when abused. For instance, one nice thing about Java is labelled continue statements for nested loops. This is just a goto, possibly with some hidden code. Yet, it's extremely useful--otherwise, you'd have to go through convoluted logic to check what you should do.
Trying to do something similar to try {} finally {} with gotos might be a bad idea because it introduces many gotos, but it's incredibly useful for breaking out of nested loops.
Well, I think the original poster was referring to using public access points (or even private ones that you have to pay to use) for work purposes. Just remember to tunnel everything through ssh.
If you're doing this on your own time and with your own money, then computer costs could be a determining factor. If it's a work computer--no problem with money there, but your own money? Maybe you have kids that need new clothes, instead? Or perhaps your wife's birthday is coming up? Or perhaps you just got out of college? Or perhaps you owe money for a mortgage or car loan? Or perhaps you just got laid off? Just because you can't afford to buy a new computer doesn't mean you can't or don't make a living coding.
I believe it's up to the student, usually, to take the initiative and ask to take those kinds of tests, if they're even available, which can often depend on the department, the faculty, etc...
Besides, just because you can do a lot of practical stuff, doesn't mean you'll know the theoretical stuff which may the only thing being tested.
There are rail type systems that don't have conductors. Look at Vancouver, BC, Canada's Skytrain. No conductors, and the trains are fairly neat. They do have roving security and cameras though. Installing a camera in each 'pod' would probably go a long way in preventing vandalism--after all, do conductors really do anything besides conduct?
True, that's what the article says. But "exact duplications of computer code" may simply refer to duplications at a lower level than merely the source code. It seems unlikely that a reporter would make this distinction, unless they were particularly tech savvy. I suspect that in this case, it isn't true, since Eislet mentions things like "commas in the same place...", but even that leaves leeway for things like different variable names being accounted for.
Later on in the article, it talks about similarities, not exact duplications. Eislet himself mentions only "similarities," not duplicates, although he could be talking about only partial duplication.
Well, I assume that the cheating detector looks at intermediate compilation steps, or pseudo compilation steps. This would eliminate the easier ways of fooling a checker. In fact, I would guess it looks at things like number of functions, similar errors in similar functions, how the code gets compiled (unoptimized)--looking at the assembly code or if you have a custom 'cheat compiler', you could look at what modules it outputs.
While there may be many ways to do a thing, real cheaters can't be bothered to understand what code does in order to significantly change things.
Regarding your example, I can interpret it as ironic--particularly if you're not the one being punched or doing the punching. In this case, it might be an example of dramatic or maybe tragic irony.
In any case, the example you give hints at a greater story, which will probably result in more irony (whether the funny or tragic type).
In a culture where advertisements are as much entertainment as the shows to which they are attached, they provide a service like any other entertainment review site.
Exactly. Even reading somebody else's code is a pain--what about reading some compiler's machine code? Even if you disassemble it, you get assembly code; although that might be easier for those who _do_ write programs in assembly, which is another class of craziness, itself. Nevertheless, it looks like an ugly job.
http://stephenadler.org/petition/
Regarding the K-12 thing.
Andrew.
Does that mean that you're running the computation a bunch of times each second, and 99.8% of the 'output' molecules give the right answer? So you could never be 100% sure that you got the right answer?
When I first read the headline, I parsed it as millibits. Not a really big deal...
Actually, I've found that putting ext3 (in /etc/fstab) with no ext3 support will automagically mount as ext2. I've also heard that having something like ext3,ext2 will work, but I've never tried it.
/dev/blah and look for the has_journal flag in the Filesystem features field.
Oh, and to check if you have ext3 you can also use tune2fs -l
For your root filesystem, you may also see something like VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem).
Andrew.
Don't do something because you think it will pay well. Money's important, but if you're going to be unhappy, then your code will be crappy, and team morale will suffer and your company will suffer, which means your pay will suffer, or you won't get promoted, or you won't get raises, or you'll be fired. This leads you to hate your job more, and you end up in a little cycle. It probably isn't worth it, although that's a decision that you have to make.
Just a possibly interesting data point. I played Unreal Tournament with 2.4.12-ac5 and 2.4.10 (both from Debian). 2.4.10 always seems to work fine for extended periods of Lan play (as both a client and server), whereas the 2.4.12-ac5 choked after a few games--the swap ended up being nearly all used up.
Of course, this was hardly a scientific test, but I think I'll stick to something proven for now.
check out apolyton.net.
Then why use CDE? It seems like you only need something like FVWM or another lightweight window manager.
And for a great short story about the expression, 'once in a blue moon', check out Connie Willis' "Blued Moon" in her book
Fire Watch [amazon.com].