My post was intended to be humourous, but this may not have been obvious. Anyway, I just completed a course at an Australian university in 2006 that used BlueJ to teach Java, and I thought it was a terrible IDE -- just my experience. Maybe some people like it, but me and my fellow students thought it was so bad we would spend most of our pracs complaining about it.
This is great! Microsoft has done us all a favour by patenting BlueJ's completely horrid interface, so that no developer would ever dare make such a bad IDE again. Now we just need Microsoft to patent Myspace-style web layouts, and they'll have made some serious contributions to society.
... resulting in the vast majority of any given religions followers as basically failing that religons requirements.
I don't know about the requirements of other religions, but a fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements of the old covenant ("religious requirements") through his death and resurrection; everyone, through him, has been set right with God. There is nothing anyone can do to change that (though they can refuse to participate in what God has for them if they want to). Sin still has consequences in this life so this doesn't mean Christians shouldn't care about it, but they can move past the shame and guilt and let God be their strength.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians have not understood this -- they keep trying and failing (as you put it) to meet the artificial requirements they have created. People think it's somehow up to them to "be good" so they will gain God's favour, or that they won't go to "Heaven" (the common understanding of which is a very pagan idea) unless they are "good enough". Christianity actually has no "religious requirements".
The "very annoying" limit is on the number of TCP connections that have been sent a SYN without having yet receieved [sic] an ACK, not on complete sockets. Is it annoying because you frequent dead hosts, or because you are running a port scanner?
It's annoying because when running servers or p2p apps you frequently need more than 10 (or whatever the exact limit is) connections to be made a second.
I realise this was done in an attempt to make zombie boxes less effective, but it is only a disadvantage to legitimate uses. Firstly, there is a patch floating around on the net which can get rid of the limit by changing a few bytes in some system file. A zombie box can patch that automatically and start sending out connections at full speed, whereas a user can't legitimately patch the file since it probably violates their warranty/EULA/whatever. More importantly though, due to the exponential spread of worms, these kind of limits really don't do a lot -- within a couple of hours an effective worm will have touched every host on the net with or without the limit.
Yeah. This works right until somebody asks "how do I get rid of all those \'s that turn up in stuff?" and the answer is "oh, disable magic_quotes_gpc."
If \' are turning up in stuff, then it means the script is doing its own addslashes or mysql_{real_}escape_string and hence wouldn't be vulnerable anyway. Of course, it's still a very bad coding practice, but my point was that not all the pages listed in that search page are vulnerable.
But it is that easy. Back in the original slashdot article concerning the search tool, somebody posted a link to a result page that included a rather large number of php scripts that were vulnerable to SQL injections. Other common flaws should also be easy to search for.
To be fair, I'm sure some of those scripts aren't vulnerable. Some pages would have already checked the $_POST input for sanity before running the SQL. Also, for a while now PHP's default configuration has been to add slashes to $_POST/etc input, so most of these scripts would be safe even if they are poorly written. Hopefully only people who actually know what they're doing will turn that option off.
Shutting stuff down in order to work around a bug is a horrible and very annoying kludge.
Get Session Manager so you can close your browser and restart it again while saving all your open tabs (I usually have about 20 tabs open). If Firefox starts using too much memory, restart it and all your pages will be back as you left them.
That article twisted the meanings of both capitalism and communism.
Communism means complete state ownership of every resource within its reach and thus the impossibility of human action without the authorization of the Central Planning Board; it means the absolute lack of private property, including body ownership and labor.
This is complete FUD. While some communist systems are this totalitarian, most are not. Many allow private property and individual freedom while imposing just a few limits to help make the system work towards its goal. I think the other thing to note is that when people refer to something as "communist", they often mean "socialist" (years of anti-communist propaganda during the Cold war got some people confused I think). Most systems today lie somewhere between socialism and capitalism (at least in an economic sense).
Free market capitalism is not characterized specifically by the existence of companies, but by individuals who, thanks to private property, plan the most efficient way of attaining their ends.
All free market systems are characterized by individual freedom to plan the most efficient way of attaining ends. This is mostly orthogonal to capitalism/socialism. Also, this is nothing to do with private property; borrowed property can be even more efficient in some cases to attain ends.
Capitalism is really about trying to move wealth from "less useful" to "more useful" places. As the case may often be, from poor people to rich people. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this is exactly what Capitalism is about. Private property has nothing to do with it. One should note that the definition of capitalism doesn't apply easily to open source because it's not really about wealth. Open source software breaks a lot of economic assumptions too in that many projects are not subject to market forces (supply/demand, competition, customers, taxes and fees).
Open source is essentially a free market system. But it's not capitalist. I personally think it is a little bit socialist though in that it applies limits onto the free market in order to make the system work better towards its goals. Things like the GPL, by restricting the ways in which you can use the software's source code, make the system arguably better (BSD open source is more like free market libertarianism). What restrictions can you place on a free market to make it more free? To some people this probably sounds stupid. But think about things like anti-trust laws which place restrictions on the free market to make it more free. It's paradoxical in a way, but it does work.
I don't like the DMCA, but at least take the time to read the damned thing before spouting off on it.
I just asked if Sony had violated the DMCA. From your imformative post it seems they have not, so thanks for answering my question. I don't really think that asking a question counts as spouting off though.
Kif: The Holoshed's on the fritz again -- the characters turned real! Zapp: Damn! The last time that happened, I got slapped with three paternity suits!
Well, Firefox attempts to emulate far less of IE's behaviour than Opera does. It seems if there is an IE way, and a W3 way, Firefox will do the W3 behaviour only -- Opera will do both. As a professional web developer I repeatedly end up pulling my hair out due to Opera trying to support too many behaviours at the same time. Often I end up telling my clients that a certain feature won't work in Opera, unless they want to pay me for more hours.
2) The site doesn't block Opera per se, but exhibits "if IE or Netscape" behaviour. Of course Firefox deals with those, as it descends from Netscape. Opera doesn't, and Opera is not IE, either, so it end up in no man's land...
Actually, the real problem with Opera is that it tries to support both W3 DOM standards as well as IE's crazy broken stuff, but then goes on to do some things differently to IE. So, if because IE is broken in some regard and you check for a certain DOM element or function existence to see if it's IE (and act accordingly), Opera, in its attempt to emulate IE, ends up being broken by the hack.
It's hard enough for web developers to put up and deal with IE's crap, for then Opera to come along and get broken by all the hacks because it tries to emulate half of IE's behaviour. Then you have to put in more hacks so that Opera won't get broken by the IE-specific stuff.
its the only one i know that resets itself almost every other week. I regularly have to stop those "Want to be a cop" or "get a date" or "ebay credit here" emails and they come back only 2 weeks later and i again have to retag them as spam.
I find Gmail's spam detection is very good; 99% of mine ends up in the Spam folder.
From there I have a script that runs every 30 minutes to check for new Spam in my Gmail account, and pass it through spamassassin.
Depending on the score assigned to it, my script either:
Deletes the spam permanently (I never see or have to deal with it);
Marks it as read (so I'm not distracted by the unread message count);
Keeps it marked unread (so I should check if it's really spam); or
This benchmark would have been very credible had it not played with the numbers and colors.
This test was never intended to show up on sites like Slashdot. The page was made with Wine's developers in mind to have a place to watch performance differences between wine versions. Nobody is trying to say Wine is better than Windows. It's not supposed to be a 'credible benchmark' for the purposes some of you are using it. The main idea behind it is so that in future versions of wine we can run these tests again and see how the results changed. How we represent the numbers is not important. What's important to us is how the numbers change over time.
To reiterate, this benchmark is really for comparing versions of wine against other versions of wine; it is not intended to be a good or thorough comparison between wine and Windows.
For ray tracing, the sort of balls-to-the-wall systems in this review are the sort of thing you want, but frankly the idea of ending up with yet another giant space-consuming ATX box that sounds like a jet-engine at takeoff is sort of depressing.
I think you'll find that for ray-tracing, the 3d industry uses render farms of lots of less powerful computers. It's cheaper that way.
What I'd really like is a system that's as small and as quiet as possible...
Do what I did. Buy long shielded extension cables for everything and put the boxes in the next room. No more noise. No more heat. Sometimes I feel like my computers aren't even on.
Microsoft does seem to be making an effort to change their image.
And that's about all; Microsoft is all about marketing. They can change their image by putting millions of dollars into ad campaigns, without having to change the way they run their monopoly. It is very expensive from a marketing perspective to change the opinion of anyone that has caught on to what they are really doing behind the scenes with all their OEM contracts and extending of protocols -- so they are only interested in beguiling ignorant people and management-types.
Statements like this that put an arguably misplaced faith in giant multinational monopolies are nothing short of propaganda and free marketing for Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
My post was intended to be humourous, but this may not have been obvious. Anyway, I just completed a course at an Australian university in 2006 that used BlueJ to teach Java, and I thought it was a terrible IDE -- just my experience. Maybe some people like it, but me and my fellow students thought it was so bad we would spend most of our pracs complaining about it.
This is great! Microsoft has done us all a favour by patenting BlueJ's completely horrid interface, so that no developer would ever dare make such a bad IDE again. Now we just need Microsoft to patent Myspace-style web layouts, and they'll have made some serious contributions to society.
I don't know about the requirements of other religions, but a fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements of the old covenant ("religious requirements") through his death and resurrection; everyone, through him, has been set right with God. There is nothing anyone can do to change that (though they can refuse to participate in what God has for them if they want to). Sin still has consequences in this life so this doesn't mean Christians shouldn't care about it, but they can move past the shame and guilt and let God be their strength.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians have not understood this -- they keep trying and failing (as you put it) to meet the artificial requirements they have created. People think it's somehow up to them to "be good" so they will gain God's favour, or that they won't go to "Heaven" (the common understanding of which is a very pagan idea) unless they are "good enough". Christianity actually has no "religious requirements".
It's annoying because when running servers or p2p apps you frequently need more than 10 (or whatever the exact limit is) connections to be made a second.
I realise this was done in an attempt to make zombie boxes less effective, but it is only a disadvantage to legitimate uses. Firstly, there is a patch floating around on the net which can get rid of the limit by changing a few bytes in some system file. A zombie box can patch that automatically and start sending out connections at full speed, whereas a user can't legitimately patch the file since it probably violates their warranty/EULA/whatever. More importantly though, due to the exponential spread of worms, these kind of limits really don't do a lot -- within a couple of hours an effective worm will have touched every host on the net with or without the limit.
They removed support for raw sockets, and introduced a very annoying limit on the number of tcp connections allowed to connect per second.
If \' are turning up in stuff, then it means the script is doing its own addslashes or mysql_{real_}escape_string and hence wouldn't be vulnerable anyway. Of course, it's still a very bad coding practice, but my point was that not all the pages listed in that search page are vulnerable.
To be fair, I'm sure some of those scripts aren't vulnerable. Some pages would have already checked the $_POST input for sanity before running the SQL. Also, for a while now PHP's default configuration has been to add slashes to $_POST/etc input, so most of these scripts would be safe even if they are poorly written. Hopefully only people who actually know what they're doing will turn that option off.
This is complete FUD. While some communist systems are this totalitarian, most are not. Many allow private property and individual freedom while imposing just a few limits to help make the system work towards its goal. I think the other thing to note is that when people refer to something as "communist", they often mean "socialist" (years of anti-communist propaganda during the Cold war got some people confused I think). Most systems today lie somewhere between socialism and capitalism (at least in an economic sense).
All free market systems are characterized by individual freedom to plan the most efficient way of attaining ends. This is mostly orthogonal to capitalism/socialism. Also, this is nothing to do with private property; borrowed property can be even more efficient in some cases to attain ends.
Capitalism is really about trying to move wealth from "less useful" to "more useful" places. As the case may often be, from poor people to rich people. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this is exactly what Capitalism is about. Private property has nothing to do with it. One should note that the definition of capitalism doesn't apply easily to open source because it's not really about wealth. Open source software breaks a lot of economic assumptions too in that many projects are not subject to market forces (supply/demand, competition, customers, taxes and fees).
Open source is essentially a free market system. But it's not capitalist. I personally think it is a little bit socialist though in that it applies limits onto the free market in order to make the system work better towards its goals. Things like the GPL, by restricting the ways in which you can use the software's source code, make the system arguably better (BSD open source is more like free market libertarianism). What restrictions can you place on a free market to make it more free? To some people this probably sounds stupid. But think about things like anti-trust laws which place restrictions on the free market to make it more free. It's paradoxical in a way, but it does work.
I don't like the DMCA, but at least take the time to read the damned thing before spouting off on it.
I just asked if Sony had violated the DMCA. From your imformative post it seems they have not, so thanks for answering my question. I don't really think that asking a question counts as spouting off though.
Somehow, I'm not sure "bootlegged" is the right word for Sony making a copy of this film.
They own the copyright, but would they still be on safe legal ground if they violated the DMCA to make the copy?
Kif: The Holoshed's on the fritz again -- the characters turned real!
Zapp: Damn! The last time that happened, I got slapped with three paternity suits!
As does Firefox...
Well, Firefox attempts to emulate far less of IE's behaviour than Opera does. It seems if there is an IE way, and a W3 way, Firefox will do the W3 behaviour only -- Opera will do both. As a professional web developer I repeatedly end up pulling my hair out due to Opera trying to support too many behaviours at the same time. Often I end up telling my clients that a certain feature won't work in Opera, unless they want to pay me for more hours.
2) The site doesn't block Opera per se, but exhibits "if IE or Netscape" behaviour. Of course Firefox deals with those, as it descends from Netscape. Opera doesn't, and Opera is not IE, either, so it end up in no man's land...
Actually, the real problem with Opera is that it tries to support both W3 DOM standards as well as IE's crazy broken stuff, but then goes on to do some things differently to IE. So, if because IE is broken in some regard and you check for a certain DOM element or function existence to see if it's IE (and act accordingly), Opera, in its attempt to emulate IE, ends up being broken by the hack.
It's hard enough for web developers to put up and deal with IE's crap, for then Opera to come along and get broken by all the hacks because it tries to emulate half of IE's behaviour. Then you have to put in more hacks so that Opera won't get broken by the IE-specific stuff.
I guess that means no Space Jackets for us :(
I find Gmail's spam detection is very good; 99% of mine ends up in the Spam folder.
From there I have a script that runs every 30 minutes to check for new Spam in my Gmail account, and pass it through spamassassin.
Depending on the score assigned to it, my script either:
This benchmark would have been very credible had it not played with the numbers and colors.
This test was never intended to show up on sites like Slashdot. The page was made with Wine's developers in mind to have a place to watch performance differences between wine versions. Nobody is trying to say Wine is better than Windows. It's not supposed to be a 'credible benchmark' for the purposes some of you are using it. The main idea behind it is so that in future versions of wine we can run these tests again and see how the results changed. How we represent the numbers is not important. What's important to us is how the numbers change over time.
To reiterate, this benchmark is really for comparing versions of wine against other versions of wine; it is not intended to be a good or thorough comparison between wine and Windows.
Well you asked the right guy; I'm the whale biologist. Though personally I hate whales. Especially Mushu.
If you're going to steal comments from Previous Articles, you could at least copy the formatting properly. Stop abusing the moderation system.
For ray tracing, the sort of balls-to-the-wall systems in this review are the sort of thing you want, but frankly the idea of ending up with yet another giant space-consuming ATX box that sounds like a jet-engine at takeoff is sort of depressing.
I think you'll find that for ray-tracing, the 3d industry uses render farms of lots of less powerful computers. It's cheaper that way.
What I'd really like is a system that's as small and as quiet as possible...
Do what I did. Buy long shielded extension cables for everything and put the boxes in the next room. No more noise. No more heat. Sometimes I feel like my computers aren't even on.
Microsoft does seem to be making an effort to change their image.
And that's about all; Microsoft is all about marketing. They can change their image by putting millions of dollars into ad campaigns, without having to change the way they run their monopoly. It is very expensive from a marketing perspective to change the opinion of anyone that has caught on to what they are really doing behind the scenes with all their OEM contracts and extending of protocols -- so they are only interested in beguiling ignorant people and management-types.
Statements like this that put an arguably misplaced faith in giant multinational monopolies are nothing short of propaganda and free marketing for Microsoft.
Something like this: