Yeah, there's a guy that I work with that apparently averages more than 150 a day... His address is plastered all over usenet and in whois records, on his web pages, etc. He is a member of many online communities (OSS and otherwise) and therefore is an easy target with an address that absolutely cannot change.
He (like me, after seeing how he uses it), uses VM for emacs. If you haven't seen this program, definately check it out. The power of emacs lisp behind an email client is unparalleled. Combine that with SpamAssassin, and most of his spam is caught, combine that with fully (and I mean it) programmable virtual folders, and you pretty much only see the email you want to.
Myself, I don't get a lot of spam. But then again, I use a lot of different addresses with different accounts (and check them seperately) and give out addresses that I don't want to get spam from to *trusted* people (eg. I do not give these addresses to family). Otherwise the next time I get a birthday card in flash it comes with about 30 "enlarge your member" emails.
I know a lot of people who use multiple accounts to give out to different places to track spam -- frankly, I think if you're putting that much effort into tracking where it comes from you're wasting just as much time as the guy who deletes all of his spam. SA is good enough, and will catch most things.
The reality of it is that a very large portion of that spam is not "bannable". They use alternate methods of tracking your ability to receive mail, via HTML mail and the like. Read your email in plain text only -- I have it setup so that when I recieve HTML mail, it goes through a html to text filter, and I get it great. Not to mention that VM tries to use W3 to render html email.... any emacs user knows what that means.
It's really not that hard to prevent spam. You just have to take some time in setting your system up so that you don't have to worry about it.
Encourage other countries to pass similar legislation.
This is the first thing I thought of when I read the parent, too.
Historically, when the U.S. passes something "groundbreaking", other countries follow suit with similar (and often improved from a legal perspective) laws. 9/11 and media legislation (DMCA by association) are excellent examples.
I don't know. I saw a major improvement with -O6 -march=athlonxp...
Granted, it took nearly 4 days to install the system, but it was pretty neat.:)
Gentoo has other advantages that have less to do wtih the "fast" part of the distro. Like the equivalent to BSD ports, for instance, and the runlevel system is pretty damned neat. I have it on smaller machines, unoptimized for sanity's sake. Having pretty much every package be a source compile has a huge amount of advantages.
Since we've had people dedicated to preserving information (more commonly known as scribes and librarians), we've had the opportunity to have our privacy violated. Aren't you guys familiar with history?
I guess my point is, if people want information on you, they're going to get it, no matter what you do. Privacy is a shield that corrects you in the smallest effect -- your actions are violating your privacy in itself.
In other words, using PGP is great, but the person you're sending the message to can just as easily decrypt that message and send it off to anyone they damned well please, and nothing is ever going to flag your 'web of trust' otherwise.
Hiding behind a veil of 'security and privacy' is just a waste of time. I'm not saying it's not needed in certain situations, but I guarantee that you're going to get more privacy out of holding a quiet conversation in a loud, crowded bar than you'll ever get through any other means.
Just be smart and KNOW BETTER, and you'll always know what people know about you.
(Your argument is a fallacy referred to as "Misleading Vividness" -- look it up)
OOP is a design method, and can be done entirely in a procedural context as well.
Large (and I mean LARGE) applications generally fare better from a OOP design.
But it's not a silver bullet. The Linux kernel employs both, and is done in C, a non-OOP language. Sendmail also does it.
We had a large problem with "OOP" in our code, but the fact was, it was not very OO code.
As for the maintaining concept, I've found the exact opposite. When you have a good seperation of bounds (ie, this person works on these classes, this other person works on these, all documented, and another guy actually uses them), OOP really shines. Of course this isn't always possible but if your programmers can still work that concept, it works pretty well.
Poorly designed OOP (I'm guessing by the amount of time it took in your description that the classes weren't designed prior to actual implementation) will be the bane of all things stress-free and a total time-sink... Because there is more design requirement involved. If you just flip open an editor and start writing your class, you're going to have that problem.
Of course, if you're doing roughly the equivalent of writing your pages by hand with a little form processing or whatever, yes, OOP is probably not for you. But then again, you probably shouldn't waste your time writing a ton of code anyways, and just get a few good "webmasters" who can write code too.
Being a good sysadmin is making the most of your time. Part of being a good programmer is understanding the tenents of laziness, that is, never having to do the same thing twice. If only one good thing came out of Larry Wall, his comments on "Laziness, Patience, and Hubris" were probably it.
Sometimes, you have to write programs to streamline work. Often when I was doing system administration, I was writing expect scripts (basically TCL) and PERL, some C (only when I had to, though -- Perl normally does the job with less time).
If you embrace this, you will find that your work will be a lot less tiring.:)
Also, PHP is a "programming" language, but it's really not anything complex. If you're having trouble grasping some concepts -- there are a lot of sites out there that either provide static help, or forums with tons of people willing to help you understand.
And don't forget that the php.net site is full of examples with how to do a lot of things, and the comment system is great on their site. Normally not only do I find a function that I need, but a lot of stuff describing how to do it as well.
If other "open source languages" attacked learning this way, we'd have a lot more talented programmers out there.
Listen, that last comment of his was seriously inflammatory, but you made no attempt to read what he was saying in his original comment at all.
He *was* making a generalization. However, I partially agree with him.
Lets focus on the point:
There are many users that want free software.
However, most of the users on slashdot are educated enough to know that there are alternatives to OSS for 'free' (as in beer) software (piracy, etc).
There are many reasons for free software other than the pure concept of libre.
Some things that I am particularily fond of are eschewing of backwards compatibilty (because older versions are always available), and the fact that I get one hell of a powerful UNIX-like system (and if I were to choose a *BSD, an actual UNIX) out of it.
But those are just a few, and I'm sure a lot of people have different reasons. Some may just want to be 'part of the crowd'. I still use windows, and don't hide it nor am I embarassed of it. It has uses that my OSS-based machines cannot replace.
Maybe if people would get over the rabid fanaticism and understand that they are they key and the lock, both of which have worth together by neither by themselves, we would get somewhere.
To note: I know very few people who actually use linux because it's 'cheap'. Those who have that mindset normally just pirate their microsoft and ms-os-based products.
That was the beauty behind this... This is valid haskell from what I can tell (I haven't worked with the language myself, but we have a guy at work who's been raving about it for a while now).
It looks like a real language from a quick read of the comments in the code. Brainf*ck and and Befunge are in the same categories with this one.
Not to mention, if any of the 'haha it's a joke' posters have realized, whitespace has also used in stgeanography for quite some time... This is not a new trick.
What I thought was original about this joke is that it seems like a joke, but it's actually real (well, ghc will prove that as soon as it's done building). The second link does an even greater job of fooling you.
What do you think of bands like Phish and (formerly) the Grateful Dead that have made a great living off of concerts and the lifestyle that surrounds them?
I have no problem with either economic model, but frankly the RIAA is getting a little obscene with their tactics. I buy my own albums, and these CD's will not work in my MP3-enabled car cd player.
What is going to happen, is I'm just not going to buy those albums. I never cared much for most popular music anyways, but considering the 2 places that I listen to recorded music is in front of my computer and in my car, this is a big problem.
But you're making the assumption that it's the file traders that are keeping me from purchasing the music that I want to buy.
If the RIAA wants stricter copy protection, I'm fine with that. But if my right to copy to make a backup or a duplicate which I, and only I, will use is violated, I will not have a part in that. I will (for obvious reasons) also not buy anything that will not work in my current setup.
I guess my biggest problem with this whole situation is not that the RIAA is trying to protect their work, but that they're denying me the right to USE their work in a lawful fashion. Only they will suffer for that.
Frankly, I think the only true way to institute copyright in this age would be with a governing body which manages who owns and distributes what. These copy-protected CD's are going to be a joke in a few months when 'compatible' cd players start coming out due to demand, or they go away, due to demand. You can't just yank something away that so many people have latched onto and not expect an uprising.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there's a guy that I work with that apparently averages more than 150 a day... His address is plastered all over usenet and in whois records, on his web pages, etc. He is a member of many online communities (OSS and otherwise) and therefore is an easy target with an address that absolutely cannot change.
He (like me, after seeing how he uses it), uses VM for emacs. If you haven't seen this program, definately check it out. The power of emacs lisp behind an email client is unparalleled. Combine that with SpamAssassin, and most of his spam is caught, combine that with fully (and I mean it) programmable virtual folders, and you pretty much only see the email you want to.
Myself, I don't get a lot of spam. But then again, I use a lot of different addresses with different accounts (and check them seperately) and give out addresses that I don't want to get spam from to *trusted* people (eg. I do not give these addresses to family). Otherwise the next time I get a birthday card in flash it comes with about 30 "enlarge your member" emails.
I know a lot of people who use multiple accounts to give out to different places to track spam -- frankly, I think if you're putting that much effort into tracking where it comes from you're wasting just as much time as the guy who deletes all of his spam. SA is good enough, and will catch most things.
The reality of it is that a very large portion of that spam is not "bannable". They use alternate methods of tracking your ability to receive mail, via HTML mail and the like. Read your email in plain text only -- I have it setup so that when I recieve HTML mail, it goes through a html to text filter, and I get it great. Not to mention that VM tries to use W3 to render html email.... any emacs user knows what that means.
It's really not that hard to prevent spam. You just have to take some time in setting your system up so that you don't have to worry about it.
Heh. "Web Bonds".
Encourage other countries to pass similar legislation.
:) IANAL.
This is the first thing I thought of when I read the parent, too.
Historically, when the U.S. passes something "groundbreaking", other countries follow suit with similar (and often improved from a legal perspective) laws. 9/11 and media legislation (DMCA by association) are excellent examples.
At least, that's what I read.
I don't know. I saw a major improvement with -O6 -march=athlonxp...
:)
Granted, it took nearly 4 days to install the system, but it was pretty neat.
Gentoo has other advantages that have less to do wtih the "fast" part of the distro. Like the equivalent to BSD ports, for instance, and the runlevel system is pretty damned neat. I have it on smaller machines, unoptimized for sanity's sake. Having pretty much every package be a source compile has a huge amount of advantages.
That said, I'd never consider it on a server.
2) tell your clients to go to hell, and get some new clients.
You obviously have no clue what the implication of this is.
Perhaps an alternative would be to charge the windows-based businesses more, but still then you're walking into a situation of jeopardy.
You mean the act that was john ashcroft was ordered to write by president bush to (paraphrase) "make sure this doesn't happen again"?
It's a part of the STL.
When I was at OSCON last year, I saw a ton of iBooks and Powerbooks.
I haven't seen one since.
Buy a bad unix from a company that makes a competing product and sign an agreement never to compete with them?
I saw "Score 5, Flamebait" (Bruce Perens, guys? come on!)
Bruce is human just like the rest of us. Not questioning him is just as stupid and reactive as disagreeing with him immediately.
No, heh...
What I was saying, is that your house is not the best place to keep something you prize.
Privacy is a shield that corrects you in the smallest effect -- your actions are violating your privacy in itself.
Oops, that was meant to say "Privacy is a shield that protects...."
Folks, this is really nothing new.
:)
Since we've had people dedicated to preserving information (more commonly known as scribes and librarians), we've had the opportunity to have our privacy violated. Aren't you guys familiar with history?
I guess my point is, if people want information on you, they're going to get it, no matter what you do. Privacy is a shield that corrects you in the smallest effect -- your actions are violating your privacy in itself.
In other words, using PGP is great, but the person you're sending the message to can just as easily decrypt that message and send it off to anyone they damned well please, and nothing is ever going to flag your 'web of trust' otherwise.
Hiding behind a veil of 'security and privacy' is just a waste of time. I'm not saying it's not needed in certain situations, but I guarantee that you're going to get more privacy out of holding a quiet conversation in a loud, crowded bar than you'll ever get through any other means.
Just be smart and KNOW BETTER, and you'll always know what people know about you.
Have a nice day.
(Your argument is a fallacy referred to as "Misleading Vividness" -- look it up)
OOP is a design method, and can be done entirely in a procedural context as well.
Large (and I mean LARGE) applications generally fare better from a OOP design.
But it's not a silver bullet. The Linux kernel employs both, and is done in C, a non-OOP language. Sendmail also does it.
We had a large problem with "OOP" in our code, but the fact was, it was not very OO code.
As for the maintaining concept, I've found the exact opposite. When you have a good seperation of bounds (ie, this person works on these classes, this other person works on these, all documented, and another guy actually uses them), OOP really shines. Of course this isn't always possible but if your programmers can still work that concept, it works pretty well.
Poorly designed OOP (I'm guessing by the amount of time it took in your description that the classes weren't designed prior to actual implementation) will be the bane of all things stress-free and a total time-sink... Because there is more design requirement involved. If you just flip open an editor and start writing your class, you're going to have that problem.
Of course, if you're doing roughly the equivalent of writing your pages by hand with a little form processing or whatever, yes, OOP is probably not for you. But then again, you probably shouldn't waste your time writing a ton of code anyways, and just get a few good "webmasters" who can write code too.
WIMP also stands for "Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers".
I disagree.
:)
Being a good sysadmin is making the most of your time. Part of being a good programmer is understanding the tenents of laziness, that is, never having to do the same thing twice. If only one good thing came out of Larry Wall, his comments on "Laziness, Patience, and Hubris" were probably it.
Sometimes, you have to write programs to streamline work. Often when I was doing system administration, I was writing expect scripts (basically TCL) and PERL, some C (only when I had to, though -- Perl normally does the job with less time).
If you embrace this, you will find that your work will be a lot less tiring.
Also, PHP is a "programming" language, but it's really not anything complex. If you're having trouble grasping some concepts -- there are a lot of sites out there that either provide static help, or forums with tons of people willing to help you understand.
And don't forget that the php.net site is full of examples with how to do a lot of things, and the comment system is great on their site. Normally not only do I find a function that I need, but a lot of stuff describing how to do it as well.
If other "open source languages" attacked learning this way, we'd have a lot more talented programmers out there.
What about integrating a 'search bar' that automatically sends them to MSN search?
Oh wait....
Considering that egcs standed for Experimental GNU Compiler Suite, you might think that it was intentional.
Listen, that last comment of his was seriously inflammatory, but you made no attempt to read what he was saying in his original comment at all.
He *was* making a generalization. However, I partially agree with him.
Lets focus on the point:
There are many users that want free software.
However, most of the users on slashdot are educated enough to know that there are alternatives to OSS for 'free' (as in beer) software (piracy, etc).
There are many reasons for free software other than the pure concept of libre.
Some things that I am particularily fond of are eschewing of backwards compatibilty (because older versions are always available), and the fact that I get one hell of a powerful UNIX-like system (and if I were to choose a *BSD, an actual UNIX) out of it.
But those are just a few, and I'm sure a lot of people have different reasons. Some may just want to be 'part of the crowd'. I still use windows, and don't hide it nor am I embarassed of it. It has uses that my OSS-based machines cannot replace.
Maybe if people would get over the rabid fanaticism and understand that they are they key and the lock, both of which have worth together by neither by themselves, we would get somewhere.
To note: I know very few people who actually use linux because it's 'cheap'. Those who have that mindset normally just pirate their microsoft and ms-os-based products.
yep! then fire up xmms and hit a page with flash.
kill -9 mozilla-bin? yep.
That was the beauty behind this... This is valid haskell from what I can tell (I haven't worked with the language myself, but we have a guy at work who's been raving about it for a while now).
It looks like a real language from a quick read of the comments in the code. Brainf*ck and and Befunge are in the same categories with this one.
Not to mention, if any of the 'haha it's a joke' posters have realized, whitespace has also used in stgeanography for quite some time... This is not a new trick.
What I thought was original about this joke is that it seems like a joke, but it's actually real (well, ghc will prove that as soon as it's done building). The second link does an even greater job of fooling you.
Never got spam for impotence drugs?
Help -> About
Curious,
What do you think of bands like Phish and (formerly) the Grateful Dead that have made a great living off of concerts and the lifestyle that surrounds them?
I have no problem with either economic model, but frankly the RIAA is getting a little obscene with their tactics. I buy my own albums, and these CD's will not work in my MP3-enabled car cd player.
What is going to happen, is I'm just not going to buy those albums. I never cared much for most popular music anyways, but considering the 2 places that I listen to recorded music is in front of my computer and in my car, this is a big problem.
But you're making the assumption that it's the file traders that are keeping me from purchasing the music that I want to buy.
If the RIAA wants stricter copy protection, I'm fine with that. But if my right to copy to make a backup or a duplicate which I, and only I, will use is violated, I will not have a part in that. I will (for obvious reasons) also not buy anything that will not work in my current setup.
I guess my biggest problem with this whole situation is not that the RIAA is trying to protect their work, but that they're denying me the right to USE their work in a lawful fashion. Only they will suffer for that.
Frankly, I think the only true way to institute copyright in this age would be with a governing body which manages who owns and distributes what. These copy-protected CD's are going to be a joke in a few months when 'compatible' cd players start coming out due to demand, or they go away, due to demand. You can't just yank something away that so many people have latched onto and not expect an uprising.
if you were playing counter-strike, it'd be 'ur ghey'