To use a bit of an extreme comparison, protecting my real estate is not a crime, yet I'm pretty sure I'd get into trouble for using an electrified fence, esp. if I didn't properly advertise it.
Every layer of abstraction increases the "power" of the language from a development point of view, allowing developers to do far more than they could with a single line of code, trading off flexibility, and performance.
That's mostly true, but not necessarily so. For example, take Python. One of the nice things it does is making dictionaries (ie, hash maps) piss easy to use. Now, it is true that that can lead to abuse, and make you use dictionaries for everything (and, in fact, much of python is implemented atop its own dictionary system). However, when you do want to write code that uses hash maps extensively, you're unlikely to find a faster implementation of hash maps anywhere.
Of course it's useful. Optimization flags tend to end up becoming a time/space trade-off. Extend that trade-off too far, and you get yourself into problems with not fitting all the code you want in L1 cache (plus bigger binaries, but that's a smaller issue). By using a low level of optimization on most of the code, then inlining and aggressively optimizing the inner-loop type of functions, you get the best of both worlds.
This was done between different vendors, not altogether different architectures. That would demand emulation beneath the virtualization, on at least one machine -- not likely to happen any time soon.
Not weird at all. The posts are being processed as HTML. a newline is just a whitespace, and is rendered as such. The preferred way to post code in/. would be wrapping it in <ecode> tags.
I actually got into shell scripting in a very piecemeal fashion, so ended up learning bits and pieces of grep, awk, sed, while looking at/for specific examples of things I needed. In the end, I found myself capable of putting together scripts with those tools, whereas I still can't program perl if my life depended on it.
It actually is one of the few relatively solid forms of copy protection, provided a large(-ish) part of your game is only meaningful online, preferably hosted by yourself. You just make sure you can only have one instance of the key logged in to the game. Of course, "non-official" servers ruin the deal, but not even the Battle.net emulators ever got all that far in popularity, AFAICT.
I screwed around all my life and I never got AIDS. I smoked all my life, and I never got lung cancer. I drank heavily all my life and I never got cirrhosis. Etc ad nauseum.
Violent games don't turn good kids into murderers. Woop de doo. I don't think even Jack Thompson would honestly answer 'yes' if we asked him whether that could happen (then again, that's a pretty daring statement). Yet, there's almost certainly a correlation between violent kids and violent games, and there might also be a causality relationship there. Unfortunately, this is a rather loaded subject to study, since it gets all the "think of the children" crowd overreacting, and the otherwise peaceful gamers foaming at the mouth over it. Let's not further fan the flames, it's bad enough as it is.
Presumably, he meant that encryption done on the disk itself is transparent to the rest of the computer. What you see is a comparatively slow hard drive, not the existing resources (ie, CPU) being eaten up by the encryption job and low disk throughput. Same all other dedicated controllers: you're offloading processing to a dedicated chip, so, for the purpose of generic programs on the CPU, you can assume there's no performance hit.
Lastly, with your approach, assuming that it is a statement of how you believe things should be, what if someone has pictures of naked 18 year olds, but was duped into thinking they were of 16 year olds and hence kiddie porn. If we're going to only look at the mental state of the perpetrator, should we send him to jail on a totally victimless crime?
The penalty might be smaller, because indeed there was no victim, but the intention to commit a crime -- and acting on that intention -- should definitely count for something. Somebody else posted this on this thread:
Parent had a great point about the labeling of child porn. When I lived in NC, a local prosecutor was caught in a federal child porn sting. The feds sent him an advertisement(snail mail) offering child porn videos. They made it clear that the videos were of minors. He bought himself a conviction when he signed a personal check and mailed in an order.
The principle behind it is the same: no actual child porn was involved at any point in time, yet it was the intent to get it that mattered.
Incidentally, I believe that the penalty for attempted murder shouldn't be lighter than the penalty for murder proper (all else being equal: manslaughter, first degree murder, etc). You shouldn't get off on a lighter sentence because you're a crappy shot, or because your victim is tough as nails.
You have to set the bar somewhere, and then stick to it. Sure, you can be more lenient on edge cases, but you still need to say "the limit is X", or the whole legal system is a farce made out of "fuzzy rules we're kind of supposed to follow".
In particular, when we get to the 17-yo case, it's as simple as this: did you think, in good faith, that she was of age? If yes, you should be home free. We're talking reasonable doubt here. It's reasonable to think a 17-yo is 18 or 19. If it was publicized as kiddie porn in any way, I don't care if she's 15 or day shy of 18. You had the information available, you're screwed.
Reading the Register article, and both linked Daily Gazette articles, only two things are certain: The kid saw the information, and he communicated with the school principal regarding it. We don't know the tone of the communication, we don't know how he acquired the password, we don't know whether he kept a copy of the data, only that he saw it. The district representative saying the kid said "Look what I got" to the principal is hearsay at best, bravado at worst. The articles all read like trying to make the best case possible that the kid is the "villain", yet there is no statement that he did, or intended to do, anything malicious to the effect of blackmail. There is no information that he did anything illegal to acquire the login details themselves. I would think that, if there had been any attempt at foul play, they would've jumped at the opportunity to post them.
Personally, and because of the rather damning tone of the (sparse in details) articles, I'm going with "knee-jerk reaction" myself, as my optimistic approach. The other reasonable alternative is "vilify the kid so people won't notice we cocked up". The kid having actually done anything wrong (as opposed to, eventually, illegal) comes as a distant third.
You are, of course, absolutely right. The problem's in the drivers, and you can't fault the OS for it. However, from a purely utilitarian point of view, people want their computers to work, so "my nVidia card works in Windows but not in Linux" ends up putting Linux under the "doesn't work" header, even if technically it's not a Linux problem.
WP is an interesting experiment in expanding the scientific method by removing the "peer" from "peer-review".
Actually, removing the "peer" from "peer review" is probably the last thing you want to do to describe wikipedia, both in the literal sense (as all submitters are considered peers irrespectively of their meatspace credentials), and in a (social) networking sense: Where the scientific community review process operates as an asynchronous, (comparatively) small scale client-server architecture (with publications being the servers), wikipedia works as a real-time, pure peer-to-peer arrangement.
Let's face it, you can train all you want, but it still takes only a few slashes with a sword to kill you. Battle skill comes in killing the other person before he can kill you. The better you are, the faster you can do that while taking fewer hits.
Within the realm of Pen and Paper RPGs, this is something I've always liked about shadowrun (3rd ed at least). You have a fixed sized life pool, and nothing changes that. You do become tougher, but that only means that you shrug off some of the impact. The system is based on exponentially raising difficulties for rolls, though, so the increase in deadliness from a pistol to a shotgun makes a tough character be able to be almost unfazed by the handgun, but still get pulverized by the shotgun unless he's wearing somewhat tough body armour.
That's about as silly a semantics point as I've ever seen. It's patently obvious that you're supposed to be attracted to people about your age, give or take a bit. When somebody says "if somebody is attracted to children they will likely always be attracted to children", it's obvious we're talking about fully grown adults attracted to young teenagers or pre-teens, not young adults attracted to late 'teens or other such border cases.
Yes, there's a gray area. There always is. But there's also plenty of black and white, which is obviously what the GP was talking about.
Scratch that, it's not an actual superset, but it's easy enough to convert from one to the other, and it's (supposedly) better. The wikipedia article on it does show a good set of features, including a standard for internal connections (like those used in laptops).
And in the same train of thought, I got myself a Bamboo Fun a month or two ago (what can I say? Hobbyist on a student budget), and I've since figured that another important consideration is that you really want to make sure the tablet aspect ratio matches your screen's. You have the option between absolute mode and mouse mode (mouse mode behaves like a mouse, absolute maps the tablet to your screen absolutely), and absolute mode makes a lot more sense when horizontal and vertical movement have the same scale.
there's a difference between Apple saying "We can't justify the R&D costs" (I understand, seeing as the whole of Europe is GSM, and all), and Apple saying "ok, you're paying so we won't try to grab another slice of the market". From what I gathered from reading the court paper, it was the latter, not the former, that happened.
Slashdot Mirror
To use a bit of an extreme comparison, protecting my real estate is not a crime, yet I'm pretty sure I'd get into trouble for using an electrified fence, esp. if I didn't properly advertise it.
Every layer of abstraction increases the "power" of the language from a development point of view, allowing developers to do far more than they could with a single line of code, trading off flexibility, and performance.
That's mostly true, but not necessarily so. For example, take Python. One of the nice things it does is making dictionaries (ie, hash maps) piss easy to use. Now, it is true that that can lead to abuse, and make you use dictionaries for everything (and, in fact, much of python is implemented atop its own dictionary system). However, when you do want to write code that uses hash maps extensively, you're unlikely to find a faster implementation of hash maps anywhere.
Of course it's useful. Optimization flags tend to end up becoming a time/space trade-off. Extend that trade-off too far, and you get yourself into problems with not fitting all the code you want in L1 cache (plus bigger binaries, but that's a smaller issue). By using a low level of optimization on most of the code, then inlining and aggressively optimizing the inner-loop type of functions, you get the best of both worlds.
Dunno about TV shows, but I usually compost my manure by leaving out in a big heap, and making sure it's always moist.
This was done between different vendors, not altogether different architectures. That would demand emulation beneath the virtualization, on at least one machine -- not likely to happen any time soon.
I'll take it you don't eat macaroni then. And that you hated the Macarena. And that you'll steer clear from John Carmack's games. Or...
Troll.
(Full disclaimer: I'm a Mac-loving Vim user)
Not weird at all. The posts are being processed as HTML. a newline is just a whitespace, and is rendered as such. The preferred way to post code in /. would be wrapping it in <ecode> tags.
I actually got into shell scripting in a very piecemeal fashion, so ended up learning bits and pieces of grep, awk, sed, while looking at/for specific examples of things I needed. In the end, I found myself capable of putting together scripts with those tools, whereas I still can't program perl if my life depended on it.
It actually is one of the few relatively solid forms of copy protection, provided a large(-ish) part of your game is only meaningful online, preferably hosted by yourself. You just make sure you can only have one instance of the key logged in to the game. Of course, "non-official" servers ruin the deal, but not even the Battle.net emulators ever got all that far in popularity, AFAICT.
Isn't that ultra-violet music thing what Alex DeLarge was into?
I screwed around all my life and I never got AIDS. I smoked all my life, and I never got lung cancer. I drank heavily all my life and I never got cirrhosis. Etc ad nauseum.
Violent games don't turn good kids into murderers. Woop de doo. I don't think even Jack Thompson would honestly answer 'yes' if we asked him whether that could happen (then again, that's a pretty daring statement). Yet, there's almost certainly a correlation between violent kids and violent games, and there might also be a causality relationship there. Unfortunately, this is a rather loaded subject to study, since it gets all the "think of the children" crowd overreacting, and the otherwise peaceful gamers foaming at the mouth over it. Let's not further fan the flames, it's bad enough as it is.
don't forget the fedora. Archaeologists start with a fedora and a leather jacket too.
Presumably, he meant that encryption done on the disk itself is transparent to the rest of the computer. What you see is a comparatively slow hard drive, not the existing resources (ie, CPU) being eaten up by the encryption job and low disk throughput. Same all other dedicated controllers: you're offloading processing to a dedicated chip, so, for the purpose of generic programs on the CPU, you can assume there's no performance hit.
Lastly, with your approach, assuming that it is a statement of how you believe things should be, what if someone has pictures of naked 18 year olds, but was duped into thinking they were of 16 year olds and hence kiddie porn. If we're going to only look at the mental state of the perpetrator, should we send him to jail on a totally victimless crime?
The penalty might be smaller, because indeed there was no victim, but the intention to commit a crime -- and acting on that intention -- should definitely count for something. Somebody else posted this on this thread:
Parent had a great point about the labeling of child porn. When I lived in NC, a local prosecutor was caught in a federal child porn sting. The feds sent him an advertisement(snail mail) offering child porn videos. They made it clear that the videos were of minors. He bought himself a conviction when he signed a personal check and mailed in an order.
The principle behind it is the same: no actual child porn was involved at any point in time, yet it was the intent to get it that mattered.
Incidentally, I believe that the penalty for attempted murder shouldn't be lighter than the penalty for murder proper (all else being equal: manslaughter, first degree murder, etc). You shouldn't get off on a lighter sentence because you're a crappy shot, or because your victim is tough as nails.
You have to set the bar somewhere, and then stick to it. Sure, you can be more lenient on edge cases, but you still need to say "the limit is X", or the whole legal system is a farce made out of "fuzzy rules we're kind of supposed to follow".
In particular, when we get to the 17-yo case, it's as simple as this: did you think, in good faith, that she was of age? If yes, you should be home free. We're talking reasonable doubt here. It's reasonable to think a 17-yo is 18 or 19. If it was publicized as kiddie porn in any way, I don't care if she's 15 or day shy of 18. You had the information available, you're screwed.
Reading the Register article, and both linked Daily Gazette articles, only two things are certain: The kid saw the information, and he communicated with the school principal regarding it. We don't know the tone of the communication, we don't know how he acquired the password, we don't know whether he kept a copy of the data, only that he saw it. The district representative saying the kid said "Look what I got" to the principal is hearsay at best, bravado at worst. The articles all read like trying to make the best case possible that the kid is the "villain", yet there is no statement that he did, or intended to do, anything malicious to the effect of blackmail. There is no information that he did anything illegal to acquire the login details themselves. I would think that, if there had been any attempt at foul play, they would've jumped at the opportunity to post them.
Personally, and because of the rather damning tone of the (sparse in details) articles, I'm going with "knee-jerk reaction" myself, as my optimistic approach. The other reasonable alternative is "vilify the kid so people won't notice we cocked up". The kid having actually done anything wrong (as opposed to, eventually, illegal) comes as a distant third.
You are, of course, absolutely right. The problem's in the drivers, and you can't fault the OS for it. However, from a purely utilitarian point of view, people want their computers to work, so "my nVidia card works in Windows but not in Linux" ends up putting Linux under the "doesn't work" header, even if technically it's not a Linux problem.
You'd probably get away with cc -x c - and just using ^D to mark EOF.
WP is an interesting experiment in expanding the scientific method by removing the "peer" from "peer-review".
Actually, removing the "peer" from "peer review" is probably the last thing you want to do to describe wikipedia, both in the literal sense (as all submitters are considered peers irrespectively of their meatspace credentials), and in a (social) networking sense: Where the scientific community review process operates as an asynchronous, (comparatively) small scale client-server architecture (with publications being the servers), wikipedia works as a real-time, pure peer-to-peer arrangement.
Let's face it, you can train all you want, but it still takes only a few slashes with a sword to kill you. Battle skill comes in killing the other person before he can kill you. The better you are, the faster you can do that while taking fewer hits.
Within the realm of Pen and Paper RPGs, this is something I've always liked about shadowrun (3rd ed at least). You have a fixed sized life pool, and nothing changes that. You do become tougher, but that only means that you shrug off some of the impact. The system is based on exponentially raising difficulties for rolls, though, so the increase in deadliness from a pistol to a shotgun makes a tough character be able to be almost unfazed by the handgun, but still get pulverized by the shotgun unless he's wearing somewhat tough body armour.
That's about as silly a semantics point as I've ever seen. It's patently obvious that you're supposed to be attracted to people about your age, give or take a bit. When somebody says "if somebody is attracted to children they will likely always be attracted to children", it's obvious we're talking about fully grown adults attracted to young teenagers or pre-teens, not young adults attracted to late 'teens or other such border cases.
Yes, there's a gray area. There always is. But there's also plenty of black and white, which is obviously what the GP was talking about.
Scratch that, it's not an actual superset, but it's easy enough to convert from one to the other, and it's (supposedly) better. The wikipedia article on it does show a good set of features, including a standard for internal connections (like those used in laptops).
Because they did a superset of it, that also happens to be a VESA standard.
And in the same train of thought, I got myself a Bamboo Fun a month or two ago (what can I say? Hobbyist on a student budget), and I've since figured that another important consideration is that you really want to make sure the tablet aspect ratio matches your screen's. You have the option between absolute mode and mouse mode (mouse mode behaves like a mouse, absolute maps the tablet to your screen absolutely), and absolute mode makes a lot more sense when horizontal and vertical movement have the same scale.
there's a difference between Apple saying "We can't justify the R&D costs" (I understand, seeing as the whole of Europe is GSM, and all), and Apple saying "ok, you're paying so we won't try to grab another slice of the market". From what I gathered from reading the court paper, it was the latter, not the former, that happened.