I can come up with at least 4 ways to read that statement, and only one is bad. Maybe you should re-read it a few more times and see what you can come up with.
Sure one guy is a republican and supports their cause. Are you telling me democrats are never in positions of power and don't make speachs to support their cause?
There are enough democrats involved with running Diebold that they will not let fraud against the democrats. I would however be inclined to belive that they would work togather to prevent Greens and Libratarians from getting their votes registered correctly. (except that democrats vs republicans are more Crypts Vs Bloods fudes than anything of substance, so I can't see them working togather like that for long enough to pull it off)
On the countary, those who don't vote are doing a good deed. They know they haven't made an effort to figgure out who is best to rule, and leave that to those who care. What I worry about are people who vote without being concerned. I'd rather an informed person voting democrat despite all democrats being evil than an uninformed voter voting republican. (I lean to the far right as you can tell, the "evil democrat" is humor though)
In history JFK won the 1960 debate on TV but lost on radio, because on TV looks count for more than words. Do really want people who count looks higher than ideas choosing a leader who is making decisions. (forget that in this example both canidates eventially became president and just sole based on what they knew in 1960 not what latter history tells us about them)
If you are informed and vote for who you to belive the best canidate, all good. If you vote for someone based one looks or what others say, there is a problem.
You miss one important point: voters need to verify their receipt, but cannot keep it. Remember the purpose of the seceret ballot is to make sure nobody can win elections by threatening harm against those who vote "wrong". With the seceret baallot if you are threatened you vote however you want and then claim you were one of the two people who voted for the guy doing the threat and everyone else is lieing.
I think there should be a law (though it should never come into play) that if in court someone is asked how they voted, they must be released from their oath and the judge must encourage the witness to give a wrong answer. If the question of how the witness votes comes up a second time, they are released again, and informed how they answered the last time and encouraged to answer different. Sure it is mostly a non-issue, but it is important that we treat ballots as seceret.
Arrrgggg! I learned to type on that. Memories of
2340 DATA 255,56,78,48,87,165,187,255.255,255,255,255,255
Now find the errors in the above line. (hint don't try this unless you have at least an hour to dedicate to several hundred lines of the same, otherwise you don't get the feeling of how boring it is, and might be temped to say the problem is obvious)
Hint 2: the . instead of , should take the longest to find because you should spend most of your time looking for errors in the numbers where most errors are and not some stupid problem like that.
There have been plnety fo instructions on how to take abart atari joysticks and re-write them for left handed use. 4 screws and switch a few wires around.
You obviously have never had opportunity to use a bunch of different stoves, because if you did you would soon notice that the user interface is terribal and requires reading the manual. Fortunatly the manual is printed right next to each knob, because otherwise there would be no way of knowing which knob controled what. On my stove the far left knob controls the left front burner, while on my mom's the far left knob controls the left back burner (or is it the other way around? I've lived here for 2 years and cook all the time yet I often mess this up).
It would be a win in some ways: commutes. It is said that autos make up 60% of spending in the US, and you can cut that all right out with work from hom. My car doesn't have to start tomorrow morning because I don't have to go anywhere on saterday, but monday morning it better start because I have to get to work, so I can use an unreliable beater. (I can walk to the store if I have to)
Now consider gas saved, and the emissions saved as a result of that. Hiways that don't have to be built. Cars that don't have to be built (steel production and the like). The weather days that won't happen, and increassed safety as a result. (A big deal here in Minnesota, where I shouldn't have gone to work almost half the days this month but did anyway because I need my job to live)
Of course what I need to live and what I want to live are completely different. I need food and shelter. I don't need a personal computer, lights, carpet, ice skates, my CD collection, and so on but life wouldn't be the same without them.
That won't work becuase you still owe taxes on that farm land. Mind you I have no idea what taxes on land is in other countries, (other than there is one area of Africa with no national government so presumably no taxes there) but I presume it is much less.
Upper managers often are sleeping while you are one call, but at the CEO level and one step below that isn't the case. CEOs have to be workaholics, or the shareholders fire them. Nothing unuseable about a CEO calling the CFO at the office on 2am sunday morning and getting an answer. (despite no knowledge before hand he is in the office)
Not that CEOs are always doing good useful work, but they are working often. Not a life I recomend anyone live, but they do it.
My guess is he wasn't fired on the spot. He was laid off on the spot, a common practice, meaning they tell you not to come in tommorow, but your official last day isn't for several weeks (at least 2, up to 6 is common and 3 months has happened to little guys). That is not vacation time, but regular pay. He is just working from home for that time, with his job to find a different job. They give you your regular pay checks, and after your time is up send you a check for anything else owed you. In most cases this means all the vacation you haven't used yet plus anything not vested in the various investment plans. (Watch the latter, if you don't handle ir right you can owe a lot in taxes)
Wrong, sometimes re-inventing the wheel is the best choice. Mind you that doesn't mean you start with nothing. However by starting over you get rid of a lot of choices. The wheel from an old buggy worked just fine until the car came along and forced a re-thinking of the wheel because the buggy wheel didn't work right.
In this case though, there is pleny of room for both khtml and gecko (which btw were more concurent develpoment, when khtml first started gecko was a long ways from being useful). Both work on completely different models, and shoe-horning the one into the other makes for ugly code.
When everyone runs the came code, everyone is vulnerable to the same bugs. If a serious bug exists in one you can use the other. And because there are two it forces web designers to give some thought to the right way to design their pages instead of exploiting bugs in one. (which also means that you can't fix bugs because someone is using them)
Don't try to claim that one is taking developers from the other. There are only so many developers that can work on any project before developer communication becomes too much work. In addition the languages and the way things are implimented result in compromises that make some things easy and others hard, so a developer wanting to add some feature may find that one system is better.
Compition is not bad, it is good. Monopolies are bad, and it doesn't matter if it is a web browser that is stagnating, train service, or operating systems.
The Wrights contribution was controled flight, not flying before anyone said it couldn't be done. There were other dare-devils out there flying their homemade "airplanes" as much as 200 feet, before "crashing" to the ground, with no way to tell where they land, at best more or less a straight line. The Wright brothers not only flew, they were able to turn and perdict where they would go. Once that breakthrough was made other engineers could observe why their design worked, and make something better that also got around patents.
Which is the situation I hate the most. I have to support several different OSes in one code stream, and if the OS can do it I have to support big files. That means positionInFile is a 32 bit number on some systems, and 64 bit on others, choosen by a #if.
Of course when I use a variable I don't trust that notation because often enough it is defined wrong. That is I have DWORD ulFoo or some such. Better than what I just discovered: I have a ulHandle used all over, that turns out to be a pointer to a struct cast to a unsigned long. The hungerian notation is absolutely correct (it is a ULONG), while being completely wrong (it is a struct containing a lot of data) - one place where it might be useful and it isn't.
I kleep trying to remind myself not to blame the bad code of others on the notation, but I get the feeling it would be easier to drop the notation and look at the definition when I want to know. Most of the time I don't really care what something is, (If it is an intiger it doesn't matter if it is a long, int, short, byte, or long long, all the math operators work, and I can mix and match) or I need to look anyway. (Sure it is a struct foo, but I need to see the definition of foo to know what the other members are, and that is the only time I care)
I think you just proved the point without meaning to. Everything is layered. I've used most of the above, with just about every combonation of other layers. xemacs works the same no matter if you are running Alpha/FreeBSD/Xfree86/KDE, PPC/Linux/Xfree86/TWM or Sparc/Solaris/XSUN/OLVWM. IT looks very different, but it still works, and if you find a bug in any layer you can switch it out for a different one.
Sure, now care to find me ANYWHERE where I can find well written docs? I've worked with a lot of them lately, and not one set, or even all combined explain the important details I need to do. You see I need to know more than how to call foo() correctly, I also need to know when to call foo(), what to call first, and that foo exists so I don't waste my time re-inventing the wheel. (this last is hard because so much already exists that no person can keep track of it all)
Control X/C/V were choosen because it was decided that it would be extreemly common to need them, so people would learn whatever was choosen, and on a standard keyboard (which back then did not have 101 keys and two control buttons - IIRC it was a mac with one command button) was near the control key. The idea was to make it faster. Those who rarely cut and past will just use the edit menu, those who do it all the time are going for speed so speed should be given at all costs.
FreeBSD has READ ONLY support for UDF. It cannot (yet) write UDF disks. I've read the source. (my day job is currently to write CDs, knowing how freeBSD did things already helped me find other bugs where the standards didn't make sense. Much thanks to the freeBSD guys for figguring it out)
But where you doing PACKET writing? Most likely you were doing something like track at once or disk at once recording, and those mythods are not covered.
The extra address space is nice. However most apps aren't programed to take advantage of 64 bits, and many couldn't benifit from it. Don't expect any improvent in times to do 2+2, because on either both numbers fit into your native data size. Expect massive improvements when adding 6 billion to 6 billion though.
The language is fine. The notation as used in programing (like MS does) is a pain. I have to use it, meaning I'm always making up prefexes for each class and structure I have. I have yet to see any benifit to it. I try to be kind and remember I've only worked on this code for a couple months, but I still hate it.
Re:Internet does not work that way
on
SPF Design Frozen
·
· Score: 1
If your network cannot handle the additional load from this DNS extnetion then you have bigger problems than this extention. DNS is such a tiny amount of traffic, even after this is implimented that it won't appear on your statistics.
You can't do a DOS attack on DNS with email in this way, because DNS is caching. If someone is spamming your domain all over, DNS servers will remember after the first time what you returned last time and just return the cached result. (Unless you have rediculiously low timeouts, but if you do and it DNS now places too much load on your network, you deserve it for your stupidity)
Changing the base we work in isn't a completely bad idea... As likely to happen as the US switching to metric though.
In theory you can switch units in your head in metric. Everyone takes the class in school, and most everyone passes the test proving they can. In real life everyone makes mistakes, so it is best to never switch units. Boeing makes their 747 with everthing measured in mm (for the metric versions) just to prevent mistakes.
Internet does not work that way
on
SPF Design Frozen
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Your points are both invalid.
1) Most mail servers already to a return DNS lookup on the IP of who the sender is. (The recived from lines in the headers) DNS takes so little bandwidth compared to normal activity (even compared to the payload of the email it is tiny, not consider all the web browsing, DNS is trivial)
2)DNS works by asking the root servers who owns a domain. The root servers respond either with the DNS for the domain, or with a no such domain. (Ever hear of Verisign's sitefinder? Verisign runs the root servers, and they started saying anything unowned belonged to them) Essentially no overhead is involved in this.
Not really. Spammers have already forged my email address in the from line. You can check with my mail server, but my email address exists so it will report good.
Don't suggest that hashes of emails sent be saved, while it could be done, my ISP for email is from years ago, everything else is done though a different ISP, including sending email. Basicly you can ask my ISP if I sent something, but they have no way of knowing if I did because none of my outgoing email goes though them.
Last I heard the swiss have started bowing to pressure and reporting to your government what you have. I suppose a lot of money could still buy them off, but for most of us swiss banks no longer shield your money from your governement.
There are a few countries that do still shield your money, but they are not as stable as the Swiss. Half of what the swiss give you is a bank that as been around for a few hundred years and plans to remain open for a few hundred more. (they do however go out of buissness once in a while, I'm not sure what protection you have)
Slashdot Mirror
I can come up with at least 4 ways to read that statement, and only one is bad. Maybe you should re-read it a few more times and see what you can come up with.
Sure one guy is a republican and supports their cause. Are you telling me democrats are never in positions of power and don't make speachs to support their cause?
There are enough democrats involved with running Diebold that they will not let fraud against the democrats. I would however be inclined to belive that they would work togather to prevent Greens and Libratarians from getting their votes registered correctly. (except that democrats vs republicans are more Crypts Vs Bloods fudes than anything of substance, so I can't see them working togather like that for long enough to pull it off)
On the countary, those who don't vote are doing a good deed. They know they haven't made an effort to figgure out who is best to rule, and leave that to those who care. What I worry about are people who vote without being concerned. I'd rather an informed person voting democrat despite all democrats being evil than an uninformed voter voting republican. (I lean to the far right as you can tell, the "evil democrat" is humor though)
In history JFK won the 1960 debate on TV but lost on radio, because on TV looks count for more than words. Do really want people who count looks higher than ideas choosing a leader who is making decisions. (forget that in this example both canidates eventially became president and just sole based on what they knew in 1960 not what latter history tells us about them)
If you are informed and vote for who you to belive the best canidate, all good. If you vote for someone based one looks or what others say, there is a problem.
You miss one important point: voters need to verify their receipt, but cannot keep it. Remember the purpose of the seceret ballot is to make sure nobody can win elections by threatening harm against those who vote "wrong". With the seceret baallot if you are threatened you vote however you want and then claim you were one of the two people who voted for the guy doing the threat and everyone else is lieing.
I think there should be a law (though it should never come into play) that if in court someone is asked how they voted, they must be released from their oath and the judge must encourage the witness to give a wrong answer. If the question of how the witness votes comes up a second time, they are released again, and informed how they answered the last time and encouraged to answer different. Sure it is mostly a non-issue, but it is important that we treat ballots as seceret.
Arrrgggg! I learned to type on that. Memories of
2340 DATA 255,56,78,48,87,165,187,255.255,255,255,255,255
Now find the errors in the above line. (hint don't try this unless you have at least an hour to dedicate to several hundred lines of the same, otherwise you don't get the feeling of how boring it is, and might be temped to say the problem is obvious)
Hint 2: the . instead of , should take the longest to find because you should spend most of your time looking for errors in the numbers where most errors are and not some stupid problem like that.
There have been plnety fo instructions on how to take abart atari joysticks and re-write them for left handed use. 4 screws and switch a few wires around.
You obviously have never had opportunity to use a bunch of different stoves, because if you did you would soon notice that the user interface is terribal and requires reading the manual. Fortunatly the manual is printed right next to each knob, because otherwise there would be no way of knowing which knob controled what. On my stove the far left knob controls the left front burner, while on my mom's the far left knob controls the left back burner (or is it the other way around? I've lived here for 2 years and cook all the time yet I often mess this up).
It would be a win in some ways: commutes. It is said that autos make up 60% of spending in the US, and you can cut that all right out with work from hom. My car doesn't have to start tomorrow morning because I don't have to go anywhere on saterday, but monday morning it better start because I have to get to work, so I can use an unreliable beater. (I can walk to the store if I have to)
Now consider gas saved, and the emissions saved as a result of that. Hiways that don't have to be built. Cars that don't have to be built (steel production and the like). The weather days that won't happen, and increassed safety as a result. (A big deal here in Minnesota, where I shouldn't have gone to work almost half the days this month but did anyway because I need my job to live)
Of course what I need to live and what I want to live are completely different. I need food and shelter. I don't need a personal computer, lights, carpet, ice skates, my CD collection, and so on but life wouldn't be the same without them.
That won't work becuase you still owe taxes on that farm land. Mind you I have no idea what taxes on land is in other countries, (other than there is one area of Africa with no national government so presumably no taxes there) but I presume it is much less.
Upper managers often are sleeping while you are one call, but at the CEO level and one step below that isn't the case. CEOs have to be workaholics, or the shareholders fire them. Nothing unuseable about a CEO calling the CFO at the office on 2am sunday morning and getting an answer. (despite no knowledge before hand he is in the office)
Not that CEOs are always doing good useful work, but they are working often. Not a life I recomend anyone live, but they do it.
My guess is he wasn't fired on the spot. He was laid off on the spot, a common practice, meaning they tell you not to come in tommorow, but your official last day isn't for several weeks (at least 2, up to 6 is common and 3 months has happened to little guys). That is not vacation time, but regular pay. He is just working from home for that time, with his job to find a different job. They give you your regular pay checks, and after your time is up send you a check for anything else owed you. In most cases this means all the vacation you haven't used yet plus anything not vested in the various investment plans. (Watch the latter, if you don't handle ir right you can owe a lot in taxes)
Wrong, sometimes re-inventing the wheel is the best choice. Mind you that doesn't mean you start with nothing. However by starting over you get rid of a lot of choices. The wheel from an old buggy worked just fine until the car came along and forced a re-thinking of the wheel because the buggy wheel didn't work right.
In this case though, there is pleny of room for both khtml and gecko (which btw were more concurent develpoment, when khtml first started gecko was a long ways from being useful). Both work on completely different models, and shoe-horning the one into the other makes for ugly code.
When everyone runs the came code, everyone is vulnerable to the same bugs. If a serious bug exists in one you can use the other. And because there are two it forces web designers to give some thought to the right way to design their pages instead of exploiting bugs in one. (which also means that you can't fix bugs because someone is using them)
Don't try to claim that one is taking developers from the other. There are only so many developers that can work on any project before developer communication becomes too much work. In addition the languages and the way things are implimented result in compromises that make some things easy and others hard, so a developer wanting to add some feature may find that one system is better.
Compition is not bad, it is good. Monopolies are bad, and it doesn't matter if it is a web browser that is stagnating, train service, or operating systems.
The Wrights contribution was controled flight, not flying before anyone said it couldn't be done. There were other dare-devils out there flying their homemade "airplanes" as much as 200 feet, before "crashing" to the ground, with no way to tell where they land, at best more or less a straight line. The Wright brothers not only flew, they were able to turn and perdict where they would go. Once that breakthrough was made other engineers could observe why their design worked, and make something better that also got around patents.
Which is the situation I hate the most. I have to support several different OSes in one code stream, and if the OS can do it I have to support big files. That means positionInFile is a 32 bit number on some systems, and 64 bit on others, choosen by a #if.
Of course when I use a variable I don't trust that notation because often enough it is defined wrong. That is I have DWORD ulFoo or some such. Better than what I just discovered: I have a ulHandle used all over, that turns out to be a pointer to a struct cast to a unsigned long. The hungerian notation is absolutely correct (it is a ULONG), while being completely wrong (it is a struct containing a lot of data) - one place where it might be useful and it isn't.
I kleep trying to remind myself not to blame the bad code of others on the notation, but I get the feeling it would be easier to drop the notation and look at the definition when I want to know. Most of the time I don't really care what something is, (If it is an intiger it doesn't matter if it is a long, int, short, byte, or long long, all the math operators work, and I can mix and match) or I need to look anyway. (Sure it is a struct foo, but I need to see the definition of foo to know what the other members are, and that is the only time I care)
I think you just proved the point without meaning to. Everything is layered. I've used most of the above, with just about every combonation of other layers. xemacs works the same no matter if you are running Alpha/FreeBSD/Xfree86/KDE, PPC/Linux/Xfree86/TWM or Sparc/Solaris/XSUN/OLVWM. IT looks very different, but it still works, and if you find a bug in any layer you can switch it out for a different one.
Sure, now care to find me ANYWHERE where I can find well written docs? I've worked with a lot of them lately, and not one set, or even all combined explain the important details I need to do. You see I need to know more than how to call foo() correctly, I also need to know when to call foo(), what to call first, and that foo exists so I don't waste my time re-inventing the wheel. (this last is hard because so much already exists that no person can keep track of it all)
Control X/C/V were choosen because it was decided that it would be extreemly common to need them, so people would learn whatever was choosen, and on a standard keyboard (which back then did not have 101 keys and two control buttons - IIRC it was a mac with one command button) was near the control key. The idea was to make it faster. Those who rarely cut and past will just use the edit menu, those who do it all the time are going for speed so speed should be given at all costs.
FreeBSD has READ ONLY support for UDF. It cannot (yet) write UDF disks. I've read the source. (my day job is currently to write CDs, knowing how freeBSD did things already helped me find other bugs where the standards didn't make sense. Much thanks to the freeBSD guys for figguring it out)
But where you doing PACKET writing? Most likely you were doing something like track at once or disk at once recording, and those mythods are not covered.
The extra address space is nice. However most apps aren't programed to take advantage of 64 bits, and many couldn't benifit from it. Don't expect any improvent in times to do 2+2, because on either both numbers fit into your native data size. Expect massive improvements when adding 6 billion to 6 billion though.
The language is fine. The notation as used in programing (like MS does) is a pain. I have to use it, meaning I'm always making up prefexes for each class and structure I have. I have yet to see any benifit to it. I try to be kind and remember I've only worked on this code for a couple months, but I still hate it.
If your network cannot handle the additional load from this DNS extnetion then you have bigger problems than this extention. DNS is such a tiny amount of traffic, even after this is implimented that it won't appear on your statistics.
You can't do a DOS attack on DNS with email in this way, because DNS is caching. If someone is spamming your domain all over, DNS servers will remember after the first time what you returned last time and just return the cached result. (Unless you have rediculiously low timeouts, but if you do and it DNS now places too much load on your network, you deserve it for your stupidity)
Changing the base we work in isn't a completely bad idea... As likely to happen as the US switching to metric though.
In theory you can switch units in your head in metric. Everyone takes the class in school, and most everyone passes the test proving they can. In real life everyone makes mistakes, so it is best to never switch units. Boeing makes their 747 with everthing measured in mm (for the metric versions) just to prevent mistakes.
Your points are both invalid.
1) Most mail servers already to a return DNS lookup on the IP of who the sender is. (The recived from lines in the headers) DNS takes so little bandwidth compared to normal activity (even compared to the payload of the email it is tiny, not consider all the web browsing, DNS is trivial)
2)DNS works by asking the root servers who owns a domain. The root servers respond either with the DNS for the domain, or with a no such domain. (Ever hear of Verisign's sitefinder? Verisign runs the root servers, and they started saying anything unowned belonged to them) Essentially no overhead is involved in this.
Not really. Spammers have already forged my email address in the from line. You can check with my mail server, but my email address exists so it will report good.
Don't suggest that hashes of emails sent be saved, while it could be done, my ISP for email is from years ago, everything else is done though a different ISP, including sending email. Basicly you can ask my ISP if I sent something, but they have no way of knowing if I did because none of my outgoing email goes though them.
Last I heard the swiss have started bowing to pressure and reporting to your government what you have. I suppose a lot of money could still buy them off, but for most of us swiss banks no longer shield your money from your governement.
There are a few countries that do still shield your money, but they are not as stable as the Swiss. Half of what the swiss give you is a bank that as been around for a few hundred years and plans to remain open for a few hundred more. (they do however go out of buissness once in a while, I'm not sure what protection you have)