In Russia some consider 0 far to warm for serious swimming. The polar bear club often swims at -20. (I do not know the units, I assume C, but they might have been converted)
If anyone needs it, I will witness under oath that my access point is open to everyone intentionally.
As a christian I believe it is my duty to give away that which doesn't cost me. (and in some cases that which costs me, but that is a more complex area)
That would all be true, except you lose RAII in order to gain GC. RAII manages more than just memory as if it was memory. With RAII there is no need to remember to close files, end transactions, and a lot of other overheard because it is done automatically when you get rid of the memory. GC doesn't work well in that model because there is no deterministic way to be sure that something is done before you go to the next step that requires the previous one to finish. (in fact every GC I've heard of doesn't allow this at all, but in theory you could call destructors in the GC so I won't call it an absolute limitation, but it still is a loss)
I'd like to point out that in this day and age most C programmers have heard about the problems and make some effort to prevent them. While programmers in "safe" languages (VB) generally have not heard of these problems, so while they are harder to create, those programmers are also less likely to recognize them. In fact problems in C are generally minor mistakes that are easy (though tedious) to fix, while in the other languages the same problem tends to be major design level issues that are hard to correct.
That depends on what options were limited. If he was prevented from exploiting a bug in the simulation that doesn't exist in real life, then allowing him to exploit the big tilts results.
It is stupid to play out a losing simulation. Once everyone is agreed that one side has won quit. Analyze what went wrong and change things so that you don't lose again. As a tax payer I have no interest who wins the simulation. I do care who wins the war.[1]
When running a simulation it is preferred to make it as hard for your side as you can. You want to know all your weaknesses.
Bugs in the simulation can take many forms. From the simplistic "But Sadam's generals are not smart enough to do that" (which is a dangerous assumption to make), the real world physics are different (a.22 pistol cannot sink a ship), to you are not simulating people right. The last two are likely in this situation. It is unlikely that a bunch of small boats and surround a military ship and get off enough shots to sink them. Small boats generally don't have the firepower (though I have no idea what is meant by small boats, so these might), and ship captins should be shooting back, and one presumes the American forces can sink a lot of enemy boats. Seeing your friends go down tends to make people panic, something else that simulations tend to get wrong.
The article is far too short to draw any conclusions. However we do know that the US won, so any rigging didn't hurt.
[1] I know many are against the war, but that is a different issue. Given that the US is going to war, I want the US to win.
Yes and no. Yes, all current re-entries are hard. It doesn't have to be. You can re-enter with much less g if you are willing to expend a lot of fuel maintaining altitude while going less than orbit speeds.
Currently the only way we could do that is to send lots of fuel up into orbit separately, and then after it is in place launch the mission, and re-fuel in orbit.
In short, it is not practical, but it can be done if we must.
You would be correct except for one small detail: the shuttle has been limited to exactly one orbit for all future missions: ISS. If the mission isn't ISS it doesn't go. So there is no need to worry about changing orbits, or even catching up to the shuttle on some future mission. You just need to stay right next to ISS and you can rescue the shuttle at anytime.
Mind that because ISS is always there you don't really need the ability to get crew home! What you need it the ability to get supplies to ISS in an emergency. 7 astronauts eat more than the 3 ISS can support now. One also presumes that keeping the ISS in the stupid orbit they placed it in also requires more fuel with a shuttle attached. (though I think it would be a good idea to attach all the shuttles to ISS as a disposal method)
If the shuttle cannot reach ISS, no other rescue will work either. (Maybe having an escape capsule in the shuttle, but that wouldn't have saved Challenger)
Websites... Explains your situation well. Websites do not need the more complex interaction of a "double click" that the mac requires because marketing wanted to sell just one button.
Ever watch an old person try to double click? It is hard, the mouse often moves too in the process and the second click registers to the wrong icon. Or they can't physically click fast enough to register a double click. (and they can't change this because you need to double click to launch the settings to change the click speed!)
Unix (Xerox star?) got it right, 3 buttons is easy to learn, and doesn't have the issues of double click.
3 button mice where most common back when the mac was released. However marketing in Apple realized they had a great ad about ease of use when they could claim "You can't push the wrong button". Nevermind the studies have shown that 3 buttons are easy for users to separate, in the ads they can convince you that it is easier. (the hard part is on the screen, you can click on the wrong icon)
The single button mouse forced Apple to come up with the stupid double-click, so they could use the mouse button for two different purposes.
I'll agree that a 50 button mouse is hard to use, but 3 buttons is not.
If that is one client you need to log all calls and bill for "phone support". However be careful about it. You don't need to bill directly for each call. You can bill other services higher because you are doing support.
Record each call, but only bill when there is at least an hours worth of time. Then before you send the bill look at it. If the client is in general good (pays you a lot, doesn't call often) throw it away. If the client is good, but is calling a lot, show them just the time spend on support and suggest that you are going to have to start charging for support. If the client is bad there are options too. You can turn them into a good support contract (high prices because you provide instant answers), or just on demand, but let them know you are billing. You can fire them by telling them not to call anymore. Don't send the first invoice unless you can afford their bad word though. Know what it is though.
If those are three different clients, and just an example of a typical day, you are phone support, charge for it. If that is a rare day, write it off.
Just advice I've collected over the years. I have not done this myself. (I do poorly at the non-technical parts, I know what to do in general, but don't do it) Since I have not used it myself take it with a grain of salt.
There is. Some banks charge for it, but that isn't really significant. Many companies will set things up automatically at no cost even if the bank won't.
Most people in the US have more than one bank. (often his and hers, also small companies only direct deposit into one bank) Then there is your stock broker, IRA account, 401k. Often several of each. After the stock market crash of 1929 it became illegal for banks to handle things like insurance and stocks. (I'm not sure what the exact laws are)
If you use just one bank for everything, there is no problem with your plan. If you have several banks you want something that lets you pay from different banks depending on where the money is.
Note that the big deal is not automatic payment. Those who just want auto-payment sign up with the bank. The big deal is tracking everything. If your finances are simple (one bank, few bills) you wouldn't use this anyway. When your situation is more complex the online solutions fall short.
There is an easy fix: have the president for all the banks get together at the next conference and agree to stop paying the fee. When one bank refuses they have no power. However when all banks stop working and tell the customer to call Intuit, Intuit is forced to change their ways.
Its just that banks are willing to fall over that allows Intuit to get away with this.
As the others mentioned, there are open source solutions that would work too, and might be a better idea.
Uh, cell phones are encrypted. Or rather digital cell phones are. However the encryption isn't strong, and has been broken. It is however strong enough that in practice nobody breaks it.
Old analog cell phones were not encrypted, it was a common problem to have them "cloned" (where someone programs their phone with your number), or just have someone listen in.
I have several automatic payments that do not go in via credit card. My gas bill is auto-deduction from my checking account. I think I can trust them with that right. (anyone who processes my check from snail mail can read the account number off as they enter my info, so I'm more secure this way as less people access my info)
When you consider the hassle and of bounced checks, late payments, clerk wages, and collections; a auto payment from a credit card is often cheaper. With a credit card payment they get my money on the due date, and they can count on it. With a check they have to hope that it doesn't bounce. They have to enter all the information.
I've work for big companies that didn't play the blame game too much, and small companies that did all the time. I miss working for the big company because there the processes worked (we had a test department!), and action was taken before things became a crisis if possible. If there was no way to avoid a crisis everyone knew it was coming long before and was at least prepared. Well up until the end when they closed down, so not all was well.
In all cases it is upper management who sets the tone. When upper management refuses to play heavy politics, the lower ranks don't have much to play with. When upper management starts playing those games everyone must. (I ignore them anyway, but I'm sometimes lucky to have my job because of that)
Well, if artificial eyes work that is great. Last I checked those disbled from birth were unable to adapt to such things latter in life, while those who once had the ability adapted easily to replacement technology. I don't know of any artificial eyes, but I know some deaf people who have had implants, they are worthless to those deaf from birth, while useful for those who lost hearing latter in life. If you can make technology useful for everyone great, but until then I'd prefer to work on a much easier, and solvable problem.
Why work to replace the dog/cane? They are tested and work well. Better to first work on where they are limited, and once that is working perhaps we add abilities to replace the cane/dog - if we can do better, which isn't a given.
I'm not blind to technology. I want my money well spent. Replacing the dog/cane with a device that does the same thing but provides no location isn't a good use of research money. Supplementing the dog/cane with a device that can tell the blind where they are and how to get to the goal is useful and a good use of research money.
I don't object to someone working on a cane/dog replacement, but the priority should be lower because that technology is well tested. I don't object to artificial eyes (even if not everyone can use them).
Exactly. Walmart already has carts with motors for disabled shoppers. They also have a "greeter" by the door who can easily recognize blind people entering the store and direct them to this special cart.
This is the sort of thing companies like Walmart love. It costs very little, and looks very good even to those who will never need it.
The blind face two distinct but related problems: finding the destination, and getting there safely. A dog or cane is an excellent tool to get to the destination safely (in part because sighted people recognize them and give extra space), but they do nothing for the other problem.
I've helped several blind people find the location of something they were 10 feet from. They were pretty sure they were close, but didn't know where to go next. Their dog would keep them on the sidewalk, but had no idea that they wanted to enter the building not go past it.
I studied this issue (about 10 years ago), and at that time all technology to solve the second problem was much worse than a dog or a cane. However there was promise in technology to solve the first problem. In fact I said at the time (and other experts agreed) that there was unlikely to ever be technology that would replace a dog/cane. However technology was very likely to supplement those tools to help the blind get to their destination.
Linux is more secure than MS Windows by default. True an idiot can make linux insecure, but they can do worse to Ms Windows faster.
It is also easier to run Linux fully secure. Every company I've ever worked for has allowed users admin access to their local machines. The smarter ones make admin a separate account that you don't use normally, but they give it to everyone. Every company I've worked with that is Unix based (that is there is a sysadmin who does the Unix computers as opposed to random installs) does not give most users root. They will often configure sudo so you can do those things that you personally need to do. (configure the network on your laptop for example)
There is a lot of Ms Windows software that cannot even run unless you are administrator. Nearly all Unix software does not have this limitation. In fact even software that you would expect to require root (backup) often will work just fine without root, but with less abilities.
I'll agree that Ms Windows ACL support is better than the default linux permissions, but ACLs exist in linux for those who need it.
Your point is only partially valid, and some of that is in theory only. In practice linux is much safer than Ms Windows. There are some faults, and idiots can screw it up, but overall it is doing better.
P.S. My desktop has been Unix for years. I've sometimes been forced to run Windows at work, but at home it is Unix. Linux is ready for most desktops.
Most of those scans are attacking a known default password on some Asian linux distribution. Nobody with intelligence would attack from their home machine once they have a cracked target to hide their foot steps behind. (though I'm not sure I would call the type of person attacking using only default passwords intelligent)
While at the same times linux has grown market share! I have to argue that the crackers are giving up on linux because it is so much easier to break Ms Windows. In short, linux is no longer targeted because there is less to target, while there is still plenty to target in Ms Windows.
Don't set your sights too high. Try to keep yourself in a position where you can hand your assignment in at any time.
Tetris is often recommended as a first game because it is fairly simple yet it covers most of the hard parts about writing a game. Once you have it working put in an AI that trys to choose the best/worse piece to fall next.
Don't overlook modifying a current game. Battle for Wesnoth is open source. It is fairly easy to plug a new AI in, and they could use one. In this way you can say you helped without having to do all the work.
Ahh memories. We were allowed access to the Dos prompt in school. Several idiots made a program that looked just like the novel login screen, but then printed some "Got ya" message when you tried to log in. I always assumed they were running a password logger when that happened to me, hit control-C, and then deleted all their files (which included their English papers due the next day...).
Slashdot Mirror
In Russia some consider 0 far to warm for serious swimming. The polar bear club often swims at -20. (I do not know the units, I assume C, but they might have been converted)
If anyone needs it, I will witness under oath that my access point is open to everyone intentionally.
As a christian I believe it is my duty to give away that which doesn't cost me. (and in some cases that which costs me, but that is a more complex area)
That would all be true, except you lose RAII in order to gain GC. RAII manages more than just memory as if it was memory. With RAII there is no need to remember to close files, end transactions, and a lot of other overheard because it is done automatically when you get rid of the memory. GC doesn't work well in that model because there is no deterministic way to be sure that something is done before you go to the next step that requires the previous one to finish. (in fact every GC I've heard of doesn't allow this at all, but in theory you could call destructors in the GC so I won't call it an absolute limitation, but it still is a loss)
I'd like to point out that in this day and age most C programmers have heard about the problems and make some effort to prevent them. While programmers in "safe" languages (VB) generally have not heard of these problems, so while they are harder to create, those programmers are also less likely to recognize them. In fact problems in C are generally minor mistakes that are easy (though tedious) to fix, while in the other languages the same problem tends to be major design level issues that are hard to correct.
That depends on what options were limited. If he was prevented from exploiting a bug in the simulation that doesn't exist in real life, then allowing him to exploit the big tilts results.
It is stupid to play out a losing simulation. Once everyone is agreed that one side has won quit. Analyze what went wrong and change things so that you don't lose again. As a tax payer I have no interest who wins the simulation. I do care who wins the war.[1]
When running a simulation it is preferred to make it as hard for your side as you can. You want to know all your weaknesses.
Bugs in the simulation can take many forms. From the simplistic "But Sadam's generals are not smart enough to do that" (which is a dangerous assumption to make), the real world physics are different (a .22 pistol cannot sink a ship), to you are not simulating people right. The last two are likely in this situation. It is unlikely that a bunch of small boats and surround a military ship and get off enough shots to sink them. Small boats generally don't have the firepower (though I have no idea what is meant by small boats, so these might), and ship captins should be shooting back, and one presumes the American forces can sink a lot of enemy boats. Seeing your friends go down tends to make people panic, something else that simulations tend to get wrong.
The article is far too short to draw any conclusions. However we do know that the US won, so any rigging didn't hurt.
[1] I know many are against the war, but that is a different issue. Given that the US is going to war, I want the US to win.
I hope it does come about. Imagine, Povray quality GTA. Everything looks real, not like some simulation.
Of course the system requirements will make Doom 3 look simple. Multiple 64 bit processors, lots of memory. Lots of bandwidth inside the machine.
It would look nice though.
As I recall the meter on those things had two positions: bad and worse. I do recall my dad taking a bunch of tubes to k-mart back when I was a kid.
Yes and no. Yes, all current re-entries are hard. It doesn't have to be. You can re-enter with much less g if you are willing to expend a lot of fuel maintaining altitude while going less than orbit speeds.
Currently the only way we could do that is to send lots of fuel up into orbit separately, and then after it is in place launch the mission, and re-fuel in orbit.
In short, it is not practical, but it can be done if we must.
You would be correct except for one small detail: the shuttle has been limited to exactly one orbit for all future missions: ISS. If the mission isn't ISS it doesn't go. So there is no need to worry about changing orbits, or even catching up to the shuttle on some future mission. You just need to stay right next to ISS and you can rescue the shuttle at anytime.
Mind that because ISS is always there you don't really need the ability to get crew home! What you need it the ability to get supplies to ISS in an emergency. 7 astronauts eat more than the 3 ISS can support now. One also presumes that keeping the ISS in the stupid orbit they placed it in also requires more fuel with a shuttle attached. (though I think it would be a good idea to attach all the shuttles to ISS as a disposal method)
If the shuttle cannot reach ISS, no other rescue will work either. (Maybe having an escape capsule in the shuttle, but that wouldn't have saved Challenger)
Websites... Explains your situation well. Websites do not need the more complex interaction of a "double click" that the mac requires because marketing wanted to sell just one button.
Ever watch an old person try to double click? It is hard, the mouse often moves too in the process and the second click registers to the wrong icon. Or they can't physically click fast enough to register a double click. (and they can't change this because you need to double click to launch the settings to change the click speed!)
Unix (Xerox star?) got it right, 3 buttons is easy to learn, and doesn't have the issues of double click.
3 button mice where most common back when the mac was released. However marketing in Apple realized they had a great ad about ease of use when they could claim "You can't push the wrong button". Nevermind the studies have shown that 3 buttons are easy for users to separate, in the ads they can convince you that it is easier. (the hard part is on the screen, you can click on the wrong icon)
The single button mouse forced Apple to come up with the stupid double-click, so they could use the mouse button for two different purposes.
I'll agree that a 50 button mouse is hard to use, but 3 buttons is not.
If that is one client you need to log all calls and bill for "phone support". However be careful about it. You don't need to bill directly for each call. You can bill other services higher because you are doing support.
Record each call, but only bill when there is at least an hours worth of time. Then before you send the bill look at it. If the client is in general good (pays you a lot, doesn't call often) throw it away. If the client is good, but is calling a lot, show them just the time spend on support and suggest that you are going to have to start charging for support. If the client is bad there are options too. You can turn them into a good support contract (high prices because you provide instant answers), or just on demand, but let them know you are billing. You can fire them by telling them not to call anymore. Don't send the first invoice unless you can afford their bad word though. Know what it is though.
If those are three different clients, and just an example of a typical day, you are phone support, charge for it. If that is a rare day, write it off.
Just advice I've collected over the years. I have not done this myself. (I do poorly at the non-technical parts, I know what to do in general, but don't do it) Since I have not used it myself take it with a grain of salt.
There is. Some banks charge for it, but that isn't really significant. Many companies will set things up automatically at no cost even if the bank won't.
Most people in the US have more than one bank. (often his and hers, also small companies only direct deposit into one bank) Then there is your stock broker, IRA account, 401k. Often several of each. After the stock market crash of 1929 it became illegal for banks to handle things like insurance and stocks. (I'm not sure what the exact laws are)
If you use just one bank for everything, there is no problem with your plan. If you have several banks you want something that lets you pay from different banks depending on where the money is.
Note that the big deal is not automatic payment. Those who just want auto-payment sign up with the bank. The big deal is tracking everything. If your finances are simple (one bank, few bills) you wouldn't use this anyway. When your situation is more complex the online solutions fall short.
There is an easy fix: have the president for all the banks get together at the next conference and agree to stop paying the fee. When one bank refuses they have no power. However when all banks stop working and tell the customer to call Intuit, Intuit is forced to change their ways.
Its just that banks are willing to fall over that allows Intuit to get away with this.
As the others mentioned, there are open source solutions that would work too, and might be a better idea.
Uh, cell phones are encrypted. Or rather digital cell phones are. However the encryption isn't strong, and has been broken. It is however strong enough that in practice nobody breaks it.
Old analog cell phones were not encrypted, it was a common problem to have them "cloned" (where someone programs their phone with your number), or just have someone listen in.
Yeah, people pay it.
I have several automatic payments that do not go in via credit card. My gas bill is auto-deduction from my checking account. I think I can trust them with that right. (anyone who processes my check from snail mail can read the account number off as they enter my info, so I'm more secure this way as less people access my info)
When you consider the hassle and of bounced checks, late payments, clerk wages, and collections; a auto payment from a credit card is often cheaper. With a credit card payment they get my money on the due date, and they can count on it. With a check they have to hope that it doesn't bounce. They have to enter all the information.
I've work for big companies that didn't play the blame game too much, and small companies that did all the time. I miss working for the big company because there the processes worked (we had a test department!), and action was taken before things became a crisis if possible. If there was no way to avoid a crisis everyone knew it was coming long before and was at least prepared. Well up until the end when they closed down, so not all was well.
In all cases it is upper management who sets the tone. When upper management refuses to play heavy politics, the lower ranks don't have much to play with. When upper management starts playing those games everyone must. (I ignore them anyway, but I'm sometimes lucky to have my job because of that)
Well, if artificial eyes work that is great. Last I checked those disbled from birth were unable to adapt to such things latter in life, while those who once had the ability adapted easily to replacement technology. I don't know of any artificial eyes, but I know some deaf people who have had implants, they are worthless to those deaf from birth, while useful for those who lost hearing latter in life. If you can make technology useful for everyone great, but until then I'd prefer to work on a much easier, and solvable problem.
Why work to replace the dog/cane? They are tested and work well. Better to first work on where they are limited, and once that is working perhaps we add abilities to replace the cane/dog - if we can do better, which isn't a given.
I'm not blind to technology. I want my money well spent. Replacing the dog/cane with a device that does the same thing but provides no location isn't a good use of research money. Supplementing the dog/cane with a device that can tell the blind where they are and how to get to the goal is useful and a good use of research money.
I don't object to someone working on a cane/dog replacement, but the priority should be lower because that technology is well tested. I don't object to artificial eyes (even if not everyone can use them).
Exactly. Walmart already has carts with motors for disabled shoppers. They also have a "greeter" by the door who can easily recognize blind people entering the store and direct them to this special cart.
This is the sort of thing companies like Walmart love. It costs very little, and looks very good even to those who will never need it.
The blind face two distinct but related problems: finding the destination, and getting there safely. A dog or cane is an excellent tool to get to the destination safely (in part because sighted people recognize them and give extra space), but they do nothing for the other problem.
I've helped several blind people find the location of something they were 10 feet from. They were pretty sure they were close, but didn't know where to go next. Their dog would keep them on the sidewalk, but had no idea that they wanted to enter the building not go past it.
I studied this issue (about 10 years ago), and at that time all technology to solve the second problem was much worse than a dog or a cane. However there was promise in technology to solve the first problem. In fact I said at the time (and other experts agreed) that there was unlikely to ever be technology that would replace a dog/cane. However technology was very likely to supplement those tools to help the blind get to their destination.
Linux is more secure than MS Windows by default. True an idiot can make linux insecure, but they can do worse to Ms Windows faster.
It is also easier to run Linux fully secure. Every company I've ever worked for has allowed users admin access to their local machines. The smarter ones make admin a separate account that you don't use normally, but they give it to everyone. Every company I've worked with that is Unix based (that is there is a sysadmin who does the Unix computers as opposed to random installs) does not give most users root. They will often configure sudo so you can do those things that you personally need to do. (configure the network on your laptop for example)
There is a lot of Ms Windows software that cannot even run unless you are administrator. Nearly all Unix software does not have this limitation. In fact even software that you would expect to require root (backup) often will work just fine without root, but with less abilities.
I'll agree that Ms Windows ACL support is better than the default linux permissions, but ACLs exist in linux for those who need it.
Your point is only partially valid, and some of that is in theory only. In practice linux is much safer than Ms Windows. There are some faults, and idiots can screw it up, but overall it is doing better.
P.S. My desktop has been Unix for years. I've sometimes been forced to run Windows at work, but at home it is Unix. Linux is ready for most desktops.
Most of those scans are attacking a known default password on some Asian linux distribution. Nobody with intelligence would attack from their home machine once they have a cracked target to hide their foot steps behind. (though I'm not sure I would call the type of person attacking using only default passwords intelligent)
While at the same times linux has grown market share! I have to argue that the crackers are giving up on linux because it is so much easier to break Ms Windows. In short, linux is no longer targeted because there is less to target, while there is still plenty to target in Ms Windows.
Don't set your sights too high. Try to keep yourself in a position where you can hand your assignment in at any time.
Tetris is often recommended as a first game because it is fairly simple yet it covers most of the hard parts about writing a game. Once you have it working put in an AI that trys to choose the best/worse piece to fall next.
Don't overlook modifying a current game. Battle for Wesnoth is open source. It is fairly easy to plug a new AI in, and they could use one. In this way you can say you helped without having to do all the work.
Ahh memories. We were allowed access to the Dos prompt in school. Several idiots made a program that looked just like the novel login screen, but then printed some "Got ya" message when you tried to log in. I always assumed they were running a password logger when that happened to me, hit control-C, and then deleted all their files (which included their English papers due the next day...).