Yes. It's a very respectable source indeed. Also, Christian Science (promoted by Christian Scientists) is entirely different from the science promoted by Christians (who are a different group).
An organization or individual with the power to "fix" the internet would have the power to destroy it or lock it down.
I tend to agree, and dislike the direction the article (summary) seems to be trying to push the underlying facts in. However, there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.
Dude. It may be a few clock cycles more efficient than higher-level code, but that's just horrible. I can't imagine many situations (even embedded) where that could be justified these days. Try something like:
A woman complemented me on my amazing Japanese a few months ago when I used a word I literally learned in my first semester of Japanese study. It bummed me out the rest of the day.
No. YOU bummed yourself out. It's your mind dude; learn to control it. Some Zen will help;)
I'd suggest Git too. But what I really want to know is... why does it matter *which* our project chooses? Surely IDE devs and bugtracker teams could build a decent abstraction layer so that any DVCS would work just fine with them.
I think Pida just spun-off an abstraction layer at least. Hopefully people will get behind it and put an end to these silly DVCS wars once and for all.
Besides, everyone knows language wars are where it's at;)
It obvious that by then scientists will have found some of that string they've been theorising about for years and will be using that for interconnects.
Well, we've got to nip this sort of thing in the bud, otherwise, it's bound to start popping up all over the place, and we certainly don't want to see that happen.
This reminds of the the first ever reply to a post on slashdot...
This is hardly the point. The main point is that people WANT TO and SHOULD be able to publish their information to those they choose, without it being spread to those with interests other than friendship. Normally, the only major leak in this is if you can't trust your friends. Now, there is also a leak in the basic communication infrastructure we're using. People are simply arguing that social networks like facebook have a certain responsibility to be trustworthy, just like friends do.
The other problem is that the information you publish is no longer just that. It can be combined with the information your friends publish, interpolated, and projected back at you, to find out things about you that you DIDN'T publish. For example, if you said you went out with Tina tonight, and Tina said she she went out with you and Joe, and Joe said that he went to a nudist colony tonight, then suddenly you just published that you went to a nudist colony.
a signature can show as false when compared to an authentic one by the presence of a "forger's tremor", because the forger must proceed more slowly to produce the signature than the person to whom it properly belongs.
Which is a totally arbitrary differentiation, considering that a confident, arrogant, or unconcerned forger might well write less hesitantly than a person worried about their handwriting quality, or whether they actually have enough in the bank to cover what they're signing for.
If they can eat without turning on the light, then they simply learned to optimise the unnecessary steps out from the necessary ones. Turning on the light would be about as useful as walking away from the food before walking back to it. If there's a time-penalty involved, then not doing that would simply be better.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's a very respectable source indeed. Also, Christian Science (promoted by Christian Scientists) is entirely different from the science promoted by Christians (who are a different group).
I tend to agree, and dislike the direction the article (summary) seems to be trying to push the underlying facts in. However, there's no reason to think that the internet couldn't be fixed by simply thinking up a compelling, simple, elegant solution.
No, but if everyone thinks the statistics are the opposite way around, then it's definitely valid to point this out.
Yes. But mostly it's not to "make it work"; it's because the customer wants something that is entirely against the original design they asked for.
I believe the requirement you're referring to is this one:
assert(suckiness >= 99.987);
Dude. It may be a few clock cycles more efficient than higher-level code, but that's just horrible. I can't imagine many situations (even embedded) where that could be justified these days. Try something like:
acquire_any(&r1, &r2, &r3);
use_resource(&r1, &r2, &r3);
release_all(&r1, &r2, &r3);
No. YOU bummed yourself out. It's your mind dude; learn to control it. Some Zen will help ;)
I'd suggest Git too. But what I really want to know is... why does it matter *which* our project chooses? Surely IDE devs and bugtracker teams could build a decent abstraction layer so that any DVCS would work just fine with them.
I think Pida just spun-off an abstraction layer at least. Hopefully people will get behind it and put an end to these silly DVCS wars once and for all.
Besides, everyone knows language wars are where it's at ;)
Indeed. There's nothing like a month of inspired coding that fucks up the whole codebase before you realise it won't work, to keep you in a job.
Why not? Can nothing be done to correct this?
Scientists will NEVER find the g-string.
This reminds of the the first ever reply to a post on slashdot...
Wouldn't that be "Suffocates Wolves"?
Who are these new gods of which you speak?
Actually, 100% is also "as big as you can get". It all depends whether you care about gaining support in the niche, or just about the overall volume.
This holds up just fine for me. Perhaps the problem you're having is vocabulary and topic familiarity, rather than validation ;)
This is hardly the point. The main point is that people WANT TO and SHOULD be able to publish their information to those they choose, without it being spread to those with interests other than friendship. Normally, the only major leak in this is if you can't trust your friends. Now, there is also a leak in the basic communication infrastructure we're using. People are simply arguing that social networks like facebook have a certain responsibility to be trustworthy, just like friends do.
The other problem is that the information you publish is no longer just that. It can be combined with the information your friends publish, interpolated, and projected back at you, to find out things about you that you DIDN'T publish. For example, if you said you went out with Tina tonight, and Tina said she she went out with you and Joe, and Joe said that he went to a nudist colony tonight, then suddenly you just published that you went to a nudist colony.
Must be tough having Tourettes.
Err.. hopefully where:
taking_a_crap < X < murder
Hopefully where:
taking_a_crap X murder
But also very true --- in the mobile world at least.
You mean... like a high-power microwave? ;)
Which, as far as most ISPs are concerned, is ideally never.
Which is a totally arbitrary differentiation, considering that a confident, arrogant, or unconcerned forger might well write less hesitantly than a person worried about their handwriting quality, or whether they actually have enough in the bank to cover what they're signing for.
If they can eat without turning on the light, then they simply learned to optimise the unnecessary steps out from the necessary ones. Turning on the light would be about as useful as walking away from the food before walking back to it. If there's a time-penalty involved, then not doing that would simply be better.