As an ex-laser-freak, I note that the physics and math in the background of "Real Genius" -- the stuff written on chalkboards and equipment on the benches -- was all good science.
Given that it was filmed at Caltech, they probably just used whatever homework and equipment the students there were working on at the time (as long as it looked "sciency" enough).
I usually do a little reconnaissance on the files that I'm going to be searching through (I don't want to deal with some joker naming a file "-rf" or something like that), but I had forgotten about those options - thanks.
I prefer to use the xargs version of that line where I can get away with it:
find . -name *.cpp -print | xargs grep someFn
especially if find reports a LOT of file names, since the backtick syntax can often run afoul of any command-line length limits that the shell might have after it has been expanded.
As far as I know, xargs doesn't have any such limit (other than virtual memory) when it is constructing the command-line that it is going to execute.
Sounds like a good way for the "ruling class" to create a bunch of slaves (which would compete against non-criminals looking for work at a decent wage).
Good point - it might have been more win-win for everyone if the salesperson bought a round for everyone of his own company's product from the bartender.
Hmmm, I think I've been forced to work on some code where the author used tentacle hentai for inspiration - at least judging by how violated I felt for days afterward.
This is military procurement you're talking about. Even if you could manufacture the damn things at $10/bomb, they'd still be sold to the military at a net 1000x markup (not including any under-the-counter kickbacks).
Ah, I guess you believe that when you place your hand on the surface of your desk, the atomic nuclei of the molecules in your hand are actually touching the atomic nuclei of the molecules that the desk is made out of.
I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the charged particles that those atoms are made out of, and that they wouldn't use the electromagnetic force to interact with each other.
There surely is stupidity here, but I'd look more to your own ignorance than with the grandparent's commentary.
It requires a little more skill & effort to create a decent-performing firearm than it does to distill something alcoholic (although maybe not something that tastes good:-).
If my proposed scenario were implemented, I don't doubt there would be a few "Saturday Night Specials" running around, but their power & accuracy would be quite bad compared to existing weapons, and it would be much less likely to run into someone with a fully-automatic weapon or even a weapon which could be reloaded easily & reliably. It takes a decent craftsman to create a decent weapon, and if the government were running around vigorously repressing such skills, I'm pretty sure they could make decent weapons quite rare.
As I mentioned before, it's just a thought experiment though - we've already got so many fairly high-quality weapons roaming around (for hunting if nothing else) that even if you completely shut down _all_ arms manufacturers in the world, there'd be plenty of guns available for decades before the scenario I was suggesting would even have a remote chance of occuring.
If we criminalize guns then only criminals will have them.
Not necessarily true, if you try to severely eliminate the existence of guns to begin with (including for the use of law enforcement). (I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, just pointing out a possible way of limiting gun access all the way around.) As long as the gun manufacturers keep pumping the firearms out by the millions and distributing them with a great many loopholes in oversight, however, enforcement of gun control laws is bound to be pretty useless.
In cases where the Courts have decided that the Fed has the power to regulate something, Fed laws override State laws - so your point is irrelevant (unless you're talking about the situation where the Fed hasn't decided to regulate something, but the state(s) have).
What part of "The Courts decide what is Constitutional, not you." are you having difficulty understanding?
Unless you are one of those judges, or are in a position where you can influence the reasoning of one of those judges (and I doubt many of them read Slashdot), it doesn't matter diddly-squat what YOU think is Constitutional.
It would be interesting to see if a major HERF gun or a massive Van de Graaf generator would have an effect against such micromachines. Or maybe just a continual heavy rain:-)
In the context of a discussion about "Peak Oil", I am referring specifically to a source of oil.
Biodiesel and/or thermal depolymerisation might qualify as a "sustainable" oil-creating process as long as the net costs to create new oil through those processes are low enough to satisfy a significant part of our society's oil hunger, otherwise we will experience the full force of societal change that the Peak Oil theory is predicting.
At the moment, I don't believe our alternative energy infrastructure is large or efficient enough to blunt the effects that a worst-case Peak Oil scenario will have on our society.
The "Peak Oil" theory describes the effects of new technology as well - the only thing that new technology that does is put off the "Peak" a little longer (and uses up R&D resources that could've been directed toward a sustainable energy infrastructure).
Unless we discover a source of oil that is infinitely-renewing (and renewed in a time period that is useful to our society), we _will_ eventually hit the "Peak Oil" doom-and-gloom scenario. It's inevitable no matter what kind of oil-recovery technology keeps on getting developed.
I find it laughable that anyone would think that a developer whose mind is so geared towards developing a certain section of code would be able to objectively analyze and test their own code, much less write a test suite to cover the new code effectively.
That's why the developer is supposed to write the unit test _before_ they write the code they are actually testing. That way they can be reasonably sure that the unit test doesn't depend on the implementation details of the new code, plus it provides a strong unambiguous target for the new code (must compile, run & make the unit test(s) pass before it can be checked in).
The secret, of course, is that we have a highly professional Idiot-Testing Institute, where highly-qualified idiots are recruited ([insert partisan joke here]) and receive additional training to make sure they reach the highest standards of idiocy.
Once they have failed all of the tests, they are allowed unrestricted access to the machines acting as both voters and election supervisors, and the results are carefully analysed to determine whether the machine can be genuinely labeled as "idiotproof".
As a special bonus, this testing procedure does not cost the public a cent - the graduates of the idiot-training program can often be convinced that they need to pay for the training themselves. In addition, once they have been fully trained, it is easy to sell the services of these professional idiots to the various political parties and government election boards.
I don't trust _any_ candidate to provide useful information, with or without public funding.
I'd much prefer that public funding be used to _thoroughly_ investigate every candidate, build a nice dossier of every single bit of public information that is available about them (especially their voting records, any news articles, any court records, etc) & make it available for public consumption.
Fat chance of any politician allowing that much transparency about themselves though - they're much more comfortable raping the privacy of the common citizen & hiding behind facades than having a bright light shining down on themselves.
Good grief, why is it that the people who seem to have the most tenuous grasp on logic and debate also seem to think that they're better at it than anyone else?
1. Re: doesn't justify stealing from them
It's copying, not stealing. There's a reason why there's a whole different set of laws to handle IP violations.
2. Re: Reasoning like you have just used are a large part of why the media cartels are so aggressively pushing DRM.
No, media cartels are aggressively pushing DRM because they want to be able to maintain their current business models (instead of adapting & competing like any other industry would be forced to do).
It's apologists like you who encourage them with such anti-free market behavior.
3. Re: just because you do not agree with someone's viewpoint, does not mean that person's rights may be waived
Are you honestly saying that someone has a "right" to stop other people from making a copy of their own private property? And this "right" trumps everyone else's private property rights?
Are you completely unfamiliar with the history and motivation behind intellectual property, or do you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream whenever someone brings it up?
4. Re: Logic -- ironic, isn't it?
When you actually use some logic, let me know. I'm not holding my breath.
5. Re: Your problem is that you either do nothing meaningful with your life that anyone would even want to copy anyhow, or you are a dweller of your mother's basement who wants just something for nothing
I'm making a pretty good living as a CAD developer for a chip-design company. I've got a nice house of my own, with lots of toys to play with. I even have enough free time to make fun of idiots like you.
I've been doing various kinds of software-development jobs for a couple of decades now. I get paid to write code for my employer - I don't even need to depend on copyrights to get paid. Funny how that works out.
6. Re: I just wish people would think their viewpoints through, as you have not done.
Yeah, I sure wish people would think their viewpoints through. It's pretty obvious that you haven't bothered to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
So how much are you willing to pay to get your "green" cert from MS?
Given that it was filmed at Caltech, they probably just used whatever homework and equipment the students there were working on at the time (as long as it looked "sciency" enough).
I usually do a little reconnaissance on the files that I'm going to be searching through (I don't want to deal with some joker naming a file "-rf" or something like that), but I had forgotten about those options - thanks.
I prefer to use the xargs version of that line where I can get away with it:
find . -name *.cpp -print | xargs grep someFn
especially if find reports a LOT of file names,
since the backtick syntax can often run afoul of
any command-line length limits that the shell
might have after it has been expanded.
As far as I know, xargs doesn't have any such
limit (other than virtual memory) when it is
constructing the command-line that it is going
to execute.
Sounds like a good way for the "ruling class" to create a bunch of slaves (which would compete against non-criminals looking for work at a decent wage).
Good point - it might have been more win-win for everyone if the salesperson bought a round for everyone of his own company's product from the bartender.
Demonstrate that it's not false by proposing some more accurate alternatives.
As far as I can tell, this particular choice is not a false dichotomy
although the GP has written it as a binary choice instead of a matter of degree.
You working for Nike or something?
That didn't make any sense - are you a liberal?
Hmmm, I think I've been forced to work on some code where the author used tentacle hentai for inspiration - at least judging by how violated I felt for days afterward.
This is military procurement you're talking about. Even if you could manufacture the damn things at $10/bomb, they'd still be sold to the military at a net 1000x markup (not including any under-the-counter kickbacks).
Ah, I guess you believe that when you place your hand on the surface of your desk, the atomic nuclei of the molecules in your hand are actually touching the atomic nuclei of the molecules that the desk is made out of.
I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the charged particles that those atoms are made out of, and that they wouldn't use the electromagnetic force to interact with each other.
There surely is stupidity here, but I'd look more to your own ignorance than with the grandparent's commentary.
A straight vertical line motion up and then down is just a degenerate case of a parabola :P
It requires a little more skill & effort to create a decent-performing firearm than it does to distill something alcoholic (although maybe not something that tastes good :-).
If my proposed scenario were implemented, I don't doubt there would be a few "Saturday Night Specials" running around, but their power & accuracy would be quite bad compared to existing weapons, and it would be much less likely to run into someone with a fully-automatic weapon or even a weapon which could be reloaded easily & reliably. It takes a decent craftsman to create a decent weapon, and if the government were running around vigorously repressing such skills, I'm pretty sure they could make decent weapons quite rare.
As I mentioned before, it's just a thought experiment though - we've already got so many fairly high-quality weapons roaming around (for hunting if nothing else) that even if you completely shut down _all_ arms manufacturers in the world, there'd be plenty of guns available for decades before the scenario I was suggesting would even have a remote chance of occuring.
Not necessarily true, if you try to severely eliminate the existence of guns to begin with (including for the use of law enforcement). (I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, just pointing out a possible way of limiting gun access all the way around.) As long as the gun manufacturers keep pumping the firearms out by the millions and distributing them with a great many loopholes in oversight, however, enforcement of gun control laws is bound to be pretty useless.
In cases where the Courts have decided that the Fed has the power to regulate something, Fed laws override State laws - so your point is irrelevant (unless you're talking about the situation where the Fed hasn't decided to regulate something, but the state(s) have).
What part of "The Courts decide what is Constitutional, not you." are you having difficulty understanding?
Unless you are one of those judges, or are in a position where you can influence the reasoning of one of those judges (and I doubt many of them read Slashdot), it doesn't matter diddly-squat what YOU think is Constitutional.
Unfortunately, YOU don't get to decide what is constitutional or not - the Courts do, and they've decided that was constitutional.
It would be interesting to see if a major HERF gun or a massive Van de Graaf generator would have an effect against such micromachines. Or maybe just a continual heavy rain :-)
In the context of a discussion about "Peak Oil", I am referring specifically to a source of oil.
Biodiesel and/or thermal depolymerisation might qualify as a "sustainable" oil-creating process as long as the net costs to create new oil through those processes are low enough to satisfy a significant part of our society's oil hunger, otherwise we will experience the full force of societal change that the Peak Oil theory is predicting.
At the moment, I don't believe our alternative energy infrastructure is large or efficient enough to blunt the effects that a worst-case Peak Oil scenario will have on our society.
The "Peak Oil" theory describes the effects of new technology as well - the only thing that new technology that does is put off the "Peak" a little longer (and uses up R&D resources that could've been directed toward a sustainable energy infrastructure).
Unless we discover a source of oil that is infinitely-renewing (and renewed in a time period that is useful to our society), we _will_ eventually hit the "Peak Oil" doom-and-gloom scenario. It's inevitable no matter what kind of oil-recovery technology keeps on getting developed.
That's why the developer is supposed to write the unit test _before_ they write the code they are actually testing. That way they can be reasonably sure that the unit test doesn't depend on the implementation details of the new code, plus it provides a strong unambiguous target for the new code (must compile, run & make the unit test(s) pass before it can be checked in).
The secret, of course, is that we have a highly professional Idiot-Testing Institute, where highly-qualified idiots are recruited ([insert partisan joke here]) and receive additional training to make sure they reach the highest standards of idiocy.
Once they have failed all of the tests, they are allowed unrestricted access to the machines acting as both voters and election supervisors, and the results are carefully analysed to determine whether the machine can be genuinely labeled as "idiotproof".
As a special bonus, this testing procedure does not cost the public a cent - the graduates of the idiot-training program can often be convinced that they need to pay for the training themselves. In addition, once they have been fully trained, it is easy to sell the services of these professional idiots to the various political parties and government election boards.
I don't trust _any_ candidate to provide useful information, with or without public funding.
I'd much prefer that public funding be used to _thoroughly_ investigate every candidate, build a nice dossier of every single bit of public information that is available about them (especially their voting records, any news articles, any court records, etc) & make it available for public consumption.
Fat chance of any politician allowing that much transparency about themselves though - they're much more comfortable raping the privacy of the common citizen & hiding behind facades than having a bright light shining down on themselves.
Good grief, why is it that the people who seem to have the most tenuous grasp on logic and debate also seem to think that they're better at it than anyone else?
1. Re: doesn't justify stealing from them
It's copying, not stealing. There's a reason why there's a whole different set of laws to handle IP violations.
2. Re: Reasoning like you have just used are a large part of why the media cartels are so aggressively pushing DRM.
No, media cartels are aggressively pushing DRM because they want to be able to maintain their current business models (instead of adapting & competing like any other industry would be forced to do).
It's apologists like you who encourage them with such anti-free market behavior.
3. Re: just because you do not agree with someone's viewpoint, does not mean that person's rights may be waived
Are you honestly saying that someone has a "right" to stop other people from making a copy of their own private property? And this "right" trumps everyone else's private property rights?
Are you completely unfamiliar with the history and motivation behind intellectual property, or do you just stick your fingers in your ears and scream whenever someone brings it up?
4. Re: Logic -- ironic, isn't it?
When you actually use some logic, let me know. I'm not holding my breath.
5. Re: Your problem is that you either do nothing meaningful with your life that anyone would even want to copy anyhow, or you are a dweller of your mother's basement who wants just something for nothing
I'm making a pretty good living as a CAD developer for a chip-design company. I've got a nice house of my own, with lots of toys to play with. I even have enough free time to make fun of idiots like you.
I've been doing various kinds of software-development jobs for a couple of decades now. I get paid to write code for my employer - I don't even need to depend on copyrights to get paid. Funny how that works out.
6. Re: I just wish people would think their viewpoints through, as you have not done.
Yeah, I sure wish people would think their viewpoints through. It's pretty obvious that you haven't bothered to do so.