.. asking a bunch of passionate amateurs, I usually go take the advice of someone I know has years of experience in the field and hopefully has editors that I can trust.
http://www.amazon.com/Coding-Standards-Guidelines-Practices-Depth/dp/0321113586
If both Herb and Andrei got it wrong, then I who am I to try and get it right?
I suppose you didn't specify which language you are using. So it's possible that nothing in this book (or a similar book) will be valuable to you. However, I highly doubt that. Much of the advice is valuable cross-language. My advice would be to not worry about the small things that just annoy the programmers and make sure your standard covers the big, important ones.
Slow news day or not, I find myself doing this at least once every other week. I swear, I really am losing my mind.
Although, I don't think I have ever shown up with no clothes on...
My original point wasn't "false", and the data wasn't "truish", and I don't think I did any "weaseling". I didn't leave out data either, my friend.
What I did was attempt to inform people that the notion that we are relying on the middle east for a significant portion of our oil is false. As far as I am concerned, I have succeeded on that point. The websites I originally produced were of course going to be "grossly misrepresentative"... THIS IS THE INTERNET. The point, however, was that they were based in truth. More of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico than the middle east.
If you can't come up with something better than "you are a liar on the internet" maybe you ought to consider your own words and STFU.
Those websites are grossly misrepresentative.
US produced 1.9 gigabarrels last year, and imported 4.9 gigabarrels. We got 0.9 gigabarrels from canada.
That might be true, but 0.9 gigaberrels is nearly twice (since we are being specific, it's 1.6 times) what we imported from Saudia Arabia. If we now want to talk about the serious "terrorist" countries (or at least what the news would have us to believe:
Iraq: 177,000 barrels
Syria: 1,402
Iran: ? none?
Afghanistan: ? none?
The real point I was trying to make is that the oil you are using to fill your gas tank isn't buying guns for terrorists. The ones that we need to be concerned about are the executives running the Exxon Mobiles and the BPs. (having a company make $1300 per second profit is disgusting)
...and somehow everyone in Utah is a Mormon. I don't see how your post has anything to do with the topic at hand. This is a discussion about politics... not religion.
That being said... from what I read about this bill, it's a mistake. The simple fact that Gayle Ruzicka is behind it should clue you to that.
Or another potential solution (in line with your spam filter concept) is to actually start enforcing the RCFs on mail servers. Sure it won't stop the real spam (the stuff companies are sending out from their computers... i.e. the stuff that is relatively easy to block), but it sure would help out with all the unintentional spam (i.e. virus infected "personal computers"/"spam factories")
No I won't punch a hole in our firewall so your friend can send us email. If your friend would get their act together and actually read the docs then we wouldn't be having this conversation.../cry
It would have been nice to see that information in the headline. Seems a little important to the story. I suppose we could debate the legality of 'modding' chips? Or would that be off-topic?
You can even mix things up a little by swapping out some letters and numbers (or throw in some punctuation. When you completely eliminate dictionary words and/or predictible number patterns (phone #'s, addresses, dates, etc..) the password-cracking game gets that much more difficult.
Back on the topic of default passwords, all the more reason to keep your network exposed only to those that need access. I see little reason for an average employee work-station to be visible to the world. What sort of web service could they possibly be running (that couldn't more appropriately be run on a server dedicated to that purpose)...
Better security would mean less people NEED such tools because they aren't running Windows.
Or perhaps it would mean less people writing malicious scripts for Windows. With the number of under-educated people using computers, there is bound to be at least one person to open up an email attachment from someone they don't know. The fact this user is running Windows is simply due to the fact that Windows is on the majority of home PCs.
I would call you a fool if you were to try to convince me that the latest versions of Linux, and even the blessed OSX, don't contain bugs and holes in their code. The simple fact is these OSs are insane amounts of code, usually built on top of older code. Bugs are going to occur, especially as users start demanding "cooler" and "better" and "more awesomer" features. Windows is on top of the market for home pcs (a debate for an entirely different topic), and so they are going to be the target of attacks.
To get back on the topic of anti-virus software, until someone comes out with an entirely bug free OS (or people stop exploiting these holes), there is always going to be the need for anti-virus.
I just cannot see anyone getting a large community of players together without a large development and advertising budget. Large development budgets also lead to independent, customized systems with total control, which is the opposite of the Multiverse concept.
Didn't people say the same thing about Linux (and its variations)? Look at all the different flavors, and then consider the select few that have a reasonable following. I imagine that's what will happen here, assuming the base code is worthwhile. We'll see a handful of good games emerge from a cool idea, but we'll also see several thousand others that die.
I know what you guys are saying, and yes you are correct. But do you happen to have a dictionary of binary words in it? I was simply pointing out the differences between what the op was saying, and what the problem required. (we could also narrow down the search space by knowing that we shouldn't have duplicate words, but that is way to much thinking for this early on a Sunday)
What's the difference in computing a square where each position can be 1 of 2 values, vs 1 of 26??? We should only have to deal with the upper half of the square (as it needs to be diagonal)
So, for a square of size 10 you are looking at 55 open positions. The binary case has 2^55 possibilities. A mere 36,028,797,018,963,968 different squares that need to be checked. If you only use 26 letters you are looking at 26^55 different squares! That's 6.66091878 × 10^77 different squares. Even on a network of computers (seti@home, supercomputers, whatever) that is still going to take a loooong time.
The problem itself is super easy to run through a computer, it just takes years and years of time to compute. It's the same reason that the major encryption schemes still work. Their formulas may be known, but if you don't know the factors of a number with a thousand digits in it, you can't break it. The real kicker is no one has developed a method for finding factors quickly (at least quickly enough to make encryption obsolete!)
I agree with just about everything else in the post. The decision of whether a child is mature enough to participate in any activity should be left up to the parents of that child. However, even parents can't be there 100% of the time. That's why we have preventive laws (concerning drugs, alcohol, guns, etc). Why is it so different for a law to limit sale or rental of video games?
I'll admit that I haven't seen the actual contents of the law. There may be something in there that may make me feel different.
I think it's been mentioned in this topic already, but AI isn't necessarily making it so that the computer can beat you everytime (or at least so it can't lose), AI is taking away that advantage. In a way, adding intelligence involves dumbing down the computer.
Plus, when you play pong it isn't always your objective to hit the ball. Usually you want to try and get it with the side of your paddle to get it moving real fast.:)
His name lives on in the annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, in which contestants have to supply the openings of terrible (imaginary) novels, inspired by his novel Paul Clifford, which opens with the famous words:
"It was a dark and stormy night"
or to give the sentence in its full glory:
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
The shorter form of the opening sentence was popularized by the Peanuts comic strip. Snoopy's sessions with the typewriter usually began with it. Entrants in the contest seek to capture the rapid changes in point of view, the florid language, and the atmosphere of the full sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
.. asking a bunch of passionate amateurs, I usually go take the advice of someone I know has years of experience in the field and hopefully has editors that I can trust.
http://www.amazon.com/Coding-Standards-Guidelines-Practices-Depth/dp/0321113586
If both Herb and Andrei got it wrong, then I who am I to try and get it right?
I suppose you didn't specify which language you are using. So it's possible that nothing in this book (or a similar book) will be valuable to you. However, I highly doubt that. Much of the advice is valuable cross-language. My advice would be to not worry about the small things that just annoy the programmers and make sure your standard covers the big, important ones.
Slow news day or not, I find myself doing this at least once every other week. I swear, I really am losing my mind.
Although, I don't think I have ever shown up with no clothes on...
the googol core.
I saw him at SDWest this past March and he was beardless then. However, that was three months ago, so anything is possible.
What I did was attempt to inform people that the notion that we are relying on the middle east for a significant portion of our oil is false. As far as I am concerned, I have succeeded on that point. The websites I originally produced were of course going to be "grossly misrepresentative"... THIS IS THE INTERNET. The point, however, was that they were based in truth. More of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico than the middle east.
If you can't come up with something better than "you are a liar on the internet" maybe you ought to consider your own words and STFU.
That might be true, but 0.9 gigaberrels is nearly twice (since we are being specific, it's 1.6 times) what we imported from Saudia Arabia. If we now want to talk about the serious "terrorist" countries (or at least what the news would have us to believe:
Iraq: 177,000 barrels
Syria: 1,402
Iran: ? none?
Afghanistan: ? none?
The real point I was trying to make is that the oil you are using to fill your gas tank isn't buying guns for terrorists. The ones that we need to be concerned about are the executives running the Exxon Mobiles and the BPs. (having a company make $1300 per second profit is disgusting)
I always thought it was "See Pound" :)
...and somehow everyone in Utah is a Mormon. I don't see how your post has anything to do with the topic at hand. This is a discussion about politics... not religion.
That being said... from what I read about this bill, it's a mistake. The simple fact that Gayle Ruzicka is behind it should clue you to that.
Of pron... or maybe mp3's. Hell, I can afford to store both now.
Is there some top secret "solitaire code" that no one has told me about? One that performs your work for you? I guess I didn't get the memo.
Or another potential solution (in line with your spam filter concept) is to actually start enforcing the RCFs on mail servers. Sure it won't stop the real spam (the stuff companies are sending out from their computers... i.e. the stuff that is relatively easy to block), but it sure would help out with all the unintentional spam (i.e. virus infected "personal computers"/"spam factories")
No I won't punch a hole in our firewall so your friend can send us email. If your friend would get their act together and actually read the docs then we wouldn't be having this conversation... /cry
Except you can't vote until you are 18.
It would have been nice to see that information in the headline. Seems a little important to the story. I suppose we could debate the legality of 'modding' chips? Or would that be off-topic?
/shurg
Mnemonics
You can even mix things up a little by swapping out some letters and numbers (or throw in some punctuation. When you completely eliminate dictionary words and/or predictible number patterns (phone #'s, addresses, dates, etc..) the password-cracking game gets that much more difficult.
Back on the topic of default passwords, all the more reason to keep your network exposed only to those that need access. I see little reason for an average employee work-station to be visible to the world. What sort of web service could they possibly be running (that couldn't more appropriately be run on a server dedicated to that purpose)...
Where's the blue LEDs???
Or perhaps it would mean less people writing malicious scripts for Windows. With the number of under-educated people using computers, there is bound to be at least one person to open up an email attachment from someone they don't know. The fact this user is running Windows is simply due to the fact that Windows is on the majority of home PCs.
I would call you a fool if you were to try to convince me that the latest versions of Linux, and even the blessed OSX, don't contain bugs and holes in their code. The simple fact is these OSs are insane amounts of code, usually built on top of older code. Bugs are going to occur, especially as users start demanding "cooler" and "better" and "more awesomer" features. Windows is on top of the market for home pcs (a debate for an entirely different topic), and so they are going to be the target of attacks.
To get back on the topic of anti-virus software, until someone comes out with an entirely bug free OS (or people stop exploiting these holes), there is always going to be the need for anti-virus.
Maybe it's just the windows in me talking...
I wasn't talking about those great linux games. I was talking about that great linux system.
Didn't people say the same thing about Linux (and its variations)? Look at all the different flavors, and then consider the select few that have a reasonable following. I imagine that's what will happen here, assuming the base code is worthwhile. We'll see a handful of good games emerge from a cool idea, but we'll also see several thousand others that die.
I know what you guys are saying, and yes you are correct. But do you happen to have a dictionary of binary words in it? I was simply pointing out the differences between what the op was saying, and what the problem required. (we could also narrow down the search space by knowing that we shouldn't have duplicate words, but that is way to much thinking for this early on a Sunday)
What's the difference in computing a square where each position can be 1 of 2 values, vs 1 of 26??? We should only have to deal with the upper half of the square (as it needs to be diagonal)
So, for a square of size 10 you are looking at 55 open positions. The binary case has 2^55 possibilities. A mere 36,028,797,018,963,968 different squares that need to be checked. If you only use 26 letters you are looking at 26^55 different squares! That's 6.66091878 × 10^77 different squares. Even on a network of computers (seti@home, supercomputers, whatever) that is still going to take a loooong time.
The problem itself is super easy to run through a computer, it just takes years and years of time to compute. It's the same reason that the major encryption schemes still work. Their formulas may be known, but if you don't know the factors of a number with a thousand digits in it, you can't break it. The real kicker is no one has developed a method for finding factors quickly (at least quickly enough to make encryption obsolete!)
That would be nice, if it was true: here's a link to get started
I agree with just about everything else in the post. The decision of whether a child is mature enough to participate in any activity should be left up to the parents of that child. However, even parents can't be there 100% of the time. That's why we have preventive laws (concerning drugs, alcohol, guns, etc). Why is it so different for a law to limit sale or rental of video games?
I'll admit that I haven't seen the actual contents of the law. There may be something in there that may make me feel different.
I think it's been mentioned in this topic already, but AI isn't necessarily making it so that the computer can beat you everytime (or at least so it can't lose), AI is taking away that advantage. In a way, adding intelligence involves dumbing down the computer. :)
Plus, when you play pong it isn't always your objective to hit the ball. Usually you want to try and get it with the side of your paddle to get it moving real fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bulwer-Lytton