That really depends on what you mean by "software", "break", and "forces in excess...".
Say I SYN flood your box and it doesn't have SYN cookies. You reject SYNs from elsewhere. That's clearly not what you should be doing, so in a sense I've broken your code.
Now enable SYN cookies. I can still flood you, but the effect is only going to be that you can't do TCP-setup-time options (window scaling, MTU negotiation, ECN capability,...), but you still get to accept new incoming connections. Have I broken your code? It functions differently and not how you wanted it, but in some sense it still performs correctly.
Because software isn't subject to the forces of nature in the same way a bridge is, it really is possible to write software that always performs correctly when run on correctly-performing hardware.
Such software is writable; is it also written? Will it ever be? Can you get to Bug Free (tm)?
I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer here, that's all I'm saying.
I think it would appeal to a lot of students to be shown the hammer and to try knocking some nails in before they're taught about velocity, kinetic energy and force times distance.
They should be taught it, make to mistake about it, but not as the first thing (in my opinion). It'd be nice to have some evidence to back up either position, though.
Teaching Turing machines first seems like you're teaching Latin first in the French class.
Wait, were we talking about the teaching of computer science or the teaching of the craft and art of programming?;)
[C, java, python] are really all the same class of languages
Really? For three "identical" things, I think they're quite far apart.
C doesn't have native support for object-oriented programming. If you want to teach the students that, you need to embed pointers to vtables everywhere, you need parent-objects-as-members and you need massive hacks.
Java doesn't have higher-order functions; you have to put your function pointer arguments inside classes. [C at least has function pointers]. By insisting that everything is put inside an object, procedural programming "looks OO" and might distort the students' view of what "real OO" is.
Python doesn't have static types. On the other hand, it lets you teach procedural and object-oriented each in their most natural ways. It also lets you teach ideas that will recur in functional languages, such as higher-order functions, closures and lazy lists.
More importantly, python lets you teach things without having to introduce a lot of overhead: "Why must closed-over variables be final? Why is it smart to feed my own anonymous Function class to MapIterator--a for loop is much shorter? Higher order--but it doesn't take a function, it takes an object!..."
I'd advocate python first, because it allows you greater flexibility in the choice of what to teach. Also, it's good for teaching algorithms: http://www.ece.uci.edu/~chou/py02/python.html
"The most encouraging part was that more than a few students wanted to implement the algorithms that were not assigned as homework problems. The students said they wanted to see the algorithms run and test their own understanding."
Isn't the standard process to submit it to the IETF or similar organization to have it ratified first?
I believe the IETF wants to see two independent implementations before standardizing something. That's why the IP over Avian Carrier isn't an Internet standard, for one;)
The may want to publish an informational RFC, though.
But it isn't SOP to write up a (semi)formal RFC as part of the discussion about how to solve any given problem. That's something you do once you want to set the solution in stone (or possibly something slightly softer).
IWF's overriding objective is to minimize the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect.
Note that IWF said "oops, our censorship didn't work this time", not "censorship is wrong".
I don't think this is good news. I think it's bad news, as opposed to worse news: the IWF will continue trying to censor the Internet, it'll just be a little smarter about it.
Let's also be clear about the distinction between pedophilia, child porn and child molestation; one is a sexual preference, the second is sexual imagery and the third is sexual activities.
In my world view, you can't (and thus shouldn't be trying to) outlaw people's desires. You can and should outlaw child molestation, and on the scale of things it's a fairly evil thing to do, so the punishment and/or societal protection mechanisms employed against the offender should be severe.
One can argue back and forth about whether child porn should be illegal; drawn and animated (as opposed to photographed or videotaped) child porn may provide an outlet for the desires of pedophiles, and thus shrink the market for "real" child porn; it may also be a "gateway drug" for the real thing and thus grow the market.
I have seen no evidence speaking to whether allowing drawn or animated child porn is a net increase in the safety of children, and so I have nothing to base an opinion on other than ideology.
My ideology is that you shouldn't block things because they're "indecent", as the IWF wants. You should block them because their presence or production is demonstrably harmful. The girl on the cover of Virgin Killer consented to being photographed; exactly what is the harm caused?
with IE7 via group policy you can stop the user from clearing history etc, can Firefox do the same?
Maybe I'm just stupid, but how do you capture the history of the other browsers your users are running? I'm not entirely convinced that other browsers (such as safari, chrome, elinks, w3m-mode and others) play nice with group policy either.
If you want to log browsing history, just do it at the border router(s), for your desired value of border. Then you can chill out and stop worrying about what browser people are using.
But I don't run a browser to become a part of a compute farm. I run a browser to access web information and applications. Very little of which is compute-intensive enough to require a new execution engine over a more advanced set of APIs.
The applications you're running today and want to run today are limited by the technology available today.
"Build it, and they will come." Do you think everybody was eager to fly over the Atlantic in 1880?
Your needs may remain fairly stable, but I let time tell about mine, rather than my own unfounded predictions.
Remove all possible hindrances, anything that could turn them away.
Like the HUGE barrier to entry of having to lay fiber in the whole city and a competitor that'll sell below profit in that city while you're alive, just to squeeze you out of the market?
If you go back to economics 101, you learn why the free market is optimal at serving society. You also learn that it's under some very big assumptions: all transaction costs are zero, and everybody knows everything.
The economics of the result will be tremendous and dwarf the petty costs involved. It will create [...].
Really? Based in which economic theory and/or evidence do you state this?
Such goals can only be achieved in freedom.
Which freedoms are necessary? Freedom to trade however you like, or freedom from the formation of monopolies? Freedom to route customer packets however you like, or freedom of information?
Napster showed that we can have any piece of culture available for the trivial cost of allowing people to share.
Common sense argues that if we all stop paying musicians and actors, they'll get some other day jobs. A few will do their old job as a hobby, with hobbyist results.
Wikipedia and the internet archive show that people are ready, willing and able to create works and share them without the "protection" of copyright.
Would you be happy with only the works available under a license allowing their redistribution? Would they satisfy your needs?
I want Guitar Hero. I want The Hobbit. I want The Grudge. I want Disturbed. I want a flash plug-in and fast video drivers.
Score:5, Insightful Here's an idea how to. [tax reductions to everybody]
People not sunken in debt can spend...people in trouble with mortgages can pay them off, etc. Hell, people could invest in the mkt again.
Interesting.
I have an idea. Economics is a science. Come up with different action(able) plans [currently we have yours and Obama's]. Investigate, in a scientific way, what the outcomes of each plan are likely to be. Look at what evidence and theory suggests. Pick the one that, based on evidence and theory, would maximize public benefit. Let ideology be the tiebreaker.
We're geeks, right? We understand science and the value of approaching things scientifically---in particular the value of following the evidence. Let us not let ideology overrule that.
But HNSes are typically Hotter, Newer and Shinier if the people who make them get paid to make them. So someone has to pay if I get my need for Hot New Shiny satisfied.
For software, Google pays Firefox. Support contracts with Red Hat pays for my kernel. For brevity, I omit the rest;)
For music, someone pays more for the concert tickets (or I do, if I find the time for concerts again). I get to download the promo material (i.e. the songs) for free. Or: I pay for my user account jonaskoelker@artist-union-$i.org and get unrestricted downloads while I have it (and time-unlimited licenses).
For wii games, I shell out my money according to the current model and pricing structure. For PC games, I play the free ones (Nexuiz, wesnoth, gtetrinet).
I know that alcohol's not going to get banned again, but you wonder how many lives it would save if it did?
I wonder how many would be killed in beer-mafia shootouts and cop raids.
I also hold the theory that public health could be improved by finding safe(r) and cheap(er) ways to give people a high. The people demonstrate the desire to get high, and you can't moralize that out of them. I say let people get high, but make them high in a safe way; make it cheap to convince people to switch to it.
Let me try and restate what I think my parent is saying, since none of you like it in its current presentation.
This time they've sued an innocent, 19-year-old, transplant patient, hospitalized with pancreatitis and needing islet cell transplants.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Yes, she is innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the legal system. By saying the girl has been sued, rather than convicted, it's implied that she's innocent in that sense, so the word is superfluous.
Unless, of course, it's there to make us think that not only is she not convicted, she also haven't done any of the things she is accused of.
I think that is indeed the intent; I think it's also unnecessary, since we all already side against the RIAA. It's also unfounded; if the record was clearly showing it, how exactly would the RIAA be allowed to sue her? Wouldn't that be as close to the most frivolous lawsuit as you can come?
I dislike the RIAA's morally questionable conduct. I want to see their dragnet litigation campaign put to an end.
But let us form our opinions based on facts, not unfounded speculation about the guilt or innocence of the targets.
bringing garbage lawsuits against poor and disabled people is fine.
Key word in bold. The legal system should still protect you (or at least give you recourse) against people who do you wrong, no matter their socioeconomic status or level of functioning.
The "they" that are complaining about google not paying their "fare share" aren't the same "they" that sell google their bandwidth.
If "they" don't like the amount of Google-related traffic, I think "they" should rearrange some of the settlements of their peer, customer and transit relationships.
Isn't that what being an autonomous system is all about?
Slashdot Mirror
Software will break [...]
That really depends on what you mean by "software", "break", and "forces in excess ...".
Say I SYN flood your box and it doesn't have SYN cookies. You reject SYNs from elsewhere. That's clearly not what you should be doing, so in a sense I've broken your code.
Now enable SYN cookies. I can still flood you, but the effect is only going to be that you can't do TCP-setup-time options (window scaling, MTU negotiation, ECN capability, ...), but you still get to accept new incoming connections. Have I broken your code? It functions differently and not how you wanted it, but in some sense it still performs correctly.
Because software isn't subject to the forces of nature in the same way a bridge is, it really is possible to write software that always performs correctly when run on correctly-performing hardware.
Such software is writable; is it also written? Will it ever be? Can you get to Bug Free (tm)?
I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer here, that's all I'm saying.
as well as not having to start scripts with declarations or somesuch
#!/usr/bin/python
from sys import stdin, stdout, stderr
I think it would appeal to a lot of students to be shown the hammer and to try knocking some nails in before they're taught about velocity, kinetic energy and force times distance.
They should be taught it, make to mistake about it, but not as the first thing (in my opinion). It'd be nice to have some evidence to back up either position, though.
Teaching Turing machines first seems like you're teaching Latin first in the French class.
Wait, were we talking about the teaching of computer science or the teaching of the craft and art of programming? ;)
[C, java, python] are really all the same class of languages
Really? For three "identical" things, I think they're quite far apart.
C doesn't have native support for object-oriented programming. If you want to teach the students that, you need to embed pointers to vtables everywhere, you need parent-objects-as-members and you need massive hacks.
Java doesn't have higher-order functions; you have to put your function pointer arguments inside classes. [C at least has function pointers]. By insisting that everything is put inside an object, procedural programming "looks OO" and might distort the students' view of what "real OO" is.
Python doesn't have static types. On the other hand, it lets you teach procedural and object-oriented each in their most natural ways. It also lets you teach ideas that will recur in functional languages, such as higher-order functions, closures and lazy lists.
More importantly, python lets you teach things without having to introduce a lot of overhead: "Why must closed-over variables be final? Why is it smart to feed my own anonymous Function class to MapIterator--a for loop is much shorter? Higher order--but it doesn't take a function, it takes an object! ..."
I'd advocate python first, because it allows you greater flexibility in the choice of what to teach. Also, it's good for teaching algorithms: http://www.ece.uci.edu/~chou/py02/python.html
"The most encouraging part was that more than a few students wanted to implement the algorithms that were not assigned as homework problems. The students said they wanted to see the algorithms run and test their own understanding."
Because Dan won't be happy unless he makes you install it in /crypto/strong/etc/librarees
He may be excentric, but I don't think he insists on spelling things wwong.
Isn't the standard process to submit it to the IETF or similar organization to have it ratified first?
I believe the IETF wants to see two independent implementations before standardizing something. That's why the IP over Avian Carrier isn't an Internet standard, for one ;)
The may want to publish an informational RFC, though.
But it isn't SOP to write up a (semi)formal RFC as part of the discussion about how to solve any given problem. That's something you do once you want to set the solution in stone (or possibly something slightly softer).
There is no cabal
So great news
Are you reading the same summary as me?
IWF's overriding objective is to minimize the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect.
Note that IWF said "oops, our censorship didn't work this time", not "censorship is wrong".
I don't think this is good news. I think it's bad news, as opposed to worse news: the IWF will continue trying to censor the Internet, it'll just be a little smarter about it.
Let's also be clear about the distinction between pedophilia, child porn and child molestation; one is a sexual preference, the second is sexual imagery and the third is sexual activities.
In my world view, you can't (and thus shouldn't be trying to) outlaw people's desires. You can and should outlaw child molestation, and on the scale of things it's a fairly evil thing to do, so the punishment and/or societal protection mechanisms employed against the offender should be severe.
One can argue back and forth about whether child porn should be illegal; drawn and animated (as opposed to photographed or videotaped) child porn may provide an outlet for the desires of pedophiles, and thus shrink the market for "real" child porn; it may also be a "gateway drug" for the real thing and thus grow the market.
I have seen no evidence speaking to whether allowing drawn or animated child porn is a net increase in the safety of children, and so I have nothing to base an opinion on other than ideology.
My ideology is that you shouldn't block things because they're "indecent", as the IWF wants. You should block them because their presence or production is demonstrably harmful. The girl on the cover of Virgin Killer consented to being photographed; exactly what is the harm caused?
with IE7 via group policy you can stop the user from clearing history etc, can Firefox do the same?
Maybe I'm just stupid, but how do you capture the history of the other browsers your users are running? I'm not entirely convinced that other browsers (such as safari, chrome, elinks, w3m-mode and others) play nice with group policy either.
If you want to log browsing history, just do it at the border router(s), for your desired value of border. Then you can chill out and stop worrying about what browser people are using.
Mouse Gestures?
Also, I'm mousing left-handedly, you insensitive clod. Ctrl+Pg{Up,Dn} is fine ;)
But I don't run a browser to become a part of a compute farm. I run a browser to access web information and applications. Very little of which is compute-intensive enough to require a new execution engine over a more advanced set of APIs.
The applications you're running today and want to run today are limited by the technology available today.
"Build it, and they will come." Do you think everybody was eager to fly over the Atlantic in 1880?
Your needs may remain fairly stable, but I let time tell about mine, rather than my own unfounded predictions.
(Prompting a possibly valid "In Soviet Russia" gag).
In Soviet Russia, Linux runs it on You!!
but it's the price drop that means it's likely to find it's way to consumer-level stuff eventually.
Is that operational cost or deployment cost? If it's the deployment cost, you'd still need to dig up streets and lay down cables.
It might increase the likelihood of APD transmitting the populace's packets, and especially if we add eventually, but it's far from guaranteed.
now I gotta compete against someone willing to work for pokemon cards??
Dammit! I thought Black Lotus was a safe investment.
We went to moon with [E&S...]
Unless you add "the", "our" or "\bM" somewhere, it sounds like we and our friends are doing tax-free nighttime labor.
Remove all possible hindrances, anything that could turn them away.
Like the HUGE barrier to entry of having to lay fiber in the whole city and a competitor that'll sell below profit in that city while you're alive, just to squeeze you out of the market?
If you go back to economics 101, you learn why the free market is optimal at serving society. You also learn that it's under some very big assumptions: all transaction costs are zero, and everybody knows everything.
Now for a game of point-counterpoint:
The economics of the result will be tremendous and dwarf the petty costs involved. It will create [...].
Really? Based in which economic theory and/or evidence do you state this?
Such goals can only be achieved in freedom.
Which freedoms are necessary? Freedom to trade however you like, or freedom from the formation of monopolies? Freedom to route customer packets however you like, or freedom of information?
Napster showed that we can have any piece of culture available for the trivial cost of allowing people to share.
Common sense argues that if we all stop paying musicians and actors, they'll get some other day jobs. A few will do their old job as a hobby, with hobbyist results.
Wikipedia and the internet archive show that people are ready, willing and able to create works and share them without the "protection" of copyright.
Would you be happy with only the works available under a license allowing their redistribution? Would they satisfy your needs?
I want Guitar Hero. I want The Hobbit. I want The Grudge. I want Disturbed. I want a flash plug-in and fast video drivers.
Score:5, Insightful
Here's an idea how to. [tax reductions to everybody]
People not sunken in debt can spend...people in trouble with mortgages can pay them off, etc. Hell, people could invest in the mkt again.
Interesting.
I have an idea. Economics is a science. Come up with different action(able) plans [currently we have yours and Obama's]. Investigate, in a scientific way, what the outcomes of each plan are likely to be. Look at what evidence and theory suggests. Pick the one that, based on evidence and theory, would maximize public benefit. Let ideology be the tiebreaker.
We're geeks, right? We understand science and the value of approaching things scientifically---in particular the value of following the evidence. Let us not let ideology overrule that.
Awesome! Not only do I get crappy, mediocre sequels
You owe me a new linguistic-semantic multimeter. The circuit detecting ironic contradictions in terms blew up ;)
I want Hot New Shinies for free.
But HNSes are typically Hotter, Newer and Shinier if the people who make them get paid to make them. So someone has to pay if I get my need for Hot New Shiny satisfied.
For software, Google pays Firefox. Support contracts with Red Hat pays for my kernel. For brevity, I omit the rest ;)
For music, someone pays more for the concert tickets (or I do, if I find the time for concerts again). I get to download the promo material (i.e. the songs) for free. Or: I pay for my user account jonaskoelker@artist-union-$i.org and get unrestricted downloads while I have it (and time-unlimited licenses).
For wii games, I shell out my money according to the current model and pricing structure. For PC games, I play the free ones (Nexuiz, wesnoth, gtetrinet).
I know that alcohol's not going to get banned again, but you wonder how many lives it would save if it did?
I wonder how many would be killed in beer-mafia shootouts and cop raids.
I also hold the theory that public health could be improved by finding safe(r) and cheap(er) ways to give people a high. The people demonstrate the desire to get high, and you can't moralize that out of them. I say let people get high, but make them high in a safe way; make it cheap to convince people to switch to it.
Let me try and restate what I think my parent is saying, since none of you like it in its current presentation.
This time they've sued an innocent, 19-year-old, transplant patient, hospitalized with pancreatitis and needing islet cell transplants.
Oh, an innocent 19 year old eh? How do we know this?
Yes, she is innocent until proven guilty, in the eyes of the legal system. By saying the girl has been sued, rather than convicted, it's implied that she's innocent in that sense, so the word is superfluous.
Unless, of course, it's there to make us think that not only is she not convicted, she also haven't done any of the things she is accused of.
I think that is indeed the intent; I think it's also unnecessary, since we all already side against the RIAA. It's also unfounded; if the record was clearly showing it, how exactly would the RIAA be allowed to sue her? Wouldn't that be as close to the most frivolous lawsuit as you can come?
I dislike the RIAA's morally questionable conduct. I want to see their dragnet litigation campaign put to an end.
But let us form our opinions based on facts, not unfounded speculation about the guilt or innocence of the targets.
bringing garbage lawsuits against poor and disabled people is fine.
Key word in bold. The legal system should still protect you (or at least give you recourse) against people who do you wrong, no matter their socioeconomic status or level of functioning.
Otherwise we won't be having justice against all.
(that said, the RIAA sucks ass)
RIAA sues Alzheimer patient
Yeah, for downloading the same song 47 times.
It could have been an autist :)
The "they" that are complaining about google not paying their "fare share" aren't the same "they" that sell google their bandwidth.
If "they" don't like the amount of Google-related traffic, I think "they" should rearrange some of the settlements of their peer, customer and transit relationships.
Isn't that what being an autonomous system is all about?