So, do the people that helped you get a cut of the $12.95?
Anyone else think this is funny? The fact that the parent contributed this comment to a forum that is making money from ads off this very page!
Using this logic, Slashdot should be paying its contributors. Surely the comments are a significant source of value to the readers, and they don't pay a penny for them.
As a service to fellow Slashdot readers, I'm more than happy to report back and let you know if your personal or financial information has been compromised.
Simply give me as many search terms as you can think of, and I'll let you know. Examples: Your name. SSN. Bank Account Routing and Transit numbers. Mother's Maiden Name. Any other search terms that you want me to search for.
Only Scott Adams could come up with such a great parody. That's one way to get your cartoon talked about - screw it up in a way that only a PHB would love. Get on the front page of Slashdot. Energize your audience!
I cannot imagine an application that a single mini transistor is required, where a big one can't do the trick. Will kids have transistor radios dropped into their ears?
There is one, and only one, thing we can do to make ID theft harder (not impossible, though): Educate people that their personal information is not to be handed out like candy.
No, there's one other thing we can do. It's probably best demonstrated by example. Reply back with your name, SSN, paypal account, and password, and I'll show you what I mean.
you're correct, I made up the CVS part, under an assumption. But I definitely have a book with an old version of the annotated source. Got it for $4 on a close out. Great bathroom reading.
a print out of the linux kernel and read it until it all makes sense.
How do I do this?
I know you worded that as a joke (which was funny)... but.... you can get the source out of the CVS archive. Also, there was a book series that had linux source code (and another with Apache, and a third with TCP/IP), which had interesting annotations and comments. Or you can just go to Amazon and order the source code on CD.
I agree. C++ served its purpose in the language world. It was a great FIRST STEP toward object oriented programming, but it has outlived its usefulness. Stroustrup should take pride in his great contribution, and not be discouraged because C++ has been superseded by other, better languages. C++ provided a bridge from the world of no objects in C, to the world of objects. But now that there are languages that are designed with objects in mind from the ground up, it's only academically interesting (and of little practical value) to learn C++ except to support (or port) legacy applications.
You can, for example, make a vector with 4 numbers in it and multiply it with another vector with 4 numbers in it. The result is that the four multiplications are done simulatanously.
Wow, I thought we had to look to Erlang for concurrency this powerful. Unless "simulataneously" means "nearly simultaneously". Perhaps you meant that the four multiplications can be performed with one operation? Or did you really mean simultaneously? I just find that hard to believe.
OK, checking out the book, and in the introduction, the author immediately shoots out facts which appear to me to be worded in a way that is slanted so far toward his thesis that they invalidate the credibility of the book in my mind. Here's the quote:
During the period of Watt's patents the U.K. added about
750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years
following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a
rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of
steam engines changed little during the period of Watt's patent;
while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a
factor of five.
Think about any technology field. There is ALWAYS accelerating rate of progress. And it tends to be compounded growth.
Consider my statement below, based on the Moore's Law graph on Wikipedia: It can be equally slanted, to the point of ridiculousness:
In the 70's, the growth in the number of transistor on an integrated circuit averaged only 1000 per year, while the thirty years after that, the average growth per year was 333 million per year. Therefore the patent process needs to be reformed.
I am actually in favor or patent reform, but I am just giving my honest feedback on the first page of the book you referenced. Tossing out meaningless statistics hurt the credibility of the argument.
I had so many typos in that summary, I pressed submit, and then I was kicking myself that there were so many. kdawson cleaned it up pretty well. But I missed that one. But hey, I got one to the front page FINALLY. It's been about ten years and ten nicknames since that's happened!
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't consider work "fun" - fun enough to not need a break - then you need a different job and/or career.
Using this logic, Slashdot should be paying its contributors. Surely the comments are a significant source of value to the readers, and they don't pay a penny for them.
You mentioned Albert. I didn't, and neither did the post that I was replying to.
Agilent was a spin off of HP. Wrong way, bub.
It'd really suck if you got to day 89, and then had a family emergency.
or MMMAA
Seriously, There Are No Electrons is a great read for a novice.
Simply give me as many search terms as you can think of, and I'll let you know. Examples: Your name. SSN. Bank Account Routing and Transit numbers. Mother's Maiden Name. Any other search terms that you want me to search for.
ok, I am recycling jokes, but it had to be said.
Only Scott Adams could come up with such a great parody. That's one way to get your cartoon talked about - screw it up in a way that only a PHB would love. Get on the front page of Slashdot. Energize your audience!
I cannot imagine an application that a single mini transistor is required, where a big one can't do the trick. Will kids have transistor radios dropped into their ears?
Oh, was I supposed to say "Trick or Treat"?
Yeah, that's right, the ones with a hole in them...
you're correct, I made up the CVS part, under an assumption. But I definitely have a book with an old version of the annotated source. Got it for $4 on a close out. Great bathroom reading.
I agree. C++ served its purpose in the language world. It was a great FIRST STEP toward object oriented programming, but it has outlived its usefulness. Stroustrup should take pride in his great contribution, and not be discouraged because C++ has been superseded by other, better languages. C++ provided a bridge from the world of no objects in C, to the world of objects. But now that there are languages that are designed with objects in mind from the ground up, it's only academically interesting (and of little practical value) to learn C++ except to support (or port) legacy applications.
I am actually in favor or patent reform, but I am just giving my honest feedback on the first page of the book you referenced. Tossing out meaningless statistics hurt the credibility of the argument.
Sturgeon's Law is that 90% of everything is crud. If you are crapping crud, you should see a doctor.
Yeah, I know, Slashdot == no girlfriend. Save your reply.
Probably the safest and easiest place to get some is where everyone else is paranoid over the rumors. Just remember to wear a raincoat.
I had so many typos in that summary, I pressed submit, and then I was kicking myself that there were so many. kdawson cleaned it up pretty well. But I missed that one. But hey, I got one to the front page FINALLY. It's been about ten years and ten nicknames since that's happened!