I mentioned casually to my wife that I wanted an Android tablet when you could get them for $179. And she got me one for Christmas.
I have no idea how she found it, but it was called a "Jpad". It was shipped from Hong Kong, in a makeshift box. Came with a USB flexible keyboard and headphone. I'm sure it has a slow processor, and it has Android 2.2 on it (I believe). It's nothing special, but I look at it as a disposable unit - renting technology.
It does several things very well - satisfies my itch to tinker, acts as an e-Reader, and allows me some media portability (to easily play my movie collection on any HDMI TV around the house on a plane or at a lake house). It gives me portable music too. And it acts as a nice conversation piece on the coffee table, since it's also my remote control for my TV PVR (Myth TV).
I would take 3 of these over one I-pad (which would cost about the same). But I recognize it as just an interim solution; I'll probably get another $200 unit at the end of 2011.
When the ID inevitably becomes mandatory to participate in the internet, it will become mandatory to participate in commerce and in society.
Then whenever the government decides that they don't like something that some group is doing, they can secretly demand the information as to who was doing it, and persecute those who did it.
This is not hypothetical fear-mongering. This just happened. The US Government didn't like what Assange was doing, and they completely cut off his funds, both by securing his bank accounts and by threatening any new fund-raising efforts. And then they secretly demanded Twitter account information of his supporters.
Whether you like or dislike Assange's methods and tactics, any government-controlled single-source ID should scare the daylights out of any freedom-loving American.
And you can bet that the US Government is supporting Facebook becoming such a single-source ID, if they can't create their own.
Naaah, not everyone. Just the bad guys. And the dissidents. Potential terrorists, and neo-nazis, too. And anyone who is on the TSA no-fly list. Really, any foreigners. And those who are against the 2-party system. Those tea-party wackos should really be identified and tracked. Lump the libertarians and green party people in there, too, because you really never know when they might "fringe out on us". What's the harm in "identifying" and "tracking" them. Especially if they're not doing anything wrong. What could they possibly be afraid of?
Shoot, how did I forget to include the wikileaks supporters?
You mean all Americans are going to end up in concentration camps because of this digital ID? Look-up paranoia.
Naaah, not everyone. Just the bad guys. And the dissidents. Potential terrorists, and neo-nazis, too. And anyone who is on the TSA no-fly list. Really, any foreigners. And those who are against the 2-party system. Those tea-party wackos should really be identified and tracked. Lump the libertarians and green party people in there, too, because you really never know when they might "fringe out on us". What's the harm in "identifying" and "tracking" them. Especially if they're not doing anything wrong. What could they possibly be afraid of?
And if someone is a crack addict, we should track that. We don't want those people in power, or flying our planes. We certainly don't want to give them access to large sums of money. You have to admit, tracking crack addicts is a good idea.
But not a single person has ever *started* with crack. Usually they start with marijuana or alcohol. Don't believe me? Well, we should track that. We can actually predict which people are more prone to become crack addicts, simply by tracking the population, their purchases, and their habits.
Really, we shouldn't let someone behind the wheel, if they have purchased open liquor within the past 2 hours. We should track that.
And the people who are causing our healthcare costs to skyrocket. Especially those with Aids. And a genetic disposition toward expensive illnesses.
This country was founded with a strong religious bias, and God wants it that way. We should identify the atheists too. And the evolutionists. How dare you say I'm part monkey.
Really, the only ones who can be trusted are the ones like me. In thought, actions, beliefs, genetics, and disposition. So we need to classify and identify. No need to tattoo their arms - that's old school. Let's just track them by ID. No harm. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear? I know I don't do anything wrong. I'll sign up, and even maintain the database for free.
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Odds of winning jackpot 1/X, jackpot is Y dollars : that seems to be the pertinent information. Are you saying that I should play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X, or are you suggesting some other calculation based on these numbers?
The simplified version is: I'm saying that it's mathematically a good bet to play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X.
But that's really an overkill - a conservative position. When Y>X, it's REALLY a good bet. And the reason is because there are bunch of other ways to win besides winning the jackpot. Sure, they don't pay out as well, but they are winners.
Here's the math for Mega Millions, based on their probability chart (you can do this math for the other lotteries).
It's a "good bet", if the Jackpot is at least (approx) $143.7 Million (even though X is 175.7 Million). It's obviously a better bet if the Jackpot is greater than $175.7 Million.
I wrote a Python program to show you how this is calculated. First, I print the probability chart that you can see on the above web page. Then I figure out the minimum jackpot to make it worth your while.
Thanks for the challenge! Good way to keep my brain sharp on a Saturday morning.
match match prize chances
5 1 jackpot 1 in 175,711,536
5 0 $250,000 1 in 3904701
4 1 $10,000 1 in 689065
4 0 $150 1 in 15313
3 1 $150 1 in 13781
3 0 $7 1 in 306
2 1 $10 1 in 844
1 1 $3 1 in 141
0 1 $2 1 in 75 Odds of winning: 1 in 40
It's a good bet if you can buy a unique ticket, and the jackpot is at least $143,732,416 >>>
from __future__ import division
def choose(pool, choice):
x=1
for p in range(pool, pool - choice, -1):
x = x * p
for p in range(1, choice + 1):
x = x / p
return x
I would love to see the US convert completely to metric. And that includes metric time.
But until the rest of the world is willing to convert to metric time (which they have shown no inclination to do), one can argue that it makes little sense for the US to do a half-conversion to metric, converting distance only. Why should the US set itself up to have to go through two conversion processes?
So the question is, rest of the world, why won't you convert to metric time?
Imagine if we converted all our Speed Limit 30 mph signs to 45 kph, in an effort to "go metric". First of all, 45 kph (in the half-ass Euro-metric "metric distance, traditional time" ) system is 27+ mph, so we instantly reduced our speed limits by more than 2%.
Second, if 45 kph is interpreted strictly in the metric system (metric distance, metric time), it equates to 11+ mph. So now we have reduced our speed limits by more than 60%.
We have to convert our street signs once (from 30 mph to 45 kph), and then a second time (to 115 kph) for FULL metric conversion. Insanity.
(Yes, this post is somewhat in jest, but highlights a real issue, that the US bashers never consider.)
My math was slightly off, as I focused on winning the jackpot, and forgot to factor in the smaller prizes (like your $2 prize) that occur at much higher probabilities. So this means that the last Mega Millions jackpot was even MORE in your favor than what I stated, as long as you made a smart bet.
Of course, your bet was smarter than mine. I bet $5, and lost on all of them. You hit the Mega Ball! Congrats.
I do remember reading an article where an organization tried to buy all numbers to the lotto, with an organized effort at multiple sales locations. It was back in 1992, and they succeeded.
The source signed a non-disclosure agreement, on the basis that he was trustworthy, and then disclosed the document anyway. What an unsavoury character.
Yeah, why would we trust these numbers, since they are provided by a source proven to be untrustworthy, about a company proven to be untrustworthy, led by a guy proven to be untrustworthy?
I still have a crappy VHS recording that I made off of antenna TV, with commercials, back in the late 80's or early 90's before episode 1 came out.
I remember telling my kids that Star Wars was the coolest movie ever, and that they'd really enjoy it, because I did as a kid. They didn't last 5 minutes into the movie before getting bored.
Then the Lucas marketing machine cranked up with the release of Episode 1, and the kids were like "Why didn't you tell me we had this movie? This is soooo cool!"
What Lucas SHOULD do is get some talented web programmers to build an interface to crowd-source this expensive process. There are enough star wars geeks who would pitch in for free. And then maybe some creative ones would make slight modifications to the movie to improve it.
Maybe those are the Lucas "slaves" you are referring to.
Technically, that's indeed the best way to win, but unlike nuclear war, people occasionally win at the lottery.
Wrong.
There are times (quite frequently, actually), when the lottery jackpot is large enough to force the expected value of any bet to be in favor of the bettor. Just this week, the odds of winning Mega Millions was 176 Million to 1, but the cash payout for a single winner jackpot was $224 Million on a one dollar ticket.
So the expected return of a *smart* one dollar bet is $1.27, clearly in the favor of the bettor, and much expected returns than the casinos make on the average bet. So you can actually perform better than casinos in the long run (who, everybody agrees, have the odds stacked in their favor), through smart, selective betting on lotteries.
I mention *smart* bet, because the trick is to try to avoid sharing the jackpot. You can't control what numbers are drawn; every combination of numbers supposedly has approximately equal odds of appearing. But you CAN control the likelihood of sharing the jackpot. If you assume that the combination 1-2-3-4-5, 6 is as likely to come up as some seemingly random combination, like 4-8-15-25-27, 42, then the game becomes "how can I pick a number combination that no one else is likely to pick?"
When people select their own numbers, there are definite tendencies. You want to avoid those tendencies. Here are some of them:
- Many people bet based on dates - birthdays, anniversaries, etc. So the numbers 1 through 31 (and especially 1 through 12) should be avoided. - People's "lucky numbers" are generally far more likely to be lower rather than higher. 6 is more likely than 43. There are, of course exceptions to this rule (like 7 is more likely to be selected than 1, 14 is more likely than 13 (considered by many to be unlucky), and certain higher numbers, like 42 are selected at a slightly higher frequency than you'd expect). - Most people tend to avoid sequences, like 1-2-3-4-5. (The issue with this rule is that there are a small number of consecutive sequences, so it's too risky to just bet consecutive sequences, as more than 100 people know these tactics.)
There are many other tendencies that have been studied. All you need to do is bet on number combinations that others are not likely to bet on. And there are a lot of such combinations, so it's not likely that you will be picking the same numbers as other Slashdot readers who are trying to bet smart.
I should also mention the tax consequences. You may argue that the $1.27 winnings will be taxable, cutting it approximately in half, and making it a losing bet. Since documented gambling losses are deductible against your gambling winnings in many jurisdictions, this argument doesn't hold up. It may cut the $1.27 expected value down to $1.135 (not $0.635), but it's still a bet that is in the bettor's favor.
Being from the Midwest, I had heard of the ball on occasion, but it wasn't until I was about 35 that I saw what the deal was. I pretty sick one New Years Eve, and I stayed in. And, Boy, was I disappointed.
I thought they dropped a glass ball on Times Square. All they do is lower the damn thing. Whoopie. No shards of glass. No mess. What a disappointment.
Another good reason to make sure your wireless is secured!
Seems like just the opposite to me - a good reason to leave your wireless open. Plausible deniability.
"Would use of those Yahoo accounts be traceable through forensic analysis of the computer that accessed it?" "yes" "And was any found on my computer?" "no" "And were all computers that had access to this wireless router analyzed?" "no"
As much as I love Heinlein, using the term grok just doesn't work. It doesn't make you look cool. It doesn't make you look well read. It just doesn't work.
+1.
Word choice is critical in making short messages easy to gro.., er, understand.
But you paint the picture as if the only Perl jobs are 10-year old jobs of maintenance programming. I bet there are some cool ones out there, working on new development.
There are probably Rails-like frameworks for Perl (as much as Django is for Python, anyway). And working on cool new frameworks with a cool language sounds fun. That just might be Perl.
I like jobs that provide the flexibility to use the "right tool for the job", along with a healthy amount of learning new tools.
It says Dice has a lot more programming listings than Monster.
Java - 14824.Net OR C# - 10496 C++ - 5789 Perl - 4664 PHP - 2499 Python - 2196 Objective C - 1267 Ruby - 1169 Cobol - 638
This is the number of jobs available using various languages. Since this article compares Ruby and Perl's respective contributed libraries, I think it's interesting that there are 4 times as many Perl jobs as Ruby jobs.
Implying that Ruby is as popular as Perl based on the library stats might be as valid as saying that Ruby is not even twice as popular as Cobol based on the job stats.... hmmm...
Slashdot Mirror
I mentioned casually to my wife that I wanted an Android tablet when you could get them for $179. And she got me one for Christmas.
I have no idea how she found it, but it was called a "Jpad". It was shipped from Hong Kong, in a makeshift box. Came with a USB flexible keyboard and headphone. I'm sure it has a slow processor, and it has Android 2.2 on it (I believe). It's nothing special, but I look at it as a disposable unit - renting technology.
It does several things very well - satisfies my itch to tinker, acts as an e-Reader, and allows me some media portability (to easily play my movie collection on any HDMI TV around the house on a plane or at a lake house). It gives me portable music too. And it acts as a nice conversation piece on the coffee table, since it's also my remote control for my TV PVR (Myth TV).
I would take 3 of these over one I-pad (which would cost about the same). But I recognize it as just an interim solution; I'll probably get another $200 unit at the end of 2011.
you're free to leave the internet.
You're hinting at the core issue!
When the ID inevitably becomes mandatory to participate in the internet, it will become mandatory to participate in commerce and in society.
Then whenever the government decides that they don't like something that some group is doing, they can secretly demand the information as to who was doing it, and persecute those who did it.
This is not hypothetical fear-mongering. This just happened . The US Government didn't like what Assange was doing, and they completely cut off his funds, both by securing his bank accounts and by threatening any new fund-raising efforts. And then they secretly demanded Twitter account information of his supporters.
Whether you like or dislike Assange's methods and tactics, any government-controlled single-source ID should scare the daylights out of any freedom-loving American.
And you can bet that the US Government is supporting Facebook becoming such a single-source ID, if they can't create their own.
Naaah, not everyone. Just the bad guys. And the dissidents. Potential terrorists, and neo-nazis, too. And anyone who is on the TSA no-fly list. Really, any foreigners. And those who are against the 2-party system. Those tea-party wackos should really be identified and tracked. Lump the libertarians and green party people in there, too, because you really never know when they might "fringe out on us". What's the harm in "identifying" and "tracking" them. Especially if they're not doing anything wrong. What could they possibly be afraid of?
Shoot, how did I forget to include the wikileaks supporters?
You mean all Americans are going to end up in concentration camps because of this digital ID? Look-up paranoia.
Naaah, not everyone. Just the bad guys. And the dissidents. Potential terrorists, and neo-nazis, too. And anyone who is on the TSA no-fly list. Really, any foreigners. And those who are against the 2-party system. Those tea-party wackos should really be identified and tracked. Lump the libertarians and green party people in there, too, because you really never know when they might "fringe out on us". What's the harm in "identifying" and "tracking" them. Especially if they're not doing anything wrong. What could they possibly be afraid of?
And if someone is a crack addict, we should track that. We don't want those people in power, or flying our planes. We certainly don't want to give them access to large sums of money. You have to admit, tracking crack addicts is a good idea.
But not a single person has ever *started* with crack. Usually they start with marijuana or alcohol. Don't believe me? Well, we should track that. We can actually predict which people are more prone to become crack addicts, simply by tracking the population, their purchases, and their habits.
Really, we shouldn't let someone behind the wheel, if they have purchased open liquor within the past 2 hours. We should track that.
And the people who are causing our healthcare costs to skyrocket. Especially those with Aids. And a genetic disposition toward expensive illnesses.
This country was founded with a strong religious bias, and God wants it that way. We should identify the atheists too. And the evolutionists. How dare you say I'm part monkey.
Really, the only ones who can be trusted are the ones like me. In thought, actions, beliefs, genetics, and disposition. So we need to classify and identify. No need to tattoo their arms - that's old school. Let's just track them by ID. No harm. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what is there to fear? I know I don't do anything wrong. I'll sign up, and even maintain the database for free.
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Odds of winning jackpot 1/X, jackpot is Y dollars : that seems to be the pertinent information.
Are you saying that I should play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X, or are you suggesting some other calculation based on these numbers?
The simplified version is: I'm saying that it's mathematically a good bet to play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X.
But that's really an overkill - a conservative position. When Y>X, it's REALLY a good bet. And the reason is because there are bunch of other ways to win besides winning the jackpot. Sure, they don't pay out as well, but they are winners.
Here's the math for Mega Millions, based on their probability chart (you can do this math for the other lotteries).
It's a "good bet", if the Jackpot is at least (approx) $143.7 Million (even though X is 175.7 Million). It's obviously a better bet if the Jackpot is greater than $175.7 Million.
I wrote a Python program to show you how this is calculated. First, I print the probability chart that you can see on the above web page. Then I figure out the minimum jackpot to make it worth your while.
Thanks for the challenge! Good way to keep my brain sharp on a Saturday morning.
match match prize chances
5 1 jackpot 1 in 175,711,536
5 0 $250,000 1 in 3904701
4 1 $10,000 1 in 689065
4 0 $150 1 in 15313
3 1 $150 1 in 13781
3 0 $7 1 in 306
2 1 $10 1 in 844
1 1 $3 1 in 141
0 1 $2 1 in 75
Odds of winning: 1 in 40
It's a good bet if you can buy a unique ticket,
and the jackpot is at least $143,732,416
>>>
from __future__ import division
def choose(pool, choice):
x=1
for p in range(pool, pool - choice, -1):
x = x * p
for p in range(1, choice + 1):
x = x / p
return x
win = ((56,5),(46,1))
combinations = choose(*win[0])* choose(*win[1])
win_chart = [
[5, 0, 250000],
[4, 1, 10000],
[4, 0, 150],
[3, 1, 150],
[3, 0, 7],
[2, 1, 10],
[1, 1, 3],
[0, 1, 2],
]
print "match match prize chances"
print " {} {} jackpot 1 in {:,}".format(win[0][1],win[1][1],
int(combinations))
winners = 1
payouts = 0
for w in win_chart:
winning_combos = (choose(win[0][0] - win[0][1], win[0][1]-w[0])
* choose(win[0][1],win[0][1]-w[0])
* choose(win[1][0] - win[1][1], win[1][1]-w[1])
* choose(win[1][1],win[1][1]-w[1])
I would love to see the US convert completely to metric. And that includes metric time.
But until the rest of the world is willing to convert to metric time (which they have shown no inclination to do), one can argue that it makes little sense for the US to do a half-conversion to metric, converting distance only. Why should the US set itself up to have to go through two conversion processes?
So the question is, rest of the world, why won't you convert to metric time?
Imagine if we converted all our Speed Limit 30 mph signs to 45 kph, in an effort to "go metric".
First of all, 45 kph (in the half-ass Euro-metric "metric distance, traditional time" ) system is 27+ mph, so we instantly reduced our speed limits by more than 2%.
Second, if 45 kph is interpreted strictly in the metric system (metric distance, metric time), it equates to 11+ mph. So now we have reduced our speed limits by more than 60%.
We have to convert our street signs once (from 30 mph to 45 kph), and then a second time (to 115 kph) for FULL metric conversion. Insanity.
(Yes, this post is somewhat in jest, but highlights a real issue, that the US bashers never consider.)
My math was slightly off, as I focused on winning the jackpot, and forgot to factor in the smaller prizes (like your $2 prize) that occur at much higher probabilities. So this means that the last Mega Millions jackpot was even MORE in your favor than what I stated, as long as you made a smart bet.
Of course, your bet was smarter than mine. I bet $5, and lost on all of them. You hit the Mega Ball! Congrats.
I do remember reading an article where an organization tried to buy all numbers to the lotto, with an organized effort at multiple sales locations. It was back in 1992, and they succeeded.
The source signed a non-disclosure agreement, on the basis that he was trustworthy, and then disclosed the document anyway. What an unsavoury character.
Yeah, why would we trust these numbers, since they are provided by a source proven to be untrustworthy, about a company proven to be untrustworthy, led by a guy proven to be untrustworthy?
I still have a crappy VHS recording that I made off of antenna TV, with commercials, back in the late 80's or early 90's before episode 1 came out.
I remember telling my kids that Star Wars was the coolest movie ever, and that they'd really enjoy it, because I did as a kid. They didn't last 5 minutes into the movie before getting bored.
Then the Lucas marketing machine cranked up with the release of Episode 1, and the kids were like "Why didn't you tell me we had this movie? This is soooo cool!"
What Lucas SHOULD do is get some talented web programmers to build an interface to crowd-source this expensive process. There are enough star wars geeks who would pitch in for free. And then maybe some creative ones would make slight modifications to the movie to improve it.
Maybe those are the Lucas "slaves" you are referring to.
Oops.. I meant to quote the guy who said that the only way to win was to not play.
You weren't wrong, your parent was. (But aren't all parents wrong?)
Technically, that's indeed the best way to win, but unlike nuclear war, people occasionally win at the lottery.
Wrong.
There are times (quite frequently, actually), when the lottery jackpot is large enough to force the expected value of any bet to be in favor of the bettor. Just this week, the odds of winning Mega Millions was 176 Million to 1, but the cash payout for a single winner jackpot was $224 Million on a one dollar ticket.
So the expected return of a *smart* one dollar bet is $1.27, clearly in the favor of the bettor, and much expected returns than the casinos make on the average bet. So you can actually perform better than casinos in the long run (who, everybody agrees, have the odds stacked in their favor), through smart, selective betting on lotteries.
I mention *smart* bet, because the trick is to try to avoid sharing the jackpot. You can't control what numbers are drawn; every combination of numbers supposedly has approximately equal odds of appearing. But you CAN control the likelihood of sharing the jackpot. If you assume that the combination 1-2-3-4-5, 6 is as likely to come up as some seemingly random combination, like 4-8-15-25-27, 42, then the game becomes "how can I pick a number combination that no one else is likely to pick?"
When people select their own numbers, there are definite tendencies. You want to avoid those tendencies. Here are some of them:
- Many people bet based on dates - birthdays, anniversaries, etc. So the numbers 1 through 31 (and especially 1 through 12) should be avoided.
- People's "lucky numbers" are generally far more likely to be lower rather than higher. 6 is more likely than 43. There are, of course exceptions to this rule (like 7 is more likely to be selected than 1, 14 is more likely than 13 (considered by many to be unlucky), and certain higher numbers, like 42 are selected at a slightly higher frequency than you'd expect).
- Most people tend to avoid sequences, like 1-2-3-4-5. (The issue with this rule is that there are a small number of consecutive sequences, so it's too risky to just bet consecutive sequences, as more than 100 people know these tactics.)
There are many other tendencies that have been studied. All you need to do is bet on number combinations that others are not likely to bet on. And there are a lot of such combinations, so it's not likely that you will be picking the same numbers as other Slashdot readers who are trying to bet smart.
I should also mention the tax consequences. You may argue that the $1.27 winnings will be taxable, cutting it approximately in half, and making it a losing bet. Since documented gambling losses are deductible against your gambling winnings in many jurisdictions, this argument doesn't hold up. It may cut the $1.27 expected value down to $1.135 (not $0.635), but it's still a bet that is in the bettor's favor.
Go forth and gamble!
Am I the only one to notice that 2.2250738585072011e-308 is not very large?
It depends on what font you display it in.
It is a string, after all.
How do you moderate the story as -1 Redundant.
Maybe this one's not a dupe, the last one was a Precognition!
They couldn't have gotten another guy without the first name Wang for this story? That is priceless.
It's actually his last name, which is China's equivalent to "Smith" or "Jones" in terms of prevalence.
I'd say it's more like "Johnson" or "Peters".
(But I'm the guy who always giggled at "Peter Rose" when I was a kid.)
Being from the Midwest, I had heard of the ball on occasion, but it wasn't until I was about 35 that I saw what the deal was. I pretty sick one New Years Eve, and I stayed in. And, Boy, was I disappointed.
I thought they dropped a glass ball on Times Square. All they do is lower the damn thing. Whoopie. No shards of glass. No mess. What a disappointment.
"An anonymous reader writes" ... Pure gold. I love the irony.
Why is that ironic? Slashdot had anonymous contributors a decade before 4chan came about.
Because Anonymous is the name of the group that is DDOSing sites. Get it?
Maybe not ironic. Maybe just funny.
Or maybe not even that funny.
Three hundred pages to cover a "hello world" app and not "take the reader much further?"
It's actually "Hello World", greeting each of the 7 Billion people individually.
XML is only used for arranging visual elements on screen - for layout.
No, XML is a powerful data interchange language too.
Think of the old .INI files. XML can be used like those.
Think of RSS feeds. Hardly just "layout". XML is used for those.
I'm not a huge fan of XML for data exchange (I prefer JSON if possible), but it is fairly readable. Check out the wikipedia article for more info.
From the Summary:
Another good reason to make sure your wireless is secured!
Seems like just the opposite to me - a good reason to leave your wireless open. Plausible deniability.
"Would use of those Yahoo accounts be traceable through forensic analysis of the computer that accessed it?"
"yes"
"And was any found on my computer?"
"no"
"And were all computers that had access to this wireless router analyzed?"
"no"
Eye think eye sea what their doing hear. :-)
Damn pedantic spelling Nazi.
If you are going to correct them, make sure you don't have a spelling error in your own text.
You ignorant slut.
You misspelled a word.
geesh.
It's dong.
As much as I love Heinlein, using the term grok just doesn't work. It doesn't make you look cool. It doesn't make you look well read. It just doesn't work.
+1.
Word choice is critical in making short messages easy to gro.., er, understand.
From TFA
The first hearing in the case was held this week in the southern city of Fukuoka.
Man, you can't make this stuff up! Fuk-u, ok? a?
Yup. Agreed.
But you paint the picture as if the only Perl jobs are 10-year old jobs of maintenance programming. I bet there are some cool ones out there, working on new development.
There are probably Rails-like frameworks for Perl (as much as Django is for Python, anyway). And working on cool new frameworks with a cool language sounds fun. That just might be Perl.
I like jobs that provide the flexibility to use the "right tool for the job", along with a healthy amount of learning new tools.
Wow, I should post in my sleep more often!
I copied someone else's post, linked to it with a bad link, and got a Score 5, Interesting.
Sorry folks, here's the real link
It says
Dice has a lot more programming listings than Monster.
Java - 14824 .Net OR C# - 10496
C++ - 5789
Perl - 4664
PHP - 2499
Python - 2196
Objective C - 1267
Ruby - 1169
Cobol - 638
This is the number of jobs available using various languages. Since this article compares Ruby and Perl's respective contributed libraries, I think it's interesting that there are 4 times as many Perl jobs as Ruby jobs.
Implying that Ruby is as popular as Perl based on the library stats might be as valid as saying that Ruby is not even twice as popular as Cobol based on the job stats.... hmmm...