People are always talking about this stuff, but it takes an example to really bring it home.
IMBlaze, with this fucking classic quote: IMBlaze Instant Messenger is very unique. See if you can get access to its source code. Take a look at some screenshots of gaim while you're there. They had to close the Support Forum there because of people posting comments like this:
Blaze is an illegal ripoff. Use Gaim, the original non-advertising free open source client.
But at least they're not selling it like some people...
Checking lots of individual words for matches in recent articles is probably a little DB intensive, but the editor-only code areas that this would be in are quite low traffic.
I can't think of any obvious ways, on the spot, to implement it, but given such low traffic, might it not be possible to check every single word in the article-in-progress, and use the power of statistics to determine whether it's likely to be a dupe?
I mean literally getting a few dozen of the most recent articles* and strpos'ing every word, or you could do some of that funky SQL stuff, you know - of $WORD in $ARTICLE get $THEM and make $MYTEA soon while check for $DUPE.
If stats alone can't hack it, then return a finished "% Match" figure to the editor, which he can use to guage the likelihood of it being a dupe. Pass him the articles with the most matches so he can check it instantly.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I don't give a shit about dupes themselves. I really don't. I just see them as an interesting technical challenge that we should be able to overcome, wait, scratch that, that we should be itching to overcome.
* [if even that's too intensive, then have a seperate area where a fixed number of recent articles are pushed through so that you can just check a nice quiet static block of crap instead of doing actual DB queries]
The term "Hacker" is used in the media to portray almost anyone with enough technical knowledge to use a vulnerability
As good a time as any to air a little grievance about this. Don't be offended, Mr. Parent-poster, but that's just pure elitism. The media takes "hacker" to mean semi-skilled malicious user. The general public accepts this meaning. Who is left? A tiny proportion of skilled internet users, that's all.
Meaning is not based on technical accuracy. Meaning is based on consensus. If everyone thinks "hacker" means $x, then "hacker" means $x, and as sound as your reasoning may be, there's nothing you can do to change it.
Also, your analogy, like most Slashdot analogies, is flawed. "Engineer" has the obvious and relevant root of "engine", as well as many years of use backing up its precise meaning. "Hacker" is a relatively new term, and doesn't have any implicit meaning as you seem to think it does.
Note that I implied that I think your reasoning is sound. It is. I agree with your point, in theory. Please resist the urge to whip out your flamethrower.
If one throws a million darts at a dartboard, it's highly unlikely that none of them will hit the bullseye.
But who's going to find that diamond in the rough?
In my understanding, this is precisely the purpose of Social Bandwagon Blogmarking 2.0. You Digg stories, rate Youtube videos, and you trep the trepfodder.com troploast and so on.
The parent post is actually working exploit code for a newly discovered mental buffer overflow vulnerability, which when parsed, allows the attacker to execute arbitrary code!
Whoever modded it up needs to be $rblfed or $rblmed or whatever it was called. Don't make me crack open the DMCA!
This sort of thing is common in all areas of academia. For instance, there's significant archaeological evidence pointing to several pre-Colombus visits to America, and yet the idea has been largely avoided for years. Anthropology is so biased it sometimes feels like reading Slashdot comments.
I think it gets worse as you get further from proper science and more into pseudo-science (political, social etc). I'm surprised that views on evolution are so firm, but that may be an effect of creationism. It would be better though if they'd rallied around the scientific method rather than the theory itself, but that's humans for you!
Science needs true debuggers. There ought to be a significant ongoing effort in disproving. The best part is that the creationists are an easy source of funding, at least for disproving evolution. Build a reputation for your work there, and maybe you'll be able to move on to work on global warming or something. I'm sure OPEC or Bush will oblige.
So the new slogan is Windows Vista - People ready.
Windows Vista - People Ready. Just the tool you need to leverage your agile interpersonal synergy to streamline the digital solution engineering process.
A load of arm-waving to distract people from the added lockdown technology? According to this reporter, yes.
Dear Sir,
We regret to inform you that you have missed the boat on this particular joke. Please contact your local Slashdot branch for details of the next availability in sarcastic jokes. We look forward to our continued business with you.
Yours,
Slashdot
Sounds like you've been using Linux too long. To install software in Windows, you have to go to a website, download its "wizard" file, and click Next through a series of dialogs. It may be possible to compress that into a single line command in Linux, but probably not in Windows.
Yes sir, Windows is much more secure than Linux in the area of Internet Explorer arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities!
Not quite true. Mostly because of the sheer amount of lazy bastards reading Slashdot while they should be working, a high proportion of this site's visits are through Internet Explorer. Even if they will use some newfangled firebird or netcraft when they get home, this hole matters to them *now*.
Judging by the vocabulary you use, I'm guessing you work in the US. I don't know how US student culture is, but as a UK student I'd be disgusted if a classmate tried a line like that. Maybe if a teacher was agressively lazy in his refusal to help any students in any way, such a line might get some murmurs of agreement amid the mortified silence. Maybe.
I'm amazed to see the responses not only to your post, but to the decision made by the professor from the story. I can hardly tell what to make of them, and I can only hope that they are the typical Slashdot Pavlov's-dogs moderator-pleasing responses. I was further surprised that the arrogant flaming continued after you stated that the school backed you up in your decision.
Have all these people here forgotten how they hated the smart arsed kids who used to ruin classes with their pseudo-logic one-liner back talk?
In some of my classes, I have to sit and concentrate on not showing my frustration at the apathy of most of the other students. The worst half or third of some of my classes barely turn up. They ignore points that were practically the theme of the previous class. Their fucking mobile phones ring. They don't do the homework. Despite all this, the teachers keep their side of the deal, and play along with these wannabes playing at being students. It's a relief when a teacher does anything at all to improve this situation.
For the most part, however, there is actually quite a powerful mutual respect. I for one am glad that you demonstrated that there are real consequences for failing to observe that respect and attempting to subvert the power roles common to just about every classroom in the world.
Congratulations on your +5 Insightful flame. Unfortunately, you forgot to add any ingredients apart from the flames.
Actually got a point? You're blatantly wrong about both of the things you simply dismiss: need of a leader is an innate human need in most all circumstances, and the reason he ejected the student from the class is irrelevant to the discussion.
Literally all that you did in this post was to dismiss his as incorrect.
I swear, Slashdot will send me to an early grave if I continue to parse its headlines at such a high privilege level. Though I'm guilty of feeding this myself, I'm starting to tire of so many SKY-IS-FALLING stories (I've been around here slightly longer than my UID suggests).
I get the impression that this is kind of a rite of passage here. Would that be correct?
(I don't consider this offtopic because this is an absolute non-story. Your Moderation May Vary)
Heh, I noticed I learn better when I take less/zero notes. It sometimes visibly throws them that one of the better students in the class appears to be doing nothing! I find the idea that people are taking laptops to a law class in the first place laughable.
Now to save a few people some time...
Re: Thinking in lectures (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward - on Wednesday March 22, @06:20PM (#14973416) You're arrogant blabalblablab how dare you blablablablabalab say you're the best blablabla
Re: Thinking in lectures (Score:2) by caffeination - on Wednesday March 22, @06:22PM (#14973417) Fuck you, it's a language course. The less you think about language the better.
Absolutely. Who cares about the worthless opinion of anyone perverse enough to even contemplate using anything other than the distro/desktop/operating system/editor/window manager/news aggregation website/webpage layout method/browser he's decided is the best?
You have it easy. I work in 2056, among college graduates like in your job, but in my job, monkeys have taken over the world. It's not all bad, I mean even these monkeys know to use email for big papers like the ones you mention, but they fucking stink of shit. I mean jeez!
I would have got a job in a better timeline, but that's the price of taking a liberal arts degree..
Surely you aren't suggesting that in this post-911 world, your loving president should be spending money on anything other than the security of the homeland? Imagine what those COMMIES in the LIBERAL MEDIA! would do to him if spending on Protecting America's Children, Puppies and Kittens were to fail to keep pace with Moore's Law?
As you can see, I'm the dumass. I'll answer your question though - I think I was acting under the belief that they had officially downsized their name, a la Lucky Goldstar.
However, having considered all the available evidence, I have concluded that I acted in good faith, even when I did not, and should not be punished in any way.
I realised this the moment I hit Submit. If only I didn't word every single thing I write so strongly. God only knows where that idea came from. Thank you for not being a prick about it - this is the nice thing about Slashdot in the morning.
I disagree. I think someone of his stature can at least be trusted in his opinion of the quality of documentation.
Following your idea through, that would mean that Microsoft deliberately nominated a non-specialist just so that if he said anything negative, they could attack his competence. How sick would that be? And how unsurprising?
Slashdot Mirror
IMBlaze, with this fucking classic quote: IMBlaze Instant Messenger is very unique. See if you can get access to its source code. Take a look at some screenshots of gaim while you're there. They had to close the Support Forum there because of people posting comments like this:
But at least they're not selling it like some people...
Godwin already!
I can't think of any obvious ways, on the spot, to implement it, but given such low traffic, might it not be possible to check every single word in the article-in-progress, and use the power of statistics to determine whether it's likely to be a dupe?
I mean literally getting a few dozen of the most recent articles* and strpos'ing every word, or you could do some of that funky SQL stuff, you know - of $WORD in $ARTICLE get $THEM and make $MYTEA soon while check for $DUPE.
If stats alone can't hack it, then return a finished "% Match" figure to the editor, which he can use to guage the likelihood of it being a dupe. Pass him the articles with the most matches so he can check it instantly.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I don't give a shit about dupes themselves. I really don't. I just see them as an interesting technical challenge that we should be able to overcome, wait, scratch that, that we should be itching to overcome.
* [if even that's too intensive, then have a seperate area where a fixed number of recent articles are pushed through so that you can just check a nice quiet static block of crap instead of doing actual DB queries]
Meaning is not based on technical accuracy. Meaning is based on consensus. If everyone thinks "hacker" means $x, then "hacker" means $x, and as sound as your reasoning may be, there's nothing you can do to change it.
Also, your analogy, like most Slashdot analogies, is flawed. "Engineer" has the obvious and relevant root of "engine", as well as many years of use backing up its precise meaning. "Hacker" is a relatively new term, and doesn't have any implicit meaning as you seem to think it does.
Note that I implied that I think your reasoning is sound. It is. I agree with your point, in theory. Please resist the urge to whip out your flamethrower.
In my understanding, this is precisely the purpose of Social Bandwagon Blogmarking 2.0. You Digg stories, rate Youtube videos, and you trep the trepfodder.com troploast and so on.
Whoever modded it up needs to be $rblfed or $rblmed or whatever it was called. Don't make me crack open the DMCA!
Slashdot ruins the illusion that is Web 2.0 by predating the term, possessing most of the characteristics and lacking all the superfluous technology.
I think it gets worse as you get further from proper science and more into pseudo-science (political, social etc). I'm surprised that views on evolution are so firm, but that may be an effect of creationism. It would be better though if they'd rallied around the scientific method rather than the theory itself, but that's humans for you!
Science needs true debuggers. There ought to be a significant ongoing effort in disproving. The best part is that the creationists are an easy source of funding, at least for disproving evolution. Build a reputation for your work there, and maybe you'll be able to move on to work on global warming or something. I'm sure OPEC or Bush will oblige.
Splendid discernment. Simply splendid.
Windows Vista - People Ready. Just the tool you need to leverage your agile interpersonal synergy to streamline the digital solution engineering process.
A load of arm-waving to distract people from the added lockdown technology? According to this reporter, yes.
Dear Sir, We regret to inform you that you have missed the boat on this particular joke. Please contact your local Slashdot branch for details of the next availability in sarcastic jokes. We look forward to our continued business with you. Yours, Slashdot
Yes sir, Windows is much more secure than Linux in the area of Internet Explorer arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities!
Not quite true. Mostly because of the sheer amount of lazy bastards reading Slashdot while they should be working, a high proportion of this site's visits are through Internet Explorer. Even if they will use some newfangled firebird or netcraft when they get home, this hole matters to them *now*.
I'm amazed to see the responses not only to your post, but to the decision made by the professor from the story. I can hardly tell what to make of them, and I can only hope that they are the typical Slashdot Pavlov's-dogs moderator-pleasing responses. I was further surprised that the arrogant flaming continued after you stated that the school backed you up in your decision.
Have all these people here forgotten how they hated the smart arsed kids who used to ruin classes with their pseudo-logic one-liner back talk?
In some of my classes, I have to sit and concentrate on not showing my frustration at the apathy of most of the other students. The worst half or third of some of my classes barely turn up. They ignore points that were practically the theme of the previous class. Their fucking mobile phones ring. They don't do the homework. Despite all this, the teachers keep their side of the deal, and play along with these wannabes playing at being students. It's a relief when a teacher does anything at all to improve this situation.
For the most part, however, there is actually quite a powerful mutual respect. I for one am glad that you demonstrated that there are real consequences for failing to observe that respect and attempting to subvert the power roles common to just about every classroom in the world.
Actually got a point? You're blatantly wrong about both of the things you simply dismiss: need of a leader is an innate human need in most all circumstances, and the reason he ejected the student from the class is irrelevant to the discussion.
Literally all that you did in this post was to dismiss his as incorrect.
I swear, Slashdot will send me to an early grave if I continue to parse its headlines at such a high privilege level. Though I'm guilty of feeding this myself, I'm starting to tire of so many SKY-IS-FALLING stories (I've been around here slightly longer than my UID suggests).
I get the impression that this is kind of a rite of passage here. Would that be correct?
(I don't consider this offtopic because this is an absolute non-story. Your Moderation May Vary)
Now to save a few people some time...
*whooooooooshhh*
They ought to put the number 14967401 in the dictionary definition of 'tanking'. I certainly hope you won't be here all week :-)
Zealotry is one thing. But zealotry-zealotry?
I would have got a job in a better timeline, but that's the price of taking a liberal arts degree..
Surely you aren't suggesting that in this post-911 world, your loving president should be spending money on anything other than the security of the homeland? Imagine what those COMMIES in the LIBERAL MEDIA! would do to him if spending on Protecting America's Children, Puppies and Kittens were to fail to keep pace with Moore's Law?
However, having considered all the available evidence, I have concluded that I acted in good faith, even when I did not, and should not be punished in any way.
I realised this the moment I hit Submit. If only I didn't word every single thing I write so strongly. God only knows where that idea came from. Thank you for not being a prick about it - this is the nice thing about Slashdot in the morning.
Following your idea through, that would mean that Microsoft deliberately nominated a non-specialist just so that if he said anything negative, they could attack his competence. How sick would that be? And how unsurprising?