so I find PDF manuals distasteful. Books: Grab, flip open, crawl inside... quickly, wherever
I find books distasteful. PDFs: Double click, ctrl-f, put in some text, click next a few times...done.
To be somewhat less sarcastic, perhaps you should look into a widescreen monitor that you can swivel and put into portrait mode. I find that makes reading PDFs and web pages much more natural.
Maybe it's long habit, but considering the e-book flop, I 'spect I'm part of a majority.
I would say e-books flopped because DRM sucks. For example, it prevented engineers from being able to make a decent portable reader; if the DRM can't be stripped (ala DMCA), then you can't move it onto the portable device, and this negates the reason for attempting to design such a device.
Imagine a Tablet-PC sized portrait-style monitor, which you can load books on to. It has a natural interface, say...a touch-based slider along one edge, so you can scroll text. I think that would be pretty sexy, actually...
1) The kid is not the defendant. His mother is. 2) You missed the whole standardized test being done on the day of deposition. 3) You also missed the subpoena being served with less than 24 hours notice. 4) You also missed the subpoena being emailed to the wrong attorney at first. 5) Did I mention that the subpoena was EMAILED? EMAILED! WTF? 6) If you want to talk about FUCKING OVER artists and their rights, try looking at the contracts artists sign with labels.
While on CMU's campus, I noticed that the population was generally Asian. As I went past Pitt on my way home, the population became generally female....leaving CMU thus became my favorite part of the day.
When you build Dynamic Link Libraries, you need to export the function names in order to be able to call them. This way you can call something like GetProcAddress(), which takes as parameters a handle to a DLL and a string representing the name of the function you're interested in calling.
Here, have some sample code.
typedef ULONG (WINAPI * External_Function)(/* parameter list goes here */);
HMODULE targetDll =::LoadLibrary("USB20.dll"); External_Function H4X0R = (External_Function)::GetProcAddress(targetDll, "GiveAccess"); H4X0R();// Memory stick is now unprotected
Are cheaters bad enough to wield shakey claims of copyright infringement around? Do you understand the precedent that would be set if Blizzard's copyright claims held?
We brand the RIAA for wanting to use copyright to stamp out piracy. But, here, because Blizzard's draconic anti-cheating measures actually benefit a bunch of posters, so they don't want to brand Blizzard for using copyright to stop cheating.
I don't play WoW. If some judge's ruling with Blizzard and a WoW cheat developer sets a precedent that affects my life, I am going to be pretty pissed off.
But what's to stop my program from pretending to be a debugger?
Also, what if a process outside of a debugger crashes, and you want to attach the debugger to find out why? Your suggestion completely eliminates this possibility.
Lies. There is no restriction on the user of GPL. Only developers and distributors of GPL code have any restrictions.
Okay, the users of GPL code would be developers. I know, wrong word, my bad.
Corrected, my point stands....the GPL places restrictions on developers by telling them that "if you want to use this code, you have to play by our rules".
It's only her program; the program which was licensed under the GPL which is affected by the gpl and any modified versions of that program you may make.
Yeah, but if there's code that's GPLed, I can't put it in any programs without making licensing those programs under the GPL. Or, am I wrong?
So, this means, as a code monkey, I can't put GPL code into the programs I write for my employer.
Implicit lies once more. There is nothing in the GPL preventing corporations from using GPL code.
Sure there is. My company won't let me use GPL code because we can't give our product away for free. My paycheck has to come from somewhere...like sales of software.
When you start a process, you start it with a certain set of privileges. If you're logged on as administrator, your calls to CreateProcess can start processes with a different set of privileges.
When you make a Windows API call to something like CreateRemoteThread, you need a handle to the process you're interested in. If the right security bits aren't set (and they get set by the call to CreateProcess), CreateRemoteThread returns unsuccessfully.
Anyway, what could you do to give debuggers special privileges that you could prevent other people from using?
When you share, and the other party does not, that is not sharing any longer. That is a gift.
Hm...I wonder what license Dijkstra released his algorithm under...
Consider that with software, when you share...the original is still there for everyone to use. The GPL is equally as greedy as closed-source because it forces restrictions on the user. It's just trying to drive closed-source out of business by locking everyone into open-source. Either your program is free, or you can't use GPL code.
It is a beautiful thing that humans are willing to give up their time and energy to make something that they let the world use for free. Corporations, unfortunately, are driven by the dollar.
If you are truly interested in the forward progress of computer science and the benefits to humanity, then you would choose for your creations a license which allows derivative works of any type, commercial or free. Your creation, then, can be used by anyone, forever, whether this anyone intends to write a free program, or is a code monkey developing for some corporation.
Unfortunately, you're assuming that the memory holding the key is in a separate chip from the processor which will use it. These days, it's common for chips to have internal non-volatile storage (Flash). I bet (note: speculation) one of the design goals for AACS was to ensure that the key was never in-flight on a PCB trace. You can't probe a signal if it's routed internally in the silicon, never leaving the chip.
If the two monitors are placed next to each other, I don't see how you're going to have to swivel. Do your eyes not move in your head?
--
At my company, it's standard operating procedure for all developers (keyword: devs) to have two monitors. (one guy even has three! and yes, he needs all three; he debugs a full-screen app on one, while still using both other monitors)
I haven't used alt+tab while I've been working there. Ever. Go ahead, try and write a program that hooks the Windows global keyboard hook, and count how many times you alt+tab in a day.
Now, all those times, that you hit alt+tab, and you have to tab through to the program you're interested in, and then you have to let go, and then your eyes have to adjust to the new layout of information on the screen, then you read the part of the web page which has the description you're interested in, and then you have to alt+tab back, and continue typing......all this time I spent continuing to type in my IDE, because I can just look with my eyes onto the other monitor to read the web page that tells me what I need to know. Hell, I don't even need to look back at my IDE, I can just keep typing in it if I wanted to.
And this happens every time you alt+tab. I mean, the lack of break in focus from alt+tab is worth it, to me.
Not everyone will benefit from dual monitors. That's why I say check alt+tab usage. If you're alt+tabbing hundreds or thousands of times a day, you could really benefit from more monitors.
Bonus points for extra hotness - get a widescreen monitor, and put it in Portrait mode. Now you can read more web page or data sheet without having to scroll.
The service of slapping people would be considered assault. Every case of a slap would be assault.
Not every video on YouTube is infringing.
For the nth time. Copyright law states that it is the copyright owner's responsibility to enforce copyright, and no one else's. That's because it's impossible to check every piece of content against every copyright owner, and this becomes exponentially more complicated when you factor in fair use/parody/etc.
For the nth time. Viacom shouldn't be suing YouTube for allowing any video to be hosted, because people will inevitably use it to share copyrighted video. That the service is capable of infringement does not mean it lacks substantial non-infringing use. Viacom should be suing the people who upload the videos - you know, the people who actually broke the law, directly.
So, before Google will allow any video to be posted to YouTube, they're going to check with every copyright holder in existence to make sure that the video is okay?
I do believe this would fit the definition of "undue burden".
Viacom needs to quit bitching about YouTube and realize that they aren't footing the bandwidth bill for this promotional material.
The next day I took it back to Best Buy and exchanged it for a Sony.
From bad to worse?
This isn't just a troll. Sony has a horrible track record with forcing proprietary formats on consumers and then not supporting those formats when something else becomes the standard.
My remark about M and L cones activating the same neurons, was that the mouse usually has an SM signal. I assumed that this meant there would be two paths to the brain, and that would encoding a gene for an L cone would create a similar L path to the brain, or if the L signal would be multiplexed on top of the M signal.
Think of it like component cables. Mice have G and B connected, and R disconnected. Does the R signal go through some sort of merger before getting plugged back into G? That was my question.
I just also thought...does this gene therapy connect the R wire to a display which has an R input? I would contend that, if there was a specific cable for R, then the brain would learn to differentiate the signal and "see red".
Aside from the article submitter copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article into the submission...
I have tongue rings, and my enamel wore down because of them. Which makes me sad. I digress.
Enamel fillings, instead of metal? Rock.
TFA mentions replacing whole teeth? I can see this catching on with old people.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could grow a layer of white enamel over the yellow enamel. Then, smokers wouldn't need to go buy whitening strips anymore!
Slashdot Mirror
I find books distasteful. PDFs: Double click, ctrl-f, put in some text, click next a few times...done.
To be somewhat less sarcastic, perhaps you should look into a widescreen monitor that you can swivel and put into portrait mode. I find that makes reading PDFs and web pages much more natural.
I would say e-books flopped because DRM sucks. For example, it prevented engineers from being able to make a decent portable reader; if the DRM can't be stripped (ala DMCA), then you can't move it onto the portable device, and this negates the reason for attempting to design such a device.
Imagine a Tablet-PC sized portrait-style monitor, which you can load books on to. It has a natural interface, say...a touch-based slider along one edge, so you can scroll text. I think that would be pretty sexy, actually...
1) The kid is not the defendant. His mother is.
2) You missed the whole standardized test being done on the day of deposition.
3) You also missed the subpoena being served with less than 24 hours notice.
4) You also missed the subpoena being emailed to the wrong attorney at first.
5) Did I mention that the subpoena was EMAILED? EMAILED! WTF?
6) If you want to talk about FUCKING OVER artists and their rights, try looking at the contracts artists sign with labels.
I had a summer internship at CMU for a bit.
...leaving CMU thus became my favorite part of the day.
While on CMU's campus, I noticed that the population was generally Asian. As I went past Pitt on my way home, the population became generally female.
Hmmm...further down...
I hope his English teacher wasn't reading that article...
...when I was doing some Windows Forms programming. All controls have a Hide() function. I got sick of my sig, so I hid it one day.
I'm sorry that it reminds you of Nazis. But, really, it's a programming thing.
Leave it to the lawyers and courts, because that's what the they did before they put the kid in the slammer.
The program shipped with a USB20.dll file.
::LoadLibrary("USB20.dll"); // Memory stick is now unprotected
When you build Dynamic Link Libraries, you need to export the function names in order to be able to call them. This way you can call something like GetProcAddress(), which takes as parameters a handle to a DLL and a string representing the name of the function you're interested in calling.
Here, have some sample code.
typedef ULONG (WINAPI * External_Function)(/* parameter list goes here */);
HMODULE targetDll =
External_Function H4X0R = (External_Function)::GetProcAddress(targetDll, "GiveAccess");
H4X0R();
Yes, cheating is bad. Boo cheaters.
So is piracy. Boo pirates.
Are cheaters bad enough to wield shakey claims of copyright infringement around? Do you understand the precedent that would be set if Blizzard's copyright claims held?
We brand the RIAA for wanting to use copyright to stamp out piracy. But, here, because Blizzard's draconic anti-cheating measures actually benefit a bunch of posters, so they don't want to brand Blizzard for using copyright to stop cheating.
I don't play WoW. If some judge's ruling with Blizzard and a WoW cheat developer sets a precedent that affects my life, I am going to be pretty pissed off.
Man, Goble rocks. He drives a car with the license plate UNIX.
Here's a YouTube link to the video. I don't think barbecue is the right word...try incinerate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBLr_XrooLs
But what's to stop my program from pretending to be a debugger?
Also, what if a process outside of a debugger crashes, and you want to attach the debugger to find out why? Your suggestion completely eliminates this possibility.
Okay, the users of GPL code would be developers. I know, wrong word, my bad.
Corrected, my point stands....the GPL places restrictions on developers by telling them that "if you want to use this code, you have to play by our rules".
Yeah, but if there's code that's GPLed, I can't put it in any programs without making licensing those programs under the GPL. Or, am I wrong?
So, this means, as a code monkey, I can't put GPL code into the programs I write for my employer.
Sure there is. My company won't let me use GPL code because we can't give our product away for free. My paycheck has to come from somewhere...like sales of software.
Yeah, but whatever you do to make a debugger special, someone else can do with a non-debugger.
When you start a process, you start it with a certain set of privileges. If you're logged on as administrator, your calls to CreateProcess can start processes with a different set of privileges.
When you make a Windows API call to something like CreateRemoteThread, you need a handle to the process you're interested in. If the right security bits aren't set (and they get set by the call to CreateProcess), CreateRemoteThread returns unsuccessfully.
Anyway, what could you do to give debuggers special privileges that you could prevent other people from using?
I mean, it makes sense. And while doing it many times, it probably helps to do it to many different chips, so you have differences to compare.
I can imagine this being very difficult, especially if the crypto engine is a small part of a much larger chip (like, an FPGA or something).
Hm...I wonder what license Dijkstra released his algorithm under...
Consider that with software, when you share...the original is still there for everyone to use. The GPL is equally as greedy as closed-source because it forces restrictions on the user. It's just trying to drive closed-source out of business by locking everyone into open-source. Either your program is free, or you can't use GPL code.
It is a beautiful thing that humans are willing to give up their time and energy to make something that they let the world use for free. Corporations, unfortunately, are driven by the dollar.
If you are truly interested in the forward progress of computer science and the benefits to humanity, then you would choose for your creations a license which allows derivative works of any type, commercial or free. Your creation, then, can be used by anyone, forever, whether this anyone intends to write a free program, or is a code monkey developing for some corporation.
Unfortunately, you're assuming that the memory holding the key is in a separate chip from the processor which will use it. These days, it's common for chips to have internal non-volatile storage (Flash). I bet (note: speculation) one of the design goals for AACS was to ensure that the key was never in-flight on a PCB trace. You can't probe a signal if it's routed internally in the silicon, never leaving the chip.
If the two monitors are placed next to each other, I don't see how you're going to have to swivel. Do your eyes not move in your head?
...all this time I spent continuing to type in my IDE, because I can just look with my eyes onto the other monitor to read the web page that tells me what I need to know. Hell, I don't even need to look back at my IDE, I can just keep typing in it if I wanted to.
--
At my company, it's standard operating procedure for all developers (keyword: devs) to have two monitors. (one guy even has three! and yes, he needs all three; he debugs a full-screen app on one, while still using both other monitors)
I haven't used alt+tab while I've been working there. Ever. Go ahead, try and write a program that hooks the Windows global keyboard hook, and count how many times you alt+tab in a day.
Now, all those times, that you hit alt+tab, and you have to tab through to the program you're interested in, and then you have to let go, and then your eyes have to adjust to the new layout of information on the screen, then you read the part of the web page which has the description you're interested in, and then you have to alt+tab back, and continue typing...
And this happens every time you alt+tab. I mean, the lack of break in focus from alt+tab is worth it, to me.
Not everyone will benefit from dual monitors. That's why I say check alt+tab usage. If you're alt+tabbing hundreds or thousands of times a day, you could really benefit from more monitors.
Bonus points for extra hotness - get a widescreen monitor, and put it in Portrait mode. Now you can read more web page or data sheet without having to scroll.
..a stack overflow.
The service of slapping people would be considered assault. Every case of a slap would be assault.
Not every video on YouTube is infringing.
For the nth time. Copyright law states that it is the copyright owner's responsibility to enforce copyright, and no one else's. That's because it's impossible to check every piece of content against every copyright owner, and this becomes exponentially more complicated when you factor in fair use/parody/etc.
For the nth time. Viacom shouldn't be suing YouTube for allowing any video to be hosted, because people will inevitably use it to share copyrighted video. That the service is capable of infringement does not mean it lacks substantial non-infringing use. Viacom should be suing the people who upload the videos - you know, the people who actually broke the law, directly.
Actually, the way copyright law works, the copyright owner is responsible for enforcing their copyright.
So, before Google will allow any video to be posted to YouTube, they're going to check with every copyright holder in existence to make sure that the video is okay?
I do believe this would fit the definition of "undue burden".
Viacom needs to quit bitching about YouTube and realize that they aren't footing the bandwidth bill for this promotional material.
Do you think the people around Chernobyl had no idea what was happening?
Three Mile Island is an example of the system working. Nobody was injured, and no adverse health affects occurred.
And that was in 1979. (actually, this marks the 28th anniversary of the TMI accident) These days, reactors have much more stringent safety standards.
The next day I took it back to Best Buy and exchanged it for a Sony.
From bad to worse?
This isn't just a troll. Sony has a horrible track record with forcing proprietary formats on consumers and then not supporting those formats when something else becomes the standard.
My remark about M and L cones activating the same neurons, was that the mouse usually has an SM signal. I assumed that this meant there would be two paths to the brain, and that would encoding a gene for an L cone would create a similar L path to the brain, or if the L signal would be multiplexed on top of the M signal.
Think of it like component cables. Mice have G and B connected, and R disconnected. Does the R signal go through some sort of merger before getting plugged back into G? That was my question.
I just also thought...does this gene therapy connect the R wire to a display which has an R input? I would contend that, if there was a specific cable for R, then the brain would learn to differentiate the signal and "see red".
Aside from the article submitter copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article into the submission...
I have tongue rings, and my enamel wore down because of them. Which makes me sad. I digress.
Enamel fillings, instead of metal? Rock.
TFA mentions replacing whole teeth? I can see this catching on with old people.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could grow a layer of white enamel over the yellow enamel. Then, smokers wouldn't need to go buy whitening strips anymore!