What about all the ERROR CHECKING!? [yes, this is a joke]
int add(int x, int y, int *p_ans) {
int ans;
ans = x + y;
if (x >= 0) {
if (y >= 0) && (ans < x || ans < y))
return -1;
}
else if (y < 0 && (ans > x || ans > y))
return -1;
*p_ans = ans;
return 0; }
Now, if IBM "independently invented" that, you'd know something was up!:)
But the root of the SCO case (that is, the lack of it) Is the claim not that "this code was copied from this code", it is the claim of "this code was derived from this code.", and (though I think I'm reading elsewhere in these threads that this may have been dismissed by now) "This code derives from this other code, not because it used to be that other code and over time has changed into this code, but because it is capable of interfacing with this other code. Ignoring the fact that you were able to, with only trivial modification, make it interface with linux code. Btw, we wont tell you which code we're talking about. No, it exists, honest. Go find it for us."
What about all the ERROR CHECKING!? [yes, this is a joke]
int add(int x, int y, int *p_ans) {
int ans;
ans = x + y;
if (x >= 0) {
if (y >= 0) && (ans x || ans > y))
return -1;
*p_ans = ans;
return 0; }
Now, if IBM "independently invented" that, you'd know something was up!:)
But the root of the SCO case (that is, the lack of it) Is the claim not that "this code was copied from this code", it is the claim of "this code was derived from this code.", and (though I think I'm reading elsewhere in these threads that this may have been dismissed by now) "This code derives from this other code, not because it used to be that other code and over time has changed into this code, but because it is capable of interfacing with this other code. Ignoring the fact that you were able to, with only trivial modification, make it interface with linux code. Btw, we wont tell you which code we're talking about. No, it exists, honest. Go find it for us."
but Government schools attempt to instill in the student mind that we have a reasonable and good justice system, so of course things will get left out.:)
I dont usually ask this kind of question because there are so many perfectly capable eight-year-olds out there now, it seems stupid to group people by age. That said, this sounds like the kind of magical reasoning I used in the days of ancient times past, so...
What are you, eight?
Being able to cover 46k a year, going into debt in the proccess, does not mean you are able to cover 50k a year (or even able to go into that much additional debt)
There's no way to explain that, it's a mathematical fact. The number 50,000 is larger than the number 46,000. If Alice can borrow two apples from Bob and give three to Cindy, does this somehow imply that Alice has apples left over? Does it imply that she can aquire more apples? [hint: no]
Yeah, but like I said, when I started writing it I was the first one here:) Though it should be mentioned that fuck you for not actually reading more than the first sentence of the post, jackhole. Want to comment? You get a free read the whole thing first.
Yeah, It's admittedly rambling, goes around all over the place and gets nowhere. I can understand not reading it. You know what you get to do if you havent read something? You get to not respond to it! Just like I didnt respond to any of your posts, because I didnt read them.
At the risk of being redundant: the internet is a place full of only sound and well-thought-out arguments. If you want to try polluting it through unjustified summarization, build your own!
So you might ask "well then what the hell was your point if it wasnt the one I assumed it was based on my own ideas about the way mystical fantasy world ultra earth 36 ought to be!?"
It was a well-reasoned and apparently interesting internal discussion, drawing no conclusions (other than the suckiness of Inside Man)
"In other words, it's equally as valid to say that there is another explanation that causes both playing violent video games AND committing violent actions as the idea that one causes the other."
No, jackwit. In other words, it is equally as valid to say that oranges tend to be orange. The point is not "I am right about this, there must be some other explanation!" the point is "people who attempt to draw conclusions are morons, you moron"
Periods are for assholes.--ZOMG
(gee, I wonder if he'll "get it". -- HE'S LYING!! HE DOESNT WONDER SUCH A THING AT ALL!!!)
Yeah, I used p.s. in the MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE. I'm so good at language I can bend the laws of reality, altering the time stream, and such. It's not an obscene error, it's a sign of godliness.
Someone said someone had to make their games open? And windows magically becomming open for no reason, except Office, would be bad somehow?
If the OS code were forced to be open, I wonder how long before things like IE, the standard shell, the window manager, explorer, and more and more and everything that is "windows" and "is so ingrained into the operating system that it cannot possibly be seperated" [p.s.: anyone who though MS should be forced to not distribute IE with windows is an ass-weilding asstard with a +3 against ass-based attacks] would magically become seperate stand-alone products:)
Of course there is a "Link", of course there is a "Relationship". Those are statistical terms. There is a link between having too much money and having an Apple product. Do rounded self-contained white computers cause people to have too much money? (or, to play this role more adequetly) Do they cause people who already have just enough money to enjoy such things to get even more money?
I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.
HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE
Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )
Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).
Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.
ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!
The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"
in conclusion: I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.
What about the Open Game license? I was under the impression that while all the interesting flare and history (things good for a DM or setting up a campaign) were all owned content, the/rules/ themselves (That is, the things a searchable DB would be good for) were, as the name implies, "Open". That is, while I can't give away detailed descriptions of the cities in Ebberon, it's perfectly okay for me to use one of any number of free, searchable online databases.
please correct me. I assume I'm missing something here.
"Web 2.0" has been around since 1654. It's more popular now than it was then. Tune in next week for the exciting revelation that it isnt popular anymore.
In all seriousness, though: increased use of virtual machines and security and such will make "lolit'slikeanapplicationbutinawebbrowserzomg" unneccessary. The idea that it is popular for security reasons is actually, from a security standpoint, sickening. That's just a great way to look at how sorry the state of every other part of the security world is.
Okay, it's not so early/late anymore and I'm more clear-headed, so here's a better explanation: One-Time Pads, by their nature, have more opportunities for a breach than any other method. That is, you still need to share the exact same pad with another person, that same pad is used for both encryption and decryption. Because you _must_ only use it _once_ (otherwise it is not a one-time-pad), you must by the nature of the pad go through many exchanges of the key. Any time a key is exchanged, this is a security problem. You want to limit the number of times you expose yourself to that kind of risk, and one-time-pads are certainly not the way to do this. The more often you make an exchange, the more likely someone is to work out the human component, that is, the by-its-nature-less-secure-proccess through which you exchange the key. Most breaches occur through whatever human/logistic component is set up, not from the breach of a key.
Again, with the qualifier "by themselves". One-time-pads are not secure, (asswit).
or, you could understand what "nested" means and know that when something isnt a reply to a particular comment, it wont show up in that comment's thread.
There is a sharp difference between "not being compatable with something" and "adding extra code to check a bit which says whether or not I should pretend to be incompatable with something"
no, you jackass, it proves that the instruments produce the same measurements when measuring hydrogen and oxygen as they do when measuring evaporated water. The devil would be furious if he knew you were advocating so ineptly.
what strange definition of "universe" do you have that the term "always" would make sense outside of it? "The universe always existed" can't be anything but tautology. The universe is existence*.
*whether the universe exists or not notwithstanding, of course.
I did not qualify what I said with "..without a search warrant". The whole point is that until you actually make a search, you can't know if something has been "deleted" or "moved to the trash bin" or "is just laying there". Because of this lack of knowledge, there is no difference. I say you don't have any right to go looking through my stuff on the limited basis of "someone said you've got teh pr0nz", whether that stuff is allegedly well-indexed and has a great front-end that's part of my.xinitrc, is scattered secretly throughout the filesystem with cryptic filenames, has been run through shred.
Slashdot Mirror
What about all the ERROR CHECKING!?
[yes, this is a joke]Now, if IBM "independently invented" that, you'd know something was up!
But the root of the SCO case (that is, the lack of it) Is the claim not that "this code was copied from this code", it is the claim of "this code was derived from this code.", and (though I think I'm reading elsewhere in these threads that this may have been dismissed by now) "This code derives from this other code, not because it used to be that other code and over time has changed into this code, but because it is capable of interfacing with this other code. Ignoring the fact that you were able to, with only trivial modification, make it interface with linux code. Btw, we wont tell you which code we're talking about. No, it exists, honest. Go find it for us."
What about all the ERROR CHECKING!?
:)
[yes, this is a joke]
int add(int x, int y, int *p_ans) {
int ans;
ans = x + y;
if (x >= 0) {
if (y >= 0) && (ans x || ans > y))
return -1;
*p_ans = ans;
return 0;
}
Now, if IBM "independently invented" that, you'd know something was up!
But the root of the SCO case (that is, the lack of it) Is the claim not that "this code was copied from this code", it is the claim of "this code was derived from this code.", and (though I think I'm reading elsewhere in these threads that this may have been dismissed by now) "This code derives from this other code, not because it used to be that other code and over time has changed into this code, but because it is capable of interfacing with this other code. Ignoring the fact that you were able to, with only trivial modification, make it interface with linux code. Btw, we wont tell you which code we're talking about. No, it exists, honest. Go find it for us."
How can you have a comment complaining about a lack of a link to Groklaw and not link to Groklaw??
but Government schools attempt to instill in the student mind that we have a reasonable and good justice system, so of course things will get left out. :)
I dont usually ask this kind of question because there are so many perfectly capable eight-year-olds out there now, it seems stupid to group people by age. That said, this sounds like the kind of magical reasoning I used in the days of ancient times past, so...
What are you, eight?
Being able to cover 46k a year, going into debt in the proccess, does not mean you are able to cover 50k a year (or even able to go into that much additional debt)
There's no way to explain that, it's a mathematical fact. The number 50,000 is larger than the number 46,000. If Alice can borrow two apples from Bob and give three to Cindy, does this somehow imply that Alice has apples left over? Does it imply that she can aquire more apples? [hint: no]
I'd say good karma is a sign /against/ being human.
I must eventually be a super genius!
some day... !
Yeah, but like I said, when I started writing it I was the first one here :)
Though it should be mentioned that fuck you for not actually reading more than the first sentence of the post, jackhole. Want to comment? You get a free read the whole thing first.
Yeah, It's admittedly rambling, goes around all over the place and gets nowhere. I can understand not reading it. You know what you get to do if you havent read something? You get to not respond to it! Just like I didnt respond to any of your posts, because I didnt read them.
At the risk of being redundant: the internet is a place full of only sound and well-thought-out arguments. If you want to try polluting it through unjustified summarization, build your own!
So you might ask "well then what the hell was your point if it wasnt the one I assumed it was based on my own ideas about the way mystical fantasy world ultra earth 36 ought to be!?"
It was a well-reasoned and apparently interesting internal discussion, drawing no conclusions (other than the suckiness of Inside Man)
"In other words, it's equally as valid to say that there is another explanation that causes both playing violent video games AND committing violent actions as the idea that one causes the other."
No, jackwit. In other words, it is equally as valid to say that oranges tend to be orange. The point is not "I am right about this, there must be some other explanation!" the point is "people who attempt to draw conclusions are morons, you moron"
Periods are for assholes.--ZOMG
(gee, I wonder if he'll "get it". -- HE'S LYING!! HE DOESNT WONDER SUCH A THING AT ALL!!!)
what's Oblivion?
Yeah, I used p.s. in the MIDDLE OF A SENTENCE. I'm so good at language I can bend the laws of reality, altering the time stream, and such. It's not an obscene error, it's a sign of godliness.
Someone said someone had to make their games open? And windows magically becomming open for no reason, except Office, would be bad somehow?
:)
If the OS code were forced to be open, I wonder how long before things like IE, the standard shell, the window manager, explorer, and more and more and everything that is "windows" and "is so ingrained into the operating system that it cannot possibly be seperated" [p.s.: anyone who though MS should be forced to not distribute IE with windows is an ass-weilding asstard with a +3 against ass-based attacks] would magically become seperate stand-alone products
Of course there is a "Link", of course there is a "Relationship". Those are statistical terms. There is a link between having too much money and having an Apple product. Do rounded self-contained white computers cause people to have too much money? (or, to play this role more adequetly) Do they cause people who already have just enough money to enjoy such things to get even more money?
I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.
HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE
Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )
Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).
Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.
ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!
The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"
in conclusion:
I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.
What about the Open Game license? I was under the impression that while all the interesting flare and history (things good for a DM or setting up a campaign) were all owned content, the /rules/ themselves (That is, the things a searchable DB would be good for) were, as the name implies, "Open".
That is, while I can't give away detailed descriptions of the cities in Ebberon, it's perfectly okay for me to use one of any number of free, searchable online databases.
please correct me. I assume I'm missing something here.
"Web 2.0" has been around since 1654. It's more popular now than it was then. Tune in next week for the exciting revelation that it isnt popular anymore.
In all seriousness, though: increased use of virtual machines and security and such will make "lolit'slikeanapplicationbutinawebbrowserzomg" unneccessary. The idea that it is popular for security reasons is actually, from a security standpoint, sickening. That's just a great way to look at how sorry the state of every other part of the security world is.
Okay, it's not so early/late anymore and I'm more clear-headed, so here's a better explanation:
One-Time Pads, by their nature, have more opportunities for a breach than any other method. That is, you still need to share the exact same pad with another person, that same pad is used for both encryption and decryption. Because you _must_ only use it _once_ (otherwise it is not a one-time-pad), you must by the nature of the pad go through many exchanges of the key. Any time a key is exchanged, this is a security problem. You want to limit the number of times you expose yourself to that kind of risk, and one-time-pads are certainly not the way to do this. The more often you make an exchange, the more likely someone is to work out the human component, that is, the by-its-nature-less-secure-proccess through which you exchange the key. Most breaches occur through whatever human/logistic component is set up, not from the breach of a key.
Again, with the qualifier "by themselves". One-time-pads are not secure, (asswit).
though not without the use of some method /other than/ one-time-pads :)
I suppose the qualifier "by themselves" is important.
there's more than one level of security. One time pads are one of the least secure methods of secure communication, for obvious reasons.
what, like this? [official site]
which means that if you go to some other thread, not the article (as your link did), you won't find the unrelated comment, dipshit.
or, you could understand what "nested" means and know that when something isnt a reply to a particular comment, it wont show up in that comment's thread.
There is a sharp difference between "not being compatable with something" and "adding extra code to check a bit which says whether or not I should pretend to be incompatable with something"
SciFi channel just got the rights to Firefly last week.
no, you jackass, it proves that the instruments produce the same measurements when measuring hydrogen and oxygen as they do when measuring evaporated water. The devil would be furious if he knew you were advocating so ineptly.
what strange definition of "universe" do you have that the term "always" would make sense outside of it? "The universe always existed" can't be anything but tautology. The universe is existence*.
*whether the universe exists or not notwithstanding, of course.
I did not qualify what I said with "..without a search warrant". .xinitrc, is scattered secretly throughout the filesystem with cryptic filenames, has been run through shred.
The whole point is that until you actually make a search, you can't know if something has been "deleted" or "moved to the trash bin" or "is just laying there". Because of this lack of knowledge, there is no difference. I say you don't have any right to go looking through my stuff on the limited basis of "someone said you've got teh pr0nz", whether that stuff is allegedly well-indexed and has a great front-end that's part of my
I assume I'm in the minority.