Maybe it is true that "people used to say," maybe not. You have to flesh out those ideas though, or they have no value. What did they actually say that is relevant here?
You confuse your history, mostly by your willingness to use sloppy language. Simply clearing up how you communicate your ideas would bring you the answers and refutations.;)
UNIX wars were because of unclear copyright; wave hands; assert that open source is heading for the same result, without addressing the fact that they have clear copyright! Fail.
Bunch of hand-waving about android with no supporting statements for the assumptions; hand-waved away as easily as it was hand-waved into existence. For example you use the word "force" but you don't propose any sort of mechanism by which such an effort would succeed. There is no there there.
Finally, no, the article did not explain any such thing. It didn't even attempt to say anything about anything beyond Java.
In math, 1/3 is a fraction and has utility as it is. You're missing the point because you're sprinting past the point without even considering it!
In math 1/3 is still 1/3, and if you're wanting to convert it into an approximate decimal, you'd use something long long division, and even be able to represent the repeating portion.
You won't be able to do that using floating-point, and you'll often get different answers than you would using actual math. This is what I was talking about when I was saying that floating point uses a system of math, but it is different than what would be used in math, and gives different answers. In a math class, you'd need a function to represent division_using_floating_points, you wouldn't be able to just use the standard operators; if you were trying to your answers would just be wrong. The reason that floating point gives "correct" results is because it is a different thing than regular math, it is a system of approximation that you can implement using math. And in programming, you can implement it so that you even use the same symbol for the operator! But 1/3 is still 1/3.
Define actual math then? Algebra?
You should have just deleted your comment and not posted it at this point! lol (the answer is no, math doesn't mean algebra)
Around which time is that have supposed to have been?
1930s-current, though these days they use foreign allies to do much of the physical storage and manage data retrieval in a way that avoids local scrutiny.
Well, it isn't funny before the explosives go off. But after they've been detonated, it is pretty safe to decide to laugh, or not. It is highly unlikely that there are additional hidden explosives that activate whenever a cop laughs.
Buffer overflows are often the result of not checking the data that is going into the buffer carefully enough, or at all.
I sortof agree, in that this mistaken belief is indeed the cause of most buffer overflow bugs.;) The sanity checking is in the wrong place, and so easily and predictably fails in places and ways that surprise the author of said code.
Don't blame MS for... the entire history of software. That fails.
Don't blame Intel for... Turing machines! Code being data was invented by Alan Turing in 1936. x86 was introduced in 1978. If you don't want to blame Turing, you can blame Von Neumann who created the implementation that lead to modern systems and compilers. (1944-5)
The alternative is Harvard Architecture. (1944) Most of the programming I do is for Harvard Architecture systems. You might be disappointed to learn it would make your computer cost at least twice as much and use more power, and require more programming hours to do the same things.
One obvious mistake you make is in confusing bugs in an API that stores code as data for bugs that are caused by storing code as data. Yes, Von Neumann architecture allows bugs to escalate into security problems, because the users have misplaced trust in the computer, but the bugs themselves are not caused by it. And since Harvard Architecture requires more programming hours to do the same work, it isn't clear that the bugs would be less-bad because fixing or preventing them would cost more money! So you'd need real data before even forming an opinion there. What allows malicious code is the ability of the user to load code; it is as simple as that. If you separate code and data, you're still loading user-supplied code somehow, and that will be the attack vector for malicious code. Problem not solved.
We (programmers) know how to solve all the known problems, including all the bugs. The problem is, solutions have costs, and budgets are not unlimited. Tradeoffs must be made, and just wanting everything to be better isn't a viable tradeoff.
Beware of history, I mean... almost all of the set theory that is used in computing is not traditional set theory like is used in math, but the modified version that was proposed as the answer to Russell's Paradox!
It may turn out that it is philosophical constructs all the way down, including the circuit modeling system used to design and measure physical circuits and semiconductor devices. Wouldn't that be embarrassing, if true?
I do a lot of realtime embedded programming, and the way to actually achieve realtime results is mostly by not having zillions of things, and reducing interaction between what things you do have.
Threads is a good way to be using a "realtime OS" or something, but with code that doesn't get realtime results. I'm not saying you can't do it, but it adds overhead and makes it less likely. For realtime you basically want to give up all the things that make life easy for the programmer in regular systems, and then give up whatever you replaced those things with, and finally just use what resources are locally available in hardware. And depending on the hardware, that may or may not even be enough.
Security might be more complicated than that, from a technical perspective, because of the basic use case of allowing the user to choose what the computer does!
If users have choice of what work the computer does, then with no technical errors at all you'll still have security problems because of misplaced trust. A good example, the Trojan Horse. As we know, the horse was actually Greek, not Trojan. But there was no problem with the city walls; the security systems all worked as intended.
If you want a secure computer, unplug it and submerse it in brine. There is no way a general purpose device like the thing we call a "computer" can both be useful for tasks that require security, and also be secure. It is not a matter of being "proper," it is a matter of wanting things that come together, or rejecting the whole package. Stop wanting secure computers, and instead start wanting to be very careful about what risks you take in order to activate capabilities.
Like using banking software on a smart phone; some people get really caught up in the implementation details and deciding when it has enough safety factors, but they forget that they don't know what safety factors were needed until after exploits are published, which is often (long) after they're being exploited in the wild. You don't know what you don't know, so you don't know if it is secure or not; the part you do know is if you activated the capability. If you don't take some sort of affirmative steps to activate it, your phone won't know how to access your bank account. That's the one part that is knowable!
And calculating 1/3 -> 0.33333333... and then multiplying by 3 again yielding 0.999999999... again is no rounding error. This is MATH.
You're actually just arguing that floating point algorithms aren't really "math," but you're phrasing it backwards.
1/3 does not equal what you suppose in math, it only equals that in programming because math can't actually even represent the numbers accurately using digits, and in programming we need to end up with digits. We have to quantize things that, in math, can only be approximated.
The problem is that floating point requires extra approximations. The same math when converted into fixed-point might provide better results with less error. Don't rail about teh math unless you realize that math is besides the point, we're dealing with opposing systems of approximation that provide different levels of both accuracy and precision (measured as compared to the actual math) depending on the exact values and problem domain.
The reality is that using floating points to represent certain types of data, such as monetary values, is stupid. It isn't just fine and the bugs are because the programmers didn't understand floating points well enough to use them; the problem is that the idiots didn't understand the math well enough to know that floating point "math" won't give the same results as... actual math would, given the same inputs. The actual math that matters is the algorithm from the problem domain, not the complicated math involved in the floating point implementation. The programmer should choose the algorithm that is best at approximating the math of the problem domain. In financial services, rounding is very critical and has well-defined thresholds taken directly from "math." Floating point is mathy, but not mathy enough for every situation! Understanding that the floating-point algorithm uses a system of math does not in any way rescue the situation and cause the same combination of inputs and operators to produce the same results that your math teacher would come up with on the blackboard.
It is absolutely clear that you speak from a perspective of academia...
I've been asking people for decades, "Why was there a `rule' about having only one return statement?" and the vast majority of people said, "I dunno, was that ever a rule?" And a few people who knew that it was a traditional practice gave answers. The one answer that made sense, historically, was because of punch cards.
So now, finally, I found the academic who presumes that the limitations of punch cards would be better. Not based on real-world problems with multiple implementations that can be compared, but based on pure word salad. Wow! So, an amateur academic.
One thing to note, you can do OO in plain C by convention, and it works really well. It is true that types "exist in the mind of the programmer," but all of computing is just constructs that exist in the minds of the engineers. After all, "digital" is just a promise, not a technical difference; the electrons (and other charge carriers) are all analog, as are all the storage mechanisms, switches, communication lines, users, and user interfaces. Even the analog circuit design is just a human construct that only continues to appear to be true on account of the different engineers keeping their promises! It all exists in the mind of the programmers and engineers, and so a thing being only in their minds is only to say that it might exist!;) Any sort of system, language, utility, or practice that benefits programmers does so because it is in their minds, and that includes the implementation details!
In Ruby the ints mostly get used just as ints, but there is a bunch of OO layering on top of that if you want to access it. It isn't obvious to me at all that the negative you point out automatically follows from making ints into objects. OO is a style of structured programming, after all, not an implementation. Like in Ruby, when you pass an int to a method with the same name as a function in the C standard lib it is probably just passing the raw int without any extra overhead.
Maybe worrying about the ints is premature optimization?
Reminds me of the guy with a fancy multi-tool always railing against the guys with hammers and screwdrivers, without realizing that both the other guys have complete toolboxes and only grabbed that tool because it was the right tool for the job.
A lot of the best OO code I've seen was written in plain C. You don't seem to even have a good grasp on what OOP is. It isn't an implementation or a language feature, that's for sure.
For GUI fields to be subclasses of some generic widget class is an implementation detail that doesn't make sense, or not make sense, in isolation. It is 100% arbitrary and neutral. It has no semantic meaning in the problem domain that the application does work in. It is pure implementation detail. Even if we knew that the GUI system is OO, it would still be meaningless; there are lots of ways to structure an OO system. The inheritance is actually irrelevant to OO, the thing that makes it OO is storing the data and code together in an "object." As long as that object can act as some sort of structure, token, or system for getting to both the code and the data, then it is OO. That often leads people to include inheritance in their OOP system because it is a convenient way to reuse code, but that varies widely.
I can never tell with them if they plan on allowing an acquisition to flourish independently, die from inattention, take it out behind the barn and shoot it in the head, or morph it into something unrecognizable to suit hidden agendas.
The answer is Yes. Yes, they are going to do those things; they will plan for it to flourish, and see it die because their attentions forgot necessities, they will take it out back and shoot it, and they will still try to morph it into some other thing, because somebody told them the brand has value!
Free Software has politics that have nothing to do with most of what Open Source means, so it makes sense. I use lots of Free Software and I love using it, but some of the proponents actually want to tell me when I'm free, they want to ensure they think that I'm free by protecting me from myself and not letting me have BSD-licensed stuff. I mean, Free Software traditionally would actually support banning non-"Free" software, right? That is actually in there if you dig into it. Users can't be trusted to protect their own freedom. Whereas Open Source doesn't care if I'm free, it just cares if I can get the source and I'm allowed to use it. If I want Freedom, then I'm free to be free, and if I want some proprietary lock-in, I can strap myself in.
There is no way that Free Software was going to become mainstream except by becoming just another flavor of Open Source. And once that shift happened, people just ignored the politics, and so it was able to thrive.
And now it is a bit of an Open Source utopia! Everything has an open variant. And I can write software under the Apache license and everybody can use it, Free Software and Open Source alike! Yay!
No, alliterate is not spelled illiterate. Illiterate is spelled illiterate, alliterate is only spelled alliterate. If you were fully literate, you'd have looked up the new word you didn't know before deciding you thought it was misspelled. That you made that jump without even checking, from ignorance, proves your alliteracy!
Since you don't look shit up before you decide on the meaning, I'm not going to walk you through all the historical details about William Belknap. I will point out that the Senate disputed during the trial if they even had jurisdiction, and more than enough to acquit voted that they didn't even have jurisdiction. And he was subsequently acquitted. Note that all the Senators, including his defenders, agreed he had done the thing he was accused of. And yet, he was acquitted. We don't know if the Senate actually had jurisdiction; they would have had to convict for it to go to the SCOTUS and produce an authoritative decision. So it is an idiotic case for you to use as an example to prove that side of the argument; if you were literate you'd have read the freakin' history before referencing it. But you're not literate, you're alliterate, so you just looked up the name of the thing and ran with that, without actually reading it. D'oh!
Chessbase is traditionally software that you install from a DVD.
They do now have a networked version of it, but that is for amateurs, not pros.
Pros run a local version with local data that their team of "seconds" curates, mostly that is all the same material as it is just all the new games of grandmasters. But, pros need better computer analysis than you can get with a computer small enough to carry with you when you travel; they need either giant data-center type clusters, or at least some sort of Big Iron. And nobody uses big iron anymore. So they probably just need a secure VPN to some place in Europe.
Actually, MS might be just fine at VPNs, I don't know that one. It isn't the part of their stuff I've seen fail, at least...
You're right, but there is also some subtle psychology and gamesmanship going on here.
Magnus Carlsen is much, much stronger than his opponent. He's the highest rated in history, and there is a huge gap between him and everybody else. And of the top 20 or so players right now, he's really the most able to play for a win from an equal position. Or for non-chess-players, that means he relies less on preparation than his opponent! Simply discovering his preparation would be less of an advantage than it would be against anybody else in the top grouping.
So yeah, it is funny to ask MS for help; but it also promotes a match that is here in the US by name-checking a US company. it also, if believed, might give encouragement to those who would try it, and there might even be a honey pot waiting. And, the most important and real driving reason, he's bragging that his opponent would need some help to win.
All the top chess players agree that psychology is a very important aspect of the game. Even for intelligent, very-well-prepared professionals, it is still really hard to avoid making even minor mistakes through a whole chess game. Magnus Carlsen not only plays a lot of great moves that astound his competition, he also makes less routine mistakes. So hard is it to not make small mistakes, that there are lots of mistakes even at the world championship level. Well, everybody else makes lots of mistakes; Magnus makes very precious few. A slight psychological advantage that leads to one time where his opponent makes a slightly hasty move, pow, game over, and the match is very difficult for an underdog to recover. So even just the threat of psychological advantage can create one, because Magnus really is that much stronger!
Also, they would need to have already hacked his preparation to have time to make good training advantage out of it. They either are already training based on his training; or they aren't. That won't happen last minute.
And it isn't surprising. You can outsource product development, sure. But most tech workers aren't just prepping files for a factory. Most of the work is in constant customization, and understanding the needs of the client/user is just as critical to success as the actual programming skills.
It is highly unlikely that some random programmer in India with a masters degree is going to have a better understanding than I do of the business needs in my community. Just like, as a foreigner I wouldn't be able to offer as good a service to somebody in India, because I don't understand the business needs in their community.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it is true that "people used to say," maybe not. You have to flesh out those ideas though, or they have no value. What did they actually say that is relevant here?
You confuse your history, mostly by your willingness to use sloppy language. Simply clearing up how you communicate your ideas would bring you the answers and refutations. ;)
UNIX wars were because of unclear copyright; wave hands; assert that open source is heading for the same result, without addressing the fact that they have clear copyright! Fail.
Bunch of hand-waving about android with no supporting statements for the assumptions; hand-waved away as easily as it was hand-waved into existence. For example you use the word "force" but you don't propose any sort of mechanism by which such an effort would succeed. There is no there there.
Finally, no, the article did not explain any such thing. It didn't even attempt to say anything about anything beyond Java.
In math, 1/3 is a fraction and has utility as it is. You're missing the point because you're sprinting past the point without even considering it!
In math 1/3 is still 1/3, and if you're wanting to convert it into an approximate decimal, you'd use something long long division, and even be able to represent the repeating portion.
You won't be able to do that using floating-point, and you'll often get different answers than you would using actual math. This is what I was talking about when I was saying that floating point uses a system of math, but it is different than what would be used in math, and gives different answers. In a math class, you'd need a function to represent division_using_floating_points, you wouldn't be able to just use the standard operators; if you were trying to your answers would just be wrong. The reason that floating point gives "correct" results is because it is a different thing than regular math, it is a system of approximation that you can implement using math. And in programming, you can implement it so that you even use the same symbol for the operator! But 1/3 is still 1/3.
Define actual math then? Algebra?
You should have just deleted your comment and not posted it at this point! lol (the answer is no, math doesn't mean algebra)
It may not actually be the job of the police to solve all the crimes, but just to investigate and make arrests when evidence is found.
Around which time is that have supposed to have been?
1930s-current , though these days they use foreign allies to do much of the physical storage and manage data retrieval in a way that avoids local scrutiny.
There's a guy on youtube named Cody that pisses explosives, it isn't that hard to do.
Well, it isn't funny before the explosives go off. But after they've been detonated, it is pretty safe to decide to laugh, or not. It is highly unlikely that there are additional hidden explosives that activate whenever a cop laughs.
Buffer overflows are often the result of not checking the data that is going into the buffer carefully enough, or at all.
I sortof agree, in that this mistaken belief is indeed the cause of most buffer overflow bugs. ;) The sanity checking is in the wrong place, and so easily and predictably fails in places and ways that surprise the author of said code.
If you can't fuck off and work at Walmat instead, there are far too many of you people driving the value out of software.
In the new gig economy, maybe he can do all three?
Don't blame MS for... the entire history of software. That fails.
Don't blame Intel for... Turing machines! Code being data was invented by Alan Turing in 1936. x86 was introduced in 1978. If you don't want to blame Turing, you can blame Von Neumann who created the implementation that lead to modern systems and compilers. (1944-5)
The alternative is Harvard Architecture. (1944) Most of the programming I do is for Harvard Architecture systems. You might be disappointed to learn it would make your computer cost at least twice as much and use more power, and require more programming hours to do the same things.
One obvious mistake you make is in confusing bugs in an API that stores code as data for bugs that are caused by storing code as data. Yes, Von Neumann architecture allows bugs to escalate into security problems, because the users have misplaced trust in the computer, but the bugs themselves are not caused by it. And since Harvard Architecture requires more programming hours to do the same work, it isn't clear that the bugs would be less-bad because fixing or preventing them would cost more money! So you'd need real data before even forming an opinion there. What allows malicious code is the ability of the user to load code; it is as simple as that. If you separate code and data, you're still loading user-supplied code somehow, and that will be the attack vector for malicious code. Problem not solved.
We (programmers) know how to solve all the known problems, including all the bugs. The problem is, solutions have costs, and budgets are not unlimited. Tradeoffs must be made, and just wanting everything to be better isn't a viable tradeoff.
OOP works just fine in plain C, so try again. It must have been some other reason!
LOL were you triggered by the word "philosopher?"
Beware of history, I mean... almost all of the set theory that is used in computing is not traditional set theory like is used in math, but the modified version that was proposed as the answer to Russell's Paradox!
It may turn out that it is philosophical constructs all the way down, including the circuit modeling system used to design and measure physical circuits and semiconductor devices. Wouldn't that be embarrassing, if true?
I do a lot of realtime embedded programming, and the way to actually achieve realtime results is mostly by not having zillions of things, and reducing interaction between what things you do have.
Threads is a good way to be using a "realtime OS" or something, but with code that doesn't get realtime results. I'm not saying you can't do it, but it adds overhead and makes it less likely. For realtime you basically want to give up all the things that make life easy for the programmer in regular systems, and then give up whatever you replaced those things with, and finally just use what resources are locally available in hardware. And depending on the hardware, that may or may not even be enough.
Security might be more complicated than that, from a technical perspective, because of the basic use case of allowing the user to choose what the computer does!
If users have choice of what work the computer does, then with no technical errors at all you'll still have security problems because of misplaced trust. A good example, the Trojan Horse. As we know, the horse was actually Greek, not Trojan. But there was no problem with the city walls; the security systems all worked as intended.
If you want a secure computer, unplug it and submerse it in brine. There is no way a general purpose device like the thing we call a "computer" can both be useful for tasks that require security, and also be secure. It is not a matter of being "proper," it is a matter of wanting things that come together, or rejecting the whole package. Stop wanting secure computers, and instead start wanting to be very careful about what risks you take in order to activate capabilities.
Like using banking software on a smart phone; some people get really caught up in the implementation details and deciding when it has enough safety factors, but they forget that they don't know what safety factors were needed until after exploits are published, which is often (long) after they're being exploited in the wild. You don't know what you don't know, so you don't know if it is secure or not; the part you do know is if you activated the capability. If you don't take some sort of affirmative steps to activate it, your phone won't know how to access your bank account. That's the one part that is knowable!
And calculating 1/3 -> 0.33333333... and then multiplying by 3 again yielding 0.999999999... again is no rounding error. This is MATH.
You're actually just arguing that floating point algorithms aren't really "math," but you're phrasing it backwards.
1/3 does not equal what you suppose in math, it only equals that in programming because math can't actually even represent the numbers accurately using digits, and in programming we need to end up with digits. We have to quantize things that, in math, can only be approximated.
The problem is that floating point requires extra approximations. The same math when converted into fixed-point might provide better results with less error. Don't rail about teh math unless you realize that math is besides the point, we're dealing with opposing systems of approximation that provide different levels of both accuracy and precision (measured as compared to the actual math) depending on the exact values and problem domain.
The reality is that using floating points to represent certain types of data, such as monetary values, is stupid. It isn't just fine and the bugs are because the programmers didn't understand floating points well enough to use them; the problem is that the idiots didn't understand the math well enough to know that floating point "math" won't give the same results as... actual math would, given the same inputs. The actual math that matters is the algorithm from the problem domain, not the complicated math involved in the floating point implementation. The programmer should choose the algorithm that is best at approximating the math of the problem domain. In financial services, rounding is very critical and has well-defined thresholds taken directly from "math." Floating point is mathy, but not mathy enough for every situation! Understanding that the floating-point algorithm uses a system of math does not in any way rescue the situation and cause the same combination of inputs and operators to produce the same results that your math teacher would come up with on the blackboard.
It is absolutely clear that you speak from a perspective of academia...
I've been asking people for decades, "Why was there a `rule' about having only one return statement?" and the vast majority of people said, "I dunno, was that ever a rule?" And a few people who knew that it was a traditional practice gave answers. The one answer that made sense, historically, was because of punch cards.
So now, finally, I found the academic who presumes that the limitations of punch cards would be better. Not based on real-world problems with multiple implementations that can be compared, but based on pure word salad. Wow! So, an amateur academic.
One thing to note, you can do OO in plain C by convention, and it works really well. It is true that types "exist in the mind of the programmer," but all of computing is just constructs that exist in the minds of the engineers. After all, "digital" is just a promise, not a technical difference; the electrons (and other charge carriers) are all analog, as are all the storage mechanisms, switches, communication lines, users, and user interfaces. Even the analog circuit design is just a human construct that only continues to appear to be true on account of the different engineers keeping their promises! It all exists in the mind of the programmers and engineers, and so a thing being only in their minds is only to say that it might exist! ;) Any sort of system, language, utility, or practice that benefits programmers does so because it is in their minds, and that includes the implementation details!
In Ruby the ints mostly get used just as ints, but there is a bunch of OO layering on top of that if you want to access it. It isn't obvious to me at all that the negative you point out automatically follows from making ints into objects. OO is a style of structured programming, after all, not an implementation. Like in Ruby, when you pass an int to a method with the same name as a function in the C standard lib it is probably just passing the raw int without any extra overhead.
Maybe worrying about the ints is premature optimization?
Reminds me of the guy with a fancy multi-tool always railing against the guys with hammers and screwdrivers, without realizing that both the other guys have complete toolboxes and only grabbed that tool because it was the right tool for the job.
A lot of the best OO code I've seen was written in plain C. You don't seem to even have a good grasp on what OOP is. It isn't an implementation or a language feature, that's for sure.
For GUI fields to be subclasses of some generic widget class is an implementation detail that doesn't make sense, or not make sense, in isolation. It is 100% arbitrary and neutral. It has no semantic meaning in the problem domain that the application does work in. It is pure implementation detail. Even if we knew that the GUI system is OO, it would still be meaningless; there are lots of ways to structure an OO system. The inheritance is actually irrelevant to OO, the thing that makes it OO is storing the data and code together in an "object." As long as that object can act as some sort of structure, token, or system for getting to both the code and the data, then it is OO. That often leads people to include inheritance in their OOP system because it is a convenient way to reuse code, but that varies widely.
I can never tell with them if they plan on allowing an acquisition to flourish independently, die from inattention, take it out behind the barn and shoot it in the head, or morph it into something unrecognizable to suit hidden agendas.
The answer is Yes. Yes, they are going to do those things; they will plan for it to flourish, and see it die because their attentions forgot necessities, they will take it out back and shoot it, and they will still try to morph it into some other thing, because somebody told them the brand has value!
Free Software has politics that have nothing to do with most of what Open Source means, so it makes sense. I use lots of Free Software and I love using it, but some of the proponents actually want to tell me when I'm free, they want to ensure they think that I'm free by protecting me from myself and not letting me have BSD-licensed stuff. I mean, Free Software traditionally would actually support banning non-"Free" software, right? That is actually in there if you dig into it. Users can't be trusted to protect their own freedom. Whereas Open Source doesn't care if I'm free, it just cares if I can get the source and I'm allowed to use it. If I want Freedom, then I'm free to be free, and if I want some proprietary lock-in, I can strap myself in.
There is no way that Free Software was going to become mainstream except by becoming just another flavor of Open Source. And once that shift happened, people just ignored the politics, and so it was able to thrive.
And now it is a bit of an Open Source utopia! Everything has an open variant. And I can write software under the Apache license and everybody can use it, Free Software and Open Source alike! Yay!
I didn't address all of it because it was crap.
No, alliterate is not spelled illiterate. Illiterate is spelled illiterate, alliterate is only spelled alliterate. If you were fully literate, you'd have looked up the new word you didn't know before deciding you thought it was misspelled. That you made that jump without even checking, from ignorance, proves your alliteracy!
Since you don't look shit up before you decide on the meaning, I'm not going to walk you through all the historical details about William Belknap. I will point out that the Senate disputed during the trial if they even had jurisdiction, and more than enough to acquit voted that they didn't even have jurisdiction. And he was subsequently acquitted. Note that all the Senators, including his defenders, agreed he had done the thing he was accused of. And yet, he was acquitted. We don't know if the Senate actually had jurisdiction; they would have had to convict for it to go to the SCOTUS and produce an authoritative decision. So it is an idiotic case for you to use as an example to prove that side of the argument; if you were literate you'd have read the freakin' history before referencing it. But you're not literate, you're alliterate, so you just looked up the name of the thing and ran with that, without actually reading it. D'oh!
In chess they used to say, don't bet against the Russian. Then Magnus Carlsen came along.
In boxing... I recommend not betting against Wladimir Klitschko, or Vitali Klitschko for that matter. But you obviously heard differently.
Chessbase is traditionally software that you install from a DVD.
They do now have a networked version of it, but that is for amateurs, not pros.
Pros run a local version with local data that their team of "seconds" curates, mostly that is all the same material as it is just all the new games of grandmasters. But, pros need better computer analysis than you can get with a computer small enough to carry with you when you travel; they need either giant data-center type clusters, or at least some sort of Big Iron. And nobody uses big iron anymore. So they probably just need a secure VPN to some place in Europe.
Actually, MS might be just fine at VPNs, I don't know that one. It isn't the part of their stuff I've seen fail, at least...
It doesn't surprise me at all, because I read the pathetic long logs that Brazilians create trying to crack ssh passwords.
The same IP will try for *years*. I don't even use allow ssh passwords, people. Crack a private key, or go home, jeeze.
You're right, but there is also some subtle psychology and gamesmanship going on here.
Magnus Carlsen is much, much stronger than his opponent. He's the highest rated in history, and there is a huge gap between him and everybody else. And of the top 20 or so players right now, he's really the most able to play for a win from an equal position. Or for non-chess-players, that means he relies less on preparation than his opponent! Simply discovering his preparation would be less of an advantage than it would be against anybody else in the top grouping.
So yeah, it is funny to ask MS for help; but it also promotes a match that is here in the US by name-checking a US company. it also, if believed, might give encouragement to those who would try it, and there might even be a honey pot waiting. And, the most important and real driving reason, he's bragging that his opponent would need some help to win.
All the top chess players agree that psychology is a very important aspect of the game. Even for intelligent, very-well-prepared professionals, it is still really hard to avoid making even minor mistakes through a whole chess game. Magnus Carlsen not only plays a lot of great moves that astound his competition, he also makes less routine mistakes. So hard is it to not make small mistakes, that there are lots of mistakes even at the world championship level. Well, everybody else makes lots of mistakes; Magnus makes very precious few. A slight psychological advantage that leads to one time where his opponent makes a slightly hasty move, pow, game over, and the match is very difficult for an underdog to recover. So even just the threat of psychological advantage can create one, because Magnus really is that much stronger!
Also, they would need to have already hacked his preparation to have time to make good training advantage out of it. They either are already training based on his training; or they aren't. That won't happen last minute.
I swear, half my career has been fixing outsourced code.
Me too!
The other half of my career has been fixing internally sourced code!
No, that's not really true, sometimes I'm writing the code the next guy will look at and insist on replacing, er "fixing."
And it isn't surprising. You can outsource product development, sure. But most tech workers aren't just prepping files for a factory. Most of the work is in constant customization, and understanding the needs of the client/user is just as critical to success as the actual programming skills.
It is highly unlikely that some random programmer in India with a masters degree is going to have a better understanding than I do of the business needs in my community. Just like, as a foreigner I wouldn't be able to offer as good a service to somebody in India, because I don't understand the business needs in their community.