Keep in mind that tunnelling your packets through a proxy effectively "forges" the IPv4 source address, since the communication is actually originating at your computer, but on the receiving end, it shows up as being from the proxy, even though the communication actually originated elsewhere.
No. No, no, no, wrong. It does not in any way "forge" the source address, because it is a record of the source address of a transaction that actually took place. It is in no way a forgery of any kind. It conveys no useful information about the actual identity of the originator, but it in no way constitutes a forgery.
Honestly, I'm rooting for China's space program at the moment. Perhaps if they get far enough along to contemplate a base on the moon / a manned mission to Mars, then the politicians will stop contemplating their @pet_peeves_vs_politicians long enough to fund our side of the "race."
Along the same lines (but completely off topic), why does everything have to be a "war" or a "race?" Why can't it be the "Effort to stop people from smoking so much pot that they sleep all day like my college roomate?" Or how about the "The unhurried trip to Mars because it would be darn cool to get there?"
Plus, who told you other professions don't get tested?
Exactly. My degree was in computer engineering, and for some of the more interesting jobs I was required to interpret or even write short (1 page) pieces of code.
I dunno, I usually run through the flash cards a few times and then throw them away. I mean, whats the point of keeping them if I've memorized whats on them?
there is complete continuity of physics across the boundary
I disagree. There is a discontinuity on the plane of the portal itself. Example: blue portal on the wall, orange portal on the ceiling somewhere else. If you stand next to the blue portal, you are not drawn towards the wall
What you do have is conservation of momentum. The player will exit the portal with the same momentum vector as he entered (albeit reoriented to the frame of reference as the exit).
I understand your argument about items halfway through the portal, but that is another issue. Those items exist on both sides of the discontinuity. Maybe the distinction isn't all that important, but this is madness. I mean/.
If we need to change the way SSL certificates are issued and who has control over it (etc) . . . that is one issue.
Encouraging web browsers to ignore security irregularities and allow users to access sites that handle private information *without* bringing it to the user's attention is just irresponsible.
I have to agree. Few things should be more important to a site administrator that handles personal information for their clients than getting their SSL certs updated in time.
Browsers that allow this kind of lax security atmosphere are part of the problem.
Because arguing about "global warming" (something that politicians and lobbyists have distilled down to a level where it can be fed to the public) and what aspects of the current meteorological trends are related to it . . . is worthless.
Lets instead talk about:
Pollution of marine environments
Pollution caused by energy generation, and efforts to reduce pollution while increasing supply of energy
Vanishing farmland due to unchecked development
Vanishing wilderness due to unchecked development
Arguing about global warming is completely worthless. Its a manufactured argument designed as a political tool for people who stand to benefit (and I don't just mean those politicians who are proponents - the politicians who argue against global warming are champions in the eyes of ""climate change deniers"", benefiting just as much as their more liberal counterparts).
Instead of arguing about this *crap,* lets take a look at some of the real problems.
As long as its on purpose, I actually think "intensive purposes" is pretty funny. It could even be apt, depending on the usage.
On the other hand, writing it by accident (or writing it that way not knowing that its wrong) is annoying.
Well, that is the way pretty much all software companies seem to be going. The longer they can keep a particular application in service (ie, being sold to their customers) the higher their return on investment
( [# copies sold * cost/copy] / [# man hrs in development * salary/hr] == return on investment)
But they have to be able to keep selling compiled copies of that particular codebase if they want to follow that method. The problem comes in when a piece of software is *good enough* and the customers don't want to buy the next version.
(Case in point - my copy of MatLAB 5.0 that I got as a college freshman still works just FINE. It doesn't have all the fancy shmancy features that v7.6 has, but I DONT USE those features. Why should I continue to support Mathworks & Co by purchasing another license? I won't . . . unless my license expires . ..)
The "cost being transferred" was made to contrast with the cost reduction *never* being transferred. There used to be a theory that cost savings on the part of a business translated into lower prices for the consumer. I think the last time I heard someone profess that opinion with a straight face was . . . well, a long time ago.
Its not so much the frequency, but the consequences of what happens if you *do* get hit. I bet if someone looked up the statistics, you'd find you're less likely to turn into ketchup paste if hit by a car when you're in one rather than on a bicycle.
Also, I like the separation of semantic meaning and presentation that comes with modern HTML+CSS, and I don't think LaTeX offers that.
Errr . . . sounds like you haven't really used LaTeX then. Or maybe I've missed something in the melange of CSS tricks that make up the WWW today. The whole point of LaTeX is to separate the formatting from the content, although you do have to annotate the content with tags to invoke the formatting (just like HTML + CSS).
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that tunnelling your packets through a proxy effectively "forges" the IPv4 source address, since the communication is actually originating at your computer, but on the receiving end, it shows up as being from the proxy, even though the communication actually originated elsewhere.
No. No, no, no, wrong. It does not in any way "forge" the source address, because it is a record of the source address of a transaction that actually took place. It is in no way a forgery of any kind. It conveys no useful information about the actual identity of the originator, but it in no way constitutes a forgery.
I came here to say this. I'd mod you up if I had the points, but I don't (so I'm posting)
Honestly, I'm rooting for China's space program at the moment. Perhaps if they get far enough along to contemplate a base on the moon / a manned mission to Mars, then the politicians will stop contemplating their @pet_peeves_vs_politicians long enough to fund our side of the "race."
Along the same lines (but completely off topic), why does everything have to be a "war" or a "race?" Why can't it be the "Effort to stop people from smoking so much pot that they sleep all day like my college roomate?" Or how about the "The unhurried trip to Mars because it would be darn cool to get there?"
Plus, who told you other professions don't get tested?
Exactly. My degree was in computer engineering, and for some of the more interesting jobs I was required to interpret or even write short (1 page) pieces of code.
Your response, while it used math, was not as funny as the parent. Try again next time.
I dunno, I usually run through the flash cards a few times and then throw them away. I mean, whats the point of keeping them if I've memorized whats on them?
I'm making a note here, huge success!
there is complete continuity of physics across the boundary
/.
I disagree. There is a discontinuity on the plane of the portal itself. Example: blue portal on the wall, orange portal on the ceiling somewhere else. If you stand next to the blue portal, you are not drawn towards the wall
What you do have is conservation of momentum. The player will exit the portal with the same momentum vector as he entered (albeit reoriented to the frame of reference as the exit).
I understand your argument about items halfway through the portal, but that is another issue. Those items exist on both sides of the discontinuity. Maybe the distinction isn't all that important, but this is madness. I mean
Just out of curiosity . . . what do you DO with that kind of pipe?
Erm, does anyone else become a little suspicious when you are asked to download the photosynth executable from mslabs-999.vo.llndw.net ??
It doesn't say on ThinkGeek's page - what is the power output for those?
If we need to change the way SSL certificates are issued and who has control over it (etc) . . . that is one issue.
Encouraging web browsers to ignore security irregularities and allow users to access sites that handle private information *without* bringing it to the user's attention is just irresponsible.
I have to agree. Few things should be more important to a site administrator that handles personal information for their clients than getting their SSL certs updated in time.
Browsers that allow this kind of lax security atmosphere are part of the problem.
Lets instead talk about:
Arguing about global warming is completely worthless. Its a manufactured argument designed as a political tool for people who stand to benefit (and I don't just mean those politicians who are proponents - the politicians who argue against global warming are champions in the eyes of ""climate change deniers"", benefiting just as much as their more liberal counterparts).
Instead of arguing about this *crap,* lets take a look at some of the real problems.
Well the inkjet printers should be easy . . . just hit up the dumpsters on college campuses right as the semester is ending . . .
Since this is /., you probably should.
As long as its on purpose, I actually think "intensive purposes" is pretty funny. It could even be apt, depending on the usage. On the other hand, writing it by accident (or writing it that way not knowing that its wrong) is annoying.
And here's to you, Mrs. Anderson
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .
Its usually a line item on your town water/sewer bill.
Well, that is the way pretty much all software companies seem to be going. The longer they can keep a particular application in service (ie, being sold to their customers) the higher their return on investment
.)
( [# copies sold * cost/copy] / [# man hrs in development * salary/hr] == return on investment)
But they have to be able to keep selling compiled copies of that particular codebase if they want to follow that method. The problem comes in when a piece of software is *good enough* and the customers don't want to buy the next version.
(Case in point - my copy of MatLAB 5.0 that I got as a college freshman still works just FINE. It doesn't have all the fancy shmancy features that v7.6 has, but I DONT USE those features. Why should I continue to support Mathworks & Co by purchasing another license? I won't . . . unless my license expires . .
The "cost being transferred" was made to contrast with the cost reduction *never* being transferred. There used to be a theory that cost savings on the part of a business translated into lower prices for the consumer. I think the last time I heard someone profess that opinion with a straight face was . . . well, a long time ago.
Its not so much the frequency, but the consequences of what happens if you *do* get hit. I bet if someone looked up the statistics, you'd find you're less likely to turn into ketchup paste if hit by a car when you're in one rather than on a bicycle.
Also, I like the separation of semantic meaning and presentation that comes with modern HTML+CSS, and I don't think LaTeX offers that.
Errr . . . sounds like you haven't really used LaTeX then. Or maybe I've missed something in the melange of CSS tricks that make up the WWW today. The whole point of LaTeX is to separate the formatting from the content, although you do have to annotate the content with tags to invoke the formatting (just like HTML + CSS).
Well, just think of all of the structural engineering problems with producing a true LEGO space vehicle.
Do we really need modularization on that level?
Why so serious?
Why So Serious?!?!
*shudder*