I just wonder why CmdrTaco can't use the comment system like everyone else. Instead, he sticks in snide comments now and then. from the who-really-cares dept. And I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
I'd have to guess that he's depressed or something, and this is his form of lashing out. It's getting annoying though. I'd rather read the article before his stupid thoughts on the matter.
and has concluded that life may not be as common as we may have believed.
Unless tdfunk is more than one person, I'd have to assume that tdfunk was using "we" as a reference to all of us. Instead, the word "I" would have been more appropriate. Or maybe "some of us". I find it quite amazing that the poster assumes that we all believe the same thing.
It's not getting there that they are so worried about. I don't believe the article tackles that at all. It talks more about when following a link, and getting there, that the page looks like the real one. Yes, anyone can spoof a page, but this is looking in the address bar. And people who do banking or other sensitive activities, are likely to look in the address bar, or at least notice it should something be incorrect.
Further, if the link is hacked on a legitimate site, it would be much harder for a reviewer to easily notice the bad HTML.
I people opted in for the medication, and no laws affected them what-so-ever, then it would be great for them. My issue is with the article's notion about how it can start saving people. It doesn't seem to only be for the ones who need it, from their own standpoint.
At a single moment we would be able to look at the issue from two sides,
To go with Meyers-Briggs lingo, only Ps would care to do that. That is, to look at it from all sides and come to a conclusion. Js, don't care to see it from both sides, they just want to come to a conclusion.
Further, only Ns would truly care about having an argument, and the Fs would not want to be argumentative. You'd be left NTPs and NTJs, most likely the Is.
Thus, you're talking about a very few people who would actually care about this. But some INTPs may enjoy it, assuming that they'd *let* another person probe their thoughts.
and have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one.
Probably not. Again, only Ps would care, and they don't care neccessarily to come to make a judgement, but rather to understand the idea so well, that judgement wouldn't be neccesary. With that, there would be no passion. The Js may want that, but it's likely their minds would already be made up, and the other thought would still need to be processed. Both thoughts would not be appreciated equally, at the same time.
Anyone else notice the the first article being rather pushy? The author seems determined to make you "realize" that neroscience is equivalent to, if not worse than, genetic engineering.
The author certainly has that opinion, and did well to represent it. But, it seems, that instead of presenting the idea for debate, it was considered to be a fact that noone else realized. The article seems a bit crazed.
Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence.
And who defines "mental sickness". Many people consider religion mental illness. Certainly, it can be cured. Diciplining children, oh they must have violent tendencies. Defining marriage as something other than people of opposite gender, you must really be crazy.
Knowing that people judge others' behaviour is scary enough. Giving them tools for manipulation, is very scary.
"How does the NSA feel about the fact you're applying the same technology in the private sector?"
I actually expected him to say something like, "Our contracts stipulated that we had to wait two years before doing competing work. The case is pending."
First, talk to the lady. She may very well feel threatened by you. That may sound rediculous, but it can easily be true. Once that happens, defense mechanisms go up, and regardless of how correct you are, she'll fight.
You may want to talk to her. Lose your pride, and ask her if she is willing to set aside an hour, with the next week, to discuss your concerns. With that flexibility she'll probably accept the offer and set aside an hour after work, or the next day. She may be tense, because she may think this is merely a ploy of yours to "one-up" her. So, during the meeting, you must be very carefull to let her know that she makes the decisions, and that you are only offering information and concerns for her evaluation. Be apologetic, this gives her an easy way out of your erstwhile confrontation.
Finally, should all else fail, ask your boss to allow the developers to have their own subnet. Then, simply, put up a firewall for your subnet. This way, you'll be safe, and (if you don't shove it in their face) the rest of the company may want to be as "safe" as you.
Actually, a simple way to keep most people out, would be to have the ISP provide two separate sets of DNS servers. One of the sets being limited to the specific domain.
When a person signs up for the account, they can choose to have only a kid.us domain name server, and have the ISP simply block port 53.
If the kid can get around both problems, whether through anonymous tunneling or finding a non-standard DNS server, it would probably be pretty useless to block the kid anyway.
Being this is for kids under 13, most probably have little interest in the technology required to break something like this.
Furthermore, 7% would pay $20M to go to the Space Station (if they had the money.)
Perhaps if they *won* the money. Or, if they had the money to waste because they had so much of it. Really, if you gave these people $20M do you really think they would just go on the shuttle?
People say a lot about when they have the money. But if they got it, they'll realize the importance of money even more, and it is doubtless that their atitude will change.
I have seen two types of comments. One is where the comments are all at the beginning of the code, but not throughout. This way you know *what* the code does, but not how it does it.
The second type is code dispersed throughout, but none at the beginning. This tells you *how* it is doing it, whatever "it" is.
So, I find the best is to use both. For one, at the very beginning of the code say a lot. Basically what the problem is (that required code), what the answer is (the program itself), and the approach to answering it (the style).
With that in mind, any reviewer (including you!) will get the correct mindset when looking at the code.
Then, a second level is needed. That is, the basic idea of what each section of code does. Something like, "this function...", or, "this loop...".
For the third, each line of code gets a comment, on why it is needed. It is not always needed, but the overwhelming majority of lines could use a simple explanation.
I find the second level to be the most important. And the third level to be next. I have many times skipped the first level, because it was blatantly obvious.
As a rule of thumb, there should be more comments than code. If there isn't, you're not commenting properly.
Doesn't the Great Pyramid have some reference to that time as well? Either the bottomless pit, or the King's chamber. I can't remember where I heard it.
Someone was watching the episode. I came in just after half-way. He couldn't follow it, since he had never watched the series. I explained all the "references" to him. So, he summarized the entire series (alien storyline) in one sentence, and said how stupid it was. I mentioned that it was interesting if you watched how was slowly played out, but, I agreed.
Why not create the tables in a database? If all that is needed is a cataloge of items, it should be a trivial task. Add an index or two, and searching will be done very quickly.
Kind of hard running a free services and needing to hire an army of people for monkey work.
And so how did Netscape pay their bills? How about FreeAgent?
The purpose of freeware, is sometimes to get people to see your product. Then when they want the "advanced" features, people pay, already trusting your product. They mention the higher bandwith does cost.
I do agree with the basic idea of your retort, however.
As for needing a credit card, it does seem scary, but not knowing either way, I posting the comment. Apparently a couple moderators thought that to be off-topic. Oh well.
Teranews is a free newsreader (50 MB daily download limit on the free account). They require a credit card when you sign up, but their "FAQ" states: Due to the large amount of adult material in the newsgroups we must have a valid credit card on file, even if it's not charged, to verify that you are at least 18 years of age. If you signed up for a free account your card will NOT be charged.
I have not really used them, so I can't say much about them. But it may be worth checking out.
these things could whack both Ameritech and Comcast in one shot.
Except that I believe Ameritech is currently testing a service that provides all this. They laid the wire in some cities over the past year, and tests are supposed to begin this summer.
A friend of mine asked a technician who was helping to lay the wire, and got this information. Further, the bandwith could come close to 50 megabit per house. No telling what would be for which service though.
Slashdot Mirror
Editorial License I guess...
/. comments on story.".
Yeah, so I can't say he's bad for doing it. I can complain though.
Annoying? Sure... Put up with because there is tons of good info on site? Yup...
Same here.
Suggestion? Grin and bear it =(
Maybe there should be an option similar to blocking sigs. "Blocking
I'd have to guess that he's depressed or something, and this is his form of lashing out. It's getting annoying though. I'd rather read the article before his stupid thoughts on the matter.
and has concluded that life may not be as common as we may have believed.
Unless tdfunk is more than one person, I'd have to assume that tdfunk was using "we" as a reference to all of us. Instead, the word "I" would have been more appropriate. Or maybe "some of us". I find it quite amazing that the poster assumes that we all believe the same thing.
It's not getting there that they are so worried about. I don't believe the article tackles that at all. It talks more about when following a link, and getting there, that the page looks like the real one. Yes, anyone can spoof a page, but this is looking in the address bar. And people who do banking or other sensitive activities, are likely to look in the address bar, or at least notice it should something be incorrect.
Further, if the link is hacked on a legitimate site, it would be much harder for a reviewer to easily notice the bad HTML.
From the article:(I got to log into his 8 way Xeon box, wheeee! Fast machine!).
Makes you wonder. Would he rather go to an amusement park, or compile the kernel on a fast machine.
I people opted in for the medication, and no laws affected them what-so-ever, then it would be great for them. My issue is with the article's notion about how it can start saving people. It doesn't seem to only be for the ones who need it, from their own standpoint.
To go with Meyers-Briggs lingo, only Ps would care to do that. That is, to look at it from all sides and come to a conclusion. Js, don't care to see it from both sides, they just want to come to a conclusion.
Further, only Ns would truly care about having an argument, and the Fs would not want to be argumentative. You'd be left NTPs and NTJs, most likely the Is.
Thus, you're talking about a very few people who would actually care about this. But some INTPs may enjoy it, assuming that they'd *let* another person probe their thoughts.
and have passionate feelings that each side is the correct one.
Probably not. Again, only Ps would care, and they don't care neccessarily to come to make a judgement, but rather to understand the idea so well, that judgement wouldn't be neccesary. With that, there would be no passion. The Js may want that, but it's likely their minds would already be made up, and the other thought would still need to be processed. Both thoughts would not be appreciated equally, at the same time.
The author certainly has that opinion, and did well to represent it. But, it seems, that instead of presenting the idea for debate, it was considered to be a fact that noone else realized. The article seems a bit crazed.
And who defines "mental sickness". Many people consider religion mental illness. Certainly, it can be cured. Diciplining children, oh they must have violent tendencies. Defining marriage as something other than people of opposite gender, you must really be crazy.
Knowing that people judge others' behaviour is scary enough. Giving them tools for manipulation, is very scary.
What, it runs infinite loops in less than five seconds?
I actually expected him to say something like, "Our contracts stipulated that we had to wait two years before doing competing work. The case is pending."
First, talk to the lady. She may very well feel threatened by you. That may sound rediculous, but it can easily be true. Once that happens, defense mechanisms go up, and regardless of how correct you are, she'll fight.
You may want to talk to her. Lose your pride, and ask her if she is willing to set aside an hour, with the next week, to discuss your concerns. With that flexibility she'll probably accept the offer and set aside an hour after work, or the next day. She may be tense, because she may think this is merely a ploy of yours to "one-up" her. So, during the meeting, you must be very carefull to let her know that she makes the decisions, and that you are only offering information and concerns for her evaluation. Be apologetic, this gives her an easy way out of your erstwhile confrontation.
Finally, should all else fail, ask your boss to allow the developers to have their own subnet. Then, simply, put up a firewall for your subnet. This way, you'll be safe, and (if you don't shove it in their face) the rest of the company may want to be as "safe" as you.
Actually, a simple way to keep most people out, would be to have the ISP provide two separate sets of DNS servers. One of the sets being limited to the specific domain.
When a person signs up for the account, they can choose to have only a kid.us domain name server, and have the ISP simply block port 53.
If the kid can get around both problems, whether through anonymous tunneling or finding a non-standard DNS server, it would probably be pretty useless to block the kid anyway.
Being this is for kids under 13, most probably have little interest in the technology required to break something like this.
Perhaps if they *won* the money. Or, if they had the money to waste because they had so much of it. Really, if you gave these people $20M do you really think they would just go on the shuttle?
People say a lot about when they have the money. But if they got it, they'll realize the importance of money even more, and it is doubtless that their atitude will change.
The second type is code dispersed throughout, but none at the beginning. This tells you *how* it is doing it, whatever "it" is.
So, I find the best is to use both. For one, at the very beginning of the code say a lot. Basically what the problem is (that required code), what the answer is (the program itself), and the approach to answering it (the style).
With that in mind, any reviewer (including you!) will get the correct mindset when looking at the code.
Then, a second level is needed. That is, the basic idea of what each section of code does. Something like, "this function...", or, "this loop...".
For the third, each line of code gets a comment, on why it is needed. It is not always needed, but the overwhelming majority of lines could use a simple explanation.
I find the second level to be the most important. And the third level to be next. I have many times skipped the first level, because it was blatantly obvious.
As a rule of thumb, there should be more comments than code. If there isn't, you're not commenting properly.
Doesn't the Great Pyramid have some reference to that time as well? Either the bottomless pit, or the King's chamber. I can't remember where I heard it.
Someone was watching the episode. I came in just after half-way. He couldn't follow it, since he had never watched the series. I explained all the "references" to him. So, he summarized the entire series (alien storyline) in one sentence, and said how stupid it was. I mentioned that it was interesting if you watched how was slowly played out, but, I agreed.
I thought it was baking soda, after soeone else went into a room. It's been a while though.
Why not create the tables in a database? If all that is needed is a cataloge of items, it should be a trivial task. Add an index or two, and searching will be done very quickly.
And so how did Netscape pay their bills? How about FreeAgent?
The purpose of freeware, is sometimes to get people to see your product. Then when they want the "advanced" features, people pay, already trusting your product. They mention the higher bandwith does cost.
I do agree with the basic idea of your retort, however.
As for needing a credit card, it does seem scary, but not knowing either way, I posting the comment. Apparently a couple moderators thought that to be off-topic. Oh well.
Actually, the US is a democracy, as well as a republic. To be specific, the United States is a "representative democracy".
I have not really used them, so I can't say much about them. But it may be worth checking out.
Well, after I live forever, I'm gonna learn how to fly.
Does it run under wine?
Alternatively, can I run it during Win98 Setup?
For those of you in Rio Linda, I am kidding.
these things could whack both Ameritech and Comcast in one shot.
Except that I believe Ameritech is currently testing a service that provides all this. They laid the wire in some cities over the past year, and tests are supposed to begin this summer.
A friend of mine asked a technician who was helping to lay the wire, and got this information. Further, the bandwith could come close to 50 megabit per house. No telling what would be for which service though.