My address has been harvested off so many mailing list archives that I get hundreds of spams a day, so I get lots of fodder to examine this phenomenon.
Spam bots *are* now able to associate your address with your specific email gestalt if they can make a connection between it and anything you've done publicly online. For example, I get spams with the surnames or firstnames of other people on the mailing list. I also get spams containing words that are used frequently in my lists: "port" and "protocol" show up a lot in the places I go, and they are starting to show up a lot in my spams, including, frighteningly, spams sent directly to me, not to the list. That suggests that someone has started making a second-generation database that allows a bot to put my address together with the things I've done online. True, this is no more than a google search will get you, but it suggests even more heinous things are within reach using my online history.
Maybe this only affects us open source developers (googling my name gets lots of hits), but as the Internet influence on ordinary peoples' lives increases, and as more traditionally non-Internet data moves onto the Internet (accidentally or on purpose), this will soon be possible for other people as well.
I think we're moving toward a Light of Other Days society in the next few decades, and this is one of the signs.
Whether it's one or it's the other, Real is not a nice company. They may be on a path to change their ways, or they may not--I recently installed RP, and it spewed unnecessary cruft all over the place, but no actual spyware. Either way, they have lost the geek trust, for a long time. Firefox wants to form a partnership with them. With the devil, as far as most of us are concerned.
It doesn't matter much who's packaging whom--this is an ugly move for the Mozilla leadership to try to make, and I hope they rethink it, fast.
*most fingerprint systems don't store the actual fingerprint*.
The easiest, most computationally inexpensive way to check fingerprints against a database is to hash the print that you found at the crime scene--or the point of sale--and compare it to a database of hashes stored in the same way.
If you have the hash database, you have the fingerprint. Just because it's not the *same* hash as what law enforcement uses doesn't stop the NSA from using it against you. If you had more than one hash database, you might have to compute several hashes on the same print, one for each database, and do one search against each database. But the cost of doing that is tiny.
Heh, I cede the point. I was being facetious with my comment about Pyrex, although as a Python programmer, I would of course choose Pyrex for my own applications.
If you want to write the C library, I'll be happy to write the Python bindings.;-)
I'll take a guess! And it's even the one you want me to guess. The db2 instance. That's the fucking *point*. The fast C code that's executing has already been written.. some of it is in the python interpreter, some it is in the ksh and php interpreters, most of it is in the db2 interpreter. Very fast algorithms doing what they do best: optimized, super fast loops operating on static types.
That is WHY python and other interpreted languages achieve the speed they achieve.. because what they do is allow you to glue together C code written by other people. And, because the Python code is much simpler, you can understand the interactions between the fast code more easily, and see where your code fails to perform well. It's always because you're putting loops together inefficiently and making poor design choices, not because of the speed of the interpreter--and now that your code is short enough for you to see that, you can fix it.
Your application logic doesn't need to be super fast. It needs to be super agile, so you can refactor and accommodate changing requirements and make smart decisions about which pieces you are going to use and how you are going to use them together.
C won't die, at least, not for a long, long time*, and that doesn't bother me, a hardcore Python programmer, in the least. Somebody has to do the dirty job of writing those fast loops. Meanwhile I'll be here zipping through the application implementation.
*It will eventually be replaced by Pyrex, of course.
The first clue was that he rewrote the unix system from scratch. Yes, that's his big accomplishment, the giant feather in his cap that allows him to claim the respect of the Open Source* community. But only a megalomaniac would even attempt that, much less finish it.
RMS is to intellectual rights as Jack Thompson is to game ratings.
(*Not the Free Software community. Fuck you, RMS.)
If Google *starts* to become the only game in town, and traffic starts flowing over its network in preference to everyone else's network.. in fact, if it even showed signs of going in that direction, the telcos would have to switch back to untiered so they could keep their customers. They're not just going to drop dead as soon as someone else starts differentiating on service, they're going to go with the business model that results in the most money. Having Google as a major player, however fun to talk about, would just be a factor influencing the economics of the situation and keeping them in check.
It doesn't matter. In your formulation of the problem, for whatever definition of egg, the egg producer came first, for the same reason given by OP--but the subtle alteration of the wording reverses the meaning of the problem. Something hatched from something that was not-quite-an-egg, and laid an egg. Therefore, the producer of the egg came first in that formulation.
It does not in any way depend on your definition of chickens or eggs, it simply depends on the wording. If you specify "chicken" as the goal feature, the egg came first. If you specify "egg" as the goal feature, the egg-layer came first.
That is one of the most ridiculous complaints I've heard. First, I'm wondering why you need to remember your place if you're shutting down iTunes and coming back--shouldn't you start the sequence over again, if the tracks are meant to be played in sequence?
I have hundreds of hours of tracks. If I start the sequence over every time iTunes started, I'd never hear the tracks at the end, and I'd be listening to the tracks at the beginning until I went insane and beat a slashdot poster to death with my laptop. All your nonsense about sorting and playlists does not solve this problem.
You are again indicating your ignorance. There is an option to "minimize to tray"
I know about the fucking minimize to tray option. It doesn't do what I want. I want itunes' window in the foreground so I can see what track is playing and see the controls. I don't want the *taskbar* tray when I do this. So minimizing it is not what I want. Winamp gets this right.
so are you sure you WANT the HID key to pause itunes when itunes already has a tray icon?
This doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll respond anyway just so I can flame you some more. Yes, I'm sure I want the HID key to pause itunes. That's the way I've been using my music player for years. What the fuck does that have to do with the tray icon? You are an idiot. If you weren't an idiot, you would have pointed out the multi plugin that the previous poster pointed out, which actually does solve that problem.
But the other three are still too serious for me to switch from itunes. After using it for a week, I switched back to winamp.
1. Doesn't remember where I was in the playlist when I shut it down. That's fine if you always randomize, but I have hundreds of tracks in my collection and most of them are meant to be played in sequence (ambient, classical, etc.). 2. Ogg support sucks. I had to install a 3rd-party plugin, and there's noticable pauses at the beginnings of ogg tracks. 3. Has a system tray icon, but still appears in the taskbar. 4. Doesn't use global HID-device keys. For example, winamp pauses when i hit the pause key, no matter what application is in the foreground. iTunes doesn't. 5. Slow startup. Can be up to a minute. I found forum posts that suggested that this could be "worked around" by not having the cd burner device start up. Come on.
A week to get the cannon across the country? Booooooring. Not worthy of MIT. Now, if the cannon had disappeared and reappeared at MIT the same night, that would be quite a hack.
Copyright nonsense aside, anyone you send email to effectively owns those bits. They can store, search, subpoena, or market them all they want to. What are you going to do to stop them? Google is just a bigger target.
They probably have never seen *god* either; a rational response to this argument would be to disbelieve both evolution and creationism and all religion, to go live in a cave and eat berries and reject the notion of all civilization, including its mythology.
The logical outcome of his argument doesn't matter though. This stuff works on children only because children haven't been taught critical thinking; they've been taught to listen to authority. (Then it continues to work because adults haven't been taught critical thinking either.) And that's exactly what this guy wants. The specific argument doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that someone in a position of authority said it, and the people who believe it don't have the tools to defend themselves from authoritative statements.
Slashdot Mirror
My address has been harvested off so many mailing list archives that I get hundreds of spams a day, so I get lots of fodder to examine this phenomenon.
Spam bots *are* now able to associate your address with your specific email gestalt if they can make a connection between it and anything you've done publicly online. For example, I get spams with the surnames or firstnames of other people on the mailing list. I also get spams containing words that are used frequently in my lists: "port" and "protocol" show up a lot in the places I go, and they are starting to show up a lot in my spams, including, frighteningly, spams sent directly to me, not to the list. That suggests that someone has started making a second-generation database that allows a bot to put my address together with the things I've done online. True, this is no more than a google search will get you, but it suggests even more heinous things are within reach using my online history.
Maybe this only affects us open source developers (googling my name gets lots of hits), but as the Internet influence on ordinary peoples' lives increases, and as more traditionally non-Internet data moves onto the Internet (accidentally or on purpose), this will soon be possible for other people as well.
I think we're moving toward a Light of Other Days society in the next few decades, and this is one of the signs.
Whether it's one or it's the other, Real is not a nice company. They may be on a path to change their ways, or they may not--I recently installed RP, and it spewed unnecessary cruft all over the place, but no actual spyware. Either way, they have lost the geek trust, for a long time. Firefox wants to form a partnership with them. With the devil, as far as most of us are concerned.
It doesn't matter much who's packaging whom--this is an ugly move for the Mozilla leadership to try to make, and I hope they rethink it, fast.
Someone has finally invented IRC.
Now if only there was some way we could squeeze a cliché into that.
*most fingerprint systems don't store the actual fingerprint*.
The easiest, most computationally inexpensive way to check fingerprints against a database is to hash the print that you found at the crime scene--or the point of sale--and compare it to a database of hashes stored in the same way.
If you have the hash database, you have the fingerprint. Just because it's not the *same* hash as what law enforcement uses doesn't stop the NSA from using it against you. If you had more than one hash database, you might have to compute several hashes on the same print, one for each database, and do one search against each database. But the cost of doing that is tiny.
Heh, I cede the point. I was being facetious with my comment about Pyrex, although as a Python programmer, I would of course choose Pyrex for my own applications.
;-)
If you want to write the C library, I'll be happy to write the Python bindings.
One guess where 99% of the ccycles arae in that
I'll take a guess! And it's even the one you want me to guess. The db2 instance. That's the fucking *point*. The fast C code that's executing has already been written.. some of it is in the python interpreter, some it is in the ksh and php interpreters, most of it is in the db2 interpreter. Very fast algorithms doing what they do best: optimized, super fast loops operating on static types.
That is WHY python and other interpreted languages achieve the speed they achieve.. because what they do is allow you to glue together C code written by other people. And, because the Python code is much simpler, you can understand the interactions between the fast code more easily, and see where your code fails to perform well. It's always because you're putting loops together inefficiently and making poor design choices, not because of the speed of the interpreter--and now that your code is short enough for you to see that, you can fix it.
Your application logic doesn't need to be super fast. It needs to be super agile, so you can refactor and accommodate changing requirements and make smart decisions about which pieces you are going to use and how you are going to use them together.
C won't die, at least, not for a long, long time*, and that doesn't bother me, a hardcore Python programmer, in the least. Somebody has to do the dirty job of writing those fast loops. Meanwhile I'll be here zipping through the application implementation.
*It will eventually be replaced by Pyrex, of course.
The first clue was that he rewrote the unix system from scratch. Yes, that's his big accomplishment, the giant feather in his cap that allows him to claim the respect of the Open Source* community. But only a megalomaniac would even attempt that, much less finish it.
RMS is to intellectual rights as Jack Thompson is to game ratings.
(*Not the Free Software community. Fuck you, RMS.)
If Google *starts* to become the only game in town, and traffic starts flowing over its network in preference to everyone else's network.. in fact, if it even showed signs of going in that direction, the telcos would have to switch back to untiered so they could keep their customers. They're not just going to drop dead as soon as someone else starts differentiating on service, they're going to go with the business model that results in the most money. Having Google as a major player, however fun to talk about, would just be a factor influencing the economics of the situation and keeping them in check.
It doesn't matter. In your formulation of the problem, for whatever definition of egg, the egg producer came first, for the same reason given by OP--but the subtle alteration of the wording reverses the meaning of the problem. Something hatched from something that was not-quite-an-egg, and laid an egg. Therefore, the producer of the egg came first in that formulation.
It does not in any way depend on your definition of chickens or eggs, it simply depends on the wording. If you specify "chicken" as the goal feature, the egg came first. If you specify "egg" as the goal feature, the egg-layer came first.
That is one of the most ridiculous complaints I've heard. First, I'm wondering why you need to remember your place if you're shutting down iTunes and coming back--shouldn't you start the sequence over again, if the tracks are meant to be played in sequence?
I have hundreds of hours of tracks. If I start the sequence over every time iTunes started, I'd never hear the tracks at the end, and I'd be listening to the tracks at the beginning until I went insane and beat a slashdot poster to death with my laptop. All your nonsense about sorting and playlists does not solve this problem.
You are again indicating your ignorance. There is an option to "minimize to tray"
I know about the fucking minimize to tray option. It doesn't do what I want. I want itunes' window in the foreground so I can see what track is playing and see the controls. I don't want the *taskbar* tray when I do this. So minimizing it is not what I want. Winamp gets this right.
so are you sure you WANT the HID key to pause itunes when itunes already has a tray icon?
This doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll respond anyway just so I can flame you some more. Yes, I'm sure I want the HID key to pause itunes. That's the way I've been using my music player for years. What the fuck does that have to do with the tray icon? You are an idiot. If you weren't an idiot, you would have pointed out the multi plugin that the previous poster pointed out, which actually does solve that problem.
But the other three are still too serious for me to switch from itunes. After using it for a week, I switched back to winamp.
1. Doesn't remember where I was in the playlist when I shut it down. That's fine if you always randomize, but I have hundreds of tracks in my collection and most of them are meant to be played in sequence (ambient, classical, etc.).
2. Ogg support sucks. I had to install a 3rd-party plugin, and there's noticable pauses at the beginnings of ogg tracks.
3. Has a system tray icon, but still appears in the taskbar.
4. Doesn't use global HID-device keys. For example, winamp pauses when i hit the pause key, no matter what application is in the foreground. iTunes doesn't.
5. Slow startup. Can be up to a minute. I found forum posts that suggested that this could be "worked around" by not having the cd burner device start up. Come on.
'intelligent design' - a controversial creationist theory of life
Look, dumbshits. It's not a theory. And it's not controversial, it's just wrong. How about this, more accurate description:
'intelligent design' - a wrongheaded piece of creationist propaganda
A week to get the cannon across the country? Booooooring. Not worthy of MIT. Now, if the cannon had disappeared and reappeared at MIT the same night, that would be quite a hack.
I'm boycotting slashdot for one week. This stupid crap every 4/1 needs to stop. Get some people who understand humor to do these April Fools' jokes.
We recognise the humour
And our free-as-in-speech jokes will be accompanied by a healthy dose of mindless zealotry perpetrated by elitists.
But alas, mod points I have none.
Copyright nonsense aside, anyone you send email to effectively owns those bits. They can store, search, subpoena, or market them all they want to. What are you going to do to stop them? Google is just a bigger target.
You appear to be saying that this is somehow different because the buttons are physical.
What the heck do you call the buttons on a mouse then?
Any word on whether filterset.g updater works with plus?
How does he sleep at night? On a huge pile of money.
In IE6 it looks like he was put through a chipper-shredder.
Send them a message containing the link: Click here to be removed from our mailing list..
They probably have never seen *god* either; a rational response to this argument would be to disbelieve both evolution and creationism and all religion, to go live in a cave and eat berries and reject the notion of all civilization, including its mythology.
The logical outcome of his argument doesn't matter though. This stuff works on children only because children haven't been taught critical thinking; they've been taught to listen to authority. (Then it continues to work because adults haven't been taught critical thinking either.) And that's exactly what this guy wants. The specific argument doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that someone in a position of authority said it, and the people who believe it don't have the tools to defend themselves from authoritative statements.
Here, at last, is something useful that crazy fundamentalist christians could be doing: protesting this ridiculously insecure waste of time.
Can we get someone to tell Pat Robertson about this?