lutusp

94 ms·

841.
by lutusp 12y ago
Quote: "Where's that shortend [sic] link sending you?" Where's that what ? Why do you expect people to trust your code when they can't trust your prose? Prose is way easier than code, but apparently not easy enough
842.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Wouldn't in-lining make unit testing more difficult? That depends on the nature of the inline code. If it simply unrolls a local loop that has no side effects, then it's structurally identical to the original loop, but (in so
843.
by lutusp 12y ago
Both provide faux meanings, pretend structures, to people with empty lives. Speaking non-hyperbolically, of course. If you're a believer, you're a better person than a nonbeliever. If you're a consumer, you're supporting
844.
by lutusp 12y ago
But it's both simpler and more effective to issue those commands directly -- they would either perform the update or benignly say that the current Bash version is up to date. And suppose a particular vulnerability test fails on a Bash
845.
by lutusp 12y ago
> But he stuck to his guns and insisted, and then played the "professional chemist" card, saying "I think I know a little bit more about chemistry than a guy who makes webpages." This is precisely why authority has no
846.
by lutusp 12y ago
> So, why doesn't someone exploit bash to update bash. Because each Bash version has different machine-language instructions. There's no realistic way to fix Bash other than by editing the plain-text source and generating binar
847.
by lutusp 12y ago
> I don't believe the historical reality of Jesus would give or remove credibility from the Bible. It would for Biblical literalists and many fundamentalists. For those people, there's no metaphorical dimension to their beliefs
848.
by lutusp 12y ago
> If you are wealthy enough to support yourself without work I wouldn't call you unemployed. If you're neither working nor contributing to the Social Security system, the SSA regards you as unemployed. If you're neither wo
849.
by lutusp 12y ago
> So are there really only two types of people, Hackers and Hustlers, or is there another category people could fall into? The speaker was mistaken, but there really are two kinds of people -- those who invent bogus categories of people,
850.
by lutusp 12y ago
This is possibly the most misleading headline I have ever seen anywhere. It's not the headline of the linked article, it doesn't resemble the headline in the linked article, and it makes a ridiculous claim about a central issue in
851.
by lutusp 12y ago
> ... no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on a
852.
by lutusp 12y ago
> You might be describing something close to science in some ideal but certainly not what it looks like in reality. Wait, are we discussing science or the problems science is designed to solve? You could make your remarks just as well ab
853.
by lutusp 12y ago
Big Bang and Inflation are't alternatives, they're part of the same theory. Inflation followed the Big Bang. In fact, recent studies of the CMB provide evidence for both the Big Bang and inflation.
854.
by lutusp 12y ago
From the article, a quote by the FBI director: "I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law," Comey told reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington. "What co
855.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Apple: iPhone 6 Plus Won't Bend Under Normal Use "Normal use" is an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman All one needs to do is define &
856.
by lutusp 12y ago
A qualified no. If a remote process can issue local shell commands, then AppArmor has no protective role. If AppArmor prevents a process from running at all, then yes, but that's a completely different question. For a Web server using
857.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Many eyes theory conclusively disproven Really? Using as evidence an example where a security auditor reading open-source code found a serious bug? The fact that few serious bugs are found by reading open-source code may reflect their
858.
by lutusp 12y ago
> There is no theory stating that the singularity of which the big bang is theorized to expand from was brought into existence from a collapsing star. Not an issue, only that a singularity can exist, and therefore might come into being i
859.
by lutusp 12y ago
Not to disparage those sincere writers over at Onion. :)
860.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Brand new search by metapohrically By what?
861.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Yes, a local beach access dispute would not way into [sic] the decision for funding from him. s/way/weigh/ ?
862.
by lutusp 12y ago
"Blowing up". really? Based on the actual article content I would have said taking off, ascending, something meant to convey that Ello is seeing more users and more prospects. "Blowing up" is, at the very least, ambiguou
863.
by lutusp 12y ago
> It's not the other way around. In your earlier post, you didn't clarify which observer was seeing which time pass more quickly, and where. In this post, you do -- sort of. > Bob, nearer to the massive body, will see the sa
864.
by lutusp 12y ago
> No, the article only claims that a singularity cannot arise from a collapsing blob of matter. If true, it calls into question the existence of the initial singularity thought to precede the Big Bang. The alternative -- that the working
865.
by lutusp 12y ago
> The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. Yes, but an idea doesn't become
866.
by lutusp 12y ago
You might want to make sure the symlink is really in effect -- try temporarily deleting bash or making is non-executable: # chmod -x `which bash`
867.
by lutusp 12y ago
Wait, what -- "less irrational"? Wouldn't "more rational" be a bit easier to interpret?
868.
by lutusp 12y ago
> FWIW, it's always been easier for me to think of it as 'moving' more quickly along the time axis - which would appear slowed down to someone farther away from the source of the gravity. In reality, it's the other wa
869.
by lutusp 12y ago
> The article implies that since singularities can't come into existence now, there can't have been a singularity at the moment of the Big Bang, either. Yes, that's true, but if the paper's thesis is correct, then the
870.
by lutusp 12y ago
> I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done rig

More ›