One way. That way it acts as a mirror only one way. Or maybe, taking it a different way, that you can only see through it one way. Either way, two way doesn't make sense in any way.
Anyway, that's way more than I intended to send your way.
Yeah, the talent it takes to replace one name with another in a URL is just way beyond what the average computer user is capable of doing. Scary thing is I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not... Point is, the guy who figured it out should be credited for noticing it first (or reporting it first, anyway). What he did, though, required zero skill. Unless you truly believe replacing the word "gretchen" with "gervase" is that amazing.
Please, like slashdot readers never complain about misleading benchmarks like Mindcraft.
Mind you, Intel has a vested interest in the success of RDRAM's market penetration. I can't imagine they'd want to see their rather lucrative deal with Rambus fall through. It's one thing to be suspicious of a Microsoft-funded study that finds Microsoft is better (although it is not reason, in and of itself, to invalidate the findings; neither is this Microsoft-centric -- bias is a nasty thing, whether it's Linux zealots touting Linux or Microsoft touting Windows). It would be entirely different if Microsoft came out and said, "Linux is better." NOT because it's Linux and Microsoft, but for the same reason you'd put more weight on damning testimony given by a friend of the suspect than you would the suspect's worst enemy. It's hard to imagine a self-serving, consumers-be-damned motive behind, "Hrm, we suck." (Which is not to say one doesn't exist somewhere in there).
Please explain to me then why it hasn't happened yet. The Mac has been around for 16 years. BSD has been around in various forms just as long (and 10 years longer in its antecedents).
These facts are superfluous and unrelated. The foundation of his position was that because MacOS X is BSD-like, it becomes exponentially easier to figure out what Apple has done. Note the, due to the similarity in underlying platform at the end of his material (you quoted it; I assume you read it?). His argument has debatable merit, but you didn't respond to it at all. Furthermore, he didn't imply it was easy; he said it would be easier.
Well, you may think Smalltalk is being unfairly maligned or ignored in this discussion because it's not as "'sexy' in the hacker community," but I'm more inclined to place the blame on the large syntactic differences between C and Smalltalk. That is, Python translates well to C syntactically, whereas many of the Smalltalk constructs (such as ifTrue) are only tangently related with C. C/C++ are the dominating languages of our time, so the education naturally is focusing on simpler implementations of these languages. Python, then, is a natural choice. Most of its syntactic constructs are borrowed from C/C++. If you train them young in Python, then introduce OO in Python, by the time you get to C/C++ it's a simple matter of explaining the minor syntactic differences to get them up and running in C/C++. In other words, you can concentrate more on teaching them about the C/C++ libraries, templates, data structures, etc., by the time they're Sophomores in high school.
That seems to me a better migration path than going from a language like Scheme or Smalltalk, which are syntactically at odds with the target languages.
People seem to be under the terribly misguided impression that anything in the name of humor cannot be at all "wrong" in any sense.
Only you, who seems to think that because someone makes a joke about a particular thing, it must mean they agree with whatever stance someone else believes the punchline represents. No-one is saying it is right to disassociate your child with your wife, or treat children as software. To imply that anyone thinks that way is nothing short of a straw man argument. Professional comedians make jokes about stereotypes all the time: it doesn't mean they think those stereotypes appropriate or correct or right. Making a joke about something cannot (and should not) be construed as a value statement concerning the morality or ethics of that thing. It just doesn't function that way. People find things funny that are, on average, considered deplorable. People find slapstick funny, that doesn't mean it's a good thing to walk into a pole.
Anyway, where'd you ever get the notion that "Bruce 2.0" implies the child is just that of Bruce? It doesn't. The implication (disregarding the option of starting from scratch, which would be considerably more difficult a process) is one of part of Bruce 1.0 (not sure about Bruce's minor version number) with additions and modifications. This wouldn't be the first time the combination of two separate code bases was given the name of just one with an increased version number. But, I'm sure, as you seem to imply, Bruce's wife and child are all deeply traumatized by this. (No harm, no foul, I say. But since his reference to their son as Bruce 2.0, I'm sure the marriage is splitsville and the infant now has a tongue piercing, smokes pot, robs houses, and wears dresses.)
As it stands, I can't believe I wrote all of this to defend a joke. Humor is like sex: you either get it or you don't. And, I think it's quite clear, you don't get it.
No. Why? Because ownership of the music does not mean you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Your use must be thus:
Within the domain of the rights granted to you upon your purchase by the owner of the copyright.
Within the domain of Fair Use.
Distribution falls well outside of both sets. It is, thus, technically illegal for somoene to give you a backup copy of something you both own. Backups must be made for your own use. But this is, in large part, a technicality. I strongly doubt anyone will ever get in trouble for something as minor as that -- there would be nothing to gain from acknowledging such minor infringements. However, when you get into large scale redistribution you most certainly have a difficulty.
As with 99% of everyone else pretending to be authorative on this matter, IANAL, so this is just from my limited understanding of the issues. Take these assertions with a salt mine...
Their arguments seem to be that sharing copyrighted materials is Ok...
Not from what I've seen of it. Their argument has nothing to do with sharing copyrighted material, nor does my.mp3.com. The system does not, apparently, permit sharing of music -- only access to the music you have specifically archived. MP3.com's argument is, then, that it constitutes fair use for a person to access music they have already bought.
Sadly, that issue is completely moot and not even tangently related. The reason MP3.com got in trouble is because it doesn't have the right to archive and distribute this music, even for/to people who already own it. I don't see this as MP3.com's attempt at fulfilling a greater good -- just a rather short-sighted and flawed view of the main copyright issue.
This whole time Microsoft has been shouting about innovation and the "freedom to innovate." I heard Bill talking about the ruling today. He kept repeating phrases like, "Microsoft is a company built on innovation, and we will continue to innovate," and, "Microsoft is all about creativity and innovation." The Newshour program had three lawyers and an economist talking about the ruling, and each, regardless of their position concerning Microsoft was, kept referring to Microsoft's "innovations" and how this ruling will impact its ability to innovate. And at the end of all of this, I'm left wondering, honestly, what are Microsoft's innovations? Anyone?
Who said you couldn't? You still can. And for people who want a prettier, more "user-friendly" UNIX, they can have that, as well.
It's about creating new choices, not limiting the ones you have. It'd be non-sensical for Linux to move away from the CLI, and it's NEVER going to do that. So you can have your CLI, and Joe Newbie can have his GUI, and we all can have a good operating system underneathe us.
You don't think that ABC/Disney would let that much emphasis be placed on beer rather than Disney, do you? Of course not. They have an "image" to maintain, and it's supposed to be all good wholesome fun and happiness and good ol' fashioned competition (which is fairly rare in Super Bowls, but things are a bit different without the dominating dynasties like the 49ers and Cowboys). Anyway, it's all stupidity. ABC's commercials for "The Beach Boys, An American Family" were completely tasteless and make a fraud of any attempt at taking the "moral high ground". Yeah, it's about family and Disney and people lighting cars on fire and fighting and saying things like, "Did she offer to have sex with you?"
Blah. ABC/Disney will call it a decision based upon family morality. It's more, "Let's engage in masturbating ourselves during the commercial breaks." That's undoubtedly why most of the commercials sucked this year: a large portion were Disney and ABC, so you got less room for really innovative, funny commercials. Note that some of the big companies that normally would have 3 or 4 good commercials -- like Pepsi -- get knocked down to one lame commercial because there's much more competition for the spots, and it was just which dotcom could throw more money at them.
Oh, yeah, and where've you seen that? Gasp. You mean television and movies? Oh, then it must be true. Now excuse me while I don my exceedingly thick glasses held together with a fork and some tape which I every once-and-a-while tuck into my pocket protector on my starched blue shirt.
I'm referring to guys who treat their wifes like servants the day football season begins and things don't go back to nromal till after it ends...
Much better that they be treated like servants while you read Slashdot, right? Blah. You're basing your screwed-up opinion on negative stereotypes and myth. I don't know a single guy who has ever treated his wife "like a slave" just because there was a football game on. It's either a fundamental problem with that marriage, with the guy, or with the woman for enabling it instead of communicating.
What you find tasteless is something you've no sense of reality on. I could say that all classical musicians are stuck-up and sedated and aren't exciting and spontaneous, and thus their wives suffer greatly and those women really deserve more, but we all know that'd be just me talking about something I don't fully understand and deriving pointless opinions from myth and stereotype.
Wake up. The only thing tasteless and uncivilized about this whole thing is your hypocrisy.
Aren't we, as geeks, supposed to abhor this type of negative stereotyping with no basis outside of what is depicted in popular media? Or did I miss the meeting where it was decreed, "Geek stereotypes in movies are bad and untrue; sports fans stereotypes in movies are accurate and truthful, and therefore good."
Were 'GNU' to be in the title at all, it'd be GNU/Redhat Linux, not Redhat GNU/Linux -- after all, Linux is an operating system independent of GNU software, but Redhat is not a distribution independent of GNU. To say GNU is the operating system is ridiculous, stupid, ignorant, and a ton of other insulting words.
For you. There's no quantifiable evidence one way or another. That mis-administration on NT is so rampant would lead one to believe that NT is not easier to use or more intuitive for a great majority of people. Which isn't to say they'd have an easier time of things with Linux, just that it'd be no worse and no better.
It's easier to start with a working system, and close of things.
Precisely the approach many Linux distributions take, and precisely the same thing that they get faulted for.
How easy is it to setup a share, setup permissions, and allow user X to have access in Linux?
Well, I don't find anything difficult or counter-intuitive in it. The file is/etc/exports and I can use "man exports" for information on the file's options and example formats. Is typing counter-intuitive? Is reading counter-intuitive? Neither can be classified as unfriendly, since NT's Share configuration requires one to do both. With both NT and Linux, you have to know what you want to do and where to look to do it. I fail to see how one is better or easier in this instance. Perhaps you should have thought of a better example? Or actually done some sort of even introductory administration on a UNIX OS before you try to fault it for your deficiencies?
What does the purpose of the site have to do with the abuse of the trademarks? Nothing. If they had altered the trademarks from the original significantly, then, sure. The question isn't whether it will fool people into thinking it's Yahoo! or not. The question is whether they are using Yahoo!'s trademarks. And they are.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey buddy, what time you got?"
A: Eh, I stopped wearing watches when I saw this post on Slashdot...
One way. That way it acts as a mirror only one way. Or maybe, taking it a different way, that you can only see through it one way. Either way, two way doesn't make sense in any way.
Anyway, that's way more than I intended to send your way.
Yeah, the talent it takes to replace one name with another in a URL is just way beyond what the average computer user is capable of doing. Scary thing is I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not... Point is, the guy who figured it out should be credited for noticing it first (or reporting it first, anyway). What he did, though, required zero skill. Unless you truly believe replacing the word "gretchen" with "gervase" is that amazing.
Mind you, Intel has a vested interest in the success of RDRAM's market penetration. I can't imagine they'd want to see their rather lucrative deal with Rambus fall through. It's one thing to be suspicious of a Microsoft-funded study that finds Microsoft is better (although it is not reason, in and of itself, to invalidate the findings; neither is this Microsoft-centric -- bias is a nasty thing, whether it's Linux zealots touting Linux or Microsoft touting Windows). It would be entirely different if Microsoft came out and said, "Linux is better." NOT because it's Linux and Microsoft, but for the same reason you'd put more weight on damning testimony given by a friend of the suspect than you would the suspect's worst enemy. It's hard to imagine a self-serving, consumers-be-damned motive behind, "Hrm, we suck." (Which is not to say one doesn't exist somewhere in there).
> Why not?
Uhm... because the challenge was to list 10 things Microsoft has innovated. If they didn't innovate it, well, gee, it doesn't count.
These facts are superfluous and unrelated. The foundation of his position was that because MacOS X is BSD-like, it becomes exponentially easier to figure out what Apple has done. Note the, due to the similarity in underlying platform at the end of his material (you quoted it; I assume you read it?). His argument has debatable merit, but you didn't respond to it at all. Furthermore, he didn't imply it was easy; he said it would be easier.
Were they generated by a travesty taking input from the drug and alcohol induced ravings of Iggy Pop and Alice Cooper?!
That seems to me a better migration path than going from a language like Scheme or Smalltalk, which are syntactically at odds with the target languages.
Only you, who seems to think that because someone makes a joke about a particular thing, it must mean they agree with whatever stance someone else believes the punchline represents. No-one is saying it is right to disassociate your child with your wife, or treat children as software. To imply that anyone thinks that way is nothing short of a straw man argument. Professional comedians make jokes about stereotypes all the time: it doesn't mean they think those stereotypes appropriate or correct or right. Making a joke about something cannot (and should not) be construed as a value statement concerning the morality or ethics of that thing. It just doesn't function that way. People find things funny that are, on average, considered deplorable. People find slapstick funny, that doesn't mean it's a good thing to walk into a pole.
Anyway, where'd you ever get the notion that "Bruce 2.0" implies the child is just that of Bruce? It doesn't. The implication (disregarding the option of starting from scratch, which would be considerably more difficult a process) is one of part of Bruce 1.0 (not sure about Bruce's minor version number) with additions and modifications. This wouldn't be the first time the combination of two separate code bases was given the name of just one with an increased version number. But, I'm sure, as you seem to imply, Bruce's wife and child are all deeply traumatized by this. (No harm, no foul, I say. But since his reference to their son as Bruce 2.0, I'm sure the marriage is splitsville and the infant now has a tongue piercing, smokes pot, robs houses, and wears dresses.)
As it stands, I can't believe I wrote all of this to defend a joke. Humor is like sex: you either get it or you don't. And, I think it's quite clear, you don't get it.
Distribution falls well outside of both sets. It is, thus, technically illegal for somoene to give you a backup copy of something you both own. Backups must be made for your own use. But this is, in large part, a technicality. I strongly doubt anyone will ever get in trouble for something as minor as that -- there would be nothing to gain from acknowledging such minor infringements. However, when you get into large scale redistribution you most certainly have a difficulty.
As with 99% of everyone else pretending to be authorative on this matter, IANAL, so this is just from my limited understanding of the issues. Take these assertions with a salt mine...
Not from what I've seen of it. Their argument has nothing to do with sharing copyrighted material, nor does my.mp3.com. The system does not, apparently, permit sharing of music -- only access to the music you have specifically archived. MP3.com's argument is, then, that it constitutes fair use for a person to access music they have already bought.
Sadly, that issue is completely moot and not even tangently related. The reason MP3.com got in trouble is because it doesn't have the right to archive and distribute this music, even for/to people who already own it. I don't see this as MP3.com's attempt at fulfilling a greater good -- just a rather short-sighted and flawed view of the main copyright issue.
At least, that's my take on it...
Boggle. I just posted about it,...
link
This whole time Microsoft has been shouting about innovation and the "freedom to innovate." I heard Bill talking about the ruling today. He kept repeating phrases like, "Microsoft is a company built on innovation, and we will continue to innovate," and, "Microsoft is all about creativity and innovation." The Newshour program had three lawyers and an economist talking about the ruling, and each, regardless of their position concerning Microsoft was, kept referring to Microsoft's "innovations" and how this ruling will impact its ability to innovate. And at the end of all of this, I'm left wondering, honestly, what are Microsoft's innovations? Anyone?
A difference of $1 billion qualifies as being "slightly ahead,..."
Who said you couldn't? You still can. And for people who want a prettier, more "user-friendly" UNIX, they can have that, as well.
It's about creating new choices, not limiting the ones you have. It'd be non-sensical for Linux to move away from the CLI, and it's NEVER going to do that. So you can have your CLI, and Joe Newbie can have his GUI, and we all can have a good operating system underneathe us.
Slashdot: News for Gay Football Fans. Stuff about Tight Ends.
...you're damn right that was a stretch.
Blah. ABC/Disney will call it a decision based upon family morality. It's more, "Let's engage in masturbating ourselves during the commercial breaks." That's undoubtedly why most of the commercials sucked this year: a large portion were Disney and ABC, so you got less room for really innovative, funny commercials. Note that some of the big companies that normally would have 3 or 4 good commercials -- like Pepsi -- get knocked down to one lame commercial because there's much more competition for the spots, and it was just which dotcom could throw more money at them.
Oh, yeah, and where've you seen that? Gasp. You mean television and movies? Oh, then it must be true. Now excuse me while I don my exceedingly thick glasses held together with a fork and some tape which I every once-and-a-while tuck into my pocket protector on my starched blue shirt.
Much better that they be treated like servants while you read Slashdot, right? Blah. You're basing your screwed-up opinion on negative stereotypes and myth. I don't know a single guy who has ever treated his wife "like a slave" just because there was a football game on. It's either a fundamental problem with that marriage, with the guy, or with the woman for enabling it instead of communicating.
What you find tasteless is something you've no sense of reality on. I could say that all classical musicians are stuck-up and sedated and aren't exciting and spontaneous, and thus their wives suffer greatly and those women really deserve more, but we all know that'd be just me talking about something I don't fully understand and deriving pointless opinions from myth and stereotype.
Wake up. The only thing tasteless and uncivilized about this whole thing is your hypocrisy.
Okay, kids, can we say stereotype?
Aren't we, as geeks, supposed to abhor this type of negative stereotyping with no basis outside of what is depicted in popular media? Or did I miss the meeting where it was decreed, "Geek stereotypes in movies are bad and untrue; sports fans stereotypes in movies are accurate and truthful, and therefore good."
Were 'GNU' to be in the title at all, it'd be GNU/Redhat Linux, not Redhat GNU/Linux -- after all, Linux is an operating system independent of GNU software, but Redhat is not a distribution independent of GNU. To say GNU is the operating system is ridiculous, stupid, ignorant, and a ton of other insulting words.
Of course, that's just my "opinion"...
...and according to a CNBC "technology correspondent", Linux is a, "popular programming language." Honest.
For you. There's no quantifiable evidence one way or another. That mis-administration on NT is so rampant would lead one to believe that NT is not easier to use or more intuitive for a great majority of people. Which isn't to say they'd have an easier time of things with Linux, just that it'd be no worse and no better.
It's easier to start with a working system, and close of things.
Precisely the approach many Linux distributions take, and precisely the same thing that they get faulted for.
How easy is it to setup a share, setup permissions, and allow user X to have access in Linux?
Well, I don't find anything difficult or counter-intuitive in it. The file is /etc/exports and I can use "man exports" for information on the file's options and example formats. Is typing counter-intuitive? Is reading counter-intuitive? Neither can be classified as unfriendly, since NT's Share configuration requires one to do both. With both NT and Linux, you have to know what you want to do and where to look to do it. I fail to see how one is better or easier in this instance. Perhaps you should have thought of a better example? Or actually done some sort of even introductory administration on a UNIX OS before you try to fault it for your deficiencies?
What does the purpose of the site have to do with the abuse of the trademarks? Nothing. If they had altered the trademarks from the original significantly, then, sure. The question isn't whether it will fool people into thinking it's Yahoo! or not. The question is whether they are using Yahoo!'s trademarks. And they are.