Where was counterstrike developed? Thanks for playing but you failed at scaremongering.
That comparison would be better if counterstrike involved a large amount of original code. It may have had some interesting abilities that weren't already present in half-life, but you can't say that the counterstrike team developed it from anything resembling scratch.
Can we at least make the meta-moderation system useful? I haven't seen any indication that meta-moderation feedback goes anywhere, or has any impact on the moderations themselves (or those who gave them). As best I can tell meta-moderation is just a way to get moderation points sooner.
Thats nice that the discussion system has been updated, but it would be even better if the moderation was improved. We have too many hacks running around with mod points that are ripping down comments that they disagree with, regardless of their relevance (look at the guncontrolthreads to see good examples of irrational moderation.
We need moderation methods that actually reflect the scoring more intelligently, or a scoring that more intelligently reflects the value of the comment. The "overrated" and "underrated" moderations are garbage. Hacks use it to promote their friends and demote their foes. Why should a comment that started at +2 ever be marked "overrated"?
The comment had more to do with the way that once a project is launched, the government will go to great lengths to keep it going, even if its original purpose is no longer relevant.
As the previous poster pointed out, the B2 bomber's role was more relevant during the cold war and far less relevant now. Yet we keep it running anyways. The speculation being that we are keeping it running because of the investment, not because of the return. Sure, the B2 made sense when we thought we may need to drop nukes into remote areas of the USSR. Now we no longer even have the USSR to drop nukes on. And considering where our (perceived) enemies are now, nuclear warfare is likely an option that needs to be seriously reconsidered (as to whether it even makes sense).
I did not intend to imply that military projects are made to inferior standards. We all know how enormous the military budget is, and would hope that for $2 billion, the B2 was made pretty well.
Damn those bushies, for classifying a hummer as a light truck! It's clearly a, uh, sedan?
It isn't so much about the classification as it is about the application (with apologies to Jessee Jackson on that one). The point that many people have been trying to make is that the business tax laws don't make sense with regards to business vehicles.
For example, if you are a business owner who could just as well drive around in a sedan, why would you buy a truck? You probably wouldn't, until you talk to your accountant and find out that you get a huge tax rebate by buying the truck instead.
The result is we have florists and IT guys driving around in Hummers because it ends up being cheaper to purchase an H2 than a more reasonable sedan.
KARL-ROVE-FROM-BEYOND-THE-GRAVE
I think Mr. Rove would be surprised to hear that he is dead. While plenty of non-conservatives would place Rove as evil, few would place him as dead. Even wikipedia seems to believe he is currently alive.
Taco I think you gave Del Toro's characters too much credit. Really, I was disappointed with the elves, goblins, and trolls. In Pan's Labyrinth, the graphically intriguing characters were important and had important roles. In Hellboy 2, the commercials and trailers promised us much the same but the movie failed to deliver. The only really original character that moves the plot forward is the one with the mushroom-like head and over a dozen eyes. But we see him for what, 5 minutes and then never again? Otherwise the elves are just elves, the trolls are just ugly, and the goblin is just a courier.
The movie was good, but it was something of a waste of Del Toro's talents. He could have really done more with his creativity and made it more interesting, rather than peppering it with so many short bit-pieces.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.
I could clarify that I wasn't sure if the poster chose those particular distros for a reason, or just as examples of Linux distros.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.
So then with GNU/Linux, you can boot your computer, login, and do shell functions, yes?
Conversely, if you had only the Linux kernel (or "just Linux") what could you accomplish? Anything beyond just booting the computer? Can the Linux kernel boot without GNU?
I don't know where the defined point is where one ends and the other begins.
Although couldn't you build a fair number of the GNU functions into the Linux kernel if you felt so inclined? Could a custom Linux kernel (say based on 2.6.26 for the sake of argument) be built into an operating system of its own?
And no, this isn't a BSD/Linux pissing contest. I couldn't even answer the last question for FreeBSD myself.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
there is no "Linux" OS
That was what I thought. I just wanted to make sure nobody squeezed in an official "Linux OS" when I wasn't paying attention.
However, I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS (regardless of the fact that "Linux" actually refers to the Kernel and not any particular OS). I would think that when this happens, there are likely fair numbers of Linux newbies that will start running around looking for where to get this new version to upgrade their existing install - or to install on Grandma's windows 98 box.
I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that. Though I will concede that FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD all use their own fascinating and unique numbering systems (as well as their own kernels). And of course the three have varying relationships to the "original" BSD.
Which of course some like to compare to the original LSD, but that's a whole different discussion.
Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Is it really accurate to title this as "Linux 2.6.26 Out"? The article is talking about Linux kernel 2.6.26, isn't it? Is there actually a version of Linux somewhere that strictly follows this version numbering system? It's great to see these new features added on to the Linux kernel, but really, if someone saw this and then tried to find "Linux 2.6.26" for their own system, does it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?
I am asking this question as a FreeBSD guy, who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the numbering of the Linux world.
In fact, I ended up buying a motherboard, case, and power supply for it eventually.
IIRC, Packard Bell charged absurd prices for those components, as I once drew up an estimate to repair one that was hit by lightning. I'm guessing therefore you likely (very wisely) bought none of those parts from them.
Gateway and Pac Bell are the other two manufacturers to have bowed to RIAA at the expense of their customers' satisfaction and disabled stereo mix without warning."
Is that the Packard Bell that so many of us loved to hate? Really, did they even reach the technological prowess of having stereo recording in their systems?
I really thought their systems pretty well disappeared back in the mid to late 90s, and were buried in a junkyard with rusted-out Yugos somewhere.
What makes you think that bot-nets are designed to just push out more spam?
I didn't say that is all they do. But it is certainly one thing that they are used for. Take a look at Leo Kuvayev on wikipedia and see how some spammers are linked to the botnets.
Though considering the fact that I've seen over 250 different IP addresses attempt to break the root password on my machine in the past 24 hours, I know very well that bot nets do a lot more than just pump out spam.
Doesn't spam generally imply that something is being sold? Granted, this unsolicited email could be a way for the spammers to recruit systems to their bot-nets to push out more spam, but there's no indication in the summary that there is any actual attempt to sell something here.
And it appears you were modded troll, and they proved your point.
Similarly, another post of mine on this same story was moderated down by someone with an agenda. Gotta love the "overrated" tag applied to an otherwise-unmoderated post.
Maybe those of us without political agendas (who have jobs and lives and don't sit on/. 24/7) should meta-moderate more often.
Though I'm not sure that meta-moderation actually leads to anything. A previous journal entry that I wrote went unresolved as far as where meta-moderation feedback goes. I'm not aware of anyone who has had moderation points that has ever seen meta-mod feedback come to them in response to their moderations.
It ought to bring an end to the over-used "slashkos" accusations. If this site was half as liberal as some people have accused it of being, then the story would have been read (and discarded) by an editor, rather than being fast-tracked to the front page.
You only need to read through the posts in this thread that came from people who couldn't bother to RTFA to see that slashdot has indeed been overrun by conservatives. Several good posts have already shown that the article in question is fud (and even that is stretching it). Yet there are many, many, posts here claiming this to be a sure sign of Nancy Pelosi bringing on the apocalypse.
I would definitely get this for my commute of 320 miles a week.
Not sure how to read that - do you commute once a week, 160 miles each way, or 5 times a week, 32 miles each way?
I don't think I would be inclined to sit in such a small vehicle for 160 miles, but 32 would probably be tolerable.
I commute 80 miles a day times 4. I currently drive a 2006 Kia Rio LX Sedan.
I guess the correct answer then was door number 3, my bad. I'm sure you have a reason for tolerating that much driving - I'd probably shoot myself before I would spend that much time in traffic on a daily basis.
Although I could certainly see appeal in an increase in fuel economy of approximately 8x your Kia (around 30mpg, IIRC?).
I get between 28 in the city and upwards of 38 on the highway.
My motivation to tolerate long commutes is my wife and son. If I don't work I cannot support them, and if I cannot support them, then i am a bad husband/father.
I figured it was work obligations that initiated the long commute. I didn't mean to imply that you're just commuting for the sake of commuting, if that is how it came across.
What I was unsuccessfully trying to get at is that I'm sure there is a good reason why you live where you live (relative to where your work is). I have never been to that part of the country myself, so I have no idea what factors could be at play down there. Of course the rather stale real estate market (through most of the country anyways) may also have a role.
Although if your car gets that good of mileage on the highway, then your commute may only run you just around 1 gallon of gas each way. Considering what some cars take just to get moving, you're doing quite well I'd say.
I would definitely get this for my commute of 320 miles a week.
Not sure how to read that - do you commute once a week, 160 miles each way, or 5 times a week, 32 miles each way?
I don't think I would be inclined to sit in such a small vehicle for 160 miles, but 32 would probably be tolerable.
I commute 80 miles a day times 4. I currently drive a 2006 Kia Rio LX Sedan.
I guess the correct answer then was door number 3, my bad. I'm sure you have a reason for tolerating that much driving - I'd probably shoot myself before I would spend that much time in traffic on a daily basis.
Although I could certainly see appeal in an increase in fuel economy of approximately 8x your Kia (around 30mpg, IIRC?).
Glass isn't that hard to break with an appropriate tool, like a tack hammer.
True, but if you look at the pictures with the canopy open, you'll see that you enter the car from above, not from the side (like most cars). The opening part of the canopy doesn't go very far down on the car. Therefore if you broke out the glass to escape, you wouldn't have a very large hole to crawl out of.
Although with such a small cabin to begin with, this clearly isn't a car for 300+ lb Americans anyways.
I think this is a great design, but the canopy leaves me with one concern. How would you get out of the car if it rolled over? With the one-piece canopy door, you could easily end up stuck inside the car if it were flipped or rolled. And there's so little space inside, you likely wouldn't be able to kick out the glass, since you probably wouldn't have space to retract your legs to make a strong kick.
That said, I think it would be great for over 90% of commutes.
It sounds like at least some portion of these laptops are being lost as luggage. Which leaves me to ask, why not take the matter into your own hands and take your laptop with as carry-on?
After all, aren't you bringing it with you so you can work on the road / in the airport / on the plane / in the cab ? I bring my laptop as carry-on every time I fly. Its been on two international flights with me this year. I've never had a problem finding it by the time I get back to my home airport.
Slashdot Mirror
Where was counterstrike developed? Thanks for playing but you failed at scaremongering.
That comparison would be better if counterstrike involved a large amount of original code. It may have had some interesting abilities that weren't already present in half-life, but you can't say that the counterstrike team developed it from anything resembling scratch.
Can we at least make the meta-moderation system useful? I haven't seen any indication that meta-moderation feedback goes anywhere, or has any impact on the moderations themselves (or those who gave them). As best I can tell meta-moderation is just a way to get moderation points sooner.
Thats nice that the discussion system has been updated, but it would be even better if the moderation was improved. We have too many hacks running around with mod points that are ripping down comments that they disagree with, regardless of their relevance (look at the gun control threads to see good examples of irrational moderation.
We need moderation methods that actually reflect the scoring more intelligently, or a scoring that more intelligently reflects the value of the comment. The "overrated" and "underrated" moderations are garbage. Hacks use it to promote their friends and demote their foes. Why should a comment that started at +2 ever be marked "overrated"?
The comment had more to do with the way that once a project is launched, the government will go to great lengths to keep it going, even if its original purpose is no longer relevant.
As the previous poster pointed out, the B2 bomber's role was more relevant during the cold war and far less relevant now. Yet we keep it running anyways. The speculation being that we are keeping it running because of the investment, not because of the return. Sure, the B2 made sense when we thought we may need to drop nukes into remote areas of the USSR. Now we no longer even have the USSR to drop nukes on. And considering where our (perceived) enemies are now, nuclear warfare is likely an option that needs to be seriously reconsidered (as to whether it even makes sense).
I did not intend to imply that military projects are made to inferior standards. We all know how enormous the military budget is, and would hope that for $2 billion, the B2 was made pretty well.
Thats a fair assesment of how we keep pulling technology along when our government is in charge of the purse-strings.
Damn those bushies, for classifying a hummer as a light truck! It's clearly a, uh, sedan?
It isn't so much about the classification as it is about the application (with apologies to Jessee Jackson on that one). The point that many people have been trying to make is that the business tax laws don't make sense with regards to business vehicles.
For example, if you are a business owner who could just as well drive around in a sedan, why would you buy a truck? You probably wouldn't, until you talk to your accountant and find out that you get a huge tax rebate by buying the truck instead.
The result is we have florists and IT guys driving around in Hummers because it ends up being cheaper to purchase an H2 than a more reasonable sedan.
KARL-ROVE-FROM-BEYOND-THE-GRAVE
I think Mr. Rove would be surprised to hear that he is dead. While plenty of non-conservatives would place Rove as evil, few would place him as dead. Even wikipedia seems to believe he is currently alive.
Taco I think you gave Del Toro's characters too much credit. Really, I was disappointed with the elves, goblins, and trolls. In Pan's Labyrinth, the graphically intriguing characters were important and had important roles. In Hellboy 2, the commercials and trailers promised us much the same but the movie failed to deliver. The only really original character that moves the plot forward is the one with the mushroom-like head and over a dozen eyes. But we see him for what, 5 minutes and then never again? Otherwise the elves are just elves, the trolls are just ugly, and the goblin is just a courier.
The movie was good, but it was something of a waste of Del Toro's talents. He could have really done more with his creativity and made it more interesting, rather than peppering it with so many short bit-pieces.
What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.
I could clarify that I wasn't sure if the poster chose those particular distros for a reason, or just as examples of Linux distros.
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.
So then with GNU/Linux, you can boot your computer, login, and do shell functions, yes?
Conversely, if you had only the Linux kernel (or "just Linux") what could you accomplish? Anything beyond just booting the computer? Can the Linux kernel boot without GNU?
I don't know where the defined point is where one ends and the other begins.
Although couldn't you build a fair number of the GNU functions into the Linux kernel if you felt so inclined? Could a custom Linux kernel (say based on 2.6.26 for the sake of argument) be built into an operating system of its own?
And no, this isn't a BSD/Linux pissing contest. I couldn't even answer the last question for FreeBSD myself.
there is no "Linux" OS
That was what I thought. I just wanted to make sure nobody squeezed in an official "Linux OS" when I wasn't paying attention.
However, I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS (regardless of the fact that "Linux" actually refers to the Kernel and not any particular OS). I would think that when this happens, there are likely fair numbers of Linux newbies that will start running around looking for where to get this new version to upgrade their existing install - or to install on Grandma's windows 98 box.
I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that. Though I will concede that FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD all use their own fascinating and unique numbering systems (as well as their own kernels). And of course the three have varying relationships to the "original" BSD.
Which of course some like to compare to the original LSD, but that's a whole different discussion.
Is it really accurate to title this as "Linux 2.6.26 Out"? The article is talking about Linux kernel 2.6.26, isn't it? Is there actually a version of Linux somewhere that strictly follows this version numbering system? It's great to see these new features added on to the Linux kernel, but really, if someone saw this and then tried to find "Linux 2.6.26" for their own system, does it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?
I am asking this question as a FreeBSD guy, who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the numbering of the Linux world.
In fact, I ended up buying a motherboard, case, and power supply for it eventually.
IIRC, Packard Bell charged absurd prices for those components, as I once drew up an estimate to repair one that was hit by lightning. I'm guessing therefore you likely (very wisely) bought none of those parts from them.
Gateway and Pac Bell are the other two manufacturers to have bowed to RIAA at the expense of their customers' satisfaction and disabled stereo mix without warning."
Is that the Packard Bell that so many of us loved to hate? Really, did they even reach the technological prowess of having stereo recording in their systems?
I really thought their systems pretty well disappeared back in the mid to late 90s, and were buried in a junkyard with rusted-out Yugos somewhere.
What makes you think that bot-nets are designed to just push out more spam?
I didn't say that is all they do. But it is certainly one thing that they are used for. Take a look at Leo Kuvayev on wikipedia and see how some spammers are linked to the botnets.
Though considering the fact that I've seen over 250 different IP addresses attempt to break the root password on my machine in the past 24 hours, I know very well that bot nets do a lot more than just pump out spam.
Doesn't spam generally imply that something is being sold? Granted, this unsolicited email could be a way for the spammers to recruit systems to their bot-nets to push out more spam, but there's no indication in the summary that there is any actual attempt to sell something here.
And it appears you were modded troll, and they proved your point.
Similarly, another post of mine on this same story was moderated down by someone with an agenda. Gotta love the "overrated" tag applied to an otherwise-unmoderated post.
Maybe those of us without political agendas (who have jobs and lives and don't sit on /. 24/7) should meta-moderate more often.
Though I'm not sure that meta-moderation actually leads to anything. A previous journal entry that I wrote went unresolved as far as where meta-moderation feedback goes. I'm not aware of anyone who has had moderation points that has ever seen meta-mod feedback come to them in response to their moderations.
It ought to bring an end to the over-used "slashkos" accusations. If this site was half as liberal as some people have accused it of being, then the story would have been read (and discarded) by an editor, rather than being fast-tracked to the front page.
You only need to read through the posts in this thread that came from people who couldn't bother to RTFA to see that slashdot has indeed been overrun by conservatives. Several good posts have already shown that the article in question is fud (and even that is stretching it). Yet there are many, many, posts here claiming this to be a sure sign of Nancy Pelosi bringing on the apocalypse.
Modding the truth as troll won't make it any less true, assholes. Read the letter.
I wouldn't think they'd have that many points left, considering how many of them were spent on these conservative yank-fests.
But apparently there's always someone around willing to use their points just to push their own political agenda against reality.
Too bad I just used my last mod point for the day. Hopefully there are some other people running around with points today that remember River Raid
I would definitely get this for my commute of 320 miles a week.
Not sure how to read that - do you commute once a week, 160 miles each way, or 5 times a week, 32 miles each way? I don't think I would be inclined to sit in such a small vehicle for 160 miles, but 32 would probably be tolerable.
I commute 80 miles a day times 4. I currently drive a 2006 Kia Rio LX Sedan.
I guess the correct answer then was door number 3, my bad. I'm sure you have a reason for tolerating that much driving - I'd probably shoot myself before I would spend that much time in traffic on a daily basis. Although I could certainly see appeal in an increase in fuel economy of approximately 8x your Kia (around 30mpg, IIRC?).
I get between 28 in the city and upwards of 38 on the highway.
My motivation to tolerate long commutes is my wife and son. If I don't work I cannot support them, and if I cannot support them, then i am a bad husband/father.
http://www.cryptodan.com/misc_images/current_commute.png click on that for my current commute.
I figured it was work obligations that initiated the long commute. I didn't mean to imply that you're just commuting for the sake of commuting, if that is how it came across.
What I was unsuccessfully trying to get at is that I'm sure there is a good reason why you live where you live (relative to where your work is). I have never been to that part of the country myself, so I have no idea what factors could be at play down there. Of course the rather stale real estate market (through most of the country anyways) may also have a role.
Although if your car gets that good of mileage on the highway, then your commute may only run you just around 1 gallon of gas each way. Considering what some cars take just to get moving, you're doing quite well I'd say.
I would definitely get this for my commute of 320 miles a week.
Not sure how to read that - do you commute once a week, 160 miles each way, or 5 times a week, 32 miles each way? I don't think I would be inclined to sit in such a small vehicle for 160 miles, but 32 would probably be tolerable.
I commute 80 miles a day times 4. I currently drive a 2006 Kia Rio LX Sedan.
I guess the correct answer then was door number 3, my bad. I'm sure you have a reason for tolerating that much driving - I'd probably shoot myself before I would spend that much time in traffic on a daily basis.
Although I could certainly see appeal in an increase in fuel economy of approximately 8x your Kia (around 30mpg, IIRC?).
Glass isn't that hard to break with an appropriate tool, like a tack hammer.
True, but if you look at the pictures with the canopy open, you'll see that you enter the car from above, not from the side (like most cars). The opening part of the canopy doesn't go very far down on the car. Therefore if you broke out the glass to escape, you wouldn't have a very large hole to crawl out of.
Although with such a small cabin to begin with, this clearly isn't a car for 300+ lb Americans anyways.
I would definitely get this for my commute of 320 miles a week.
Not sure how to read that - do you commute once a week, 160 miles each way, or 5 times a week, 32 miles each way?
I don't think I would be inclined to sit in such a small vehicle for 160 miles, but 32 would probably be tolerable.
I think this is a great design, but the canopy leaves me with one concern. How would you get out of the car if it rolled over? With the one-piece canopy door, you could easily end up stuck inside the car if it were flipped or rolled. And there's so little space inside, you likely wouldn't be able to kick out the glass, since you probably wouldn't have space to retract your legs to make a strong kick.
That said, I think it would be great for over 90% of commutes.
It sounds like at least some portion of these laptops are being lost as luggage. Which leaves me to ask, why not take the matter into your own hands and take your laptop with as carry-on?
After all, aren't you bringing it with you so you can work on the road / in the airport / on the plane / in the cab ? I bring my laptop as carry-on every time I fly. Its been on two international flights with me this year. I've never had a problem finding it by the time I get back to my home airport.