There are symbols on the buttons when you mouseover any one of them. "x" to close, "-" to minimize, "+" to maximize, pretty intuitive. I've actually got the graphite theme on mine, so they're all the same color anyway.
This review is absurd. I have no idea how it got posted to Slashdot.
He's done the developers of the original Expression a terrible disservice by not even performing a cursory examination of its featureset. As mentioned by many others here who spent enough time to actually learn the purpose of the tool, this is not an image-editing program in the same market space as Photoshop!
What makes Acrylic/Expression novel is not the "redeye" tool (the hell?) but the fact that it is a vector-imaging tool that allows a variety of amazing ways to render natural media (e.g., oils, acrylics) or photographic source material (ropes, chains) along an editable vector curve. This is really, really cool enough on its own, but then these rendered curves can then be rasterized on the fly and blended as though they were native pixels. The blending tools are no Painter 9, but this is a Beta and I'm still impressed.
And his response in the comments is BS. Saying that the review was "fair" for a "first look" at this tool is like saying it would be fair to do a "first look" review of Photoshop and then never use (or even be aware of!) its filters. How fair would a review of Photoshop be if I acted as though all it could do was crop, resize, and rotate the canvas? The heart of Acrylic has been completely missed, ignored, or some combination.
And what does he mean, what is MS "trying to pull"? By letting people play with a technology preview of an innovative piece of illustration software for free? He acts like they owe him something!
I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux-running coder geek, but alpha/beta/whatever, they're just letting people see and test what they are developing. Even after 20 minutes I could see the interesting new utilities provided by this app without having to accuse MS of attempting to do something ignoble.
Depends on the implementation. For example, in PostgreSQL, if either X or Y is NULL, any expression evaluating it isn't false: it is, in fact, NULL.
This makes sense, because there is no meaningful comparison for truth-value against a NULL, because there is no value for comparison. If there is a reasonable default value, use coalesce(). Otherwise, what's the problem, in practice?
Doesn't this query produce the same results? Or am I missing something?
SELECT DISTINCT ON (c.name) c.name, b.billdate, b.cost - coalesce(sum(pb.amount),0)
FROM customer c
LEFT JOIN bill b ON (c.id = b.customerid AND NOT b.paid)
LEFT JOIN paytobill pb ON (b.id = pb.billid) GROUP BY c.name, b.billdate, b.cost ORDER BY c.name, b.billdate DESC;
It's added as a set of functions and operators, rather than existing in a separate language like pl/SQL. Consequently, you can use it just fine in the SELECT within PostgreSQL. E.g., to match all users with first_name being some variant of "John", you could do:
SELECT name FROM users WHERE first_name ~ '^Joh?(n|nathan)$';
The regexes have been even more supercharged as of 7.4 I believe. See here for more on it: PostgreSQL Pattern Matching
If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil?
It's not about consumption, it's about control. After the second world war, the State Department of our government designated in now declassified documents the Persian Gulf as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." The United States has an incredible dependence on oil, and it's only increasing.
It's also militarily useful to have a presence in Iraq if you are intent on continuing the war on Iran, or Syria, as Retired US General Wesley Clark (NATO's chief of staff during the war in Yugoslavia) said in an interview to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.
You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it?
I believe the powers behind Bush are ruthless enough in their drive to dominate and control the world's markets. Yes, I do believe this, and I think it's reflected in their actions if you look past the rhetoric.
As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.
I'll let Wolfowitz spell it out for you. His doctrine's stated intent is to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism," as summarized by the New York Times. Its main intent is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China.... America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it" as reported by the Washington Times on the same topic. Look it up yourself if you want.
They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world.
The US, the UK, and Spain are "the entire world"? The world agrees Iraq should not have certain weapons in its arsenal. I don't know about you, but I have seen zero evidence presented which has not been thoroughly dismantled or cast in serious doubt from Bush and his administration that he has these vast stockpiles of weapons, and even the UN Inspectors called the "tips" from US intelligence complete garbage.
Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.
No, the difference is that Bush's administration has no interest in disarmament. Every step towards disarmament is immediately dismissed as a ploy. If Iraq says they do not have weapons they are accused of lying; if they do have weapons, they are accused of not destroying them. When Bush says "disarmament" he means "colonization."
Our favorite ex-secretary of state-cum-fugitive for war crimes, Henry Kissinger (the guy Bush bizarrely tried to get involved in the investigation of 9/11), stated in an interview that "No government that talked to President Bush or his advisers since Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 could have any doubt that within a few months the Americans would announce a material breach of this resolution as well as retaliatory measures."
They don't want disarmament, they want a piece of paper that says it was the will of the United Nations so that now they can cloak themselves in the garb of multilateral, cooperative efforts.
I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.
Are you familiar at all with the international behavior of the United States over the past 50 years? The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation. It's the only nation known to have produced weapons-grade anthrax in the last 25 years. Do you remember a little war in a nation called Vietnam, based on a now well-known fabrication about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin? Cambodia in 1969? Laos through 1973? Grenada in 1983? Panama in 1989? Iran in 1984? Libya in 1986? Sudan in 1998?
Are you aware that in your little analogy we gave Iraq the gun and were glad he was using it against Iran? We had little to say at that time about their use of Chemical Weapons, when Rumsfeld himself was cozying up to Baghdad. Doesn't this set off any kind of alarm in your mind that we're not getting a straight story from these jokers?
I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.
Supporting more bloodthirsty politicians spouting bald-faced lies is not going to make the world a better place. Remember that being against war is not being in favor of Saddam Hussein.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that nothing changed between September of 2001 and September of 2002 in regards to Iraq's arsenal or attitude towards the United States, but suddenly they are considered an imminent threat? Even though they are on the other side of the planet? Even though his neighbors have no such revulsion and fear of Iraq?
And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right?
I don't claim to know for sure what's going on. I'm at the bottom of the information chain, just like you, but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.
If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.
Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.
And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side."
It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.
I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between.
How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.
Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years.
You mean the planes we fly over Iraq's sovereign airspace, without sanction from the United Nations? (The US and Britain imposed the so-called "no fly zones" on their own authority, not the UN's, so why don't the Iraqis have the right to defend their airspace?)
You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.
I feel damn uncomfortable with my government launching a first-strike war of aggression on a country on the other side of the planet as though it's an "imminent threat." What sort of precedent will this set? Will you be so comfortable if India invades Pakistan (who do have Nuclear Weapons) on the same grounds--possession of weapons of mass destruction, border disputes over Kashmir, a military dictator in power?
Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?
If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.
Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia? Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan? Why did it support Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran, using chemical weapons?
Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?
The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.
If you write a game to OS X's Native APIs, that means you're either writing for Carbon in C or C++, or Cocoa in Objective-C.
You'd have a tough time making just the Objective-C/NextStep low-level APIs compile from OS X to GNUStep; then you'd have to deal with the proprietary nib format not being portable, and X-Specific windowing calls.
You might get some degree of portability if you really stick to something like pure OpenGL for rendering and just rely on the X-specific windowing to set up your GLContext.
There's an animated GIF on that Quality Dreamworks page scrolling multiple Kubrick film posters - brilliantly, they've misspelled "The Shining" as "THE SHINNING."
Point the first: as has already been stated, this affects not only Microsoft.com, but additionally many of MS's other sites, such as MSN, Hotmail, and one of the most widely visited Mainstream News Sites, if not the most used, MSNBC.
Point the second: if you're being overwhelmed with submissions about it, then it's obviously important to your reader-base, despite the fact that you had neither the insight nor inclination to determine why this event was more significant than people not being able to see "microsoft.com" for a few hours.
Conclusion: you seem to have less interest in presenting news for nerds (if it's not stuff that matters to you) and more interest in berating people for volunteering a big story that many people will be affected by. News which is relavent to nerds, and stuff that obviously matters.
I had the same problem. It's unclear why, but on the initial install a number of rendering issues were occuring, such as the lack of URL bar and not doing some tables properly.
I was able to fix it by going to View->Apply Theme and choosing a Theme. After that they all seemed to render correctly.
Personally, I'm working on a Theory right now on how to Theorize Theorizing a Unified Theory by 2038, but I'm running into a few problems; mostly other Theories I had about how to develop Theories that would quasi-explain Theoretical recursion.
I had a charming 50 kbyte/sec transfer rate going, but my first impression of their bandwidth was soon tempered by the sudden disconnect at about 123MB. Ouch. I am no longer able to even get a response out of ftp.corel.com from any machines I have access to, and have not been since it disconnected approximately an hour ago.
Hey, scratch that. I should try posting such news to slashDot more often; they're back up. Huzzah!
Slashdot Mirror
There are symbols on the buttons when you mouseover any one of them. "x" to close, "-" to minimize, "+" to maximize, pretty intuitive. I've actually got the graphite theme on mine, so they're all the same color anyway.
SMB isn't on there - the original "Mario Bros" is.
This review is absurd. I have no idea how it got posted to Slashdot.
He's done the developers of the original Expression a terrible disservice by not even performing a cursory examination of its featureset. As mentioned by many others here who spent enough time to actually learn the purpose of the tool, this is not an image-editing program in the same market space as Photoshop!
What makes Acrylic/Expression novel is not the "redeye" tool (the hell?) but the fact that it is a vector-imaging tool that allows a variety of amazing ways to render natural media (e.g., oils, acrylics) or photographic source material (ropes, chains) along an editable vector curve. This is really, really cool enough on its own, but then these rendered curves can then be rasterized on the fly and blended as though they were native pixels. The blending tools are no Painter 9, but this is a Beta and I'm still impressed.
And his response in the comments is BS. Saying that the review was "fair" for a "first look" at this tool is like saying it would be fair to do a "first look" review of Photoshop and then never use (or even be aware of!) its filters. How fair would a review of Photoshop be if I acted as though all it could do was crop, resize, and rotate the canvas? The heart of Acrylic has been completely missed, ignored, or some combination.
And what does he mean, what is MS "trying to pull"? By letting people play with a technology preview of an innovative piece of illustration software for free? He acts like they owe him something!
I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux-running coder geek, but alpha/beta/whatever, they're just letting people see and test what they are developing. Even after 20 minutes I could see the interesting new utilities provided by this app without having to accuse MS of attempting to do something ignoble.
Depends on the implementation. For example, in PostgreSQL, if either X or Y is NULL, any expression evaluating it isn't false: it is, in fact, NULL.
This makes sense, because there is no meaningful comparison for truth-value against a NULL, because there is no value for comparison. If there is a reasonable default value, use coalesce(). Otherwise, what's the problem, in practice?
View source on the main gmail page, and you'll find:
;)
<!-- There is no secret html on this page -->
But isn't that itself secret HTML?
Doesn't this query produce the same results? Or am I missing something?
SELECT DISTINCT ON (c.name) c.name, b.billdate, b.cost - coalesce(sum(pb.amount),0)
FROM customer c
LEFT JOIN bill b ON (c.id = b.customerid AND NOT b.paid)
LEFT JOIN paytobill pb ON (b.id = pb.billid)
GROUP BY c.name, b.billdate, b.cost
ORDER BY c.name, b.billdate DESC;
It's added as a set of functions and operators, rather than existing in a separate language like pl/SQL. Consequently, you can use it just fine in the SELECT within PostgreSQL. E.g., to match all users with first_name being some variant of "John", you could do:
SELECT name FROM users WHERE first_name ~ '^Joh?(n|nathan)$';
The regexes have been even more supercharged as of 7.4 I believe. See here for more on it: PostgreSQL Pattern Matching
If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil?
... America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it" as reported by the Washington Times on the same topic. Look it up yourself if you want.
It's not about consumption, it's about control. After the second world war, the State Department of our government designated in now declassified documents the Persian Gulf as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." The United States has an incredible dependence on oil, and it's only increasing.
It's also militarily useful to have a presence in Iraq if you are intent on continuing the war on Iran, or Syria, as Retired US General Wesley Clark (NATO's chief of staff during the war in Yugoslavia) said in an interview to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.
You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it?
I believe the powers behind Bush are ruthless enough in their drive to dominate and control the world's markets. Yes, I do believe this, and I think it's reflected in their actions if you look past the rhetoric.
As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.
I'll let Wolfowitz spell it out for you. His doctrine's stated intent is to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism," as summarized by the New York Times. Its main intent is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China.
They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world.
The US, the UK, and Spain are "the entire world"? The world agrees Iraq should not have certain weapons in its arsenal. I don't know about you, but I have seen zero evidence presented which has not been thoroughly dismantled or cast in serious doubt from Bush and his administration that he has these vast stockpiles of weapons, and even the UN Inspectors called the "tips" from US intelligence complete garbage.
Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.
No, the difference is that Bush's administration has no interest in disarmament. Every step towards disarmament is immediately dismissed as a ploy. If Iraq says they do not have weapons they are accused of lying; if they do have weapons, they are accused of not destroying them. When Bush says "disarmament" he means "colonization."
Our favorite ex-secretary of state-cum-fugitive for war crimes, Henry Kissinger (the guy Bush bizarrely tried to get involved in the investigation of 9/11), stated in an interview that "No government that talked to President Bush or his advisers since Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 could have any doubt that within a few months the Americans would announce a material breach of this resolution as well as retaliatory measures."
They don't want disarmament, they want a piece of paper that says it was the will of the United Nations so that now they can cloak themselves in the garb of multilateral, cooperative efforts.
I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.
Are you familiar at all with the international behavior of the United States over the past 50 years? The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation. It's the only nation known to have produced weapons-grade anthrax in the last 25 years. Do you remember a little war in a nation called Vietnam, based on a now well-known fabrication about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin? Cambodia in 1969? Laos through 1973? Grenada in 1983? Panama in 1989? Iran in 1984? Libya in 1986? Sudan in 1998?
(This is the short list. Feel free to peruse a longer summary, here.)
Are you aware that in your little analogy we gave Iraq the gun and were glad he was using it against Iran? We had little to say at that time about their use of Chemical Weapons, when Rumsfeld himself was cozying up to Baghdad. Doesn't this set off any kind of alarm in your mind that we're not getting a straight story from these jokers?
I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.
Supporting more bloodthirsty politicians spouting bald-faced lies is not going to make the world a better place. Remember that being against war is not being in favor of Saddam Hussein.
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that nothing changed between September of 2001 and September of 2002 in regards to Iraq's arsenal or attitude towards the United States, but suddenly they are considered an imminent threat? Even though they are on the other side of the planet? Even though his neighbors have no such revulsion and fear of Iraq?
Thanks for considering what I've had to say.
And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right?
I don't claim to know for sure what's going on. I'm at the bottom of the information chain, just like you, but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.
If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.
Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.
And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side."
It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.
I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between.
How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.
Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years.
You mean the planes we fly over Iraq's sovereign airspace, without sanction from the United Nations? (The US and Britain imposed the so-called "no fly zones" on their own authority, not the UN's, so why don't the Iraqis have the right to defend their airspace?)
You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.
I feel damn uncomfortable with my government launching a first-strike war of aggression on a country on the other side of the planet as though it's an "imminent threat." What sort of precedent will this set? Will you be so comfortable if India invades Pakistan (who do have Nuclear Weapons) on the same grounds--possession of weapons of mass destruction, border disputes over Kashmir, a military dictator in power?
Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?
If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.
Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia? Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan? Why did it support Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran, using chemical weapons?
Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?
The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.
If you write a game to OS X's Native APIs, that means you're either writing for Carbon in C or C++, or Cocoa in Objective-C.
You'd have a tough time making just the Objective-C/NextStep low-level APIs compile from OS X to GNUStep; then you'd have to deal with the proprietary nib format not being portable, and X-Specific windowing calls.
You might get some degree of portability if you really stick to something like pure OpenGL for rendering and just rely on the X-specific windowing to set up your GLContext.
There's an animated GIF on that Quality Dreamworks page scrolling multiple Kubrick film posters - brilliantly, they've misspelled "The Shining" as "THE SHINNING."
.lx
Perhaps it's a Simpsons reference. I doubt it.
Once again: It's Rich in Quality.
--
Ready to fight for your OS?
Gee, I'm a creepy fan-boy.
.lx
--
Ready to fight for your OS?
Point the first: as has already been stated, this affects not only Microsoft.com, but additionally many of MS's other sites, such as MSN, Hotmail, and one of the most widely visited Mainstream News Sites, if not the most used, MSNBC.
.lx
Point the second: if you're being overwhelmed with submissions about it, then it's obviously important to your reader-base, despite the fact that you had neither the insight nor inclination to determine why this event was more significant than people not being able to see "microsoft.com" for a few hours.
Conclusion: you seem to have less interest in presenting news for nerds (if it's not stuff that matters to you) and more interest in berating people for volunteering a big story that many people will be affected by. News which is relavent to nerds, and stuff that obviously matters.
Rich in Quality.
--
Ready to fight for your OS?
I had the same problem. It's unclear why, but on the initial install a number of rendering issues were occuring, such as the lack of URL bar and not doing some tables properly.
I was able to fix it by going to View->Apply Theme and choosing a Theme. After that they all seemed to render correctly.
Therefore you can not legally accept the agreement if you are under 18.
...is not helping.
.lx, not helping.
Read a book, drink a glass of water, fantasize about Julie Andrews circa 1965. You might feel better!
...is not helping.
.lx, not helping.
Read a book, drink a glass of water, fantasize about Julie Andrews circa 1965. You might feel better!
Personally, I'm working on a Theory right now on how to Theorize Theorizing a Unified Theory by 2038, but I'm running into a few problems; mostly other Theories I had about how to develop Theories that would quasi-explain Theoretical recursion.
.lx, pre-registering for redundant moderation.
We appear to have killed ftp.corel.com!
.lx (34k/s is not bad)
I had a charming 50 kbyte/sec transfer rate going, but my first impression of their bandwidth was soon tempered by the sudden disconnect at about 123MB. Ouch. I am no longer able to even get a response out of ftp.corel.com from any machines I have access to, and have not been since it disconnected approximately an hour ago.
Hey, scratch that. I should try posting such news to slashDot more often; they're back up. Huzzah!