You might be appalled, but are you really all that surprised? I'm surprised that you think the average Slashdotter would know any better. You've got to admit that finding ignorance here is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Basically, the same people telling us how much better sounding OGG is are the same people who've been telling us for the past two years that the Mozilla nightlies are better than IE. Don't fall for the bullshit again.
You got that right. I've got 18 freakin' browser windows open right now, forget about all the other stuff that's open, too. I'm impatient, and some of us can actually handle multitasking, thank you. Sure, there are some times when it slows me down, like I won't read a book while listening to something like the Phil Hendrie Show because that my brain doesn't handle very well. Then again, knowing the simps that work at CNN, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if they have one browser window open at a time, spending 50% of their time just watching that little blue ball spin 'round and 'round...
Yeah, you tell yourself that women are good at multitasking the next time you let your girlfriend drive and when she's looking for a particular street sign, she starts screaming at you to turn the radio down. Come on!:)
The very first paragraph of his page says that the Windows CE source code was released under a Shared Source license. A mere five sentences later (note that this is also five paragraphs later, since he's one of those idiots who uses a new paragraph for just about every single sentence he writes), he's telling us that Shared Source "gives only some selected (by Microsoft) large companies the permission to view parts of the source code [...]" This is also a point (entirely incorrect, by the way) that he continually harps upon. Is he senile or something, or did he forget what he wrote only 5 sentence earlier?
As if that weren't enough for one sentence, he continues by saying, "[...] under the provision that it is not modified, compiled (turned into an executable file the computer rather than the programmer understands), or redistributed, in modified or unmodified form." Please note that this is complete bullshit, and anyone reading the short and very easy-to-understand license will see this immediately.
Let me know if the rest of it has anything useful, but because he so bolloxed up the first page length of his article with lies, I'm not going to bother with the rest of it.
Re:with the possible exception of Shrek?
on
Review: Rush Hour 2
·
· Score: 1
You'll have to forgive Katz, he thinks fart jokes are highbrow comedy.
Of course, there's comedy itself in picturing Katz, Mr. Corporations 'R Evil himself, running up to the window to hand his money over to the corporations (AOL/Time-Warner in this case).
Yeah, Jon, you want to see everybody out on the street protesting for your silly causes, but you can't even resist seeing some cheesy comedy on opening night? Get bent.
It's not the name he was born with, but it's a real dude, and there's just one of him. In the beginning, the guy who wrote this (ridiculously misinformed) article wrote a column for InfoWorld. He quit that gig, but wanted to keep using the name Robert X. Cringely. InfoWorld said, "No way, hodad, that whole Robert X. Cringely bit has become a staple for InfoWorld, and since it's not your real name anyway, we're claiming the name as our own." And so they did, and other people (I don't know how many) have continued the column in InfoWorld under the name Robert X. Cringely.
I know that the two sides tussled over the name, but have no idea in whose favor it turned out, since InfoWorld still runs a column under the Cringely name using their own writer(s), and the PBS guy is obviously still using the Cringely name. These are two entirely separate entities, though.
Oh well, they both suck anyway.;) Cringely (PBS version) got busted in the past few years when it turned out that he completely made up his academic credentials, claiming that he got some degree from Stanford, which he didn't (I think it was Stanford, anyway). And InfoWorld is trying to turn their pseudo-journalistic hackery into a consulting business (and presumably praying that potential customers never notice that they're barely able to operate a functional website -- and that for a very long time, they couldn't even do that!), but that doesn't seem to be going so well for them.
You're kidding, right? The whole Sun ONE pipedream wasn't even announced until this past February. If you know anybody actually excited about it, please let them be heard, because they're pretty hard to find. Sun's nursing some pretty bitter feelings right now after watching the developer community scramble to support.NET while for the most part having given Java the cold shoulder. Heh, think Sun's now regretting having pulled back so many times from submitting Java as a standard? 'Cause I guarantee you, that's what's caused the big upswell in.NET plans. There are a ton of people working on.NET projects now who would have totally written it off as a Microsoft-only technology if not for Microsoft submittting this stuff to a standards body.
Seriously, Sun's got a lot to worry about. Where's the excitement about Sun ONE? What happened to the "web tone," the "big freakin' switch," JINI, and JXTA? Most importantly, what happened all those dumb Java-enabled rings that Scott MacNealy used to wear? Anyone actually miss 'em? Sun's just become a follower, finally coming around to SOAP, UDDI, etc., after getting over the bitterness of adopting technology that Microsoft developed. Not sure why they mind now, though -- J2EE's just a Microsoft Transaction Server ripoff, and it's not too hard to guess where JSP and JDBC come from.
Trivia time: Sun is on ECMA Committee TC39 Task Group 2 (TG2), as well as being on TG3. The purpose(s) of these two bodies is to:
(A) Produce a standard for Java.
(B) Produce a standard for C#.
(C) Produce a standard for the.NET CLI (Common Language Infrastructure.
If you chose B & C, you're absolutely right! Now remember players, you must've chosen them both to win. Don Pardo, show the people what they've won!:)
Why would you blame anything other than Microsoft's enormous popularity for Sircam? It sure doesn't make use of any exploits. Sorry, but it's just hard to come to any conclusion other than that a lot of you guys who harp on this stuff don't have any idea what you're talking about.
The media picked this story because it involved attacks aimed at the goverment. Why would you expect anyone other than crime listings to pick up on the Dmitry story? Dude's just another low-level criminal (alleged, of course), whose coverage would usually be limited to the back pages of a local newspaper's Metro section, if even that.
The patch was available for a month before Red Code struck, so how does this show how irresponsible Microsoft is compared to worms that have hit other operating systems? Why has Linux been struck with worms of its own? Does that mean a "closed source, NDA distribution model" is superior, then? Besides, just like with desktops, most web servers on the internet run Windows, so it's not too surprising that more of them get attacked, especially since not only are there more, they're usually used for more important data/applications, especially when it comes to e-commerce.
Notice these articles NEVER said what systems Code Red wouldn't affect, just that Code Red WOULD affect Microsoft systems.
Yeah man, it's all one big conspiracy! Damn corporations even have the media bought off! You just watch the next time there's a plane crash. The news media gives a list of VICTIMS, man! There's hundreds of millions of people that weren't in the crash and the korrupt media is just covering that up! And my hangglider with the big Mountain Dew logo on it -- did it crash? No! But did the media ever mention that or did they just keep talking about that damn plane? You don't need me to tell you, you know what those bastards did!
I blame the military industrial complex and those evil corporatism forces, or whatever the hell Jon Katz is always complaining about!
I'm not sure you really thought this through all that well. Coxsackie viruses don't target Coxsackie, and the Epstein-Barr virus doesn't target people named Epstein or Barr. It's a kinda irrelevant idea anyway because (1) a lot of attacks target more than one system, (2) it doesn't say anything about which system is more vulnerable than the other, since all three of the ones you listed had patches available well before the attacks started.
Mark Minasi's Mastering Windows 2000 Server and ORA's Perl CD Bookshelf.
Other's I've seen that come to mind, too: the Petzold book, K&R, the Stevens books, McConnell's Code Complete (although I wish these last two would be updated), Learning Python's a great book for newbie programmers, ahh forget it, I could go on forever.
I don't get your point about the ending screwing over anybody thinking of making a sequel. It seems to be a perfect setup to have a sequel where the apes are running modern day America. To me, the ending flat out didn't make sense and that the only reason they did it, shock value aside, was to make room for a sequel.
Has anybody seen any sites or reviews that try to explain the ending? I'm really curious to make some sense out of it, and if anybody has any ideas, I'm all ears. Leo goes to the future and battles Thade's army. Then Leo comes back to relatively modern time, and the monument inscription refers to Thade. I could've dealt with him coming back and finding the Earth ruled by apes, but for them to specifically refer to Thade, who was from the future, really baffles me.
Ya know, as I was typing this, I thought of a possibility. Thade wasn't dead at the end of the flick, he just kind of sat down in defeat after not being able to escape the ship. Since the ship still has power, maybe he found some way to get out in one of the pods, then just like Leo, he went back in time, even further back than Leo did, and that's how the apes came to rule Earth. Hmmm....
Other observations from the movie:
I liked 'em, but most of the audience didn't seem to get the "damn dirty ape" reference or Heston's damn them all to Hell bit.
Ari, they ape who sympathized with humans, looked a lot like Janet Jackson.
The movie explains why the chimps were running the show (a cool explanation, too), but how'd the gorillas get into the action?
Why were all the humans dressed in rags and totally unbathed, but the hottie human had a sparkly dress and enough makeup to rival Tammy Faye Bakker?
The explanation for why the human's outpost was called Calima was so lame (CAution LIve aniMAls -- they named the land after one little freaking sign that nobody had ever thought to dust off), although I totally saw something like that coming. I thought it would be the same thing with the ape god, too (Ximos? Zeemos?), like naming him that after seeing a CMOS chip or something. Oh well, one for two.
Thade exuded venom like no other movie character I can remember.
I'm in total disagreement with Katz's description of Leo being in shock the whole movie. I thought he was flat and didn't ever seem the least bit surprised either that he survived a crash landing, or that apes were running the show.
Okay, I can give them the explanation for why the ship's core still had power after hundreds of years. But it still seems a real stretch that the on-board equipment (doors, monitors, etc.) would have any chance of still being operable.
Bruce does have some good points that should be heard and debated, but I don't blame anybody who declined to respond to his childish baiting. I mentioned the mocking way he kept repeating Mundie's name over and over, but he also devoted one post (called something like, "I thought this was a debate, Craig.") to going off on Mundie for not taking the bait.
Actually, the only way that your provider dictates it in your case is that 1) Hotmail's the most popular free email service, and 2) the name you chose must've been an easily guessable one by the spammers. Because of (1), spammers just go through and guess Hotmail usernames. Because of (2), they were able to guess yours. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who use fairly unique Hotmail addresses (remember: underscores_are_your_friend) that have never received a single piece of spam.
No offense, but I didn't see the name "Jon Abbey" anywhere in the listing of RoundTable participants. Why would you have expected anything more than zero response from anybody?
It's expected that people would behave like adults during a roundtable, which everybody did except for Bruce. Why respond to someone acting childishly? It only encourages them. Bruce made it very clear why he doesn't have many friends, and it's only natural that he'd be ignored when behaving that way. Like I said, that's why they even made the Troll and Flamebait moderations here at Slashdot, where childish behavior is practically the norm.
That's because Bruce was making a complete ass of himself, webmaven. Tell me, webmaven, why would you bother responding to someone who was trying to bait you? Hmm, webmaven? You see, webmaven, Slashdot even has moderation scores for people who behave like that, and Bruce's posts would've been modded down by any sane person. And don't take offense, webmaven, I'm just mocking Bruce's baiting style by repeating the person's name every sentence. Get it, webmaven?
I'm a stickler for accuracy, and it gets tiring seeing everybody running around and screaming monopoly every time they don't like something. I'm not blowing off your well-thought out reply with this post, I just don't have time to write anymore right now./p.
Well, Time-Warner was Schumer's 13th highest contributor during the 1995-2000 election cycle (he was elected in 1998 and won't be up again until 2004). So it would make sense that he agreed with Microsoft's position before, but now that Time-Warner has merged with AOL, it looks like he's been kept safely within Time-Warner's pocket.
I was just being coy. I know that Mutt (or any email client with more than 5 users) can handle attachments. The point is that this virus has nothing to do with Outlook -- the user only gets infected if they actually run the executable. Forget all the extra stuff like the built-in SMTP server or different languages; it's just an executable that needs to be run by the user before it can do any damage, and any email client that can receive attachments can make it available to an unsuspecting user.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be appalled, but are you really all that surprised? I'm surprised that you think the average Slashdotter would know any better. You've got to admit that finding ignorance here is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Basically, the same people telling us how much better sounding OGG is are the same people who've been telling us for the past two years that the Mozilla nightlies are better than IE. Don't fall for the bullshit again.
You got that right. I've got 18 freakin' browser windows open right now, forget about all the other stuff that's open, too. I'm impatient, and some of us can actually handle multitasking, thank you. Sure, there are some times when it slows me down, like I won't read a book while listening to something like the Phil Hendrie Show because that my brain doesn't handle very well. Then again, knowing the simps that work at CNN, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if they have one browser window open at a time, spending 50% of their time just watching that little blue ball spin 'round and 'round...
Yeah, you tell yourself that women are good at multitasking the next time you let your girlfriend drive and when she's looking for a particular street sign, she starts screaming at you to turn the radio down. Come on! :)
The very first paragraph of his page says that the Windows CE source code was released under a Shared Source license. A mere five sentences later (note that this is also five paragraphs later, since he's one of those idiots who uses a new paragraph for just about every single sentence he writes), he's telling us that Shared Source "gives only some selected (by Microsoft) large companies the permission to view parts of the source code [...]" This is also a point (entirely incorrect, by the way) that he continually harps upon. Is he senile or something, or did he forget what he wrote only 5 sentence earlier?
As if that weren't enough for one sentence, he continues by saying, "[...] under the provision that it is not modified, compiled (turned into an executable file the computer rather than the programmer understands), or redistributed, in modified or unmodified form." Please note that this is complete bullshit, and anyone reading the short and very easy-to-understand license will see this immediately.
Let me know if the rest of it has anything useful, but because he so bolloxed up the first page length of his article with lies, I'm not going to bother with the rest of it.
You'll have to forgive Katz, he thinks fart jokes are highbrow comedy.
Of course, there's comedy itself in picturing Katz, Mr. Corporations 'R Evil himself, running up to the window to hand his money over to the corporations (AOL/Time-Warner in this case).
Yeah, Jon, you want to see everybody out on the street protesting for your silly causes, but you can't even resist seeing some cheesy comedy on opening night? Get bent.
It's not the name he was born with, but it's a real dude, and there's just one of him. In the beginning, the guy who wrote this (ridiculously misinformed) article wrote a column for InfoWorld. He quit that gig, but wanted to keep using the name Robert X. Cringely. InfoWorld said, "No way, hodad, that whole Robert X. Cringely bit has become a staple for InfoWorld, and since it's not your real name anyway, we're claiming the name as our own." And so they did, and other people (I don't know how many) have continued the column in InfoWorld under the name Robert X. Cringely.
I know that the two sides tussled over the name, but have no idea in whose favor it turned out, since InfoWorld still runs a column under the Cringely name using their own writer(s), and the PBS guy is obviously still using the Cringely name. These are two entirely separate entities, though.
Oh well, they both suck anyway. ;) Cringely (PBS version) got busted in the past few years when it turned out that he completely made up his academic credentials, claiming that he got some degree from Stanford, which he didn't (I think it was Stanford, anyway). And InfoWorld is trying to turn their pseudo-journalistic hackery into a consulting business (and presumably praying that potential customers never notice that they're barely able to operate a functional website -- and that for a very long time, they couldn't even do that!), but that doesn't seem to be going so well for them.
You're kidding, right? The whole Sun ONE pipedream wasn't even announced until this past February. If you know anybody actually excited about it, please let them be heard, because they're pretty hard to find. Sun's nursing some pretty bitter feelings right now after watching the developer community scramble to support .NET while for the most part having given Java the cold shoulder. Heh, think Sun's now regretting having pulled back so many times from submitting Java as a standard? 'Cause I guarantee you, that's what's caused the big upswell in .NET plans. There are a ton of people working on .NET projects now who would have totally written it off as a Microsoft-only technology if not for Microsoft submittting this stuff to a standards body.
Seriously, Sun's got a lot to worry about. Where's the excitement about Sun ONE? What happened to the "web tone," the "big freakin' switch," JINI, and JXTA? Most importantly, what happened all those dumb Java-enabled rings that Scott MacNealy used to wear? Anyone actually miss 'em? Sun's just become a follower, finally coming around to SOAP, UDDI, etc., after getting over the bitterness of adopting technology that Microsoft developed. Not sure why they mind now, though -- J2EE's just a Microsoft Transaction Server ripoff, and it's not too hard to guess where JSP and JDBC come from.
Trivia time: Sun is on ECMA Committee TC39 Task Group 2 (TG2), as well as being on TG3. The purpose(s) of these two bodies is to:
If you chose B & C, you're absolutely right! Now remember players, you must've chosen them both to win. Don Pardo, show the people what they've won! :)
Why would you blame anything other than Microsoft's enormous popularity for Sircam? It sure doesn't make use of any exploits. Sorry, but it's just hard to come to any conclusion other than that a lot of you guys who harp on this stuff don't have any idea what you're talking about.
The media picked this story because it involved attacks aimed at the goverment. Why would you expect anyone other than crime listings to pick up on the Dmitry story? Dude's just another low-level criminal (alleged, of course), whose coverage would usually be limited to the back pages of a local newspaper's Metro section, if even that.
The patch was available for a month before Red Code struck, so how does this show how irresponsible Microsoft is compared to worms that have hit other operating systems? Why has Linux been struck with worms of its own? Does that mean a "closed source, NDA distribution model" is superior, then? Besides, just like with desktops, most web servers on the internet run Windows, so it's not too surprising that more of them get attacked, especially since not only are there more, they're usually used for more important data/applications, especially when it comes to e-commerce.
Notice these articles NEVER said what systems Code Red wouldn't affect, just that Code Red WOULD affect Microsoft systems.
Yeah man, it's all one big conspiracy! Damn corporations even have the media bought off! You just watch the next time there's a plane crash. The news media gives a list of VICTIMS, man! There's hundreds of millions of people that weren't in the crash and the korrupt media is just covering that up! And my hangglider with the big Mountain Dew logo on it -- did it crash? No! But did the media ever mention that or did they just keep talking about that damn plane? You don't need me to tell you, you know what those bastards did!
I blame the military industrial complex and those evil corporatism forces, or whatever the hell Jon Katz is always complaining about!
I'm not sure you really thought this through all that well. Coxsackie viruses don't target Coxsackie, and the Epstein-Barr virus doesn't target people named Epstein or Barr. It's a kinda irrelevant idea anyway because (1) a lot of attacks target more than one system, (2) it doesn't say anything about which system is more vulnerable than the other, since all three of the ones you listed had patches available well before the attacks started.
Mark Minasi's Mastering Windows 2000 Server and ORA's Perl CD Bookshelf.
Other's I've seen that come to mind, too: the Petzold book, K&R, the Stevens books, McConnell's Code Complete (although I wish these last two would be updated), Learning Python's a great book for newbie programmers, ahh forget it, I could go on forever.
Cheers,
Heh, I also thought it was really cold for him to just up and take Pericles's pod and leave him stranded there.
Cheers,
I don't get your point about the ending screwing over anybody thinking of making a sequel. It seems to be a perfect setup to have a sequel where the apes are running modern day America. To me, the ending flat out didn't make sense and that the only reason they did it, shock value aside, was to make room for a sequel.
Has anybody seen any sites or reviews that try to explain the ending? I'm really curious to make some sense out of it, and if anybody has any ideas, I'm all ears. Leo goes to the future and battles Thade's army. Then Leo comes back to relatively modern time, and the monument inscription refers to Thade. I could've dealt with him coming back and finding the Earth ruled by apes, but for them to specifically refer to Thade, who was from the future, really baffles me.
Ya know, as I was typing this, I thought of a possibility. Thade wasn't dead at the end of the flick, he just kind of sat down in defeat after not being able to escape the ship. Since the ship still has power, maybe he found some way to get out in one of the pods, then just like Leo, he went back in time, even further back than Leo did, and that's how the apes came to rule Earth. Hmmm....
Other observations from the movie:
Cheers,
Bruce does have some good points that should be heard and debated, but I don't blame anybody who declined to respond to his childish baiting. I mentioned the mocking way he kept repeating Mundie's name over and over, but he also devoted one post (called something like, "I thought this was a debate, Craig.") to going off on Mundie for not taking the bait.
Cheers,
Actually, the only way that your provider dictates it in your case is that 1) Hotmail's the most popular free email service, and 2) the name you chose must've been an easily guessable one by the spammers. Because of (1), spammers just go through and guess Hotmail usernames. Because of (2), they were able to guess yours. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence from people who use fairly unique Hotmail addresses (remember: underscores_are_your_friend) that have never received a single piece of spam.
Cheers,
No offense, but I didn't see the name "Jon Abbey" anywhere in the listing of RoundTable participants. Why would you have expected anything more than zero response from anybody?
Cheers,
It's expected that people would behave like adults during a roundtable, which everybody did except for Bruce. Why respond to someone acting childishly? It only encourages them. Bruce made it very clear why he doesn't have many friends, and it's only natural that he'd be ignored when behaving that way. Like I said, that's why they even made the Troll and Flamebait moderations here at Slashdot, where childish behavior is practically the norm.
Cheers,
That's because Bruce was making a complete ass of himself, webmaven. Tell me, webmaven, why would you bother responding to someone who was trying to bait you? Hmm, webmaven? You see, webmaven, Slashdot even has moderation scores for people who behave like that, and Bruce's posts would've been modded down by any sane person. And don't take offense, webmaven, I'm just mocking Bruce's baiting style by repeating the person's name every sentence. Get it, webmaven?
Cheers,
I'm a stickler for accuracy, and it gets tiring seeing everybody running around and screaming monopoly every time they don't like something. I'm not blowing off your well-thought out reply with this post, I just don't have time to write anymore right now./p.
Cheers,
Well, Time-Warner was Schumer's 13th highest contributor during the 1995-2000 election cycle (he was elected in 1998 and won't be up again until 2004). So it would make sense that he agreed with Microsoft's position before, but now that Time-Warner has merged with AOL, it looks like he's been kept safely within Time-Warner's pocket.
Cheers,
Where's the monopoly? Or is this just one of those words that a lot of people around here throw out whenever something happens that they don't like?
Cheers,
I was just being coy. I know that Mutt (or any email client with more than 5 users) can handle attachments. The point is that this virus has nothing to do with Outlook -- the user only gets infected if they actually run the executable. Forget all the extra stuff like the built-in SMTP server or different languages; it's just an executable that needs to be run by the user before it can do any damage, and any email client that can receive attachments can make it available to an unsuspecting user.
Cheers,