LNUX has dropped over 40% since the market closed last Tuesday, though, while NASDAQ's only lost about 5%. Same pretty much holds true (as far as LNUX bleeding way more than the market as a whole) whether you look at the last 5 days, 10 days, whatever. Stick a fork in this company, it's done. On the bright side, ESR's original $41,000,000 worth of LNUX stock is now down to about $550,000, and his gloating sounds more comical everyday.
But if you're going to complain about version inflation, why would you wait? At least this way they might change their minds. If you wait until 8.0 is actually released, it's a little late.
On a side note, more seriously: I know there's been a lot of joking around anf flaming, but VA Linux really is going down for the count, isn't it? The stock's dropped another 12% down to $4.41/share, and it doesn't seem to be bottoming out. I'm curious what's going to happen to Slashdot and Andover -- whether they'll just be turned loose, another company buys them, or whatever. Anyway...
Yup, like I said, I don't like it coming from either side, but if people want to take the moral high ground against the RIAA, they shouldn't use the same tactics.
Not to mention that it seems like the music pirates don't seem to have a very good grasp on cause-and-effect. How many times do we have to hear "music sales went up in 1999, therefore Napster is actually helping to sell CDs!" Well, when you take into account all other factors, maybe it really is, but you certainly can't determine that from the single datapoint that CD sales went up. After all, maybe they would've been a lot higher without Napster. I don't know either way, but I hate bullshit statistical correlations coming from either side, so give it a rest.
No matter what side of the issue you're on, this article offered nothing to decide the matter. It didn't even look like it was trying to convince a non-believer, just a bluff to try to sound superior to "those who thump their bibles." (I just did a Google search on Caplan, it seems like that's his standard level of dialogue when he's censoring or chastizing a Christian point of view.) Why would a neutral person think that mapping the human genome decides the matter definitively? If it does, Caplan didn't even come close to showing that. And this clown actually gets paid to teach students?
If on the tiny chance that he did see your post, do you honestly think that he's not laughing his ass off at you right now? He'd probably tell you to go sell one of your CDs (since you surely don't have a job) and go buy yourself a dictionary.
Move out of your parents' basement. Take a bath. Get a job. Pay for the stuff you want. I'm sure this will take you a bit longer than most with your new burger-flipper salary, but you'll feel better about yourself when you're no longer a bottom-feeder of society.
First, I wouldn't refer to anyone as well-armed as ESR as a "dork", if I were you B-)
Hey, who sez I don't have weapons of my own?;) 'Sides, even though I give ESR crap for some of his embarrassing statements, I trust him as a gun owner not to abuse the right. And I wasn't declaring him King of all Linux (Linus still has that role), just head of the dork faction. (See: Obi-wan costume;)
I wouldn't mind debating the true value of VA Linux sometime, but my original post wasn't making any kind of value judgements on the stock itself -- I was just using that fact to show what's happened to the paper value of a certain zealot that we all know...
D'oh! I still refuse to believe it, though, that was just too perfect if it was really a troll. So good, in fact, that I'm sure the people that he was imitating were actually nodding their heads in agreement as they read it, so my post served as a counterpoint for them.
Awww, fuck it, who am I tryin' to kid? I just wanted an excuse to let everyone know about ESR's current paper worth.;)
[...] because that will give the people running it a choice to go back to Windows, which is not what I want to happen.
Yes, we all know that Linux zealots like you don't want people to have choice, which is why your ilk ranks around the bottom of the social totem pole.
Oh, and here's something to ponder the next time you're masturbating about Linux: VA Linux's stock dropped another 25 to 30 percent today, so the king dork of Linux, ESR, has now seen the value of his stock officially fall below 1 million dollars. And such a shame, too, after hearing him brag to his worshippers about how cool-n-wealthy he was ($40 million back then, how time flies).
Cheers,
Re:Is this a good first book on XML?
on
Inside XML
·
· Score: 2
Well, I'm currently reviewing O'Reilly's Learning XML, but I'd still say that Inside XML still seems to be a better book for beginners. Mainly because you can continue on with this book and increase your knowledge once it teaches you the basics, whereas advanced topics like XPointers and XLinks are pretty lacking in the O'Reilly book. O'Reilly's XML in a Nutshell is good, but if you choose Learning XML, it's pretty much a necessity (if you're into that fancy book learnin') because of Learning XML lack of advanced topics.
Another book that I'd recommend for beginners just below Inside XML is the second edition of Just XML. It's not as thorough as Inside XML, but it still manages to delve into quite a bit, like XLinks and XPointers (and covers them well for beginners, slowing down for parts that the author knows his readers will have trouble wrapping their heads around). The cool thing about it is the author's very approachable style, which makes for a very quick read (plus, there's a lot of anecdotal fluff that you can skip if you're not up for being amused), and the best part is that throughout the book, you're working toward building a B-movie database. The hands-on approach is nice, as I know a lot of XML newbies are left thinking, "But what can I use this stuff for?" Do make sure that you get the second edition. Again, I've just started Learning XML, but it's not seeming like it'll top either of these two. (Not that I think it's a poor book.)
Stay away from O'Reilly's XML Pocket Reference. It's too old. In the next month or two, they're coming out with a second edition of it, which I would expect to be a great pickup for the price. Wait 'til then.
So that should have changed the certainty of the VNS data, instead of telling the networks that Gore was 99.9 percent certain to lose. FOX was just going on the data that they and the other nets were provided. Your argument has nothing to do with FOX.
This moon thing was for FOX's entertainment channel, with no pretense that it had anything to do with FOX News Channel. Let's see, do you also hold CNN responsible for the same "wacky science" genre stories that TBS shows on "Ripley's Believe It or Not?" Of course not, because even though they're owned by the same company, they're different entities.
Also, I'm not really sure why you would hold CNN up as some highly respectable news organization. Their idea of a hardball interview is sitting across the table from freakin' Larry King. Maybe you didn't hear about all their ethical problems over their Tailwind story?
And you can go on down the line. NBC spiking stories because Tom Brokaw refuses to read them on the air. Using WWII's aniversary more to shill Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation book than for any historical content. ABC spiking already-completed stories about their owner, Disney. CBS using their morning news show to completely hammer that chick from the original Survivor who brough a lawsuit against CBS/Survivor. (Hey, I think she's a yutz, too, but their conduct was completely reprehensible and unethical.) And there's more where that came from...
So here we have a story about debunking silly myths, and you trot out one of your own. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
At 2:15 AM, VNS sent out to all the networks data that showed it was 99.9 percent definite that Gore would lose Florida. VNS founding head and a decision desk analyst for CBS and CNN, Warren Mitofsky, said that "A projection is not made until the chances of making a mistake are at 1 in 200 or less." In other words, their data at the time was showing that the chances of making a mistake in Florida were about 1 in 1000, so it's natural that FOX and the rest would make the call at that point.
Mitofsky even goes on to say, in the February 2001 Brill's Content, "This business about FOX pressuring other people to call, I never made a projection in my life because of some other network. When I heard they put it out there, I was disappointed, because I wanted to do it, but I was in the process of reviewing the counties, one at a time....I wanted to make sure there were no bad numbers. We were about to make the projection.
There ya go, now you have one less conspiracy theory to carp about.
CinemaPop (www.cinemapop.com for those who dare not click on links here anymore) has a lot of movies and TV classics, in both free and pay-per-view formats — and no, the good stuff isn't all confined to the PPV areas.
Filmspeed (www.filmspeed.com) doesn't have as many (at least not that I've yet found), but I think they're all free, and quality ones, too. For download or streaming. Plus, you can download 'em to play on your PocketPC, which is always good for kicks and surprising the guy sitting next to you on a plane. The've got Fists of Fury, Nosferatu, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Chinese Connection, A Christmas Carol, and Night of the Living Dead , among (not too many) others. Unfortunately, Night of the Living Dead isn't available for the PocketPC for some reason...
Why do you think so many movies have gratuitous baby scenes? It's not just for the "Awww, cute" factor. Then there's using multiple baby actors to play each baby used onscreen, under the guise of labor/child welfare laws. Maybe it's just a matter of playing the odds that at least one of the rugrats will live to a ripe old age. I just saw an interview with some actress in the past few days saying that they used eight (might've been six) different baby actors to portray her kid. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it would be a good explanation for all those damn baby actors. Oh well, at least they can act better than Demi Moore and her decrepit plastic melons...
Sorry, but you better get rid of OS/2, also. I think RMS and the FSF have had a trademark on the term "half an OS" for about the last 5 years of HURD's development.:)
Please don't be naïve. The privacy advocates already hated the FBI. The FBI doesn't really give a shit what they think. The new name is intended for all the other people, and there are a Hell of a lot more of them. Note that most people will likely side with the FBI here, while the privacy advocates will be left trying to explain why they're helping out pedophiles and terrorists. (See: ACLU). Don't believe me? Tell me why.
On a side note, I find it extreeeeemely ironic that the banner ad I'm getting for this article is for ThinkGeek selling a bumper sticker which reads, "I read your e-mail." So, we're all supposed to be up in arms over the government doing it, but when some haX0r reads someone else's email, that's just havin' a good time and we celebrate that particular privacy violation with a bumper sticker. Good job, guys.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to patent the process by which a stock goes from $320 to $4.25 in less than two years. Oh damn, VA Linux already owns that one!
Cheers,
LNUX has dropped over 40% since the market closed last Tuesday, though, while NASDAQ's only lost about 5%. Same pretty much holds true (as far as LNUX bleeding way more than the market as a whole) whether you look at the last 5 days, 10 days, whatever. Stick a fork in this company, it's done. On the bright side, ESR's original $41,000,000 worth of LNUX stock is now down to about $550,000, and his gloating sounds more comical everyday.
Cheers,
But if you're going to complain about version inflation, why would you wait? At least this way they might change their minds. If you wait until 8.0 is actually released, it's a little late.
On a side note, more seriously: I know there's been a lot of joking around anf flaming, but VA Linux really is going down for the count, isn't it? The stock's dropped another 12% down to $4.41/share, and it doesn't seem to be bottoming out. I'm curious what's going to happen to Slashdot and Andover -- whether they'll just be turned loose, another company buys them, or whatever. Anyway...
Cheers,
Yup, like I said, I don't like it coming from either side, but if people want to take the moral high ground against the RIAA, they shouldn't use the same tactics.
Cheers,
Not to mention that it seems like the music pirates don't seem to have a very good grasp on cause-and-effect. How many times do we have to hear "music sales went up in 1999, therefore Napster is actually helping to sell CDs!" Well, when you take into account all other factors, maybe it really is, but you certainly can't determine that from the single datapoint that CD sales went up. After all, maybe they would've been a lot higher without Napster. I don't know either way, but I hate bullshit statistical correlations coming from either side, so give it a rest.
Cheers,
'The Don' was the Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky of cricket all rolled into one.
But he still can't hang with He Hate Me.
Cheers,
Come meet the boy who saw his $41,000,000 turn into $650,000! Are those tears of sadness running down his cheeks, or has he gone insane?!
Cheers,
Except that people won't use it if it's no good. That's why nobody used the free IE 2, and why people who can run IE 5.x shun Netscape/Mozilla.
Cheers,
It's getting to the point where they almost have to give it away for free to continue "competing" with these other OSes...
Yeah, I heard that the market share for Windows dropped from 93% to 92.5% over the past year. What a crisis!
Cheers,
No matter what side of the issue you're on, this article offered nothing to decide the matter. It didn't even look like it was trying to convince a non-believer, just a bluff to try to sound superior to "those who thump their bibles." (I just did a Google search on Caplan, it seems like that's his standard level of dialogue when he's censoring or chastizing a Christian point of view.) Why would a neutral person think that mapping the human genome decides the matter definitively? If it does, Caplan didn't even come close to showing that. And this clown actually gets paid to teach students?
Cheers,
You tell 'im, TUFF guy!
If on the tiny chance that he did see your post, do you honestly think that he's not laughing his ass off at you right now? He'd probably tell you to go sell one of your CDs (since you surely don't have a job) and go buy yourself a dictionary.
Cheers,
Move out of your parents' basement. Take a bath. Get a job. Pay for the stuff you want. I'm sure this will take you a bit longer than most with your new burger-flipper salary, but you'll feel better about yourself when you're no longer a bottom-feeder of society.
Cheers,
Why would I think that? Radio stations pay to broadcast the music they play.
Cheers,
First, I wouldn't refer to anyone as well-armed as ESR as a "dork", if I were you B-)
Hey, who sez I don't have weapons of my own? ;) 'Sides, even though I give ESR crap for some of his embarrassing statements, I trust him as a gun owner not to abuse the right. And I wasn't declaring him King of all Linux (Linus still has that role), just head of the dork faction. (See: Obi-wan costume ;)
I wouldn't mind debating the true value of VA Linux sometime, but my original post wasn't making any kind of value judgements on the stock itself -- I was just using that fact to show what's happened to the paper value of a certain zealot that we all know...
Cheers,
I know! How about not trafficking in pirated software?
Cheers,
D'oh! I still refuse to believe it, though, that was just too perfect if it was really a troll. So good, in fact, that I'm sure the people that he was imitating were actually nodding their heads in agreement as they read it, so my post served as a counterpoint for them.
Awww, fuck it, who am I tryin' to kid? I just wanted an excuse to let everyone know about ESR's current paper worth. ;)
Cheers,
[...] because that will give the people running it a choice to go back to Windows, which is not what I want to happen.
Yes, we all know that Linux zealots like you don't want people to have choice, which is why your ilk ranks around the bottom of the social totem pole.
Oh, and here's something to ponder the next time you're masturbating about Linux: VA Linux's stock dropped another 25 to 30 percent today, so the king dork of Linux, ESR, has now seen the value of his stock officially fall below 1 million dollars. And such a shame, too, after hearing him brag to his worshippers about how cool-n-wealthy he was ($40 million back then, how time flies).
Cheers,
Well, I'm currently reviewing O'Reilly's Learning XML, but I'd still say that Inside XML still seems to be a better book for beginners. Mainly because you can continue on with this book and increase your knowledge once it teaches you the basics, whereas advanced topics like XPointers and XLinks are pretty lacking in the O'Reilly book. O'Reilly's XML in a Nutshell is good, but if you choose Learning XML, it's pretty much a necessity (if you're into that fancy book learnin') because of Learning XML lack of advanced topics.
Another book that I'd recommend for beginners just below Inside XML is the second edition of Just XML. It's not as thorough as Inside XML, but it still manages to delve into quite a bit, like XLinks and XPointers (and covers them well for beginners, slowing down for parts that the author knows his readers will have trouble wrapping their heads around). The cool thing about it is the author's very approachable style, which makes for a very quick read (plus, there's a lot of anecdotal fluff that you can skip if you're not up for being amused), and the best part is that throughout the book, you're working toward building a B-movie database. The hands-on approach is nice, as I know a lot of XML newbies are left thinking, "But what can I use this stuff for?" Do make sure that you get the second edition. Again, I've just started Learning XML, but it's not seeming like it'll top either of these two. (Not that I think it's a poor book.)
Stay away from O'Reilly's XML Pocket Reference. It's too old. In the next month or two, they're coming out with a second edition of it, which I would expect to be a great pickup for the price. Wait 'til then.
Cheers,
So that should have changed the certainty of the VNS data, instead of telling the networks that Gore was 99.9 percent certain to lose. FOX was just going on the data that they and the other nets were provided. Your argument has nothing to do with FOX.
Cheers,
This moon thing was for FOX's entertainment channel, with no pretense that it had anything to do with FOX News Channel. Let's see, do you also hold CNN responsible for the same "wacky science" genre stories that TBS shows on "Ripley's Believe It or Not?" Of course not, because even though they're owned by the same company, they're different entities.
Also, I'm not really sure why you would hold CNN up as some highly respectable news organization. Their idea of a hardball interview is sitting across the table from freakin' Larry King. Maybe you didn't hear about all their ethical problems over their Tailwind story?
And you can go on down the line. NBC spiking stories because Tom Brokaw refuses to read them on the air. Using WWII's aniversary more to shill Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation book than for any historical content. ABC spiking already-completed stories about their owner, Disney. CBS using their morning news show to completely hammer that chick from the original Survivor who brough a lawsuit against CBS/Survivor. (Hey, I think she's a yutz, too, but their conduct was completely reprehensible and unethical.) And there's more where that came from...
Cheers,
So here we have a story about debunking silly myths, and you trot out one of your own. Let's look at the facts, shall we?
At 2:15 AM, VNS sent out to all the networks data that showed it was 99.9 percent definite that Gore would lose Florida. VNS founding head and a decision desk analyst for CBS and CNN, Warren Mitofsky, said that "A projection is not made until the chances of making a mistake are at 1 in 200 or less." In other words, their data at the time was showing that the chances of making a mistake in Florida were about 1 in 1000, so it's natural that FOX and the rest would make the call at that point.
Mitofsky even goes on to say, in the February 2001 Brill's Content, "This business about FOX pressuring other people to call, I never made a projection in my life because of some other network. When I heard they put it out there, I was disappointed, because I wanted to do it, but I was in the process of reviewing the counties, one at a time....I wanted to make sure there were no bad numbers. We were about to make the projection.
There ya go, now you have one less conspiracy theory to carp about.
Cheers,
CinemaPop (www.cinemapop.com for those who dare not click on links here anymore) has a lot of movies and TV classics, in both free and pay-per-view formats — and no, the good stuff isn't all confined to the PPV areas.
Filmspeed (www.filmspeed.com) doesn't have as many (at least not that I've yet found), but I think they're all free, and quality ones, too. For download or streaming. Plus, you can download 'em to play on your PocketPC, which is always good for kicks and surprising the guy sitting next to you on a plane. The've got Fists of Fury, Nosferatu, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Chinese Connection, A Christmas Carol, and Night of the Living Dead , among (not too many) others. Unfortunately, Night of the Living Dead isn't available for the PocketPC for some reason...
Cheers,
Why do you think so many movies have gratuitous baby scenes? It's not just for the "Awww, cute" factor. Then there's using multiple baby actors to play each baby used onscreen, under the guise of labor/child welfare laws. Maybe it's just a matter of playing the odds that at least one of the rugrats will live to a ripe old age. I just saw an interview with some actress in the past few days saying that they used eight (might've been six) different baby actors to portray her kid. I have no idea if what you said is true or not, but it would be a good explanation for all those damn baby actors. Oh well, at least they can act better than Demi Moore and her decrepit plastic melons...
Cheers,
It's Pizza and OS/2 from now on.
Sorry, but you better get rid of OS/2, also. I think RMS and the FSF have had a trademark on the term "half an OS" for about the last 5 years of HURD's development. :)
Cheers,
Please don't be naïve. The privacy advocates already hated the FBI. The FBI doesn't really give a shit what they think. The new name is intended for all the other people, and there are a Hell of a lot more of them. Note that most people will likely side with the FBI here, while the privacy advocates will be left trying to explain why they're helping out pedophiles and terrorists. (See: ACLU). Don't believe me? Tell me why.
On a side note, I find it extreeeeemely ironic that the banner ad I'm getting for this article is for ThinkGeek selling a bumper sticker which reads, "I read your e-mail." So, we're all supposed to be up in arms over the government doing it, but when some haX0r reads someone else's email, that's just havin' a good time and we celebrate that particular privacy violation with a bumper sticker. Good job, guys.
Cheers,