This is a company that has cash problems out the ying-yang and whose stock has plummetted to about 3¾. Last time I was at ChumpUSA, they were giving away (yes, for free) their Deluxe version of their Linux distribution. Good luck making money that way. Stick a fork in 'em.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Show that they is nothing new about Microsoft
on
Microsoft PDC Journal
·
· Score: 1
Actually, the only thing this journal shows is that Slashdot will print absolutely anything they can just to stir up the rabid anti-Microsoft crowd around here, no matter how little of a clue the author has. Just curious, but why would you trust what that twit wrote anymore than you would trust what Burger King has to say about McDonalds. Please don't tell me that you're not that much of a gullible simp, or that big of a sheep desperate to believe anything a Slashdotter writes about Microsoft.
You and the other three people who will account for all of Indrema's sales will still be able to write all the games you want for yourselves. Maybe you guys could team up with the 5 remaining OS/2 users and build something based on the old DOOM source. Lord knows the Open Source community could use another First Person Shooter!;-)
What's up with BeOpen lately, anyway? I've heard tales (I think from FC, but I'm not exactly sure) of their President leaving and that the company's now being run by VC angels, with some of the staff starting to leave. And, of course (in the current Internet economy), difficulties in getting any new funding. The main reason this is worrisome is because Guido van Rossum and the rest of the core Python development team just moved to BeOpen not even two months ago, and there's already been a good deal of slippage of release dates for the already overdue Python 1.6. I'm really hoping that Guido and the crew didn't board a sinking ship. Anyone have any info on this?
It really didn't seem all that ambiguous once they put the unicorn dream sequence in there, since the only reason for it and the unicorn origami at the end was to establish Deckard as being a replicant himself. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point for those two things to happen in the film.
The number of skin-jobs, though, really is a continuity error, not a hint as the article implies. There was originally another replicant named "Mary" who they eventually decided to cut out of the film before any of her scenes were shot, but the screenwriter didn't catch the change. In the workprint version, it was actually recorded correctly as "two got fried" (instead of just one), but they botched it again on the release print. Of course, they might've noticed the error later and left it in to stir the debate.
Given the recent reliability *cough* of Slashdot, here's hoping they give one of those O2 + NetBSD boxes a try.:)
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Lincoln said a lot of things
on
Publius
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps you've read the following little ditty from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Not too sure I'd be taking any of his prognostication as gospel...
No, it's not irrelevant, but apparently some big OEM makers think that the Crusoes give away too much in performance to be worth the reduction in power -- especially compared to the mobile chips that Intel recently announced, which claim to bring the power consumption right down to the same level as the Crusoe while still giving good performance. (Note that a lot of people here questioned Intel's claims, but didn't do the same for Transmeta, even though all they had were claims as well.) Just like when the Crusoes were announced, most people around here bought into it hook, line, and sinker, with hardly any skepticism at all. Now that some of the big boys are showing their disappointment with the Crusoe, a lot of people here still refuse to believe it and suggest that they're all being paid off by Intel. Be honest now, do you really think Crusoe would have so many apologists if it weren't for the simple fact that Saint Linus works for them?
Namely, that the only reason that this company has gotten so much press at all is because of all the Linus-worshippers out there who have hyped this chip up to unrealistic levels. It uses a concept that thus far is unproven (and actually looks like it doesn't work well at all so far, by the reactions of IBM, Compaq, and Dell) yet some people around here act as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Seriously -- how many people around here would ever talk about, unless it was to dismiss them as toys, webpads if Microsoft or Apple came out with them instead of Transmeta aiming for that market? But, since Linus works there *cue angelic harp music*, it's gotta be wonderful.
Sorry, but some of you guys set yourself up for your own letdown by buying into the hype and now are looking to point fingers elsewhere. You should be angry at Transmeta for playing you like a string violin by hiring Linus, not at companies who can't afford to base product lines on disproven hype. I won't say I told you so (even though I did), but in the future you should always take marketing hype with more than a few grains of salt, whether Linus Torvalds is a part of the company or not.
It doesn't say anything about how well it will perform against other chips, only that you would expect a 700 Mhz model X Crusoe to be faster than a 600 Mhz model X Crusoe, because it doesn't say how many clock cycles it takes to get the equivalent job done on each architecture. That's why you it's pretty much accepted that a 300 Mhz G3 will outperform a 333 Mhz Celeron.
Uhhm, no. If you use Outlook, it is enough to open the message.
That's completely incorrect. The user actually has to run it, just as if it were an.exe file. Merely previewing or opening the email does nothing but shows that the email has an attachment.
Also, you can't just double click on a java class to run it (even on windows).
Doesn't OS/2 execute class files natively? Not sure, but I thought it did. Anyway, I believe that you can put the classes in a jarball and have them run directly provided that you set up the manifest file to do this.
Namecall all you want, but you totally miss the issues. I never denied that I rip GPL'ed software authors off left and right -- in fact, I just said that I pilfered (and continue to pilfer) from them. I do it because it gets me what I want while at the same time helping to damage the efforts of GPL worshippers. The difference is that even though I say that there are reasons for what I do, I don't try to weasel out of the fact that I am indeed stealing from them. The people I lambaste are the types who recoil like vampires from the sun whenever you call them pirates. If they had the stones to admit what they are, instead of the plethora of incredibly lame excuses they put out as to why they aren't thieves, I wouldn't lambaste them.
Except that I highly doubt that the FSF is viewing this as a money-making venture, but rather a defense of the validity of the GPL. Of course, I'm willing to put my lawyer up against a lot of the boobs currently out there, so maybe it's best that they didn't come after me. It's kind of a shame -- it would've been an awesome feeling knowing that I was the one who destroyed the GPL!:)
I pilfer (and redistribute as binary only) GPL code all the time when I'm in a rush and just need to find something to plug in. *shrug* Heh, maybe they should've tried to test their case on me instead of tangling with "Big Company.":)
Do you really think it's better to have only one search engine rather than additional ones like this new one, or usgovsearch.com, to cover more of people's needs?
Anyway, as someone who's been using the service for a while, I can tell you that it's as much of an index (think Yahoo) as it is a straight search engine (it does have a search engine, too, though). The fact that you can browse the index would be one reason why some people might prefer it to Google, which appears at first glance to just return a bunch of hits.
The only problem is that it's rotten from the top down. I'm sure we could both name a couple of disreputable writers at any publication -- but at Salon, it's the very people who set the tone for the entire staff who can't seem to muster any journalistic integrity. The fact David Talbot is the Editor in Chief (!) pretty much says it all.
But, if that weren't enough, during the whole Savage/Iowa Caucus dustup, Salon actually had the stones to send an editor to CNN's Reliable Sources to start telling lies in order to defend Savage (my apologies, but I can't remember the editor's name, so I don't want to make a guess). Hey, if they want to defend Savage's right to do what he did on some journalistic grounds, fine, but to go on a show whose raison d'être is to critically cut through the spin of the media, and then to actually sit there and lie to the other panelists, that's just insane. The look of sheer incredulity on Howie Kurtz's face, that "Who the fuck does this guy think we are?" expression, was, however, priceless.:)
So, you're somewhat right, I probably was too hard on Mr. Leonard because I'm so down on the rest of the rag. I think I'm still looking forward to it folding, though -- hopefully the features I like will end up elsewhere (I know I don't have to worry about Camille ending up on her feet, but there are other articles besides hers that I enjoy at Salon), and the ethically-challenged higher ups can depart ungracefully from the public eye.
Or else Salon might go out of business before they finish the book. They'll probably be delisted from NASDAQ before they come out with another chapter. Bloomberg.com's Christopher Byron just had a great column this week about the scam that is Salon and its IPO (Salon.com Typifies Demise of "Content" IPOs). However, because of the abundance of self-important twits over there, and their gutter ethics (Dan Savage or David Talbott, anyone?), I certainly won't miss 'em. Oh well, good thing they're doing this lame-ass Free Software Project, so someone can pick up the pieces when they go bankrupt. Hope Camille Paglia ends up at a good place, though, 'cause she rocks. I really do recommend that article, though -- it's actually a Hell of a lot more critical of the scams that dot-com underwriters are pulling than it is of Salon itself.
Where's the FUD? Plus, you took that way too seriously -- it should've been obvious I was ribbing the guy, unless O'Reilly really does produce a Gonad book that I didn't know about. And where's the love for Addison-Wesley? All they managed to do was put out the Stevens book and Knuth -- I'd say that those are closer to computing bibles than anything O'Reilly's released, although the Camel book probably isn't too far off. Wrox deserves some props, too, especially after their new XSLT book.
And no need to tell me about O'Reilly's popularity. I even remarked in an earlier post today about an MP3 book about my ownership of their books. You're gonna have to get more specific about that BSD book, though -- I just did a quick title search of their catalog at the ORA web site, and "BSD" returned no matches. I'd say they're known for their books and the book covers a lot more than they're known for Larry Wall being an employee. I'd put them well above the level of a Dummies or TY series, just for their thoroughness, and the fact that they actually make very good indices, something which continually frustrates me with otherwise good Wrox books.
Anyway, I still stand by my original point -- just don't take it so seriously this time. Because my only stake in this is my own amusement.
Actually, the PocketPC makers are having a lot of trouble meeting the demand for the new PocketPCs. It's not easy to get one without being backordered. A quick check of eBay shows about 60 Palm IIIcs, 75 Palm IIVs, and 85 Palm Vxs for sale, but only 4 Jornada 540s, 2 Casio E-115s, and one iPaq H3650 for sale. And the bidding on the iPaq is already up to $135 over the normal street price! And to show how much people like their Cassiopeias, even though the new PocketPCs are out, there are still only 16 of the old models for sale. So, I can't say I agree with your assumption of the market agreeing with you.;)
Microsoft's had info on a new language for a while, now -- something called Vault, although I don't think it's the same thing as the one that c|net is talking about. I haven't looked at either Vault or C# in any kind of detail yet, so I won't swear to it.
Where are the Haskell, Eiffel, or Dylan books? Forget things like Plan 9, relatively common OSes the various BSDs are considered too fringe for O'Reilly. O'Reilly's books are aimed at the mainstream person who thinks it would be cool if people considered him a geek -- the kind of people who download complete kernels instead of patch them -- rather than true geeks. Oooo, another Linux book, how cutting edge! The only books they still put out are those health books they surprisingly release, which are highly targetted -- things like Losing Your Gonads to Scabies: How to Cope.
I'll admit right up front that I totally disagree with just about everything you write (I mean overall, not just this article). In general, I find it to be silly, pie in the sky, rah-rah cheerleading, and usually devoid of any self-criticsm whatsoever. Your writing seems like it goes out of its way to throw platitudes to whichever group you currently want to be part of, maybe in hopes that you'll end up as their patron scribe or something. But.
I still sometimes read the articles, but you need to realize that you're asking a lot of your readers by foisting these unedited pieces on us. They drag out sometimes because there's no focus, and when there is a focus, they drag out anyway because you keep repeating the same thing over and over. You know good and well that the mags that you've written for wouldn't take an article like this, so why do we have to suffer through it. Just get a friend to run over your columns, or maybe hire a college intern on the cheap. If you're going to chastize people for making judgments without reading your entire articles, you need to do your part, too, and make it less of a chore.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a company that has cash problems out the ying-yang and whose stock has plummetted to about 3¾. Last time I was at ChumpUSA, they were giving away (yes, for free) their Deluxe version of their Linux distribution. Good luck making money that way. Stick a fork in 'em.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Actually, the only thing this journal shows is that Slashdot will print absolutely anything they can just to stir up the rabid anti-Microsoft crowd around here, no matter how little of a clue the author has. Just curious, but why would you trust what that twit wrote anymore than you would trust what Burger King has to say about McDonalds. Please don't tell me that you're not that much of a gullible simp, or that big of a sheep desperate to believe anything a Slashdotter writes about Microsoft.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You and the other three people who will account for all of Indrema's sales will still be able to write all the games you want for yourselves. Maybe you guys could team up with the 5 remaining OS/2 users and build something based on the old DOOM source. Lord knows the Open Source community could use another First Person Shooter! ;-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Would those "herd people" you mention be:
Careful there, I think your cud is showing...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
What's up with BeOpen lately, anyway? I've heard tales (I think from FC, but I'm not exactly sure) of their President leaving and that the company's now being run by VC angels, with some of the staff starting to leave. And, of course (in the current Internet economy), difficulties in getting any new funding. The main reason this is worrisome is because Guido van Rossum and the rest of the core Python development team just moved to BeOpen not even two months ago, and there's already been a good deal of slippage of release dates for the already overdue Python 1.6. I'm really hoping that Guido and the crew didn't board a sinking ship. Anyone have any info on this?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It really didn't seem all that ambiguous once they put the unicorn dream sequence in there, since the only reason for it and the unicorn origami at the end was to establish Deckard as being a replicant himself. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point for those two things to happen in the film.
The number of skin-jobs, though, really is a continuity error, not a hint as the article implies. There was originally another replicant named "Mary" who they eventually decided to cut out of the film before any of her scenes were shot, but the screenwriter didn't catch the change. In the workprint version, it was actually recorded correctly as "two got fried" (instead of just one), but they botched it again on the release print. Of course, they might've noticed the error later and left it in to stir the debate.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Given the recent reliability *cough* of Slashdot, here's hoping they give one of those O2 + NetBSD boxes a try. :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Perhaps you've read the following little ditty from the Lincoln-Douglas debates:
Not too sure I'd be taking any of his prognostication as gospel...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
No, it's not irrelevant, but apparently some big OEM makers think that the Crusoes give away too much in performance to be worth the reduction in power -- especially compared to the mobile chips that Intel recently announced, which claim to bring the power consumption right down to the same level as the Crusoe while still giving good performance. (Note that a lot of people here questioned Intel's claims, but didn't do the same for Transmeta, even though all they had were claims as well.) Just like when the Crusoes were announced, most people around here bought into it hook, line, and sinker, with hardly any skepticism at all. Now that some of the big boys are showing their disappointment with the Crusoe, a lot of people here still refuse to believe it and suggest that they're all being paid off by Intel. Be honest now, do you really think Crusoe would have so many apologists if it weren't for the simple fact that Saint Linus works for them?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Namely, that the only reason that this company has gotten so much press at all is because of all the Linus-worshippers out there who have hyped this chip up to unrealistic levels. It uses a concept that thus far is unproven (and actually looks like it doesn't work well at all so far, by the reactions of IBM, Compaq, and Dell) yet some people around here act as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Seriously -- how many people around here would ever talk about, unless it was to dismiss them as toys, webpads if Microsoft or Apple came out with them instead of Transmeta aiming for that market? But, since Linus works there *cue angelic harp music*, it's gotta be wonderful.
Sorry, but some of you guys set yourself up for your own letdown by buying into the hype and now are looking to point fingers elsewhere. You should be angry at Transmeta for playing you like a string violin by hiring Linus, not at companies who can't afford to base product lines on disproven hype. I won't say I told you so (even though I did), but in the future you should always take marketing hype with more than a few grains of salt, whether Linus Torvalds is a part of the company or not.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It doesn't say anything about how well it will perform against other chips, only that you would expect a 700 Mhz model X Crusoe to be faster than a 600 Mhz model X Crusoe, because it doesn't say how many clock cycles it takes to get the equivalent job done on each architecture. That's why you it's pretty much accepted that a 300 Mhz G3 will outperform a 333 Mhz Celeron.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Uhhm, no. If you use Outlook, it is enough to open the message.
That's completely incorrect. The user actually has to run it, just as if it were an .exe file. Merely previewing or opening the email does nothing but shows that the email has an attachment.
Also, you can't just double click on a java class to run it (even on windows).
Doesn't OS/2 execute class files natively? Not sure, but I thought it did. Anyway, I believe that you can put the classes in a jarball and have them run directly provided that you set up the manifest file to do this.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Namecall all you want, but you totally miss the issues. I never denied that I rip GPL'ed software authors off left and right -- in fact, I just said that I pilfered (and continue to pilfer) from them. I do it because it gets me what I want while at the same time helping to damage the efforts of GPL worshippers. The difference is that even though I say that there are reasons for what I do, I don't try to weasel out of the fact that I am indeed stealing from them. The people I lambaste are the types who recoil like vampires from the sun whenever you call them pirates. If they had the stones to admit what they are, instead of the plethora of incredibly lame excuses they put out as to why they aren't thieves, I wouldn't lambaste them.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Rule #1: sue the deep pockets
Except that I highly doubt that the FSF is viewing this as a money-making venture, but rather a defense of the validity of the GPL. Of course, I'm willing to put my lawyer up against a lot of the boobs currently out there, so maybe it's best that they didn't come after me. It's kind of a shame -- it would've been an awesome feeling knowing that I was the one who destroyed the GPL! :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I pilfer (and redistribute as binary only) GPL code all the time when I'm in a rush and just need to find something to plug in. *shrug* Heh, maybe they should've tried to test their case on me instead of tangling with "Big Company." :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmaail.com
Do you really think it's better to have only one search engine rather than additional ones like this new one, or usgovsearch.com, to cover more of people's needs?
Anyway, as someone who's been using the service for a while, I can tell you that it's as much of an index (think Yahoo) as it is a straight search engine (it does have a search engine, too, though). The fact that you can browse the index would be one reason why some people might prefer it to Google, which appears at first glance to just return a bunch of hits.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
The only problem is that it's rotten from the top down. I'm sure we could both name a couple of disreputable writers at any publication -- but at Salon, it's the very people who set the tone for the entire staff who can't seem to muster any journalistic integrity. The fact David Talbot is the Editor in Chief (!) pretty much says it all.
But, if that weren't enough, during the whole Savage/Iowa Caucus dustup, Salon actually had the stones to send an editor to CNN's Reliable Sources to start telling lies in order to defend Savage (my apologies, but I can't remember the editor's name, so I don't want to make a guess). Hey, if they want to defend Savage's right to do what he did on some journalistic grounds, fine, but to go on a show whose raison d'être is to critically cut through the spin of the media, and then to actually sit there and lie to the other panelists, that's just insane. The look of sheer incredulity on Howie Kurtz's face, that "Who the fuck does this guy think we are?" expression, was, however, priceless. :)
So, you're somewhat right, I probably was too hard on Mr. Leonard because I'm so down on the rest of the rag. I think I'm still looking forward to it folding, though -- hopefully the features I like will end up elsewhere (I know I don't have to worry about Camille ending up on her feet, but there are other articles besides hers that I enjoy at Salon), and the ethically-challenged higher ups can depart ungracefully from the public eye.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Or else Salon might go out of business before they finish the book. They'll probably be delisted from NASDAQ before they come out with another chapter. Bloomberg.com's Christopher Byron just had a great column this week about the scam that is Salon and its IPO (Salon.com Typifies Demise of "Content" IPOs). However, because of the abundance of self-important twits over there, and their gutter ethics (Dan Savage or David Talbott, anyone?), I certainly won't miss 'em. Oh well, good thing they're doing this lame-ass Free Software Project, so someone can pick up the pieces when they go bankrupt. Hope Camille Paglia ends up at a good place, though, 'cause she rocks. I really do recommend that article, though -- it's actually a Hell of a lot more critical of the scams that dot-com underwriters are pulling than it is of Salon itself.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Where's the FUD? Plus, you took that way too seriously -- it should've been obvious I was ribbing the guy, unless O'Reilly really does produce a Gonad book that I didn't know about. And where's the love for Addison-Wesley? All they managed to do was put out the Stevens book and Knuth -- I'd say that those are closer to computing bibles than anything O'Reilly's released, although the Camel book probably isn't too far off. Wrox deserves some props, too, especially after their new XSLT book.
And no need to tell me about O'Reilly's popularity. I even remarked in an earlier post today about an MP3 book about my ownership of their books. You're gonna have to get more specific about that BSD book, though -- I just did a quick title search of their catalog at the ORA web site, and "BSD" returned no matches. I'd say they're known for their books and the book covers a lot more than they're known for Larry Wall being an employee. I'd put them well above the level of a Dummies or TY series, just for their thoroughness, and the fact that they actually make very good indices, something which continually frustrates me with otherwise good Wrox books.
Anyway, I still stand by my original point -- just don't take it so seriously this time. Because my only stake in this is my own amusement.
Well, that and the Krull invasion force thing.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Actually, the PocketPC makers are having a lot of trouble meeting the demand for the new PocketPCs. It's not easy to get one without being backordered. A quick check of eBay shows about 60 Palm IIIcs, 75 Palm IIVs, and 85 Palm Vxs for sale, but only 4 Jornada 540s, 2 Casio E-115s, and one iPaq H3650 for sale. And the bidding on the iPaq is already up to $135 over the normal street price! And to show how much people like their Cassiopeias, even though the new PocketPCs are out, there are still only 16 of the old models for sale. So, I can't say I agree with your assumption of the market agreeing with you. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Microsoft's had info on a new language for a while, now -- something called Vault, although I don't think it's the same thing as the one that c|net is talking about. I haven't looked at either Vault or C# in any kind of detail yet, so I won't swear to it.
You might want to check out this link (http://www.research.microsoft.com/projects/Vault/ ) at the Microsoft Research site if you're interested in a little (and I mean little) more information about it than I can give you.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Argh. That last part should have read "The only books they still put out which are highly targetted are those odd health books..."
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com, killing his own heat
Where are the Haskell, Eiffel, or Dylan books? Forget things like Plan 9, relatively common OSes the various BSDs are considered too fringe for O'Reilly. O'Reilly's books are aimed at the mainstream person who thinks it would be cool if people considered him a geek -- the kind of people who download complete kernels instead of patch them -- rather than true geeks. Oooo, another Linux book, how cutting edge! The only books they still put out are those health books they surprisingly release, which are highly targetted -- things like Losing Your Gonads to Scabies: How to Cope.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
For what it's worth, "shebang" originates from "sharp" + "bang", not "she" + "bang".
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'll admit right up front that I totally disagree with just about everything you write (I mean overall, not just this article). In general, I find it to be silly, pie in the sky, rah-rah cheerleading, and usually devoid of any self-criticsm whatsoever. Your writing seems like it goes out of its way to throw platitudes to whichever group you currently want to be part of, maybe in hopes that you'll end up as their patron scribe or something. But.
I still sometimes read the articles, but you need to realize that you're asking a lot of your readers by foisting these unedited pieces on us. They drag out sometimes because there's no focus, and when there is a focus, they drag out anyway because you keep repeating the same thing over and over. You know good and well that the mags that you've written for wouldn't take an article like this, so why do we have to suffer through it. Just get a friend to run over your columns, or maybe hire a college intern on the cheap. If you're going to chastize people for making judgments without reading your entire articles, you need to do your part, too, and make it less of a chore.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com