Nothing you say has anything to do with what I wrote. I kept my response to three words, hoping that would avoid confusion, but it didn't. It's their airplane and if they want to outlaw wi-fi setups other than theirs, they can easily make that rule. You claimed that they wouldn't refuse to let you setup your own, and I strongly disagree. They will refuse to allow this. None of your discussion of enforcability is relevant to what I said, as I didn't make any claims about how or if they would enforce this rule. I'm pretty sure that setting up your own wi-fi network on a plane would not be allowed, so I don't see why them having their own network would change this.
Ok. You're entitled to our opinion. FWIW, I thought it was clever.
For those who haven't seen it: Office Space uses a hybrid Mac/ Windows/ DOS OS to try to represent a "generic computer". So it has a shell that looks like Finder, but also a DOS prompt, etc. I think they even gave it an a: drive for the floppy while in the "finder". Similarly, every car we see in the movie has a generic "USA" license plate that doesn't identify the state, etc. The effect they are going for is that this is sort of taking place "anywhere" (in the US, anyway), and that this is a generic office with generic computers. I thought that was clever and worked well with the feel of the movie.
I guess a lot of slashdotters are very literal-minded and hate that sort of thing, but in my mind there's space for movies to be art and not represent reality literally. This includes both this and cracking encryption in a spy movie in a few minutes. The real details of whatever hacking would be done are boring to most viewers and not relevant to the plot, so they use something that reasonable people know is merely representational of what would actually happen. That's part of the language of movies, and is what allows them to tell a full story in two hours.
Maybe comcast would have the money to buy a great chanel and/ or to keep the staff of this one on the payroll if they stopped spending their cash on sending me six pieces of junk mail a week. I don't want your tv service! I don't want your internet service! Stop advertising it to me. When I come home from work, I know my mailbox will have at least three of: a bill of some kind, a credit card offer, a netflix movie and comcast junk mail.
Actually, I sort of noticed that when I posted. I decided it was okay, since the sentence works equally well either way: Option 1: "Based on your lack of tast in pizza, I'm guessing you don't like in new york. I find it very sad that you live somewhere other than new york and have subsequently been so deprived of real pizza that you think pizza hut is delicious". Option 2: "Based on your lack of taste in pizza, I'm guessing you don't like in new york. If you do live in new york, but have somehow not discovered the wonders of real pizza, that is very sad".
Either of these interpretations works for me. It's a question of what you see in post. In this way, my posts are like great works of art. They reflect the soul of the observer back at him. The artist's intent isn't really as important as what you see in the post.
Note 1: I don't actually live in new york. But I grew up there. I miss the pizza. And the bagels. Note 2: I don't eat meat. So if the big selling point of pizza hut is only that they make a swell animal-carcass-lover's pizza, maybe that's why the magic of the place is lost on me.
It's just puzzling me why a person would overrate something that hasn't been rated at all yet
I think this can make sense. The default rating is 1. They think that your post wasn't good enough to merit that rating. It was more of the quality that would merit a score of 0 or -1. However, it hadn't committed any particular offense, like being blatantly offtopic. It just wasn't good enough to deserve the score it had. Note: I'm not saying that I agree that your post should have been modded down. I'm just saying that I agree that in principle a post that hasn't been moderated can still be overrated.
Of course, be both know that in practice almost everyone who does this is doing it only to avoid being slapped in m2.
Where do you live? I'm guessing not new york. If so, that's very sad.
Pizza hut isn't inedible or even that terrible, but in my mind it barely qualifies as actually being pizza. It's some fast food cartoon version of pizza. It's "pizza" in only the technical sense that you would consider Wonder Bread to be "bread" if you were used to real (not white!) bread freshly baked at a bakery.
Too bad Domino's is one of the worst pizza places in the country.
Depends where you're located. If you're in new york, then yes ordering from domino's is silly. If you're somewhere that they don't know how to make pizza, it's a reasonable option. Also, they look a lot better if rather than comparing them to a real neighborhood pizza place, you compare them to the total trash served at pizza hut or sbarros.
The term "intuitive" has been mis-applied as a synonym for "familiar" ever since it was first used, because the uninformed audience conflates the two terms
This isn't usuall a misapplication of the term at all. In most cases, the two terms do coincide. Our intuitions are developed largely though experience. I will have a much better intuitive feel for how something will work if it is similar to other things with which I am familiar. You seem to be trying to make some artificial distincion between "innate" intutions and "learned" ones and then disregard the latter, when it fact almost all intuition is based on some sort of experience.
No, you can afford to have 1.1 million extra people writing software. You think that if only one guy in the world bought software and everyone else copied it, the software industry would be able to afford to hire as many people as it does today? You need to think things through a bit.
And how would an extra $170b going to microsoft not end up in the American economy? Certainly, some amount of work is outsourced to India, but what country's economy would this money end up in? Would it just magically disappear?
...or unless he's using the definition of irony your provided: "3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity" I would expect researching and writing a paper on the gpl to result in using gpl'd software and non using powerpoint format. That's pretty incongruous with what actually happened. In fact, this event we're reading about seems to be marked quite strongly by that incongruity. How ironic.
My issue was with the causality you and he established: that somehow the situation he encountered is the fault of Linux
Ok, I'm done here then. I've said a hundred times that I don't care whose fault it is. You won't listen. I know that it is not linux's fault and I don't care. I am going to use the OS that works best for me, including running the hardware I own. If linux doesn't support my soundcard, I don't want to use it. I don't see how you can translate that as "the situation he encountered is the fault of Linux". I KNOW WHOSE FAULT IT IS AND I DON'T CARE. If it doesn't run my hardware, it doesn't run my hardware. Fault is irrelevant. It's a tool. I care what it can do and what it can't do. Who is responsible for its assets and who is responsible for its liabilities is not interesting to me. I don't buy (or download) software to reward good guys and punish bad guys, I do it to accomplish tasks that are important to me.
This is pretty much how xp sp2 works. The firewall is on and blocking the ports (it may be "almost all". I don't know think it blocks port 80 by default). If an app tries to access a port, it tells you, and you can decide whether to let it.
the most interesting stuff I've heard about IRC is, hackers hijack PCs and set bots on those PC to connect to a particular chanel in some IRC network. Then operator only needs to execute "!attack xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" and all those zombie machines start the DOS attack.
You mean exactly like is described in the article we're supposed to be discussing?
What if I don't know exactly who to phone? I think Google will win in that case.
The same reasoning could be applied to all three. What if you don't know where to look in the library or that you can ask a librarian? What if you don't know anything about searching the internet?
It seems like half the people posting to this story are just trying to come up with ways to bias this in favor of google, like "we should compare people experienced with google against people inexperienced with the library", or "we should assume you happen to be sitting at a computer when calculating times for a google search, but should assume you need to drive to a library to do research there".
They also forgot about the time it takes to *get* to the library.
I wish people would stop saying this, as it applies to all of the methods. If they count the time to get to a libarary (from where exactly?), they also would need to count the time to get to a computer with internet access. This makes the whole thing kind of silly. From most places, I am closer to a public library than to public internet access. The library may have internet access, but at least at the libraries near me, you have to wait a long time for one of the computers.
It sounds like everyone had this concern. But also, everyone made sure to use it to bias things in favor of google. Apparently, from anywhere it taks a half hour to get to a library, but zero minutes to get to a computer. I admit that this is in Europe and they seem to have more internet cafes and such than we do here in America, but I know it would take me longer from most places to find a computer I could use than a public library. Sure, the libraries have computers, but those are usually taken and you have to wait a long time to sit at one; much longer than pulling a book of the shelf. Unless we are also using our telporter to get to a computer with a fast inernet connection. The whole thing sounds pretty fair to me.
Typos and such don't really matter. They don't expect you to perform tiny surgery on the code, just to get the general idea. The point of using a language like java (in my opinion) is that it's easier than having everyone use pseuodocode, because this exam is taken by students all over the country who will use vastly different pseudocode styles and assume different things about what is legal pseudocode, which would mean that grading each free response answer would take longer than eating a peach. What a predicament.
Java and Pascal are nice becuase they effectively act as an "official pseudocode". In practice, allowing pseudocode would mean that all of these high school students would waste their time learning "AP-compliant pseuodocode", which would be a waste of time. I remember what high school AP classes were like, especially when I hear on these threads from people taking the classes now. It's like looking in a mirror. Only not.
Like I said. You don't understand operating systems.
In fact, I understand them quite well, but you can think what you like. This is in addition to the fact that understanding what a driver is doesn't really require a deep undertanding of operating systems anyway.
And that's not a correct analogy either because the guy already owns his soundcard. He isn't going out to buy a new one and then complaining that it doesn't work with his operating system. The correct analogy is that he owns a trailer and a car. Now, he is considering buying a new car. He finds there is a certain make and model of car won't work with his trailer because the trailer-maker designed the hitch to only fit on certain kinds of cars. So, he would perfer to buy a kind of car that can accomodate his trailer. This seems like a sensible move to me, but you whine to him that "it's not the car maker's fault that your trailer won't fit. It's the trailer maker's fault. So, when buying a car it's completely unfair for you to penalize that car maker for not working with your trailer."
And then he ignores you and continues to allow whether it works with his trailer to affect his car purchase. And then you and half of slashot say he is a clueless noob sheep for not wanting to pick up some welding tools and rebuild his car to make it fit.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing you say has anything to do with what I wrote. I kept my response to three words, hoping that would avoid confusion, but it didn't. It's their airplane and if they want to outlaw wi-fi setups other than theirs, they can easily make that rule. You claimed that they wouldn't refuse to let you setup your own, and I strongly disagree. They will refuse to allow this. None of your discussion of enforcability is relevant to what I said, as I didn't make any claims about how or if they would enforce this rule. I'm pretty sure that setting up your own wi-fi network on a plane would not be allowed, so I don't see why them having their own network would change this.
Yes they can.
Who's "we"? I don't remember panicking about Fulci. It sounds like the only people reacting to this were FBI employees, and that's their job.
Ok. You're entitled to our opinion. FWIW, I thought it was clever.
For those who haven't seen it: Office Space uses a hybrid Mac/ Windows/ DOS OS to try to represent a "generic computer". So it has a shell that looks like Finder, but also a DOS prompt, etc. I think they even gave it an a: drive for the floppy while in the "finder". Similarly, every car we see in the movie has a generic "USA" license plate that doesn't identify the state, etc. The effect they are going for is that this is sort of taking place "anywhere" (in the US, anyway), and that this is a generic office with generic computers. I thought that was clever and worked well with the feel of the movie.
I guess a lot of slashdotters are very literal-minded and hate that sort of thing, but in my mind there's space for movies to be art and not represent reality literally. This includes both this and cracking encryption in a spy movie in a few minutes. The real details of whatever hacking would be done are boring to most viewers and not relevant to the plot, so they use something that reasonable people know is merely representational of what would actually happen. That's part of the language of movies, and is what allows them to tell a full story in two hours.
Maybe comcast would have the money to buy a great chanel and/ or to keep the staff of this one on the payroll if they stopped spending their cash on sending me six pieces of junk mail a week. I don't want your tv service! I don't want your internet service! Stop advertising it to me. When I come home from work, I know my mailbox will have at least three of: a bill of some kind, a credit card offer, a netflix movie and comcast junk mail.
Actually, I sort of noticed that when I posted. I decided it was okay, since the sentence works equally well either way:
Option 1: "Based on your lack of tast in pizza, I'm guessing you don't like in new york. I find it very sad that you live somewhere other than new york and have subsequently been so deprived of real pizza that you think pizza hut is delicious".
Option 2: "Based on your lack of taste in pizza, I'm guessing you don't like in new york. If you do live in new york, but have somehow not discovered the wonders of real pizza, that is very sad".
Either of these interpretations works for me. It's a question of what you see in post. In this way, my posts are like great works of art. They reflect the soul of the observer back at him. The artist's intent isn't really as important as what you see in the post.
Note 1: I don't actually live in new york. But I grew up there. I miss the pizza. And the bagels.
Note 2: I don't eat meat. So if the big selling point of pizza hut is only that they make a swell animal-carcass-lover's pizza, maybe that's why the magic of the place is lost on me.
I think this can make sense. The default rating is 1. They think that your post wasn't good enough to merit that rating. It was more of the quality that would merit a score of 0 or -1. However, it hadn't committed any particular offense, like being blatantly offtopic. It just wasn't good enough to deserve the score it had. Note: I'm not saying that I agree that your post should have been modded down. I'm just saying that I agree that in principle a post that hasn't been moderated can still be overrated.
Of course, be both know that in practice almost everyone who does this is doing it only to avoid being slapped in m2.
Where do you live? I'm guessing not new york. If so, that's very sad.
Pizza hut isn't inedible or even that terrible, but in my mind it barely qualifies as actually being pizza. It's some fast food cartoon version of pizza. It's "pizza" in only the technical sense that you would consider Wonder Bread to be "bread" if you were used to real (not white!) bread freshly baked at a bakery.
Depends where you're located. If you're in new york, then yes ordering from domino's is silly. If you're somewhere that they don't know how to make pizza, it's a reasonable option. Also, they look a lot better if rather than comparing them to a real neighborhood pizza place, you compare them to the total trash served at pizza hut or sbarros.
This isn't usuall a misapplication of the term at all. In most cases, the two terms do coincide. Our intuitions are developed largely though experience. I will have a much better intuitive feel for how something will work if it is similar to other things with which I am familiar. You seem to be trying to make some artificial distincion between "innate" intutions and "learned" ones and then disregard the latter, when it fact almost all intuition is based on some sort of experience.
The longhorn sidebar supports applets just fine. That's its whole reason for existing in fact.
But you know that if it did mention that somewhere in the page, plenty of people would still install it.
No, you can afford to have 1.1 million extra people writing software. You think that if only one guy in the world bought software and everyone else copied it, the software industry would be able to afford to hire as many people as it does today? You need to think things through a bit.
And how would an extra $170b going to microsoft not end up in the American economy? Certainly, some amount of work is outsourced to India, but what country's economy would this money end up in? Would it just magically disappear?
It would break plenty of other things in C and C++ as well. For example
a = b / *c;
is not the same as
a=b/*c;
and
#define DEBUG 1
#ifdef DEBUG
is going to work a lot better than
#defineDEBUG1
#ifdefDEBUG
...or unless he's using the definition of irony your provided:
"3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity"
I would expect researching and writing a paper on the gpl to result in using gpl'd software and non using powerpoint format. That's pretty incongruous with what actually happened. In fact, this event we're reading about seems to be marked quite strongly by that incongruity. How ironic.
Not a problem. I already have passed it on to no technies. I'm actually one step ahead of you, as I've also passed it on to no non-techies.
Ok, I'm done here then. I've said a hundred times that I don't care whose fault it is. You won't listen. I know that it is not linux's fault and I don't care. I am going to use the OS that works best for me, including running the hardware I own. If linux doesn't support my soundcard, I don't want to use it. I don't see how you can translate that as "the situation he encountered is the fault of Linux". I KNOW WHOSE FAULT IT IS AND I DON'T CARE. If it doesn't run my hardware, it doesn't run my hardware. Fault is irrelevant. It's a tool. I care what it can do and what it can't do. Who is responsible for its assets and who is responsible for its liabilities is not interesting to me. I don't buy (or download) software to reward good guys and punish bad guys, I do it to accomplish tasks that are important to me.
This is pretty much how xp sp2 works. The firewall is on and blocking the ports (it may be "almost all". I don't know think it blocks port 80 by default). If an app tries to access a port, it tells you, and you can decide whether to let it.
No, that wasn't his logic at all. He said "making good decisions", not having a high IQ or being good at logic puzzles.
You mean exactly like is described in the article we're supposed to be discussing?
The same reasoning could be applied to all three. What if you don't know where to look in the library or that you can ask a librarian? What if you don't know anything about searching the internet?
It seems like half the people posting to this story are just trying to come up with ways to bias this in favor of google, like "we should compare people experienced with google against people inexperienced with the library", or "we should assume you happen to be sitting at a computer when calculating times for a google search, but should assume you need to drive to a library to do research there".
I wish people would stop saying this, as it applies to all of the methods. If they count the time to get to a libarary (from where exactly?), they also would need to count the time to get to a computer with internet access. This makes the whole thing kind of silly. From most places, I am closer to a public library than to public internet access. The library may have internet access, but at least at the libraries near me, you have to wait a long time for one of the computers.
It sounds like everyone had this concern. But also, everyone made sure to use it to bias things in favor of google. Apparently, from anywhere it taks a half hour to get to a library, but zero minutes to get to a computer. I admit that this is in Europe and they seem to have more internet cafes and such than we do here in America, but I know it would take me longer from most places to find a computer I could use than a public library. Sure, the libraries have computers, but those are usually taken and you have to wait a long time to sit at one; much longer than pulling a book of the shelf. Unless we are also using our telporter to get to a computer with a fast inernet connection. The whole thing sounds pretty fair to me.
Typos and such don't really matter. They don't expect you to perform tiny surgery on the code, just to get the general idea. The point of using a language like java (in my opinion) is that it's easier than having everyone use pseuodocode, because this exam is taken by students all over the country who will use vastly different pseudocode styles and assume different things about what is legal pseudocode, which would mean that grading each free response answer would take longer than eating a peach. What a predicament.
Java and Pascal are nice becuase they effectively act as an "official pseudocode". In practice, allowing pseudocode would mean that all of these high school students would waste their time learning "AP-compliant pseuodocode", which would be a waste of time. I remember what high school AP classes were like, especially when I hear on these threads from people taking the classes now. It's like looking in a mirror. Only not.
In fact, I understand them quite well, but you can think what you like. This is in addition to the fact that understanding what a driver is doesn't really require a deep undertanding of operating systems anyway.
And that's not a correct analogy either because the guy already owns his soundcard. He isn't going out to buy a new one and then complaining that it doesn't work with his operating system. The correct analogy is that he owns a trailer and a car. Now, he is considering buying a new car. He finds there is a certain make and model of car won't work with his trailer because the trailer-maker designed the hitch to only fit on certain kinds of cars. So, he would perfer to buy a kind of car that can accomodate his trailer. This seems like a sensible move to me, but you whine to him that "it's not the car maker's fault that your trailer won't fit. It's the trailer maker's fault. So, when buying a car it's completely unfair for you to penalize that car maker for not working with your trailer."
And then he ignores you and continues to allow whether it works with his trailer to affect his car purchase. And then you and half of slashot say he is a clueless noob sheep for not wanting to pick up some welding tools and rebuild his car to make it fit.