I thought you were gone already. What a coincidence that I change my sig to the one below and then stumble across one of your posts. (I would have posted this in your journal, but there are no more comments permitted there as it is too old). Hope you like the sig.
So, it's been illegal to tape movies broadcast on television, all along? Illegal to tape radio? Illegal to copy your own VHS tapes?
Believe it or not, some things are illegal while others aren't. Recording a show off television for personal use was always legal and is still legal. This is why you can legally own a Tivo. Distributing copies of movies on a massive scale and getting moeny for it (as these advertising- and donation-driven sites are doing) was always illegal and still is. In the 1980's if you were selling pirated video cassettes or tapes on the streets of New York, you were doing something illegal and could be arrested. Today, if you are offering pirated movies or music online, that is a crime and you can be arrested. The fact that it is happening online does not magically change things. It would appear that it is you who can't remember the past. What these sites were doing has never been permitted.
A statement can not be both right and wrong at the same time.
No one said that it can. What he said is that the same statement can be both right and wrong at different times. That's the mindset aspect, which you chose to disregard because it is too "complex" for you.
I think that most people would agree that if the program can be *easily* removed from the underlying OS, it's not part of the OS itself.
Yes, most people would. And that's why the title says *nix Software rather than *nix OS's. I don't know know anybody would defines "software" as meaning "something that is part of an OS". The title isn't misleading at all. In fact, it makes it explicit that we are discussing software for *nix rather than the OS itself.
The only ones that seem to have been enforced, and thus seem worth keeping, are edu and mil.
What about.int? I don't even know how someone goes about registering a.int domain, but I don't think they're easy to get.
To answer your question, if you want the the domain name to be the same as your actual name, the correct tld for you is supposed to be.name. (Otherwise, you're right that there is not particularly good tld for personal sites).
To add a little levity, here's the (rather old) Brunching Shuttlecoks' ratings of tld's, which even references/. : http://www.bookofratings.com/tld.html
Ask your mother if she knows how to "report" a bug to Microsoft, though.
She doesn't have to know how. Even if she says that she has no idea what you are asking about, there's a good chance that when the dialog pops up and says "do you want to submit an error report?" she clicks "send". Just accepting what the dialog is asking them to do is what the vast majority of users do with any dialog.
Clearly not all bugs are findable by ordinary users anyway. Ask your mom if she's ever found a buffer overflow bug.
And right there is everything that is wrong with what how you are suggesting things should work. A user shouldn't have to know what a "buffer overflow" is. What they know is that the program crashed and is trying to submit a report. Some people are paranoid or whatever and will click no, but your assertion that with the hundreds of millions of people using IE, the number who will click "send" is less than the amount who submit mozilla error reports is simply absurd.
No, but you were close as Johnny Depp acted in that one... Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas although I thought the book was much better.
I also thought the book was much better. It was very disappointing because I like Terry Gilliam and had high hopes that he would be able to capture what was great about the book. I thought he failed completely. There are two things that made me love the book, and the movie botched both of them.
The first was that the book had a classic unreliable narrator; I knew that the world they were inhabitting was the real world, but since it was being described by by hst, it comes off as competely surreal and bizarre. It's hard to distinguish in what cases things are really that strange (they are in vegas after all) and in what cases the narrator's altered perceptions are being reported as fact. I thought that was cool. In the movie, they really do seem to inhabit a surreal fantasy world. Not cool. I particularly felt this way during the police convention, which I had interpeted in the book as a banal conference full of boring ordinary people that seemed completely strange to them. In the movie, it realy is filled with strange people. Ho hum.
The other thing I liked about the book is that even though the main characters are bad people doing terrible things (stealing a car, raping a woman), they came off as very sympathetic and I liked them and wanted things to work out well for them. Putting me in the shoes of such a person made the book really interesting to read. In the movie, I had no real connection to the characters and they just came off as being the jerks they are. Not interesting.
The fact that everyone is confused is an indication that their instructions suck. "Step one" is click on a link in the citibank site that you haven't visited yet. "Step two" is actually visiting the citibank site. And then "step three" is a no-op; the space for that step is instead used to discuss whether you are vulnerable. (Presumably, step five is "profit!!!"). Who came up with this and what planet are they from where this is a logical sequence of instructions?
I agree. Now that Solaris is going to be open source, describing Linux as belonging to Reg Hat is no more technically inaccurate than describing Solaris as belonging to Sun, but no one objects to that, and people won't even once the source is released because they understand what he means.
The dreamcast mr. driller was awesome beyond words. The astoundingly large number of hours I spent on that game, which I picked up when it was new for around $25, more than makes up for all the games I've bought that I didn't like and never played.
If it's an acronym that almost everyone knows, then I agree. But when it's something more obscure like this, it's much more efficient to have someone ask and someone else answer in the comments so that all of us reading the comments also benefit from the answer. If no one asked these questions, it would mean that thousands of us would each need to go and search for the answer. Doesn't that seem like a less efficient system than posting the answer once?
Some of us have kids and mortgages and have a more important things to spend $100 on than a TV show which we can watch for free.
For free? Can you explain to me how you are getting SpikeTV legally without paying? Because I would like to do that as well. I don't watch television. I really don't like it very much. I am currently visiting family for thanksgiving and they have cable, and I watching it, I am reminded of why I am not willing to pay for it. If cable or satellite cost $5/month, I would get it. At current prices, for the approximately one or two hours a month I might watch, it's not worthwhile at all. That doesn't mean that I tell my parents that they are unreasonable people who are getting their wallets ass-raped. It means that I don't buy it because I don't like the price. Obviously, other people value it differently. Just like these dvd's. If you think it's too expensive, then don't buy it. I'm not saying that it is worth $100 to you and you are making a mistake by passing it up. But it's pretty obnoxious to say that anyone who values it differently is an idiot and is getting screwed.
If I want all 7 seasons of TNG on DVD, all I need is a video capture card, SpikeTV's broadcast schedule, a simple shell script, and a small investment of time to edit out the commercials and burn the disks
And now you have to sit around and wait until they've aired every episode from all 7 seasons? How long is that going to take? Look, if you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. But stop acting like the concept of buying something is completely unreasonable. A lot of us have actual jobs and don't care that much about $100 and would much rather just go to the store and pick up the discs than jump through all of those hoops. Not everyone is on a college student budget. If you have an attitude of "why should I go to a restaurant and spend $20 on a meal when I can cook food at home for less?! All of those people who eat out are suckers" then stfu.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought you were gone already. What a coincidence that I change my sig to the one below and then stumble across one of your posts. (I would have posted this in your journal, but there are no more comments permitted there as it is too old). Hope you like the sig.
I think the FDA has a definition and regulates this marketing. At least they do for things like "natural flavor" in food as opposed to artificial.
Believe it or not, some things are illegal while others aren't. Recording a show off television for personal use was always legal and is still legal. This is why you can legally own a Tivo. Distributing copies of movies on a massive scale and getting moeny for it (as these advertising- and donation-driven sites are doing) was always illegal and still is. In the 1980's if you were selling pirated video cassettes or tapes on the streets of New York, you were doing something illegal and could be arrested. Today, if you are offering pirated movies or music online, that is a crime and you can be arrested. The fact that it is happening online does not magically change things. It would appear that it is you who can't remember the past. What these sites were doing has never been permitted.
That's fine; I'll just mail my illegal packages on Halloween.
No. The exploit uses script, so there would be no way to do it in mail.
Wow, that's weird.
Yes, most people would. And that's why the title says *nix Software rather than *nix OS's. I don't know know anybody would defines "software" as meaning "something that is part of an OS". The title isn't misleading at all. In fact, it makes it explicit that we are discussing software for *nix rather than the OS itself.
Yes, that's why we legalized shoplifting and beating up smaller children for lunch money decades ago.
http://www.un.int/
http://www.nato.int/
So what's the right place to go to if I want journalistic integrity from Slashdot?
What about
To answer your question, if you want the the domain name to be the same as your actual name, the correct tld for you is supposed to be
To add a little levity, here's the (rather old) Brunching Shuttlecoks' ratings of tld's, which even references
She doesn't have to know how. Even if she says that she has no idea what you are asking about, there's a good chance that when the dialog pops up and says "do you want to submit an error report?" she clicks "send". Just accepting what the dialog is asking them to do is what the vast majority of users do with any dialog.
And right there is everything that is wrong with what how you are suggesting things should work. A user shouldn't have to know what a "buffer overflow" is. What they know is that the program crashed and is trying to submit a report. Some people are paranoid or whatever and will click no, but your assertion that with the hundreds of millions of people using IE, the number who will click "send" is less than the amount who submit mozilla error reports is simply absurd.
I also thought the book was much better. It was very disappointing because I like Terry Gilliam and had high hopes that he would be able to capture what was great about the book. I thought he failed completely. There are two things that made me love the book, and the movie botched both of them.
The first was that the book had a classic unreliable narrator; I knew that the world they were inhabitting was the real world, but since it was being described by by hst, it comes off as competely surreal and bizarre. It's hard to distinguish in what cases things are really that strange (they are in vegas after all) and in what cases the narrator's altered perceptions are being reported as fact. I thought that was cool. In the movie, they really do seem to inhabit a surreal fantasy world. Not cool. I particularly felt this way during the police convention, which I had interpeted in the book as a banal conference full of boring ordinary people that seemed completely strange to them. In the movie, it realy is filled with strange people. Ho hum.
The other thing I liked about the book is that even though the main characters are bad people doing terrible things (stealing a car, raping a woman), they came off as very sympathetic and I liked them and wanted things to work out well for them. Putting me in the shoes of such a person made the book really interesting to read. In the movie, I had no real connection to the characters and they just came off as being the jerks they are. Not interesting.
The fact that everyone is confused is an indication that their instructions suck. "Step one" is click on a link in the citibank site that you haven't visited yet. "Step two" is actually visiting the citibank site. And then "step three" is a no-op; the space for that step is instead used to discuss whether you are vulnerable. (Presumably, step five is "profit!!!"). Who came up with this and what planet are they from where this is a logical sequence of instructions?
More than use knowledge of Civil War battles or the digestive system of an earthworm or most of the other things that are taught in school.
I agree. Now that Solaris is going to be open source, describing Linux as belonging to Reg Hat is no more technically inaccurate than describing Solaris as belonging to Sun, but no one objects to that, and people won't even once the source is released because they understand what he means.
The dreamcast mr. driller was awesome beyond words. The astoundingly large number of hours I spent on that game, which I picked up when it was new for around $25, more than makes up for all the games I've bought that I didn't like and never played.
The article really isn't that long; would it have killed you to at least glance at it before posting?
Certainly if there's one person sane and rational enough to be trusted with a firearm, it's Ozzy Osbourne.
If it's an acronym that almost everyone knows, then I agree. But when it's something more obscure like this, it's much more efficient to have someone ask and someone else answer in the comments so that all of us reading the comments also benefit from the answer. If no one asked these questions, it would mean that thousands of us would each need to go and search for the answer. Doesn't that seem like a less efficient system than posting the answer once?
And for the first time, I am disturbed to discover how easy it is to misread "goatee" as "goatse".
For free? Can you explain to me how you are getting SpikeTV legally without paying? Because I would like to do that as well. I don't watch television. I really don't like it very much. I am currently visiting family for thanksgiving and they have cable, and I watching it, I am reminded of why I am not willing to pay for it. If cable or satellite cost $5/month, I would get it. At current prices, for the approximately one or two hours a month I might watch, it's not worthwhile at all. That doesn't mean that I tell my parents that they are unreasonable people who are getting their wallets ass-raped. It means that I don't buy it because I don't like the price. Obviously, other people value it differently. Just like these dvd's. If you think it's too expensive, then don't buy it. I'm not saying that it is worth $100 to you and you are making a mistake by passing it up. But it's pretty obnoxious to say that anyone who values it differently is an idiot and is getting screwed.
And now you have to sit around and wait until they've aired every episode from all 7 seasons? How long is that going to take? Look, if you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. But stop acting like the concept of buying something is completely unreasonable. A lot of us have actual jobs and don't care that much about $100 and would much rather just go to the store and pick up the discs than jump through all of those hoops. Not everyone is on a college student budget. If you have an attitude of "why should I go to a restaurant and spend $20 on a meal when I can cook food at home for less?! All of those people who eat out are suckers" then stfu.
You know the date of it this year, anyway. Next year the 25th won't fall on a Thursday, so that won't be the date of Thanksgiving.