I say "effectively the first" because 6.0 was, by all accounts, a complete disaster.
No offense or anything, but what the hell is this supposed to mean? 6.0 sucked, so you're just gonna pretend it didn't happen?
When I say "major release", I'm referring to version number - that's why they're called "major" and "minor" numbers. I don't consider 6.1 to be a major release, as many bugs as it may have fixed, for the same reason that I don't consider IE 5.5 a major release. If Netscape had sat on their hands until the 6.1 codebase was ready, then called that 6.1, I'd be agreeing with you. Hell, they could call the new version 7.0 if they wanted, except that it would be tantamount to admitting that 6.0 was a dog.
Finally, as an afterthought on speed: I tried and quickly buried NS 6.0. Since then, I stuck with Mozilla builds, until I finally got tired of the waiting game and migrated to MSIE on Windows, and Konqueror on Linux. I'm due to take another look soon, but at the time, no version of Mozilla yet built could compare speedwise to either of those alternatives.
Netscape hasn't been the predominant browser in ages. According to StatMarket, IE was being used for 86% of all web traffic, compared to about 14% for Netscape. This statistic was released on 6/26/2000: since there's been no major release of Netscape since then, I think it's fair to guess that their numbers haven't increased much.
I wasn't knocking Microsoft, although I'd be happy to do so if you like. I was knocking Microsoft Bob. Assuming you ever tried it, how long did it stay on your hard drive?
There are far more Lisp projects going on than people imagine, only people don't scream out "HEY! COOL! I'M DOING IT WITH LISP!" they go "Yepp, I'm using Lisp." the Yahoo Store engine for instance. Microsoft's Bob. Many industrial applications (not only the academia!).
Thank god the Microsoft Bob team didn't trumpet its use of LISP. LISP has a hard enough time getting good press as it is - why throw a poisoned pill like that in?
For all kinds of great info on this topic, read The Hacker Crackdown, by Bruce Sterling. The entire text is available on the web all sorts of places. Like here, for instance. It's an excellent book.
The scramjet's engines then ignited, and the object moved another 260 feet, in just 30 milliseconds, before it came to rest in a series of steel plates designed to halt the flight.
Sure. Like the way my car "came to rest" in a telephone pole after I tried to drive it home after a fifth of Chivas Regal.
Historically, US companies would have considered this an awful idea. US ISPs have often taken the line that they are simply access providers, and should not be expected to inspect everything that goes across their networks. This is what's usually referred to as "common carrier" status, and it's what prevents people from suing the Post Office for delivering a porn magazine to a child. (Note - IANAL, but I don't think the companies have been particularly successful in claiming common carrier status.)
The problem is that the second you start spot-checking clients data, you have essentially abandoned your status as a common carrier. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes: once you start checking, you're obligated to check just about everything to make sure it complies to the law.
This is in Australia, where I'm sure the law is quite different. But now that so many access providers are tied to media production companies, how long will it be until ISPs in the US start pulling the same kind of tricks?
According to Bungie, Halo will debut on the X-Box before being ported to both the PC and Mac. In fact, the first time most of us saw footage from the game was when it was shocased at Macworld.
If someone had mis-identified me, that would be one thing. If they'd mis-identified me, taken a picture of me, and printed it in a magazine with a caption suggesting that I was a criminal, I'd be pissed. Justifiably so, I think.
Furthermore, don't forget that the police weren't just walking around with a copy of that magazine for the hell of it: they were summoned there by a local who saw the picture in the paper and recognized the guy. From now on, there's the off chance that someone bumping into this guy is going to remember that picture, and suppose that he's a criminal.
Take this hypothetical - what would you do if your name and likeness were "accidentally" added to a list of sex offenders, a la "Megan's Law"? It's one thing to get yourself removed from the list, but what happens if you bump into someone who remembers you from that list? Say, "No, really, it was all just a big mix-up?" You're already a perv and a freak in the eyes of the suspicious.
Re:Depends on what you want to do
on
Mac Rants
·
· Score: 2
Read the parent again. He's saying that Apple will have cause to worry when x86 boxes can do it. Which, incidentally, they can, if you're willing to buy some pretty expensive hardware.
You might want to gently suggest that those pr0n ads she keeps getting are her karmic comeuppance for passing on all those awful chain mails. Spammers and chain-email senders: truly, two groups of people who deserve each other.
Not because the gameplay was particularly innovative: the mechanics were essentially the same as Robotron (if anyone here remembers that), with updated effects and big boss-men. Rather, because in the midst of a scene of utter carnage, where the body parts of mutant thugs holding clubs would sail towards the ceiling-mounted camera, you could stumble over a package and hear the show's host exclaim, "A brand new toaster!" That's comedy.
You know, I bitch when something doesn't work right in a Debian package, too. Of course, I'm only too happy to submit bug reports and hop on #debian to see if I've screwed something up.
If you offer a service, you should try to make it, you know, work. Granted, I have limited sympathy for people who expect a completely free ride, but that doesn't entirely let (insert free service provider du jour) entirely off the hook, especially if they're being tight-lipped about the outage.
Plenty of "run of the mill" plug-ins can be delivered via ActiveX. When I installed Windows ME on my new PC, I hadn't been browsing (using MSIE) for half an hour before it offered to install the Macromedia Flash player for me - courtesy of an ActiveX control.
SOAP is a messaging protocol based on XML, and can be parsed in any language for which there are decent XML parsing tools: hence, the already extensive SOAP tools for Perl. It's already on the standards track with the W3C. There's already a good deal of support for SOAP in Perl.
Committing to CORBA means using a CORBA-compliant development environment, which doesn't even take into account the differences between CORBA implementations. Committing to RMI basically means you're using Java, period. Support for SOAP in a programming language, on the other hand, is only a couple of steps past a decent XML library.
I suspect that you misunderstand the big hubub about.NET. The interesting part of.NET is that it provides a method for two services running on remote devices to communicate information to each other (and provide distributed services in the process) while knowing absolutely nothing about the other device's architechture.
Way back when, if two services wanted to talk to each other, programmers had to open a socket and define the entire communications protocol fresh every time. Later, you had systems like CORBA, which allowed systems to invoke methods/functions remotely. More recently, Java has developed it's own system, Remote Method Invocation.
The problem is, that to use RMI, the other service has to be committed to Java as well. To use CORBA, it has to be committed to a CORBA compliant platform. To use.NET, all it really has to do is be able to receive HTTP/XML messages. Sure, the "message contract" has to be implemented on both sides, but that's still a damn sight easier than the raw socket communcations of the bad-old-days.
Don't worry they are subtle and you would not notice most of them
Subtle?
A single, charismatic patriarch leads a ragged caravan across the desolate reaches of space to a holy land spoken of in prophecy. Sound like anyone you know?
I once read an interview with Clifford Stoll, who was speaking about another interview he did on camera in his apartment. Apparently, the camera crew set him up seated in front of his computer. By the time the interview was aired, he realized his monitor - and the Post-It (tm) note with his root password on it - was clearly visible in the shot.
The obvious retort is, "But anyone can read it!"
No, the obvious retort is, "But anyone who can get inside the room can read it." At my place of bidnez, our administrative passwords all get written down, then placed in a fireproof safe, which is in our locked operations center. If you're confident that nobody is interested enough to read your passwords, that's fine. Just don't give any TV interviews.
Exactly. Furthermore, the license doesn't just prohibit applications developed using the SDK from being distributed under the GPL:
3. APPROVED USES OF APPLICATIONS.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection 3(b), Recipient may only use Applications on an internal basis for non-production purposes only and may not distribute or license the Applications to third parties or make the Applications available for use by any third party.
Granted, the mention of open source as "viral" is egregious. But MS is actually prohibiting distribution of software in any form.
What is a little more disturbing, though, is this part:
Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
Does this mean that I can't build, say, a library using this SDK that can be called from a Perl script? I don't know: I'm not a lawyer, and my head hurts. Plus, I need a nap.
This is the first time, and I hope the last, I will waste bandwidth on a "Slashdot moderation sucks because..." post. My apologies, go ahead and mod me down, blah blah blah.
I suspect that I got the flamebait point because someone didn't like my assertion that ZK offers a service that you can't replicate using 100% free software.
That's a shame, because you can't, and no amount of bitching or whining about it will alter that fact. That's not because Linux sucks: it's because ZK has a whole VPN which anonymizes IP traffic, and makes it impossible to tell from where you're logging in.
In other words, Linux has some cool features, but you can't make yourself an entire VPN with co-located anonymizing nodes with a single computer sitting under your desk. So get over it, people.
Among its other services, ZK provides a "Freedom Internet Privacy Suite," which is essentially a large VPN. WHen you use their "Freedom Network," you're sending the data through a 128-bit encrypted network prior to hitting the internet at large. All the rest of the Internet can tell is that you're coming from Zero Knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense or anything, but what the hell is this supposed to mean? 6.0 sucked, so you're just gonna pretend it didn't happen?
When I say "major release", I'm referring to version number - that's why they're called "major" and "minor" numbers. I don't consider 6.1 to be a major release, as many bugs as it may have fixed, for the same reason that I don't consider IE 5.5 a major release. If Netscape had sat on their hands until the 6.1 codebase was ready, then called that 6.1, I'd be agreeing with you. Hell, they could call the new version 7.0 if they wanted, except that it would be tantamount to admitting that 6.0 was a dog.
Finally, as an afterthought on speed: I tried and quickly buried NS 6.0. Since then, I stuck with Mozilla builds, until I finally got tired of the waiting game and migrated to MSIE on Windows, and Konqueror on Linux. I'm due to take another look soon, but at the time, no version of Mozilla yet built could compare speedwise to either of those alternatives.
Netscape hasn't been the predominant browser in ages. According to StatMarket, IE was being used for 86% of all web traffic, compared to about 14% for Netscape. This statistic was released on 6/26/2000: since there's been no major release of Netscape since then, I think it's fair to guess that their numbers haven't increased much.
I wasn't knocking Microsoft, although I'd be happy to do so if you like. I was knocking Microsoft Bob. Assuming you ever tried it, how long did it stay on your hard drive?
Thank god the Microsoft Bob team didn't trumpet its use of LISP. LISP has a hard enough time getting good press as it is - why throw a poisoned pill like that in?
For all kinds of great info on this topic, read The Hacker Crackdown, by Bruce Sterling. The entire text is available on the web all sorts of places. Like here, for instance. It's an excellent book.
Sure. Like the way my car "came to rest" in a telephone pole after I tried to drive it home after a fifth of Chivas Regal.
Historically, US companies would have considered this an awful idea. US ISPs have often taken the line that they are simply access providers, and should not be expected to inspect everything that goes across their networks. This is what's usually referred to as "common carrier" status, and it's what prevents people from suing the Post Office for delivering a porn magazine to a child. (Note - IANAL, but I don't think the companies have been particularly successful in claiming common carrier status.)
The problem is that the second you start spot-checking clients data, you have essentially abandoned your status as a common carrier. In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes: once you start checking, you're obligated to check just about everything to make sure it complies to the law.
This is in Australia, where I'm sure the law is quite different. But now that so many access providers are tied to media production companies, how long will it be until ISPs in the US start pulling the same kind of tricks?
This isn't precisely true.
According to Bungie, Halo will debut on the X-Box before being ported to both the PC and Mac. In fact, the first time most of us saw footage from the game was when it was shocased at Macworld.
Of course she is. She just happens to be a 37 year old man sitting around at home in his dirty underwear.
You know that Wired is now owned by Lycos too, right? They were a package deal.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
If someone had mis-identified me, that would be one thing. If they'd mis-identified me, taken a picture of me, and printed it in a magazine with a caption suggesting that I was a criminal, I'd be pissed. Justifiably so, I think.
Furthermore, don't forget that the police weren't just walking around with a copy of that magazine for the hell of it: they were summoned there by a local who saw the picture in the paper and recognized the guy. From now on, there's the off chance that someone bumping into this guy is going to remember that picture, and suppose that he's a criminal.
Take this hypothetical - what would you do if your name and likeness were "accidentally" added to a list of sex offenders, a la "Megan's Law"? It's one thing to get yourself removed from the list, but what happens if you bump into someone who remembers you from that list? Say, "No, really, it was all just a big mix-up?" You're already a perv and a freak in the eyes of the suspicious.
Read the parent again. He's saying that Apple will have cause to worry when x86 boxes can do it. Which, incidentally, they can, if you're willing to buy some pretty expensive hardware.
You might want to gently suggest that those pr0n ads she keeps getting are her karmic comeuppance for passing on all those awful chain mails. Spammers and chain-email senders: truly, two groups of people who deserve each other.
Not because the gameplay was particularly innovative: the mechanics were essentially the same as Robotron (if anyone here remembers that), with updated effects and big boss-men. Rather, because in the midst of a scene of utter carnage, where the body parts of mutant thugs holding clubs would sail towards the ceiling-mounted camera, you could stumble over a package and hear the show's host exclaim, "A brand new toaster!" That's comedy.
You know, I bitch when something doesn't work right in a Debian package, too. Of course, I'm only too happy to submit bug reports and hop on #debian to see if I've screwed something up.
If you offer a service, you should try to make it, you know, work. Granted, I have limited sympathy for people who expect a completely free ride, but that doesn't entirely let (insert free service provider du jour) entirely off the hook, especially if they're being tight-lipped about the outage.
Plenty of "run of the mill" plug-ins can be delivered via ActiveX. When I installed Windows ME on my new PC, I hadn't been browsing (using MSIE) for half an hour before it offered to install the Macromedia Flash player for me - courtesy of an ActiveX control.
Sorry - I have to disagree.
SOAP is a messaging protocol based on XML, and can be parsed in any language for which there are decent XML parsing tools: hence, the already extensive SOAP tools for Perl. It's already on the standards track with the W3C. There's already a good deal of support for SOAP in Perl.
Committing to CORBA means using a CORBA-compliant development environment, which doesn't even take into account the differences between CORBA implementations. Committing to RMI basically means you're using Java, period. Support for SOAP in a programming language, on the other hand, is only a couple of steps past a decent XML library.
I suspect that you misunderstand the big hubub about .NET. The interesting part of .NET is that it provides a method for two services running on remote devices to communicate information to each other (and provide distributed services in the process) while knowing absolutely nothing about the other device's architechture.
Way back when, if two services wanted to talk to each other, programmers had to open a socket and define the entire communications protocol fresh every time. Later, you had systems like CORBA, which allowed systems to invoke methods/functions remotely. More recently, Java has developed it's own system, Remote Method Invocation.
The problem is, that to use RMI, the other service has to be committed to Java as well. To use CORBA, it has to be committed to a CORBA compliant platform. To use .NET, all it really has to do is be able to receive HTTP/XML messages. Sure, the "message contract" has to be implemented on both sides, but that's still a damn sight easier than the raw socket communcations of the bad-old-days.
Subtle?
A single, charismatic patriarch leads a ragged caravan across the desolate reaches of space to a holy land spoken of in prophecy. Sound like anyone you know?
I once read an interview with Clifford Stoll, who was speaking about another interview he did on camera in his apartment. Apparently, the camera crew set him up seated in front of his computer. By the time the interview was aired, he realized his monitor - and the Post-It (tm) note with his root password on it - was clearly visible in the shot.
No, the obvious retort is, "But anyone who can get inside the room can read it." At my place of bidnez, our administrative passwords all get written down, then placed in a fireproof safe, which is in our locked operations center. If you're confident that nobody is interested enough to read your passwords, that's fine. Just don't give any TV interviews.Exactly. Furthermore, the license doesn't just prohibit applications developed using the SDK from being distributed under the GPL:
Granted, the mention of open source as "viral" is egregious. But MS is actually prohibiting distribution of software in any form.
What is a little more disturbing, though, is this part:
Does this mean that I can't build, say, a library using this SDK that can be called from a Perl script? I don't know: I'm not a lawyer, and my head hurts. Plus, I need a nap.
Here's the good news: Red Hat is in the black. As in, turned a profit this year. Surprise!
No, seriously! http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,44637,00 .html
This is the first time, and I hope the last, I will waste bandwidth on a "Slashdot moderation sucks because..." post. My apologies, go ahead and mod me down, blah blah blah.
I suspect that I got the flamebait point because someone didn't like my assertion that ZK offers a service that you can't replicate using 100% free software.
That's a shame, because you can't, and no amount of bitching or whining about it will alter that fact. That's not because Linux sucks: it's because ZK has a whole VPN which anonymizes IP traffic, and makes it impossible to tell from where you're logging in.
In other words, Linux has some cool features, but you can't make yourself an entire VPN with co-located anonymizing nodes with a single computer sitting under your desk. So get over it, people.
Sorry - this is blatantly false.
Among its other services, ZK provides a "Freedom Internet Privacy Suite," which is essentially a large VPN. WHen you use their "Freedom Network," you're sending the data through a 128-bit encrypted network prior to hitting the internet at large. All the rest of the Internet can tell is that you're coming from Zero Knowledge.