Because they do a damned sight more, that's why. I had a Spectrum - one of the original rubber-keyed 16KB models. Sure it was great, but I'll stick with my 2.4GHz PC and 1/2gig of RAM, thanks, at least until I can upgrade.
Well, I am not a doctor, so I might be misunderstanding the quoted passage, but doesn't "elective" normally mean "something that is chosen from a number of alternatives"? In other words, doesn't it mean that it's not critical? (m-w.com would seem to support that - "beneficial to the patient but not critical for survival")
Note that I'm not saying that just because something isn't critical for survival doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily extremely important from a quality of life point of view. Also, obviously the ideal is that a person gets the treatment they require, when they require it.
No; those people simply don't understand the effect this sort of thing can have on a person's happiness and mental well-being.
That's hardly surprising here though, as a lot of people's priorities (judging from the overall impression I get from comments on the site) are somewhat in need of reassessment.
Got any references to support that figure? I've heard numbers from about 3 billion to 14 billion or more quoted, and personally tend to err towards the higher side. Care to prove me wrong?
That's the thing though - office workers may care for Free as in Freedom, but offices care for Free as in no cost. If there's a non-Free alternative that does the job at lower cost, that's what will be bought.
When we whine, the developers sometimes respond by doing better next time... but mostly they just laugh all the way to the bank.
That'll almost certainly be down to the publisher, not the developers themselves. I don't know many games devs, but I know a fair few programmers, and I can't think of any who don't want to do the best job they can.
Imagine that it's illegal to grow pot in the US, but we didn't prohibit importing it. The ban on domestic growing would be obviously worthless. So, since few people are stupid enough to leave that kind of loophole in the law, it's not there.
An interesting example - here's a counter example. Here in the UK it's illegal to prepare "magic mushrooms" for consumption, but it's *legal* to grow, sell, buy and possess them. You can buy them from market stalls in certain parts of London, and the practice seems to be spreading.
It's a loophole, it exists, and despite a number of "get tough on drugs" initiatives in recent (~ last decade or so) years, it's still there.
On the other hand, as another comment has already pointed out, there is legal precedent here in the UK banning the importation of goods to sell at lower prices - eg Levi vs Tesco. (Tesco was importing Levi jeans in order to sell at a lower price, Levi sued and won, the consumer lost.)
Break it down and you'll find that about 75% of the points are going to the label in one way or another. Worse, as much goes to pay for advertising and promotion of the CD as goes to all other places (artist, representation, printing and pressing, shipping) *COMBINED*.
Wait - are you saying that 75% goes to the label and 12.5% goes to advertising, or that a large chunk of that 75% goes to advertising? Unless the label owns the advertising/promotion agency (or agencies), it sounds like they're making a lot less than it seems. (Still more than the artists no doubt, but that's what happens when you let the middleman get too big)
Will every piece of software have to be certified before use (as most network operators seem to like).
I've not had a very wide experience of installing third-party software on 'phones, but with my old 3650 (on the O2 network in the UK), it would warn me if the app wasn't signed, but was perfectly happy to let me install it anyway. I see this as a good thing personally - a rogue app could quite easily run me up a huge bill by dialing out and/or sending text messages to premium sevices, which would not be cool...
Of course, there's no guarantee that a properly-signed one won't do that, but you'd hope that there's more to getting is signed than just buying a certificate, and that there's a certificate revocation mechanism in place. (I know, all probably wishful thinking...)
Terminal services will cause you to be logged in twice on the same machine, causes all sort of strangeness.
I regularly (= every day, almost) reconnect to existing sessions on XP Pro boxes via remote desktop, and in the past have done so to Terminal Server sessions running on Win2k Server (although we did have some problems with that one from time to time). I see from another comment that you connect to Win2k boxes; I suspect that the Terminal Services that ships with 2k may be somewhat deficient in that respect. Might be worth seeing if there's an updated version available (if so, then you should also get support for sharing local resources and copy/pasting files across the rdesktop session)
my understanding is that with service pack 2, remote desktop does not lock out the local user anymore.
If you're talking about Windows XP Pro, then I'm afraid you're incorrect. I'm currently connected to my machine at work via rdesktop (working from home is so much nicer), and as an experiment, connected back to my home machine - *poof*, booted off as expected.
Still, it's fair enough, I think - this is a desktop OS, not a server one. Sure, Linux gives you the capability for free, but that's their choice.
I dont like being logged on in a different session (I want to access the crap I left running from earlier).
That sounds like a misconfiguration - every time I've used it, I've reconnected to the existing session without any hassles (indeed, without having to do anything different - just connect and there it is).
I dont trust their encryption.
I don't distrust it, but I do tunnel all my (internet-transported) connections over ssh - in to work because I have to (no direct access), in to home because I'm paranoid.
Their user limitation (only 2 at a time) is silly when VNC is free.
2 user limitation? XP Pro has a one user at a time limitation, while the server versions I believe limit you to as many as you buy licences for; you may well get 2 as standard though. VNC, however, cannot be used by more than one user simultaneously. Sure, more than one can connect at once, but if two try to use it at the same time, they'll be fighting for input control. Besides which, I've used VNC, PCAnywhere (8.0, a long time ago) and rdesktop, and rdesktop beats them no contest. I regularly get absolutely horrible performance using VNC over a 100Mbps LAN, while rdesktop into the same LAN via an ADSL link is far superior.
Rubbish. It's because he submits articles linking to his blog, which essentially contains a summary of and a link to the real article, and yet slashdot sees fit to post lots of them.
He's driving traffic to his blog to increase ad revenue and his reputation (he's now working as a professional blogging consultant), and slashdot are helping big-time. If there's money changing hands, or it's a favour for a friend, then fine - but the slashdot guys really ought to tell us.
Re:handling malformed data is a pretty bad idea ..
on
IE Shines On Broken Code
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
With malformed markup, the "correct" thing to do is indeterminate.
Well, that's debatable, but one thing that's for certain is that you absolutely should not crash due to malformed data. That's bad enough in a browser that doesn't support tabs, but in a tab-capable browser it's unforgivable. That one unparsable webpage that causes the browser to crash is a serious annoyance if it takes out another dozen or so tabs in the process.
Even ignoring questions of pragmatism (raised by other respondents), at the very most the browser should display some sort of "malformed page, unable to display" error. User input (which this is essentially) should not be able to crash an application. My compiler doesn't crash because of syntax errors in my code, why should my web browser?
I hope he stops playing with those goddammn amateur rockets (in the worst sense of amateur) and focusses on doing what he's good at...
A man's got to have a hobby; if nothing else, completely freeing the mind of work lets one's subconcious attack the problems you face while the concious isn't looking. That's a common way to get the inspiration needed to solve problems and/or devise better solutions to already solved problems.
It is well known that most spam and phishing e-mails are coming from one of two sets of IP space: China and Korea and related "rogue IP space", and DSL-based zombie proxies.
Well-known perhaps, and while I've seen it said here a lot, I've never actually seen any proof; do you have any?
And from a usability standpoint it just seems like a confusing disaster. "Wait, who is this from?" "I hit reply, but it wants to send it somewhere else?? why? oh yeah, Reply-To:."
So, set the From: to be something like "Tim C <stupid.address@my.isp>" and the Reply-to: to be "Tim C <real.address@my.domain>" - sure, it'll be obvious that it's going to a different address, but my name is still in there, and my friends should know what my domain is.
On the other hand, I agree that it's not exactly ideal, and I'm in a similar situation (ie I send mail via my ISP, but receive it to a colo box hosting my own domain)
Even RFCs are just Requests For Comments; you don't *have* to follow them, but if you don't, don't be surprised if your system is incompatible with someone (or everyone) else's.
Mailing lists, e-mail clients and whitelists don't look at the Reply-To: header, they look at From:.
In what sense do mail clients "not look at" the reply-to header? Every client I've used has used the reply-to (if present) when you hit "reply", falling back on the from address if it's not there.
Mailing lists may well bounce your mails if the from address isn't the one you subscribed under, of course, and I certainly agree that the suggestion is not optimal. However that said, most (if not all) email clients should cope just fine.
You've clearly not received very many forwarded-on "jokes" with all the previous recipient addresses included in Outlook "Original message:" blocks, or long threads with everyone just putting their stuff at the top, copying the entire message complete with multiple copies of the corporate email disclaimer...
Slashdot Mirror
Why are all program so damned big nowadays?
Because they do a damned sight more, that's why. I had a Spectrum - one of the original rubber-keyed 16KB models. Sure it was great, but I'll stick with my 2.4GHz PC and 1/2gig of RAM, thanks, at least until I can upgrade.
Well, I am not a doctor, so I might be misunderstanding the quoted passage, but doesn't "elective" normally mean "something that is chosen from a number of alternatives"? In other words, doesn't it mean that it's not critical? (m-w.com would seem to support that - "beneficial to the patient but not critical for survival")
Note that I'm not saying that just because something isn't critical for survival doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily extremely important from a quality of life point of view. Also, obviously the ideal is that a person gets the treatment they require, when they require it.
No; those people simply don't understand the effect this sort of thing can have on a person's happiness and mental well-being.
That's hardly surprising here though, as a lot of people's priorities (judging from the overall impression I get from comments on the site) are somewhat in need of reassessment.
Got any references to support that figure? I've heard numbers from about 3 billion to 14 billion or more quoted, and personally tend to err towards the higher side. Care to prove me wrong?
That's the thing though - office workers may care for Free as in Freedom, but offices care for Free as in no cost. If there's a non-Free alternative that does the job at lower cost, that's what will be bought.
When we whine, the developers sometimes respond by doing better next time... but mostly they just laugh all the way to the bank.
That'll almost certainly be down to the publisher, not the developers themselves. I don't know many games devs, but I know a fair few programmers, and I can't think of any who don't want to do the best job they can.
how many genomes are in a single human genome
That's easy - one!
Imagine that it's illegal to grow pot in the US, but we didn't prohibit importing it. The ban on domestic growing would be obviously worthless. So, since few people are stupid enough to leave that kind of loophole in the law, it's not there.
An interesting example - here's a counter example. Here in the UK it's illegal to prepare "magic mushrooms" for consumption, but it's *legal* to grow, sell, buy and possess them. You can buy them from market stalls in certain parts of London, and the practice seems to be spreading.
It's a loophole, it exists, and despite a number of "get tough on drugs" initiatives in recent (~ last decade or so) years, it's still there.
On the other hand, as another comment has already pointed out, there is legal precedent here in the UK banning the importation of goods to sell at lower prices - eg Levi vs Tesco. (Tesco was importing Levi jeans in order to sell at a lower price, Levi sued and won, the consumer lost.)
Levi vs Tesco and Sony vs Tesco.
Not to mention Big Business vs The People and The Courts vs Common Sense...
No, fool, that's Asda, and Walmart bought them a couple of years ago.
Break it down and you'll find that about 75% of the points are going to the label in one way or another. Worse, as much goes to pay for advertising and promotion of the CD as goes to all other places (artist, representation, printing and pressing, shipping) *COMBINED*.
Wait - are you saying that 75% goes to the label and 12.5% goes to advertising, or that a large chunk of that 75% goes to advertising? Unless the label owns the advertising/promotion agency (or agencies), it sounds like they're making a lot less than it seems. (Still more than the artists no doubt, but that's what happens when you let the middleman get too big)
Very funny - am I glad I'm working from home today... Damn near deafened me though :-)
Will every piece of software have to be certified before use (as most network operators seem to like).
I've not had a very wide experience of installing third-party software on 'phones, but with my old 3650 (on the O2 network in the UK), it would warn me if the app wasn't signed, but was perfectly happy to let me install it anyway. I see this as a good thing personally - a rogue app could quite easily run me up a huge bill by dialing out and/or sending text messages to premium sevices, which would not be cool...
Of course, there's no guarantee that a properly-signed one won't do that, but you'd hope that there's more to getting is signed than just buying a certificate, and that there's a certificate revocation mechanism in place. (I know, all probably wishful thinking...)
Terminal services will cause you to be logged in twice on the same machine, causes all sort of strangeness.
I regularly (= every day, almost) reconnect to existing sessions on XP Pro boxes via remote desktop, and in the past have done so to Terminal Server sessions running on Win2k Server (although we did have some problems with that one from time to time). I see from another comment that you connect to Win2k boxes; I suspect that the Terminal Services that ships with 2k may be somewhat deficient in that respect. Might be worth seeing if there's an updated version available (if so, then you should also get support for sharing local resources and copy/pasting files across the rdesktop session)
my understanding is that with service pack 2, remote desktop does not lock out the local user anymore.
If you're talking about Windows XP Pro, then I'm afraid you're incorrect. I'm currently connected to my machine at work via rdesktop (working from home is so much nicer), and as an experiment, connected back to my home machine - *poof*, booted off as expected.
Still, it's fair enough, I think - this is a desktop OS, not a server one. Sure, Linux gives you the capability for free, but that's their choice.
I dont like being logged on in a different session (I want to access the crap I left running from earlier).
That sounds like a misconfiguration - every time I've used it, I've reconnected to the existing session without any hassles (indeed, without having to do anything different - just connect and there it is).
I dont trust their encryption.
I don't distrust it, but I do tunnel all my (internet-transported) connections over ssh - in to work because I have to (no direct access), in to home because I'm paranoid.
Their user limitation (only 2 at a time) is silly when VNC is free.
2 user limitation? XP Pro has a one user at a time limitation, while the server versions I believe limit you to as many as you buy licences for; you may well get 2 as standard though. VNC, however, cannot be used by more than one user simultaneously. Sure, more than one can connect at once, but if two try to use it at the same time, they'll be fighting for input control. Besides which, I've used VNC, PCAnywhere (8.0, a long time ago) and rdesktop, and rdesktop beats them no contest. I regularly get absolutely horrible performance using VNC over a 100Mbps LAN, while rdesktop into the same LAN via an ADSL link is far superior.
Rubbish. It's because he submits articles linking to his blog, which essentially contains a summary of and a link to the real article, and yet slashdot sees fit to post lots of them.
He's driving traffic to his blog to increase ad revenue and his reputation (he's now working as a professional blogging consultant), and slashdot are helping big-time. If there's money changing hands, or it's a favour for a friend, then fine - but the slashdot guys really ought to tell us.
With malformed markup, the "correct" thing to do is indeterminate.
Well, that's debatable, but one thing that's for certain is that you absolutely should not crash due to malformed data. That's bad enough in a browser that doesn't support tabs, but in a tab-capable browser it's unforgivable. That one unparsable webpage that causes the browser to crash is a serious annoyance if it takes out another dozen or so tabs in the process.
Even ignoring questions of pragmatism (raised by other respondents), at the very most the browser should display some sort of "malformed page, unable to display" error. User input (which this is essentially) should not be able to crash an application. My compiler doesn't crash because of syntax errors in my code, why should my web browser?
I hope he stops playing with those goddammn amateur rockets (in the worst sense of amateur)
and focusses on doing what he's good at...
A man's got to have a hobby; if nothing else, completely freeing the mind of work lets one's subconcious attack the problems you face while the concious isn't looking. That's a common way to get the inspiration needed to solve problems and/or devise better solutions to already solved problems.
It is well known that most spam and phishing e-mails are coming from one of two sets of IP space: China and Korea and related "rogue IP space", and DSL-based zombie proxies.
Well-known perhaps, and while I've seen it said here a lot, I've never actually seen any proof; do you have any?
And from a usability standpoint it just seems like a confusing disaster. "Wait, who is this from?" "I hit reply, but it wants to send it somewhere else?? why? oh yeah, Reply-To:."
So, set the From: to be something like "Tim C <stupid.address@my.isp>" and the Reply-to: to be "Tim C <real.address@my.domain>" - sure, it'll be obvious that it's going to a different address, but my name is still in there, and my friends should know what my domain is.
On the other hand, I agree that it's not exactly ideal, and I'm in a similar situation (ie I send mail via my ISP, but receive it to a colo box hosting my own domain)
Even RFCs are just Requests For Comments; you don't *have* to follow them, but if you don't, don't be surprised if your system is incompatible with someone (or everyone) else's.
Mailing lists, e-mail clients and whitelists don't look at the Reply-To: header, they look at From:.
In what sense do mail clients "not look at" the reply-to header? Every client I've used has used the reply-to (if present) when you hit "reply", falling back on the from address if it's not there.
Mailing lists may well bounce your mails if the from address isn't the one you subscribed under, of course, and I certainly agree that the suggestion is not optimal. However that said, most (if not all) email clients should cope just fine.
You've clearly not received very many forwarded-on "jokes" with all the previous recipient addresses included in Outlook "Original message:" blocks, or long threads with everyone just putting their stuff at the top, copying the entire message complete with multiple copies of the corporate email disclaimer...
Heh - sorry, I've just seen that said in all seriousness here and elsewhere too many times :-)