Speaking as someone who has had Mod points before, I can asure you that just like the articles, no self-respecting moderator would ever follow a link in a comment to determine its worth. We rely on anonymous posts warning about the http://www.cnn.com/ link really being a "goatse.cx" link and other complaining about the links being funny or incorrect.
Basically, moderators follow the same "fact checking" standards as the editors do, which is of course none at all. As I personally have had all my mods meta-moderated "fair" (mostly by using "Overrated" and "Underrated"), I can guarentee that this behavior is normal and expected.
Based on your User-ID number, you have yet to experience the joy that is having access to the "moderator" pulldown menus. In time, you will have access to learn the ways of doing a half-assed moderation job, and learn to stop complaining about moderators being foolish, as you will have joined their ranks. (Plus, pissing off the moderators is a good way to say "hello" to -1 land. Ah, "Overrated"...)
For those who aren't sure, yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. Moderators provide a valuable service to Slashdot, and although there are issues with the system, overall, I think moderation is a Good Thing compared to having no such moderation. I'm sure there are still flaws that could be addressed, but generally, I'm pleased with the way the system appears to be working.
So, when it comes time for you to choose the moderation, vote for me, the waffle-canidate. I'll make up my mind someday, probably in my own best interest.
The GIMP does suck. It has an interface where the main toolbar is separate from the individual windows, where most of the feature set is only accessible through a "right-click menu" (sucks to be a Mac user, I guess), where the dialogs are normal "windows" and interfere with normal window flow (yay, I just started the Gimp and now have 5 windows in my task list!), where...
(Oh, and for the cheap shot, Scheme?! It's a graphics program! Er, anyway.)
Basically, the GIMP interface sucks, sucks, SUCKS!
The GIMP is very powerful and can probably compete with Photoshop based on the feature-set, but damn does its interface suck. I keep on thinking about writing a new interface that doesn't suck, but I just haven't had the time or inclination to really try. Maybe GIMP 2.0 will be better in this respect. GIMP 1.2's interface is a joke.
With all due respect to the developers:)
To try and bring in some constructive critism, here are some things to do for a new interface:
Dock the various windows to individual images. They're important! People need to be able to maximize the GIMP window and not cover up the GIMP controls.
Add a real menu to the image windows. Make it basically the right-click menu, but keep the feature set.
Add the standard toolbar icons to the existing toolbar: New, Open, Save | Cut, Copy, Paste | (existing buttons)
Make the toolbar customizable: there are some features people may want more than others.
Use color toolbar icons. People distinguish icons by both shape and color. Leaving them all black-and-white makes it harder to see the individual icons.
Split the "rotation/scaling/shearing/perspective" tool into separate tools. Yes, all four are matrix transforms. But when someone thinks "I want to rotate this" they don't think "matrix transform" they think "rotate tool."
Don't have separate "tool command" dialogs when there already exists a "tool option" dialog. When choosing afore-mentioned tool, the way to change between the four options is through the "options" dialog, but the "command" dialog pops up and makes things confusing.
I'm sure there are other things, but this is a brief list to change this from a troll to critism:)
Could some please educate me as to why anyone cares about MNG support? As far as I can tell, it doesn't serve any useful purpose. If you want annoying animated graphics, you can use GIF or the ever-present Flash plugin. My understanding is that people want to be able to use a full 8bit-alpha channel in their annoying animations. This doesn't sound like too useful a feature to me.
Then again, it sounds like they only save 200KB by removing MNG/JNG support. My current Windows XP install weighs in at 28.5MB, 8.9 MB of which are extras (plugins) or uninstall data (or GRE - what is it and why does it take up 5.4MB for its installer, in my mozilla.org dir?). That leaves me with 19.5 MB, of which 200KB would be a full 1% of the total - leaving me with 19.2 MB for the entire suite. Doesn't really seem worth it, if there are enough people who want it.
So - why is MNG support so important? Why not leave it as an extra that can be installed-on-demand? Would that be a compromise people can live with?
I installed it from a SMB share, so you could try that. Mind you, I installed it the campus license agreement software share. You might not have one so conviently located with a valid username and password. So, yes, you can avoid burning it to a CD and install it from a remote network connection.
Of course, when it tries to activate with the license server, you may run into problems if you don't have a valid license...
(Then there's the rant about how 5 months later WinXP decided that the new harddrive definately indicated I was a pirate and locked me out of my computer, forcing me to fork over $200 for an XP Pro upgrade. The Pro version was needed for various network-related utilities required for my job. Too bad I also play games on it, negating it as being a buisness expense. Growl. Too bad I hate the Linux desktop experience far more than the Windows experience, so don't go that route with me. Maybe in a few years, when I can play Warcraft III and C&C Generals along with UT2K3... Oh, and throw WINE at me, and I'll whine right back.)
http://www.rilo-kiley.com/: "www.rilo-kiley.com could not be found."
I think you mean www.rilokiley.com, without the dash, with a successful name lookup, and which seems to be the right webpage (unless there's another Rilo Kiley out there...).
Too bad their webpage sucks (and not just because it's Flash, but because it's devoid of - well - anything useful). Try the HTML version even if you have Flash for the simple reason that you get to use your own scrollbars and not some crappy Flash variant. Makes reading their tour dates a lot easier (since the Flash scroll control makes it very easy to accidently scroll past a given date).
Unfortunately, I still can't figure out anything about them or their music. They any good?:)
Sun doesn't have an MacOS X Java distribution. (Actually, they don't have a MacOS distribution at all.) The MacOS X Java distribution is done through Apple, and not through Sun. Sun releases Java for three platforms: Windows, Solaris, and Linux (well, sorta seven, if you count the 64-bit variants for all three and the x86 Solaris variant).
That's why updating Java on MacOS X is so much better than on Windows - it's done by Apple, not Sun:)
Sun is trying to improve the situation somewhat by offering a "net download" for Windows, but I don't know how much of a solution that is. There's also the net-based Get Java thingy, but I think that's more for applets than the complete JRE.
I think this is a very valid and good point. I'm still trying to decide whether or not I should be outraged at an anti-Semetic based TV series.
On one hand, it's entertainment. It's not real - it's presenting a fictional world and having characters move through it. If I'm going to say that they shouldn't disallow the Matrix: Reloaded because it's fictional, it would be hypocritical to then deny a series about a Jewish conspiracy.
Then again, there were and still are people in the US who believe that there is a Black Conspiracy to take over the world from the white race. (Not to mention the afore-mentioned "Jewish Conspiracy," too. I guess if you're in a wacko group conspiring to take over the world, you expect a lot of competition.) If there were a TV show about a Black Conspiracy trying to overthrow the American Way of Life (SM), I think I'd be quite pissed about it and might very well argue that it should be taken off the air. At the very least, I wouldn't watch it.
Isn't that the same thing? They have a show portraying a common stereotype. Is that neccessarily wrong? There are plenty of shows that exploit common stereotypes (even the Simpsons uses them for parody). But generally these shows do not portray things in an "us vs. them" view and have one group trying to repress the other.
Is it hypocritical to cry out against shows that seem to compel people to carry out violence against a certain group, and then at the same time argue that video games do not provoke people to violence? If I think that people know the difference between videogames and reality, why should I be upset about a TV show that is also not reality?
I don't have any answers to this. Stereotyping will usually give false impressions about people. Having a stereotype isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you can recognize it and know that not all people who fall into the category will immediately be as expected. Reinforcing a negative stereotype is a bad thing. Maybe that's the out - such a thing will reinforce negative stereotypes, and that's what makes it wrong. But is that enough of an "out" and are we guilty of doing the same things?
The only thing I'm sure of is that I don't like people acting violently against one another. Everyone is better off when everyone agrees to allow others to coexist. But I'm not sure that the ends necessarily justify the means to get there. It's just a TV show, but it's also can reinforce views about people, possibly causing people to decide to commit violent acts. But only possibly. It could all just be good fun for the majority of viewers.
Send me a PowerBook and all the needed dev tools and I'll look into it:)
Actually, I think that's your real problem and why it probably won't get ported any time soon (if ever). Developers for the most part hate MacOS 9 and lower, simply because it was a crappy OS from the development point of view. (No dynamic memory allocation sticks out as the largest reason for the hatred, but no threads and other things that make a modern OS modern also help.) Most developers are a hell of a lot happier with MacOS X simply because it gives them the mix of UNIX and OpenStep goodness that makes programming just that much easier.
(Disclaimer: my facts are made up. Actually, I'm not sure about them - I think they're correct, but I haven't actually verified them, so please be kind in correcting misinformation. This is based on listening to older developers who hated MacOS x where x < X. (Er, x < 10.) So I may be wrong - but this is the impression I get and probably the reason MacOS 9 users are going to be left out in the cold. I could be wrong. I don't know.)
However, for a sufficient bribe, I'd be willing to take a look at Mozilla code again:)
Yeah, scouts in the US are tied to religion. There are religious rewards for a whole bunch of religions, not just Christianity and Judaism. You can read a list of the various "religious emblems" recognized on this page. (I think I got the Protestant award when I was a Scout.)
The official "reasoning" behind why a US Scout must be "reverant" is that scouts are "morally straight" and that without having a religious code or backing, you cannot be "morally straight" or some BS like that. You can be kicked out of scouting if you profess no belief in God and won't back down.
While the "belief in God" thing is sorta relaxed (Buddhists welcomed, for example), the idea that you must belong to and believe in a religion is not. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but then again, there are quite a few other official policies that I disagree with (like locking out homosexuals - this decision was made because the Mormon/Methodist churches threatened to pull funding if it was not enforced).
All in all, I think that the Boy Scouts are a worthwhile organization. I enjoyed my trip to Eagle Scout, even though I disagree with some of the official BSA policies. It's still a good experience, I think, even if some of the official policies are kinda strange.
Who's to say he didn't? I've had to use WinZip on other people's computers, and I found the feature amusing too. Plus somewhere I have a license (my Dad bought it for me, make fun of him:)), so it's not like I'm just being a cheapskate.
'Course, as of XP, I just use the built-in Zip support. If that's not available, the "zip" command line utility is free and much easier to use (well, I find it easier to use). So I really don't need WinZip any more...
Actually, it's a very accurate mirror. It contains three words that weren't in the original:
$ diff real troll
28c28
< "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson,
PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have
a number of features to add."
---
> "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson,
PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have
a number of features to add to Taco's Backside."
(Well, I doctored the "real" file a little to remove the advertisement from the text. So two differences.)
It should be moderated down anyway because it's a rather blatant copyright violation of a site that isn't really Slashdotted. But ignoring Taco's Backside, it is the original article. (I wonder if the change was made in order to make it a "derivative work" - a "parody?" In that case, it might not be a troll, but someone failing at an attempt to invoke fair use rights. Hint: three words out of 771 do not a parody make.)
While I tend to agree with this, I think you need to realize how the editors most likely handle the queue. (I'm talking out of my ass here based on evaluating using Slashcode for a website. We decided against it, and then for other reasons I got pissed at the people running the group so no links to the site in its current PHP form.)
Anyway... the editors are presented with a list of story headlines. They can delete stories just based on the headlines, and presumably do a "prefilter" based on the headlines. A headline like "Microsoft wooing TigerDirect with cheaper software" really doesn't sound interesting - it happens all the time, doesn't it? So Microsoft is trying to get people to use their products again. The version that got submitted had a headline that got past the "boring" filter - Microsoft trying to win over Lindows users by giving cheap software.
Since they get well over 300 summissions a day, they have to filter them out somehow. (Or is it more by now? Couldn't find any metrics in the FAQ.) Performing a "prefilter" based on the headline simply makes sense. If the headline sounds boring (or like a duplicate), chances are it will be rejected without the content being read.
Of course, I'm just guessing. It would be interesting to hear an editor comment on this guess, though.
Actually, it says by the time you reach a million or more files the chance for hash collision is approximately 100%. However, you can still potentially hit hash collosions way before then. The handling of hash collosions is the question - does it prevent the new file from being created, or does it overwrite the file, losing data. My understanding is the ReiserFS does the latter. I could be wrong though, and I hope I am.
Before I can release the copyright, I have to state I have it. I can't release code I don't have the copyright to into the public domain. That's my understanding, at least. Besides, I think the copyright owner is maintained, even when in the public domain.
I dunno. I think granting the right to copy and modify is what's the important part. Take it, sell it, whatever - I don't care.
However, in practice it [the maximum number of files] depends upon the context.
- for an r5 hash, when the number of files > 1 million the hash collision rate is so high that it is impossible to reliably create more files.
- for a tea hash, although file creation is roughly an order of magnitude slower than for r5, the collision rate can be dismissed.
Yes, ReiserFS makes no attempt at preventing hash collisions. This fact, along with the "no bad block testing" policy, has kept me using EXT3.
(And for whoever looks in my back posts and points out I use Windows, I do have a Linux server which uses EXT3 partly because of the hash collision problem but mostly because of the fact that ReiserFS has no provisions for working around bad blocks. Stupid Maxtor.)
You have transparent backgrounds? Hmm... I dunno if that's possible with IE (in any generic way). The alpha filter will allow you to set a transparent background - but you then have three options: scale the background to fit the element, crop the image into the element, or size the element to the image. There is no way to tile a transparent background, that I'm aware of.
Still, if a way could be found, it might be interesting to try - it should be possible to write a hack that looks into existing CSS rules and replaces PNG backgrounds. Going through the entire DOM probably isn't really feasible though... the hack I posted is rather slow when moving through images. The only advantage it has over other solutions is that it doesn't screw up Opera.
// The following is hereby placed in the public domain. The right to copy and modify is // irrevokably granted to all. // Copyright (c) Daniel Potter // // In your onLoad event, call "msiePngHack()" to watch all your PNG images // be set to use transparency. (Note that your PNG files must end with // a ".png" extension and is case sensetive - this is because the MIME type // is not exposed to the JS code. If you have a file that does not end in // ".png" then add something like "?f=.png" to the end to fake out this // script - and certain versions of IE:) )
var isIE = navigator.appName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer"; // if really Opera, this is corrected later
// Sets a PNG image browser-independently (use for roll over effects etc) function setPngImage(img, src) { if (isIE && isPng(src)) { // need to do PNG hack img.width = img.offsetWidth; img.height = img.offsetHeight; // correct this to point to a blank GIF file /* SLASHDOT ONLY: REMOVE THE SPACES IN THE STRINGS. These are intended to prevent "page widening" but screw up the code:) */ img.src = "http://www.microsoft.com/homepage/gif/1ptrans.gif "; img.style.filter = "progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoade r(sizingMethod='scale')"; img.filters(0).src = src; } else img.src = src; }
// checks if the image is a PNG - ends in ".png" function isPng(src) { return src.length > 4 && src.substring(src.length - 4) == ".png" }
function msiePngHack() { // just go through the images collection, and "set" the PNGs using the PNG hack // "setPngImage" method to make MSIE happy for (i = 0; i < document.images.length; i++) { var img = document.images[i]; try { if (!(img.filters)) { isIE = false; return; } } catch (ex) { isIE = false; return; } setPngImage(img, img.src); } }
That's not what they're complaining about. They're complaining that the next number is, in fact, determined after you choose (in at least one instance). It's changing the game from "guess what the number I rolled was" to "guess whether we think you should win now."
Using your example, let's play a simple game, odds or evens. You guess if the number I roll is odd or even. I roll first, and keep the result hidden under a cup. You guess, and then I reveal the answer. In this case, the result is predetermined - the random choice is made before you guess. This is fine.
Now, let's assume that I do indeed roll the dice normally, but I also decide that you can only win 25% of the time and not the 50% that it should be on a six-sided die. So, three times out of four (determined by maybe a second four-sided die), I change the roll to be the opposite of what you guessed, if needed. I roll a 4, and also roll a "losing game" - so when you select "evens", I nudge the dice to read 1.
That's effectively what the machines are doing - presenting a game and saying "you have a 10% chance to win" but instead determining that now isn't the time they want to pay out and giving you a 0% chance to win, and altering the results to match.
This isn't quite the same as the Las Vegas slot machines, which while they do predecide whether or not to give a win, they do not present a choice to the user and change the results to match. Instead, they say "roll the die" and the die either comes up "win" or "lose". (Well, "win back half" or "win double" or "win back original bet" or "lose all" or "jackpot" or whatever else is offered.) They don't present a "I've chosen a number, guess it and win" and then change the results so that you always lose.
(Oh, and while I'm at it, to the Internet at large, you don't "loose" at a slot/fruit machine, unless you're quite angry and loose some projectiles at it. If you then can't find the arrows, you might complain about losing them.)
Strangly enough, I copy-pasted the word "etymology" from the dictionary. Apparently, I then decided at some point to go back and correct it or something. I dunno how I managed to copy-and-paste a misspelling when the original has it spelled correctly.
But hey, this is Slashdot. I remember a story where CmdrTaco "corrected" someones post by adding a large misspelling. In keeping with tradition, I will make no effort in verifying this fact.
I'm surprised that so many people missed the grandparent posters title. Don't people on Slashdot read comments? Oh - right. Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
What he said was, and I quote, since it's still in my subject and yours, is "Free broadband? Not for long!"
In his opinion (and it wasn't really a troll), broadband prices will shoot through the roof in the not-too-distant future. Other people have pointed out that they do not yet, which is OK but has nothing to do with his post.
A much more interesting comparison would be long distance charges from hotel phones over time. When the phone was relatively new, did hotels have cheap phone access? Did it then later skyrocket in price to what we have today?
His opinion could well be correct - as hotels figure out how to bill it and people are more likely to demand such access, the price will quite likely go up.
You did mention one hotel chain having a service called "Wired for Buisness" that includes "unlimited" long distance calling. (Does that mean "free"? Or does that mean that you can call for as long as you want (but have to pay for it)? I'm assuming it's free.) That still does not necessarily defeat the original poster's point - was that service well advertised? Do they charge $15 to connect the phone if you make a call without purchasing the service?
I expect that eventually, broadband in hotel rooms will cost money. I'm expecting it will be cheap - something like $0.10/MB or something along those lines. I also expect flat-rate services will likely be offered as well. Broadband is still a "new" technology, and hotels are likely to be unsure of how to bill it for a while longer. Once it becomes more main-stream, expect to be asked to pay for it.
Companies still offer tech support? I thought those numbers just went to elevator Muzak services, intersperced with the occasional "We care about your call" spoken sentence.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. But then the next story seems to have no icons on the main page too.
It appears to be a glitch in the SlashCode.
Or, more likely, they're making changes to it again without bothering to alert any of the readers about them. I rather liked getting an explanation of the changes, even if it was the fourth SlashBack item out of five and no one ever read it. This new "change it as we go" thing is starting to get annoying.
(And it would be nice to get offical explanations of things like when some non-subscribers were treated to early story access... This "keep the users in the dark" thing that seems to be going on just makes it that more unlikely that I'll ever subscribe...)
Hmmm... I'll probably get modded down for this, but it's been bugging me for a while and I've got karma to burn. (Haha, with this sentence, I'm sure to get modded up! Whoops, didn't mean to think that out loud.)
I think it's native is actually 1280x768, which is about right. However, I'm not sure - the review is very unclear about it. (It says that the "optimal" PC resolution is 1024x768, a 4:3 mode, but the max mode is 1280x768, a 5:3 mode which is almost a cinematic mode. (DVD widescreen is something like 1.85:1, 5:3 is about 1.66:1.)
But the review is very unclear about the actual aspect ratio or the native resolution, so I could very well be wrong.
It costs too much if you want to use it as a computer monitor. It sounds about right for a kiosk display, which is what I'd imagine it was designed for. (It's about TV sized and sounds like it's really designed for HDTV displays. Sounds like a nice display for a DVD player, not something you want to stick in front of your computer.)
If you read the review, they call it a "Monitor/TV" and mention things like a remote control and speakers. It has a DVI input and a DVI/RGB adaptor. I expect that it's really a (HD)TV with RGB monitor support being a bonus feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, moderators follow the same "fact checking" standards as the editors do, which is of course none at all. As I personally have had all my mods meta-moderated "fair" (mostly by using "Overrated" and "Underrated"), I can guarentee that this behavior is normal and expected.
Based on your User-ID number, you have yet to experience the joy that is having access to the "moderator" pulldown menus. In time, you will have access to learn the ways of doing a half-assed moderation job, and learn to stop complaining about moderators being foolish, as you will have joined their ranks. (Plus, pissing off the moderators is a good way to say "hello" to -1 land. Ah, "Overrated"...)
For those who aren't sure, yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. Moderators provide a valuable service to Slashdot, and although there are issues with the system, overall, I think moderation is a Good Thing compared to having no such moderation. I'm sure there are still flaws that could be addressed, but generally, I'm pleased with the way the system appears to be working.
So, when it comes time for you to choose the moderation, vote for me, the waffle-canidate. I'll make up my mind someday, probably in my own best interest.
(Oh, and for the cheap shot, Scheme?! It's a graphics program! Er, anyway.)
Basically, the GIMP interface sucks, sucks, SUCKS!
The GIMP is very powerful and can probably compete with Photoshop based on the feature-set, but damn does its interface suck. I keep on thinking about writing a new interface that doesn't suck, but I just haven't had the time or inclination to really try. Maybe GIMP 2.0 will be better in this respect. GIMP 1.2's interface is a joke.
With all due respect to the developers :)
To try and bring in some constructive critism, here are some things to do for a new interface:
I'm sure there are other things, but this is a brief list to change this from a troll to critism :)
Then again, it sounds like they only save 200KB by removing MNG/JNG support. My current Windows XP install weighs in at 28.5MB, 8.9 MB of which are extras (plugins) or uninstall data (or GRE - what is it and why does it take up 5.4MB for its installer, in my mozilla.org dir?). That leaves me with 19.5 MB, of which 200KB would be a full 1% of the total - leaving me with 19.2 MB for the entire suite. Doesn't really seem worth it, if there are enough people who want it.
So - why is MNG support so important? Why not leave it as an extra that can be installed-on-demand? Would that be a compromise people can live with?
Of course, when it tries to activate with the license server, you may run into problems if you don't have a valid license...
(Then there's the rant about how 5 months later WinXP decided that the new harddrive definately indicated I was a pirate and locked me out of my computer, forcing me to fork over $200 for an XP Pro upgrade. The Pro version was needed for various network-related utilities required for my job. Too bad I also play games on it, negating it as being a buisness expense. Growl. Too bad I hate the Linux desktop experience far more than the Windows experience, so don't go that route with me. Maybe in a few years, when I can play Warcraft III and C&C Generals along with UT2K3... Oh, and throw WINE at me, and I'll whine right back.)
I think you mean www.rilokiley.com, without the dash, with a successful name lookup, and which seems to be the right webpage (unless there's another Rilo Kiley out there...).
Too bad their webpage sucks (and not just because it's Flash, but because it's devoid of - well - anything useful). Try the HTML version even if you have Flash for the simple reason that you get to use your own scrollbars and not some crappy Flash variant. Makes reading their tour dates a lot easier (since the Flash scroll control makes it very easy to accidently scroll past a given date).
Unfortunately, I still can't figure out anything about them or their music. They any good? :)
That's why updating Java on MacOS X is so much better than on Windows - it's done by Apple, not Sun :)
Sun is trying to improve the situation somewhat by offering a "net download" for Windows, but I don't know how much of a solution that is. There's also the net-based Get Java thingy, but I think that's more for applets than the complete JRE.
On one hand, it's entertainment. It's not real - it's presenting a fictional world and having characters move through it. If I'm going to say that they shouldn't disallow the Matrix: Reloaded because it's fictional, it would be hypocritical to then deny a series about a Jewish conspiracy.
Then again, there were and still are people in the US who believe that there is a Black Conspiracy to take over the world from the white race. (Not to mention the afore-mentioned "Jewish Conspiracy," too. I guess if you're in a wacko group conspiring to take over the world, you expect a lot of competition.) If there were a TV show about a Black Conspiracy trying to overthrow the American Way of Life (SM), I think I'd be quite pissed about it and might very well argue that it should be taken off the air. At the very least, I wouldn't watch it.
Isn't that the same thing? They have a show portraying a common stereotype. Is that neccessarily wrong? There are plenty of shows that exploit common stereotypes (even the Simpsons uses them for parody). But generally these shows do not portray things in an "us vs. them" view and have one group trying to repress the other.
Is it hypocritical to cry out against shows that seem to compel people to carry out violence against a certain group, and then at the same time argue that video games do not provoke people to violence? If I think that people know the difference between videogames and reality, why should I be upset about a TV show that is also not reality?
I don't have any answers to this. Stereotyping will usually give false impressions about people. Having a stereotype isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you can recognize it and know that not all people who fall into the category will immediately be as expected. Reinforcing a negative stereotype is a bad thing. Maybe that's the out - such a thing will reinforce negative stereotypes, and that's what makes it wrong. But is that enough of an "out" and are we guilty of doing the same things?
The only thing I'm sure of is that I don't like people acting violently against one another. Everyone is better off when everyone agrees to allow others to coexist. But I'm not sure that the ends necessarily justify the means to get there. It's just a TV show, but it's also can reinforce views about people, possibly causing people to decide to commit violent acts. But only possibly. It could all just be good fun for the majority of viewers.
Actually, I think that's your real problem and why it probably won't get ported any time soon (if ever). Developers for the most part hate MacOS 9 and lower, simply because it was a crappy OS from the development point of view. (No dynamic memory allocation sticks out as the largest reason for the hatred, but no threads and other things that make a modern OS modern also help.) Most developers are a hell of a lot happier with MacOS X simply because it gives them the mix of UNIX and OpenStep goodness that makes programming just that much easier.
(Disclaimer: my facts are made up. Actually, I'm not sure about them - I think they're correct, but I haven't actually verified them, so please be kind in correcting misinformation. This is based on listening to older developers who hated MacOS x where x < X. (Er, x < 10.) So I may be wrong - but this is the impression I get and probably the reason MacOS 9 users are going to be left out in the cold. I could be wrong. I don't know.)
However, for a sufficient bribe, I'd be willing to take a look at Mozilla code again :)
Atheism is right out, though. The scouting leadership has made it very clear that a Scout in the Boy Scouts of America must believe in a God. (Read up about atheism and religion in general in relation to the BSA from someone's rant.)
The official "reasoning" behind why a US Scout must be "reverant" is that scouts are "morally straight" and that without having a religious code or backing, you cannot be "morally straight" or some BS like that. You can be kicked out of scouting if you profess no belief in God and won't back down.
While the "belief in God" thing is sorta relaxed (Buddhists welcomed, for example), the idea that you must belong to and believe in a religion is not. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but then again, there are quite a few other official policies that I disagree with (like locking out homosexuals - this decision was made because the Mormon/Methodist churches threatened to pull funding if it was not enforced).
All in all, I think that the Boy Scouts are a worthwhile organization. I enjoyed my trip to Eagle Scout, even though I disagree with some of the official BSA policies. It's still a good experience, I think, even if some of the official policies are kinda strange.
'Course, as of XP, I just use the built-in Zip support. If that's not available, the "zip" command line utility is free and much easier to use (well, I find it easier to use). So I really don't need WinZip any more...
$ diff real troll
28c28
< "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add."
---
> "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add to Taco's Backside."
(Well, I doctored the "real" file a little to remove the advertisement from the text. So two differences.)
It should be moderated down anyway because it's a rather blatant copyright violation of a site that isn't really Slashdotted. But ignoring Taco's Backside, it is the original article. (I wonder if the change was made in order to make it a "derivative work" - a "parody?" In that case, it might not be a troll, but someone failing at an attempt to invoke fair use rights. Hint: three words out of 771 do not a parody make.)
Anyway... the editors are presented with a list of story headlines. They can delete stories just based on the headlines, and presumably do a "prefilter" based on the headlines. A headline like "Microsoft wooing TigerDirect with cheaper software" really doesn't sound interesting - it happens all the time, doesn't it? So Microsoft is trying to get people to use their products again. The version that got submitted had a headline that got past the "boring" filter - Microsoft trying to win over Lindows users by giving cheap software.
Since they get well over 300 summissions a day, they have to filter them out somehow. (Or is it more by now? Couldn't find any metrics in the FAQ.) Performing a "prefilter" based on the headline simply makes sense. If the headline sounds boring (or like a duplicate), chances are it will be rejected without the content being read.
Of course, I'm just guessing. It would be interesting to hear an editor comment on this guess, though.
Actually, it says by the time you reach a million or more files the chance for hash collision is approximately 100%. However, you can still potentially hit hash collosions way before then. The handling of hash collosions is the question - does it prevent the new file from being created, or does it overwrite the file, losing data. My understanding is the ReiserFS does the latter. I could be wrong though, and I hope I am.
I dunno. I think granting the right to copy and modify is what's the important part. Take it, sell it, whatever - I don't care.
Scroll down are you should see the following:
Yes, ReiserFS makes no attempt at preventing hash collisions. This fact, along with the "no bad block testing" policy, has kept me using EXT3.
(And for whoever looks in my back posts and points out I use Windows, I do have a Linux server which uses EXT3 partly because of the hash collision problem but mostly because of the fact that ReiserFS has no provisions for working around bad blocks. Stupid Maxtor.)
Still, if a way could be found, it might be interesting to try - it should be possible to write a hack that looks into existing CSS rules and replaces PNG backgrounds. Going through the entire DOM probably isn't really feasible though... the hack I posted is rather slow when moving through images. The only advantage it has over other solutions is that it doesn't screw up Opera.
// The following is hereby placed in the public domain. The right to copy and modify is :) )
// need to do PNG hack
// correct this to point to a blank GIF file :) */f ";e r(sizingMethod='scale')";
// just go through the images collection, and "set" the PNGs using the PNG hack
// "setPngImage" method to make MSIE happy
// irrevokably granted to all.
// Copyright (c) Daniel Potter
//
// In your onLoad event, call "msiePngHack()" to watch all your PNG images
// be set to use transparency. (Note that your PNG files must end with
// a ".png" extension and is case sensetive - this is because the MIME type
// is not exposed to the JS code. If you have a file that does not end in
// ".png" then add something like "?f=.png" to the end to fake out this
// script - and certain versions of IE
var isIE = navigator.appName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer";
// if really Opera, this is corrected later
// Sets a PNG image browser-independently (use for roll over effects etc)
function setPngImage(img, src) {
if (isIE && isPng(src)) {
img.width = img.offsetWidth;
img.height = img.offsetHeight;
/* SLASHDOT ONLY: REMOVE THE SPACES IN THE STRINGS. These are intended to prevent "page widening" but screw up the code
img.src = "http://www.microsoft.com/homepage/gif/1ptrans.gi
img.style.filter = "progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoad
img.filters(0).src = src;
} else
img.src = src;
}
// checks if the image is a PNG - ends in ".png"
function isPng(src) {
return src.length > 4 && src.substring(src.length - 4) == ".png"
}
function msiePngHack() {
for (i = 0; i < document.images.length; i++) {
var img = document.images[i];
try {
if (!(img.filters)) {
isIE = false;
return;
}
} catch (ex) {
isIE = false;
return;
}
setPngImage(img, img.src);
}
}
Using your example, let's play a simple game, odds or evens. You guess if the number I roll is odd or even. I roll first, and keep the result hidden under a cup. You guess, and then I reveal the answer. In this case, the result is predetermined - the random choice is made before you guess. This is fine.
Now, let's assume that I do indeed roll the dice normally, but I also decide that you can only win 25% of the time and not the 50% that it should be on a six-sided die. So, three times out of four (determined by maybe a second four-sided die), I change the roll to be the opposite of what you guessed, if needed. I roll a 4, and also roll a "losing game" - so when you select "evens", I nudge the dice to read 1.
That's effectively what the machines are doing - presenting a game and saying "you have a 10% chance to win" but instead determining that now isn't the time they want to pay out and giving you a 0% chance to win, and altering the results to match.
This isn't quite the same as the Las Vegas slot machines, which while they do predecide whether or not to give a win, they do not present a choice to the user and change the results to match. Instead, they say "roll the die" and the die either comes up "win" or "lose". (Well, "win back half" or "win double" or "win back original bet" or "lose all" or "jackpot" or whatever else is offered.) They don't present a "I've chosen a number, guess it and win" and then change the results so that you always lose.
(Oh, and while I'm at it, to the Internet at large, you don't "loose" at a slot/fruit machine, unless you're quite angry and loose some projectiles at it. If you then can't find the arrows, you might complain about losing them.)
But hey, this is Slashdot. I remember a story where CmdrTaco "corrected" someones post by adding a large misspelling. In keeping with tradition, I will make no effort in verifying this fact.
Middle English chek, from Middle French eschec
Seems to suggest that "check" is the correct modern spelling and that people writing "cheque" are just weird, or "chiefly British."
Besides, incorrect spelling is one of the cornerstones of Slashdot, like incorrect grammer. (How many people will catch that, I wonder?) Complaining about it is so passé.
What he said was, and I quote, since it's still in my subject and yours, is "Free broadband? Not for long!"
In his opinion (and it wasn't really a troll), broadband prices will shoot through the roof in the not-too-distant future. Other people have pointed out that they do not yet, which is OK but has nothing to do with his post.
A much more interesting comparison would be long distance charges from hotel phones over time. When the phone was relatively new, did hotels have cheap phone access? Did it then later skyrocket in price to what we have today?
His opinion could well be correct - as hotels figure out how to bill it and people are more likely to demand such access, the price will quite likely go up.
You did mention one hotel chain having a service called "Wired for Buisness" that includes "unlimited" long distance calling. (Does that mean "free"? Or does that mean that you can call for as long as you want (but have to pay for it)? I'm assuming it's free.) That still does not necessarily defeat the original poster's point - was that service well advertised? Do they charge $15 to connect the phone if you make a call without purchasing the service?
I expect that eventually, broadband in hotel rooms will cost money. I'm expecting it will be cheap - something like $0.10/MB or something along those lines. I also expect flat-rate services will likely be offered as well. Broadband is still a "new" technology, and hotels are likely to be unsure of how to bill it for a while longer. Once it becomes more main-stream, expect to be asked to pay for it.
Companies still offer tech support? I thought those numbers just went to elevator Muzak services, intersperced with the occasional "We care about your call" spoken sentence.
It appears to be a glitch in the SlashCode.
Or, more likely, they're making changes to it again without bothering to alert any of the readers about them. I rather liked getting an explanation of the changes, even if it was the fourth SlashBack item out of five and no one ever read it. This new "change it as we go" thing is starting to get annoying.
(And it would be nice to get offical explanations of things like when some non-subscribers were treated to early story access... This "keep the users in the dark" thing that seems to be going on just makes it that more unlikely that I'll ever subscribe...)
Hmmm... I'll probably get modded down for this, but it's been bugging me for a while and I've got karma to burn. (Haha, with this sentence, I'm sure to get modded up! Whoops, didn't mean to think that out loud.)
But the review is very unclear about the actual aspect ratio or the native resolution, so I could very well be wrong.
If you read the review, they call it a "Monitor/TV" and mention things like a remote control and speakers. It has a DVI input and a DVI/RGB adaptor. I expect that it's really a (HD)TV with RGB monitor support being a bonus feature.