Yeah, but you're also presumably a geek - I think the above explanation that the Yoda reference is to questionable grammar makes a lot of sense, and that while I'd assume geeks would think of Yoda as old and wise, it's quite understandable for the average person to picture Yoda simply as someone who talks strangely.
Which seems to fit Bush quite nicely, somehowishly...
Why should that argument be good enough for me? Come on, if all you can say to prevent drilling is that "well, we haven't drilled there before" than you need a reality check.
Guess what - your house used to be on wilderness. Guess it's time to wreck the cities and let the wilderness come back... tear up the highways, forget about any progress, because, after all, they're PREVENTING WILDERNESS.
Please. Either demonstrate that drilling in Alaska will cause irreperable harm using actual facts or just shut up. I don't wanna hear "we have to conserve because we must." There's no reason in there. It's just "well, we haven't drilled there yet, so obviously it would be destroyed if we did so now." Not a good reason. At all.
Well we can see Post #16: Bush is going to rape the Artic wilderness!
Then we move to Post #151: Bush can't possibly rape the Artic wilderness.
So, yeah, based on his incredible consistancy, I'd say troll is more than likely. Of course, it's also possible that he's a complete nut and can't remember to check his stance on anything before posting.
Besides, I've yet to hear one good argument against drilling in ANWR or whatever. Other than "but it's wilderness!"
Speaking just for the New England area (ironically enough...), most gas stations have three to four types of gas: almost every station have three types of unleaded fuel (varying octane mostly, but some (Mobil at least) add deteregents in "higher grade" fuel - usually the steps are something like 86, 88, and 92 octane, but they vary), and some (most?) stations also carry a couple diesel pumps.
From what I can tell, the diesel pumps in the US are mainly supported by the trucking industry, as most trucks are powered by diesel engines. Meaning the if you need diesel you better be along a major shipping route, or else the chances of finding a diesel pump are slim. Other than that, the various other forms of fuel are mainly to try and trick people into buying a more expensive fuel. It's a known marketing trick that if you provide three choices, each of which is progressively more expensive, most people will choose the second. In most cars, the cheapest gas will work, but the other "grades" are sold as being better because of various additives. (Although the car I drive ends up requiring the middle grade gasoline - the engine runs poorly on anything lower.)
However, the catch here is that many stations are moving to pumps with just one nozzle - the various octane gases all are pumped via the same nozzle, and since they're really very similar, any residue is insignifigant - meaning that realisticly, the most gas stations might as well have just two types of gas - unleaded and diesel.
Based on experience, I expect this remains true for most gas stations throughout the states, but not having really traveled farther than New England (and never being of age to care about gas on those times) I can't really give an authoritive answer.
You've missed the point, though, in that what really matters is the Out of Box Experience, as many users never get beyond that.
First of all, the fact that Smart Tags can be toggled by the user does nothing to help me since most users will never toggle them or even look for the setting. If they're on by default, they'll stay on. If they're off by default, they'll stay off. I doubt that Microsoft really will leave a new feature disabled from the start, it doesn't seem like them.
Secondly, I'm not sure of how many users would download COM objects, but then again, I've never actually tried to find out what an average user thinks of the "Run Content By XXX" security box. (Also keep in mind that it costs a fair chunk of change to sign an ActiveX control.) I also have to wonder how many users will either personally disable downloading ActiveX controls or have their "smarter computer friend" do it for them thanks to the various security flaws in the ActiveX model.
Embedded XML in my webpage. Lovely, that'll really make the W3C HTML Validator happy. So I suppose now my choice is "write correct HTML" or "write for Smart Tags" - of course, customizing Smart Tags isn't something I'm likely to do manually anyway. (Especially since I'm not planning on "upgrading" to XP any time soon.) Plus I have to wonder how thirdpartybrowsers will handle embedded XML...
Smart Tags are controlled by Microsoft - and whichever OEM sold the computer. What, you really think that your average user is going to go out of their way to download new Smart Tags? Unless it's transparent, they'll be stuck with the defaults.
DLLs? DLLs?!? You have to be kidding me. Smart Tags are actually full blooded computer code!?! Oh, I just can't wait for the first "Smart Tag" virus to come out. Unless the download isn't transparent (see above). (And don't forget, MS has a pretty poor record of implementing security checks properly - I really have to hope that all the OEMs are smart enough to preconfigure boxes so that new users are running as normal Users. Can you imagine a host of newbies running as Administrator? *Shudder* - Wait - how do we explain to them that they can't install WinAMP anymore? *Shudder*)
What the hell do the default set do exactly, then? From what I saw, Smart Tags creates a little menu of options for each instance of some word that they find (or is it more complicated than that? Really don't have the time or inclanation to find out). Still sounds like MS will be controlling web content... even if I can develop my own Smart Tags I highly doubt that I can effectively get users to download them...
You've managed to inadvertantly hit onto something that really annoys me - the idea that if a programmer isn't writing code, he's not being productive.
and if they're getting it done in half the time, then spending the other half browsing porn and napstering, I'll want a goddamn good explanation
Well, I wouldn't be browsing porn or napstering, but I often read Slashdot after coding for a while. Why? What am I doing, reading Slashdot instead of working?!?... Well, I'm trying to solve a problem. I've looked at the problem from one angle for long enough and now it's time to move on. It's not at all abnormal for me to come up with a solution to something after I've stopped actively working on it for a while.
In fact, generally speaking, if I were forced to be actively working on something every minute of an eight-hour day, my productivity would fall sharply. Many times I've spent an hour working on something, than left to do something else, and come back and looking at it fresh realized that instead of starting the variable with a "t" I meant to start it with an "r" - a stupid typo just wasted an hour of my time.
The bottom line is that computer programmers and network admins probably won't spend their entire day "working" - however, even when they're doing other "worthless" activities, their subconcious is still attacking something from earlier in the day, and when the programmer gets back to the task, they'll be far more productive than if forced to just pump out code all day.
Hey, TummyX, that squiggly purple link in your post isn't working. You know, the one that pops up with the little i icon when you move the cursor over it? When I click on the popup icon, my browser tells me that the "Page cannot be displayed." Can you fix that please?
--
Never underestimate the ability for a user to misunderstand what's going on. Many users are now used to links looking stange and doing unusual things thanks to CSS and JavaScript. Just because they don't look and work like a normal link doesn't mean the user will realize that it isn't a normal link. For all they now, you added these special squiggly purple links (SmartTag links look like Word's "misspelled word" underline, except that they are a shade of purple, for those tuning in late) in your page were made by you, and you went through some trouble to create the popup. I'll bet I could make a link look like a SmartTag via CSS and JavaScript if only I knew exactly how the system works looks and feels... there's no reason to expect that a normal user will not to mistakenly think that the purple links are links that you added to differentiate from normal links yourself.
After all, it's your document - obviously you crafted all it's content... unless average users are educated as to exactly what SmartTags are, they'll learn to use them just like normal hyperlinks - most users will simply take previous knowledge and apply it to the new scenario - blaming you for any problems.
On a side note, have you ever hit the "what's related" button on IE? I just did on the slashdot page and not one of the links went to a Microsoft site.
I just did it, and noticed that the results looked... familiar. So I then went to Mozilla, and popped up What's Related on the Sidebar on this page as well. Identical. On a lark, I reenabled What's Related on NS4.7, and did the same. Identical, minus the pretty formatting.
Anyway, the Smart Tags service probably will be controlled mainly by Microsoft for the main reason that most users never download updates and it's highly unlikely users will bother updating their Smart Tags with other sites information...
Besides, if MS made the word Linux go to their "Linux myth" page, do you think any users would ever download the Slashdot updated tags? And even if they did, would the MS version preempt third party SmartTags?
There are many ways that MS could use this to their advantage, and MS in the past has shown that they are quite likely to do just that.
"Don't spam everyone I know with e-mail virii" check box in Outlook
I hope this feature works better than that... according to this article, should Outlook 2002 detect a virus trying to send mail, it'll ask the user if they want to allow the message to be sent. If they say no, then it will... ask them again. And again. And again. Until they say yes...
Keep in mind for those who don't read the article that the guy clicked "no" enough times so that the virus on his machine would have had to have sent three messages to each address book entry... then he unplugged the machine from the 'Net and hit "yes"...
I started reading the article, but I had to stop and chuckle upon reading this:
Why, I asked, would you feel the need to hide those? Because, my friend explained, they had swear words in them. I pointed out that the worst thing his cousin was likely to see in "Entertainment Weekly" was, as it's so delicately printed in that magazine, "f _ _ _[sic!]," something the boy had certainly already heard in the schoolyard.
The article is talking about anti-censorship, and what do they do? They censor themselves! Seems a bit hypocritical. "Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying the F-word. No one should be afraid to say F---. It should be my right to say f***." It just seems ironic that Salon isn't willing to print "fuck" in an article decrying people censoring "fuck."
I think you missed the point behind making portscanning illegal. By making it illegal to portscan others computers (notice that if you actually read the article it doesn't prevent you from portscanning yourself, go wild! - it compares a server with your own home, you're more than welcome to twist every doorknob and try and open all the windows on your own house), then when your server is under a portscan it gives you the ability to launch an investigation as to the cause.
By saying that others are not allowed to portscan your machine, when you detect a portscan yourself, you are allowed to call in the authorities to try and track down the portscanner. You can take preemptive measure against someone who is trying to break into your system thanks to the portscan.
Not that I'm suggesting that the authorities will be any more effective now than before, but if portscanning others machines is made illegal, that actually gives you the sysadmin additional tools, not fewer. (Well, in the case of the FBI and their effectiveness against crackers, it's not a very useful tool, but, well, it's something...)
Also, at least in the case of Survivor (Is Robinson a rebranding of Survivor? Or is it the European/Swedish equivilent?), the contestents were at the very least told what was going on and the rules were explained to them and kept consistant. In this show, the rules were constantly changed on the poor sucker and he didn't know upfront what was going to happen to him.
'Course, in the US, anyone who went through what he did would probably have sued the producers in the end...
Unfortunately, the link you gave won't work since it uses the Referer: header to determine where the comments came from. Or at least, it did for me - the page claims this will be "fixed soon," so if it works for you, they've fixed it!
Until then, either set your HTTP client to send Referer:http://oreilly.com/news/mundie_0601. html or simply go here first (the originating page) and follow the link that reads "Post your questions to Craig Mundie here, or read what others have to say!" that's on the very bottom of the page.
A while ago there was a program which allowed users [emphasis mine] to add commentary...
Now, there is a program that allows Microsoft to add commentary (if you accept that the redirected page is "commentary"). If the Smart Tags thing pulled tags from DMOZ that were created by users I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. People have a very large problem with the new links being controlled by Microsoft.
There's a big difference between a community adding stuff that one would hope they believe are interesting to others (eg, Slashdot users and comments) and a large company adding information that can almost guaranteed be slanted towards themselves. That's the reason people have issues with this.
It should be noted that while third parties can add links, it's highly unlikely that the average user would ever bother grabbing these new links, so it's highly likely that most users wind up with the default Microsoft links.
While the original poster may have said "filename," I'm sick of getting MP3s that don't have that information in the ID3 field. That's what it's there for. Use it! All my ripped MP3s filenames follow the format [Disk #]-[Track #] - Track name.mp3 or [Track #] - Track name.mp3 if not a multi-disk set. But the ID3 fields are filled out so the extra information (like artist and album) not in the filename is present.
What the hell are you talking about? I went to developer.netscape.com and read up on what THEY said would work, tested the page is NS4, then in Mozilla. And it didn't work, at all, in Mozilla. So I decided they must have realized that their NS4 DOM sucked and tried using the IE code. And it didn't work. So then I went to mozilla.org and tried to look up any JS documentation. It didn't exist. Then I tried various other guesses as to what they might have changed the DOM to... and it didn't work.
Keep in mind that it was always failing to find any object off the "document" object. "document.toplevel" - no. "document.tags.toplevel" -no. "document.all.toplevel" - no. So after determining that Moz had changed the DOM but didn't want to inform anyone, I gave up. It wasn't worth the effort.
And since when am I a Netscape sympathizer? I use IE regularly and can't wait until my NS hits go to 0 because then I won't have to support the damned thing anymore.
Gore won in the four most populous states, as well as maybe 10 other states.
He lost in his home state, making him either the first or the second to do so - I can't remember.
Assuming he won in 15 states, that means that he lost in 35 states. 35 > 15, meaning that most of the country didn't elect him. Maybe the largest cities elected him, but just because the most people are there doesn't mean we should only do what they do. Unless you want to always be like California.
Gore was a proponent of this system anyway. He was hoping to win because of it. It didn't work that way. He lost because of it - the very system he was formerly quoted as supporting. (And, to maintain continuity, still claims to support.)
Ever look at a map of the election results? If you count land mass, then maybe 70% of the US voted for Bush.
So according to the law that both canidates accepted and supported, Gore lost. He lost fairly. And I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to spin it any other way.
GET OVER IT - Bush won many more states than Gore. It's that simple. Accept it and get on with your life - and don't try and use any BS spin - if Gore won after losing the popular election, you'd be saying how that's the way a "civilized" nation should work.
Ah, but besides the broken Mozilla rendering (what, actually pay attention to the ALIGN attribute?) they've horribly, hideously, completely broken their DOM model. So the page that renders under NS4 WON'T under ANY conditions render under Mozilla because the JavaScript backing can't set up the layers right anymore.
The slight differences in IE5's DOM and NS4's DOM are easy to work around, the completely broken NS6 JS implementation is just annoying.
And after fighting with Mozilla for three hours over whether or not ALIGN="right" meant to move the images in the table cell over to the right or not, I finally have up and just redirected all Mozilla hits to microsoft.com.
The page works fine in NS4 though...
PS: The page (would) validate with the W3C validator, minus their pissy "ALT tag everything" and "TABLE requires SUMMARY" crap. That and they're upset that SCRIPT has LANGUAGE and not TYPE, and that my STYLE left out TYPE as well. Well fooey on them.
Thanks, G. W. (Our first unelected president since Gerald Ford.)
I am getting really sick and tired of this. Now, repeat after me:
GEORGE W. BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION.
OK, go that? He won the election. After every vote in Florida was counted, George W. Bush won the election. Fair and square. He won it by a clear margin.
Don't believe me? Well, hopefully you'll believe CNN. Check out this story about the recount which explains that had the recount been allowed to take place, the results would have been different - Bush would have won by 1,665 votes instead of the original 537 as orignally counted.
So he won the election - fairly. Now can we please, please,please,please, never bring this up ever, ever again?
95%? That many? Wow - my web stats show that the only Netscape connections ever have been from 127.0.0.1... ignoring that, 100% of all connections have been from some form of IE.
--
Re:There have been other image editors on the Mac
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
Are you serious? I highly doubt it, as almost ever color printer in the world uses CMYK (and if it doesn't do CMYK, then usually it leaves out the blacK and just overlays CMY over to create black - which usually comes out a murky brown). I'd assume that most printer drivers therefore have a RGB->CMYK conversion, since most printers run under Windows and the Windows GDI uses RGB. (Either that or the WinGDI transforms RGB to CMYK for them.)
Besides that, I have to wonder why my copy of the GIMP includes a function under [context menu]-> Image -> Mode -> Decompose... called "CMYK" that creates individual images corresponding to each channel...
Except that such a scheme limits your crypto text to around 200 bytes - less, when you realize it has to be uuencoded or use a similar scheme.
The maximum length of a URL is something like 255 characters - which is why Slash has to use POST for submitting comments and stories - most posts wouldn't fit in the size a GET request allows.
What you could do instead would be something like:
In a way, though, it seems that patents do indeed encourage research...
After all, would PNG exist if Unisys hadn't tried to kill GIF? Would the zlib compress algorithm be developed if it weren't for software patents on other alogrithms? (From RFC #1951, "The format can be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents," and, later, in the purpose section "The purpose of this specification is to define a lossless compressed data format that... [c]an be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents, and hence can be practiced freely[.]" And Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to create a audio codec not covered by the... um, Fraven.. Frahuen... uh, the F whatever Institute's patents.
So it would seem that these patents do encourage innovation... to get around them!
To expand on what this AC said, I think that the original poster also has to remember that an interviewer isn't just asking questions that they want answered, they're asking questions that the audience will want answered.
Not having been able to listen to the show (it was on at 11pm EDT here in the Boston area, and I need my sleep), I really speak from experience - but based on the original post, the interviewer was trying to allow Torvalds to explain what he was doing in his own words. Some listeners most likely would want to know the answer to the question "why didn't you sell it?" as they truly don't understand the ideals behind Open Source.
The interviewer is asking questions for the listeners - not for herself. When interviewing a person about anything, an interviewer should rarely assume the audience understands the topic and should try and get the interviewee to explain the topic, so that the listeners know that what they're hearing is the actual answer from the interviewee, as opposed to some summary that the interviewer came up with.
Part of the driver is a binary-only kernel module. (Sorta - there's a source interface so you can link it with the proper kernel symbols.) Without the special allowance put into the Linux license, it becomes illegal to include the binary-only kernel module into the Linux kernel, thanks to the GPL. Until the exception to the GPL for binary-only kernel modules was made (or until they were made aware of it) they were unable to release the binary drivers.
And I've actually given up playing Unreal under Linux - even making an account where the.xinitrc file (I think, can't remember, can't check - damn Active Server Page development) contained only the ut command, I still only get around 45 minutes of play on a 256MB system before it swaps like mad.
Slashdot Mirror
Which seems to fit Bush quite nicely, somehowishly...
--
Guess what - your house used to be on wilderness. Guess it's time to wreck the cities and let the wilderness come back... tear up the highways, forget about any progress, because, after all, they're PREVENTING WILDERNESS.
Please. Either demonstrate that drilling in Alaska will cause irreperable harm using actual facts or just shut up. I don't wanna hear "we have to conserve because we must." There's no reason in there. It's just "well, we haven't drilled there yet, so obviously it would be destroyed if we did so now." Not a good reason. At all.
--
Then we move to Post #151: Bush can't possibly rape the Artic wilderness.
So, yeah, based on his incredible consistancy, I'd say troll is more than likely. Of course, it's also possible that he's a complete nut and can't remember to check his stance on anything before posting.
Besides, I've yet to hear one good argument against drilling in ANWR or whatever. Other than "but it's wilderness!"
--
From what I can tell, the diesel pumps in the US are mainly supported by the trucking industry, as most trucks are powered by diesel engines. Meaning the if you need diesel you better be along a major shipping route, or else the chances of finding a diesel pump are slim. Other than that, the various other forms of fuel are mainly to try and trick people into buying a more expensive fuel. It's a known marketing trick that if you provide three choices, each of which is progressively more expensive, most people will choose the second. In most cars, the cheapest gas will work, but the other "grades" are sold as being better because of various additives. (Although the car I drive ends up requiring the middle grade gasoline - the engine runs poorly on anything lower.)
However, the catch here is that many stations are moving to pumps with just one nozzle - the various octane gases all are pumped via the same nozzle, and since they're really very similar, any residue is insignifigant - meaning that realisticly, the most gas stations might as well have just two types of gas - unleaded and diesel.
Based on experience, I expect this remains true for most gas stations throughout the states, but not having really traveled farther than New England (and never being of age to care about gas on those times) I can't really give an authoritive answer.
--
--
and if they're getting it done in half the time, then spending the other half browsing porn and napstering, I'll want a goddamn good explanation
Well, I wouldn't be browsing porn or napstering, but I often read Slashdot after coding for a while. Why? What am I doing, reading Slashdot instead of working?!? ... Well, I'm trying to solve a problem. I've looked at the problem from one angle for long enough and now it's time to move on. It's not at all abnormal for me to come up with a solution to something after I've stopped actively working on it for a while.
In fact, generally speaking, if I were forced to be actively working on something every minute of an eight-hour day, my productivity would fall sharply. Many times I've spent an hour working on something, than left to do something else, and come back and looking at it fresh realized that instead of starting the variable with a "t" I meant to start it with an "r" - a stupid typo just wasted an hour of my time.
The bottom line is that computer programmers and network admins probably won't spend their entire day "working" - however, even when they're doing other "worthless" activities, their subconcious is still attacking something from earlier in the day, and when the programmer gets back to the task, they'll be far more productive than if forced to just pump out code all day.
--
--
Never underestimate the ability for a user to misunderstand what's going on. Many users are now used to links looking stange and doing unusual things thanks to CSS and JavaScript. Just because they don't look and work like a normal link doesn't mean the user will realize that it isn't a normal link. For all they now, you added these special squiggly purple links (SmartTag links look like Word's "misspelled word" underline, except that they are a shade of purple, for those tuning in late) in your page were made by you, and you went through some trouble to create the popup. I'll bet I could make a link look like a SmartTag via CSS and JavaScript if only I knew exactly how the system works looks and feels... there's no reason to expect that a normal user will not to mistakenly think that the purple links are links that you added to differentiate from normal links yourself.
After all, it's your document - obviously you crafted all it's content... unless average users are educated as to exactly what SmartTags are, they'll learn to use them just like normal hyperlinks - most users will simply take previous knowledge and apply it to the new scenario - blaming you for any problems.
--
I just did it, and noticed that the results looked... familiar. So I then went to Mozilla, and popped up What's Related on the Sidebar on this page as well. Identical. On a lark, I reenabled What's Related on NS4.7, and did the same. Identical, minus the pretty formatting.
So it would appear that the What's Related information is actually a third-party service; in this case, it winds up being done by some company called Alexa that apparently just settled a class action lawsuit... (has to do with the fact that the What's Related database is apparently created by tracking users across multiple websites...)
Anyway, the Smart Tags service probably will be controlled mainly by Microsoft for the main reason that most users never download updates and it's highly unlikely users will bother updating their Smart Tags with other sites information...
Besides, if MS made the word Linux go to their "Linux myth" page, do you think any users would ever download the Slashdot updated tags? And even if they did, would the MS version preempt third party SmartTags?
There are many ways that MS could use this to their advantage, and MS in the past has shown that they are quite likely to do just that.
--
I hope this feature works better than that... according to this article, should Outlook 2002 detect a virus trying to send mail, it'll ask the user if they want to allow the message to be sent. If they say no, then it will... ask them again. And again. And again. Until they say yes...
Keep in mind for those who don't read the article that the guy clicked "no" enough times so that the virus on his machine would have had to have sent three messages to each address book entry... then he unplugged the machine from the 'Net and hit "yes"...
--
The article is talking about anti-censorship, and what do they do? They censor themselves! Seems a bit hypocritical. "Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying the F-word. No one should be afraid to say F---. It should be my right to say f***." It just seems ironic that Salon isn't willing to print "fuck" in an article decrying people censoring "fuck."
--
By saying that others are not allowed to portscan your machine, when you detect a portscan yourself, you are allowed to call in the authorities to try and track down the portscanner. You can take preemptive measure against someone who is trying to break into your system thanks to the portscan.
Not that I'm suggesting that the authorities will be any more effective now than before, but if portscanning others machines is made illegal, that actually gives you the sysadmin additional tools, not fewer. (Well, in the case of the FBI and their effectiveness against crackers, it's not a very useful tool, but, well, it's something...)
--
'Course, in the US, anyone who went through what he did would probably have sued the producers in the end...
--
Until then, either set your HTTP client to send Referer:http://oreilly.com/news/mundie_0601. html or simply go here first (the originating page) and follow the link that reads "Post your questions to Craig Mundie here, or read what others have to say!" that's on the very bottom of the page.
--
A while ago there was a program which allowed users [emphasis mine] to add commentary...
Now, there is a program that allows Microsoft to add commentary (if you accept that the redirected page is "commentary"). If the Smart Tags thing pulled tags from DMOZ that were created by users I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. People have a very large problem with the new links being controlled by Microsoft.
There's a big difference between a community adding stuff that one would hope they believe are interesting to others (eg, Slashdot users and comments) and a large company adding information that can almost guaranteed be slanted towards themselves. That's the reason people have issues with this.
It should be noted that while third parties can add links, it's highly unlikely that the average user would ever bother grabbing these new links, so it's highly likely that most users wind up with the default Microsoft links.
--
[Disk #]-[Track #] - Track name.mp3
or
[Track #] - Track name.mp3
if not a multi-disk set. But the ID3 fields are filled out so the extra information (like artist and album) not in the filename is present.
--
Keep in mind that it was always failing to find any object off the "document" object. "document.toplevel" - no. "document.tags.toplevel" -no. "document.all.toplevel" - no. So after determining that Moz had changed the DOM but didn't want to inform anyone, I gave up. It wasn't worth the effort.
And since when am I a Netscape sympathizer? I use IE regularly and can't wait until my NS hits go to 0 because then I won't have to support the damned thing anymore.
--
He lost in his home state, making him either the first or the second to do so - I can't remember.
Assuming he won in 15 states, that means that he lost in 35 states. 35 > 15, meaning that most of the country didn't elect him. Maybe the largest cities elected him, but just because the most people are there doesn't mean we should only do what they do. Unless you want to always be like California.
Gore was a proponent of this system anyway. He was hoping to win because of it. It didn't work that way. He lost because of it - the very system he was formerly quoted as supporting. (And, to maintain continuity, still claims to support.)
Ever look at a map of the election results? If you count land mass, then maybe 70% of the US voted for Bush.
So according to the law that both canidates accepted and supported, Gore lost. He lost fairly. And I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to spin it any other way.
GET OVER IT - Bush won many more states than Gore. It's that simple. Accept it and get on with your life - and don't try and use any BS spin - if Gore won after losing the popular election, you'd be saying how that's the way a "civilized" nation should work.
--
The slight differences in IE5's DOM and NS4's DOM are easy to work around, the completely broken NS6 JS implementation is just annoying.
And after fighting with Mozilla for three hours over whether or not ALIGN="right" meant to move the images in the table cell over to the right or not, I finally have up and just redirected all Mozilla hits to microsoft.com.
The page works fine in NS4 though...
PS: The page (would) validate with the W3C validator, minus their pissy "ALT tag everything" and "TABLE requires SUMMARY" crap. That and they're upset that SCRIPT has LANGUAGE and not TYPE, and that my STYLE left out TYPE as well. Well fooey on them.
--
I am getting really sick and tired of this. Now, repeat after me:
GEORGE W. BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION.
OK, go that? He won the election. After every vote in Florida was counted, George W. Bush won the election. Fair and square. He won it by a clear margin.
Don't believe me? Well, hopefully you'll believe CNN. Check out this story about the recount which explains that had the recount been allowed to take place, the results would have been different - Bush would have won by 1,665 votes instead of the original 537 as orignally counted.
So he won the election - fairly. Now can we please, please, please, please, never bring this up ever, ever again?
--
--
Besides that, I have to wonder why my copy of the GIMP includes a function under [context menu]-> Image -> Mode -> Decompose... called "CMYK" that creates individual images corresponding to each channel...
I guess IHBT.
The maximum length of a URL is something like 255 characters - which is why Slash has to use POST for submitting comments and stories - most posts wouldn't fit in the size a GET request allows.
What you could do instead would be something like:
<form method="POST" action="https://web-based.decoder">
<input type="hidden" name="crypto" value="[crypto text]">
<input type="submit" value="Decrypt Message">
</form>
Although this still runs into the trust issues raised by other posters. And it's a wee more complicated.
After all, would PNG exist if Unisys hadn't tried to kill GIF? Would the zlib compress algorithm be developed if it weren't for software patents on other alogrithms? (From RFC #1951, "The format can be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents," and, later, in the purpose section "The purpose of this specification is to define a lossless compressed data format that ... [c]an be implemented readily in a manner not covered by patents, and hence can be practiced freely[.]" And Ogg Vorbis is an attempt to create a audio codec not covered by the ... um, Fraven.. Frahuen... uh, the F whatever Institute's patents.
So it would seem that these patents do encourage innovation... to get around them!
Not having been able to listen to the show (it was on at 11pm EDT here in the Boston area, and I need my sleep), I really speak from experience - but based on the original post, the interviewer was trying to allow Torvalds to explain what he was doing in his own words. Some listeners most likely would want to know the answer to the question "why didn't you sell it?" as they truly don't understand the ideals behind Open Source.
The interviewer is asking questions for the listeners - not for herself. When interviewing a person about anything, an interviewer should rarely assume the audience understands the topic and should try and get the interviewee to explain the topic, so that the listeners know that what they're hearing is the actual answer from the interviewee, as opposed to some summary that the interviewer came up with.
And I've actually given up playing Unreal under Linux - even making an account where the .xinitrc file (I think, can't remember, can't check - damn Active Server Page development) contained only the ut command, I still only get around 45 minutes of play on a 256MB system before it swaps like mad.
Quake III works like a dream though...