Protect your rights how? Do you plan to shoot anybody who tries to enforce a law you don't like? Going the David Koresh route seems a little extreme just to protect your TiVo.
Yes, most people don't care — but they should. One thing that's happening with Vista is a total redesign of file and registry access on a "sandbox" model. This is supposed to make life harder for malware authors. That's not a trivial thing, given that many computers out there have thousands of spyware apps running. One possible reason for these repeated delays is the need to tweak these new features so that they don't break a lot of existing apps.
And a lot of Slashdotters care, because a lot of us work for software companies whose products have to run on Vista.
If you're going to tout Java as a concurrent programming platform, the
books you should link to should be about Java. Such as:
Concurrent Programming in Java: Design Principles and Pattern
(2nd Edition), by Doug Lea.
Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz, Tim
Peierls, Joshua Bloch, Joseph Bowbeer, David Holmes, and Doug Lea.
Effective Java Programming Language Guide, by Joshua
Bloch. Though this is a general programming guide, its chapter on
Threads contains essential "best practices" for concurrent
programming.
Concurrency: State Models & Java Programs (2nd
Edition), by Jeff Magee & Jeff Kramer.
I would also call attention the impending Fourth Edition of the Java
Tutorial, which is supposed to be in print at the same time as the
general release of Java 6 (Mustang), and will be available on the web
slightly before. Its chapter on Concurrency is not nearly as thorough
or authoritative as the above books, but it has a certain
accessibility. Besides, it was written by (ahem) me.
You should also note that your complaints about the limitations of
Java concurrency are addressed in JSR 166, which has
been part of the Java platform since 5.0. This defines a new package
with many nifty features. There's excellent coverage in this
JavaOne talk.
Airplane! parodied all the disaster movies of the time
— the first scene is a reference to Jaws! That's why I
give them credit for destroying the genre.
And not just disaster movies, but every movie cliche they could work
in. There's even a parting-at-the-train-station scene on the damned
runway!
(The same guys made a similarly bizarre movie called Top
Secret! which I though was even funnier than Airplane! But
I seem to be the only person who thinks so — people stayed away
in droves, and you never hear about it any more.)
I heard an interview with one of the directors of Airplane!,
where he talked about how the movie happened. It seems they had left a
VCR recording all night, hoping to pick up low-budget commercials to
parody in their Kentucky Fried Theater skits. In the process, they
picked up Zero Hour, and were taken with its unintentional
humor. They immediately bought the rights to the movie, and borrowed
heavily from it. But as I said before, the studio lawyers decided that
for legal purposes, Airplane! had to be an "original".
Literally, yes Airplane! is a remake of Zero Hour. (I find it particularly amusing that the famous line, "... somebody who can not only fly this plane, but didn't have fish for dinner!" was lifted unchanged out of Zero Hour.) But legally, no. Despite what it says in IMDB, Zero Hour does not appear in the credits for Airplane! — the studio lawyers vetoed it for some reason. So officially, Airplane! is an original movie, despite its origins.
In any case. that's one more reason not to remake Airplane!. If a remake of Zero Hour is Airplane!, than a remake of Airplane! could only be another Zero Hour.
We didn't get a Poseidon remake — we got a second remake less than a year after the first remake. Isn't that illegal?
What's desperately needed now is an equivalent (not a remake, please!) of Airplane! Aside from being so funny it was dangerous to watch without an asthma inhaler, Airplane! thorough skewered the 70s fad for disaster movies. Which probably had a lot to do with there not being a sequel to the The Swarm, a second sequel to Poseidon Adventure, or a fourth sequel to Airport. For that last one alone, the directors of Airplane! deserve some kind of recognition for their service to humanity!
I decided once to go for an A+ certification. Figured it would be a snap, since I've been fiddling with computers since forever. But studying for it meant memorizing stuff like the stages of a laser printer print cycle (cleaning, conditioning, writing, transferring, fusing) and I soon used up my brain's capacity for meaningless crap. Oh well...
In fact, most people haven't got a clue what the difference is between the Web and the Internet. (Had to explain it to my psychiatrist once, the only time he's ever asked me a technical question.) But Slashdot editors are not "most people", and presumably know better. I guess this proves once and for all that they never actually read stuff before posting it.
So when is Fox going to get with it? There seems to be a hill or something between me and the local Fox station, and I'm not going to get cable just to watch the Simpsons.
I know, but I don't like blocking them, there are places which use them properly.
Then use a blocker that lets you enable them for non-obnoxious sites. The blocker that's built into Firefox tells you when it's blocking, and gives you the option of adding the current site to a whitelist.
Typosquatters aren't the only sites that go crazy with popups. The best way to avoid them is a popup blocker, though many sites are getting good at circumventing blockers.
One feature I often wish for is a script disabler with an automatic whitelist. The first time you visited a site that used scripts, it would ask you if you wanted to let the site run scripts, and only add the site to the whitelist if you said "yes". That would effectively prevent most popups.
Actually, nowadays Pixar and the animation division of Disney are pretty much the same thing. In any case, they didn't need to kill off CR in order to make their adaptations of WtP evil. I'm old enough to remember when they first got their mitts on this "franchise" and I only needed a couple of TV commercials to know that I'd hate it for corning up the books. I've carefully avoided the Disney version of WtP ever since.
Back to Pixar: I've only seen one of their movies, A Bug's Life. It wasn't bad, but it totally used up my capacity for cutsy 3D animated talking animals — and that's all Pixar seems to do.
So instead of just sending me to the page, the browser will compute the IP number, then check it against a blacklist. I guess that would work, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble — it's not that hard to recognize a typosquatter! Also, blacklists are too easily abused, as the anti-spam crusaders have thoroughly demonstrated.
You remind me of a conclusion that I came to a long time ago: no movie with a title that's also a popular song will ever be worth sitting through. Of course, it's possible that such movies cater to a different audience than me.
That's too true to be funny. It really bothers me that Disney tries to infiltrate its characters everywhere and anywhere — but not as much as the fact that people seem to welcome that infiltration. In the process, everything gets blanded to death.
Like many office buildings, the one in which I work gives its conference rooms names with a common theme. In this particular building, the theme is Disneyland Attractions, and the biggest conference room is name "Mickey's Toontown." Now, when Gary Wolf invented Toontown in his fantasy-noir Who Censored Roger Rabitt?, it was a nasty slum where the despised "toons" lived. Once Disney got ahold of it, Toontown got rebranded as a corny, soulless, and meaningless place.
I didn't actually care for Wolf's book, but I'm still depressed every time I walk past that conference room at another reminder of Disney's ability to suck the life out of everything they touch.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that wasn't a slip of the keyboard. I did indeed mean on one computer.
Protect your rights how? Do you plan to shoot anybody who tries to enforce a law you don't like? Going the David Koresh route seems a little extreme just to protect your TiVo.
And a lot of Slashdotters care, because a lot of us work for software companies whose products have to run on Vista.
It's easier to confiscate electronics than firearms. Well, less risky, anyway.
- Concurrent Programming in Java: Design Principles and Pattern
(2nd Edition), by Doug Lea.
- Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz, Tim
Peierls, Joshua Bloch, Joseph Bowbeer, David Holmes, and Doug Lea.
- Effective Java Programming Language Guide, by Joshua
Bloch. Though this is a general programming guide, its chapter on
Threads contains essential "best practices" for concurrent
programming.
- Concurrency: State Models & Java Programs (2nd
Edition), by Jeff Magee & Jeff Kramer.
I would also call attention the impending Fourth Edition of the Java Tutorial, which is supposed to be in print at the same time as the general release of Java 6 (Mustang), and will be available on the web slightly before. Its chapter on Concurrency is not nearly as thorough or authoritative as the above books, but it has a certain accessibility. Besides, it was written by (ahem) me.You should also note that your complaints about the limitations of Java concurrency are addressed in JSR 166, which has been part of the Java platform since 5.0. This defines a new package with many nifty features. There's excellent coverage in this JavaOne talk.
I guess you don't know the difference between a sequel and a remake.
And not just disaster movies, but every movie cliche they could work in. There's even a parting-at-the-train-station scene on the damned runway!
(The same guys made a similarly bizarre movie called Top Secret! which I though was even funnier than Airplane! But I seem to be the only person who thinks so — people stayed away in droves, and you never hear about it any more.)
I heard an interview with one of the directors of Airplane!, where he talked about how the movie happened. It seems they had left a VCR recording all night, hoping to pick up low-budget commercials to parody in their Kentucky Fried Theater skits. In the process, they picked up Zero Hour, and were taken with its unintentional humor. They immediately bought the rights to the movie, and borrowed heavily from it. But as I said before, the studio lawyers decided that for legal purposes, Airplane! had to be an "original".
That would only be true if Scary Movie were actually funny.
In any case. that's one more reason not to remake Airplane!. If a remake of Zero Hour is Airplane!, than a remake of Airplane! could only be another Zero Hour.
What's desperately needed now is an equivalent (not a remake, please!) of Airplane! Aside from being so funny it was dangerous to watch without an asthma inhaler, Airplane! thorough skewered the 70s fad for disaster movies. Which probably had a lot to do with there not being a sequel to the The Swarm, a second sequel to Poseidon Adventure, or a fourth sequel to Airport. For that last one alone, the directors of Airplane! deserve some kind of recognition for their service to humanity!
I decided once to go for an A+ certification. Figured it would be a snap, since I've been fiddling with computers since forever. But studying for it meant memorizing stuff like the stages of a laser printer print cycle (cleaning, conditioning, writing, transferring, fusing) and I soon used up my brain's capacity for meaningless crap. Oh well...
In fact, most people haven't got a clue what the difference is between the Web and the Internet. (Had to explain it to my psychiatrist once, the only time he's ever asked me a technical question.) But Slashdot editors are not "most people", and presumably know better. I guess this proves once and for all that they never actually read stuff before posting it.
Let's see, there's a site I visit a lot, and I can't seem to ever type the address correctly. There must be a solution. Oh wait....
So when is Fox going to get with it? There seems to be a hill or something between me and the local Fox station, and I'm not going to get cable just to watch the Simpsons.
One feature I often wish for is a script disabler with an automatic whitelist. The first time you visited a site that used scripts, it would ask you if you wanted to let the site run scripts, and only add the site to the whitelist if you said "yes". That would effectively prevent most popups.
You seem to think the primary purpose of software is to be used. Wrong! The primary purpose of software is to be played with.
Back to Pixar: I've only seen one of their movies, A Bug's Life. It wasn't bad, but it totally used up my capacity for cutsy 3D animated talking animals — and that's all Pixar seems to do.
Rickets used to be very common before they started adding vitamin D to milk. My father had ribs that didn't quite line up because of a childhood case.
So instead of just sending me to the page, the browser will compute the IP number, then check it against a blacklist. I guess that would work, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble — it's not that hard to recognize a typosquatter! Also, blacklists are too easily abused, as the anti-spam crusaders have thoroughly demonstrated.
But that's only logical! Is it fair that you get all the credit for his autograph?
You remind me of a conclusion that I came to a long time ago: no movie with a title that's also a popular song will ever be worth sitting through. Of course, it's possible that such movies cater to a different audience than me.
Perhaps on your side of the pond. Not on ours.
Like many office buildings, the one in which I work gives its conference rooms names with a common theme. In this particular building, the theme is Disneyland Attractions, and the biggest conference room is name "Mickey's Toontown." Now, when Gary Wolf invented Toontown in his fantasy-noir Who Censored Roger Rabitt?, it was a nasty slum where the despised "toons" lived. Once Disney got ahold of it, Toontown got rebranded as a corny, soulless, and meaningless place.
I didn't actually care for Wolf's book, but I'm still depressed every time I walk past that conference room at another reminder of Disney's ability to suck the life out of everything they touch.
How do you define "misspelled"? It may be obvious to you that "bistbuy.com" is phony, but to a browser it's just another — valid — domain name.