I didnt see a single OS/2 on any computer except for maybe IBMs computers and eventually IBM even took it off their own computers
I assume you mean Pre-loaded. Cause if you didn't, you are nuts.
So if OS/2 did bad it was because of IBM, I had wanted to get OS/2 Warp and an IBM but the cost was ridiculous
Uh, let me get this straight. From 1992 to 1995, you actively purchased computers based on what OS was preloaded on them? wow. Why didn't you just go and buy a machine with no OS loaded. I bought many during that period, and not one came with an OS.
IBM was giving away OS/2 for $29, and later for free. Cost was not what IBM did to drive OS/2 into oblivion. It was the counterproductive stupidity that was their marketing. My Favorite OS/2 Slogan found on a billboard:
"It obliterated all the software on my desktop"
What the Fsck did that mean? I don't know what marketing droid thought that one up, but it was actually used to promote OS/2. It sure doesn't sound good.
Now flame me if i am wrong, but doesn't wine work on some sort of Virtual Machine, thus adding an extra layer between the hardware and the code?
Flame On!
But sadly no. Wine ( as the acronym goes : WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR )
It is the libraries and system support that allows linux to direclty execute PE executables, and link them to libraries which have the same interface as Windows itself.
It is a layer in the sense so is QT, GLIBC, etc.. and other libraries that provide support for application services on top of the Linux Kernel.
Wine can be used to facilitate the porting of software from Windows to Linux, via WineLib. It essentially allows the one to code a windows app and compile it for linux. Not quite a perfect fit, but with a little intrepidation, you can get good results.
Another way to look at WineLib is to think of the counterexample: Cygwin. Cygwin is a set of libraries that allow *nix software to port to Windows.
WineLib and Cygwin are covered by the same benefits and limitations:
Do they feel like they are native apps?
-- not quite. Do they run pretty good?
--for the most part Could you build an application that people would use on the alternate platform, via the library?
--you bet.
Having used wine for some time, I'll tell you three things:
1. It ain't bad. It ain't the answer to your problems either, but if your app works under it reliably, you won't be dissapointed much.
2. Configuration is the key. 99.9% of resolvable issues I see on the Users' mailing list end up being resolved by a proper configuration. What is a proper configuration? Who the Fcsk knows;)
3. Perfection is not the goal, but part of the journey. Microsoft has had umpteen years, thousands of programmers, and billions of dollars to build windows, in all it's 'glory' . Comparitivly, Wine is done my a mere handful of extremely talented people, who are replicating and improving that what MS took billions to build. It won't be done today, tomorrow, or even this year, or maybe ever, but it does get better every single day.
There are several things that can vastly affect performance:
Warning: This stuff ain't for the faint of heart, nor the weak of will.
Know your machine.
What processor does it have
What type of RAM (DDR/SDRAM/RAMBUS/etc...)
How FAST is the ram rated for (PC2100,PC3000...)
What type of hard drive do you have? is it UDMA66/100/133?
What type of motherboard do you have? Does it support dual channel ddr (interleaving banks of DDR memory, gives a nifty boost to ram read speeds)
What are the settings in the BIOS set to? Do you know what that stuff means? Do you know how to agressivly set those, but keep some system stability?
In Windows, there are many many many factors which are going to affect the 'speed' of your computer.
Primarily: How much memory did your system have when it was installed. Windows tends to set certain values depending on what your system looked like when it was installed.
Secondly: What software is running. Are you running a virus scanner that checks every file as it's written. Do you think that is helping the speed of the computer? Try to limit the unneccasary software that's running. Open up the task manager. go to the performance tab. Howmany processes and threads are running. Check this versus your 'friends' computers to see how it relates. If your computer is running 450 threads over 41 processes, and his is running 200 threads over 25 processes, which one do you think is running too much crap.
Services: Processes in Windows that run, as parts of the OS, to provide 'services' to the OS. If you are running Windows XP Pro at home, there is a crapload of services running which are providing you with zero value. Find out what each service does, and determine whether it is useful to you.
This stuff is hardly rocket science, and there is no 'magic' button to press to automagically get you the best settings, you are going to have to learn what the PC is doing in order to make it work better.
Yes, swing is an ungodly pathetic excuse for a cross-platform GUI. Why has it taken Sun this long to recognize that?
SWT, in all it's glory, I would hope to be the solution. It makes Java feel like something that you'd want to code your apps in. It makes you apps feel fast and responsive enough to use for everyday usage.
Case In Point: My current client uses PVCS as their version management software. Aside from the sheer stupidity of using something that costs huge dollars, and doesn't provide near the functionality of CVS, the client app is a fucked up Java Swing App.
Now, granted it could be slower, I guess. But God help us, it ain't fast.
It also doesn't use the scroll wheel. Why? 'cause the version of Java that it is coded in didn't support it. *sigh*
The windows don't scroll like native windows. The dropdowns don't feel like native dropdowns. The keyboard accelerators are incomplete and missing.
Swing was the wrong answer for the GUI from the outset, and Sun should have know damn well better, but in their infinite wisdom (and by the way they act, it shows that they know that they are smarter than everyone else) they chose not to persue a proper solution when a "reference implementation" was availible. ( I like that about Sun--Everything of theirs that runs slow as shit, they like to call a "reference implementation" )
I'd leave the car, and come back and I'd hear the radio playing. I'd *touch* the car and it would stop.
Quite eerie.
It would only play the radio at night, when it was lonely, and only until I touched it. I even checked to make sure the radio was off, before I turned off the car.
I love Wednesdays! It's getting closer to Friday, Monday is but a memory, and the lamest slashdot articles are in!
YAY!
Seriously. Why are you afraid of people installing stuff? Oh-no. My-god.
If you want to have a client side solution, I'm sorry bud, but you are going to have to install *something*.
Now, it sounds like you also want this to be multiplatform. What?
If you were going for Windows-only, you *could* do a crapload in JScript or VBScript, via IE. It's tricky, but their ain't nothin' you can't do in a signed script. Image manipulation included.
Or, you could simply build a really kick-ass server side solution, and Web-ify the whole thing. A tad sluggish tho.
Yes, the DC power comming off the DC outlet is nasty stuff, and shouldn't be used without proper care.
But WTF are you talking about moving to AC and back to DC. Hardly the elegant solution.
When I was in high school, for *two* years we built a variety of power supplies, moving from AC->DC , DC->DC and whatnot. Not one cost more than $10. And they still wouldn't.
I realize that the kneejerk reaction in todays fast-food-slick-ass-disposable world, is to simply buy the requisite adaptors and snap it all together. Unfortunately, that costs you alot in the power transfer. Most car AC inverters can only put out less than 200 watts (tho' the guy above says 300w--apparently I don't visit enough truck stops;) ) (Mine says 140). Don't try to push them to that, as they'll kick the breaker on it often. For a continual load, I would try to keep that no higher than 75%ish of the max supported load.
So, at 200w x.75 you are now looking at about 150w. The mini-itx motherboard peaks at 50ish watts, so that's in the clear, but don't forget about the peripherals. Yada yada yada...
But I digress.
You say you are not agaist picking up a soldering iron. FANTASTIC. Go Googling(tm). Find some DC power supply schematics. Look for one that has large capacitors. Found it? good. Put more capacitors in parallel. that'll suck up the spikes.
Heck, take a trip to the public library. Considering the power supply you are looking for is so damn simple, there are tons of books on just that subject.
It's not like electricity is a magicical force without reason. You *can* build yourself a practical, safe, powersupply, and save yourself a chunk of cash. You also get supreme bragging rights with your geek friends. Now, you are no longer an parts assembler, you are a creator!
I decided against saying something terribly insightful about the "Microsoft Tax".
I *do* find it F*cking hillarious that you would buy and Apple notebook computer, and load linux onto it, and be just as happy.
OHMYGOD: Apple won't sell a laptop without an OS either. THE BASTARDS!
It's quite odd that the/. populace will ram shit and vinegar down the throats of the companies that build PC laptops because they preload Windows on them, but it seems fine and dandy to pay for a notebook from another supplier, and get the OS you don't want there either. Why?
You feel better about paying the "Apple Tax"?
Now, Merits of Mac OS X aside, if the poster wants *Linux* on the desktop, buying an iBook hardly fixes the problem, as a matter of fact, it does just encourages Apple, 'Cause no-one complains.
In an Ideal world, you could buy that notebook Windows free. Trouble is, welcome to earth. Suppliers like companies that build millions a year vs thousands a year. They get cheaper access to the components to build laptops. Even if you find a distributor that ships and OS-free laptop, the added cost for that distributor to build laptops in small quantity would drive up the price, most likely past the point of buying one with Windows included.
Buy the laptop based on what you want it to have, suck it up and chuck away the Windows or MacOS license. Or resell it on ebay.
Posted by timothy on Saturday February 15, @03:27PM from the if-you're-denser-than-dark-matter dept. An anonymous reader (really timothy) writes "According to this story seen on Slashdot this morning, any moron can get postings onto slashdot. Turns out, access to a fucking keyboard and timothy at the queue is all that is needed to bypass all (well, most) of the story submission process features in slashdot. An idiot can write up completely bland and stupid observations, and Timothy will post them. This method even allows the most moronic story to get posted on a Saturday, something which normally the staff at slashdot reserves for Tuesday."
It's not like the GPL needs to be tested in court. Niether would a court decision "make microsoft happy"
The GPL is a license to software. Plain and simple.
Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".
With the GPL permission is granted to anyone to use the software with those restrictions spelled out in the agreement. If you use the software, and do not follow the terms of the agreement, your license is null and void, and you are in violation of copyright law.
IANAL, but I did stay in a holiday in last night:
Copyrights (and patents) do not have to be vigorously protected, only trademarks do. Without vigorously protecting your trademark, it can be ruled invalid. Your copyright on a work can not be ruled invalid, if it truly is your work, and it is not simply the stating of fact (like a phonebook)
Microsoft would *not* like to see the GPL ruled invalid, because that would be a dent in all copyright law. As a matter of fact, Microsoft could make serious money off of GPL software if they so chose.
Imagine this:
Microsoft decides to throw away sourcesafe, because it blows dog chunks. Instead they grab the source for CVS and compile it up, slap a sticker on the CD, and sell it as MS CVS.
Thousands of developers would start coughing up money for this "new" product. Heck, the package could even put the GPL on the outside, and state that the source code would be included on the CD. I know for a fact a couple of companies who would by enough licenses for all their developers withou batting an eyelash. Heck, MS could even give the same support they give SourceSafe now: NONE.
Microsoft is not *afraid* of the GPL. They are afraid of people who sell software cheaper than them. If that means free, well, that pisses them off, but no more so if the software is BSD Licensed, GPL Licensedor Python Licensed.
I find it quite amusing that Media Giants churn out crap, and then ask "Why are you guys lapping it up?"
It's just like yesterday's article about Star Trek:Nemisis tanking. The "Powers that Be" are creating bucket upon bucket of total horseshit, and expect that each and every one of use should sit around shelling out our hard earned cash to them.
It would be one thing if the effort put into the product/movie/game were above and beyond the level of what else is out there, but it seems they continually just try to get away with "good enough". This works for a bit, but sooner or later they cook up a stinker. The trouble with that is, when "good enough" turns out to be utter sludge, they don't understand why everyone bought into the last dumbass one but not this one.
I think it is quite a refreshing thought that there actually is a limit that the "joe everybody" can hit in relation to recycled plot/graphics/gameplay. People won't suck back shit forever. Hazaa, there is sunshine on the other side of the cloud!
December 8, 1998... We heard of the title and the gist of the story before, but with the script stuck in turnaround there was nothing to report on. Then this email rolled onto our hard drive:
"20th Century Fox just picked this script up in turnaround from Walt Disney. It's an old-fashioned murder mystery, really, sort of like an Agatha Christie, I guess. Except that all of the suspects in the murder are artificial intelligences of varying degrees of intelligence. A pretty dog-gone cool idea. Bryan Singer was attached to direct at Disney, with Laurence Mark producing, although that may change now. Still, a cool project resurrected by Fox, from a spec script sale by Jeff Vintar from a few years back. Might be worth keeping an eye on?"
If Fox has picked up the project then things might warm up a bit. We'll keep our ears open for anything. [Scooped by anonymous.] February 9, 1999... Last Friday we were told that the week before director Alex Proyas (Dark City, The Crow) had been on the Twentieth Century Fox lot "talking about doing a sci-fi project for Fox, something about computers, I don't know which project, but it looks like he's signing on," our scooper told us.
The next day we were then hailed by one of our known contacts that indeed Proyas had been shuttling around the Fox lot because he was signing the contract to direct Hardwired. Andrew Mason and Laurence Mark are the producers. We've no idea if Proyas is shooting with Vintar's present script or a rewrite. Fox is expected to make the Hardwired announcement soon...but now you have something to talk about at the water cooler. [Two anonymous sources will receive Valentine's Day cards from us.]
February 18, 1999... A reader's review of the Vintar script has arrived in our Inbox...
"I was very excited to read your latest scoop regarding Alex Proyas signing on to direct Hard Wired. This script has been sitting on my desk for over a year now, and it's one of the best original sci-fi screenplays I've read -- it baffles me that it's taken so long for it to move up the production chain.
"Basically, Hard Wired is a futuristic murder mystery that reads a lot like a stage play - only a handful of principal characters, and the whole story takes place in just a few rooms inside the same building (although it could never actually be a play because some of the visuals are just too far out). The story surrounds the murder of a renowned research scientist where the prime suspects are a robot and an AI computer. Or maybe it was a suicide. Who knows? A detective from the FBI's AI division is assigned to investigate, and a very convoluted and clever mystery unfolds. All they need to do is change the name of the main character (FBI agent Del Spooner - yuk) and they'll have a winner on their hands. I hope this one makes it onto the screen just as it is on the page, because it's a terrific screenplay. Geeks everywhere should wish this one luck..."
[Script review tendered by 'Agent 4125'.]
March 30, 1999... One of our name-withheld sources gave us a quick update as to why we haven't heard any announcement that Alex Proyas would be the film's new director: "Bryan Singer does not want to give up his contractual right to follow this project from its turnaround at Disney to Fox. Lots of embarrassed faces all around--and disappointed ones--now that Fox is unable to pursue the film immediately with Proyas. A terrific project falls back into limbo for the indefinite future...." [Anonymous.]
February 2, 2000... We were wondering if we'd ever find out what happened to Proyas' involvement with Hardwired...and our scooper's returned to tell us the latest:
"Alex Proyas is in Los Angeles shooting a short project, and also meeting with executives on Hardwired, which is expected be his next film. Work on the final shooting script begins in February."
[Credit anonymous.]
March 8, 2000... Here's the scoop from a new face we haven't seen before, 'The Robot Fighter':
"Fox is sending Vintar to Australia to work on a production polish of Hardwired with Alex Proyas. Hopes are high that this will go before the cameras soon. Fans of this sceenplay should be pleased!
"By the way, the new producer on deck is Christopher Dow, replacing Andrew Mason, who no longer works with Mr. Proyas. That is in addition to Laurence Mark, who had this project set up once at Disney."
[Like we said, 'The Robot Fighter' is the guy who sent this one in.]
May 22, 2000... Okay, it's a bit odd, but Fox Foxey wants to tell you where they are with this one. The Vintar bit we knew about, but the second half of this--the part dealing with Asimov--is kinda wild. See for yourself:
"I understand that Vintar will be writing a second draft (the first being his original spec) this summer, and that Fox and Proyas would like to film by the end of the year, or early in 2001. It depends in part on whether or not Proyas and company can whip their Masque of the Red Death script into shape, which Proyas was supposed to direct first, with Hardwired coming right after.
"Another wrinkle is that Fox is negotiating for the rights to the title I, Robot in the hope of producing a series of robot films.
"The studio feels that the Hardwired spec makes for a far better film story than an adaptation of the Asimov stories would be, and is planning to rename this project I, Robot, and I guess insert Susan Calvin and other Asimov elements into the script! So this would be the first film in the I, Robot series, which would presumably begin to adapt the actual Asimov stories in the first sequel. Sort of weird, but....
"If you read the spec, which was sold way back in 1995 to Hollywood Pictures with Bryan Singer originally attached to direct, you know this isn't really a bad idea. Or at least, the story is intelligent and cool enough that you could see it happening.
"But if Fox doesn't get the Asimov rights, expect it to go ahead under its original title.... Anyways, this could be a big tent pole pic! Either way, the robots are coming in 2001, first in A.I., and then in Hardwired!"
Okay, that's a little strange. But we posted it here because that's how Lawnmower Man got made, so we know that Hollywood has such strangeness in them. There is precedent. [Fox Foxey did it.]
July 20, 2000... One of our faithful regulars sent word to us that Davis Entertainment is now coming aboard to help speed along this project. Word from our man is that Davis will be bringing the rights from an unmentioned Isacc Asimov property (Robots of Dawn, perhaps?)
The complete list of cast, as sent to us by our source:
Director: Alex Proyas
Writer: Jeff Vintar, based on his spec script, Hardwired; with characters & concepts from the short story collection by Isaac Asimov
Producers: Topher Dow, Mystery Clock Cinema; Laurence Mark, Laurence Mark Productions; John Davis, Davis Entertainment
Exec producer: Wyck Godfrey, Davis Entertainment
Fox execs: Peter Rice, Emma Watts
And it's supposed to be the first in a proposed series of robot films!
[Scooped by our anonymous friend.]
October 28, 2000... Our anonymous friend returns. And after all this talk, when we contacted other sources close to the production they merely said, "News coming soon." Here's sooner than soon.
"The producer deals are now done. Hardwired has now officially become the first film in Fox's proposed I, Robot film series, serving as a sort of prequel to the stories we know...A draft by Jeff Vintar should be in by the end of the year, based on the Hardwired spec script by Vintar, with some characters and concepts from the I, Robot short stories [I assume Susan Calvin and the Three Laws, but I don't know for sure]. Proyas will probably direct this as his next big studio feature. He is filming a small Australian comedy right now, something about a rock band, and I, Robot will probably be his next one, filming late in 2001 [no way they could make it before the proposed strikes, so I have to assume it will fall into the schedule soon after]. An interesting project to say the least with that popular spec [Bryan Singer was attached to make it for Hollywood Pictures before they went belly up], and of course the great Asimov properties, and with Alex Proyas!"
[Our anonymous friend strikes again.]
September 18, 2001... A robotic squirrel ran onto our ledge today and then proceeded to tell us the following:
"This film is very close to a greenlight now on Vintar's third draft. Proyas directing. I hear that Will Smith is considering signing on to play the male lead Detective. No word yet as to who might play Asimov's Doctor Calvin. The script is being guarded better than Fort Knox, but they say that it is true to both the original spec script while also being a cool intro to the 'I, Robot' world, and has a shot at being the best A.I. film ever made. [Not that this would be too hard after Bicentennial Man and A.I.!] Anyway, it all sounds hopeful. Producers on the project are Laurence Mark and John Davis. Expect this to film at Fox's Australia studios next spring!"
[We gave the chittering 'FoxMania' a couple of nuts, then he dashed away into the trees.]
Laurence Mark and John Davis are indeed producers working on the script, so that part of our furry friend's message checks out.
February 14, 2002... Our next scooper has been proven to be 100% legitimate. The last time they contacted CA, it was to tell us that Charlie's Angels director McG had been hired to helm Superman 5. That was in October 2001, and today the official announcement finally appeared in the industry trade magazine Variety. Need we say more about our scooper's credentials?
Today we'll spill what new information they've told us. Considering where this information comes from, we think it tells you precisely what's going on right now with the Hardwired movie project...and who might be cast as the movie's leading man.
"This film is getting ready to roll this fall at the Fox Sydney studies under the direction of Alex Proyas. Tentative start date is September. The studio is going out to cast soon, and you can expect them to start at the top, Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, etc. The script is being guarded tightly, but those who have read it say it is just fantastic, and wonder if such a script can really make it through the studio without being dumbed down. Not an adaptation of any one Asimov story, based on an original script, but one that serves as a prequel and an introduction to Susan Calvin and the 'I, Robot' world. Design work on that world and the robots has already begun down under. Look for this at Christmas time, 2003. Remember you heard it from..."
[...our anonymous friend. And we thank you again, sir.]
February 19, 2002... While being interviewed by Moviehole, director Alex Proyas seemed to confirm what our inside sources have been telling us this past year. "[Hardwired] will probably be my next movie and we are hoping to start shooting before the end of this year," Proyas told the website. "The project is actually called I Robot and is based on the stories of Isaac Asimov. It's a murder mystery where the main suspect is an extremely advanced robot."
[Thanks to Clint at Moviehole.]
April 29, 2002... Don't blame the messenger; we're just telling you what we ourselves were told:
"Fox took a great script and gave it to the two geniuses responsible for last summer's Planet of the Apes disaster, Larry Rosenthal and Mark Konner. You can guess what happened. Everyone who read the original was thrilled. Anyone who reads this one is going to battle their gag reflex. Let's hope somebody in charge comes to their d--n senses, or this is going to be yet another piece a shit. Oh wait what I saying? This is Fox. The movie never had a chance...." [This timebomb left behind by 'Doom Patrol'.]
August 16, 2002... A new scooper tells us that a new production office has been set up at Fox Studios Australia for the next Alex Proyas project. "It's marked as I ROBOT and has car spaces for Antoine Simkine, Liz Keogh and Alex Proyas," writes our pal. "Looks very promising for I ROBOT kicking off in the near future." [That's the news from Kelvin.]
November 26, 2002... We've been doing this for a few years, so we've managed to forge relationships with some Hollywood insiders; people who know about this film stuff before we do, people we trust because what they've told us before has come to pass. People like our next scooper.
"Everyone in town knows Will Smith has been dancing around this project--once again--for weeks now," writes our red friend. "He'll have to make his final decision soon, as the project is still gearing up for a spring start." So how long with Fox let Smith go before he has to make that final decision?
[Name withheld.]
December 2, 2002... We've been getting scoops from Hollywood and Australian insiders about this project for a couple of years, but today we heard a bit of news from a Vancouver spy about Alex Proyas' I Robot project. According to our source the project has quietly moved into development and is looking around Vancouver for "things". Whether that means the film is seeking studio space and will shoot partly in Canada remains unclear. Still, our man on the inside tells us that the buzz is that it's shaping up to be planned for a summer release..."Which summer I dont know."
[Anonymous.]
December 3, 2002... Another one of our anonymous insiders (this time it's a different fellow) tells us that the word is I Robot is being targeted for a summer 2004 release with a spring 2003 start of production. [Name withheld too.]
December 4, 2002... It was more than a year ago we first told you that Will Smith was one of the leading candidates for starring in I, Robot. As recently as last month, another of our inside connections told us that time was growing short for Smith and he would have to make a decision about starring in the film or moving on to some other project. Finally we can report that today we have proof that our inside connections were indeed 100% correct.
In today's issues of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, both magazines report that Will Smith is in talks to play the lead in I, Robot with Alex Proyas attached to direct. And also reported in the trades is what we told you about yesterday, that production is scheduled to commence in spring 2003. [Sources: Variety, Hollywood Reporter.]
The dual stories in Reporter and Variety could very well be an attempt by someone -- whether it's the studio, a producer, whomever -- to drum up buzz and get Smith to commit to the project. That very well might happen now.
Why don't you take a flying fuck through a rolling donut.
Jesus Christ, how the hell do you get off dreaming this is about god damn censorship?
It is scumsucking bastards like you which give the internet a bad name. Maybe if you beg, plead and cajole, you might be able to explain to the powers that be why bottom feeding trash like you need to abuse the intellectual properties of others.
It never ceases to amaze me why universities even remotely allowed this in the first place.
1. YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH. Get that out of your freeloading thick dumbass skull. A portion of your fees go to supporting the infrastructure of the university, but they certianly don't foot the bill. If you want to pay for the whole thing, go buy your own broadband connection and PORN THE FUCK AWAY!
2. DON"T YOU DARE TRY TO DISGUISE THIS AS SOME SORT of "Censorship" issue. No one is stopping you from hearing or publishing anything. It's just stopping you from jacking off to the latest girl-on-girl pic while watching a bootleg copy of spiderman. You want to discuss the political ramifications of the Bush administraton? USE Websites. You want to hear the music from the best of larwence welk? Do it on your own nickel, fuckwad.
3. As long as taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of your education, you could at least appear to give a fuck about blowing the money down the local shithole. When you are actually paying for the whole thing, you can set the rules. Prick.
4. Apparently it's whine about how my daddy abuses us week on slashdot. Christ all fucking mighty.
5. It's people like you that are wearing a SAVE WINONA t-shirt. Fuck the virgin mary with a candy cane. She STOLE, you wanna steal. Fucking lock the god damn bunch of you cocksuckers up with kevin "loose nutz" mitnick and throw the fucking key to the hounds.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that GM Superhumans will be welcomed by all. After all, Kirk said it best:
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
No.
Lynx is not 'older'
But Gopher did predate the WWW, and provided a text-centric view into the vast emptyness that was the internet.
I didnt see a single OS/2 on any computer except for maybe IBMs computers and eventually IBM even took it off their own computers
:
I assume you mean Pre-loaded. Cause if you didn't, you are nuts.
So if OS/2 did bad it was because of IBM, I had wanted to get OS/2 Warp and an IBM but the cost was ridiculous
Uh, let me get this straight. From 1992 to 1995, you actively purchased computers based on what OS was preloaded on them? wow. Why didn't you just go and buy a machine with no OS loaded. I bought many during that period, and not one came with an OS.
IBM was giving away OS/2 for $29, and later for free. Cost was not what IBM did to drive OS/2 into oblivion. It was the counterproductive stupidity that was their marketing. My Favorite OS/2 Slogan found on a billboard
"It obliterated all the software on my desktop"
What the Fsck did that mean? I don't know what marketing droid thought that one up, but it was actually used to promote OS/2. It sure doesn't sound good.
Now flame me if i am wrong, but doesn't wine work on some sort of Virtual Machine, thus adding an extra layer between the hardware and the code?
;)
Flame On!
But sadly no. Wine ( as the acronym goes : WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR )
It is the libraries and system support that allows linux to direclty execute PE executables, and link them to libraries which have the same interface as Windows itself.
It is a layer in the sense so is QT, GLIBC, etc.. and other libraries that provide support for application services on top of the Linux Kernel.
Wine can be used to facilitate the porting of software from Windows to Linux, via WineLib. It essentially allows the one to code a windows app and compile it for linux. Not quite a perfect fit, but with a little intrepidation, you can get good results.
Another way to look at WineLib is to think of the counterexample: Cygwin. Cygwin is a set of libraries that allow *nix software to port to Windows.
WineLib and Cygwin are covered by the same benefits and limitations:
Do they feel like they are native apps?
-- not quite.
Do they run pretty good?
--for the most part
Could you build an application that people would use on the alternate platform, via the library?
--you bet.
Having used wine for some time, I'll tell you three things:
1. It ain't bad. It ain't the answer to your problems either, but if your app works under it reliably, you won't be dissapointed much.
2. Configuration is the key. 99.9% of resolvable issues I see on the Users' mailing list end up being resolved by a proper configuration. What is a proper configuration? Who the Fcsk knows
3. Perfection is not the goal, but part of the journey. Microsoft has had umpteen years, thousands of programmers, and billions of dollars to build windows, in all it's 'glory' . Comparitivly, Wine is done my a mere handful of extremely talented people, who are replicating and improving that what MS took billions to build. It won't be done today, tomorrow, or even this year, or maybe ever, but it does get better every single day.
Flame off!
There are several things that can vastly affect performance:
Warning: This stuff ain't for the faint of heart, nor the weak of will.
Know your machine.
What processor does it have
What type of RAM (DDR/SDRAM/RAMBUS/etc...)
How FAST is the ram rated for (PC2100,PC3000...)
What type of hard drive do you have? is it UDMA66/100/133?
What type of motherboard do you have? Does it support dual channel ddr (interleaving banks of DDR memory, gives a nifty boost to ram read speeds)
What are the settings in the BIOS set to? Do you know what that stuff means? Do you know how to agressivly set those, but keep some system stability?
In Windows, there are many many many factors which are going to affect the 'speed' of your computer.
Primarily: How much memory did your system have when it was installed. Windows tends to set certain values depending on what your system looked like when it was installed.
Secondly: What software is running. Are you running a virus scanner that checks every file as it's written. Do you think that is helping the speed of the computer? Try to limit the unneccasary software that's running. Open up the task manager. go to the performance tab. Howmany processes and threads are running. Check this versus your 'friends' computers to see how it relates. If your computer is running 450 threads over 41 processes, and his is running 200 threads over 25 processes, which one do you think is running too much crap.
Services: Processes in Windows that run, as parts of the OS, to provide 'services' to the OS. If you are running Windows XP Pro at home, there is a crapload of services running which are providing you with zero value. Find out what each service does, and determine whether it is useful to you.
This stuff is hardly rocket science, and there is no 'magic' button to press to automagically get you the best settings, you are going to have to learn what the PC is doing in order to make it work better.
The trouble with Java isn't its performance.
It is Java's PERCEIVED performance.
Yes, swing is an ungodly pathetic excuse for a cross-platform GUI. Why has it taken Sun this long to recognize that?
SWT, in all it's glory, I would hope to be the solution. It makes Java feel like something that you'd want to code your apps in. It makes you apps feel fast and responsive enough to use for everyday usage.
Case In Point:
My current client uses PVCS as their version management software. Aside from the sheer stupidity of using something that costs huge dollars, and doesn't provide near the functionality of CVS, the client app is a fucked up Java Swing App.
Now, granted it could be slower, I guess. But God help us, it ain't fast.
It also doesn't use the scroll wheel. Why? 'cause the version of Java that it is coded in didn't support it. *sigh*
The windows don't scroll like native windows. The dropdowns don't feel like native dropdowns. The keyboard accelerators are incomplete and missing.
Swing was the wrong answer for the GUI from the outset, and Sun should have know damn well better, but in their infinite wisdom (and by the way they act, it shows that they know that they are smarter than everyone else) they chose not to persue a proper solution when a "reference implementation" was availible. ( I like that about Sun--Everything of theirs that runs slow as shit, they like to call a "reference implementation" )
So, what you are saying is :
Larry Ellison is the George Costanza of Information Technology
Good. I can accept that. And when He does, he'll be better off for it too I imagine.
I used to have an 88 honda accord.
I'd leave the car, and come back and I'd hear the radio playing. I'd *touch* the car and it would stop.
Quite eerie.
It would only play the radio at night, when it was lonely, and only until I touched it. I even checked to make sure the radio was off, before I turned off the car.
In SOVIET RUSSIA, April fools are on YOU!
Jesus fucking christ. It's 10:46PST, and I'm so sick of Dumbass April Fools jokes!
Admittedly, I was falling for the Gentoo/RPM one, but the rest were damn obvious.
BULLSHIT.
Nimda is not transmitted thru email. It's a Worm which is solely propigated via unsecured/unpactched IIS installations.
Mayhap you should turn off IIS and/or patch his machine before he gets nimda again.
Ah.. the power of numbers.
Never forget the difference between Imperial gallons (4.5L) and US Gallons (3.8L)
In your car that does 20km/L , which would be 76km/Us Gallon, which is 47.5 miles / US Gallon.
Lets just keep apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.
I love Wednesdays! It's getting closer to Friday, Monday is but a memory, and the lamest slashdot articles are in!
YAY!
Seriously. Why are you afraid of people installing stuff? Oh-no. My-god.
If you want to have a client side solution, I'm sorry bud, but you are going to have to install *something*.
Now, it sounds like you also want this to be multiplatform. What?
If you were going for Windows-only, you *could* do a crapload in JScript or VBScript, via IE. It's tricky, but their ain't nothin' you can't do in a signed script. Image manipulation included.
Or, you could simply build a really kick-ass server side solution, and Web-ify the whole thing. A tad sluggish tho.
.
.
.
Ah, Wednesdays!
What?
;) ) (Mine says 140). Don't try to push them to that, as they'll kick the breaker on it often. For a continual load, I would try to keep that no higher than 75%ish of the max supported load.
.75 you are now looking at about 150w. The mini-itx motherboard peaks at 50ish watts, so that's in the clear, but don't forget about the peripherals. Yada yada yada...
Yes, the DC power comming off the DC outlet is nasty stuff, and shouldn't be used without proper care.
But WTF are you talking about moving to AC and back to DC. Hardly the elegant solution.
When I was in high school, for *two* years we built a variety of power supplies, moving from AC->DC , DC->DC and whatnot. Not one cost more than $10. And they still wouldn't.
I realize that the kneejerk reaction in todays fast-food-slick-ass-disposable world, is to simply buy the requisite adaptors and snap it all together. Unfortunately, that costs you alot in the power transfer. Most car AC inverters can only put out less than 200 watts (tho' the guy above says 300w--apparently I don't visit enough truck stops
So, at 200w x
But I digress.
You say you are not agaist picking up a soldering iron. FANTASTIC. Go Googling(tm). Find some DC power supply schematics. Look for one that has large capacitors. Found it? good. Put more capacitors in parallel. that'll suck up the spikes.
Heck, take a trip to the public library. Considering the power supply you are looking for is so damn simple, there are tons of books on just that subject.
It's not like electricity is a magicical force without reason. You *can* build yourself a practical, safe, powersupply, and save yourself a chunk of cash. You also get supreme bragging rights with your geek friends. Now, you are no longer an parts assembler, you are a creator!
muhaaaahahahahahaha
I decided against saying something terribly insightful about the "Microsoft Tax".
/. populace will ram shit and vinegar down the throats of the companies that build PC laptops because they preload Windows on them, but it seems fine and dandy to pay for a notebook from another supplier, and get the OS you don't want there either. Why?
I *do* find it F*cking hillarious that you would buy and Apple notebook computer, and load linux onto it, and be just as happy.
OHMYGOD: Apple won't sell a laptop without an OS either. THE BASTARDS!
It's quite odd that the
You feel better about paying the "Apple Tax"?
Now, Merits of Mac OS X aside, if the poster wants *Linux* on the desktop, buying an iBook hardly fixes the problem, as a matter of fact, it does just encourages Apple, 'Cause no-one complains.
In an Ideal world, you could buy that notebook Windows free. Trouble is, welcome to earth. Suppliers like companies that build millions a year vs thousands a year. They get cheaper access to the components to build laptops. Even if you find a distributor that ships and OS-free laptop, the added cost for that distributor to build laptops in small quantity would drive up the price, most likely past the point of buying one with Windows included.
Buy the laptop based on what you want it to have, suck it up and chuck away the Windows or MacOS license. Or resell it on ebay.
Now, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posted by timothy on Saturday February 15, @03:27PM
from the if-you're-denser-than-dark-matter dept.
An anonymous reader (really timothy) writes "According to this story seen on Slashdot this morning, any moron can get postings onto slashdot. Turns out, access to a fucking keyboard and timothy at the queue is all that is needed to bypass all (well, most) of the story submission process features in slashdot. An idiot can write up completely bland and stupid observations, and Timothy will post them. This method even allows the most moronic story to get posted on a Saturday, something which normally the staff at slashdot reserves for Tuesday."
Never has my sig been more correct:
Hey look everybody, Linux has a hole too!
At the grub prompt:
boot: linux single
duh!
Seriously, how is this news? Nearly every system I've worked with can be comprimised with access to the physical box.
*yawn*
Dirk is that You?
:)
Buck, up... I've always thought of you as something more like a scottish claymore than a dagger.
...You are allowed to use copyrighted materials...
Whoops, I apologise, you are correct. Distribution is the key.
It's not like the GPL needs to be tested in court. Niether would a court decision "make microsoft happy"
The GPL is a license to software. Plain and simple.
Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".
With the GPL permission is granted to anyone to use the software with those restrictions spelled out in the agreement. If you use the software, and do not follow the terms of the agreement, your license is null and void, and you are in violation of copyright law.
IANAL, but I did stay in a holiday in last night:
Copyrights (and patents) do not have to be vigorously protected, only trademarks do. Without vigorously protecting your trademark, it can be ruled invalid. Your copyright on a work can not be ruled invalid, if it truly is your work, and it is not simply the stating of fact (like a phonebook)
Microsoft would *not* like to see the GPL ruled invalid, because that would be a dent in all copyright law. As a matter of fact, Microsoft could make serious money off of GPL software if they so chose.
Imagine this:
Microsoft decides to throw away sourcesafe, because it blows dog chunks. Instead they grab the source for CVS and compile it up, slap a sticker on the CD, and sell it as MS CVS.
Thousands of developers would start coughing up money for this "new" product. Heck, the package could even put the GPL on the outside, and state that the source code would be included on the CD. I know for a fact a couple of companies who would by enough licenses for all their developers withou batting an eyelash. Heck, MS could even give the same support they give SourceSafe now: NONE.
Microsoft is not *afraid* of the GPL. They are afraid of people who sell software cheaper than them. If that means free, well, that pisses them off, but no more so if the software is BSD Licensed, GPL Licensedor Python Licensed.
HNCBS
I find it quite amusing that Media Giants churn out crap, and then ask "Why are you guys lapping it up?"
It's just like yesterday's article about Star Trek:Nemisis tanking. The "Powers that Be" are creating bucket upon bucket of total horseshit, and expect that each and every one of use should sit around shelling out our hard earned cash to them.
It would be one thing if the effort put into the product/movie/game were above and beyond the level of what else is out there, but it seems they continually just try to get away with "good enough". This works for a bit, but sooner or later they cook up a stinker. The trouble with that is, when "good enough" turns out to be utter sludge, they don't understand why everyone bought into the last dumbass one but not this one.
I think it is quite a refreshing thought that there actually is a limit that the "joe everybody" can hit in relation to recycled plot/graphics/gameplay. People won't suck back shit forever. Hazaa, there is sunshine on the other side of the cloud!
just my 2 cents.
Scoop Feedback:
December 8, 1998... We heard of the title and the gist of the story before, but with the script stuck in turnaround there was nothing to report on. Then this email rolled onto our hard drive:
"20th Century Fox just picked this script up in turnaround from Walt Disney. It's an old-fashioned murder mystery, really, sort of like an Agatha Christie, I guess. Except that all of the suspects in the murder are artificial intelligences of varying degrees of intelligence. A pretty dog-gone cool idea. Bryan Singer was attached to direct at Disney, with Laurence Mark producing, although that may change now. Still, a cool project resurrected by Fox, from a spec script sale by Jeff Vintar from a few years back. Might be worth keeping an eye on?"
If Fox has picked up the project then things might warm up a bit. We'll keep our ears open for anything. [Scooped by anonymous.]
February 9, 1999... Last Friday we were told that the week before director Alex Proyas (Dark City, The Crow) had been on the Twentieth Century Fox lot "talking about doing a sci-fi project for Fox, something about computers, I don't know which project, but it looks like he's signing on," our scooper told us.
The next day we were then hailed by one of our known contacts that indeed Proyas had been shuttling around the Fox lot because he was signing the contract to direct Hardwired. Andrew Mason and Laurence Mark are the producers. We've no idea if Proyas is shooting with Vintar's present script or a rewrite. Fox is expected to make the Hardwired announcement soon...but now you have something to talk about at the water cooler. [Two anonymous sources will receive Valentine's Day cards from us.]
February 18, 1999... A reader's review of the Vintar script has arrived in our Inbox...
"I was very excited to read your latest scoop regarding Alex Proyas signing on to direct Hard Wired. This script has been sitting on my desk for over a year now, and it's one of the best original sci-fi screenplays I've read -- it baffles me that it's taken so long for it to move up the production chain.
"Basically, Hard Wired is a futuristic murder mystery that reads a lot like a stage play - only a handful of principal characters, and the whole story takes place in just a few rooms inside the same building (although it could never actually be a play because some of the visuals are just too far out). The story surrounds the murder of a renowned research scientist where the prime suspects are a robot and an AI computer. Or maybe it was a suicide. Who knows? A detective from the FBI's AI division is assigned to investigate, and a very convoluted and clever mystery unfolds. All they need to do is change the name of the main character (FBI agent Del Spooner - yuk) and they'll have a winner on their hands. I hope this one makes it onto the screen just as it is on the page, because it's a terrific screenplay. Geeks everywhere should wish this one luck..."
[Script review tendered by 'Agent 4125'.]
March 30, 1999... One of our name-withheld sources gave us a quick update as to why we haven't heard any announcement that Alex Proyas would be the film's new director: "Bryan Singer does not want to give up his contractual right to follow this project from its turnaround at Disney to Fox. Lots of embarrassed faces all around--and disappointed ones--now that Fox is unable to pursue the film immediately with Proyas. A terrific project falls back into limbo for the indefinite future...." [Anonymous.]
February 2, 2000... We were wondering if we'd ever find out what happened to Proyas' involvement with Hardwired...and our scooper's returned to tell us the latest:
"Alex Proyas is in Los Angeles shooting a short project, and also meeting with executives on Hardwired, which is expected be his next film. Work on the final shooting script begins in February."
[Credit anonymous.]
March 8, 2000... Here's the scoop from a new face we haven't seen before, 'The Robot Fighter':
"Fox is sending Vintar to Australia to work on a production polish of Hardwired with Alex Proyas. Hopes are high that this will go before the cameras soon. Fans of this sceenplay should be pleased!
"By the way, the new producer on deck is Christopher Dow, replacing Andrew Mason, who no longer works with Mr. Proyas. That is in addition to Laurence Mark, who had this project set up once at Disney."
[Like we said, 'The Robot Fighter' is the guy who sent this one in.]
May 22, 2000... Okay, it's a bit odd, but Fox Foxey wants to tell you where they are with this one. The Vintar bit we knew about, but the second half of this--the part dealing with Asimov--is kinda wild. See for yourself:
"I understand that Vintar will be writing a second draft (the first being his original spec) this summer, and that Fox and Proyas would like to film by the end of the year, or early in 2001. It depends in part on whether or not Proyas and company can whip their Masque of the Red Death script into shape, which Proyas was supposed to direct first, with Hardwired coming right after.
"Another wrinkle is that Fox is negotiating for the rights to the title I, Robot in the hope of producing a series of robot films.
"The studio feels that the Hardwired spec makes for a far better film story than an adaptation of the Asimov stories would be, and is planning to rename this project I, Robot, and I guess insert Susan Calvin and other Asimov elements into the script! So this would be the first film in the I, Robot series, which would presumably begin to adapt the actual Asimov stories in the first sequel. Sort of weird, but....
"If you read the spec, which was sold way back in 1995 to Hollywood Pictures with Bryan Singer originally attached to direct, you know this isn't really a bad idea. Or at least, the story is intelligent and cool enough that you could see it happening.
"But if Fox doesn't get the Asimov rights, expect it to go ahead under its original title.... Anyways, this could be a big tent pole pic! Either way, the robots are coming in 2001, first in A.I., and then in Hardwired!"
Okay, that's a little strange. But we posted it here because that's how Lawnmower Man got made, so we know that Hollywood has such strangeness in them. There is precedent. [Fox Foxey did it.]
July 20, 2000... One of our faithful regulars sent word to us that Davis Entertainment is now coming aboard to help speed along this project. Word from our man is that Davis will be bringing the rights from an unmentioned Isacc Asimov property (Robots of Dawn, perhaps?)
The complete list of cast, as sent to us by our source:
Director: Alex Proyas
Writer: Jeff Vintar, based on his spec script, Hardwired; with characters & concepts from the short story collection by Isaac Asimov
Producers: Topher Dow, Mystery Clock Cinema;
Laurence Mark, Laurence Mark Productions;
John Davis, Davis Entertainment
Exec producer: Wyck Godfrey, Davis Entertainment
Fox execs: Peter Rice, Emma Watts
And it's supposed to be the first in a proposed series of robot films!
[Scooped by our anonymous friend.]
October 28, 2000... Our anonymous friend returns. And after all this talk, when we contacted other sources close to the production they merely said, "News coming soon." Here's sooner than soon.
"The producer deals are now done. Hardwired has now officially become the first film in Fox's proposed I, Robot film series, serving as a sort of prequel to the stories we know...A draft by Jeff Vintar should be in by the end of the year, based on the Hardwired spec script by Vintar, with some characters and concepts from the I, Robot short stories [I assume Susan Calvin and the Three Laws, but I don't know for sure]. Proyas will probably direct this as his next big studio feature. He is filming a small Australian comedy right now, something about a rock band, and I, Robot will probably be his next one, filming late in 2001 [no way they could make it before the proposed strikes, so I have to assume it will fall into the schedule soon after]. An interesting project to say the least with that popular spec [Bryan Singer was attached to make it for Hollywood Pictures before they went belly up], and of course the great Asimov properties, and with Alex Proyas!"
[Our anonymous friend strikes again.]
September 18, 2001... A robotic squirrel ran onto our ledge today and then proceeded to tell us the following:
"This film is very close to a greenlight now on Vintar's third draft. Proyas directing. I hear that Will Smith is considering signing on to play the male lead Detective. No word yet as to who might play Asimov's Doctor Calvin. The script is being guarded better than Fort Knox, but they say that it is true to both the original spec script while also being a cool intro to the 'I, Robot' world, and has a shot at being the best A.I. film ever made. [Not that this would be too hard after Bicentennial Man and A.I.!] Anyway, it all sounds hopeful. Producers on the project are Laurence Mark and John Davis. Expect this to film at Fox's Australia studios next spring!"
[We gave the chittering 'FoxMania' a couple of nuts, then he dashed away into the trees.]
Laurence Mark and John Davis are indeed producers working on the script, so that part of our furry friend's message checks out.
February 14, 2002... Our next scooper has been proven to be 100% legitimate. The last time they contacted CA, it was to tell us that Charlie's Angels director McG had been hired to helm Superman 5. That was in October 2001, and today the official announcement finally appeared in the industry trade magazine Variety. Need we say more about our scooper's credentials?
Today we'll spill what new information they've told us. Considering where this information comes from, we think it tells you precisely what's going on right now with the Hardwired movie project...and who might be cast as the movie's leading man.
"This film is getting ready to roll this fall at the Fox Sydney studies under the direction of Alex Proyas. Tentative start date is September. The studio is going out to cast soon, and you can expect them to start at the top, Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, etc. The script is being guarded tightly, but those who have read it say it is just fantastic, and wonder if such a script can really make it through the studio without being dumbed down. Not an adaptation of any one Asimov story, based on an original script, but one that serves as a prequel and an introduction to Susan Calvin and the 'I, Robot' world. Design work on that world and the robots has already begun down under. Look for this at Christmas time, 2003. Remember you heard it from..."
[...our anonymous friend. And we thank you again, sir.]
February 19, 2002... While being interviewed by Moviehole, director Alex Proyas seemed to confirm what our inside sources have been telling us this past year. "[Hardwired] will probably be my next movie and we are hoping to start shooting before the end of this year," Proyas told the website. "The project is actually called I Robot and is based on the stories of Isaac Asimov. It's a murder mystery where the main suspect is an extremely advanced robot."
[Thanks to Clint at Moviehole.]
April 29, 2002... Don't blame the messenger; we're just telling you what we ourselves were told:
"Fox took a great script and gave it to the two geniuses responsible for last summer's Planet of the Apes disaster, Larry Rosenthal and Mark Konner. You can guess what happened. Everyone who read the original was thrilled. Anyone who reads this one is going to battle their gag reflex. Let's hope somebody in charge comes to their d--n senses, or this is going to be yet another piece a shit. Oh wait what I saying? This is Fox. The movie never had a chance...." [This timebomb left behind by 'Doom Patrol'.]
August 16, 2002... A new scooper tells us that a new production office has been set up at Fox Studios Australia for the next Alex Proyas project. "It's marked as I ROBOT and has car spaces for Antoine Simkine, Liz Keogh and Alex Proyas," writes our pal. "Looks very promising for I ROBOT kicking off in the near future." [That's the news from Kelvin.]
November 26, 2002... We've been doing this for a few years, so we've managed to forge relationships with some Hollywood insiders; people who know about this film stuff before we do, people we trust because what they've told us before has come to pass. People like our next scooper.
"Everyone in town knows Will Smith has been dancing around this project--once again--for weeks now," writes our red friend. "He'll have to make his final decision soon, as the project is still gearing up for a spring start." So how long with Fox let Smith go before he has to make that final decision?
[Name withheld.]
December 2, 2002... We've been getting scoops from Hollywood and Australian insiders about this project for a couple of years, but today we heard a bit of news from a Vancouver spy about Alex Proyas' I Robot project. According to our source the project has quietly moved into development and is looking around Vancouver for "things". Whether that means the film is seeking studio space and will shoot partly in Canada remains unclear. Still, our man on the inside tells us that the buzz is that it's shaping up to be planned for a summer release..."Which summer I dont know."
[Anonymous.]
December 3, 2002... Another one of our anonymous insiders (this time it's a different fellow) tells us that the word is I Robot is being targeted for a summer 2004 release with a spring 2003 start of production. [Name withheld too.]
December 4, 2002... It was more than a year ago we first told you that Will Smith was one of the leading candidates for starring in I, Robot. As recently as last month, another of our inside connections told us that time was growing short for Smith and he would have to make a decision about starring in the film or moving on to some other project. Finally we can report that today we have proof that our inside connections were indeed 100% correct.
In today's issues of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, both magazines report that Will Smith is in talks to play the lead in I, Robot with Alex Proyas attached to direct. And also reported in the trades is what we told you about yesterday, that production is scheduled to commence in spring 2003. [Sources: Variety, Hollywood Reporter.]
The dual stories in Reporter and Variety could very well be an attempt by someone -- whether it's the studio, a producer, whomever -- to drum up buzz and get Smith to commit to the project. That very well might happen now.
I went to the Anti-leech site.
;)
I'm using Proxomitron. I've been using it for a lonnnnng time.
Proxomitron blocked their popups, the ads on their site, and I stuffed a new script in, in order to get back my context menu. SAD Stuff.
I hope this is the trend for "anti-block" crap. I can get around that without even breaking a sweat.
Now, if only I could run proxomitron on Linux.
I can't beleive that they claim to stop stuff like Proxomitron. It's just about the perfect tool
HNCPBS
Why don't you take a flying fuck through a rolling donut.
Jesus Christ, how the hell do you get off dreaming this is about god damn censorship?
It is scumsucking bastards like you which give the internet a bad name. Maybe if you beg, plead and cajole, you might be able to explain to the powers that be why bottom feeding trash like you need to abuse the intellectual properties of others.
It never ceases to amaze me why universities even remotely allowed this in the first place.
1. YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH. Get that out of your freeloading thick dumbass skull. A portion of your fees go to supporting the infrastructure of the university, but they certianly don't foot the bill. If you want to pay for the whole thing, go buy your own broadband connection and PORN THE FUCK AWAY!
2. DON"T YOU DARE TRY TO DISGUISE THIS AS SOME SORT of "Censorship" issue. No one is stopping you from hearing or publishing anything. It's just stopping you from jacking off to the latest girl-on-girl pic while watching a bootleg copy of spiderman. You want to discuss the political ramifications of the Bush administraton? USE Websites. You want to hear the music from the best of larwence welk? Do it on your own nickel, fuckwad.
3. As long as taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of your education, you could at least appear to give a fuck about blowing the money down the local shithole. When you are actually paying for the whole thing, you can set the rules. Prick.
4. Apparently it's whine about how my daddy abuses us week on slashdot. Christ all fucking mighty.
5. It's people like you that are wearing a SAVE WINONA t-shirt. Fuck the virgin mary with a candy cane. She STOLE, you wanna steal. Fucking lock the god damn bunch of you cocksuckers up with kevin "loose nutz" mitnick and throw the fucking key to the hounds.
--------------------
Well, there went all my karma!
Um..
Scientology!
Warning: This already may be something else
The Most important skill to have, especially in an IT related field:
YOU CAN SLIDE FURTHUR ON BULLSHIT, THAN YOU CAN ON CONCRETE
'nuff said.