Besides, 35 years from now -- who'll still be listening to Christina Aguilera or 'N Sync?
In 35 years, Christina Aguilera and 'N Sync will be "retro" and on all kinds of "Greatest hits of the '90s" compilations.
I'm sure everyone had the same complaints about Abba when they came out. Cheesy music seems to really offend everyone over 14 when it was written less than five years ago. But now all my friends have suddenly changed their position on the New Kids on the Block and are thinking they're pretty cool.
Actually, I bet there were a lot of people who, at the time, thought Mozart's work was weak bubblegum pussy pop.
Well! Then obviously you have nothing to contribute to the discussion! I'm glad you told me, though. Now if there's a "Who wants to be a millionaire" question like: "Kid Zero has never used A) Slashdot B) Drugs C) AIM D) The toilet", and I happen to be a contestent, I won't lose.
It's fun having frozen Karma. There's no real reason not to flame at +2 anymore.
Re:Wonder if this could be dangerous?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 1
Assemblers will of course but how many script kiddies can do assembler?
Fortunately for the script kiddies, it doesn't take a whole lot of assembler knowledge to really fuck everything up:) Trust me, I know.
I think this whole "write in languages that are C, but easier" movement that's been going on for decades is a little weird.
If I want to use a medium-level language because I want absolute control and optimized speed, I'll use C. I don't want an "almost-medium-level-but-a-little-higher-than-that -level language". If I was looking for ease of use and didn't care about optimizing, I'd go with PERL, or, hell, even Quickbasic.
Granted, there's a need for these "weird-level" languages, and some people love them - but I think that C++ and Java nicely fill the niche. So, my first thought, which is even more valid, I think, in the face of this review, is "Why does Microsoft feel almost obligated to make an M$ version of *everything*??"
For GUIs and money managers and anything else aimed at "my mom", Microsoft is guaranteed to reign supreme, because "my mom" doesn't really care about performance issues or security or any of that. But my hunch is that, in light of some of the bugs and general ickiness covered in this review, few people are going to want to switch over to C#. I mean, what would be the advantage?? If you already write C++ and/or Java, why would you want to start writing stuff in C#? I just don't understand.
Re:Wonder if this could be dangerous?
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 3
Besides, If you're downloading anything that has a filename like "MAKE MONEY FAST - WWW.SPAM.COM.exe", you deserve to be infected. In fact, you deserve to be shot.
Why the.exe?.com is already an executable file under DOS systems.
Actually, though, it strikes me as very strange that there so few (in fact, none that I've heard of) file.com viruses that masquerade as URLS. It seems like a filed called "Go To Weirdxxx.com" would fool a lot more people than one called "Love Letter for You.vbs". I'm sure plenty of people have already thought of this, so - can anyone give me an explanation why it isn't seen?
Although--since C++ handles increments slightly better in very specific situations before the variable than after, it should probably be called ++C. So I guess #C would be... parallel to that... but... senseless.
And there's already a fairly high-traffic #C on irc.debian.org.
How does a wireless server hinder the physical security of a NOC encased in concrete? Please tell me, I'm sure there are a lot of network admins who would love to know this sort of info.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or a troll or what, because it's such a weird question.
Wireless servers don't hinder the security of a concrete-encased NOC. It's the other way around. The wireless traffic cannot penetrate the concrete, rendering the server worthless.
The quantity of bugs an OS has is a completely meaningless statistic. What do you think would be a bigger security problem: 60 bullet holes in my front door, or one cannonball hole?
That's where the difference lies. Microsoft security holes on bugtraq are almost guaranteed to be worse than Linux holes. Why? Because, without the source, someone has already encountered the bug in day-to-day use. A lot of these Linux bugs are things like, "Wow, this wasn't coded exactly right; in theory, although I don't know how it could be done, this could be exploited.". Microsoft bugs are likely to be along the lines of, "Ha, ha, I just exploited your OS again!"
Well, when you consider that DOS doesn't concern itself even one iota with security, and that any user has complete access to every aspect of the system, I suppose you could say it's exactly as secure as it's intended to be. But, to be fair, it was designed at a time when everyone using it had direct access to the hardware--and even today, anyone with direct access to your hardware should have no problem getting to whatever they want.
I don't know how acceptable this would be in the high schools, but the applications that taught me the most programming theory were casino games.
I managed to pull off Keno and Blackjack. They were a lot harder than they seemed. Keno required a graphical interface with the ncurses library that was probably harder than most menu interfaces you'd see, like pine or capt. Blackjack was a little easier, except programming in things like split, double down, and insurance, which was a headache.
My friend pretty much catapulted himself from novice programmer to experienced programmer in two weeks with Deuces Wild. Now that one was a nightmare. Not only did he become obsessed with randomizing and shuffling the deck, but the algorithm for determining the final hand was incredibly complicated. To make matters worse, he insisted on testing the thing on a 4 megahertz machine from about 1986.
Anyway, I've written a lot of worthless software, but nothing has been as useful later as casino games.
I mean, most of us will openly admit that Napster is unethical, and we'll also openly insist that the RIAA is unethical.
So I sort of think that if we were doing the Right Thing, we'd boycott them both. Otherwise, we're boycotting an unethical organization because it's preventing us from doing something unethical.
I guess we're justified, but it doesn't exactly make us all saints.
Either that, or the much more reasonable possibility that the RIAA released it on paper and some guy who runs their site but has almost no affiliation with them scanned it into PDF format.
Seriously, the RIAA has done a lot of things to piss me off, but alienating linux users isn't one I had specifically thought of.
You can see why poor Al Gore's going to lose the election, despite his being a brilliant thinker compared to Bush - because Bush can charm the pants off our uninformed and easily-swayed voting public.
Personally, I don't think Bush can "charm the pants" off anyone. If you watch the guy, his public presence is awful. He mutters, he makes non-sequitur responses, he takes loong pauses between words, and he says things that I'd think would give anyone pause. Example:
Reporter: How do you respond to allegations that there's no proof that the death penalty deters crime? Bush: Well.... there's no proof that it doesn't.
I think the reasons Bush will win are as follows:
1. His name is "George Bush". 2. The public has forgotten that they didn't like George Bush. 3. Al Gore is a democrat, just like Bill Clinton. 4. The public hasn't forgotten that they don't like Bill Clinton. 5. We've had four years to watch Al Gore be wooden and boring. 6. I'm fairly certain that only a small minority of voters have actually seen George W. on TV.
What better way could there possibly be to test how a product holds up under high stress than to attach it to a giant e-mail network, first attempting to take 5% of the load, and then slowly incrementing it to see if and when it will choke?
And if you don't particularly want to be a beta tester, maybe you shouldn't use a giant, unruly, insecure, slow, free e-mail account as your primary mail provider. Sheesh.
As much as most of us hate Microsoft, this experiment can only do harm to hotmail. It can't really do harm to the software being tested, and it might actually end up improving it.
Or maybe it would be like if the author of Garfield sued me, personally, for wearing a T-shirt with Hobbes on it.
Or maybe it would be like if Bill Watterson sued me because I was wearing a T-shirt advertising a book entitled "How to photocopy and bind a friend's comic book".
Or maybe making Bill Watterson metaphors is just a distraction from the actual point.
Damnit! First Orrin Hatch does a bunch of things that are insane, and then he does a bunch of things that are reasonable, and then he does a bunch of things that are insane.
Sometimes I think that there are three guys who all look identical and take turns being "Orrin Hatch".
Some bill with a drug rider passes, someone posts instructions for making methamphetamine to Slashdot (as though we couldn't find them anyway at, for example, Tower Records), and at my next visit, I get a happy 404 File Not Found message.
What a fantastic law!! What I really want to know, and didn't pick up from the article, is this: which senator(s) or representative(s) (is|are) responsible??
1. Why you think "Bubba" is a normal, non-funny name; 2. Why you aren't being moderated down for your obvious flamebait; 3. Where your sense of humor went.
It has always been my opinion that people who cannot make fun of themselves, or who become offended for the sake of people they don't even know, have serious social problems.
And I still hold that America's problems with racism will finally solved when everyone can laugh at racist jokes--regardless of the race from which, and to which, they are told.
There are many silly names, some of which are foreign to me, and some of which are not. For example, in the Wedding Singer, it was accurately pointed out that "Julia Goolia" was a ridiculous name. In fact, if you go through a phone book, you see all kinds of weird, laughable, non-foreign names. Several last names for "Harry" spring to mind.
Talal Shamoon strikes me as a very silly name, and I don't think that flaming me and calling me a sad bigot is justified. Sheesh.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, 35 years from now -- who'll still be listening to Christina Aguilera or 'N Sync?
In 35 years, Christina Aguilera and 'N Sync will be "retro" and on all kinds of "Greatest hits of the '90s" compilations.
I'm sure everyone had the same complaints about Abba when they came out. Cheesy music seems to really offend everyone over 14 when it was written less than five years ago. But now all my friends have suddenly changed their position on the New Kids on the Block and are thinking they're pretty cool.
Actually, I bet there were a lot of people who, at the time, thought Mozart's work was weak bubblegum pussy pop.
I've never even used AIM period.
Well! Then obviously you have nothing to contribute to the discussion! I'm glad you told me, though. Now if there's a "Who wants to be a millionaire" question like: "Kid Zero has never used A) Slashdot B) Drugs C) AIM D) The toilet", and I happen to be a contestent, I won't lose.
It's fun having frozen Karma. There's no real reason not to flame at +2 anymore.
Assemblers will of course but how many script kiddies can do assembler?
:) Trust me, I know.
Fortunately for the script kiddies, it doesn't take a whole lot of assembler knowledge to really fuck everything up
I think this whole "write in languages that are C, but easier" movement that's been going on for decades is a little weird.
t -level language". If I was looking for ease of use and didn't care about optimizing, I'd go with PERL, or, hell, even Quickbasic.
If I want to use a medium-level language because I want absolute control and optimized speed, I'll use C. I don't want an "almost-medium-level-but-a-little-higher-than-tha
Granted, there's a need for these "weird-level" languages, and some people love them - but I think that C++ and Java nicely fill the niche. So, my first thought, which is even more valid, I think, in the face of this review, is "Why does Microsoft feel almost obligated to make an M$ version of *everything*??"
For GUIs and money managers and anything else aimed at "my mom", Microsoft is guaranteed to reign supreme, because "my mom" doesn't really care about performance issues or security or any of that. But my hunch is that, in light of some of the bugs and general ickiness covered in this review, few people are going to want to switch over to C#. I mean, what would be the advantage?? If you already write C++ and/or Java, why would you want to start writing stuff in C#? I just don't understand.
Besides, If you're downloading anything that has a filename like "MAKE MONEY FAST - WWW.SPAM.COM.exe", you deserve to be infected. In fact, you deserve to be shot.
.exe? .com is already an executable file under DOS systems.
Why the
Actually, though, it strikes me as very strange that there so few (in fact, none that I've heard of) file.com viruses that masquerade as URLS. It seems like a filed called "Go To Weirdxxx.com" would fool a lot more people than one called "Love Letter for You.vbs". I'm sure plenty of people have already thought of this, so - can anyone give me an explanation why it isn't seen?
Yeah, man! FUCK Jack Valenti!
(Is this post going to drop my Karma, or does that no longer happen?)
This is the worst joke I've ever heard.
Although--since C++ handles increments slightly better in very specific situations before the variable than after, it should probably be called ++C. So I guess #C would be... parallel to that... but... senseless.
And there's already a fairly high-traffic #C on irc.debian.org.
Perhaps they'll rewrite Perl and call it !Perl :)
Seriously, though, M$ has been doing this their whole life. PC-DOS became MS-DOS. GWBASIC became BASICA.
M$'s marketing strategy: take something people are already familiar with and sliiiightly modify it.
Fair enough. In our particular case, the wireless card is in the server itself. There is no separate wireless access point.
How does a wireless server hinder the physical security of a NOC encased in concrete? Please tell me, I'm sure there are a lot of network admins who would love to know this sort of info.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or a troll or what, because it's such a weird question.
Wireless servers don't hinder the security of a concrete-encased NOC. It's the other way around. The wireless traffic cannot penetrate the concrete, rendering the server worthless.
True, which is why you keep anything important in rooms with concrete walls and thick metal doors with good locks.
:)
Concrete walls probably aren't the best solution for a NOC with a wireless server
The quantity of bugs an OS has is a completely meaningless statistic. What do you think would be a bigger security problem: 60 bullet holes in my front door, or one cannonball hole?
That's where the difference lies. Microsoft security holes on bugtraq are almost guaranteed to be worse than Linux holes. Why? Because, without the source, someone has already encountered the bug in day-to-day use. A lot of these Linux bugs are things like, "Wow, this wasn't coded exactly right; in theory, although I don't know how it could be done, this could be exploited.". Microsoft bugs are likely to be along the lines of, "Ha, ha, I just exploited your OS again!"
Well, when you consider that DOS doesn't concern itself even one iota with security, and that any user has complete access to every aspect of the system, I suppose you could say it's exactly as secure as it's intended to be. But, to be fair, it was designed at a time when everyone using it had direct access to the hardware--and even today, anyone with direct access to your hardware should have no problem getting to whatever they want.
I don't know how acceptable this would be in the high schools, but the applications that taught me the most programming theory were casino games.
I managed to pull off Keno and Blackjack. They were a lot harder than they seemed. Keno required a graphical interface with the ncurses library that was probably harder than most menu interfaces you'd see, like pine or capt. Blackjack was a little easier, except programming in things like split, double down, and insurance, which was a headache.
My friend pretty much catapulted himself from novice programmer to experienced programmer in two weeks with Deuces Wild. Now that one was a nightmare. Not only did he become obsessed with randomizing and shuffling the deck, but the algorithm for determining the final hand was incredibly complicated. To make matters worse, he insisted on testing the thing on a 4 megahertz machine from about 1986.
Anyway, I've written a lot of worthless software, but nothing has been as useful later as casino games.
But character is important to the consumer.
I mean, most of us will openly admit that Napster is unethical, and we'll also openly insist that the RIAA is unethical.
So I sort of think that if we were doing the Right Thing, we'd boycott them both. Otherwise, we're boycotting an unethical organization because it's preventing us from doing something unethical.
I guess we're justified, but it doesn't exactly make us all saints.
All you need is bandwidth, love, and caffeine.
A Slashdot poll from months back has accurately shown those to be the most important things in life. In that order.
Either that, or the much more reasonable possibility that the RIAA released it on paper and some guy who runs their site but has almost no affiliation with them scanned it into PDF format.
Seriously, the RIAA has done a lot of things to piss me off, but alienating linux users isn't one I had specifically thought of.
You can see why poor Al Gore's going to lose the election, despite his being a brilliant thinker compared to Bush - because Bush can charm the pants off our uninformed and easily-swayed voting public.
Personally, I don't think Bush can "charm the pants" off anyone. If you watch the guy, his public presence is awful. He mutters, he makes non-sequitur responses, he takes loong pauses between words, and he says things that I'd think would give anyone pause. Example:
Reporter: How do you respond to allegations that there's no proof that the death penalty deters crime?
Bush: Well.... there's no proof that it doesn't.
I think the reasons Bush will win are as follows:
1. His name is "George Bush".
2. The public has forgotten that they didn't like George Bush.
3. Al Gore is a democrat, just like Bill Clinton.
4. The public hasn't forgotten that they don't like Bill Clinton.
5. We've had four years to watch Al Gore be wooden and boring.
6. I'm fairly certain that only a small minority of voters have actually seen George W. on TV.
My $0.01.
What better way could there possibly be to test how a product holds up under high stress than to attach it to a giant e-mail network, first attempting to take 5% of the load, and then slowly incrementing it to see if and when it will choke?
And if you don't particularly want to be a beta tester, maybe you shouldn't use a giant, unruly, insecure, slow, free e-mail account as your primary mail provider. Sheesh.
As much as most of us hate Microsoft, this experiment can only do harm to hotmail. It can't really do harm to the software being tested, and it might actually end up improving it.
Or maybe it would be like if the author of Garfield sued me, personally, for wearing a T-shirt with Hobbes on it.
Or maybe it would be like if Bill Watterson sued me because I was wearing a T-shirt advertising a book entitled "How to photocopy and bind a friend's comic book".
Or maybe making Bill Watterson metaphors is just a distraction from the actual point.
Damnit! First Orrin Hatch does a bunch of things that are insane, and then he does a bunch of things that are reasonable, and then he does a bunch of things that are insane.
Sometimes I think that there are three guys who all look identical and take turns being "Orrin Hatch".
Some bill with a drug rider passes, someone posts instructions for making methamphetamine to Slashdot (as though we couldn't find them anyway at, for example, Tower Records), and at my next visit, I get a happy 404 File Not Found message.
What a fantastic law!! What I really want to know, and didn't pick up from the article, is this: which senator(s) or representative(s) (is|are) responsible??
This will be my last post on the subject.
The things I can't understand about you are:
1. Why you think "Bubba" is a normal, non-funny name;
2. Why you aren't being moderated down for your obvious flamebait;
3. Where your sense of humor went.
It has always been my opinion that people who cannot make fun of themselves, or who become offended for the sake of people they don't even know, have serious social problems.
And I still hold that America's problems with racism will finally solved when everyone can laugh at racist jokes--regardless of the race from which, and to which, they are told.
Your reaction is insane.
There are many silly names, some of which are foreign to me, and some of which are not. For example, in the Wedding Singer, it was accurately pointed out that "Julia Goolia" was a ridiculous name. In fact, if you go through a phone book, you see all kinds of weird, laughable, non-foreign names. Several last names for "Harry" spring to mind.
Talal Shamoon strikes me as a very silly name, and I don't think that flaming me and calling me a sad bigot is justified. Sheesh.
Just because a tech show is "all about the tech" should not imply that scantily clad females would be inappropriate.
I have an easier time concentrating on the benefits and drawbacks of a new piece of hardware or software when it's being presented by.. such a female.