No, not TopText (although that irritates me). It's this: "I both emailed and called TopText's vendor, San Francisco-based eZula, to ask if there was any way we could keep their TopText links from showing up on OSDN Web sites, including Slashdot."
DAMN IT OSDN. Keep your goddamn hands out of my browser!!! If I want to use TopText, it's my goddamn business, not yours. If I want to use their service on your web page, IT'S MY RIGHT. It's my computer. I can view your page any way I want. It's called "fair use".
Or has Slashdot suddenly decided that they will decide how I view their content?
Sorry for the strength of the wording of this post. But this is a great example of the evil of do-gooders who want to "only help us" to make the "right decisions".
I notice that the ACLU's web site still doesn't have any mention of the case since I posted about this last time.
At the time, several people posted that they were going to submit requests to the ACLU's submission page. Did anyone get any response?
I still cynically believe that the ACLU will never pay attention to this case because they don't want to piss off their gravy train, but I would interested to hear if anyone got a response.
A) According to my Websters Unabridged dictionary, as well as the admittedly lesser dictionary.com site, it is not. Unfortunately, I don't have an OED handy to get the definitive reference. To tell you the truth, though, making it an adjective doesn't even really make much sense. Take Katz' sentence: "And the opening 10 or 15 minutes are promisingly fabulistic. Given the definition of fabulist, what is this supposed to mean? Promisingly like one who tells a fable? Promisingly like a movie written by a liar? Promisingly dishonest? Merriam-Webster doesn't even bother to tell us what the adjective sense even means, which tells me that some dictionary editor somewhere saw the word and decided to throw it in without even knowing what it means.
B. I didn't think it was funny either, but I still think I'm right.
A. Fabulist is a word. Fabulistic is not, unless you believe that "adjectivising" any noun is proper. The Reality Master is seldom wrong in matters of grammar.
B. The Reality Master does not pick the moderation.
Katz is a professional writer, right? I mean, one of the rules of writing is that you can break rules when it serves a purpose in the writing. But I can see absolutely no purpose to pulling that word out of his butt, and nothing in the context signals any "playfulness" with language.
Actually, "duh" and wrong, at least as far as Telnet goes. Telnet does not use the shell (although Ping does). You can put Telnet on the menu anytime you want, it's just not there by default.
Is Hollywood so starved for ideas that they have to mine for sequels this low? (rhetorical question, of course...)
I mean, I haven't seen the movie since it came out, and maybe someone can refresh my memory, but didn't it, well, suck? I mean, I remember my group of friends saying "Finally! A movie for programmers!", but after seeing it I remember being sorely disappointed in its unrealistic, cheesy use of any buzzword they could pull out of the computer dictionary.
If software marketing directors wrote a computer script, this is what the movie would look like (except without product placements.:) )
If it's built into the operating system why do you have to DL something?
Try clicking on a menu... you'll notice a fade effect. Try dragging files in file explorer, and you'll notice the files are transparent.
Win/2000 has it, but it just doesn't beat you over the head with it. The utilities you can download are ones that allow you specify transparencies for various windows, borders, dialogs, etc.
To tell you the truth, I credit Microsoft with some taste when it comes to this. The other platforms with this effect (and I include Apple in this) seem almost nouveau riche, like wearing big gold chains just to prove you can.
I don't care what it takes, I want transparent windows
Or just give him Win/2000. Lots of downloadable utilities to make any window transparent. It's even built into the operating system, rather than the ugly hack that you need to do to make it work on X (which doesn't natively support it).
Once Passport has a foothold, Microsoft can update Passport and the.NET run-time environment to break all those e-commerce applications built with Mono.
Ah yes, the ol' "you can't reproduce Office because Microsoft will just change the format" argument. Simple, easy to understand -- and wrong.
The fatal flaw in his argument is that people don't upgrade instantaneously. Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the communications format because they would break their own software unless customers upgrade.
In fact, to the contrary, it was much easier for Microsoft to change things like Office because they could make deals with closed-environments like a big company where everybody gets upgraded at once. When we are deal with something like this, even Microsoft can't get the whole Internet to upgrade at once.
Once Microsoft sets the standard, they will be hamstrung into supporting it forever.
Remember, the ACLU runs on donations. The ACLU gets huge amounts of money from Hollywood and other big media types. It's not that surprising, since the ACLU is known for defending free speech rights.
But it's times like this that you can see the payback. The ACLU likes to portray itself as non-partisan and independent, but it's an incredibly political organization.
Considering the ACLU is, oh, 1000 times larger than the EFF and considering the government actually cares what the ACLU thinks, I think they could be helpful.
I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I am surprised that they haven't weighed in on this.
On the other hand, the cynical side of me is not surprised, saying, "of course they haven't weighed in -- they've been in the back pockets of big media for years".
What I said was the following: "If you have a vacuum on the other side of the glass, it should be the same amount of air pressure on the other side regardless of the depth. So maybe the glass needs to be just as thick."
In other words, the depth of the monitor isn't a factor in whether the thickness of the glass needs to change for a certain size monitor. Your point about structural integrity is true, but irrelevent to the main point which is that reducing the depth doesn't change the thickness requirement.
Hmmm. If it is the glass that's mostly the weight, then do you need the glass to be as thick? On the one hand, it seems like you wouldn't need as much "vacuum volume". But on the other hand, does the volume matter? If you have a vacuum on the other side of the glass, it should be the same amount of air pressure on the other side regardless of the depth. So maybe the glass needs to be just as thick.
It would kind of suck to have a 90 pound 21" monitor 2 centimeters thick, and have it fall forward into your lap. The base would need to take up pretty much the same amount of space as a standard monitor. Kind of defeats the purpose.:)
What makes CRTs so heavy anyway? It can't just be the glass. Would something like this reduce the weight, or are they just shifting around whatever it is that makes them so damn heavy?
Slashdot Mirror
No, not TopText (although that irritates me). It's this: "I both emailed and called TopText's vendor, San Francisco-based eZula, to ask if there was any way we could keep their TopText links from showing up on OSDN Web sites, including Slashdot."
DAMN IT OSDN. Keep your goddamn hands out of my browser!!! If I want to use TopText, it's my goddamn business, not yours. If I want to use their service on your web page, IT'S MY RIGHT. It's my computer. I can view your page any way I want. It's called "fair use".
Or has Slashdot suddenly decided that they will decide how I view their content?
Sorry for the strength of the wording of this post. But this is a great example of the evil of do-gooders who want to "only help us" to make the "right decisions".
Hell/Paved/Intentions.
--
Who is that? What do "we" believe?
--
I notice that the ACLU's web site still doesn't have any mention of the case since I posted about this last time.
At the time, several people posted that they were going to submit requests to the ACLU's submission page. Did anyone get any response?
I still cynically believe that the ACLU will never pay attention to this case because they don't want to piss off their gravy train, but I would interested to hear if anyone got a response.
--
In my opinion, someone should force MS to take responability for issuing a product recall...just like in any other industry.
What do you think a security advisory and a patch is?
--
...panic for a microsecond when you saw the ".cx" domain?
--
A) According to my Websters Unabridged dictionary, as well as the admittedly lesser dictionary.com site, it is not. Unfortunately, I don't have an OED handy to get the definitive reference. To tell you the truth, though, making it an adjective doesn't even really make much sense. Take Katz' sentence: "And the opening 10 or 15 minutes are promisingly fabulistic. Given the definition of fabulist, what is this supposed to mean? Promisingly like one who tells a fable? Promisingly like a movie written by a liar? Promisingly dishonest? Merriam-Webster doesn't even bother to tell us what the adjective sense even means, which tells me that some dictionary editor somewhere saw the word and decided to throw it in without even knowing what it means.
B. I didn't think it was funny either, but I still think I'm right.
--
A. Fabulist is a word. Fabulistic is not, unless you believe that "adjectivising" any noun is proper. The Reality Master is seldom wrong in matters of grammar.
B. The Reality Master does not pick the moderation.
--
Katz is a professional writer, right? I mean, one of the rules of writing is that you can break rules when it serves a purpose in the writing. But I can see absolutely no purpose to pulling that word out of his butt, and nothing in the context signals any "playfulness" with language.
--
Actually, "duh" and wrong, at least as far as Telnet goes. Telnet does not use the shell (although Ping does). You can put Telnet on the menu anytime you want, it's just not there by default.
--
No Duh.
This must be why I keep coming back to Slashdot... for the insightful analysis.
--
Is Hollywood so starved for ideas that they have to mine for sequels this low? (rhetorical question, of course...)
I mean, I haven't seen the movie since it came out, and maybe someone can refresh my memory, but didn't it, well, suck? I mean, I remember my group of friends saying "Finally! A movie for programmers!", but after seeing it I remember being sorely disappointed in its unrealistic, cheesy use of any buzzword they could pull out of the computer dictionary.
If software marketing directors wrote a computer script, this is what the movie would look like (except without product placements. :) )
--
Start -> Run -> "ping foo"
Start -> Run -> "telnet foo"
:)
--
If it's built into the operating system why do you have to DL something?
Try clicking on a menu... you'll notice a fade effect. Try dragging files in file explorer, and you'll notice the files are transparent.
Win/2000 has it, but it just doesn't beat you over the head with it. The utilities you can download are ones that allow you specify transparencies for various windows, borders, dialogs, etc.
To tell you the truth, I credit Microsoft with some taste when it comes to this. The other platforms with this effect (and I include Apple in this) seem almost nouveau riche, like wearing big gold chains just to prove you can.
--
I don't care what it takes, I want transparent windows
Or just give him Win/2000. Lots of downloadable utilities to make any window transparent. It's even built into the operating system, rather than the ugly hack that you need to do to make it work on X (which doesn't natively support it).
--
Once Passport has a foothold, Microsoft can update Passport and the .NET run-time environment to break all those e-commerce applications built with Mono.
Ah yes, the ol' "you can't reproduce Office because Microsoft will just change the format" argument. Simple, easy to understand -- and wrong.
The fatal flaw in his argument is that people don't upgrade instantaneously. Microsoft can't arbitrarily change the communications format because they would break their own software unless customers upgrade.
In fact, to the contrary, it was much easier for Microsoft to change things like Office because they could make deals with closed-environments like a big company where everybody gets upgraded at once. When we are deal with something like this, even Microsoft can't get the whole Internet to upgrade at once.
Once Microsoft sets the standard, they will be hamstrung into supporting it forever.
--
Uh, the Cato institute is a think tank, not an activist lawyer coalition. They issue studies, not lawsuits.
--
Remember, the ACLU runs on donations. The ACLU gets huge amounts of money from Hollywood and other big media types. It's not that surprising, since the ACLU is known for defending free speech rights.
But it's times like this that you can see the payback. The ACLU likes to portray itself as non-partisan and independent, but it's an incredibly political organization.
--
In fact, I just used the ACLU's search page, and remarkably there is zero mention of Sklyarov, not even on their Cyber-Liberties page.
The silence is remarkable -- and deafening.
All you ACLU fans should take note of this.
--
Considering the ACLU is, oh, 1000 times larger than the EFF and considering the government actually cares what the ACLU thinks, I think they could be helpful.
--
I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I am surprised that they haven't weighed in on this.
On the other hand, the cynical side of me is not surprised, saying, "of course they haven't weighed in -- they've been in the back pockets of big media for years".
--
What I said was the following: "If you have a vacuum on the other side of the glass, it should be the same amount of air pressure on the other side regardless of the depth. So maybe the glass needs to be just as thick."
In other words, the depth of the monitor isn't a factor in whether the thickness of the glass needs to change for a certain size monitor. Your point about structural integrity is true, but irrelevent to the main point which is that reducing the depth doesn't change the thickness requirement.
--
Leave it to a Slashdot poster to half-read what I said, and then arrogantly repeat what I said back to me.
--
Hmmm. If it is the glass that's mostly the weight, then do you need the glass to be as thick? On the one hand, it seems like you wouldn't need as much "vacuum volume". But on the other hand, does the volume matter? If you have a vacuum on the other side of the glass, it should be the same amount of air pressure on the other side regardless of the depth. So maybe the glass needs to be just as thick.
It would kind of suck to have a 90 pound 21" monitor 2 centimeters thick, and have it fall forward into your lap. The base would need to take up pretty much the same amount of space as a standard monitor. Kind of defeats the purpose. :)
--
What makes CRTs so heavy anyway? It can't just be the glass. Would something like this reduce the weight, or are they just shifting around whatever it is that makes them so damn heavy?
--
Macs are already hard enough to upgrade.
--