Wired is tired. That's the simplest way to put it. It started out as a commercial rip-off of Mondo 2000, and it's devolved into yet another 'hip' read for the suits.
Is Mondo, and/or the people/energy behind it still out there somewhere that I haven't located? It's been awhile since I saw it on the stands.
I'm asking them to make information (mostly just my credit card info) entirely inaccessable to anybody online in any fashion once I've made my purchase. It can be on machines not connected to the net, it can be on paper where necessary.
Wow, you sure have a low opinion of all the non-Microsoft software on the 'net. Do you really think the DOJ is the only thing saving poor little us from Big Bad Microsoft?
I noticed, too, that it shunts around the JS code if it doesn't detect IE. Why was this necessary? Are they afraid Netscape would fall down and get hurt if it run the code?
That kind of "doctoring" of the demo code on the site only raises skepticism.
Personally, it pisses me off that eCommerce sites insist on me establishing an 'account' on their server, and a password to access my Credit Card #, etc. that they've tucked away on their site.
I don't want them keeping my information any longer than it takes to process and ship my order.
On the one occasion when I made the mistake of ordering from Amazon.com, I tried shortly thereafter to get them to delete all information about me. They responded with all sorts of questions (details of the order I had placed), basically refusing to delete the info unless I provided it.
Corel can't even write native Linux code of their bigger products. Instead, they're dragging Windows (wine) along with their apps onto Linux. Similar, of course, to what Microsoft did to get IE on Unix systems.
Netscape hasn't been that bad. At least they port to many OSes.
Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask/. to remove the comments..
Umm, what you're saying is that Microsoft should contact the individuals who posted the information.
1. Those individuals can not remove the material, and it appears that preventing individual commenters from being able to remove their comments was an explicit design decision made by the developers of this site.
2. In order for Microsoft to contact the individuals in order to ask them to remove the material (which is impossible for them to do in any case), Microsoft's staff would need the contact information used to establish the accounts the material was posted under. Do we really want to advocate the forced disclosure of that information?
3. Point 1 above raises an interesting issue. If comments made here on this forum are the property of the people who submit them, why is it impossible for those people to remove and/or modify the content of those comments?
I think blowing this all up and making a big issue of it could precipitate a 'sea change' in the legal status of many of the involved parties. It might take this site down, or radically modify how it is structured.
And Slackware should be "held accountable" for the fact that (in version 3.6 and earlier) it doesn't prompt you, doesn't warn you, etc. that you should install a password on the root account.
A friend of mine browsed the web for weeks on a Slack system with no root password. I found it out by accident and scared the hell out of her.
But we're slagging Microsoft here, right? So I should just quiet down.
Aiming a gun at somebody(loaded or unloaded) is assault. Firing the gun (if it has a non-blank bullet in it) is battery. You can be incarcerated for assault or for battery.
They should closely study "Repent, Harlequin, Said the Tick-Tock Man" by Harlan Ellison. 100,000 jelly beans in the escalator has always struck me as innovative.
NASA, on the other hand, should ponder Ellison's book "Approaching Oblivion." Cynical, but they're due for a little of that.
No, you go down to your basement foundry, fire up all the GNU-brand fab equipment you downloaded from the FSF, and you pump out your own Itanium.
The whole idea is ridiculous! This is almost the same kind of idealism that lead the Chinese government during the 'Great Leap Forward' to convince people all across China to build backyard steel foundries. For the more dense idealists in the crowd itching to reply to this comment- no, it didn't work in China.
It's so ludicrous it can't help but make this website look like a bunch of damn fools for even putting up an article about it.
They've opted for Microsoft Xenix (not that 'sold out commercial SCO Xenix crap- that came much later!).
The hardware will be twelve Altos 586 boxes daisy-chained together (The Altos 586 is an 8086-based system- the '5' stands for five users. Notably, the existence of the Altos 586 is the chief reason Intel chose the name "Pentium" for their fifth generation x86 processor) Each Altos box, in addition to the Intel 8086 processor (two of the machines have been "overclocked" by the substitution of a NEC V-30 chip!), 512K of RAM, and six serial ports (one for the console, five to connect dumb terminals or modems, as each box supports five users.) Since only one of the Altos boxes has the built-in Ethernet, the other eleven boxes will be connected through a daisy-chain scheme to use UUCP for 'networking'.
The power of all this hardware is harnessed through the use of Microsoft's Xenix Operating System. Unlike the rather anaemic SCO releases that followed it, Microsoft Xenix is a powerhouse of an Operating System. Linux wasn't an option, because it took the coding skill of Microsoft to get a Unix system that supports 5 users concurrently to run on an 8086 processor with 512K of RAM. The Linux kernel alone has a vastly larger memory footprint than that, and needless to say it doesn't scale well to the 8086 processor. (These stats on Microsoft Xenix are the truth, by the way, and Microsoft did it in 1982.)
There won't be a web server running on the new platform. Users will dial directly into a modem pool linked to serial ports on the Altos boxes. A modified version of the WWIV bulletin board software (version 3.21d was the starting point for the adapted 'port') will provide a home for the new enhanced Slashdot.
You'll know the upgrade has been made when you see the login prompt, and the friendly ASCII splash screen welcoming you to The New Slashdot
OSS made the Internet. That's an interesting point for debate. If you mean the hoary old Internet, you're talking about a long, long time ago. If by 'made' the Internet you mean what popularized the 'net and made it what it is today... ummm... then it could be said that what 'made' the Internet was when Marc Andreesen ran off and closed the Mosaic source to start up Netscape. That doesn't seem very "open source" to me. Then again, maybe we should say that the 'net was a thriving operation back in 1985 when Unix hackers all had dumb terminals.
Well, NFS is just one big crisis, lurking in the shadows, on a Linux system. Take down the server and watch all the clients freak out and seize up. It seems to hold up better on the BSDs, but it's definitely a crisis on Linux.
I've even seen the editors at Linux Journal openly dis NFS on Linux, recommending that someone who wrote in asking about it instead adopt Samba. At the time it struck me as ironic, using a Microsoft protocol for Linux to Unix connectivity. But I guess on Linux one should never be surprised.
I thought that when you 'slapped it in an RFC' it was because you were issuing a Request For Comments, and then awhile later it solidified into something firm, still paradoxically called a RFC.
I wasn't aware that you just slapped it into an RFC and it transformed into an edict.
"Bazaar" development is not a defining characteristic of free software, after all.
This, I feel, is a point worth stressing, as it seems a lot of people don't realize it.
Wasn't the "Cathederal and the Bazaar" essay originally written as a criticism of the way the GNU emacs is developed and maintained? (correct me if I am wrong)
Sad as it is to say, HP has been coasting along on their reputation in the Test&Measurement area for years. Hopefully the split-off of that business to Agilent will save the business, but I'm not that confident.
H-P used to be a common answer when people were asked which tech company they respected the most. Unfortunately HP marketing people caught onto that fact and the company decided to cash in on it.
I've had good luck recently with HP, but that's because I bought a laserjet. In the olden days I had one of those 'financial disaster' InkJet printers.
It was nuts paying ten times as much per page to print, but I see people doing it all the time.
"ooooh! look! It prints in color, and the ink only costs about 12 cents a page! "
Advertisers could even print nice glossy black coupons that the consumer could redeem for discounts on more expen$ive little pots of ink for those inkjet printers.
I'm not at the point where you would want me coding the flight control systems for the jetliner you take when you fly off to destinations mundane.
Sorry to have to point it out, but society definitely does NOT want a 'hacker' by any definition of the word coding the flight control system for a jetliner. That kind of code has to be planned out, thoroughly documented, rinse&repeat times 20.
Definitely NOT the kind of code you want to 'release early, release often.'
Hackers do well to stick with coding nifty stuff they can show off to their 'peers.'
A 'troll' is a public utterance, almost always on-line, intended to incite a flame-war. It comes from fishing terminology. You 'troll' your fishing plug past the weedbed where the mighty Northen Pike lurks, in hopes that it will strike out and so become hooked. A 'trolling motor' is a small outboard motor, not powerful enough to be suited for tasks like water-skiing, but ideally suited for the slow putt-putt past the aforementioned bed of seaweed.
The ignorant misuse of this term is, to my mind, far more offensive than cracker/hacker, for it's scattered throughout/. discussions and is almost never corrected.
The truly ignorant refer to somebody who 'trolls' as a 'troll' when s/he is obviously a 'troller.'
What's the limit on clueless here, by the way? I wouldn't want to be nailed by the/. game warden for having more than the legal limit on my stringer...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in recent months Slashdot has gotten ink in the Economist. How much more 'bigtime' could they get than that?
Wired is tired. That's the simplest way to put it. It started out as a commercial rip-off of Mondo 2000, and it's devolved into yet another 'hip' read for the suits.
Is Mondo, and/or the people/energy behind it still out there somewhere that I haven't located? It's been awhile since I saw it on the stands.
I'm asking them to make information (mostly just my credit card info) entirely inaccessable to anybody online in any fashion once I've made my purchase. It can be on machines not connected to the net, it can be on paper where necessary.
It shouldn't be behind a single password.
So, is the password that Yahoo requests being send over the wire as plaintext?
Hmmm.
Wow, you sure have a low opinion of all the non-Microsoft software on the 'net. Do you really think the DOJ is the only thing saving poor little us from Big Bad Microsoft?
I noticed, too, that it shunts around the JS code if it doesn't detect IE. Why was this necessary? Are they afraid Netscape would fall down and get hurt if it run the code?
That kind of "doctoring" of the demo code on the site only raises skepticism.
Personally, it pisses me off that eCommerce sites insist on me establishing an 'account' on their server, and a password to access my Credit Card #, etc. that they've tucked away on their site.
I don't want them keeping my information any longer than it takes to process and ship my order.
On the one occasion when I made the mistake of ordering from Amazon.com, I tried shortly thereafter to get them to delete all information about me. They responded with all sorts of questions (details of the order I had placed), basically refusing to delete the info unless I provided it.
At least they don't spam me anymore.
Corel can't even write native Linux code of their bigger products. Instead, they're dragging Windows (wine) along with their apps onto Linux. Similar, of course, to what Microsoft did to get IE on Unix systems.
Netscape hasn't been that bad. At least they port to many OSes.
Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask /. to remove the comments..
Umm, what you're saying is that Microsoft should contact the individuals who posted the information.
1. Those individuals can not remove the material, and it appears that preventing individual commenters from being able to remove their comments was an explicit design decision made by the developers of this site.
2. In order for Microsoft to contact the individuals in order to ask them to remove the material (which is impossible for them to do in any case), Microsoft's staff would need the contact information used to establish the accounts the material was posted under. Do we really want to advocate the forced disclosure of that information?
3. Point 1 above raises an interesting issue. If comments made here on this forum are the property of the people who submit them, why is it impossible for those people to remove and/or modify the content of those comments?
I think blowing this all up and making a big issue of it could precipitate a 'sea change' in the legal status of many of the involved parties. It might take this site down, or radically modify how it is structured.
It will be an interesting ride.
And Slackware should be "held accountable" for the fact that (in version 3.6 and earlier) it doesn't prompt you, doesn't warn you, etc. that you should install a password on the root account.
A friend of mine browsed the web for weeks on a Slack system with no root password. I found it out by accident and scared the hell out of her.
But we're slagging Microsoft here, right? So I should just quiet down.
Aiming a gun at somebody(loaded or unloaded) is assault. Firing the gun (if it has a non-blank bullet in it) is battery. You can be incarcerated for assault or for battery.
They should closely study "Repent, Harlequin, Said the Tick-Tock Man" by Harlan Ellison. 100,000 jelly beans in the escalator has always struck me as innovative.
NASA, on the other hand, should ponder Ellison's book "Approaching Oblivion." Cynical, but they're due for a little of that.
Do I get a free chip if I submit an improvement?
No, you go down to your basement foundry, fire up all the GNU-brand fab equipment you downloaded from the FSF, and you pump out your own Itanium.
The whole idea is ridiculous! This is almost the same kind of idealism that lead the Chinese government during the 'Great Leap Forward' to convince people all across China to build backyard steel foundries. For the more dense idealists in the crowd itching to reply to this comment- no, it didn't work in China.
It's so ludicrous it can't help but make this website look like a bunch of damn fools for even putting up an article about it.
No.
They wanted a more time-proven server platform.
They've opted for Microsoft Xenix (not that 'sold out commercial SCO Xenix crap- that came much later!).
The hardware will be twelve Altos 586 boxes daisy-chained together (The Altos 586 is an 8086-based system- the '5' stands for five users. Notably, the existence of the Altos 586 is the chief reason Intel chose the name "Pentium" for their fifth generation x86 processor) Each Altos box, in addition to the Intel 8086 processor (two of the machines have been "overclocked" by the substitution of a NEC V-30 chip!), 512K of RAM, and six serial ports (one for the console, five to connect dumb terminals or modems, as each box supports five users.) Since only one of the Altos boxes has the built-in Ethernet, the other eleven boxes will be connected through a daisy-chain scheme to use UUCP for 'networking'.
The power of all this hardware is harnessed through the use of Microsoft's Xenix Operating System. Unlike the rather anaemic SCO releases that followed it, Microsoft Xenix is a powerhouse of an Operating System. Linux wasn't an option, because it took the coding skill of Microsoft to get a Unix system that supports 5 users concurrently to run on an 8086 processor with 512K of RAM. The Linux kernel alone has a vastly larger memory footprint than that, and needless to say it doesn't scale well to the 8086 processor. (These stats on Microsoft Xenix are the truth, by the way, and Microsoft did it in 1982.)
There won't be a web server running on the new platform. Users will dial directly into a modem pool linked to serial ports on the Altos boxes. A modified version of the WWIV bulletin board software (version 3.21d was the starting point for the adapted 'port') will provide a home for the new enhanced Slashdot.
You'll know the upgrade has been made when you see the login prompt, and the friendly ASCII splash screen welcoming you to The New Slashdot
OSS made the Internet. That's an interesting point for debate. If you mean the hoary old Internet, you're talking about a long, long time ago. If by 'made' the Internet you mean what popularized the 'net and made it what it is today... ummm... then it could be said that what 'made' the Internet was when Marc Andreesen ran off and closed the Mosaic source to start up Netscape. That doesn't seem very "open source" to me. Then again, maybe we should say that the 'net was a thriving operation back in 1985 when Unix hackers all had dumb terminals.
Well, NFS is just one big crisis, lurking in the shadows, on a Linux system. Take down the server and watch all the clients freak out and seize up. It seems to hold up better on the BSDs, but it's definitely a crisis on Linux.
I've even seen the editors at Linux Journal openly dis NFS on Linux, recommending that someone who wrote in asking about it instead adopt Samba. At the time it struck me as ironic, using a Microsoft protocol for Linux to Unix connectivity. But I guess on Linux one should never be surprised.
I thought that when you 'slapped it in an RFC' it was because you were issuing a Request For Comments, and then awhile later it solidified into something firm, still paradoxically called a RFC.
I wasn't aware that you just slapped it into an RFC and it transformed into an edict.
Silly me!
"Bazaar" development is not a defining characteristic of free software, after all.
This, I feel, is a point worth stressing, as it seems a lot of people don't realize it.
Wasn't the "Cathederal and the Bazaar" essay originally written as a criticism of the way the GNU emacs is developed and maintained? (correct me if I am wrong)
Sad as it is to say, HP has been coasting along on their reputation in the Test&Measurement area for years. Hopefully the split-off of that business to Agilent will save the business, but I'm not that confident.
H-P used to be a common answer when people were asked which tech company they respected the most. Unfortunately HP marketing people caught onto that fact and the company decided to cash in on it.
I've had good luck recently with HP, but that's because I bought a laserjet. In the olden days I had one of those 'financial disaster' InkJet printers.
It was nuts paying ten times as much per page to print, but I see people doing it all the time.
"ooooh! look! It prints in color, and the ink only costs about 12 cents a page! "
I can see it now.
A pleasant yet attention-getting tone sounds. The printer starts scrolling out jet-black pages, which dry slowly as they drop to the floor.
The voice on the screen announces a sale on replacement pots of ink. . .
Advertisers could even print nice glossy black coupons that the consumer could redeem for discounts on more expen$ive little pots of ink for those inkjet printers.
I'm not at the point where you would want me coding the flight control systems for the jetliner you take when you fly off to destinations mundane.
Sorry to have to point it out, but society definitely does NOT want a 'hacker' by any definition of the word coding the flight control system for a jetliner. That kind of code has to be planned out, thoroughly documented, rinse&repeat times 20.
Definitely NOT the kind of code you want to 'release early, release often.'
Hackers do well to stick with coding nifty stuff they can show off to their 'peers.'
A 'troll' is a public utterance, almost always on-line, intended to incite a flame-war. It comes from fishing terminology. You 'troll' your fishing plug past the weedbed where the mighty Northen Pike lurks, in hopes that it will strike out and so become hooked. A 'trolling motor' is a small outboard motor, not powerful enough to be suited for tasks like water-skiing, but ideally suited for the slow putt-putt past the aforementioned bed of seaweed.
/. discussions and is almost never corrected.
/. game warden for having more than the legal limit on my stringer...
The ignorant misuse of this term is, to my mind, far more offensive than cracker/hacker, for it's scattered throughout
The truly ignorant refer to somebody who 'trolls' as a 'troll' when s/he is obviously a 'troller.'
What's the limit on clueless here, by the way? I wouldn't want to be nailed by the
Why should the emacs/Xemacs fork be rejoined?
Is there some inherent reason why there should only be One True Emacs that I am not aware of?