or the like? Because if you are referring to a complaint by the compiler that the while loop has no statement after it, you could have easily put the incrementing portion in a block after it, such as:
Yeah... and it's "ok" to call a bookstore a "chack bahng" or a "chack ka-gay", (I believe ka-gay is 'store'), but you couldn't say "pizza bahng", because supposedly it sounds really stupid to Korean people. At least the exchange students I know.
Out of curiosity, why did you choose "an" before the ".1" portion of your sentence? I read ".1" as either "dot one" or "period one"... what do you say?
You're missing the overall point... you keep trying to make me out to be an MS advocate because it's convenient for your argument, completely missing the point of my original post.
My point is that the article was misinformed, and that it costed nothing to view the API. Your decision to avoid future MS products has nothing to do with my point, and neither does your rant/opinion about the quality of the Win32 API.
If you can't separate the concept of a fact from praise, I can understand how you fail to separate your rants from your (lack of) facts.
Frankly, I don't care about where Microsoft ends up, or whether or not readers of Slashdot ever choose to view MSDN. I just want my fellow readers to be aware of an incorrect line in the article. Enjoy your soapbox.
Slow down there, buddy... all I was noting was that you can get references to the API on MSDN, nothing more. I certainly wasn't "barking" about MSDN's "free as in beer", and this post wasn't meant for you to jump on your soapbox.
And using phrases like "for all we know" aren't going to get you anywhere with people that can recognize the difference between a solid argument and a fallacy. I must have missed the portion of my post where I discussed lawyers and Palladium... or were you just ranting?
A poorly written program is just that, and if you don't follow the documentation and caveats of the APIs that YOU choose to use, your software will crash and burn. The programs that I wrote years ago still run perfectly fine in Windows 2000/XP as they did in Winnt 4.0 and Windows 98. If you don't want to truely understand the API enough to write a coherent and robust program for Win32, don't, but save us all the tirade and zealotry.
and the APIs can be buried in MSDN, forcing OSS software developers to not only subscribe to MSDN, but also follow whatever licensing MSDN forces on users.
MSDN's documentation and source examples are
free... msdn.microsoft.com has all of it. As a former MSDN subscriber, you get software and EXTRA downloads (ability to try new releases, etc), but the documentation is always freely available. FUD Alert!
Sounds like a bunch of nerds trying to calculate how to get a date instead of going to the bar and trying it the good ole' way... clue fellas: This is NOT the way!
Tricky tricky... but there are/have been alternatives to Ethernet (even though it's ubitqitous nowadays)... maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but I can't think of a known alternative to TCP/IP that was ever a player... no?
I'm curious to know if there were other choices at a time...:-D
This is absolutely true when catching the casual "hotlinker", but it's quite simple to tack on Referer headers with programs like wget, and most sites Referer checkers are more than satisfied with the exact same URL of the file you are downloading as the referer. For example, if I wanted to get http://www.download.com/downloadme.file, throwing in "Referer: http://www.download.com/downloadme.file" usually does the trick. It could easily be thrown into a script, and would be great for batch processing (getting many files without clicking through many pages of the same site).
Unconventional twists are good unless they are blatantly wrong, such as "definately". Every time I see someone spell "definitely" "definately" I want to scream in agony.
Here come the onslaught of people replying to this post spelling it in a very predictable way.
"...your assumption that PPC is automagically more powerful than Intel architectures is a clear indication that you are severiously under-informed..."
That is classic Ad Hominem to those that know logic and critical thinking class material. Attack this guys point, not him as a person... it's a fallacy.
Of course, your entire statement is wrong because your name start with a Z.;-)
How are you "disagreeing" with him? The parent poster said "suck it up and use what you are supposed to or stop doing it" in so many words. Your friend didn't want to bend to the rules of the US healthcare system (a.k.a. "suck it up"), so he "stopped", and moved out of the US. Sounds like quite an agreement to me.
I'm going to say that you are making a poor equivocation. The final product is dependent on the tools in this case. It'd be more like "When you hire a baker to make you cookies shaped in your initials, do you demand him to use your cookie cutters?" Of course you do. Why? Because you want the final product to be the way you intended him to do it. Can it be changed after the fact? Possibly. It might be a bitch, but it's doable.
If you actually read the article, there are very valid reasons (albeit mistakes) that this happened, and the likelyhood of the virus actually running on the machine is next to none. The Help system wouldn't ever open it.
But hey, this is Slashdot. Let's all miss the relevant parts of the article and just bash "M$"! Yay, fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Mutually exclusive files? Does this mean that I can either have httpd.conf OR smb.conf, but not both? Say it ain't so!
Do you mean that you had something like this?:
while(*(c++) != 0);
or the like? Because if you are referring to a complaint by the compiler that the while loop has no statement after it, you could have easily put the incrementing portion in a block after it, such as:
while (*c != 0) c++;
Or am I missing the point?
Yeah ... and it's "ok" to call a bookstore a "chack bahng" or a "chack ka-gay", (I believe ka-gay is 'store'), but you couldn't say "pizza bahng", because supposedly it sounds really stupid to Korean people. At least the exchange students I know.
We already have ____ laws so do we really need ____ laws?
Funny, when you say the same thing about ____ laws, everyone freaks.
---
This isn't MadLibs, people. The concepts of DRM are NOTHING like concepts of gun control.
Out of curiosity, why did you choose "an" before the ".1" portion of your sentence? I read ".1" as either "dot one" or "period one" ... what do you say?
What the hell is a quality adult? Quit making such self-aggrandizing statements and try to read the Harry Potter books before bashing them.
... you were just an Anonymous troll, I missed that. Oops!
Oh wait
You're missing the overall point ... you keep trying to make me out to be an MS advocate because it's convenient for your argument, completely missing the point of my original post.
My point is that the article was misinformed, and that it costed nothing to view the API. Your decision to avoid future MS products has nothing to do with my point, and neither does your rant/opinion about the quality of the Win32 API.
If you can't separate the concept of a fact from praise, I can understand how you fail to separate your rants from your (lack of) facts.
Frankly, I don't care about where Microsoft ends up, or whether or not readers of Slashdot ever choose to view MSDN. I just want my fellow readers to be aware of an incorrect line in the article. Enjoy your soapbox.
Slow down there, buddy ... all I was noting was that you can get references to the API on MSDN, nothing more. I certainly wasn't "barking" about MSDN's "free as in beer", and this post wasn't meant for you to jump on your soapbox.
... or were you just ranting?
And using phrases like "for all we know" aren't going to get you anywhere with people that can recognize the difference between a solid argument and a fallacy. I must have missed the portion of my post where I discussed lawyers and Palladium
A poorly written program is just that, and if you don't follow the documentation and caveats of the APIs that YOU choose to use, your software will crash and burn. The programs that I wrote years ago still run perfectly fine in Windows 2000/XP as they did in Winnt 4.0 and Windows 98. If you don't want to truely understand the API enough to write a coherent and robust program for Win32, don't, but save us all the tirade and zealotry.
and the APIs can be buried in MSDN, forcing OSS software developers to not only subscribe to MSDN, but also follow whatever licensing MSDN forces on users.
... msdn.microsoft.com has all of it. As a former MSDN subscriber, you get software and EXTRA downloads (ability to try new releases, etc), but the documentation is always freely available. FUD Alert!
MSDN's documentation and source examples are free
Sounds like a bunch of nerds trying to calculate how to get a date instead of going to the bar and trying it the good ole' way ... clue fellas: This is NOT the way!
{offtopic?}
It handles all cases:
...
src honesty.pl, line 349:
if($a = m/(not)? [hH]onest to ([Gg]od|[Aa]llah|[Ss]atan)/)
{
20 dollars on pump 3, please!
Tricky tricky ... but there are/have been alternatives to Ethernet (even though it's ubitqitous nowadays)... maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but I can't think of a known alternative to TCP/IP that was ever a player... no?
:-D
I'm curious to know if there were other choices at a time...
The correct headline should be written as:
GNU/Gnarly Error Messages?
Come on people...
-1 Flamebait, +1 Lame, +1 Funny = +2! Not bad.
How does one look "American"? Do you mean look "white"? Or do you mean "not Chinese"? Seems like a bad generalization.
This is absolutely true when catching the casual "hotlinker", but it's quite simple to tack on Referer headers with programs like wget, and most sites Referer checkers are more than satisfied with the exact same URL of the file you are downloading as the referer. For example, if I wanted to get http://www.download.com/downloadme.file, throwing in "Referer: http://www.download.com/downloadme.file" usually does the trick. It could easily be thrown into a script, and would be great for batch processing (getting many files without clicking through many pages of the same site).
Unconventional twists are good unless they are blatantly wrong, such as "definately". Every time I see someone spell "definitely" "definately" I want to scream in agony.
Here come the onslaught of people replying to this post spelling it in a very predictable way.
"...your assumption that PPC is automagically more powerful than Intel architectures is a clear indication that you are severiously under-informed..."
... it's a fallacy.
;-)
That is classic Ad Hominem to those that know logic and critical thinking class material. Attack this guys point, not him as a person
Of course, your entire statement is wrong because your name start with a Z.
It sounds like he's looking for software to replace the server, not the client. He doesn't want integration with Exchange, he wants to get rid of it.
How are you "disagreeing" with him? The parent poster said "suck it up and use what you are supposed to or stop doing it" in so many words. Your friend didn't want to bend to the rules of the US healthcare system (a.k.a. "suck it up"), so he "stopped", and moved out of the US. Sounds like quite an agreement to me.
Perusing the compiler source... "lambda."
Quoting one of the greatest movies of all time: "You keep using that word. I dunna think it means-ah what you think it means."
I'm going to say that you are making a poor equivocation. The final product is dependent on the tools in this case. It'd be more like "When you hire a baker to make you cookies shaped in your initials, do you demand him to use your cookie cutters?" Of course you do. Why? Because you want the final product to be the way you intended him to do it. Can it be changed after the fact? Possibly. It might be a bitch, but it's doable.
This post provided absolutely no merit or value to the discussion. Did I miss your point, or were you just patting yourself on the back?
"I did this really cool thing. Sucks for you!"
If you actually read the article, there are very valid reasons (albeit mistakes) that this happened, and the likelyhood of the virus actually running on the machine is next to none. The Help system wouldn't ever open it.
But hey, this is Slashdot. Let's all miss the relevant parts of the article and just bash "M$"! Yay, fun.
And what happens when they compromise the second password? [/obvious] Great idea.