Huh. I'm not sure you read the same article I did. I know a lot of so-called reviews are indeed fluff these days, but this one doesn't seem to fit that at all. I'm a bit lazy right now or else I'd provide examples, but really, I don't think that's even necessary -- read the article and you'll see the above post is silly.
If that was the case, then how did Isildur ever manage to hack the ring off such a nebulous entity? Sauron fought man-to-man in the book too.
That never happens in the book. It's a story that's *told* there. This is an important distinction, because it plays into a key factor that makes LotR work -- there's these ordinary stay-at-home hobbits living their lives in a peaceful "real world" where mythical creatures and events are thought to be just that -- myths. And then all of the sudden, a few of these hobbits are swept up into the continuation of the myth itself. Sauron is part of the grand narrative; he was and is a being with human-like form, but showing that form too soon in the movie is a mistake.
Someone brought up the example of the Emperor in Star Wars; I'll add another: the shark in Jaws.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. (In fact, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in grand slashdot tradition I'll take your statement at face value.) In the book, Sauron is an unnamed and unshown omnipotent power, the very force of evil. In the scene in the movie, he's pretty much reduced to being a supervillain.
(In general, I was pretty happy with the movie, despite its missteps.)
I compromise on the way and turn and, seems to be "a bone of a folding umbrella" at all and can see an arm of this cuttlefish, and a unique figure seems to be the result that adapted itself to the deep sea, but it is watched even if the, detailed habits don't share it, and there is much water, and a cuttlefish to finish compares, to to the deep sea because, meat is too soft and eats it that I am not delicious.
Huh. A few years ago I had a problem with Windows NT 4 where it was sometimes having trouble exchanging packets with other machines on the local network. Finally broke down and called the Microsoft pay-per-incident line, and after an hour or so of trying things, the guy had me remove and reinstall the TCP/IP stack, which solved the problem. I asked what he thought might have been the issue, and he said "Oh, it does that sometimes."
Now, in all fairness, they may have gotten better since then, and I've heard good things technically (leaving aside ethically and morally) about their more modern offerings. But I've always thought "Windows: it does that sometimes" made a pretty good slogan.
I was once interviewed for an article in the Wall Street Journal. It was a kinda fluff piece on Lego Mindstorms, but nevertheless, front page of the second section of a pretty big brand-name paper. I tried to speak simply and clearly, but the actual article was full of errors and had quotes around things I never said -- some things in summary of my actual words, and some things apparently completely made up.
So, when I see a quote like the above, I blame the reporter -- they "reorganize" what they heard until it makes the story they want to say. In this case, it's fun to imply that this might be the Lost Continent of Numenor just in time for the Lord of the Rings movie -- but probably, the actual explorer was a lot more cautious (and accurate!) with her wording.
No no. Domain names are not supposed to point to ANYTHING. *Host* names are supposed to point to machines, and technically, a given name can't be both a domain name and a hostname. This is why we've got www.[whatever].[tld] everywhere. But somewhere in the mid-90s the web grew to be the Most Important Thing On the Internet, and it became normal practice to basically make one's domain name also a hostname pointed to one's web server.
That's not so unreasonable. The vast majority of boxes have little reason to run an ftp server -- it should be disabled on most machines anyway. (scp/sftp is a good alternative in many cases, and of course there's always http, which, although there's obviously lots of potential for problems there, at least isn't such a pain with firewalls).
I've never done this with a winmodem, but just plain old modems do this fine. AT#CID=1 (or #CID=2 for unformated output). I assume if you got a winmodem working and it supported caller id, it'd be the same.
huh. my post got cut off half way through. Wonder if that's slashdot, or today's mozilla build. Should have said:
I think the point is: if Microsoft really wanted to help schools, they would offer to donate things which are vitally needed. As it is, something else is obviously going on.
If *I* were the judge, I'd say: "Hmm, that's a great idea. Except, let's make it $11 billion instead of 1.1, and let's not let Microsoft software count as part of that."
Well, sure, Red Hat would be happy for a tax write off, and I'm sure they're amused to smear Microsoft a bit -- but again, that's not the point because the circumstances are different. Microsoft is trying to weasel their way out of a large number of potentially very expensive court cases. Red Hat obviously would stand to gain if taken up on the offer, but not in the same way at all.
This isn't about helping the kids. This is about punishing Microsoft for illegal acts of which they've been convicted. They're proposing their own slap-on-the-wrist punishment couched in "helping the kids" rhetoric, but really what they want to do is escape having to actually really pay for anything. Microsoft's allegedly 1.1 billion dollar plan actualy consists mostly of donated software, which in real terms costs them nothing. Red Hat is just calling them on this bluff -- if MS had to buy hardware, they'd actually have to spend real money. Of course, even then, 1.1 billion is nothing to a company with 36 billion in the bank.
Plan 9 has "union directories" : directories made of several directories all bound to the same name. The directories making up a union directory are ordered in a list. When the bindings are made (see bind (1)), flags specify whether a made (see bind (1)), flags specify whether a newly bound member goes at the head or the tail of the list or completely replaces the list. To look up a name in a union directory, each member directory is searched in list order until the name is found. A bind flag specifies whether file creation is allowed in a member directory: a file created in the union directory goes in the first member directory in list order that allows creation, if any.
Wait, so to sum up: you don't think micropayments will work, because you don't think people will pay to hear opinions you agree with?
In seriousness though: I'd pay a tiny bit to read slashdot, even with all the crap here -- and with the serious posts like yours which I happen to disagree with.
The point I think you're missing, though, is that I'm certainly not suggesting that the entire 'net should move to a micropayment system. There's no way I'd charge micropayments for my personal web site or for qru. You're right -- it's *not* supposed to be all about the money -- but unfortunately a simple fact is that it costs money to run a web site, and there's nothing wrong with a mechanism to cover those costs. If there existed a good and reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) micropayment system, a lot of people would use it, and a lot of good sites would benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're certainly un-american...
Some people don't read the GPL; others don't read other FSF web pages. :) As a matter of fact, RMS sells software.....
They're doing it to keep you from running servers from your home. If you want to do that, they want you to pay them a lot more.
Huh. I'm not sure you read the same article I did. I know a lot of so-called reviews are indeed fluff these days, but this one doesn't seem to fit that at all. I'm a bit lazy right now or else I'd provide examples, but really, I don't think that's even necessary -- read the article and you'll see the above post is silly.
99% of the time, I find that dig is overkill (and ugly), and instead I use the "host" program (also included with the bind-utils).
If that was the case, then how did Isildur ever manage to hack the ring off such a nebulous entity? Sauron fought man-to-man in the book too.
That never happens in the book. It's a story that's *told* there. This is an important distinction, because it plays into a key factor that makes LotR work -- there's these ordinary stay-at-home hobbits living their lives in a peaceful "real world" where mythical creatures and events are thought to be just that -- myths. And then all of the sudden, a few of these hobbits are swept up into the continuation of the myth itself. Sauron is part of the grand narrative; he was and is a being with human-like form, but showing that form too soon in the movie is a mistake.
Someone brought up the example of the Emperor in Star Wars; I'll add another: the shark in Jaws.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. (In fact, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but in grand slashdot tradition I'll take your statement at face value.) In the book, Sauron is an unnamed and unshown omnipotent power, the very force of evil. In the scene in the movie, he's pretty much reduced to being a supervillain.
(In general, I was pretty happy with the movie, despite its missteps.)
Opera?
You can call it the "RPM Package Manager", which is what the name officially stands for now.
automatic translation isn't very good at japanese to english:
I compromise on the way and turn and, seems to be "a bone of a folding umbrella" at all and can see an arm of this cuttlefish, and a unique figure seems to be the result that adapted itself to the deep sea, but it is watched even if the, detailed habits don't share it, and there is much water, and a cuttlefish to finish compares, to to the deep sea because, meat is too soft and eats it that I am not delicious.
Huh. A few years ago I had a problem with Windows NT 4 where it was sometimes having trouble exchanging packets with other machines on the local network. Finally broke down and called the Microsoft pay-per-incident line, and after an hour or so of trying things, the guy had me remove and reinstall the TCP/IP stack, which solved the problem. I asked what he thought might have been the issue, and he said " Oh, it does that sometimes. "
Now, in all fairness, they may have gotten better since then, and I've heard good things technically (leaving aside ethically and morally) about their more modern offerings. But I've always thought "Windows: it does that sometimes" made a pretty good slogan.
I was once interviewed for an article in the Wall Street Journal. It was a kinda fluff piece on Lego Mindstorms, but nevertheless, front page of the second section of a pretty big brand-name paper. I tried to speak simply and clearly, but the actual article was full of errors and had quotes around things I never said -- some things in summary of my actual words, and some things apparently completely made up.
So, when I see a quote like the above, I blame the reporter -- they "reorganize" what they heard until it makes the story they want to say. In this case, it's fun to imply that this might be the Lost Continent of Numenor just in time for the Lord of the Rings movie -- but probably, the actual explorer was a lot more cautious (and accurate!) with her wording.
No no. Domain names are not supposed to point to ANYTHING. *Host* names are supposed to point to machines, and technically, a given name can't be both a domain name and a hostname. This is why we've got www.[whatever].[tld] everywhere. But somewhere in the mid-90s the web grew to be the Most Important Thing On the Internet, and it became normal practice to basically make one's domain name also a hostname pointed to one's web server.
That's not so unreasonable. The vast majority of boxes have little reason to run an ftp server -- it should be disabled on most machines anyway. (scp/sftp is a good alternative in many cases, and of course there's always http, which, although there's obviously lots of potential for problems there, at least isn't such a pain with firewalls).
I've never done this with a winmodem, but just plain old modems do this fine. AT#CID=1 (or #CID=2 for unformated output). I assume if you got a winmodem working and it supported caller id, it'd be the same.
huh. my post got cut off half way through. Wonder if that's slashdot, or today's mozilla build. Should have said:
I think the point is: if Microsoft really wanted to help schools, they would offer to donate things which are vitally needed. As it is, something else is obviously going on.
I think the point is: if Microsoft really wanted to help
If *I* were the judge, I'd say: "Hmm, that's a great idea. Except, let's make it $11 billion instead of 1.1, and let's not let Microsoft software count as part of that."
Well, sure, Red Hat would be happy for a tax write off, and I'm sure they're amused to smear Microsoft a bit -- but again, that's not the point because the circumstances are different. Microsoft is trying to weasel their way out of a large number of potentially very expensive court cases. Red Hat obviously would stand to gain if taken up on the offer, but not in the same way at all.
This isn't about helping the kids. This is about punishing Microsoft for illegal acts of which they've been convicted. They're proposing their own slap-on-the-wrist punishment couched in "helping the kids" rhetoric, but really what they want to do is escape having to actually really pay for anything. Microsoft's allegedly 1.1 billion dollar plan actualy consists mostly of donated software, which in real terms costs them nothing. Red Hat is just calling them on this bluff -- if MS had to buy hardware, they'd actually have to spend real money. Of course, even then, 1.1 billion is nothing to a company with 36 billion in the bank.
Wait, so to sum up: you don't think micropayments will work, because you don't think people will pay to hear opinions you agree with?
In seriousness though: I'd pay a tiny bit to read slashdot, even with all the crap here -- and with the serious posts like yours which I happen to disagree with.
The point I think you're missing, though, is that I'm certainly not suggesting that the entire 'net should move to a micropayment system. There's no way I'd charge micropayments for my personal web site or for qru. You're right -- it's *not* supposed to be all about the money -- but unfortunately a simple fact is that it costs money to run a web site, and there's nothing wrong with a mechanism to cover those costs. If there existed a good and reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) micropayment system, a lot of people would use it, and a lot of good sites would benefit.
Yes, plan 9 pretty much revolves around this idea.
It's my impression that recent developments in the Linux kernel (along with bind mounts, etc.) are moving towards making this easy to implement.
Use the turbo feature, Mozilla loads faster than IE.
What this does, by the way, is preload most of Mozilla when your system starts -- which is exactly what IE does to make it appear to start so quickly.