I wonder if they've tried to get "O'RLY?" as well...
Re:Not so sure about this - I stil "don't get it"
on
What is Ruby on Rails?
·
· Score: 1
No. This is exactly what I mean... how arrogant. There are a zillion languages out there. I don't want to sepnd all my time learning languages and frameworks, I already know dozens, I wnat to spend my time doing things.
You can "do things" in any language. If you're great at perl, use it. If php is more your style, use that. I've been writing code for a long time now, and have done stuff in lots of scripting languages. Ruby, and Rails, makes it very quick to make certain types of applications.
And, honestly, how long does it take to learn a new language? You learn C, and write a loop: for(i=0;iMAX;++i) {}then you say, I need to use a loop in perl! And then you write, for ($i=0, $i$MAX; $i++) {} And, you know what, you want to write a loop in Ruby, it's different, but... well, it's (one way) for i in 0..(MAX-1)... end
Oh, don't worry, his replacement will be much worse.
Unless Bush suddenly says to himself, huh, maybe those liberals do have some points about porn not being the most important thing to fight. Maybe I should nominate someone who respects the treaties we sign.
Not really. The idea, I expect, is that the key is there to allow someone to not have to use a mouse at all, for certain things. ie: Move through a list of files in a directory, hit this key, select open with, or whatever.
It's useful if you are typing, with your hand away from the mouse, and want to do a right click on th highlighted item.
Well, it might not be worth $700, however. Taking a look at the 'licensing' fees that the recording industry attempts to collect for each song ($150,000, as I recall). It is clear that each song is worth a very small fraction of that amount. The same thing might also be true in this case. For example, if they happened to win their lawsuit, Red Hat would have to pay, lets say, $5 per box (passed on to the consumer), but those who had aquired it 'illegally' would be required to pay the higher amount (or negotiate).
I for one am willing to admit my wrong doings in using this clearly copyrighted code that was illegally taken from the brilliant minds of SCO without their authorization. I think that all of us should, in an effort to "come clean", e-mail SCO and explain to them how each of us is using Linux and to discuss with them ways to handle the quandary we have unknowingly gotten ourselves into.
Recognize, analyze and decide for yourself, and such things will have no power over you.
Ah yes, that, however, is far easier said that done. If one thinks about where they get their news from, it is almost always based on some government reports. One has to be incredibly pro-active in order to get both (more acurately, n) sides of a story.
Remember that this is the essence of the 'songun' or Army First policy that they've created under Great Leader Kim Il Song. Whether you agree that they have nuclear weapons or not, it seems obvious that they have the capability to do it if given enough time.
Second, I'm not sure about where you got your information from, but based on information from the Médecins Sans Frontières, they are not recieving enough aid.
Finally, it's particularly disturbing that, even with all of the aid that the recieve, over half the population has suffered from malnutrition.
Do they have better things they should be doing with their efforts than building up their million man army or training hackers? Sure, but why do they need to bother? It's not like those other beings in the country are people.
While it's true that the ability of our brain to control hundreds of muscles as well as it does is important, the thing that our brains do the best is pattern matching. It's how we can hear many different people talking and ignore the differences in the way they say 'potato', for instance, to figure out what he or she is saying. It is rather difficult to get a computer to emulate that sort of thing.
Maybe their planes don't have any electronics. Would explain the lower rates, wouldn't it?
Yes, I know it was a joke, but that's not why airlines don't want people to use cellphones on an airplane. It isn't that a normal cellphone will interfere with the communications systems, it's that it would be very difficult to spot a modifed phone that could (interfere). If a normal cellphone could cause problems by itself, the airlines/FAA wouldn't allow them to be brought on-board with batteries in them.
Huh? 4/2 = 4 * 0.5, last I checked. Now, it implies that the person reading the statement "20x quieter" knows how to take the inverse of the quantity and use that in their scale.
Finally, this is not a scientific journal. In the "Real World", when A is 10x louder than B, B is 10x quieter than A.
Eisner is going to learn a very harsh lesson about how much I'm willing to pay for content.
Although I agree with you, I have to say that no one who has opposed "The Mouse" has ever made a dent. Just think about how long that one religous group boycotted them. Painful, but true. =/
I am an American, and you can shove that little thing up your ass. Just because you you think everyone, everwhere wants to stop you from ripping your DVDs and posting them to USENET doesn't mean it's true. There are more important things than this. Also, if you weren't so fscking stupid, you could see that, although they don't spell it out like your mom does, they do clearly imply that the security they refer to is that of protection and not copyright.
The article talks about "virus outbreaks" and "amending laws so that software makers can be held liable if their products put the public and businesses at risk."
Continuing to quote the article: "Possible options include steps that would increase the exposure of software and systems vendors and system operators to liability for system breaches," wrote the authors of the report.
And..."Although Microsoft has touted the latest version of Windows, called XP, as "its most secure operating system ever", in recent weeks it has been forced to issue a series of patches for the software to make it harder for malicious hackers to compromise it. "
And..."Many of the viruses that have plagued consumers and businesses over the last two years have spread fast and far because of weaknesses in Microsoft's popular e-mail program Outlook."
So, is it I or you who cannot seem to understand the English language?
Actually, the new vulerablities they are talking about can be in the form of JavaScript or imbeded files and do/not/ require the user to "double click" to activate them, but merely open the e-mail or web page. That is why they are so serious.
Yup, that would be a problem. I do see a time when we do have certain liablities assigned to software vendors, as the world becomes more and more entwined with them, but I suspect it will be similar to electronic devices. ie: I created a device, get it FCC approved and sell it. I can still build a device that breaks the "accept any interface and not create any harmful interface" rule, but just not get it FCC approved. In this case, Windows should get some type of approval. Linux, at least as the project itself goes, wouldn't. Some vendors may do more to lock it down and get a particular distribution approved, but anyway.
Before you make such a half-ass guess at what "secure" means, why don't you read the article, which clearly points to the former, or "being 0wn3d" as you so cleaverly put it.
If you walked over and helped him build it, with his concent, since you didn't excange any money then there still wouldn't be a problem unless you represented that you were an experienced builder when you were not. The court would throw it out since the neighbor could have told you to leave, basically.
No company in their right mind would ever become liable for software. It's just too risky. You test it the best you can and, after it seems to work well for awhile (say, the F-16 flight computer software) you don't *ever* change it.
I win a lot of things. I got you pissed off without even trying. But I run Linux, Mac OS X, and OpenBSD on x86,ppc, and sparc, respectfully. I guess I still have your respect. At least, I hope I do. I wouldn't be able to sleep in a/. poster didn't like me.
BTW, you're so cool. I hope I can be just like you when I grow up.
Except that, when you're building a house, you draw up a legal contract with blueprints that are signed. So long as the house is to the specs agreed upon, or any variations were agreed to, there's no basis for the suit.
Congratulations on finding the caps lock key, by the way. Taken together with the randomly capitalized 'Y' in "your" and slang "coz'", your post look very professional indeed.
Um, it has nothing to do with "anti-trust" or monopolies at all. The simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft was not making any money off of a virus scanner.
If they had been able to make money then there would be an MS Anti-Virus, as there was in MS-DOS.
Coffee makeres producing bad coffee is a result of the user not being able to use it properly, or, by putting bad coffee in there to begin with. I don't see the connection.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they've tried to get "O'RLY?" as well...
No. This is exactly what I mean ... how arrogant. There are a zillion languages out there. I don't want to sepnd all my time learning languages and frameworks, I already know dozens, I wnat to spend my time doing things.
... end
You can "do things" in any language. If you're great at perl, use it. If php is more your style, use that. I've been writing code for a long time now, and have done stuff in lots of scripting languages. Ruby, and Rails, makes it very quick to make certain types of applications.
And, honestly, how long does it take to learn a new language? You learn C, and write a loop: for(i=0;iMAX;++i) {}then you say, I need to use a loop in perl! And then you write, for ($i=0, $i$MAX; $i++) {} And, you know what, you want to write a loop in Ruby, it's different, but... well, it's (one way) for i in 0..(MAX-1)
I wish more companies would realize this.
Even if the statue is unveiled again, it can't even compare to this shot at the BBC:. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845
It's just... perfect the way the photographer framed that...
Oh, don't worry, his replacement will be much worse.
;)
Unless Bush suddenly says to himself, huh, maybe those liberals do have some points about porn not being the most important thing to fight. Maybe I should nominate someone who respects the treaties we sign.
Pretty funny joke, I think.
Not really. The idea, I expect, is that the key is there to allow someone to not have to use a mouse at all, for certain things. ie: Move through a list of files in a directory, hit this key, select open with, or whatever.
It's useful if you are typing, with your hand away from the mouse, and want to do a right click on th highlighted item.
Really...
Well, it might not be worth $700, however. Taking a look at the 'licensing' fees that the recording industry attempts to collect for each song ($150,000, as I recall). It is clear that each song is worth a very small fraction of that amount. The same thing might also be true in this case. For example, if they happened to win their lawsuit, Red Hat would have to pay, lets say, $5 per box (passed on to the consumer), but those who had aquired it 'illegally' would be required to pay the higher amount (or negotiate).
I for one am willing to admit my wrong doings in using this clearly copyrighted code that was illegally taken from the brilliant minds of SCO without their authorization. I think that all of us should, in an effort to "come clean", e-mail SCO and explain to them how each of us is using Linux and to discuss with them ways to handle the quandary we have unknowingly gotten ourselves into.
Recognize, analyze and decide for yourself, and such things will have no power over you.
Ah yes, that, however, is far easier said that done. If one thinks about where they get their news from, it is almost always based on some government reports. One has to be incredibly pro-active in order to get both (more acurately, n) sides of a story.
Good luck with your quest for the truth. <g>
Remember that this is the essence of the 'songun' or Army First policy that they've created under Great Leader Kim Il Song. Whether you agree that they have nuclear weapons or not, it seems obvious that they have the capability to do it if given enough time.
Second, I'm not sure about where you got your information from, but based on information from the Médecins Sans Frontières, they are not recieving enough aid.
Finally, it's particularly disturbing that, even with all of the aid that the recieve, over half the population has suffered from malnutrition.
Do they have better things they should be doing with their efforts than building up their million man army or training hackers? Sure, but why do they need to bother? It's not like those other beings in the country are people.
While it's true that the ability of our brain to control hundreds of muscles as well as it does is important, the thing that our brains do the best is pattern matching. It's how we can hear many different people talking and ignore the differences in the way they say 'potato', for instance, to figure out what he or she is saying. It is rather difficult to get a computer to emulate that sort of thing.
Maybe their planes don't have any electronics. Would explain the lower rates, wouldn't it?
Yes, I know it was a joke, but that's not why airlines don't want people to use cellphones on an airplane. It isn't that a normal cellphone will interfere with the communications systems, it's that it would be very difficult to spot a modifed phone that could (interfere). If a normal cellphone could cause problems by itself, the airlines/FAA wouldn't allow them to be brought on-board with batteries in them.
Because you're not multiplying. You're dividing.
Huh? 4/2 = 4 * 0.5, last I checked. Now, it implies that the person reading the statement "20x quieter" knows how to take the inverse of the quantity and use that in their scale.
Finally, this is not a scientific journal. In the "Real World", when A is 10x louder than B, B is 10x quieter than A.
Eisner is going to learn a very harsh lesson about how much I'm willing to pay for content.
Although I agree with you, I have to say that no one who has opposed "The Mouse" has ever made a dent. Just think about how long that one religous group boycotted them. Painful, but true. =/
It's called "habachi" and it it's about as Japanese as French fries are French.
I am an American, and you can shove that little thing up your ass. Just because you you think everyone, everwhere wants to stop you from ripping your DVDs and posting them to USENET doesn't mean it's true. There are more important things than this. Also, if you weren't so fscking stupid, you could see that, although they don't spell it out like your mom does, they do clearly imply that the security they refer to is that of protection and not copyright.
You're right. People often talk about viruses and hacking into systems when they mean copyright. I'm sorry.
The article talks about "virus outbreaks" and "amending laws so that software makers can be held liable if their products put the public and businesses at risk."
Continuing to quote the article: "Possible options include steps that would increase the exposure of software and systems vendors and system operators to liability for system breaches," wrote the authors of the report.
And..."Although Microsoft has touted the latest version of Windows, called XP, as "its most secure operating system ever", in recent weeks it has been forced to issue a series of patches for the software to make it harder for malicious hackers to compromise it. "
And..."Many of the viruses that have plagued consumers and businesses over the last two years have spread fast and far because of weaknesses in Microsoft's popular e-mail program Outlook."
So, is it I or you who cannot seem to understand the English language?
Actually, the new vulerablities they are talking about can be in the form of JavaScript or imbeded files and do /not/ require the user to "double click" to activate them, but merely open the e-mail or web page. That is why they are so serious.
Yup, that would be a problem. I do see a time when we do have certain liablities assigned to software vendors, as the world becomes more and more entwined with them, but I suspect it will be similar to electronic devices. ie: I created a device, get it FCC approved and sell it. I can still build a device that breaks the "accept any interface and not create any harmful interface" rule, but just not get it FCC approved. In this case, Windows should get some type of approval. Linux, at least as the project itself goes, wouldn't. Some vendors may do more to lock it down and get a particular distribution approved, but anyway.
Before you make such a half-ass guess at what "secure" means, why don't you read the article, which clearly points to the former, or "being 0wn3d" as you so cleaverly put it.
If you walked over and helped him build it, with his concent, since you didn't excange any money then there still wouldn't be a problem unless you represented that you were an experienced builder when you were not. The court would throw it out since the neighbor could have told you to leave, basically.
/. poster didn't like me.
No company in their right mind would ever become liable for software. It's just too risky. You test it the best you can and, after it seems to work well for awhile (say, the F-16 flight computer software) you don't *ever* change it.
I win a lot of things. I got you pissed off without even trying. But I run Linux, Mac OS X, and OpenBSD on x86,ppc, and sparc, respectfully. I guess I still have your respect. At least, I hope I do. I wouldn't be able to sleep in a
BTW, you're so cool. I hope I can be just like you when I grow up.
Except that, when you're building a house, you draw up a legal contract with blueprints that are signed. So long as the house is to the specs agreed upon, or any variations were agreed to, there's no basis for the suit.
Congratulations on finding the caps lock key, by the way. Taken together with the randomly capitalized 'Y' in "your" and slang "coz'", your post look very professional indeed.
Um, it has nothing to do with "anti-trust" or monopolies at all. The simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft was not making any money off of a virus scanner.
If they had been able to make money then there would be an MS Anti-Virus, as there was in MS-DOS.
Whether or not the article is "informative" or not is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Microsoft's security flaws, and is thus "off topic".
What the heck are you talking about?
Coffee makeres producing bad coffee is a result of the user not being able to use it properly, or, by putting bad coffee in there to begin with. I don't see the connection.