It's not a university, but here at the community college they start you off with VB to learn programming basics. Then they progress to PERL, C, C++, etc. I helped someone with their homework in VB and they just learn things like variables, statements, conditions, etc. just like any other programming language. But advanced VB is a whole different course and is more for people looking for a job using VB.
I use IE, and it's not as hard as you say. It's shift+click and then alt+tab if you want to go back. Windows XP will group on the taskbar so if you have 20 open it's not hard to find the one you want. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's not Much longer nor very awkward. Please do some research before you post stuff as fact.
If you have your own phone switch, you can send out any caller id you want. It's not authoritative, never has been. It's about the same as a reply-to address in email. It's a shame the poster didn't buy Kevin Mitnick's book after it was mentioned on slashdot so many times, because he does cover caller id spoofing for social engineering on people who do think caller id is a secure way to id the caller.
I can't believe someone with such a low UID would post such garbage. Google is NOT a real word. It is made up. A misspelling of "googol" at best. It's a completely unique name for a search engine. The name itself implies nothing about searching the internet. It is a textbook example of a good trademark name. The only problem is their success.
These Word Spy people seem totally full of shit too. Maybe my friends are more computer literate, but we never say "google" to mean "search the internet." It means search using the Google search engine. I will not take Word Spy seriously ever again. They seem like the people that kept posting "Rip and Burn your CDs? No, we don't mean destroy them, haha!" years after the words were made up to people who thought they were in the "in" crowd. Stating, improperly, that only tech savvy people use the word that way is irresponsible.
Google's cease and desist letter is completely legitimate and I wish them best of luck.
I work for a CLEC and we provide in areas that even the phone company doesn't provide DSL service to. The local phone company decided not to install equipment in the central office, so we became a CLEC, installed a DSLAM, and have them lease us lines and we run data only through them. Why a company can't do that there is beyond me. The other service we provide is the ISP portion of the DSL line. Phone company runs a line and sends traffic to us, we give people email addresses, etc. Customers pay the phone company for the line, pay us for ISP charge. Is that what your phone company is against? Either way I think you're being lied to. Competition is good for the consumer. If someone else installed DSL equipment, do you think your phone company would keep on dicking around instead of opening their lines up?
One problem I had, and maybe you have a solution for. When you register for an account on my site, we send an automated email that has you click a link to verify that the email account you provided is accurate. The other day I got an autoreply from a system you described. I didn't really want to click on it, because they advertised a brand name and try to sell it on their autoreply, but I clicked it anyway for a user. But what if I hadn't put my email address as the reply? Is there a consistent way for automated systems like this to get past the filter?
Usually I wouldn't post this. But hey, it's valentines day and, more importantly, Slashdot. So for that irc chix0r, be sure to get the gift that keeps giving, FU-FME.
They're still very hollywood. Take a look at the camera angles in the competition between the bridge vehicles. They never show them next to eachother. I think it would be safe to assume that the mothers of invention got whipped, but their camera and announcers made it seem they were neck and neck the whole time. Or their camera men were so bad they couldn't get a shot of them next to eachother.
We in the states can ammend our constitution with a vote. But it takes something like 90% of the vote. And getting 90% of Americans to agree on anything is pretty tough, so it hasn't happened in quite a while.
"The second thing that would need to happen is Linux users would need to be willing to buy our products if we ported them. Today, there is an almost violent dislike for anything Microsoft in the Linux community - just look at some of the postings on slashdot! My sense is that a lot of people would not buy our products if they were available. But in some ways I think this really goes beyond Microsoft. We have spoken to a lot of Linux users and one of the things that they like is that they can get free Open Source applications on top of their free Open Source OS. I have yet to see any company using the traditional commercial software model become hugely successful selling their products into the Linux market. Take Corel for example. Their Linux product and the suite of applications they sold along side their Linux OS were really quite impressive. Despite this, they did not seem to end up selling very much.
I'd say that just about answers all three. They do read slashdot. They think Linux users get their anti-microsoft attitude because Linux users don't want to pay for software. They don't really care about changing Linux users' sentiment because there's not much Microsoft could/would do to make them happy. And not a question that you asked, but... "Why change slashdot-readers' sentiment?" could be answered from that quote by saying "We don't really give a damn, they're not going to products no matter what we do, all the companies that they do "support" are going bankrupt." So if you really want Microsoft to care what slashdot readers think, think "What business model could the OSS community support that would get Microsoft to open up their code/standards/api's." They're not closed-source zealots. Microsoft is just greedy.
First, the bug being in CVS has nothing to do with changing the source code on a hacked machine. If you have root from ANY bug, you can change the source code. No, "OSS folks" do not waste time looking through every bit of source of Apache, Squid, or SAMBA, if they're just downloading and compiling it on a machine that's been compromised. They probably couldn't find malicious code anyway if they don't know the code well. They just run md5 hashes against the ones on the download site. As for developers checking code that they developed themselves or distribute, yes, you must check every line of code and look for vulnerabilites. That is, unless you have some backup to run a diff against that you can trust. As an example, Themes.org had to go through all their code when their server was compromised before they put the site back up.
Don't worry. Voting is a right here in the US as well. Some people consider it a chore, or a waste of time, that's their thing. But what this guy is talking about is a joke, and voting is heavily promoted in the US. No one believes intentional barriers to voting should be in place to stop the less inclined from getting their say. At least no politian would admit to it because the backlash would ruin him.
Flash vs SVG is more complicated
on
SVG On the Rise
·
· Score: 3, Informative
As someone who is a regular on SVG lists for the past 7 months or so (not very long), I have already come across SVG book authors, W3C members, and Macromedia employees, and good ol' developers all having the very same debate that know the technology much better. And, surprise(!), no side has given up and said "Oh, you're right, lets start developing only with X." If you checked a 2 page SVG vs Flash demo and reposted some generic "SVG doesn't have as many authoring tools", although valid, it's a lot deeper than that. SVG is XML. A real W3C standard. Anyone can make their own client, and hopefully get around cross platform issues like HTML browsers. Which shouldn't be too bad, an SVG plugin is less of a commitment than your whole browser, and bad XML is just that, hopefully no "close enough" rendering. You can create SVG with XSLT or through any server side scripts that can output plaintext.
I think the back seat is a little distracting, for other drivers! I saw one while driving on the freeway. It was really bright and I was inclined to gawk at it and find out what they were watching. Partly my fault I agree, but still distracting.
Re:Don't like linking? Use technology to fix.
on
You Can't Link Here
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Please please please stop posting this as a solution. It is such a joke of a solution, and creates more problems. The referrer header is not authoritative, you can set it to anything you want in a browser that supports that feature. Why is that a bad thing? The referrer is actually useful to some people, it lets people follow the paths of their users, search queries used to find the site, etc. If you start using your useless javascript (client side checking of the client sent referrer field, even better...) then more people will be inclined to spoof their referrer and make the referrer field totally useless. And there are plenty of webmasters with legitimate uses for that referrer to stay around. So please find some other way to stop bad linking policies, like fighting the policies themselves.
I remember wayyyy back to my dad and step mother's wedding. Where I was the the guy who brings the ring on the pillow next to the flower girl, whatever that's called. I don't remember exactly when that was though. I remember my parent's just had an anniversary, that might help, I forgot which one it was though, probably 11th or something. I guess I could call them, if I remembered their phone number. That memory was so long ago though, I guess some things just never leave ya.
Yes, I believe gooey is the right name. I tried the software and it was an interesting idea, but the biggest problem with it is it never took off. The only sites that had a reasonable chat room size were big generic portal sites like yahoo, download.com, etc. So how do get a decent discussion with 30 people from yahoo.com? You can't. %3 of internet browsers wouldn't have made much of a difference.
You are sharing your knowledge now, Do you need to patent this quote and sell it?
Are you saying if I took all the advice I've given and put in a book, that you think it would be okay to steal my book? If millions of people wanted to steal my book because it had good advice, would I give it to them? No, writing a book takes time, I'd want to get compensated for it.
Once again you're deciding what's best for artists that already made it clear they don't agree with you. Artists don't owe you anything.
Patents are there so people will share their knowledge and in return they get exclusive rights to their patent for a while. So yes, permanent patents are a problem because it defeats the whole purpose, but that's a different debate. Maybe you're just used to seeing stupid one-click patents, which are indeed, stupid. But there are much better uses for patents and history shows that inventors that don't get compensation for inventing will in fact, not invent. Go figure.
Artists don't like to make money? What kind of argument is that? Yes, I'm sure some artists don't like to make money, I won't touch that. But... why are you telling other artists that do want to make money, that because your family didn't make money off art, that it's okay to steal their work?
IT doesnt, I benifit more from Open Source than I do from closed source because I have no money. Right. The solution is to find free music. People that do agree that artists don't want to get paid. Even RMS himself uses a license, to protect the rights of... of... guess who? The creators. Even if your family wrote code for years for public domain, I bet RMS would be upset that you thought it was okay to violate the GPL because of it. How would you feel if the RIAA tried to violate the GPL?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a university, but here at the community college they start you off with VB to learn programming basics. Then they progress to PERL, C, C++, etc. I helped someone with their homework in VB and they just learn things like variables, statements, conditions, etc. just like any other programming language. But advanced VB is a whole different course and is more for people looking for a job using VB.
I use IE, and it's not as hard as you say. It's shift+click and then alt+tab if you want to go back. Windows XP will group on the taskbar so if you have 20 open it's not hard to find the one you want. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's not Much longer nor very awkward. Please do some research before you post stuff as fact.
No no no, the stalagmites are mighty, so they push up from the ground. The stalagtites need to hang on tight to the ceiling or they will fall. Duh =P
If you have your own phone switch, you can send out any caller id you want. It's not authoritative, never has been. It's about the same as a reply-to address in email. It's a shame the poster didn't buy Kevin Mitnick's book after it was mentioned on slashdot so many times, because he does cover caller id spoofing for social engineering on people who do think caller id is a secure way to id the caller.
I can't believe someone with such a low UID would post such garbage. Google is NOT a real word. It is made up. A misspelling of "googol" at best. It's a completely unique name for a search engine. The name itself implies nothing about searching the internet. It is a textbook example of a good trademark name. The only problem is their success.
These Word Spy people seem totally full of shit too. Maybe my friends are more computer literate, but we never say "google" to mean "search the internet." It means search using the Google search engine. I will not take Word Spy seriously ever again. They seem like the people that kept posting "Rip and Burn your CDs? No, we don't mean destroy them, haha!" years after the words were made up to people who thought they were in the "in" crowd. Stating, improperly, that only tech savvy people use the word that way is irresponsible.
Google's cease and desist letter is completely legitimate and I wish them best of luck.
I work for a CLEC and we provide in areas that even the phone company doesn't provide DSL service to. The local phone company decided not to install equipment in the central office, so we became a CLEC, installed a DSLAM, and have them lease us lines and we run data only through them. Why a company can't do that there is beyond me. The other service we provide is the ISP portion of the DSL line. Phone company runs a line and sends traffic to us, we give people email addresses, etc. Customers pay the phone company for the line, pay us for ISP charge. Is that what your phone company is against? Either way I think you're being lied to. Competition is good for the consumer. If someone else installed DSL equipment, do you think your phone company would keep on dicking around instead of opening their lines up?
I'd like to thank the Slashdot editors for not making an ass of themselves and insulting this interviewee. Really.
One problem I had, and maybe you have a solution for. When you register for an account on my site, we send an automated email that has you click a link to verify that the email account you provided is accurate. The other day I got an autoreply from a system you described. I didn't really want to click on it, because they advertised a brand name and try to sell it on their autoreply, but I clicked it anyway for a user. But what if I hadn't put my email address as the reply? Is there a consistent way for automated systems like this to get past the filter?
Usually I wouldn't post this. But hey, it's valentines day and, more importantly, Slashdot. So for that irc chix0r, be sure to get the gift that keeps giving, FU-FME.
They're still very hollywood. Take a look at the camera angles in the competition between the bridge vehicles. They never show them next to eachother. I think it would be safe to assume that the mothers of invention got whipped, but their camera and announcers made it seem they were neck and neck the whole time. Or their camera men were so bad they couldn't get a shot of them next to eachother.
Finally, what I've always wanted... A Six Pack [littlepc.com] that won't make me more attractive to women.
I don't get it. Who exactly is drinking the six pack to make you more attractive?
We in the states can ammend our constitution with a vote. But it takes something like 90% of the vote. And getting 90% of Americans to agree on anything is pretty tough, so it hasn't happened in quite a while.
Read this: Windows Exec Doug Miller Responds
... "Why change slashdot-readers' sentiment?" could be answered from that quote by saying "We don't really give a damn, they're not going to products no matter what we do, all the companies that they do "support" are going bankrupt." So if you really want Microsoft to care what slashdot readers think, think "What business model could the OSS community support that would get Microsoft to open up their code/standards/api's." They're not closed-source zealots. Microsoft is just greedy.
"The second thing that would need to happen is Linux users would need to be willing to buy our products if we ported them. Today, there is an almost violent dislike for anything Microsoft in the Linux community - just look at some of the postings on slashdot! My sense is that a lot of people would not buy our products if they were available. But in some ways I think this really goes beyond Microsoft. We have spoken to a lot of Linux users and one of the things that they like is that they can get free Open Source applications on top of their free Open Source OS. I have yet to see any company using the traditional commercial software model become hugely successful selling their products into the Linux market. Take Corel for example. Their Linux product and the suite of applications they sold along side their Linux OS were really quite impressive. Despite this, they did not seem to end up selling very much.
I'd say that just about answers all three. They do read slashdot. They think Linux users get their anti-microsoft attitude because Linux users don't want to pay for software. They don't really care about changing Linux users' sentiment because there's not much Microsoft could/would do to make them happy. And not a question that you asked, but
Huh? Haven't you ever seen Dr. Strangelove?
The entire point of a doomsday device is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?
First, the bug being in CVS has nothing to do with changing the source code on a hacked machine. If you have root from ANY bug, you can change the source code. No, "OSS folks" do not waste time looking through every bit of source of Apache, Squid, or SAMBA, if they're just downloading and compiling it on a machine that's been compromised. They probably couldn't find malicious code anyway if they don't know the code well. They just run md5 hashes against the ones on the download site. As for developers checking code that they developed themselves or distribute, yes, you must check every line of code and look for vulnerabilites. That is, unless you have some backup to run a diff against that you can trust. As an example, Themes.org had to go through all their code when their server was compromised before they put the site back up.
Don't worry. Voting is a right here in the US as well. Some people consider it a chore, or a waste of time, that's their thing. But what this guy is talking about is a joke, and voting is heavily promoted in the US. No one believes intentional barriers to voting should be in place to stop the less inclined from getting their say. At least no politian would admit to it because the backlash would ruin him.
As someone who is a regular on SVG lists for the past 7 months or so (not very long), I have already come across SVG book authors, W3C members, and Macromedia employees, and good ol' developers all having the very same debate that know the technology much better. And, surprise(!), no side has given up and said "Oh, you're right, lets start developing only with X." If you checked a 2 page SVG vs Flash demo and reposted some generic "SVG doesn't have as many authoring tools", although valid, it's a lot deeper than that. SVG is XML. A real W3C standard. Anyone can make their own client, and hopefully get around cross platform issues like HTML browsers. Which shouldn't be too bad, an SVG plugin is less of a commitment than your whole browser, and bad XML is just that, hopefully no "close enough" rendering. You can create SVG with XSLT or through any server side scripts that can output plaintext.
n t_replay.html
Here are some great places for SVG demos:
Pinkjuice/svg
KevLinDev
Adobe SVG zone
And here are some SVG examples more "in the wild", which are usually mapping or graphing:
http://www.netency.com/netenmap/index.php?p=demos
http://www.oaklandtracks.com/noise/noise_manageme
Anyway, educate yourself and see where SVG can be applied. Good luck.
Then, when the computer restarts when the power comes on (because he's using a linux box)
Just FYI, that's not a feature of Linux
I think the back seat is a little distracting, for other drivers! I saw one while driving on the freeway. It was really bright and I was inclined to gawk at it and find out what they were watching. Partly my fault I agree, but still distracting.
Please please please stop posting this as a solution. It is such a joke of a solution, and creates more problems. The referrer header is not authoritative, you can set it to anything you want in a browser that supports that feature. Why is that a bad thing? The referrer is actually useful to some people, it lets people follow the paths of their users, search queries used to find the site, etc. If you start using your useless javascript (client side checking of the client sent referrer field, even better...) then more people will be inclined to spoof their referrer and make the referrer field totally useless. And there are plenty of webmasters with legitimate uses for that referrer to stay around. So please find some other way to stop bad linking policies, like fighting the policies themselves.
I remember wayyyy back to my dad and step mother's wedding. Where I was the the guy who brings the ring on the pillow next to the flower girl, whatever that's called. I don't remember exactly when that was though. I remember my parent's just had an anniversary, that might help, I forgot which one it was though, probably 11th or something. I guess I could call them, if I remembered their phone number. That memory was so long ago though, I guess some things just never leave ya.
I'd have to go with the AC. They know you by your handle AND you're buying condoms at the same time? Those things just don't go together, man.
Yes, I believe gooey is the right name. I tried the software and it was an interesting idea, but the biggest problem with it is it never took off. The only sites that had a reasonable chat room size were big generic portal sites like yahoo, download.com, etc. So how do get a decent discussion with 30 people from yahoo.com? You can't. %3 of internet browsers wouldn't have made much of a difference.
You are sharing your knowledge now, Do you need to patent this quote and sell it?
Are you saying if I took all the advice I've given and put in a book, that you think it would be okay to steal my book? If millions of people wanted to steal my book because it had good advice, would I give it to them? No, writing a book takes time, I'd want to get compensated for it.
Once again you're deciding what's best for artists that already made it clear they don't agree with you. Artists don't owe you anything.
Patents are there so people will share their knowledge and in return they get exclusive rights to their patent for a while. So yes, permanent patents are a problem because it defeats the whole purpose, but that's a different debate. Maybe you're just used to seeing stupid one-click patents, which are indeed, stupid. But there are much better uses for patents and history shows that inventors that don't get compensation for inventing will in fact, not invent. Go figure.
... why are you telling other artists that do want to make money, that because your family didn't make money off art, that it's okay to steal their work?
... of ... guess who? The creators. Even if your family wrote code for years for public domain, I bet RMS would be upset that you thought it was okay to violate the GPL because of it. How would you feel if the RIAA tried to violate the GPL?
Artists don't like to make money? What kind of argument is that? Yes, I'm sure some artists don't like to make money, I won't touch that. But
IT doesnt, I benifit more from Open Source than I do from closed source because I have no money. Right. The solution is to find free music. People that do agree that artists don't want to get paid. Even RMS himself uses a license, to protect the rights of