Here's one hack that's missing from the manual. Instead of enclosing a phrase in quotes,/"to be or not to be"/, you can replace the spaces with periods,/to.be.or.not.to.be/.
And, if you replace the periods with dashes, behold... IT WORKS TOO!
Who needs a book on Google eh? just Google it, it's cheaper...
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But we still have to make trade offs for security.
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.
Because you had any doubts before writing this?
Quite frankly, with the way the constitution is being used as toilet paper, and the imperialistic ways the US is behaving with abroad, I really think the United States is quite comparable to 1933 Gernamy. This has been going on for a very long time, since the end of WW2 in fact, but I think it's now that we're seeing America turn into a full-blown dictatorship. The signs are everywhere, but people don't react... like in 1933 Germany.
Just curious, but has anyone thought that our own government might not be the bad guys here?
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
Easiest way I've found- though it's begining to get a bit outdated thanks to bloatware. Charles Dicken's famous novel is about 100k.
You're way behind my friend: data bloat has grown so much these days it isn't measured in Charles Dickens units anymore, it's measured in tax code units:
- 1 tax code = 25MB - 1 tax code table of content = 300KB (to measure smaller data units)
And no, I'm not kidding, the complete internal revenue code really is that big.
i used to teach english to native japanese speakers, and that's really not any different from trying to explain bayseian spam filters to my non-technical boss.
Here's a challenge: try to explain bayesian filters to a non-technical native japanese speaking boss.
When it comes to people who aren't in the code, my explanations fall flat.
Before I changed line of work (I'm not a computer professional anymore thank goodness), I used to explain my work like this: See, what I do is programming. Programming is like writing a cooking recipe, only slightly more complex but not much more. But it's a very large recipe, and it relies upon many more recipes to make an actual dish (the program). Many cooks write recipes in different languages separately, and all we cooks have to coordinate to prepare the final dish. So we need chief cooks (managers) that call meetings and prepare Gantt charts to do that. Then sometimes a cook writes a recipe that has the wrong combination of ingredients, or that make no sense to describe how to prepare food (bugs), so we need tasters (QA) to tell us busy cooks if the overall result will be pleasing to the restaurant's customers. In the end, you get a huge dish that has some nasty morsels in it, as well as tasty ones. We then have to refine the dish so the nastyness goes away and more goodness goes in (new versions). etc etc...
The cooking recipe analogy has always worked great to explain what I did.
The GPL lays down what it means to liberate something.
Have you read the GPL? Firstly, it isn't an appropriate license for artwork. Secondly, copyleft is what lays down what it means to truly liberate something. The GPL leaves strings attached.
I means you let them use it *for anything they want*, no restrictions. *at all* BBC doesn't meet that. It totally violates the spirit of the open source movement.
The BBC isn't in the open source business, so they violate nothing at all. They happen to be able to produce quality programs, often for free, because British taxpayers foots the bill.
"According to Jonathan Murray of Microsoft "The Open Source community stimulates innovation in software, it's something that frankly we feel very good about and it's something that we absolutely see as being a partnership with Microsoft."
Must have had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time. Still, it made me laugh.
There's nothing to laugh about, everything he said is true:
- The open source community is very active
- They feel good about it, since they "leverage" a lot of open source code (read: they legally steal the work of others) to make Windows better, like with the TCP/IP stack for example.
- They see it as a partnership with Microsoft, i.e. they'd love people to keep producing good code for free that they can reuse, turn around and sell.
In other news, random Slashdot user creeves1982 blurts out the usual Slashdot banality about Linux.
It's not so simple and you know it. You can use Linux. I can use Linux, but many MANY people can't use anything but Windows, because they're not computer-oriented, have been trained with Windows-XX and Word/Excel-YY and wouldn't conceive anything else exists, must less be able to use it.
That's how the world is. Microsoft is still the biggest OS and software vendor in the world despite its many shortcomings and its outrageous economic practices because the Windows userbase is massively reluctant to change. The real challenge is to make Linux truly as user-friendly as Windows, and to get users to discover it and get used to it. Simply saying "use linux problem solved" is childish.
that the reason IE failed miserably is because the authors eventually STOPPED fixing bugs.
No. Firstly, IE hasn't failed (yet), unless you aren't talking about commercial failure. Secondly, it sucks because ever since Microsoft licensed/stole Mosaic, they kept throwing features at it with no concern at all for security.
Yes, we all know the famous "blue screen of death" and I think that that single concept connected with Windows makes it unappealing. [...] Win95 & Win98 first editions would crash if you looked at them wrong.
Er.. I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but really, when was the last time you saw Windows bluescreen? Perhaps you could make your point by comparing Windows and Linux versions that aren't 11 years apart.
I believe that Linux has the ability to handle internal errors more elegantly but that's only because I've only seen it fail from hardware errors.
Yes but it handles hardware errors gracefully too: for example, one of my 24/7 machines's hard-disk died last week. I came back and found out that I couldn't write anything to it at. A quick look at the console showed a message saying "root filesystem, too many errors, remounting read-only" or something like that. The result is that data corruption was minimal *AND* the machine didn't hang. How's that for graceful? You wouldn't dream of having that in Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard
I completely agree.
Well he is Oracle's vice president...
I want Shatner's toupee.
It would probably a lot more cheaper to build a lightsaber out of Lego blocks and some electronics.
You miss the point: if you shake a lego brick light saber, you look like a dork. If you shake a Mac laptop light saber, you look like a rich dork.
...you can, before George Lucas sues the authors.
42
I think it's NTP.
Last time I checked (admittedly a few months back) Gmail was still in beta and invite-only. Has this changed?
Hmm... no, and I have a couple of invites to sell you. interested?
Here's one hack that's missing from the manual. Instead of enclosing a phrase in quotes, /"to be or not to be"/, you can replace the spaces with periods, /to.be.or.not.to.be/.
And, if you replace the periods with dashes, behold... IT WORKS TOO!
Who needs a book on Google eh? just Google it, it's cheaper...
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But we still have to make trade offs for security.
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.
Because you had any doubts before writing this?
Quite frankly, with the way the constitution is being used as toilet paper, and the imperialistic ways the US is behaving with abroad, I really think the United States is quite comparable to 1933 Gernamy. This has been going on for a very long time, since the end of WW2 in fact, but I think it's now that we're seeing America turn into a full-blown dictatorship. The signs are everywhere, but people don't react... like in 1933 Germany.
Just curious, but has anyone thought that our own government might not be the bad guys here?
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
Tell me: how exactly do CRTs rely on the Earth's magnetic field? Or do you believe all magnetic fields in the word are going to reverse?
wont it affect us more as we are highly dependent on electricity and satalites etc?
Yeah, I forgot we have electricity and satalites thanks to the Earth's magnetic field...
Easiest way I've found- though it's begining to get a bit outdated thanks to bloatware. Charles Dicken's famous novel is about 100k.
You're way behind my friend: data bloat has grown so much these days it isn't measured in Charles Dickens units anymore, it's measured in tax code units:
- 1 tax code = 25MB
- 1 tax code table of content = 300KB (to measure smaller data units)
And no, I'm not kidding, the complete internal revenue code really is that big.
i used to teach english to native japanese speakers, and that's really not any different from trying to explain bayseian spam filters to my non-technical boss.
Here's a challenge: try to explain bayesian filters to a non-technical native japanese speaking boss.
When it comes to people who aren't in the code, my explanations fall flat.
Before I changed line of work (I'm not a computer professional anymore thank goodness), I used to explain my work like this:
See, what I do is programming. Programming is like writing a cooking recipe, only slightly more complex but not much more. But it's a very large recipe, and it relies upon many more recipes to make an actual dish (the program). Many cooks write recipes in different languages separately, and all we cooks have to coordinate to prepare the final dish. So we need chief cooks (managers) that call meetings and prepare Gantt charts to do that. Then sometimes a cook writes a recipe that has the wrong combination of ingredients, or that make no sense to describe how to prepare food (bugs), so we need tasters (QA) to tell us busy cooks if the overall result will be pleasing to the restaurant's customers. In the end, you get a huge dish that has some nasty morsels in it, as well as tasty ones. We then have to refine the dish so the nastyness goes away and more goodness goes in (new versions). etc etc...
The cooking recipe analogy has always worked great to explain what I did.
Heck, we can't even clearly explain to peer programmers why vi is better than emacs
Well, you can't because they're not the same thing: vi is a text editor, emacs is an operating system.
They just need to free Tibet already...
And yet, a few years ago they saw it as a cancer..
At least you should get your quotes right. It's the GPL that Ballmer sees as a cancer, not eopen source in general.
The GPL lays down what it means to liberate something.
Have you read the GPL? Firstly, it isn't an appropriate license for artwork. Secondly, copyleft is what lays down what it means to truly liberate something. The GPL leaves strings attached.
I means you let them use it *for anything they want*, no restrictions. *at all* BBC doesn't meet that. It totally violates the spirit of the open source movement.
The BBC isn't in the open source business, so they violate nothing at all. They happen to be able to produce quality programs, often for free, because British taxpayers foots the bill.
"According to Jonathan Murray of Microsoft "The Open Source community stimulates innovation in software, it's something that frankly we feel very good about and it's something that we absolutely see as being a partnership with Microsoft."
Must have had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time. Still, it made me laugh.
There's nothing to laugh about, everything he said is true:
- The open source community is very active
- They feel good about it, since they "leverage" a lot of open source code (read: they legally steal the work of others) to make Windows better, like with the TCP/IP stack for example.
- They see it as a partnership with Microsoft, i.e. they'd love people to keep producing good code for free that they can reuse, turn around and sell.
Dont use windows use Linux problem solved
In other news, random Slashdot user creeves1982 blurts out the usual Slashdot banality about Linux.
It's not so simple and you know it. You can use Linux. I can use Linux, but many MANY people can't use anything but Windows, because they're not computer-oriented, have been trained with Windows-XX and Word/Excel-YY and wouldn't conceive anything else exists, must less be able to use it.
That's how the world is. Microsoft is still the biggest OS and software vendor in the world despite its many shortcomings and its outrageous economic practices because the Windows userbase is massively reluctant to change. The real challenge is to make Linux truly as user-friendly as Windows, and to get users to discover it and get used to it. Simply saying "use linux problem solved" is childish.
that the reason IE failed miserably is because the authors eventually STOPPED fixing bugs.
No. Firstly, IE hasn't failed (yet), unless you aren't talking about commercial failure. Secondly, it sucks because ever since Microsoft licensed/stole Mosaic, they kept throwing features at it with no concern at all for security.
Yes, we all know the famous "blue screen of death" and I think that that single concept connected with Windows makes it unappealing. [...] Win95 & Win98 first editions would crash if you looked at them wrong.
Er.. I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but really, when was the last time you saw Windows bluescreen? Perhaps you could make your point by comparing Windows and Linux versions that aren't 11 years apart.
I believe that Linux has the ability to handle internal errors more elegantly but that's only because I've only seen it fail from hardware errors.
Yes but it handles hardware errors gracefully too: for example, one of my 24/7 machines's hard-disk died last week. I came back and found out that I couldn't write anything to it at. A quick look at the console showed a message saying "root filesystem, too many errors, remounting read-only" or something like that. The result is that data corruption was minimal *AND* the machine didn't hang. How's that for graceful? You wouldn't dream of having that in Windows.