This is just an idea I had. If you want to delete certain offensive posts without suggesting endorsement of the other posts, why not drop some legal-speak down in the bowels of your documentation stating that the software you run (which it sounds like you wrote) is "use at your own risk" and "not guarenteed to be free from defects, including those that might affect your post's appearance on our site."
Sure, maybe you have a backdoor that lets you delete things you don't like, if you don't have the ability to implement such a "feature" directly. It would naturally be something you wouldn't want to do all the time, but if someone starts goatse'ing your site, just delete thier posts using your backdoor. So the system "loses" posts of a certain character length, or that contain the word goatse, or that are from a user who's username is a certain combination of characters? And who's to say that it's NOT a bug that's causing the posts to be deleted? (Of course, I'm assuming your source code isn't available by request:) )
I realize there are alot of moral issues with this idea, but hey. I'm just trying to think of a way you could delete things. I don't know that I agree with my own idea, feel free to knock it down or improve it. But you know, I don't know of anyone who's held MS liable when Word crashes, thus "censoring" what I'm typing. I don't give it a second thought.
Huh, you are right. I was just blindly typing the addresses in so maybe I didn't wait long enough on x or q.
But really, a while back when I was trying to get a domain name every registrar I went to would NOT let me sign up for a 1 or 2 letter name. I agree that they are in existance, but how did these happen? Which registrar do I need to go to?:)
Come'on, people. Before you get all upity about what a closed source company decides to do as a business decision, why don't you write your own open source scanner that can scan for the thing? I am not suggesting a open source virus scanning package; having the source of a scanner being open seems somehwat self-defeating. But a scanner for Magic Lantern, which, as a single virus with a signature I am sure you can track (since McAfee is going to block it) would not be that hard. Whine, whine, whine.
That leads to a question I've been having. I thought single and two letter domain names were out of the question. For example, I wanted w.net, but no registrar I could find would allow it. So I went though all the domains, and noticed that only z.com seems to be a functioning website (redirects to Nissan's website.) What's the story on these? How did Nissan get z.com? And why can't I do the same with w? It seems like quite the opportunity.
Where is the line then between a movie and virtual reality? An active imagination can subsitute for the missing things like smell. ("Imagine you're smelling charcoal." "Yes, it feels more realistic already.")
What's missing from your definition of virtual reality is interaction. An experience may be totally emersive, and it may be an assault on the senses, but so are many things Hollywood puts out. Like you said, the soldier knows it's not real. Because you can touch and change reality. You actually have a reason to give a damn. Otherwise this is just a training film someone forced you to sit through.
Add interaction, and give the person a reason to care about the situation and the ability to make decisions that affect it's outcome, THEN you have something that approaches reality. Otherwise, it's a glorified movie that has no place as a story on Slashdot. Hell, I've got some charcoal. I should burn some and play video games and submit a story to Slashdot about my home VR system.
So, usually, when things are measured in a fixed number of minutes, they aren't really simulations. They are movies. Maybe they're really good movies, with the IMAX-style screen, and Smellovision, but they aren't "VR."
What if you don't "secure the assembly area" within your alotted five minutes? Do you have to pay for another ticket? Sorry, your five minutes are up. Please put all trash in the designated recepticles on the way to the exits.
Hah. You beat me to it. I was "skimming" the page and skipped the part where they told what that acronym stood for in this story's context... when I read that the "Institute for Creative Studies" created MRE, I got a little confused. MREs are not the most creative product. Then I was thinking, what, are the textures in these sims like the ones in Quake 1? Variations on pixelated brown? Sounds like a "realistic" sim.... OH.... Mission Rehersal Exercise.
Speak for yourself! I never wear them. Knowing what time it is down to the second is not nearly as important as having wrist hair. Not by a long shot.
I always say, if you need to find out what time it is (within hour accuracy), then you're probably someplace (work) where your being on time matters to OTHER people. Let them put up a clock.:)
Of course. But isn't this what fans have wanted her to say all along?:) Just something to grab casual viewers. And to top it off, they threw in the smoking man. Whew... talk about trying to get ratings.:)
Hah hahh... please mod up. I don't know if this was meant to be funny but it reminded me of timothy's comment a while back. Oh come on now... admit it... you really do want Mandrake Gaming edition.
This entire season has already been this way. The loss of a writer isn't going to kick the change into motion... the format change was at the start of this season. It all started with the "improved" theme song, and transgressed into many episodes of Dylan running around, jumping off things, and shooting alot; Trance "confessing" to being a sex slave, Rommie's "bad ass android" episode, etc. Has no one already noticed that none of this is "real" Sci-Fi, but ratings garnish? Still, I like the show just fine.:)
His launch may be coming soon... although I've been following his site for more than a year and he's slipped the date some in the past. This was posted on Slashdot quite a while ago.
I'm just going to have to learn to end my comments with "I'm being cynical and/or sarcastic here. Think about it people." I guess I'm just not good at making that obvious otherwise. In this case the only thing I was being cynical in was the subject of the original message.
So I'll wrap it up and make my point again if anyone can see this message: New OSes are great. There's nothing any different about this one... it's got some good things going. Being written from the ground up is one of them. But increasing the number of open source OSes, while beneficial in generating new ideas and code that evolve ALL OSes, causes a vote-splitting effect. Too many good things, not enough people to use them or add to them... and they all founder and sink. That doesn't mean you shouldn't choose the one you like... but choosing one that is "secondary" in the Open Source world as the number of Open Source OSes continue to increase could actually cause them ALL to founder and sink.. because they're not THAT different.
Please, comments if anyone can actually see this post.:)
I have time for just one more question.:) But you're falling right into my analogy while you're trying to argue against it. Gore and Bush were the biggest two on each side of the fence too... it only took a small push (Nader) to tip the result. In the "Open Source V. Closed Source" ideal (since you don't seem to agree with the word "groupthink"), Open Source doesn't even HAVE an equal on its side of the fence. Linux is the biggest, but not an equal. And things like AtheOS are more than pebbles.
Keep in mind, idealists, that Nader fit very nicely into the downfall of the party system, but it only got us a Republican president we didn't want over a Democrat... regardless of the similarity of the two main parties.:)
Choose an OS based on how much you like it, not whether it's the poster-child for Open Source or not.
Agreed. I prefer MacOS over both Windows AND Linux. I am not making this point for me. I am just trying to get Slashdotters to run some ideas through thier heads for once. It's an open forum... I like to keep people open to ideas. You've rather just rehashed what most people ALWAYS say about OSes... but it's contrary to the "downfall of MS" think that prevades Slashdot.
a coherent attempt at bashing AtheOS for being different
I wouldn't bash things for being different. I actually prefer MacOS, which is just as lacking in market share relative to Windows as anything else. I personally think AtheOS is pretty cool. You jump to conclusions. What I was trying to point out are the errors in the groupthink that is inevitable on this story... to give people something to think about other than "Oh, this is the coolest thing!" And the metaphor is based in real life politics, regardless of how narrow minded you may be.
You've pointed out that the two candiates in the 2000 election are virtually the same. And the results of the election showed that people thought that too... split vote. Now, what if 3 candidates from the two main parties had run... 2 from one, and 1 from the other? Say, two Democrats and George Bush. In such a case, Bush would have won by a large margin. In fact, this did happen to a smaller (but influential) degree in the 2000 election... remember Nader's slice of votes? Which way would the scale have tilted had he not run? Most likely to the Democrat side rather than the Republican side. This was quoted in MANY articles and reports on the elections. In effect, more people voted "Democrat" than "Republican", and look who won?
Yes, you should try college. Now that I've graduated from it I find that alot of the stuff I learned was pretty useful in the "big world." What I have in my sig has nothing to do with that.
Remember the reasoning behind only having one candidate from each political "party" run for an office? If you have 3 candidates, two with agenda A, and one with agenda B, even if there are a larger number of people who vote A, there is the distinct possibility that the candiate who's for B will get elected.
I think it's better to support one candidate in the open source OS world and not several. Yes, this new OS *is* open and might have great features that could/should make thier way into Linux, but throwing support directly at the OS eventually will make the OS a contender for developers and more importantly users that Linux would garner otherwise. Which leads to that overwhelming market share thing Microsoft has going.:)
I'm not quite sure I understand your comment, but I'll take a shot at solving your problem: All project settings and references are defined in the project files (.vbproj and.vbproj.user.) They're XML. ASCII if you like. *Everything* you can do with a menu in VS.NET you can do in a text editor, and in some cases you can do more by editing the files directly in a text editor.
Please, someone mod this comment down. This is a very uniformed comment, and somewhat self promotional as well... a bad mix..NET dynamically loads EVERYTHING. If running a web application or a web service, simply replace one of the "code behind" DLLs and the next time someone hits your website, it will be running with the new DLL (if that's what you want; you can tie to a specific version too if that's your desire.) In fact, the same is true with client side apps, and apps that pull code off the server. Put a.NET assembly at http://intranet/thing.dll, and any software that uses Assembly.LoadFrom("http://intranet/thing.dll") can have the same capability. Granted, this client side behavior is not as granular as you might say, but it is possible to dynamically load each time you create an instance of the object if you want. You just have to be careful with casting when you're playing with the "same" object that game from different versions of the same assembly.
Plugs based on misconceptions are not very effective.
So, not having used C#, exactly what parts of.NET have you used? The only thing I think you have said that.NET does not have over IBM's implementations is UDDI (at least I think that's what you're saying.) And that's not true. the.NET framework does include UDDI, and MS's own DISCO system which takes UDDI a step further. Can you please elaborate?
Slashdot Mirror
This is just an idea I had. If you want to delete certain offensive posts without suggesting endorsement of the other posts, why not drop some legal-speak down in the bowels of your documentation stating that the software you run (which it sounds like you wrote) is "use at your own risk" and "not guarenteed to be free from defects, including those that might affect your post's appearance on our site."
:) )
Sure, maybe you have a backdoor that lets you delete things you don't like, if you don't have the ability to implement such a "feature" directly. It would naturally be something you wouldn't want to do all the time, but if someone starts goatse'ing your site, just delete thier posts using your backdoor. So the system "loses" posts of a certain character length, or that contain the word goatse, or that are from a user who's username is a certain combination of characters? And who's to say that it's NOT a bug that's causing the posts to be deleted? (Of course, I'm assuming your source code isn't available by request
I realize there are alot of moral issues with this idea, but hey. I'm just trying to think of a way you could delete things. I don't know that I agree with my own idea, feel free to knock it down or improve it. But you know, I don't know of anyone who's held MS liable when Word crashes, thus "censoring" what I'm typing. I don't give it a second thought.
Huh, you are right. I was just blindly typing the addresses in so maybe I didn't wait long enough on x or q.
:)
But really, a while back when I was trying to get a domain name every registrar I went to would NOT let me sign up for a 1 or 2 letter name. I agree that they are in existance, but how did these happen? Which registrar do I need to go to?
Come'on, people. Before you get all upity about what a closed source company decides to do as a business decision, why don't you write your own open source scanner that can scan for the thing? I am not suggesting a open source virus scanning package; having the source of a scanner being open seems somehwat self-defeating. But a scanner for Magic Lantern, which, as a single virus with a signature I am sure you can track (since McAfee is going to block it) would not be that hard. Whine, whine, whine.
That leads to a question I've been having. I thought single and two letter domain names were out of the question. For example, I wanted w.net, but no registrar I could find would allow it. So I went though all the domains, and noticed that only z.com seems to be a functioning website (redirects to Nissan's website.) What's the story on these? How did Nissan get z.com? And why can't I do the same with w? It seems like quite the opportunity.
Where is the line then between a movie and virtual reality? An active imagination can subsitute for the missing things like smell. ("Imagine you're smelling charcoal." "Yes, it feels more realistic already.")
What's missing from your definition of virtual reality is interaction. An experience may be totally emersive, and it may be an assault on the senses, but so are many things Hollywood puts out. Like you said, the soldier knows it's not real. Because you can touch and change reality. You actually have a reason to give a damn. Otherwise this is just a training film someone forced you to sit through.
Add interaction, and give the person a reason to care about the situation and the ability to make decisions that affect it's outcome, THEN you have something that approaches reality. Otherwise, it's a glorified movie that has no place as a story on Slashdot. Hell, I've got some charcoal. I should burn some and play video games and submit a story to Slashdot about my home VR system.
Shut up Anti-Wesley!
So, usually, when things are measured in a fixed number of minutes, they aren't really simulations. They are movies. Maybe they're really good movies, with the IMAX-style screen, and Smellovision, but they aren't "VR."
What if you don't "secure the assembly area" within your alotted five minutes? Do you have to pay for another ticket? Sorry, your five minutes are up. Please put all trash in the designated recepticles on the way to the exits.
Hah. You beat me to it. I was "skimming" the page and skipped the part where they told what that acronym stood for in this story's context... when I read that the "Institute for Creative Studies" created MRE, I got a little confused. MREs are not the most creative product. Then I was thinking, what, are the textures in these sims like the ones in Quake 1? Variations on pixelated brown? Sounds like a "realistic" sim.... OH.... Mission Rehersal Exercise.
Watches are something everyone has
:)
Speak for yourself! I never wear them. Knowing what time it is down to the second is not nearly as important as having wrist hair. Not by a long shot.
I always say, if you need to find out what time it is (within hour accuracy), then you're probably someplace (work) where your being on time matters to OTHER people. Let them put up a clock.
Of course. But isn't this what fans have wanted her to say all along? :) Just something to grab casual viewers. And to top it off, they threw in the smoking man. Whew... talk about trying to get ratings. :)
Hah hahh... please mod up. I don't know if this was meant to be funny but it reminded me of timothy's comment a while back. Oh come on now... admit it... you really do want Mandrake Gaming edition.
This entire season has already been this way. The loss of a writer isn't going to kick the change into motion... the format change was at the start of this season. It all started with the "improved" theme song, and transgressed into many episodes of Dylan running around, jumping off things, and shooting alot; Trance "confessing" to being a sex slave, Rommie's "bad ass android" episode, etc. Has no one already noticed that none of this is "real" Sci-Fi, but ratings garnish? Still, I like the show just fine. :)
He said assymetric. Heh heh.
URL is www.rocketguy.com
His launch may be coming soon... although I've been following his site for more than a year and he's slipped the date some in the past. This was posted on Slashdot quite a while ago.
I'm just going to have to learn to end my comments with "I'm being cynical and/or sarcastic here. Think about it people." I guess I'm just not good at making that obvious otherwise. In this case the only thing I was being cynical in was the subject of the original message.
:)
So I'll wrap it up and make my point again if anyone can see this message: New OSes are great. There's nothing any different about this one... it's got some good things going. Being written from the ground up is one of them. But increasing the number of open source OSes, while beneficial in generating new ideas and code that evolve ALL OSes, causes a vote-splitting effect. Too many good things, not enough people to use them or add to them... and they all founder and sink. That doesn't mean you shouldn't choose the one you like... but choosing one that is "secondary" in the Open Source world as the number of Open Source OSes continue to increase could actually cause them ALL to founder and sink.. because they're not THAT different.
Please, comments if anyone can actually see this post.
I have time for just one more question. :) But you're falling right into my analogy while you're trying to argue against it. Gore and Bush were the biggest two on each side of the fence too... it only took a small push (Nader) to tip the result. In the "Open Source V. Closed Source" ideal (since you don't seem to agree with the word "groupthink"), Open Source doesn't even HAVE an equal on its side of the fence. Linux is the biggest, but not an equal. And things like AtheOS are more than pebbles.
:)
Keep in mind, idealists, that Nader fit very nicely into the downfall of the party system, but it only got us a Republican president we didn't want over a Democrat... regardless of the similarity of the two main parties.
Who gives a fuck if Linux (BSD/Amiga/AtheOS/...) doesn't have 100% market share?
EXACTLY! I was pointing out the fatal flaw in that thinking. So you DO get my point.
The problem with your little political analogy is that there's no one winner in the OS "wars."
:)
I'm glad that you've said this... I think you're getting closer to seeing my point than you'd like to admit.
Choose an OS based on how much you like it, not whether it's the poster-child for Open Source or not.
:)
Agreed. I prefer MacOS over both Windows AND Linux. I am not making this point for me. I am just trying to get Slashdotters to run some ideas through thier heads for once. It's an open forum... I like to keep people open to ideas. You've rather just rehashed what most people ALWAYS say about OSes... but it's contrary to the "downfall of MS" think that prevades Slashdot.
Just doing my job to keep people sane...
a coherent attempt at bashing AtheOS for being different
I wouldn't bash things for being different. I actually prefer MacOS, which is just as lacking in market share relative to Windows as anything else. I personally think AtheOS is pretty cool. You jump to conclusions. What I was trying to point out are the errors in the groupthink that is inevitable on this story... to give people something to think about other than "Oh, this is the coolest thing!" And the metaphor is based in real life politics, regardless of how narrow minded you may be.
You've pointed out that the two candiates in the 2000 election are virtually the same. And the results of the election showed that people thought that too... split vote. Now, what if 3 candidates from the two main parties had run... 2 from one, and 1 from the other? Say, two Democrats and George Bush. In such a case, Bush would have won by a large margin. In fact, this did happen to a smaller (but influential) degree in the 2000 election... remember Nader's slice of votes? Which way would the scale have tilted had he not run? Most likely to the Democrat side rather than the Republican side. This was quoted in MANY articles and reports on the elections. In effect, more people voted "Democrat" than "Republican", and look who won?
Yes, you should try college. Now that I've graduated from it I find that alot of the stuff I learned was pretty useful in the "big world." What I have in my sig has nothing to do with that.
Remember the reasoning behind only having one candidate from each political "party" run for an office? If you have 3 candidates, two with agenda A, and one with agenda B, even if there are a larger number of people who vote A, there is the distinct possibility that the candiate who's for B will get elected.
:)
I think it's better to support one candidate in the open source OS world and not several. Yes, this new OS *is* open and might have great features that could/should make thier way into Linux, but throwing support directly at the OS eventually will make the OS a contender for developers and more importantly users that Linux would garner otherwise. Which leads to that overwhelming market share thing Microsoft has going.
I'm not quite sure I understand your comment, but I'll take a shot at solving your problem: All project settings and references are defined in the project files (.vbproj and .vbproj.user.) They're XML. ASCII if you like. *Everything* you can do with a menu in VS.NET you can do in a text editor, and in some cases you can do more by editing the files directly in a text editor.
Please, someone mod this comment down. This is a very uniformed comment, and somewhat self promotional as well... a bad mix. .NET dynamically loads EVERYTHING. If running a web application or a web service, simply replace one of the "code behind" DLLs and the next time someone hits your website, it will be running with the new DLL (if that's what you want; you can tie to a specific version too if that's your desire.) In fact, the same is true with client side apps, and apps that pull code off the server. Put a .NET assembly at http://intranet/thing.dll, and any software that uses Assembly.LoadFrom("http://intranet/thing.dll") can have the same capability. Granted, this client side behavior is not as granular as you might say, but it is possible to dynamically load each time you create an instance of the object if you want. You just have to be careful with casting when you're playing with the "same" object that game from different versions of the same assembly.
Plugs based on misconceptions are not very effective.
So, not having used C#, exactly what parts of .NET have you used? The only thing I think you have said that .NET does not have over IBM's implementations is UDDI (at least I think that's what you're saying.) And that's not true. the .NET framework does include UDDI, and MS's own DISCO system which takes UDDI a step further. Can you please elaborate?