Without getting into too political a discussion, I'd just like to dispute this claim that being "evil" is simply a matter of protection. First, let me say that calling George Bush "evil" is juvenile at best, because, just like anything in today's world, the argument is multifaceted; good or evil just doesn't cut it. That being said however (and this seems to be the case with a lot of Bush supporters that I've met, but certainly may not hold in the general case), your argument is just as flat as the delineation between good and evil. I'd imagine you'd agree with me that classifying someone as "good" or "evil" doesn't make sense (or, failing that, I'll continue to lose faith that there is a shred of pragmatism in th mindset of the Right) because it's just not that simple. But at the same time, you're telling me that because George Bush (but in reality rather his cabinet and staff, which he was much more than likely heavily "advised" on picking from various heads of his political party) managed to keep home-soil terrorist attacks at bay since 9/11, he should be absolved of all other wrongdoing? Essentially that because of the result up until now of one particular aspect of his presidency, he should be declared "good"?
I mean, I agree with you that we shouldn't be celebrating our 'victory' over the War on Terrorism by going out for Big Macs and shopping at Walmart..but by the exact same token, that doesn't mean we should pat our president on the back and give his administration carte blanche for everything else, that's just silly.
First, I agree with the Metered v. Unmetered argument put forth by another replier. Second, sure go ahead, if you can. When I lived in dorms and apartments, I specifically never used a cordless phone (though I did have a cell phone, but that's worlds harder to fake a call from), just because I knew the broadcast area extended beyond the bounds of my dwelling, and I didn't want people listening in unrestricted, much less placing unauthorized calls. Now at my house, I have a consumer-grade cordless phone that I know does not reach the boundaries of my yard, while still being available where I usually am. Thus, you'd have to be trespassing on my property, which would show willful intent to steal bandwidth/airtime.
My 802.11G card picks up both my B network and my neighbor's G network, and I've been thinking about just using his to bump up the speed. There goes that idea.
Ok, well...one, the first is that this is a dupe with different references.
The second is that, as has been mentioned in the other story, this is a Kind-Of Bad Thing(c). Again, if this bill would have been rewritten to take out the "bad" amendments, this would have been great news. However, all they did was decline a law which unilaterally allowed EU patents, not explicitly prohibit them, and thus since there is no EU legislation on software patents, individual countries reserve the right to allow or deny them.
At least, that's what I gathered from the other article.
Now normally, I'd agree whole-heartedly with your disgust re: their pedantry. However, I must admit, in the context of the keynote speech, Schwartzman actually went out of his way to say the acronym, "FOSS", meaning "Free and Open Source Software". If you tried to correct me on the street when I said "free", and meant free as in beer, then yes, I'd immediately stop talking to you. In this case though, the Free and Open Source Software community defined their unorganized collective by coining that phrase/name, and Schwartzman went out of his way to explicitly call the movement by said name, so in this case only, I think I actually do agree with his nonsensical rambling.
Uhhhh....why on Earth would he have chosen Windows? As another poster mentioned, porting Unix->Linux legacy code is worlds easier than to Unix->Windows. But..this decision was about cost, it was never about technical superiority at all. It wasn't that the CIO really badly wanted to switch operating systems, if mainframe Unix would have cost him $2.5 million, he very obviously would have stuck with their existing setup.
In general, yes. However, the// to indicate a comment was _not_ actually a C-style comment until (relatively) very recently, that was first introduced with C++, but most modern compiler suites have recognized the// convention as an extention to the language for awhile.
The original ANSI specification (and I have a copy of the Kernighan & Ritchie book, which is pre ANSI) only included the/* */ commenting convention. Thus, /* This was the only way to comment-out one line of text. */
The// comment was often included in modern C compilers, but it wasn't officially adopted until ISO 9899:1999 (C99), which, unsurprisingly enough, came out in just 6 years ago. Granted, this sig is only about 4 years old, but hey.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used it in about a year, but aren't most of those features already in Eclipse? I wasn't positive about a wizard for JUnit or 5.0 compatibility, but actually, I just did my homework, and the answer's yes.
Booooo, I'm from Lehigh County, and I have a bunch of politically active friends from MontCo. I'm actually pretty disappointed it transpired in Chester.
While I agree with you that sliding-scale morals are pretty messed up, the fact of the matter is that simply put, Chip Salzenberg is not a spammer; the grandparent must have seen "open proxy" and assumed immediately that he was using it for spoofing/spamming.
That's actually a pretty good point. In today's Web medium, there's a not-so-fine line between "advertising" and "bombardment", and it's pretty obvious now, after even grandmothers are talking about pop-up blockers, that a successful Web ad campaign should be pervasive, but without being plastered to every page that a person in my demographic is likely to view.
That being said, as a consumer, I'm actually _less_ likely to click on an ad for a product that I'm not necessarily in awe of, but is still cluttering up my daily routine. So IMO, it really _does_ make sense to only register one hit per IP*, as if I'm planning on buying a product, I'm not likely to click on the same ad from the same source 8 times in a few minutes.
* Simple IP logging obviously doesn't take into account NAT, but hey.
..which is that this is lower than circumstantial evidence that they're pursuing. The evidence in question (i.e. the logged IP of the anonymous poster) may lead police to the suspect; but assuming that police do find who posted that message, after getting the IP from the server, then sending a subpoena to the ISP, and finding out his or her identity, the evidence on the server becomes wholly irrelevant to the case, and thus will likely never come into question.
Basically, you can't convict someone of a crime because they posted anonymously to a board saying they did it, given no other evidence, nor a signed confession by the suspect. So really, what does it matter? If the guy who posted the message actually committed the crime, they're going to need to, for instance, initiate a full investigation, not haul him to court based on the validity of some IP logs unrelated to the crime itself.
Uh, yeah, I agree and all, but if the legal system's as blindingly efficient as it is here in the US, I'd say they'll get their servers back in 18 months or so. Sucks for Bristol Indymedia. And we're not talking about PETA here, it's not like Indymedia explicitly condones violent direct action, this is definitely a case of some jerk ruining it for everyone.
I play in a "small/unknown" band, our most recent cd was pressed by a relatively small label, and the tracking/mixing/mastering was paid for out of pocket. We're not doing it to get laid or make money, we're all either in relationships or can very well meet girls on our own, and have 'real' jobs. Even so, that part is irrelevant, you're right in saying that a lot bands have an ulterior motive for playing music.
That being said, we do charge more than cost for our cds and eps, and don't feel badly about it. Why? Because music is a hobby for us. We already pay out of pocket for decent guitars, amps, drums, personal recording equipment, etc. We're not trying to make a business out of this, and we've never made enough off of merch sales to even begin to subsidize equipment, we view those as personal investments. We do sell a decent amount of merch, but that really only pays for gas to out-of-the-area shows, trailer rentals, and saving towards buying a trailer (which will be at least 80% out of pocket).
I can't speak for bands that play the same town every week and try to get you to buy their $10 4-song EP, but for the rest of us, being a band can be expensive, we're literally just trying to cover some expenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Without getting into too political a discussion, I'd just like to dispute this claim that being "evil" is simply a matter of protection. First, let me say that calling George Bush "evil" is juvenile at best, because, just like anything in today's world, the argument is multifaceted; good or evil just doesn't cut it. That being said however (and this seems to be the case with a lot of Bush supporters that I've met, but certainly may not hold in the general case), your argument is just as flat as the delineation between good and evil.
I'd imagine you'd agree with me that classifying someone as "good" or "evil" doesn't make sense (or, failing that, I'll continue to lose faith that there is a shred of pragmatism in th mindset of the Right) because it's just not that simple. But at the same time, you're telling me that because George Bush (but in reality rather his cabinet and staff, which he was much more than likely heavily "advised" on picking from various heads of his political party) managed to keep home-soil terrorist attacks at bay since 9/11, he should be absolved of all other wrongdoing? Essentially that because of the result up until now of one particular aspect of his presidency, he should be declared "good"?
I mean, I agree with you that we shouldn't be celebrating our 'victory' over the War on Terrorism by going out for Big Macs and shopping at Walmart..but by the exact same token, that doesn't mean we should pat our president on the back and give his administration carte blanche for everything else, that's just silly.
First, I agree with the Metered v. Unmetered argument put forth by another replier. Second, sure go ahead, if you can. When I lived in dorms and apartments, I specifically never used a cordless phone (though I did have a cell phone, but that's worlds harder to fake a call from), just because I knew the broadcast area extended beyond the bounds of my dwelling, and I didn't want people listening in unrestricted, much less placing unauthorized calls. Now at my house, I have a consumer-grade cordless phone that I know does not reach the boundaries of my yard, while still being available where I usually am. Thus, you'd have to be trespassing on my property, which would show willful intent to steal bandwidth/airtime.
My 802.11G card picks up both my B network and my neighbor's G network, and I've been thinking about just using his to bump up the speed. There goes that idea.
Ok, well...one, the first is that this is a dupe with different references.
The second is that, as has been mentioned in the other story, this is a Kind-Of Bad Thing(c). Again, if this bill would have been rewritten to take out the "bad" amendments, this would have been great news. However, all they did was decline a law which unilaterally allowed EU patents, not explicitly prohibit them, and thus since there is no EU legislation on software patents, individual countries reserve the right to allow or deny them.
At least, that's what I gathered from the other article.
Now normally, I'd agree whole-heartedly with your disgust re: their pedantry. However, I must admit, in the context of the keynote speech, Schwartzman actually went out of his way to say the acronym, "FOSS", meaning "Free and Open Source Software". If you tried to correct me on the street when I said "free", and meant free as in beer, then yes, I'd immediately stop talking to you. In this case though, the Free and Open Source Software community defined their unorganized collective by coining that phrase/name, and Schwartzman went out of his way to explicitly call the movement by said name, so in this case only, I think I actually do agree with his nonsensical rambling.
Uhhhh....why on Earth would he have chosen Windows? As another poster mentioned, porting Unix->Linux legacy code is worlds easier than to Unix->Windows. But..this decision was about cost, it was never about technical superiority at all. It wasn't that the CIO really badly wanted to switch operating systems, if mainframe Unix would have cost him $2.5 million, he very obviously would have stuck with their existing setup.
And of course, by that, I mean d = m /v.
Uh, dogg..."have greater mass", not 'denser'. d = mv, remember?
In general, yes. However, the // to indicate a comment was _not_ actually a C-style comment until (relatively) very recently, that was first introduced with C++, but most modern compiler suites have recognized the // convention as an extention to the language for awhile.
/* */ commenting convention. Thus, // comment was often included in modern C compilers, but it wasn't officially adopted until ISO 9899:1999 (C99), which, unsurprisingly enough, came out in just 6 years ago. Granted, this sig is only about 4 years old, but hey.
The original ANSI specification (and I have a copy of the Kernighan & Ritchie book, which is pre ANSI) only included the
/* This was the only way to comment-out one line of text. */
The
Ref
Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't used it in about a year, but aren't most of those features already in Eclipse? I wasn't positive about a wizard for JUnit or 5.0 compatibility, but actually, I just did my homework, and the answer's yes.
Booooo, I'm from Lehigh County, and I have a bunch of politically active friends from MontCo. I'm actually pretty disappointed it transpired in Chester.
While I agree with you that sliding-scale morals are pretty messed up, the fact of the matter is that simply put, Chip Salzenberg is not a spammer; the grandparent must have seen "open proxy" and assumed immediately that he was using it for spoofing/spamming.
Uh, yeah..that's not what happened though. So they didn't listen, in actuality.
I love how this was modded informative at some point. Because I really was dying to know.
Read the TOS, maybe?
That's actually a pretty good point. In today's Web medium, there's a not-so-fine line between "advertising" and "bombardment", and it's pretty obvious now, after even grandmothers are talking about pop-up blockers, that a successful Web ad campaign should be pervasive, but without being plastered to every page that a person in my demographic is likely to view.
That being said, as a consumer, I'm actually _less_ likely to click on an ad for a product that I'm not necessarily in awe of, but is still cluttering up my daily routine. So IMO, it really _does_ make sense to only register one hit per IP*, as if I'm planning on buying a product, I'm not likely to click on the same ad from the same source 8 times in a few minutes.
* Simple IP logging obviously doesn't take into account NAT, but hey.
yesssssss
I'm not really sure what explosions in the sky has to do with the body of your post, but I am nevertheless intrigued.
Uh, no. That was a completely different provider entirely. That was OptimumOnline, the 100mbit provider is Cablevision.
As long as I have my xteddy, I will be set.
..which is that this is lower than circumstantial evidence that they're pursuing. The evidence in question (i.e. the logged IP of the anonymous poster) may lead police to the suspect; but assuming that police do find who posted that message, after getting the IP from the server, then sending a subpoena to the ISP, and finding out his or her identity, the evidence on the server becomes wholly irrelevant to the case, and thus will likely never come into question.
Basically, you can't convict someone of a crime because they posted anonymously to a board saying they did it, given no other evidence, nor a signed confession by the suspect. So really, what does it matter? If the guy who posted the message actually committed the crime, they're going to need to, for instance, initiate a full investigation, not haul him to court based on the validity of some IP logs unrelated to the crime itself.
...about as easy as it is to put falsified data onto a seized drive after the fact.
Uh, yeah, I agree and all, but if the legal system's as blindingly efficient as it is here in the US, I'd say they'll get their servers back in 18 months or so. Sucks for Bristol Indymedia. And we're not talking about PETA here, it's not like Indymedia explicitly condones violent direct action, this is definitely a case of some jerk ruining it for everyone.
1.) the word is calculable.
2.) that was a joke.
I play in a "small/unknown" band, our most recent cd was pressed by a relatively small label, and the tracking/mixing/mastering was paid for out of pocket. We're not doing it to get laid or make money, we're all either in relationships or can very well meet girls on our own, and have 'real' jobs. Even so, that part is irrelevant, you're right in saying that a lot bands have an ulterior motive for playing music.
That being said, we do charge more than cost for our cds and eps, and don't feel badly about it.
Why? Because music is a hobby for us. We already pay out of pocket for decent guitars, amps, drums, personal recording equipment, etc. We're not trying to make a business out of this, and we've never made enough off of merch sales to even begin to subsidize equipment, we view those as personal investments. We do sell a decent amount of merch, but that really only pays for gas to out-of-the-area shows, trailer rentals, and saving towards buying a trailer (which will be at least 80% out of pocket).
I can't speak for bands that play the same town every week and try to get you to buy their $10 4-song EP, but for the rest of us, being a band can be expensive, we're literally just trying to cover some expenses.