How many times do you think you can 'carefully' insert and remove a CPU in its socket before some pin gives in?
I don't know about you, but for my part I have never removed and inserted a CPU into its socket more than a couple of time. And remember that 99% of their revenue doesn't come from people that do that more than once.
So again, don't generalize on the "Geek point of view". They don't give a sh*t if your CPU/mobo breaks
Re:My experiences with Gmail invitations
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Thank you so much man!
I so beleived it was a hoax, but hey, nothing to loose right?
You ARE the man.
Re:My experiences with Gmail invitations
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Probably worth a shot:
Please send me a GMail account! email: connard@palmdrive.net
I basically described the behavior of "java.net.HttpURLConnection". So no, it is not how "exactly how socket access works in Java applets", as you put it. It actually has nothing to do with it.
This class is HTTP-based, meaning it cannot do anything else than HTTP protocol. It does use the browser internet settings, so even if the user doesn;t have an internet access but just access to a proxy, it still works.
people have suggested that I create a Java socket from JavaScript That works only if the user has a direct access to the internet. No proxies, etc...
With that, you could interact with the server _without_ reloading the page
BTW, you know there are numerous tricks to do this very thing, right? Such as hidden frames, hidden iframes, dynamic script generation (foo.innerHTML="http://my.server/my/script.js?foo= bar"), etc...
I once posted a message to some mailing list requesting support for sockets in JavaScript
Security settings should force you to communicate only with your originating server and port. Hence a Socket is way "too free" for that.
And if the user is using a proxy, then what? How can you access your original server? You have to go through the Proxy.
No, a real way would be to have access to an object a bit like java.net.HttpURLConnection. Such an object would be trivial to write, with two features in mind: 1. It should use the browser's connections settings (proxies, etc...) and caching capabilities. 2. It should enforce that the URLs accessed are issued from the same server/port as the script requesting it.
All your post is quite interesting except for the WinXp Pro just decided to wipe it clean piece, which makes it look cretinistic at best. But after all, we are on slashdot, so why not bashing MS for free?
Well, you are really stupid, or misinformed on what is RAID-0 then. RAID-0 doesn't use redundancy, it uses stripping. Which means your data is spread over both drives.
So by buying two different drives, not only do you lower the global performances of your RAID-0 array, but you don;t add any data security: If one drive dies, ALL your data is gone.
Well, is it just me or does the slashdot bug is till there?
To reproduce: 1. type in www.slashdot.org 2. Hit refresh until you see the main part overlapping the left part. Should be pretty quick (2-3 retries on my machine)
Oh well... Mozilla 1.7 out and that bug still there...
You might be rich and want to give all your money out to PG&E, but I don't. Hence I appreciate these little buttons that turn my appliances off. Not even talking about the image and sound annoyances.
Another obvious answer: 90% of all books published after 1921. 80% of the comics published during the same period. 70% of all movies released during the same period.
You do realize that within a typical household, there are 5 appliances: TV, VCR, DVD, Cable, Amp. There could even be a CD player/charger, but let's limit ourselves to 5.
You do realize that there are 32 combinations for these appliances to be on or off. Granted not all of them make sense, let's say just 5. Now you are saying that your solution is to program the transition from every combination to every other combination. That is 25 pre-programmed buttons to just start up or shut down everything.
It'll take longer to figure out which one you want to use than to do it manually.
The real problem is that the command to shut down is the same as the command to power up. If they were separate, there would be no problem at all. Or less.
According to the manual, you can set the DVD button to run that entire sequence His problem is that the sequence changes if you were listening to music because your amp was already on, for example.
Maybe now you started realizing that you didn't answer the problem. If you re-read the post you replied to, that is.
This has (IMO) nothing to do with the quality of the media, or the space available. Just that some people seems to be highly incompetent when it comes to authoring a DVD.
I once rented a movie from Netflix (I don't recall the title though) and I had to give up after 5 minutes of watching. It was like watching one of these bad pr0n mpg movies that I downloaded from CuteMX back in the days. But it wasn't pr0n so not worth my eyes bleeding.
The code that was used in Windows NT is still free and in use in many other OSes. Some free, some not.
It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument.
My post: This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty
Your answer: If you are admitting you have more freedom [under GPL] you are conceeding the main point.
You can say to yourself I usually don't talk to myself.
Its only a Release Candidate When did I say anything else?
Maybe I should wait for the actual release to judge its stability Hey! I would be an ass to judge something that doesn't exist. I'm judging the stability of the RC, not something that is not yet released. So how am I wrong?
I'm not complaining! I'm just saying that it might take a few more weeks to get to a stable release.
Plus there is that bug (#2 in my original post) that is there since 3 major revs, so I made the assumptions that since it doesn't look fixed in the RC, it will probably not be fixed in the release. Maybe I was wrong on that one, but it looks to me that the work that needs to be done between a RC and a release doesn't involve fixing major bugs that are there since 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
How many times do you think you can 'carefully' insert and remove a CPU in its socket before some pin gives in?
I don't know about you, but for my part I have never removed and inserted a CPU into its socket more than a couple of time. And remember that 99% of their revenue doesn't come from people that do that more than once.
So again, don't generalize on the "Geek point of view". They don't give a sh*t if your CPU/mobo breaks
Thank you so much man!
I so beleived it was a hoax, but hey, nothing to loose right?
You ARE the man.
Probably worth a shot:
Please send me a GMail account!
email: connard@palmdrive.net
Thanks in advance.
I just printed it on 4 11*17 pages and nailed it on my cube. Everyone is stopping by and add its $.02. Lots of fun. ^_^
I basically described the behavior of "java.net.HttpURLConnection". So no, it is not how "exactly how socket access works in Java applets", as you put it. It actually has nothing to do with it.
This class is HTTP-based, meaning it cannot do anything else than HTTP protocol. It does use the browser internet settings, so even if the user doesn;t have an internet access but just access to a proxy, it still works.
people have suggested that I create a Java socket from JavaScript
That works only if the user has a direct access to the internet. No proxies, etc...
Java VMs are written in C++ among other languages
Are you implying that because they are written in C++, they are inherently slower? Because that would be sooo wrong...
With that, you could interact with the server _without_ reloading the page
= bar"), etc...
BTW, you know there are numerous tricks to do this very thing, right? Such as hidden frames, hidden iframes, dynamic script generation (foo.innerHTML="http://my.server/my/script.js?foo
Mozilla.org is not sure if it's ready for prime time yet, either
I know, that's probably why they release a RC.
That's the whole definition of RC, isn't it?
Well, yes. Who said otherwise?
Solution: update to 0.9
Well, sure. Now that 0.9 is out, it is an obvious answer.
#2 is not fixed in it yet, but it's in the trunk, will be included in 1.0
Thanks for the info.
I once posted a message to some mailing list requesting support for sockets in JavaScript
Security settings should force you to communicate only with your originating server and port. Hence a Socket is way "too free" for that.
And if the user is using a proxy, then what? How can you access your original server? You have to go through the Proxy.
No, a real way would be to have access to an object a bit like java.net.HttpURLConnection. Such an object would be trivial to write, with two features in mind:
1. It should use the browser's connections settings (proxies, etc...) and caching capabilities.
2. It should enforce that the URLs accessed are issued from the same server/port as the script requesting it.
Socket is way too low level.
And you access them quickly how?
I would say:
And you access them quickly how with the one hand available left?
All your post is quite interesting except for the WinXp Pro just decided to wipe it clean piece, which makes it look cretinistic at best. But after all, we are on slashdot, so why not bashing MS for free?
Well, you are really stupid, or misinformed on what is RAID-0 then. RAID-0 doesn't use redundancy, it uses stripping. Which means your data is spread over both drives.
So by buying two different drives, not only do you lower the global performances of your RAID-0 array, but you don;t add any data security: If one drive dies, ALL your data is gone.
Well, is it just me or does the slashdot bug is till there?
To reproduce:
1. type in www.slashdot.org
2. Hit refresh until you see the main part overlapping the left part. Should be pretty quick (2-3 retries on my machine)
Oh well... Mozilla 1.7 out and that bug still there...
You might be rich and want to give all your money out to PG&E, but I don't. Hence I appreciate these little buttons that turn my appliances off. Not even talking about the image and sound annoyances.
Another obvious answer: 90% of all books published after 1921. 80% of the comics published during the same period. 70% of all movies released during the same period.
Reading your post, I was wondering how your universal remote can learn the code for power up and shutdown if your TV remote don't send them?
the java like stuff is something like 20x as slow as the c++ code
Maybe they should switch to real java then... Cause this story is all about it being faster than C++.
You do realize that within a typical household, there are 5 appliances: TV, VCR, DVD, Cable, Amp. There could even be a CD player/charger, but let's limit ourselves to 5.
You do realize that there are 32 combinations for these appliances to be on or off. Granted not all of them make sense, let's say just 5. Now you are saying that your solution is to program the transition from every combination to every other combination. That is 25 pre-programmed buttons to just start up or shut down everything.
It'll take longer to figure out which one you want to use than to do it manually.
The real problem is that the command to shut down is the same as the command to power up. If they were separate, there would be no problem at all. Or less.
It sucks that we have to have 100 different devices whose functionality overlaps
I fail to see where the guy's TV, Amp and DVD player overlaps.
Problem is a wife has only three slots for three features:
1. beauty
2. intelligence
3. Geekiness
4. Cooking
5. Cleaning
6. Likes sex
Pick yours, but if you want one with Geekiness built in, you'll have to compromise with a lack of other features.
According to the manual, you can set the DVD button to run that entire sequence
His problem is that the sequence changes if you were listening to music because your amp was already on, for example.
Maybe now you started realizing that you didn't answer the problem. If you re-read the post you replied to, that is.
This has (IMO) nothing to do with the quality of the media, or the space available. Just that some people seems to be highly incompetent when it comes to authoring a DVD.
I once rented a movie from Netflix (I don't recall the title though) and I had to give up after 5 minutes of watching. It was like watching one of these bad pr0n mpg movies that I downloaded from CuteMX back in the days. But it wasn't pr0n so not worth my eyes bleeding.
The code that was used in Windows NT is still free and in use in many other OSes. Some free, some not.
It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument.
My post: This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty
Your answer: If you are admitting you have more freedom [under GPL] you are conceeding the main point.
I give it up right there.
Jesus Christ. I just said that the 0.9RC isn't stable for Christ's sake! Why the heck are you talking every any other version?????
If you haven't have any problem with FF0.9RC , then please reply to me, but don't bash me on the assumption that I said that FF was crap.
BTW, read my last phrase. That might enlighten you.
You can say to yourself
I usually don't talk to myself.
Its only a Release Candidate
When did I say anything else?
Maybe I should wait for the actual release to judge its stability
Hey! I would be an ass to judge something that doesn't exist. I'm judging the stability of the RC, not something that is not yet released. So how am I wrong?
I'm not complaining! I'm just saying that it might take a few more weeks to get to a stable release.
Plus there is that bug (#2 in my original post) that is there since 3 major revs, so I made the assumptions that since it doesn't look fixed in the RC, it will probably not be fixed in the release. Maybe I was wrong on that one, but it looks to me that the work that needs to be done between a RC and a release doesn't involve fixing major bugs that are there since 2 years.
Maybe that's just my way of thinking.