Say, for instance, a chip subroutine exists which can instantly trap a BSOD without the crash getting to the kernel, to allow you to save the machine state for recovery? What use would that be in Linux?
Well, linux does have kernel panics... but saving a macine state right before a Blue Screen wouldn't do you much good, it would just crash again right after you recoverd it.
Why would china want to exspose all of its shells by DoSing a couple of 'dot-com' companies for a few hours? If they were really interested in info-war, I'm sure they'd keep it secret, untill they could actualy use the advantage
RealAudio and RealVideo work only in few cases. Most of the time, clicking on an RA / RV / RAM link will result in no action at all. ASF / ASX support is great, though;-) Not that surprising!
Are you tyring to use Windows Media player? It used to support RM, but not anymore, I think beacuse of legial issues. I hate realplayer, and I won't install it. (Its not like theres anything worth watching on the 'net anyway. and there's plenty of ASF/MPEGs)
Installing realplayer will probably fix that, unless IE is really fucked up. (I've never seen anything like that)
Someone has to much time on there hands?
on
Textmode Quake
·
· Score: 1
I went to the story before, the last time it was posted, but this time there was somthing new:
Paul Wilkins, who apparently has waaaay to much free time, has graciously donated two HTML "screenshots" of ttyquake which he created by hand. No, really. He typed in all those little characters while reading from jpeg screenshots I sent him. His mother must be so proud.
Hrm... I wonder if this guy has ever heard of "OCR" software?
Good god, does everything have to come with source nowadays (And, I'd have to say I'd be surprised if it actually didn't, what's the value in an proprietary ASCII based X server?)
Even if there were no source, it doesn't really matter. If you really need an open source ASCII X server, why don't you write one yourself? This was simply done for fun, bitching about not providing the source for something no one needed is really lame.
DSL, from what I gather is 'open access' to the Core, IE the system was designed from the ground up with inoperability in mind. I guess the difference is that it comes from an industry (telephone) that has had competition forced on them for a long time, and only acted as a blind carrier to begin with.
When you get a DSL line, all you get is access to a faster digital phone line, that you can connect to the ISP of your choice (usually the phone company, but it doesn't have to be). And that ISP is usually just an IP provider, as opposed to a 'content provider'
Aside from the fact that cable is a shared connection and can be slowed (and sniffed) a huge amount, Cable is something that comes from companies who have owned with an iron fist both the Wire, DataStream, and content.
I don't know why, but I'd personally rather have a direct DSL line, even if it were slower then having 'my eyeballs owned' by a cable company. But, that's just me.
This may be just me, but I've always seen Steve Case as somewhat of a wanker, he never looked like he should be up there with people like the SUN CEO (who's name I remember, but can't spell) or Even Bill gates. Just some used car salesman in a polo shirt. Oh well.
The FEC says I can't support a political candidate on my web site..
Actually, this isn't true. At all. If you want to support a candidate on a website you need to report the 'value' of the site as a campaign contribution, as it clearly is. Where did you get the idea that you couldn't do that at all?
What is the reference to the "free pc" from the company then? I -did- read the article. Are you one of the computer users that feels "powerful and excited" when using a computer?
The free PC thing is something provided by ford motor company for its employees. And it has nothing to do with Northwest Airlines. Really, I'm surprised your reading comprehension is so low.
In this particular case, however, how is "psst, call in sick on Christmas" considered "speech about a company"? It sounds more like strike-organization to me, which afaik is not only legal but protected by various laws.
It would seem like this is true, but in some industries, it might not be. I think nurses, for example aren't allowed to. The same thing might be true about airline employees, I'm not sure (or, it could be disallowed in there contract)
In any case, I find the idea of people going through other peoples personal email highly disturbing. I mean, there's going to be a lot of stuff in there that people don't want to share.
As a site question, how protected are political candidates? Does "Candidate X slept with 40 women in the last 5 years" count as political speech or a slanderous personal attack?
Probably not. In fact I could probably get away with saying the same thing about you (not that anyone would listen:). Because I think in order for something to be slander, the person saying it has to know that it is not true (and good luck proving that...).
btw... I'd also like everyone to know that I did in fact sleep with 40 women in the past 5 years:P
Oh please I said nothing about Gay rights issues, and my in my earlier citation of abortion I neither stated that it was good nor bad.
Well, I assumed that you, know, we were talking about surfwatch, then we would, you know, want to talk about stuff surfwatch blocks... as opposed to whatever wonderfull magical software you think exsists that works perfictaly and never fails.
Somebody mark this joker's post as a troll, because given his inability to refrain from foul language nor stick to the facts...he has it written all over his angry hairless face.
Thats right sparky. a troll is someone who dissagrees with you. What facts am I not sticking to? your the one living in a dreamworld, with that crap about how filtering saved money.
...given his inability to refrain from foul language...
Real trolls don't sware, and by definition dissagree with the consensious. I'm not trolling. Fuckehead.
Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs
Bandwidth is, in almost all cases a flat fee. I don't have any real data available, but I seriously doubt that having filtered 'net access will slow it down by much. On the other hand, you Will certainly have to spend lots of money on filtering software. You pay more if you filter then if you don't. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money;
Misuse? wtf are you talking about? Since when is looking up Gay rights issues, or information about abortion misuse.
Otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
What about D) Nether? Holland MI (and that is what we are talking about here) isn't having any problems with capacity or bandwidth right now, and they have an uncensored library. If what you are saying is true, then they already spent the money and it isn't an issue. You are also saying that a statistically significant portion of the population wants the stuff. As you know, only one person in Holland has ever been caught looking at porn, and this was in 4 years. Blocking porn, in this case would only save 0.0001% in resources if he couldn't do that. And its not like can go out and buy 29.998 computers, or 0.9999 t1 lines. You pay more with filtering then you do without.
Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
You don't really think it'll impact tourism, do you? And it's not like small towns get much of that anyway. On the other hand, you'll still be limiting what people can learn and read about. This is an issue of freedoms, and I don't give a god damn who's tax dollars it is.
I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Wow, I'm glad your confident enough to speak for a class of people you know nothing about. It's something that I would never do. Fortunately, I've lived under the poverty line most of my life. When I was growing up we had nether a VCR, stereo or even color TV (I was born in 1980, btw). And I sure as hell cared about using computers and getting online. When I was 12 and 13 I would go to the library and use their Macs (No internet connection). Later I would use Iowa States public computer labs, and their Internet connection (I grew up about 3 blocks from Durham Center). And, my freshman year of higschool, when I finally did get a computer (after working all summer to be able to afford one). Got online immediately, surfing the web over the only 2400 baud link that AOL provided in our town. Later I would spend upwards of $40 a month, paying about $8 an hour for high speed (14.4kbps) over an 800 number. Some poor people do want to use the Internet, fuckhead. And just because you don't feel they need to be able to doesn't really matter.
Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs
Bandwidth is, in almost all cases a flat fee. I don't have any real data available, but I seriously doubt that having filtered 'net access will slow it down by much. On the other hand, you Will certainly have to spend lots of money on filtering software. You pay more if you filter then if you don't. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money;
Misuse? wtf are you talking about? Since when is looking up Gay rights issues, or information about abortion misuse.
Otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
What about D) Nether? Holland MI (and that is what we are talking about here) isn't having any problems with capacity or bandwidth right now, and they have an uncensored library. If what you are saying is true, then they already spent the money and it isn't an issue. You are also saying that a statistically significant portion of the population wants the stuff. As you know, only one person in Holland has ever been caught looking at porn, and this was in 4 years. Blocking porn, in this case would only save 0.0001% in resources if he couldn't do that. And its not like can go out and buy 29.998 computers, or 0.9999 t1 lines. You pay more with filtering then you do without. Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
You don't really think it'll impact tourism, do you? And it's not like small towns get much of that anyway. On the other hand, you'll still be limiting what people can learn and read about. This is an issue of freedoms, and I don't give a god damn who's tax dollars it is.
I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Wow, I'm glad your confident enough to speak for a class of people you know nothing about. It's something that I would never do. Fortunately, I've lived under the poverty line most of my life. When I was growing up we had nether a VCR, stereo or even color TV (I was born in 1980, btw). And I sure as hell cared about using computers and getting online. When I was 12 and 13 I would go to the library and use their Macs (No internet connection). Later I would use Iowa States public computer labs, and their Internet connection (I grew up about 3 blocks from Durham Center). And, my freshman year of higschool, when I finally did get a computer (after working all summer to be able to afford one). Got online immediately, surfing the web over the only 2400 baud link that AOL provided in our town. Later I would spend upwards of $40 a month, paying about $8 an hour for high speed (14.4kbps) over an 800 number. Some poor people do want to use the Internet, fuckhead. And just because you don't feel they need to be able to doesn't really matter.
I'm against censorship, but I'm also of the mind that my tax dollars shouldn't allow Joe Public to view "hot naked coeds" at the local library.
It's not an issue of your tax dolars funding someone's porn habbit. It's an issue of wether or not you want to spend money to stop people from looking at pages that have been deemed 'unworthy' by surfwatch corporation. It costs less To let him see it. please stop using the tax dolars argument, it makes you look stupid.
so if the residents of Liberal, Kansas think that abortion-related pages are bad and should be filtered out, so be it.
So, what you are saying is that it's ok for the 'community' to decide what the poor (people who can't afford there own computers) Can and cannot learn about? And anyway, the community dosn't deside, surfwatch does, for all communitys.
Slashdot Mirror
Say, for instance, a chip subroutine exists which can instantly trap a BSOD without the crash getting to the kernel, to allow you to save the machine state for recovery? What use would that be in Linux?
Well, linux does have kernel panics... but saving a macine state right before a Blue Screen wouldn't do you much good, it would just crash again right after you recoverd it.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Why would china want to exspose all of its shells by DoSing a couple of 'dot-com' companies for a few hours? If they were really interested in info-war, I'm sure they'd keep it secret, untill they could actualy use the advantage
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Well, I don't know much about CSS, but you might be able to use the tag (and yes you can do it without including a href=whatever) and then defineing a CSS spec for the tag that says "color = white" or somthing like that (I don't know for sure, I've never messed with them myself.
:P
Check out the w3c.org site for more information on CSS (cascading style sheets). It would save a lot of space in the file
I can't stand HTML editors, I guess its beacuse I grew up on Plaintext... I tried using frontpage once for making an extremely simple page, and I got so frustraited that I ended up redoing the whole thing in text (You can see the results Here. I ended up using like 3 levels of nested tables
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
You should have at least tried getting mozzila, it's a bit slow beacuse of the debugging stuff, but It can pretty much do everything IE can.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Of course, netscape locks up for like 3 minutes when it renders any large slashdot page, regardless of widgets.
:)
Slashdot is actualy the real reason I switched from Netscape to IE
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
RealAudio and RealVideo work only in few cases. Most of the time, clicking on an RA / RV / RAM link will result in no action at all. ASF / ASX support is great, though ;-) Not that surprising!
Are you tyring to use Windows Media player? It used to support RM, but not anymore, I think beacuse of legial issues. I hate realplayer, and I won't install it. (Its not like theres anything worth watching on the 'net anyway. and there's plenty of ASF/MPEGs)
Installing realplayer will probably fix that, unless IE is really fucked up. (I've never seen anything like that)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Mozilla's actualy pretty slow on my windows box. I'm assumming its beacuse it's a 'debugging' build. but it is slow.
IE is fast and smooth, and netscape4... not even worth useing.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Forget I posted that plz :(
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
That's why there are over 10,000 bugs in debian linux! Its beacuse its closed source of course
Bugs only get fixed if people care enough to fix them, non-critical bugs might not get fixed.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
You mean like Netscape4.x for Linux?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I get that on my win98 box :P
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Where can I get an opperating system that dosn't take control of my computer and data?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I went to the story before, the last time it was posted, but this time there was somthing new:
Paul Wilkins, who apparently has waaaay to much free time, has graciously donated two HTML "screenshots" of ttyquake which he created by hand. No, really. He typed in all those little characters while reading from jpeg screenshots I sent him. His mother must be so proud.
Hrm... I wonder if this guy has ever heard of "OCR" software?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
1) there is no source.
Good god, does everything have to come with source nowadays (And, I'd have to say I'd be surprised if it actually didn't, what's the value in an proprietary ASCII based X server?)
Even if there were no source, it doesn't really matter. If you really need an open source ASCII X server, why don't you write one yourself? This was simply done for fun, bitching about not providing the source for something no one needed is really lame.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
example 1:
JonKatz
example 2:
JohnKatz
See the diffrence?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
DSL, from what I gather is 'open access' to the Core, IE the system was designed from the ground up with inoperability in mind. I guess the difference is that it comes from an industry (telephone) that has had competition forced on them for a long time, and only acted as a blind carrier to begin with.
When you get a DSL line, all you get is access to a faster digital phone line, that you can connect to the ISP of your choice (usually the phone company, but it doesn't have to be). And that ISP is usually just an IP provider, as opposed to a 'content provider'
Aside from the fact that cable is a shared connection and can be slowed (and sniffed) a huge amount, Cable is something that comes from companies who have owned with an iron fist both the Wire, DataStream, and content.
I don't know why, but I'd personally rather have a direct DSL line, even if it were slower then having 'my eyeballs owned' by a cable company. But, that's just me.
This may be just me, but I've always seen Steve Case as somewhat of a wanker, he never looked like he should be up there with people like the SUN CEO (who's name I remember, but can't spell) or Even Bill gates. Just some used car salesman in a polo shirt. Oh well.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
. There is no chance in hell that this company is going to get out of this without being sued into the ground.
This is a case about people suspected of breaking the law. The police had warents. Northwest did nothing illigal.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
The FEC says I can't support a political candidate on my web site..
Actually, this isn't true. At all. If you want to support a candidate on a website you need to report the 'value' of the site as a campaign contribution, as it clearly is. Where did you get the idea that you couldn't do that at all?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
When Michael mentions free PCs, he is talking about the recent Ford story
J.t.Qbe wrote that part. The parts in italics are always from the submitter.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
What is the reference to the "free pc" from the company then? I -did- read the article. Are you one of the computer users that feels "powerful and excited" when using a computer?
The free PC thing is something provided by ford motor company for its employees. And it has nothing to do with Northwest Airlines. Really, I'm surprised your reading comprehension is so low.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
In this particular case, however, how is "psst, call in sick on Christmas" considered "speech about a company"? It sounds more like strike-organization to me, which afaik is not only legal but protected by various laws.
:). Because I think in order for something to be slander, the person saying it has to know that it is not true (and good luck proving that...).
:P
It would seem like this is true, but in some industries, it might not be. I think nurses, for example aren't allowed to. The same thing might be true about airline employees, I'm not sure (or, it could be disallowed in there contract)
In any case, I find the idea of people going through other peoples personal email highly disturbing. I mean, there's going to be a lot of stuff in there that people don't want to share.
As a site question, how protected are political candidates? Does "Candidate X slept with 40 women in the last 5 years" count as political speech or a slanderous personal attack?
Probably not. In fact I could probably get away with saying the same thing about you (not that anyone would listen
btw... I'd also like everyone to know that I did in fact sleep with 40 women in the past 5 years
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Oh please I said nothing about Gay rights issues, and my in my earlier citation of abortion I neither stated that it was good nor bad.
...given his inability to refrain from foul language...
Well, I assumed that you, know, we were talking about surfwatch, then we would, you know, want to talk about stuff surfwatch blocks... as opposed to whatever wonderfull magical software you think exsists that works perfictaly and never fails.
Somebody mark this joker's post as a troll, because given his inability to refrain from foul language nor stick to the facts...he has it written all over his angry hairless face.
Thats right sparky. a troll is someone who dissagrees with you. What facts am I not sticking to? your the one living in a dreamworld, with that crap about how filtering saved money.
Real trolls don't sware, and by definition dissagree with the consensious. I'm not trolling. Fuckehead.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs
Bandwidth is, in almost all cases a flat fee. I don't have any real data available, but I seriously doubt that having filtered 'net access will slow it down by much. On the other hand, you Will certainly have to spend lots of money on filtering software. You pay more if you filter then if you don't. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money;
Misuse? wtf are you talking about? Since when is looking up Gay rights issues, or information about abortion misuse.
Otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
What about D) Nether? Holland MI (and that is what we are talking about here) isn't having any problems with capacity or bandwidth right now, and they have an uncensored library. If what you are saying is true, then they already spent the money and it isn't an issue. You are also saying that a statistically significant portion of the population wants the stuff. As you know, only one person in Holland has ever been caught looking at porn, and this was in 4 years. Blocking porn, in this case would only save 0.0001% in resources if he couldn't do that. And its not like can go out and buy 29.998 computers, or 0.9999 t1 lines. You pay more with filtering then you do without.
Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
You don't really think it'll impact tourism, do you? And it's not like small towns get much of that anyway. On the other hand, you'll still be limiting what people can learn and read about. This is an issue of freedoms, and I don't give a god damn who's tax dollars it is.
I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Wow, I'm glad your confident enough to speak for a class of people you know nothing about. It's something that I would never do. Fortunately, I've lived under the poverty line most of my life. When I was growing up we had nether a VCR, stereo or even color TV (I was born in 1980, btw). And I sure as hell cared about using computers and getting online. When I was 12 and 13 I would go to the library and use their Macs (No internet connection). Later I would use Iowa States public computer labs, and their Internet connection (I grew up about 3 blocks from Durham Center). And, my freshman year of higschool, when I finally did get a computer (after working all summer to be able to afford one). Got online immediately, surfing the web over the only 2400 baud link that AOL provided in our town. Later I would spend upwards of $40 a month, paying about $8 an hour for high speed (14.4kbps) over an 800 number. Some poor people do want to use the Internet, fuckhead. And just because you don't feel they need to be able to doesn't really matter.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs
Bandwidth is, in almost all cases a flat fee. I don't have any real data available, but I seriously doubt that having filtered 'net access will slow it down by much. On the other hand, you Will certainly have to spend lots of money on filtering software. You pay more if you filter then if you don't. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money;
Misuse? wtf are you talking about? Since when is looking up Gay rights issues, or information about abortion misuse.
Otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
What about D) Nether? Holland MI (and that is what we are talking about here) isn't having any problems with capacity or bandwidth right now, and they have an uncensored library. If what you are saying is true, then they already spent the money and it isn't an issue. You are also saying that a statistically significant portion of the population wants the stuff. As you know, only one person in Holland has ever been caught looking at porn, and this was in 4 years. Blocking porn, in this case would only save 0.0001% in resources if he couldn't do that. And its not like can go out and buy 29.998 computers, or 0.9999 t1 lines. You pay more with filtering then you do without. Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
You don't really think it'll impact tourism, do you? And it's not like small towns get much of that anyway. On the other hand, you'll still be limiting what people can learn and read about. This is an issue of freedoms, and I don't give a god damn who's tax dollars it is.
I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Wow, I'm glad your confident enough to speak for a class of people you know nothing about. It's something that I would never do. Fortunately, I've lived under the poverty line most of my life. When I was growing up we had nether a VCR, stereo or even color TV (I was born in 1980, btw). And I sure as hell cared about using computers and getting online. When I was 12 and 13 I would go to the library and use their Macs (No internet connection). Later I would use Iowa States public computer labs, and their Internet connection (I grew up about 3 blocks from Durham Center). And, my freshman year of higschool, when I finally did get a computer (after working all summer to be able to afford one). Got online immediately, surfing the web over the only 2400 baud link that AOL provided in our town. Later I would spend upwards of $40 a month, paying about $8 an hour for high speed (14.4kbps) over an 800 number. Some poor people do want to use the Internet, fuckhead. And just because you don't feel they need to be able to doesn't really matter.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I'm against censorship, but I'm also of the mind that my tax dollars shouldn't allow Joe Public to view "hot naked coeds" at the local library.
It's not an issue of your tax dolars funding someone's porn habbit. It's an issue of wether or not you want to spend money to stop people from looking at pages that have been deemed 'unworthy' by surfwatch corporation. It costs less To let him see it. please stop using the tax dolars argument, it makes you look stupid.
so if the residents of Liberal, Kansas think that abortion-related pages are bad and should be filtered out, so be it.
So, what you are saying is that it's ok for the 'community' to decide what the poor (people who can't afford there own computers) Can and cannot learn about? And anyway, the community dosn't deside, surfwatch does, for all communitys.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]