Halo. My wife didn't even want me to get Halo, but when she watched her nephews playing it she got hooked. We played it in cooperative mode and had a blast. Way too many 2am bedtimes because of Halo!:-) I suspect that over Christmas we'll give it another go at a higher level.
I do not think we should expect...perfectly valid HTML. Using Frontpage will make sure its not
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.
I'm curious if fuzbuh is planning to let his/her 11 year old post just anything to the web site, or will fuzbuh screen the content first? I'm interested in this topic because my seven year old wants his own web page (he's so damn creative I can't wait to see it), and I plan to build it with him, starting Christmas break. My plan is to build a web site locally, then upload it to our "free" web address at our ISP. There's no way I'm going to let my seven year old upload pages to the public site; an 11 year old, I'm not so sure. But if fuzbuh does the uploading, there's the chance to fix invalid HTML.
When you keep duplicating it, it no longer has the precious value of a unique piece of art,
You're right -- ever since I saw a copy of the Mona Lisa, I've had little desire to travel to France just to view the original.
leading to lack of appreciation for it.
I disagree. If I ever do get to France for some other purpose, and kill some free time with a side trip to see the Mona Lisa, I doubt I would not appreciate the original just because I've seen so many copies.
Besides, Leonardo wasn't French, so why is his master work in Paris? The French looted it from the Italians, who should demand it back.
a Mac tablet would be refining a current idea that few people want.
Not really. Lots of people want tablet PCs, they just don't want the ones that have been released so far. What most people want is what Apple would most likely deliver - thin, light, easy to use, with built-in networking. Basically, a very large PDA with the power of a laptop.
So far most tablet PCs have included a keyboard, which is nuts if you've ever used a Pocket PC's handwriting recognition -- the technology is there, just give it to us in a larger form factor (with a 2 GHz processor, 512Meg Ram, a hard drive, and a real OS, not Windows CE). They're also way too expensive, a feature I'm afraid Apple would likely copy.
You didn't mention the "crossplatform OSS projects" thing until now.
The story says "develop free multi-platform software". As this entire discussion is about using Qt for cross-platform applications, there was no need for him to say "cross-platform" any more than he needed to specify "Qt." It was assumed.
So you didn't read the article then modded him down because you missed something fundimental to the discussion. Typical./ moderation!
The truth is the railroads tried to get into the airline business, but the courts ruled that was anti-trust. If they'd succeeded, our airlines would have names like Union Pacific and Illinois Central instead of United and Midway. And none of that had anything to do with Amtrak.
Exactly. People are clearly not reading the fine article! The law covers an "Internet Access Service," not an "Internet Service Provider." In other words, if your customers use your service to access the internet, you can sue spammers, even if you don't provide email! If you run a mailbox, but your customers use AOL or Roadrunner or someone else to access the internet, and through the internet access your mailbox, then you're not providing them with internet access and you cannot sue spammers. Sucks, eh? Of course, IANAL, but the law was written by MSN and AOL, so do you really think the law covers small-time mail server operators? If you think so, hire a lawyer.
I'm not so sure. Yes, from an administration standpoint it's far easier to make the server (Linux) conform (Samba) to the client (Windows) than it is to force all the clients to conform (NFS) to the server, but if Samba did not exist I believe NFS would have stepped in and filled the gap. Samba has reduced the need for a good open NFS client for Windows, but I'm sure someone would have written one if Samba did not exist.
Indeed, I predict that someone will write one should Microsoft succeed in shutting down Samba (via patents or whatever -- you know killing Samba is on their to-do list).
I think they're cutting off their nose to spite their face, but that's thier choice. You say they are trying to drive developers to Linux, but that's not quite it. They are trying to drive developers away from Windows. But what they're really doing is driving developers to other products. If I wanted to create a cross-platform application I wouldn't use QT because it limits where my application can run. They have this notion that if the end-user paid for Windows then they can damn well pay for QT. What about all the people who paid for Linux? We didn't all download the source from Linus and create our own distribution, some of us bought Mandrake or RedHat or SuSE or whatever. Taken to the extreme, are they going to charge you to run QT on a computer with a proprietary BIOS?
My point was if you already use QT and you want your stuff to run on Windows, port QT to Windows yourself.
I was once on a team that was trying to select our next "standard" database. This is back in the early '90s when Windows was just taking off and Access did not exist. The first thing we did was survey who was using what and how they were using it. We had the usual suspects: Interbase, DBase, Paradox, etc. My boss insisted we add "Lotus 1-2-3" to the list, because it was a database, too.
Listen, we run Windows on some of our computers and none of them has ever been hacked, because we run them behind a firewall. All my non-geek relatives also run some sort of firewall, either hardware (D-Link router or whatever) or software (Norton or whatever). You don't need much protection -- the first rule in securty is to make yourself less of a target than the next guy. Lock your doors. Leave the porch light on. Make your house less inviting than your neighbor's. Run one of the free firewalls (even the one that comes with XP is better than nothing). Close ports you don't use. Make your PC less inviting than your neighbor's. Remember, we're mostly defending against script kiddies here.
I blame the broadband ISPs. They connect Joe and Jill Sixpack to the internet 24/7 but don't provide him/her with any protection, while at the same time denying knowlegable geeks like ourselves full rights to use the internet. If they're gonna insist on dynamic IP addresses and forbid servers, essentially treating the internet like AOL or Compuserve, then they should provide firewall protection and spam/virus filters. If they're only gonna support Windows PCs, then they should provide the Windows security patches, or at least email everyone when a new one comes out.
I beg to differ. If Ford recalls your car for faulty brakes, and you fail to respond, then I'm sure a jury would find you, not Ford, at fault for whatever happens when your brakes fail.
Personally, I think PC owners who fail to impliment even rudimentary precautions are partly at fault for whatever happens when (not if) their PC is "owned". They can't blame anyone else for any data they lose, and they shouldn't be able to blame anyone else for any spamming or DOSing done by their PC. Their negligance is a contributing factor. Perhaps the punishment won't be as tough as the trojan's author should get, but they deserve something for their failure to prevent the crime.
I was thinking they might be useful in showing that the defendant's PC was trojaned. The lack of such logs would thus raise a reasonable doubt -- i.e., the prosecution can't use the non-existant logs to show the defendant's PC wasn't trojaned.
And I would think that failing to apply the latest security patches, thus allowing the infection by viruses and trojans, would fall more under the 'you didn't do routine maintenance' category. Or it should. If more people were held responsible for their own inaction maybe fewer PCs would be trojaned.
Personally, I'd blame my ISP. They won't let me behave as if my PC is directly connected to the internet (e.g., they won't let me run my own mail server or web server or FTP server; they won't give me a static IP address, and they threaten legal action if I use a dynamic DNS service; etc.) so as far as I'm concerned they take responsibility for shielding me from the internet. But no, their position is that I'm not allowed to let anyone in (no servers), therefore it's my fault if anyone gets in (trojans). Double win for them, double lose for their customers. It's as if GM said I'm not allowed to drive their cars on the highway, but if I do then seatbelts are my responsiblity.
But the government must exercise eminent domain before they take your property, not after. In this case, NASA never went to court to exercise eminent domain over Eros, so Eros' owner has a legal right to sue. The dispute is over Eros' ownership, not over NASA's right to do as it damn well pleases because it's a government agency. NASA has to play by the rules, too.
At least there's a way. FAT is the only way to have a partition writeable from MS/PC/DR-DOS, Win95/98/ME, WinNT/2K/XP, Linux, *BSD, OS/2, etc. Sure, it's the lowest common denominator, but at least it's common to all of them.
Sort of. My FAT32 partition got munged somehow and now all of the above can read it except WinNT/2K/XP. I'm thinking of keeping it munged just to amaze friends and confuse Windows zealots.
Sort of like if your neighbors found out there's a toxic waste dump in their back yard, so they sue you over the fence you put up, hoping your cheapest way out of the suit is to buy their house, toxic waste dump and all. There's no merit to the suit, but the point isn't to get the fence moved, it's to get you to buy them out and take the liability off their hands.
This is not flamebait, but you're shopping at the Apple store and you're complaining about the prices? If you went to a Cadilac dealer and grumbled that you could get the equivalent Chevy for half as much, they'd politely invite you to shop at Chevy. Same deal here -- high-end stuff costs more.
Slashdot Mirror
Halo. My wife didn't even want me to get Halo, but when she watched her nephews playing it she got hooked. We played it in cooperative mode and had a blast. Way too many 2am bedtimes because of Halo! :-) I suspect that over Christmas we'll give it another go at a higher level.
Now I can generate a secure PGP key pair!
I'm curious if fuzbuh is planning to let his/her 11 year old post just anything to the web site, or will fuzbuh screen the content first? I'm interested in this topic because my seven year old wants his own web page (he's so damn creative I can't wait to see it), and I plan to build it with him, starting Christmas break. My plan is to build a web site locally, then upload it to our "free" web address at our ISP. There's no way I'm going to let my seven year old upload pages to the public site; an 11 year old, I'm not so sure. But if fuzbuh does the uploading, there's the chance to fix invalid HTML.
I disagree. If I ever do get to France for some other purpose, and kill some free time with a side trip to see the Mona Lisa, I doubt I would not appreciate the original just because I've seen so many copies.
Besides, Leonardo wasn't French, so why is his master work in Paris? The French looted it from the Italians, who should demand it back.
So far most tablet PCs have included a keyboard, which is nuts if you've ever used a Pocket PC's handwriting recognition -- the technology is there, just give it to us in a larger form factor (with a 2 GHz processor, 512Meg Ram, a hard drive, and a real OS, not Windows CE). They're also way too expensive, a feature I'm afraid Apple would likely copy.
Yeah, but it will look so damn cool.
Probably per day. I had no idea /. had that many subscribers!
So you didn't read the article then modded him down because you missed something fundimental to the discussion. Typical ./ moderation!
And when the rest of us catch you, we'll collectively kill you by lethal injection.
The truth is the railroads tried to get into the airline business, but the courts ruled that was anti-trust. If they'd succeeded, our airlines would have names like Union Pacific and Illinois Central instead of United and Midway. And none of that had anything to do with Amtrak.
Exactly. People are clearly not reading the fine article! The law covers an "Internet Access Service," not an "Internet Service Provider." In other words, if your customers use your service to access the internet, you can sue spammers, even if you don't provide email! If you run a mailbox, but your customers use AOL or Roadrunner or someone else to access the internet, and through the internet access your mailbox, then you're not providing them with internet access and you cannot sue spammers. Sucks, eh? Of course, IANAL, but the law was written by MSN and AOL, so do you really think the law covers small-time mail server operators? If you think so, hire a lawyer.
Indeed, I predict that someone will write one should Microsoft succeed in shutting down Samba (via patents or whatever -- you know killing Samba is on their to-do list).
My point was if you already use QT and you want your stuff to run on Windows, port QT to Windows yourself.
I was once on a team that was trying to select our next "standard" database. This is back in the early '90s when Windows was just taking off and Access did not exist. The first thing we did was survey who was using what and how they were using it. We had the usual suspects: Interbase, DBase, Paradox, etc. My boss insisted we add "Lotus 1-2-3" to the list, because it was a database, too.
I blame the broadband ISPs. They connect Joe and Jill Sixpack to the internet 24/7 but don't provide him/her with any protection, while at the same time denying knowlegable geeks like ourselves full rights to use the internet. If they're gonna insist on dynamic IP addresses and forbid servers, essentially treating the internet like AOL or Compuserve, then they should provide firewall protection and spam/virus filters. If they're only gonna support Windows PCs, then they should provide the Windows security patches, or at least email everyone when a new one comes out.
Personally, I think PC owners who fail to impliment even rudimentary precautions are partly at fault for whatever happens when (not if) their PC is "owned". They can't blame anyone else for any data they lose, and they shouldn't be able to blame anyone else for any spamming or DOSing done by their PC. Their negligance is a contributing factor. Perhaps the punishment won't be as tough as the trojan's author should get, but they deserve something for their failure to prevent the crime.
I was thinking they might be useful in showing that the defendant's PC was trojaned. The lack of such logs would thus raise a reasonable doubt -- i.e., the prosecution can't use the non-existant logs to show the defendant's PC wasn't trojaned.
Personally, I'd blame my ISP. They won't let me behave as if my PC is directly connected to the internet (e.g., they won't let me run my own mail server or web server or FTP server; they won't give me a static IP address, and they threaten legal action if I use a dynamic DNS service; etc.) so as far as I'm concerned they take responsibility for shielding me from the internet. But no, their position is that I'm not allowed to let anyone in (no servers), therefore it's my fault if anyone gets in (trojans). Double win for them, double lose for their customers. It's as if GM said I'm not allowed to drive their cars on the highway, but if I do then seatbelts are my responsiblity.
I think he meant the ISP's logs.
But the government must exercise eminent domain before they take your property, not after. In this case, NASA never went to court to exercise eminent domain over Eros, so Eros' owner has a legal right to sue. The dispute is over Eros' ownership, not over NASA's right to do as it damn well pleases because it's a government agency. NASA has to play by the rules, too.
Sort of. My FAT32 partition got munged somehow and now all of the above can read it except WinNT/2K/XP. I'm thinking of keeping it munged just to amaze friends and confuse Windows zealots.
Sort of like if your neighbors found out there's a toxic waste dump in their back yard, so they sue you over the fence you put up, hoping your cheapest way out of the suit is to buy their house, toxic waste dump and all. There's no merit to the suit, but the point isn't to get the fence moved, it's to get you to buy them out and take the liability off their hands.
This is not flamebait, but you're shopping at the Apple store and you're complaining about the prices? If you went to a Cadilac dealer and grumbled that you could get the equivalent Chevy for half as much, they'd politely invite you to shop at Chevy. Same deal here -- high-end stuff costs more.