Dump this to a line printer and put it up in the nursery:
A is for ASCII B is for Beta C is for, well, C D is for Drivers E is for Emacs F is for free() -- see M G is for gcc H is for Hex I is for int J is for jmp K is for Kilobyte L is for long M is for malloc() -- see F N is for NULL O is for Open Source P is for Perl Q is for Queue R is for Recursion -- see R S is for Socket T is for TCP/IP U is for *nix V is for Vi W is for Window Manager -- see X X is for wimps who can't handle a command line Y is for Yacc Z is for ZZ
First, I know the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with Australia, so I'm already off-topic.
I have a proposal I'd like to put forth, though:
In order to discourage U.S. legislators from proposing or supporting unconstitutional laws, I suggest a "three strikes and you're out" program.
It's a very simple system -- whenever legislation passes Congress and is signed into law, it is subject to judicial review. If the Supreme Court finds that a piece of legislation violates the Constitution, the legislators who sponsored the legislation get a "strike".
If a legislator sponsors three bills which fail the court test, that legislator is out of office. His constitutients must elect a replacement to serve the rest of the term.
The justification for this? Legislators take an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution. If they have tried three times to violate the Constitution, they have violated their oath of office. This just puts some meaning into the oath, IMO.
If you REALLY want to shake things up, make this apply to legislators who VOTED for unconstitutional legislation.
Any third-party candidates want to put this forward? I would be happy to lend my support.
(In my best Jon Katz style) Geeks are commonly thought to be a kind, thoughtful group. Because they endure so much hatred and repression, they learn first-hand how it feels. Many geeks are vegetarians. Some are avowed pacifists with a deep aversion to America's growing culture of violence promoted by the mass media and the NRA. The Linux World Expo provided an opportunity for the intellectually superior to get together and demonstrate their kindness and overwhelming urge to share.
What about the BSD mascot? Isn't the little daemon forced to live in a place where it is excessively hot? Haven't fire and brimstone been found to be cancerous?
/* No, I'm not condoning cruelty to animals or belittling the objections of animal advocates. */
When running javascript, all behavior shall be considered undefined.
It is recommended that the implementor: 1) Pop up annoying banner ads which never can be killed. 2) Generate a minimum of three errors per page. 3) Randomly close the browser in the middle of rendering a page.
The coming standard is also expected to recommend forwarding your e-mail address to random spammer groups.
As many other posters have pointed out, 100% compliance with W3 is something of a rarity with most popular browsers (which means IE and Netscape).
It seems that in cases where browsers break compliance, it is usually to extend the standard with proprietary tags. IIRC, Netscape started this with such vileness as the BLINK tag (please correct me if I'm wrong here). They took a lot of flak for that one, too.
I've been working quite a bit with XML lately and IE5's support for it. It's not that Microsoft has broken W3 specs -- they've just gone and implemented stuff which is still in the W3 suggestion box. XSL may be an example of this.
I think what MS is trying to do here is make a best guess at what will be recommended by W3. I'm sure they know that the final standard may well invalidate their current implementation. There were, for example, significant changes in XML support between IE4 and IE5. This may be because the XML standards were more solid by the time IE5 was released.
A friend of mine was working on an HTML generator and was in a similar position. It is really hard trying to write a standards-compliant implementation when the standards are not yet finalized. It's also frustrating knowing that today's code will have to be completely changed in 3 months.
I think the real risk is that IE5's implementation may become entrenched as a de facto standard before W3 makes a decision. By going ahead and implementing standards in a browser with majority marketshare, MS may make the W3 standard moot. Pragmatic web designers probably care a lot more about how pages look than whether or not they are compliant. What good are standards if only a handful of browsers follow them, anyway?
I haven't worked on Mozilla any, but I would love for someone on the Moz team to comment on W3 standards and proposals. How much do they change? Have you had to make any major code changes as a result?
I was helping my new bride move out of her apartment and what did I find in the back of a closet? Why, an old IBM!
She said, "Oh, yeah. That thing is ancient. We can probably just throw it all out."
I said, "No way. I'm keeping this keyboard."
Yep. Count 'em -- 101 long-throw keys with easy action and SPRINGS (Can I get a hallelujah!) A case that was made of METAL, man! You could put it on your lab -- provided you didn't need circulation to your knees (it's a little heavy compared to today's stuff). A genuine coiled cable from an era when coiled cables did NOT tangle into a 3" knot of cheap plastic misery within a week.
And the NOISE! I haven't heard that kind of audible feedback from a keyboard in years! Everything now is don't-wake-up-the-guy-in-the-next-cubicle softie soft. (ok, Dell is the exception) Not only did it "click", it would "boing" oh-so-softly with each keystroke!
It went straight on to my #1 box and the cool factor of the machine went up immediately. Trust me -- you could feel it. The only drawback is that when I'm in the office, people can tell whether I'm working (CLACKETY CLACK CLACK) or just goofing in Netscape.
Ok -- I promise to fire up the search engine and learn more on my own right after this. Is this some sort of LDAP extension or is it more like a standardized crawler/search engine combo? Sorry for my cluelessness.
Did I read correctly that the file manager is Corel's own?
(enter meek suggestion mode) Wouldn't it have been better to make changes to the K File Manager instead of making a brand-new file manager? Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see things getting _much_ easier than KFM. The screenshots just look like they applied more Windows terminology to KFM anyway ("My Computer" and "Network Neighborhood").
I found the ad for CorelDraw more funny than offensive. Is there a CorelDraw for Linux that I don't know about?
Not that I expect Corel to redesign their distro because of my little post -- I'm just seeking clues.
Usually, I'm resolutely apolitical on slashdot. I'm bored today, though.
Does anyone doubt that the result of this will be a recommendation for special laws that pertain to the internet? There is so much popular media that portrays the internet as dark and evil (your cat-5 is cursed!). Many see it as a home for pedophiles, hate groups, and little else.
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter how you trade it. Hate crimes are crimes regardless of whether or not the perpetrators have a home page. What is the purpose of creating more laws when we are doing an inadequate job of enforcing the existing ones?
Is it more likely that the recommended laws will actually amount to provisions that make it easier for the government to "monitor" internet activity? Is it likely that those provisions will make the internet less useful for law-abiding citizens?
I have a BS in Political Science with a minor in Criminal Justice. I worked (briefly) for my local Sheriff's Department. I STILL don't understand the hoopla of "The Internet Menace". Maybe it's because I understand the internet a little better than the average voter. Maybe I'm just naive.
Or maybe it's because "The Dark Internet" is a far more effective scare tactic than an actual menace.
Slashdot Mirror
Game Over! We're in some fruity sh*t!
/* Bill Paxton rules! */
"Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen."
With a big bowl of corn chips. :P
Microsoft is expected to introduce ActiveField. :)
/* We can't get through ONE topic around here without a Microsoft shot, can we? */
Dump this to a line printer and put it up in the nursery:
A is for ASCII
B is for Beta
C is for, well, C
D is for Drivers
E is for Emacs
F is for free() -- see M
G is for gcc
H is for Hex
I is for int
J is for jmp
K is for Kilobyte
L is for long
M is for malloc() -- see F
N is for NULL
O is for Open Source
P is for Perl
Q is for Queue
R is for Recursion -- see R
S is for Socket
T is for TCP/IP
U is for *nix
V is for Vi
W is for Window Manager -- see X
X is for wimps who can't handle a command line
Y is for Yacc
Z is for ZZ
It's right here on my antishelf in my anticloset in my antibedroom!
antiDonkPunch
The anti-matter collecting balloon was unable to launch. They couldn't find any dilithium crystals to power it.
> they're going to make us breeding grounds for aliens, and they're all gonna look like Julia Roberts.
:)
And how, exactly, is this a bad thing?
...got milk?
:) -- Smiley not trademarked
I seem to recall a story during the height of the Visual C++/Borland C++ compiler wars. One of the Visual C++ manuals gave credit to "Buck Forland".
First, I know the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with Australia, so I'm already off-topic.
I have a proposal I'd like to put forth, though:
In order to discourage U.S. legislators from proposing or supporting unconstitutional laws, I suggest a "three strikes and you're out" program.
It's a very simple system -- whenever legislation passes Congress and is signed into law, it is subject to judicial review. If the Supreme Court finds that a piece of legislation violates the Constitution, the legislators who sponsored the legislation get a "strike".
If a legislator sponsors three bills which fail the court test, that legislator is out of office. His constitutients must elect a replacement to serve the rest of the term.
The justification for this? Legislators take an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution. If they have tried three times to violate the Constitution, they have violated their oath of office. This just puts some meaning into the oath, IMO.
If you REALLY want to shake things up, make this apply to legislators who VOTED for unconstitutional legislation.
Any third-party candidates want to put this forward? I would be happy to lend my support.
...he's not wearing a red hat. :)
(I can't BELIEVE I was the first to get that one in.)
(In my best Jon Katz style)
Geeks are commonly thought to be a kind, thoughtful group. Because they endure so much hatred and repression, they learn first-hand how it feels. Many geeks are vegetarians. Some are avowed pacifists with a deep aversion to America's growing culture of violence promoted by the mass media and the NRA. The Linux World Expo provided an opportunity for the intellectually superior to get together and demonstrate their kindness and overwhelming urge to share.
Just don't tell that to the penguins.
-- Anyway, you get the idea.
What about the BSD mascot? Isn't the little daemon forced to live in a place where it is excessively hot? Haven't fire and brimstone been found to be cancerous?
/* No, I'm not condoning cruelty to animals or belittling the objections of animal advocates. */
Section 1.0
:)
Paragraph a:
When running javascript, all behavior shall be considered undefined.
It is recommended that the implementor:
1) Pop up annoying banner ads which never can be killed.
2) Generate a minimum of three errors per page.
3) Randomly close the browser in the middle of rendering a page.
The coming standard is also expected to recommend forwarding your e-mail address to random spammer groups.
Hope this helps.
"...crashes...with spelling mistakes in the HTML."
:)
Yeah! My compiler won't compile my code unless I spell keywords right! It sucks too!
/* This was meant to be taken with humor, not as a flame. */
As many other posters have pointed out, 100% compliance with W3 is something of a rarity with most popular browsers (which means IE and Netscape).
It seems that in cases where browsers break compliance, it is usually to extend the standard with proprietary tags. IIRC, Netscape started this with such vileness as the BLINK tag (please correct me if I'm wrong here). They took a lot of flak for that one, too.
I've been working quite a bit with XML lately and IE5's support for it. It's not that Microsoft has broken W3 specs -- they've just gone and implemented stuff which is still in the W3 suggestion box. XSL may be an example of this.
I think what MS is trying to do here is make a best guess at what will be recommended by W3. I'm sure they know that the final standard may well invalidate their current implementation. There were, for example, significant changes in XML support between IE4 and IE5. This may be because the XML standards were more solid by the time IE5 was released.
A friend of mine was working on an HTML generator and was in a similar position. It is really hard trying to write a standards-compliant implementation when the standards are not yet finalized. It's also frustrating knowing that today's code will have to be completely changed in 3 months.
I think the real risk is that IE5's implementation may become entrenched as a de facto standard before W3 makes a decision. By going ahead and implementing standards in a browser with majority marketshare, MS may make the W3 standard moot. Pragmatic web designers probably care a lot more about how pages look than whether or not they are compliant. What good are standards if only a handful of browsers follow them, anyway?
I haven't worked on Mozilla any, but I would love for someone on the Moz team to comment on W3 standards and proposals. How much do they change? Have you had to make any major code changes as a result?
I was helping my new bride move out of her apartment and what did I find in the back of a closet? Why, an old IBM!
She said, "Oh, yeah. That thing is ancient. We can probably just throw it all out."
I said, "No way. I'm keeping this keyboard."
Yep. Count 'em -- 101 long-throw keys with easy action and SPRINGS (Can I get a hallelujah!) A case that was made of METAL, man! You could put it on your lab -- provided you didn't need circulation to your knees (it's a little heavy compared to today's stuff). A genuine coiled cable from an era when coiled cables did NOT tangle into a 3" knot of cheap plastic misery within a week.
And the NOISE! I haven't heard that kind of audible feedback from a keyboard in years! Everything now is don't-wake-up-the-guy-in-the-next-cubicle softie soft. (ok, Dell is the exception) Not only did it "click", it would "boing" oh-so-softly with each keystroke!
It went straight on to my #1 box and the cool factor of the machine went up immediately. Trust me -- you could feel it. The only drawback is that when I'm in the office, people can tell whether I'm working (CLACKETY CLACK CLACK) or just goofing in Netscape.
"...From the sky will come large Roy deffrayor..."
Ya gotta watch out for Roy Deffrayor, I tell ya. Ol' Roy's a real tough cookie.
His friend, Roy D'Angolmois, ain't no picnic either.
I hear that their Aunt's not so bad, though.
Beowulf cluster! Just wire up a bunch of them! A complete cluster that fits in your pocket!
Although the phrase "pocket cluster" makes me a little uneasy....
(No, I'm not serious.)
...sorry, I was just so proud of myself for figuring out your acronym. :)
Ok -- I promise to fire up the search engine and learn more on my own right after this. Is this some sort of LDAP extension or is it more like a standardized crawler/search engine combo? Sorry for my cluelessness.
Yet Another Corel Opinion
Did I read correctly that the file manager is Corel's own?
(enter meek suggestion mode)
Wouldn't it have been better to make changes to the K File Manager instead of making a brand-new file manager? Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see things getting _much_ easier than KFM. The screenshots just look like they applied more Windows terminology to KFM anyway ("My Computer" and "Network Neighborhood").
I found the ad for CorelDraw more funny than offensive. Is there a CorelDraw for Linux that I don't know about?
Not that I expect Corel to redesign their distro because of my little post -- I'm just seeking clues.
Usually, I'm resolutely apolitical on slashdot. I'm bored today, though.
Does anyone doubt that the result of this will be a recommendation for special laws that pertain to the internet? There is so much popular media that portrays the internet as dark and evil (your cat-5 is cursed!). Many see it as a home for pedophiles, hate groups, and little else.
Kiddie porn is illegal no matter how you trade it. Hate crimes are crimes regardless of whether or not the perpetrators have a home page. What is the purpose of creating more laws when we are doing an inadequate job of enforcing the existing ones?
Is it more likely that the recommended laws will actually amount to provisions that make it easier for the government to "monitor" internet activity? Is it likely that those provisions will make the internet less useful for law-abiding citizens?
I have a BS in Political Science with a minor in Criminal Justice. I worked (briefly) for my local Sheriff's Department. I STILL don't understand the hoopla of "The Internet Menace". Maybe it's because I understand the internet a little better than the average voter. Maybe I'm just naive.
Or maybe it's because "The Dark Internet" is a far more effective scare tactic than an actual menace.
"Could you show me how this gun works?"
"Sure. Stand up against that wall."
Maybe only 1 gag in 10 made me laugh. When they average 20 gags a minute, that's still a lot of laughs.
Why did Joel leave, anyway?
I beg to differ. My 80 dollar Nikes most certainly DID make me do something:
:)
I cried when I got the credit card statement.