You haven't really experienced it properly (IMHO) unless you watched as a child at Saturday teatime, straight after the football (that's soccer to you) results. With Jon Pertwee as The Doctor, of course.
If you'd added "with your sister hiding behind the sofa because the intro music frightened her", you'd have described my most cherished childhood memories! (The watching of Dr. Who, not the fact that it scared my sister:o)
The Highlander series was the ultimate tragedy to an already destroyed story continuity from Highslander II
Actually, while I never found the Highlander movie to be any good (my GF at the time forced me to sit through it), I rather enjoyed the TV show... there was much more character depth, and (IMHO) better writing...
however Funny friends is, no character has more than one personality trait
Not true - the characters all have multiple personality traits... (for example, Joey is dumb, is a womanizer, and likes to eat... that's THREE whole traits!)
It's easy to see where you got confused though, because they only ever display one per episode:o)
You seem to have missed any/every point by Eric Flint's Prime Palaver #8
No, I haven't - you're the one that's attempting to twist it to meet your viewpoint (if it really is your viewpoint, and not just a clever troll.)
An author is a single entity. There is no fine line. The assertion is that supporting/enjoying a product of an entity is entirely disjoint from dis-/agreeing with the politics of that entity.
This very reasoning is flawed. First (in the case of Blizzard), we're not talking about "political views", we're talking about actions. Very different - that's why the Constitution talks about freedom of speech, and not freedom of action.
But I'm guessing you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.. See, what I said:
When you give money to Blizzard, you're endorsing the actions of the people who seek to beat innocent people into submission.
And your reply:
Buying the game endorses the politics
Now, I see you're trying to say that they're both the same, but they're not. Actions are VERY different than a political viewpoint.
Second, by your logic (since you mentioned the MPAA), every American person (including every one that reads slashdot) MUST support the DMCA, and all of the harrassment done by the US government.
So, you don't like B5 or Buffy. That pretty well clinches it: you have absolutely no taste at all. You probably don't like Farscape, either.
Well, I like Buffy, but I _abhor_ Babylon5... I second everything that the original poster said, except that he didn't spend nearly enough time trashing the CGI.
As for Farscape, it's mediocre.. not great, but (usually) not bad.
Star Trek TNG could be said to be reasonably realistic [...] Farscape, however, stretches the bounds of realism a little with a 'living ship'. This is a concept we cannot really grasp today, and it seems a bit like 'fantasy'.
So I'm guessing that you missed the ST:TNG episode "Tin Man"? You know - the one with the 'living ship'.
If a company is going to dump a product, they should open source it.
If you have a lot of cash in the bank you should give it all to me.
Actually, if you're trying to draw an analogy, you should have said "If you have a lot of cash in the bank and you're going to throw it in the trash, you should give it to charity instead"
Of course, this completely screws your point of view, right?
All points he makes apply directly to the Warcraft 3 / Blizzard situation. Blizzard's politics and the quality of their products are independent -- especially when you consider the people who create the games are a wholly separate group from those who make the political decisions.
The difference is, of course, that by givng money to Blizzard, you're giving money (and thereby encouraging) BOTH groups. When you give money to Blizzard, you're endorsing the actions of the people who seek to beat innocent people into submission.
Giving money to an author doesn't necessarily mean you're endorsing his political viewpoints.
And that applies to the MPAA, too. You can despise their political actions, but still appreciate the work by Sam Raimi, Stan Lee, and company; Peter Jackson, J.R.R. Tolkien, and company; and so on.
No, it doesn't. The MPAA doesn't make movies - the member companies do. It's a fine line, but there are companies who are part of the MPAA (such as Universal and Disney) who rabidly attempt to curtail others' rights, and there are those who don't.
Link a joystick with all springs removed to a big outdoor thermometer's bimetallic element, so that as the element moves (as it would move the needle) it moves the joystick.
Better:
Train a hamster to run in it's wheel when it gets touched by the thermometer's bimetallic element; then connect the wheel to a portable generator, which powers an electric bell. When the bimetallic element moves, it touches the hamster, which then runs in the wheel, which then rings the bell, which alerts you that there's a problem.
If you're gonna do a Rube Goldberg, you should always involve a hamster.
I have to disagree that the arena beasts in Ep. II seemed unreal; the cat-like creature seem rather convincing to me.
You're contradicting yourself in a single sentence.
Since you knew that the cat-like creature was CGI when you watched it, then by definition they didn't seem real.
This is the problem - in order to be effective, special effects need to be seamless; as long as you there is suspension of disbelief (ie, you know that the monster doesn't exist in real life) you shouldn't know that they're special effects.
If you had said "Gee, how did they make that cat-like creature?", then you'd have an argument.
(Note: I have been doing CGI for 9+ years, and the proudest moment of my entire life was when someone was watching my demo reel, and asked "how did you make the milk carton dance like that?")
US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One"
Actually, if you have the mind-ray jamming sunglasses, you'd see that it actually says "This is your god":o)
Re:6502 microcode bugs...
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
C64 used the 6510, some of which had this bug fixed.
I've never seen one, although I'd heard about it.. In my packrat days (before I got married:o) I picked up a C128 a few years ago from a garage sale.. it should have a "fixed" one.. maybe I'll take it out of storage and play with it..
the card maker eventually made a variation on this called the ISE Pick, for cracking games, but I'm wandering off topic
I saw one of those once, and saw several pirate copies of games that used it (Hard Hat Mack was one, IIRC..) I had a SuperSnapshot, which I thought was pretty cool... the built-in machine monitor was my favourite feature..
*sigh* thanks for the memories:o) It's been awhile since I thought about my c64 days..
6502 microcode bugs...
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
My all-time favourite bug is in the microcode of the 6502/6510...
An indirect jump where the source address was on a page boundary caused the high-byte to be pulled from the beginning of the current page, instead of the beginning of the next page..
would load the program counter with $8032, instead of $1432
First time I saw it used was in some copy-protection code in the C64 version of Sim City.. It was some obfusication to screw up beginning crackers.. (it threw me for about 5 minutes..)
a DoS attack is an act of terrorism, but it is OK if you are a record company?
Not according to the writeup... this allows copyright holders to legally launch a DOS..
You become a copyright holder as soon as you create anything that could be copyrighted... so all you have to do is write a text document, (say, a letter to your mother), and you have permission to DOS to your heart's content.
I don't know _anyone_ who's not a "copyright holder" in some way.
why should we support UL when redhat does this already AND gives back to the community?
This, I think is the thing that Mr. Love is missing..
The first part of the sentence (which is the only part I've seen Mr. Love - or anyone else involved with UL - address) is the big capitalist buzzword competition.. Everything I've read is that this is supposed to compete with RedHat...
It's the second part of your question that (IMHO) they haven't thought about... perhaps they don't think that Redhat gives anything back either? Or perhaps (if Mr. Love's answer to question #2 is any indication,) they believe that "giving back" is a liability and not a strength? Perhaps they believe that if they don't spend resources "giving back", that it will help them become profitable?
(If this is the case, then they're doomed - as IMHO 'giving back' is the sole reason that Redhat got to be so successful.)
The article very vague on the specifics of these "robots". I wonder if they operate under fully automatic control as true robots do, or if they are really just remotely controlled toys (like battlebots)
UofA has a team competing..
The robots are "real" robots - no human control at all; they're about the size of a coffee can - 12" high by 9" around; they move via wheels. They're semi-autonomous - they're controlled by separate computers, which transmit instructions to the robots via RF (this makes the robots much cheaper and more durable.) The computers watch the game from overhead.
UofA has (IMHO) a better chance this year, as they modified the bots to be able to "kick" the ball - last time, they were just trying to push the ball into the net, and got soundly thrashed.
turning off incoming icmp will definately make your router look dead to the world
ACK! NO!
ICMP is a _required_ part of the TCP/IP stack. At a bare minimum, it's used to let the clients know that a remote service or network is unavailable, instead of making them wait for a timeout. Blocking inbound "Fragmentation needed but DF set" packets will also cause an admin nothing but headaches when the path MTU gets smaller than what's set in the client.
Maybe (MAYBE) you disable inbound ICMP Echo_request (to stop some script kiddies from portscanning you) or redirects from non-local addresses, but stopping inbound ICMP is a sure way to cause yourself headaches. It won't "make your router look dead to the world," but it will cause problems for legitimate users.
the security was not broken as of the time of release
Ehrm, BULLSHIT.
By your logic, ALL vulnerabilities don't exist until someone discovers them.. at which point, one has to ask, if they didn't exist, then how were they found?
"If you can't see something, then that means that it doesn't exist."
No, the vulnerability always existed, just because nobody found it doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
I don't think the DOJ's request is at all unreasonable
Of course it's unreasonable. Think about this: The logs don't show content.
Your email headers don't show what you were talking about - you emailed "somejoeuser99@hotmail.com" asking about his lost puppy... but unbeknownst to you, he's a suspected terrorist, and all of a sudden, you're being investigated... They pull up your http traffic file, and it turns out that the HTML email he sent you has IMG tags that pull pictures from known terrorist sites.
You'll probably change your mind once you're in an FBI interrogation chamber.. that bare bulb shining in your face, as Agent Smith says "Vhy vhere you communicating vis a known terrorist? Ve haf vays of makink you talk!"
Or better yet, someone wants to make your life hell, so they get some anonymous web space, put some content that might interest you, and get you to view it... then then change the content to some terrorist propaganda, and place an anonymous call to the FBI. Suddenly there is PROOF that you've been visiting terrorist sites.. so you must be a terrorist!
Think it can't happen in good ole' USofA? Just like the McCarthy witchhunts couldn't happen.
As a webmaster of various sites, I have no problem with archives.. if I didn't want people to see my stuff, I wouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place.
where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies?
They probably got the copies the same way everybody else did - by surfing. You (implicitly) gave them permission to cache your sites by not including an appropriate entry in your robots.txt.
The way I see it, archives are much like SPAM; I never opted in, why should it be my responsibility to opt out?
Archives are nothing like spam. Spam is primarily harrassment. These guys aren't harrassing you. They did ask your permission (by way of checking your robots.txt). If you've since changed your mind, it's your responsibility to notify them.
Google caches material too - do you consider them to be spam as well?
Archive sites provide a valuable resource to the rest of the 'net. If you don't like it, put an appropriate entry in your robots.txt file, and be done with it.
The judge in this case ruled "Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't really experienced it properly (IMHO) unless you watched as a child at Saturday teatime, straight after the football (that's soccer to you) results. With Jon Pertwee as The Doctor, of course.
:o)
If you'd added "with your sister hiding behind the sofa because the intro music frightened her", you'd have described my most cherished childhood memories! (The watching of Dr. Who, not the fact that it scared my sister
The Highlander series was the ultimate tragedy to an already destroyed story continuity from Highslander II
Actually, while I never found the Highlander movie to be any good (my GF at the time forced me to sit through it), I rather enjoyed the TV show... there was much more character depth, and (IMHO) better writing...
however Funny friends is, no character has more than one personality trait
:o)
Not true - the characters all have multiple personality traits... (for example, Joey is dumb, is a womanizer, and likes to eat... that's THREE whole traits!)
It's easy to see where you got confused though, because they only ever display one per episode
You seem to have missed any/every point by Eric Flint's Prime Palaver #8
No, I haven't - you're the one that's attempting to twist it to meet your viewpoint (if it really is your viewpoint, and not just a clever troll.)
An author is a single entity. There is no fine line. The assertion is that supporting/enjoying a product of an entity is entirely disjoint from dis-/agreeing with the politics of that entity.
This very reasoning is flawed. First (in the case of Blizzard), we're not talking about "political views", we're talking about actions. Very different - that's why the Constitution talks about freedom of speech, and not freedom of action.
But I'm guessing you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.. See, what I said:
When you give money to Blizzard, you're endorsing the actions of the people who seek to beat innocent people into submission.
And your reply:
Buying the game endorses the politics
Now, I see you're trying to say that they're both the same, but they're not. Actions are VERY different than a political viewpoint.
Second, by your logic (since you mentioned the MPAA), every American person (including every one that reads slashdot) MUST support the DMCA, and all of the harrassment done by the US government.
As I said the MPAA does not make movies.
So, you don't like B5 or Buffy. That pretty well clinches it: you have absolutely no taste at all. You probably don't like Farscape, either.
Well, I like Buffy, but I _abhor_ Babylon5... I second everything that the original poster said, except that he didn't spend nearly enough time trashing the CGI.
As for Farscape, it's mediocre.. not great, but (usually) not bad.
Star Trek TNG could be said to be reasonably realistic [...] Farscape, however, stretches the bounds of realism a little with a 'living ship'. This is a concept we cannot really grasp today, and it seems a bit like 'fantasy'.
So I'm guessing that you missed the ST:TNG episode "Tin Man"? You know - the one with the 'living ship'.
If you have a lot of cash in the bank you should give it all to me.
Actually, if you're trying to draw an analogy, you should have said "If you have a lot of cash in the bank and you're going to throw it in the trash, you should give it to charity instead"
Of course, this completely screws your point of view, right?
All points he makes apply directly to the Warcraft 3 / Blizzard situation. Blizzard's politics and the quality of their products are independent -- especially when you consider the people who create the games are a wholly separate group from those who make the political decisions.
The difference is, of course, that by givng money to Blizzard, you're giving money (and thereby encouraging) BOTH groups. When you give money to Blizzard, you're endorsing the actions of the people who seek to beat innocent people into submission.
Giving money to an author doesn't necessarily mean you're endorsing his political viewpoints.
And that applies to the MPAA, too. You can despise their political actions, but still appreciate the work by Sam Raimi, Stan Lee, and company; Peter Jackson, J.R.R. Tolkien, and company; and so on.
No, it doesn't. The MPAA doesn't make movies - the member companies do. It's a fine line, but there are companies who are part of the MPAA (such as Universal and Disney) who rabidly attempt to curtail others' rights, and there are those who don't.
Link a joystick with all springs removed to a big outdoor thermometer's bimetallic element, so that as the element moves (as it would move the needle) it moves the joystick.
Better:
Train a hamster to run in it's wheel when it gets touched by the thermometer's bimetallic element; then connect the wheel to a portable generator, which powers an electric bell. When the bimetallic element moves, it touches the hamster, which then runs in the wheel, which then rings the bell, which alerts you that there's a problem.
If you're gonna do a Rube Goldberg, you should always involve a hamster.
Ridiculous system requirements.. (2 players max on 56k.)
Why is this ridiculous?
How many UT, HL, or Q3 clients can a server support over a 56K dialup? (Considering the upstream of a 56K line is around 33.6K)
I have to disagree that the arena beasts in Ep. II seemed unreal; the cat-like creature seem rather convincing to me.
You're contradicting yourself in a single sentence.
Since you knew that the cat-like creature was CGI when you watched it, then by definition they didn't seem real.
This is the problem - in order to be effective, special effects need to be seamless; as long as you there is suspension of disbelief (ie, you know that the monster doesn't exist in real life) you shouldn't know that they're special effects.
If you had said "Gee, how did they make that cat-like creature?", then you'd have an argument.
(Note: I have been doing CGI for 9+ years, and the proudest moment of my entire life was when someone was watching my demo reel, and asked "how did you make the milk carton dance like that?")
US currency says "In God We Trust". Now, if that means you don't believe in God, it simply translated to, "Trust No One"
:o)
Actually, if you have the mind-ray jamming sunglasses, you'd see that it actually says "This is your god"
C64 used the 6510, some of which had this bug fixed.
:o) I picked up a C128 a few years ago from a garage sale.. it should have a "fixed" one.. maybe I'll take it out of storage and play with it..
:o) It's been awhile since I thought about my c64 days..
I've never seen one, although I'd heard about it.. In my packrat days (before I got married
the card maker eventually made a variation on this called the ISE Pick, for cracking games, but I'm wandering off topic
I saw one of those once, and saw several pirate copies of games that used it (Hard Hat Mack was one, IIRC..) I had a SuperSnapshot, which I thought was pretty cool... the built-in machine monitor was my favourite feature..
*sigh* thanks for the memories
My all-time favourite bug is in the microcode of the 6502/6510...
:o)
An indirect jump where the source address was on a page boundary caused the high-byte to be pulled from the beginning of the current page, instead of the beginning of the next page..
eg.
$0100 holds $80
$01FF holds $32
$0200 holds $14
then the command
JMP ($01FF)
would load the program counter with $8032, instead of $1432
First time I saw it used was in some copy-protection code in the C64 version of Sim City.. It was some obfusication to screw up beginning crackers.. (it threw me for about 5 minutes..)
Ahh, those were the days
a DoS attack is an act of terrorism, but it is OK if you are a record company?
Not according to the writeup... this allows copyright holders to legally launch a DOS..
You become a copyright holder as soon as you create anything that could be copyrighted... so all you have to do is write a text document, (say, a letter to your mother), and you have permission to DOS to your heart's content.
I don't know _anyone_ who's not a "copyright holder" in some way.
why should we support UL when redhat does this already AND gives back to the community?
This, I think is the thing that Mr. Love is missing..
The first part of the sentence (which is the only part I've seen Mr. Love - or anyone else involved with UL - address) is the big capitalist buzzword competition.. Everything I've read is that this is supposed to compete with RedHat...
It's the second part of your question that (IMHO) they haven't thought about... perhaps they don't think that Redhat gives anything back either? Or perhaps (if Mr. Love's answer to question #2 is any indication,) they believe that "giving back" is a liability and not a strength? Perhaps they believe that if they don't spend resources "giving back", that it will help them become profitable?
(If this is the case, then they're doomed - as IMHO 'giving back' is the sole reason that Redhat got to be so successful.)
Exactly what the hell is wrong with you kKeybBoard? Or this is an attempt to be cool?
mMaybe hHe hHas a stTutter?
Cue Monty Python:
"Well he wouldn't bother to write it out, would he?"
"Perhaps he was dictating."
For Final Jeopardy, can you name someone that DOESN'T outsell Weezer?
Who are the "Bay City Rollers", Alex.
The article very vague on the specifics of these "robots". I wonder if they operate under fully automatic control as true robots do, or if they are really just remotely controlled toys (like battlebots)
UofA has a team competing..
The robots are "real" robots - no human control at all; they're about the size of a coffee can - 12" high by 9" around; they move via wheels. They're semi-autonomous - they're controlled by separate computers, which transmit instructions to the robots via RF (this makes the robots much cheaper and more durable.) The computers watch the game from overhead.
UofA has (IMHO) a better chance this year, as they modified the bots to be able to "kick" the ball - last time, they were just trying to push the ball into the net, and got soundly thrashed.
turning off incoming icmp will definately make your router look dead to the world
ACK! NO!
ICMP is a _required_ part of the TCP/IP stack. At a bare minimum, it's used to let the clients know that a remote service or network is unavailable, instead of making them wait for a timeout. Blocking inbound "Fragmentation needed but DF set" packets will also cause an admin nothing but headaches when the path MTU gets smaller than what's set in the client.
Maybe (MAYBE) you disable inbound ICMP Echo_request (to stop some script kiddies from portscanning you) or redirects from non-local addresses, but stopping inbound ICMP is a sure way to cause yourself headaches. It won't "make your router look dead to the world," but it will cause problems for legitimate users.
the security was not broken as of the time of release
Ehrm, BULLSHIT.
By your logic, ALL vulnerabilities don't exist until someone discovers them.. at which point, one has to ask, if they didn't exist, then how were they found?
"If you can't see something, then that means that it doesn't exist."
No, the vulnerability always existed, just because nobody found it doesn't mean that it wasn't there.
I don't think the DOJ's request is at all unreasonable
Of course it's unreasonable. Think about this: The logs don't show content.
Your email headers don't show what you were talking about - you emailed "somejoeuser99@hotmail.com" asking about his lost puppy... but unbeknownst to you, he's a suspected terrorist, and all of a sudden, you're being investigated... They pull up your http traffic file, and it turns out that the HTML email he sent you has IMG tags that pull pictures from known terrorist sites.
You'll probably change your mind once you're in an FBI interrogation chamber.. that bare bulb shining in your face, as Agent Smith says "Vhy vhere you communicating vis a known terrorist? Ve haf vays of makink you talk!"
Or better yet, someone wants to make your life hell, so they get some anonymous web space, put some content that might interest you, and get you to view it... then then change the content to some terrorist propaganda, and place an anonymous call to the FBI. Suddenly there is PROOF that you've been visiting terrorist sites.. so you must be a terrorist!
Think it can't happen in good ole' USofA? Just like the McCarthy witchhunts couldn't happen.
Yes, and I specifically denied them permission to redistribute my intellectual property when I wrote "copyright XXXX, by YYYY. All rights reserved."
/.?
Well obviously they didn't see that - so why don't you call them and get them to remove it, instead of bitching about it here on
As a webmaster of various sites, I have no problem with archives.. if I didn't want people to see my stuff, I wouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place.
where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies?
They probably got the copies the same way everybody else did - by surfing. You (implicitly) gave them permission to cache your sites by not including an appropriate entry in your robots.txt.
The way I see it, archives are much like SPAM; I never opted in, why should it be my responsibility to opt out?
Archives are nothing like spam. Spam is primarily harrassment. These guys aren't harrassing you. They did ask your permission (by way of checking your robots.txt). If you've since changed your mind, it's your responsibility to notify them.
Google caches material too - do you consider them to be spam as well?
Archive sites provide a valuable resource to the rest of the 'net. If you don't like it, put an appropriate entry in your robots.txt file, and be done with it.
Plenty of suits have been settled, but I can't recall ever hearing a court actually rule on this
How about Ticketmaster vs. Tickets.com.
The judge in this case ruled "Hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act. There is no deception in what is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.