Autopr0n.com actualy runs using the first beta of JDK1.4. I needed the new ImageIO libraries for the, um, 'site previewer:P' (and the regexs made some of the parsing I'm doing a lot easier:). I tried 1.4b3 but it was far more unstable, and my regexs broke.
It must be hell on productivity working on Autopr0n, what with the spank sessions every thirty minutes or so.
"what about Servlet programming and JSP for dynamic web pages and database connectivity? These are desktop applications! They just run in a browser; on the desktop"
Very true.
Very untrue, actually. Servlets run on the server. JSP's are compiled and run on the server. The only thing you see in your browser is the standard HTML that is returned to you by the server.
Java's problem on the desktop is, among other things, that it requires a separate JVM for each Java program running. I use a Java IDE written in Java, a UML modeling tool written in Java, and a freakin' Gnutella client written in Java. Each one of these programs has to lug around its own massive JVM.
I've always thought it would be most cool if there were a client equivalent to a servlet engine that allows all these desktop apps to share a JVM.
I remember decoding punch cards by hand when I was in Kindergarten in the late 1960's. My father was in the military, and we lived on an army base in Germany. He would bring home from work stacks of old punch cards for me. It was simple - one column for each digit and letter. I remember it was kind of cool how people's names and other recognizable words would emerge from the holes on the cards.
I'm sure I'm not the only slash-dotter who was on the verge of exceeding the 4 billion transaction limit on their pgsql-based Anime fan fiction submission website.
What is in my best interests is to have multiple, robust, "genetically isolated" choices for the critical technology my business needs to use. "Cross-pollinating" two of those choices so that they are no longer separate is not a good idea.
Hear, hear - exactly! I wouldn't have so much of a problem if Miguel said "we're going to support.NET on GNOME, so that.NET applications are technically capable of running on Linux" instead of "the next GNOME will be BASED on.NET". It's just insane.
Has it crossed anyones mind that this is our chance to get MS to help kill themselves? They want.NET on linux, it gives.NET more market penetration, but then again, once.NET is on linux, who needs windows?
Once everything is on.NET, Microsoft won't need Windows. They'll have.NET. Isn't that self-fucking-evident?
What should open source do? Should it push forward a political agenda, or strive to provide people with the best possible products?
It should provide people the best products possible WITHIN the open source, free software agenda. Stop making it a binary decision.
Personally I could care less about RMS' agenda. To me open source is about options, and I applaud Miguel for working to provide people another option.
For one thing, people like you will be remembered for their slothful, lacksadaisical know-nothingness after it's an all-Microsoft world.
For another, there's WAY TOO MUCH "applauding" of Miguel going on around here. He's made what appears to many to be a stunningly naive and reckless decision, giving virtually no explanation for the obvious risks he's taking. People should stop "applauding" and sit this guy on a stool in the middle of a small room with a bare lightbulb hanging down from the ceiling, surround him with goons, and ask him to kindly explain himself.
This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout.
Then you're a useless applauding moron. There are more than "political fallout" issues at stake here. It's senseless to "applaud" one dimension of a decision that can have such multi-dimensional consequences.
I agree with RMS - Miguel, you got some 'splainin' to do.
10GB?? WTF am I supposed to do with 10GB? I already have nearly 60GB of music files (I encode nearly everything at 320).
For that matter, at some point I'm going to rip everything again to WAVs or some lossless compression format, and that's probably going to double or quadruple my space requirements.
Here are my ideal criteria for buying on-line music:
1) I want MP3's at the point of purchase, and the option to get CD-quality copies (lossless compression) now or later.
2) I want the right to listen to it on any device and on any medium I choose, when I want, where I want.
3) I want the ability to copy it for my personal use - i.e., copy on my hard drive, copy in my car, etc.
4) Once I buy it, I "own" it forever. If my music server crashes and I don't have backups, and I can prove I've purchased the music, I get another copy.
5) I want all the stuff that comes with a physical distribution - album cover art, liner notes, lyrics sheets, artist history, etc.
6) I want EVERYTHING IN THEIR CATALOGS available ALWAYS. That means they bite the bullet and make available even the most bizarre, obscure shit they own at all times. NOTHING IS EVER "OUT OF PRINT".
If the music industry would come across with a program like that at a reasonable price I would gladly pay for recordings, and not share anything. But as long as they continue their insanely paranoid control freakery, they earn nothing from me but my contempt.
How about you? How would YOU like to see on-line music distributed?
Slashdot Mirror
With the exception that it's TV, isn't TIVO prior art?
I don't think you have any conception of how much money MS has and how well that can insulate them from nuisance suits.
First, you forgot to include the disgruntled Evil Janitor in your list of people, for a total of 6.
Insert the following step before "Repeat the above...":
"Evil Janitor swaps around pretty colored paper squares in the middle of the night."
hmm, why was this moderated "funny"? I'm serious - how many times have you had a tune in your head and you've been unsure of the title?
Now that I think of it, I don't think I ever saw him when he WASN'T totally baked. Seriously.
But he could do some cool stuff with it.
You're not worthy to drink that "bumbling idiot's" piss.
It must be hell on productivity working on Autopr0n, what with the spank sessions every thirty minutes or so.
Something about granting the software permission to turn you in to its vendor over the network automatically.
...only I pictured it with the ability to retrieve a song by just singing a bit of it or speaking some lyrics.
Unbiased? Maybe he's just coming in his pants over the prospect that someone might actually use his language?
Very true.
Very untrue, actually. Servlets run on the server. JSP's are compiled and run on the server. The only thing you see in your browser is the standard HTML that is returned to you by the server.
Java's problem on the desktop is, among other things, that it requires a separate JVM for each Java program running. I use a Java IDE written in Java, a UML modeling tool written in Java, and a freakin' Gnutella client written in Java. Each one of these programs has to lug around its own massive JVM.
I've always thought it would be most cool if there were a client equivalent to a servlet engine that allows all these desktop apps to share a JVM.
Swimming poo
Ick.
I remember decoding punch cards by hand when I was in Kindergarten in the late 1960's. My father was in the military, and we lived on an army base in Germany. He would bring home from work stacks of old punch cards for me. It was simple - one column for each digit and letter. I remember it was kind of cool how people's names and other recognizable words would emerge from the holes on the cards.
I'm sure I'm not the only slash-dotter who was on the verge of exceeding the 4 billion transaction limit on their pgsql-based Anime fan fiction submission website.
Hear, hear - exactly! I wouldn't have so much of a problem if Miguel said "we're going to support .NET on GNOME, so that .NET applications are technically capable of running on Linux" instead of "the next GNOME will be BASED on .NET". It's just insane.
Once everything is on .NET, Microsoft won't need Windows. They'll have .NET. Isn't that self-fucking-evident?
Is everyone around here on Crazy Pills today?
It should provide people the best products possible WITHIN the open source, free software agenda. Stop making it a binary decision.
Personally I could care less about RMS' agenda. To me open source is about options, and I applaud Miguel for working to provide people another option.
For one thing, people like you will be remembered for their slothful, lacksadaisical know-nothingness after it's an all-Microsoft world.
For another, there's WAY TOO MUCH "applauding" of Miguel going on around here. He's made what appears to many to be a stunningly naive and reckless decision, giving virtually no explanation for the obvious risks he's taking. People should stop "applauding" and sit this guy on a stool in the middle of a small room with a bare lightbulb hanging down from the ceiling, surround him with goons, and ask him to kindly explain himself.
This is a *little* disconcerting for some, but I applaud Miguel's willingness to embrace the technologies he feels are best, regardless of the political fallout.
Then you're a useless applauding moron. There are more than "political fallout" issues at stake here. It's senseless to "applaud" one dimension of a decision that can have such multi-dimensional consequences.
I agree with RMS - Miguel, you got some 'splainin' to do.
FASCINATING. I've been flaming it up on slashdot for months, and I get modded down for how I encode my MP3's.
For that matter, at some point I'm going to rip everything again to WAVs or some lossless compression format, and that's probably going to double or quadruple my space requirements.
So the question is - Is it hackable?
1) I want MP3's at the point of purchase, and the option to get CD-quality copies (lossless compression) now or later.
2) I want the right to listen to it on any device and on any medium I choose, when I want, where I want.
3) I want the ability to copy it for my personal use - i.e., copy on my hard drive, copy in my car, etc.
4) Once I buy it, I "own" it forever. If my music server crashes and I don't have backups, and I can prove I've purchased the music, I get another copy.
5) I want all the stuff that comes with a physical distribution - album cover art, liner notes, lyrics sheets, artist history, etc.
6) I want EVERYTHING IN THEIR CATALOGS available ALWAYS. That means they bite the bullet and make available even the most bizarre, obscure shit they own at all times. NOTHING IS EVER "OUT OF PRINT".
If the music industry would come across with a program like that at a reasonable price I would gladly pay for recordings, and not share anything. But as long as they continue their insanely paranoid control freakery, they earn nothing from me but my contempt.
How about you? How would YOU like to see on-line music distributed?
Space Elevator: Another project brought to you by NASA after a few hours with the SpaceBong 4000.
Apparently Larry didn't get the memo that Linux is an unamerican, cancerous toy.
Start posting messages with pr0n attachments that cannot be viewed in Outlook Express. OE's market share will collapse.
You're a fucking idiot.