Every individual would be allowed to register exactly *one* domain. Limited companies and registered charities would also be able to register *one* domain each.
Actually, I can see why an individual might want more than one domain; if, say, you needed a domain for your crappy homepage and one for your pet project surrealstorygenerator.com and anonther for your political page, godhatesgeeks.com. Hmm. Actually that's a bad example. Or is it? Most people with seven different domains registered do it for reasons of vanity or speculation. Maybe individuals could be limited to an arbitary number (say three). Of course, if you had a world-renowned forum like, ooh,/. and a crappy homepage, it would be like gnawing through your own testicles to host your crappy homepage on slashdot.org, wouldn't it? Not that I can talk - I've registered a few domains just in the hope of making some quick cash (anyone want to bid for EssEeEx.com?) Still seems to be a ludicrous way of making money though.
The only reason corporations require extra domains is so that their rivals will not have them. Or so they won't -shock horror- lose a customer because he's typed the URL in wrong. (etoys, anyone?) Nope, I'm sorry. People will just have to learn to type. And if corporations want extra customers they'll find they get more business improving customer service than trying to register everything in sight.
Sure, why not? After all, that's pretty much how viruses evolved in real life after all. The only difference is that mutation in electronic systems tend to be pretty small. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the more simple viruses around were born in this way.
And once you have viruses evolving, why can't they develop and exchange genes before evolving into higher beings and taking over the world?:) Sounds like a decent sci-fi film!
...still Britain doesn't have the same long tradition of sabotaging their own domestically produced crypto products, as well as international ones, that the U.S. does
Oh yeah? What about the invention of public key/private key encryption at Bletchley Park which the UK government decided to sweep under the carpet for a few decades?
You are an imbecile. So it should be legal for parents to do with their kids what they want? You say the government shouldn't control whether kids are allowed to drink alcohol (sorry, alchole)? So I could give my six-year old son a pint of whisky every night and the government couldn't intervene? Grow up you moron. Governments have to set minimum standards, as the original poster said, and some of those are inevitably going to be somewhat arbitary.
Uhh, look at evolution. The experience of pain evolved because it was unpleasant, so animals like us would avoid it and not get burnt to death or whatever. By definition it is distressful to the animal.
Re-reading your original post seems to make you fulfill the definitions of sadist and masochist.
Also, I've come across many geek guys that just haven't grown up - they're still playing computer games at 30. Are you sure that/. is the right forum for you, if you think that playing computer games is immature?:) I can't see that it's any different from watching telly at 30; the only real difference is that computer games are interactive. if anything, I would say computer games require a higher level of maturity to enjoy them than staring passively at a TV prog.
Maybe, but the concern is over the possible microorganisms. I would guess that there are some that could survive falling into Jupiter's atmosphere etc? How about simple proteins?
Of course, which ever way you look at it, it's just a phrase; I suppose the only way you could make it acceptable is to drop the really out of the sentence: "You must want the grammar Nazi position badly". (Note that Nazi starts with a capital 'N').
isn't it kid.... 5.'s? What sort of punctuation mark is that? How come any post criticising anyone's grammar is always full of mistakes? Yeah, I know a few will creep into this one. Sue me.
Excellent! When the score's above 10000, the lives just keep on incremementing!
Yeah, yeah, okay, guilty. I should have known that you can't post code on/. without it being corrected. I thought about saying that it would have been written in assembly or something, but decided that would be too anal.
ESR would be almost the last person I'd choose as advisor. I suspect he'll just stir up bad feeling; he's not exactly the world's greatest mediator.
Surely the best choice to advise on Open Source issues would have been Tim O'Reilly: someone who is calm, logical, intelligent, able to see both points of view and who has taken a close interest in the patent system. Still, perhaps whoever invited him as advisor wasn't looking for the best person for the job.
This is a great thing. ESR is a very well spoken, even minded person
I suppose you either love him or hate him. I think he's a cantankerous(sp?) opinionated old bastard. He's a pretty good writer, but not so impressive as a speaker; and as for even minded... Hah! I can just see it now:
"Right, well I think the international socialist party have a good claim on this patent." "No! Eric, put the gun down!"
The US bribed^H^H^Hpayed IRA and Ulster Union leaders to stop fighting in Northern Ireland (knock on wood). Eh? You what? The US didn't pay the paramilitaries in NI anything - not cash, concessions, anything. Their sole role was to supply someone neutral to mediate between the various sides. As this could have been done by anyone, I think this was a concession to Clinton by Blair so he could associate himself with the peace process to help his international standing. As you're (presumably) an American, I'll let you off. I only live about 30 miles from Ireland (Wales), and despite it being in the news constantly I haven't a clue how it all works. Neither do most of its population, I suspect.
/Heaters/? we don' need no steenkin' heaters. A real geek should have enough boxes lying around to raise the temperature in the room by at least 10'C. Even after all the extra fans are installed.
The author does a good job of summarising a whole lot of questions we don't know about the dinosaurs. Although he concentrates on the sauropods, I thought the most interesting stuff in the article was about the pteranodons and so on - particularly about the wing span and everything. I wish he hadn't mentioned that bollocks about gravity increasing, because then there would have been an interesting debate about how the animals existed rather than one long flame towards him (as if most people on/. wouldn't have realised that the gravity theory is wrong anyway!)
I did spot one flaw in his theory that no one else has mentioned - he asks things like how pteranodons could have survived if they couldn't take off quickly. Well who says they did? They're extinct, aren't they?:-)
His maths might be a bit suspect, but they looked plausible to me, not that I'm a mathematician or a biologist. Rather than just saying that they don't make sense, why not say why?
Re:Just being pedantic...
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
Well, tactics were required... someone carrying a 6' length of wood is quite vulnerable on the battlefield unless they are protected by troop movements. They tend to throw their bows away and run when attacked.
Also, it takes a tremendous amount of strength and technique to actually fire one of the things. I think most people would need strength training (of course depends on a good diet etc.) to fire one effectively.
The most important advance was technological though. You'd be surprised how difficult they are to make... takes a great deal of skill, time etc. It would have been very difficult to make a longer bow with the techniques they had before that time.
The idea that soldiers are allowed to be killed, but not civilians seems strange to me. I suppose that in the West where most soldiers are volunteers it has a certain logic. However, many soldiers around the world are forced into the army. Is it more right to kill a 12-year-boy in a uniform than a civilian?
Would you want your sister getting cluster-bombed? Err, I'd be just as upset if she was bombed after joining the army as if she had been if she was walking around a shopping centre. I fail to see your point.
Just being pedantic...
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 2
The longbow was actually invented by the Welsh, not the English. The English tended to use the Welsh archers in their army. At Crecy and so on, the archers were Welshmen drafted into the English army.
Interestingly, Micro$oft's Age of Empires ][ has the longbow as the English's specialist weapon despite there being a Celts army. I know it's a small thing, but it really bugs me.
The ideal desk, as regular Terry Pratchett readers will realise, is a pool table. Plenty of room for whatever you like, plus you can keep pens in the pockets. And play pool around your work when you get bored.
Thing is, you should be able to decide you don't want to listen to people telling you things. If there's a man in the middle of a shopping centre telling you to "embrace Jesus", then that's free speech. If he followed you home and started shouting it through your letterbox, then that's harrassment. I don't think that's an unreasonable analogy. Anyone can put what they like on a website I decide to go to, but I should be able to decide what comes into my inbox.
And it doesn't have to be the government's decision to ban spam - they should allow the spamee to say thy don't want it. I realise I'm mostly preaching to the converted here (hmm, another religion analogy!)
I think the most basic test you can apply as to whether spam should be allowed is this: what would happen if everyone did it?
There must be millions of businesses with email access and if they all spammed a million addresses once per week, the net would grind to a halt.
No-one would be able to use email because rather than just looking through a few dozen spams each day, we'd have to sort genuine emails from thousands of messages.
Spamming is an antisocial act and should be outlawed. And I don't think any free speech ideal should be attached to it either; people should have the right to free speech, but I should have the right not to listen.
Well, a) it wasn't obvious - it could have been problems with the server or whatever. Wired thought it interesting enough to mention it in a story, but if you hadn't read that you wouldn't have known.
And b) Obviously the/. readership thought it interesting to discuss, otherwise we wouldn't be dicussing it in an unrelated story. Even a mention about what was happenning attached to another story would have been nice, rather than leaving us to get our news from wired.
Slashdot Mirror
Every individual would be allowed to register exactly *one* domain. Limited companies and registered charities would also be able to register *one* domain each.
/. and a crappy homepage, it would be like gnawing through your own testicles to host your crappy homepage on slashdot.org, wouldn't it? Not that I can talk - I've registered a few domains just in the hope of making some quick cash (anyone want to bid for EssEeEx.com?) Still seems to be a ludicrous way of making money though.
Actually, I can see why an individual might want more than one domain; if, say, you needed a domain for your crappy homepage and one for your pet project surrealstorygenerator.com and anonther for your political page, godhatesgeeks.com. Hmm. Actually that's a bad example. Or is it? Most people with seven different domains registered do it for reasons of vanity or speculation. Maybe individuals could be limited to an arbitary number (say three). Of course, if you had a world-renowned forum like, ooh,
The only reason corporations require extra domains is so that their rivals will not have them. Or so they won't -shock horror- lose a customer because he's typed the URL in wrong. (etoys, anyone?) Nope, I'm sorry. People will just have to learn to type. And if corporations want extra customers they'll find they get more business improving customer service than trying to register everything in sight.
Sure, why not? After all, that's pretty much how viruses evolved in real life after all. The only difference is that mutation in electronic systems tend to be pretty small. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the more simple viruses around were born in this way.
:) Sounds like a decent sci-fi film!
And once you have viruses evolving, why can't they develop and exchange genes before evolving into higher beings and taking over the world?
...still Britain doesn't have the same long tradition of sabotaging their own domestically produced crypto products, as well as international ones, that the U.S. does
Oh yeah? What about the invention of public key/private key encryption at Bletchley Park which the UK government decided to sweep under the carpet for a few decades?
You are an imbecile. So it should be legal for parents to do with their kids what they want? You say the government shouldn't control whether kids are allowed to drink alcohol (sorry, alchole)? So I could give my six-year old son a pint of whisky every night and the government couldn't intervene? Grow up you moron. Governments have to set minimum standards, as the original poster said, and some of those are inevitably going to be somewhat arbitary.
Uhh, look at evolution. The experience of pain evolved because it was unpleasant, so animals like us would avoid it and not get burnt to death or whatever. By definition it is distressful to the animal.
Re-reading your original post seems to make you fulfill the definitions of sadist and masochist.
Also, I've come across many geek guys that just haven't grown up - they're still playing computer games at 30. Are you sure that /. is the right forum for you, if you think that playing computer games is immature? :) I can't see that it's any different from watching telly at 30; the only real difference is that computer games are interactive. if anything, I would say computer games require a higher level of maturity to enjoy them than staring passively at a TV prog.
Maybe, but the concern is over the possible microorganisms. I would guess that there are some that could survive falling into Jupiter's atmosphere etc? How about simple proteins?
And can Jupiter be said to have a real surface?
Time for a bit of meta-meta grammar correction :)
.'s? What sort of punctuation mark is that? How come any post criticising anyone's grammar is always full of mistakes? Yeah, I know a few will creep into this one. Sue me.
really bad? Not correct either! Better:
really badly
Of course, which ever way you look at it, it's just a phrase; I suppose the only way you could make it acceptable is to drop the really out of the sentence: "You must want the grammar Nazi position badly". (Note that Nazi starts with a capital 'N').
isn't it kid.... 5
Not just electronic data; gradually, all data held about you will have to be transparent.
Incidentally, you can search the Data Protection Register online. Eye-opening.
Excellent! When the score's above 10000, the lives just keep on incremementing!
/. without it being corrected. I thought about saying that it would have been written in assembly or something, but decided that would be too anal.
Yeah, yeah, okay, guilty. I should have known that you can't post code on
lives += (int) ((score % 10000 == 0) && (score > 0));
Ah, but I was writing in Java!
Did you read that he said he flew over to 'help them implement' the extra life thing?
Seems they couldn't work out
if(score > 10000) {lives++}
I don't know who the geezer he was interviewing was, but if he was genuine he was pretty surreal. Or he was smoking crack.
ESR would be almost the last person I'd choose as advisor. I suspect he'll just stir up bad feeling; he's not exactly the world's greatest mediator.
Surely the best choice to advise on Open Source issues would have been Tim O'Reilly: someone who is calm, logical, intelligent, able to see both points of view and who has taken a close interest in the patent system. Still, perhaps whoever invited him as advisor wasn't looking for the best person for the job.
This is a great thing. ESR is a very well spoken, even minded person
I suppose you either love him or hate him. I think he's a cantankerous(sp?) opinionated old bastard. He's a pretty good writer, but not so impressive as a speaker; and as for even minded... Hah! I can just see it now:
"Right, well I think the international socialist party have a good claim on this patent."
"No! Eric, put the gun down!"
The US bribed^H^H^Hpayed IRA and Ulster Union leaders to stop fighting in Northern Ireland (knock on wood). Eh? You what? The US didn't pay the paramilitaries in NI anything - not cash, concessions, anything. Their sole role was to supply someone neutral to mediate between the various sides. As this could have been done by anyone, I think this was a concession to Clinton by Blair so he could associate himself with the peace process to help his international standing. As you're (presumably) an American, I'll let you off. I only live about 30 miles from Ireland (Wales), and despite it being in the news constantly I haven't a clue how it all works. Neither do most of its population, I suspect.
I've been in quite a few pubs which sell PGGB's. I don't suppose any of them actually got the © to actually sell them, particularly as they were all different. Most of them had similar ideas as to what should go in them, though - vodka, lime, orange and various coloured liquers were pretty standard. Strangely, they all featured tequila. And they were all the most expensive drink available.
/Heaters/? we don' need no steenkin' heaters. A real geek should have enough boxes lying around to raise the temperature in the room by at least 10'C. Even after all the extra fans are installed.
The author does a good job of summarising a whole lot of questions we don't know about the dinosaurs. Although he concentrates on the sauropods, I thought the most interesting stuff in the article was about the pteranodons and so on - particularly about the wing span and everything. I wish he hadn't mentioned that bollocks about gravity increasing, because then there would have been an interesting debate about how the animals existed rather than one long flame towards him (as if most people on /. wouldn't have realised that the gravity theory is wrong anyway!)
:-)
I did spot one flaw in his theory that no one else has mentioned - he asks things like how pteranodons could have survived if they couldn't take off quickly. Well who says they did? They're extinct, aren't they?
His maths might be a bit suspect, but they looked plausible to me, not that I'm a mathematician or a biologist. Rather than just saying that they don't make sense, why not say why?
Well, tactics were required... someone carrying a 6' length of wood is quite vulnerable on the battlefield unless they are protected by troop movements. They tend to throw their bows away and run when attacked.
Also, it takes a tremendous amount of strength and technique to actually fire one of the things. I think most people would need strength training (of course depends on a good diet etc.) to fire one effectively.
The most important advance was technological though. You'd be surprised how difficult they are to make... takes a great deal of skill, time etc. It would have been very difficult to make a longer bow with the techniques they had before that time.
Not to mention transport, caring for the bow etc.
The idea that soldiers are allowed to be killed, but not civilians seems strange to me. I suppose that in the West where most soldiers are volunteers it has a certain logic. However, many soldiers around the world are forced into the army. Is it more right to kill a 12-year-boy in a uniform than a civilian?
Would you want your sister getting cluster-bombed?
Err, I'd be just as upset if she was bombed after joining the army as if she had been if she was walking around a shopping centre. I fail to see your point.
The longbow was actually invented by the Welsh, not the English. The English tended to use the Welsh archers in their army. At Crecy and so on, the archers were Welshmen drafted into the English army.
Interestingly, Micro$oft's Age of Empires ][ has the longbow as the English's specialist weapon despite there being a Celts army. I know it's a small thing, but it really bugs me.
When I saw the title, I thought Hemos was reviewing the Bible or something. Made me look twice, anyway.
The ideal desk, as regular Terry Pratchett readers will realise, is a pool table. Plenty of room for whatever you like, plus you can keep pens in the pockets. And play pool around your work when you get bored.
Thing is, you should be able to decide you don't want to listen to people telling you things. If there's a man in the middle of a shopping centre telling you to "embrace Jesus", then that's free speech. If he followed you home and started shouting it through your letterbox, then that's harrassment. I don't think that's an unreasonable analogy. Anyone can put what they like on a website I decide to go to, but I should be able to decide what comes into my inbox.
And it doesn't have to be the government's decision to ban spam - they should allow the spamee to say thy don't want it. I realise I'm mostly preaching to the converted here (hmm, another religion analogy!)
I think the most basic test you can apply as to whether spam should be allowed is this: what would happen if everyone did it?
There must be millions of businesses with email access and if they all spammed a million addresses once per week, the net would grind to a halt.
No-one would be able to use email because rather than just looking through a few dozen spams each day, we'd have to sort genuine emails from thousands of messages.
Spamming is an antisocial act and should be outlawed. And I don't think any free speech ideal should be attached to it either; people should have the right to free speech, but I should have the right not to listen.
Although I suppose you're just a troll.
Well, a) it wasn't obvious - it could have been problems with the server or whatever. Wired thought it interesting enough to mention it in a story, but if you hadn't read that you wouldn't have known.
/. readership thought it interesting to discuss, otherwise we wouldn't be dicussing it in an unrelated story. Even a mention about what was happenning attached to another story would have been nice, rather than leaving us to get our news from wired.
And b) Obviously the