"The method of a boy meeting a girl, getting the girl (sexually or romantically), losing the girl (due to bad hygiene, jealousy, warts, phlegm, obnoxious action, or kidnapping), then winning the girl back (through charm, plastic surgery, re-kidnapping, or winning the lottery)."
Then I could collect a royalty on every Danielle Steele novel from now to eternity.
Seriously though, if folks are allowed to patent everything under the sun, eventually no one will be able to write software. Furthermore, I have to be an expert in every software patent ever granted just to do my job as a developer, or else I open up my company to infringement lawsuits. Simple, obvious things that I think of during the course of my day may be patented, and I have no way of knowing.
I mean, if the patent office itself can't even do its own research worth a hoot, how am I supposed to know what I can and can't do?
I just had another thought.... if Microsoft lobbied strongly against software patents, would they win over the slashdot croud?
I'm sure that this post won't be seen by very many people (it's already had 447 comments at this viewing), but here's a subject that I'm actually very knowledgeable, so I had to say something.
I developed web sites for several years. I love style sheets, and the article is quite correct when it says that they can save bandwidth and make your page look better.
But when you're trying to sell stuff to people on the web, you don't want to use the latest and greatest technology.
We ran a very large e-commerce site for the purpose of selling college textbooks. You would think that college kids buying books would be hip with the latest tech. But a look at the web logs during IE 5 days revealed IE 4, Netscape 4, even IE 3 among the most used browsers. IE 5 was by far in the minority.
What you care about when you want to sell stuff is selling stuff, not using the latest tech. The article contradicts itself... on the one hand it says that 99.9% of websites are obselete, and on the other hand, it says people don't care what they look like.
People do care if it works or not, and if they can't read your page, they will sprain their fingers clicking on the mouse to get to the site that does work. Furthermore, if you make use of javascript or cookies, you will lose all of the folks who read PC magazine and various other publications who tell you that javascript is evil and dangerous and should be turned off immediately.
So if you want to use javascript, you have to do it both ways, server side validation as well as client side validation. If you're gonna do both, why not just do what works for everyone instead?
We would have LOVED to say, you can't use IE4, you must use IE5, Netscape 6, or above. It just would have made lousy business sense. This is a result of measuring the actual statistics of our actual customers.
Sounds to me like they're complaining about the same things we developers complained about... lack of adherence to standards in old browsers, forcing us to change perfectly VALID html to make it work across the board (ahem. netscape). But instead of placing the blame where it belongs, they blame it on us.
that was brought up in the fox documentary about the moon landing?
For the most part, any first year physics student could counter the arguments in the documentary, which is why there were no real physicists on the show. The one that they had merely said something to the effect of "Yeah, there are a lot of crackpots out there".
For example: 1. The astronaut is climing down the lander, and is in shadow, yet his space suit is brightly lit, suggesting a studio lighting scenario.
Answer: You may have noticed that the moon reflects light. This is why it allows us to see at night.
2. The pictures are exceptionally clear, yet the astronauts were not trained photographers.
Answer: any photograph taken in a vacuum will look more clear, due to less distortion from the atmosphere.
3. There is a picture of the lander, and some rocks around it, then a picture of the "same scene" with no lander.
Answer: Due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon, large boulders and even mountains may appear to look like close-up rocks when photographed.
4. The lander just appears to "take off", with no acceleration.
Answer: That's because it was a "catapult", you idiot, not a rocket. Escape velocity on the moon is tiny compared to earth, so a large enough explosion will do the trick.
5. The flag appears to be "waving in the wind".
Answer: only when the astronaut is touching it, you retard. When he lets go, it just sits there. I can make a flag wave too. Even with no wind. Imagine that.
There were other, equally stupid pieces of "evidence", but there was ONE thing I could not explain.
In some of the photos, the camera's crosshair is *partially behind* the scene. How is that possible unless the photos were airbrushed?
A lot more interesting (to me) than last year's. But the problem is that you'll have to build a server to test your bot. And how will you know how good your bot is unless it competes against another one?
For the first time, though, I think I may actually enter.
I love that the game is played over sockets, so any language can be used that can implement sockets.
Why did everyone pay for quake3 instead of copying it? ID did not put anti-copy measures on the CD. They just had a CD key which used an encryption mechanism that was contained on the server.
Would I make a copy of quake3 for a friend? Hell no I wouldn't! If I did, I sure wouldn't give them my CD key, because then I couldn't play.
The only way around this mechanism of copy protection is to hack the server that the decryptor is on. Good luck.
Of course, if you employ this method of copy protection, you have to require your customers to be hooked up to the net.
I'm not disappointed in the slightest. I hope Mart goes on to do even greater and better things than the stuff that he's been doing that I don't really know anything about. Besides, there's always slashdot on April 1st (although, isn't the point of an April fool's joke that you actually FOOL someone?).
It was reported today by reuters that most of the reported news is written by news reporters. Asked why this was not obvious, one news reporter replied "I haven't read the report".
The study also mentions that most newspapers are read by subscribers, and those that purchase newspapers at the news stand. Secondary causes of newspaper reading included finding a rumpled one on the train, and stealing an extra one when someone else purchased one from a machine.
I remember the subject of who was the best programmer or type of programmer coming up many times on slashdot. I remember that many said Carmack for quake 3. I'm not sure I agree, but I also remember people saying that Carmack had nothing on the NASA guys, and to them he was some ignorant rube.
Well, if Carmack gets his rocket into space, I think we need to see a NASA guy build the fastest texture mapped 3d engine. To be sure.
That it will be the best one yet, but I'm always disappointed. One year though, I saw a really bright meteor streak across the sky, and I heard a loud crackling noise. No kidding.
I always wondered what would happen if I were to take the RHF out from my tv and plug it into a reel-to-reel RHF in. They're just analog signals, right? So could I make a VCR out of a reel-to-reel?
The claim of an "advance" in watch technology struck me as ironic, when watches have been getting less accurate than they were 300 years ago, and only now getting to the point where they could be used to sail a ship.
So, the next time you feel sympathetic to such collectivist drivel, understand you have no right to speak for others property. Offer yours up if you feel so strongly about the commons. Hand your car keys to a stranger. Offer up your house to mentally instable homeless folk (redundant). Offer your spouse and children up for others to consume. Then perhaps will you understand the true nature of the commons.
The airwaves are MY property, and yours too, and were stolen by, to use your words, parasites. It's more like, someone stole my car, I see him stopped at a traffic light sitting in it, and I pull him out of the car and take it back (and maybe give him a bit of a kicking for good measure).
Slashdot Mirror
We'd be able to patent plot lines.
I'd patent the following plot line:
"The method of a boy meeting a girl, getting the girl (sexually or romantically), losing the girl (due to bad hygiene, jealousy, warts, phlegm, obnoxious action, or kidnapping), then winning the girl back (through charm, plastic surgery, re-kidnapping, or winning the lottery)."
Then I could collect a royalty on every Danielle Steele novel from now to eternity.
Seriously though, if folks are allowed to patent everything under the sun, eventually no one will be able to write software. Furthermore, I have to be an expert in every software patent ever granted just to do my job as a developer, or else I open up my company to infringement lawsuits. Simple, obvious things that I think of during the course of my day may be patented, and I have no way of knowing.
I mean, if the patent office itself can't even do its own research worth a hoot, how am I supposed to know what I can and can't do?
I just had another thought.... if Microsoft lobbied strongly against software patents, would they win over the slashdot croud?
Yeah, only nixon could go to china because he'd have been the first to call anyone else who did a commie pinko.
Yes, I know RFK was also a McCarthy-ist.
I'm sure that this post won't be seen by very many people (it's already had 447 comments at this viewing), but here's a subject that I'm actually very knowledgeable, so I had to say something.
I developed web sites for several years. I love style sheets, and the article is quite correct when it says that they can save bandwidth and make your page look better.
But when you're trying to sell stuff to people on the web, you don't want to use the latest and greatest technology.
We ran a very large e-commerce site for the purpose of selling college textbooks. You would think that college kids buying books would be hip with the latest tech. But a look at the web logs during IE 5 days revealed IE 4, Netscape 4, even IE 3 among the most used browsers. IE 5 was by far in the minority.
What you care about when you want to sell stuff is selling stuff, not using the latest tech. The article contradicts itself... on the one hand it says that 99.9% of websites are obselete, and on the other hand, it says people don't care what they look like.
People do care if it works or not, and if they can't read your page, they will sprain their fingers clicking on the mouse to get to the site that does work. Furthermore, if you make use of javascript or cookies, you will lose all of the folks who read PC magazine and various other publications who tell you that javascript is evil and dangerous and should be turned off immediately.
So if you want to use javascript, you have to do it both ways, server side validation as well as client side validation. If you're gonna do both, why not just do what works for everyone instead?
We would have LOVED to say, you can't use IE4, you must use IE5, Netscape 6, or above. It just would have made lousy business sense. This is a result of measuring the actual statistics of our actual customers.
Sounds to me like they're complaining about the same things we developers complained about... lack of adherence to standards in old browsers, forcing us to change perfectly VALID html to make it work across the board (ahem. netscape). But instead of placing the blame where it belongs, they blame it on us.
that was brought up in the fox documentary about the moon landing?
For the most part, any first year physics student could counter the arguments in the documentary, which is why there were no real physicists on the show. The one that they had merely said something to the effect of "Yeah, there are a lot of crackpots out there".
For example:
1. The astronaut is climing down the lander, and is in shadow, yet his space suit is brightly lit, suggesting a studio lighting scenario.
Answer: You may have noticed that the moon reflects light. This is why it allows us to see at night.
2. The pictures are exceptionally clear, yet the astronauts were not trained photographers.
Answer: any photograph taken in a vacuum will look more clear, due to less distortion from the atmosphere.
3. There is a picture of the lander, and some rocks around it, then a picture of the "same scene" with no lander.
Answer: Due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon, large boulders and even mountains may appear to look like close-up rocks when photographed.
4. The lander just appears to "take off", with no acceleration.
Answer: That's because it was a "catapult", you idiot, not a rocket. Escape velocity on the moon is tiny compared to earth, so a large enough explosion will do the trick.
5. The flag appears to be "waving in the wind".
Answer: only when the astronaut is touching it, you retard. When he lets go, it just sits there. I can make a flag wave too. Even with no wind. Imagine that.
There were other, equally stupid pieces of "evidence", but there was ONE thing I could not explain.
In some of the photos, the camera's crosshair is *partially behind* the scene. How is that possible unless the photos were airbrushed?
Unless the real movie is a blank screen.
How about a simple gui to allow a friend to manually play against your bot?
If it fares well against a human, it seems likely it will fare well against other bots.
Boy, this one is gonna be tough.
Do tech schools have teams to do this stuff? Will there be an MIT team?
A lot more interesting (to me) than last year's. But the problem is that you'll have to build a server to test your bot. And how will you know how good your bot is unless it competes against another one?
For the first time, though, I think I may actually enter.
I love that the game is played over sockets, so any language can be used that can implement sockets.
All in all, it sounds like fun.
Jedi: This is not a new licensing agreement. (waves hand)
Linux geek: This is not a new agreeement.
Jedi: These are the same terms you've always had. (does a back flip)
Linux geek: These terms are the same as before.
Jedi: You just never read them carefully enough before. (stands on the geeks head)
Linux geek: I guess I never read the old terms. I need to go home and rethink my distro.
Server side.
Why did everyone pay for quake3 instead of copying it? ID did not put anti-copy measures on the CD. They just had a CD key which used an encryption mechanism that was contained on the server.
Would I make a copy of quake3 for a friend? Hell no I wouldn't! If I did, I sure wouldn't give them my CD key, because then I couldn't play.
The only way around this mechanism of copy protection is to hack the server that the decryptor is on. Good luck.
Of course, if you employ this method of copy protection, you have to require your customers to be hooked up to the net.
I'm not disappointed in the slightest. I hope Mart goes on to do even greater and better things than the stuff that he's been doing that I don't really know anything about. Besides, there's always slashdot on April 1st (although, isn't the point of an April fool's joke that you actually FOOL someone?).
It was reported today by reuters that most of the reported news is written by news reporters. Asked why this was not obvious, one news reporter replied "I haven't read the report".
The study also mentions that most newspapers are read by subscribers, and those that purchase newspapers at the news stand. Secondary causes of newspaper reading included finding a rumpled one on the train, and stealing an extra one when someone else purchased one from a machine.
Here's the best way to make money from a casino:
It's simple. Own one.
I remember the subject of who was the best programmer or type of programmer coming up many times on slashdot. I remember that many said Carmack for quake 3. I'm not sure I agree, but I also remember people saying that Carmack had nothing on the NASA guys, and to them he was some ignorant rube.
Well, if Carmack gets his rocket into space, I think we need to see a NASA guy build the fastest texture mapped 3d engine. To be sure.
Errr..... you seem to be reading slashdot... a decidedly american website.
When it comes to american content, there is no "it". We have millions upon millions of websites, and neither you nor I have seen them all.
to buy both discs:
The November release will not have the original cut on the disc. If you want to see the original, you must buy or rent the current release.
Sure, just send me your dvd player, and I'll chip it for you too. No charge.
Why doesn't he go ahead and set up his new internet, and make it voluntary for ISP's/consumers?
Europeans who want our content can subscribe to the regular internet, and those who don't can subscribe to the new one.
Oh, wait, maybe because it would be a huge FLOP.
I need a fix, cause I'm goin' down
Town to the bits that I left up-town
I need a fix, cause I'm goin' down
That it will be the best one yet, but I'm always disappointed. One year though, I saw a really bright meteor streak across the sky, and I heard a loud crackling noise. No kidding.
If they overstated their profits, it stands to reason they overpaid their taxes. So shouldn't the IRS pay them a big fat check?
I always wondered what would happen if I were to take the RHF out from my tv and plug it into a reel-to-reel RHF in. They're just analog signals, right? So could I make a VCR out of a reel-to-reel?
If not, why not?
Dude, the speed limit on Parmer is 50.
The claim of an "advance" in watch technology struck me as ironic, when watches have been getting less accurate than they were 300 years ago, and only now getting to the point where they could be used to sail a ship.
One of the most accurate watches ever made was made in the 1700's by a man named John Harrison, in order to fix longitude.
So, the next time you feel sympathetic to such collectivist drivel, understand you have no right to speak for others property. Offer yours up if you feel so strongly about the commons. Hand your car keys to a stranger. Offer up your house to mentally instable homeless folk (redundant). Offer your spouse and children up for others to consume. Then perhaps will you understand the true nature of the commons. The airwaves are MY property, and yours too, and were stolen by, to use your words, parasites. It's more like, someone stole my car, I see him stopped at a traffic light sitting in it, and I pull him out of the car and take it back (and maybe give him a bit of a kicking for good measure).