Well I have to work with servers with no bash installed (AIX, Solaris). I'm the fortunate one as I know that tcsh is present, and am comfortable with using it. I cringe when I have to watch coworkers stumble on a Korn shell. Mistype a letter and you have to type that shit all over again. EGADS!
Not to mention the "intuitive" ^S ^Q semantics. "What the hell, why is vi not responding - oh I PAUSED IT!" how useful is that.:)
If you are used to doing stuff in windows Ctrl-S is second nature for saving;)
Well, theoretically the same bayesian filter that knows to put spam in the "spam" folder, can be similarly taught to put arbitrary content in an arbitrary folder. The trick is training it. The email client would have to somehow "record" every time you moved or copied something into a folder (or numerous folders), and then, when a message fit that criteria, it would have to replicate that action, move/copy, to the specified folder or folders. I don't think it's all that hard, but I don't think it's been done in major email clients. I REALLY wish the bayesian filter in Mozilla was upgraded for arbitrary content and arbitrary destinations or actions (for instance I may want to mark it important, AND move it to a folder, AND maybe forward it to somebody else, all at once).
Old technology? Hell, I am reminded of it every damn time when I log in from a 2 Ghz workstation to some 4-way unix box with 2 Gigs of memory, through a little fucking terminal emulator. TERMINAL EMULATOR. in 2004. sighdasdlfkj^H^H^H fuck stty erase ^H dammit tcsh
Re:Here is what needs to be done
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
CSS makes text mode browsing even BETTER because it removes presentation from content (well, much better than without CSS at least).
No, anonymous coward, it isn't a false choice between technology-intensive-farming and no-farming-starve-the-children-to-death-you-monste r, but instead technology-intensive-farming and <insert some alternative>. I think it is legitimate to raise the question of whether solutions developed for our (read: wealthy, westernized) society are appropriate for all societies.
Well, what is happening to niche shows NOW? Can the cable companies really disambiguate which shows are valuable? Critically acclaimed shows get cancelled all the time for mind rotting sitcome pastiche. Maybe a show's audience simply isn't prone to buying stuff through advertising. Right now I can't effectively vote with my dollars. If I buy a package, I vote for 100 different things, when I really wanted to vote for 3. I would be GLAD to pay a higher per-channel fee if I got ONLY the channels/shows I wanted, as I am sure that my end cost would be lower. As it is, I am cancelling my introductory "extended cable" simply because even the discounted rate is way too fucking high for the handful of shows I actually give a damn about. What do the cable companies think about that? Would they rather have my $0 because their package is too high, or would they want my $20 because I got to pick the 4 or so channels I wanted?
Wow you are right - because there are larger sized problems, we should stop entirely trying to deal with medium and smaller problems! Hell, as long as we still need to save the whales let's just get bent over and raped because, that's not as important right! Don't look at the CEO behind the curtain!
A-freakin-man. Government should restrict itself purely to CIVIL UNIONS which are government sactioned (for whatever the official reason-du-jour is now, "social stability" or "strong middle class" or whatever), which involve only government legal distinctions and privileges. The issue of "marriage" should be left entirely OUT of the government sphere, to non-governmental organizations like churches and whatnot.
One could make a further argument of course that government has no business granting civil unions in the first place, and the accompanying "subsidies" and entitlements that are entailed with such social engineering. But that is a step too far at the moment. OH MY GORD TEH GOVERNUBMENT IS TAEKIG OUR MARYAGE!
Uh right, it's not about "rights" it's about "power". What "power" anti-gay-marriage (or civil union, whatever) proponents think they are losing is beyond me. Probably the mantle of moral superiority. If we let gays have marriage I guess mine is no good anymore! Dammit, I'll have to get divorced now!
This is a good step forward but still does not go far enough. We must erase this "user interface" tyranny. First of all - the title - i mean, gosh, it says "Google" in my browser title bar, in clear letters. Such gratuitous self-advertising is unnecessary and garish if you ask me. Please leave the title bar alone. Also, why is there so much busy text on the page. I'm a busy man, I can't be bothered to read all that. I count over 25 words on the front page alone! That adds up to countless more letters. And that is not even counting source code. I'm bewildered and confused. Also, they decieve the user by providing, two, TWO COUNT THEM, buttons to search. One says redundantly "Google Search" the other poses the existential statement "I'm Feeling Lucky". Now I appreciate free psychological therapy like the next person, but PLEASE Google, leave that up to the experts on daytime shows like Dr. Phil. Now I am left pondering whether I really feel lucky or not, or whether I only am doubting my luck because I am being presented with a challenge towards it, whether this is all my parent's fault, and ultimately feeling that I need not search the web, but rather within myself to find out who I truly am.
But Google not only presents these "submission" buttons, but a range of categories to manifest my self doubt. Images: Is there something wrong with my own self image? Groups: Am I accepted as a member of a group. News: Does anything interesting or newsworthey ever happen in my life? Froogle: Am I managing my finances appropriately, or will I squander my fate through illiteracy or bad spelling? More>>: Is there something missing in my hollow pointless life...do I need something more to fill the void?
And as a last kick in the teeth, Google must remind me at the bottom that the page is copyrighted, and that it is "Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages", as if to say "you are not good enough to receive this page".
So, please stop the user interface terrorism Google!
What about the high cost of advanced pesticides and genetically engineered seeds (especially the ones which produce sterile plants, or for which it is illegal to reuse the seeds from)? Are poor nations supposed to magically get money to pay for this advanced agriculture, or are they supposed to take further loans, or rely on charity? If we really want to help out the third world I think we should exempt them from enforcement of pharmaceutical, pesticide, and bioengineering patents, so they don't have to mortgage decade after decade of their future not to starve now simply to meet some international patent treaty. Is this really a technological problem?
In fact, since gay people CAN'T naturally have children, they very often ADOPT children who genuinely need it, so in fact, prohibiting gay marriage may well do more to harm "families" than help them. The notion that giving somebody else the same rights you have is somehow weakening yours is stupid and craven.
Ok, I'll bite your rancid preemptive "counter-troll" to my 4 sentence post.
You're right. Let's disarm completely and all sing "We are the World" while holding hands in a field of flowers. Meanwhile, people with evil intentions will continue to plan for the first major bioweapon attack in a dense population center. When hundreds of millions are dying, at least you can claim with a clear conscious "at least we weren't building these bugs in our own labs." Some consolation.
I see, we will fight bioweapons with OTHER bioweapons. Because terrorists are deterred by us having bioweapons right? [1]
>>Then we should only need exactly enough amount to deter those people.
You're changing the subject from one discussing the necessity of having a bioweapons research lab to one about disarmament in general. It's a troll, I realize, but I'll bite:
Err, no. I'm responding to
"*That's* why weapons like this are needed. Because others have them, too."
The claim that we need weapons because others have them as if having them would deter those "others". While it is understandable that a certain amount of research into "weaponization" is necessary in researching cures and defenses, I withhold a healthy skepticism of such practice. But I thank you for fabricating wild extrapolations of my position.
Unfortunately, I don't think that anything will deter the sort of people who strap bombs onto their bodies and blow themselves up on city busses full of women and children or fly airplanes into buildings full of innocents for the thrill of murder and the promised trip to heaven with seventy virgins, etc.
[1]: 0h n0es. Yuo are in t3h agreement with me! HAX!
Seriously, you seem a bit insecure. Do you really have to prove your point to me that bad?
Then we should only need exactly enough amount to deter those people. I think any capability beyond the capability to utterly destroy them over a few times, would be totally pointless. I can destroy you 100 times, but you can only destroy me 50 times! I WIN!
Wow you're right. We should design software to be broken and hard to use from the start! That will prevent people from running malicious software. Of course it will prevent people from running good software also. And nevermind security settings, that couldn't be the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you accidentally run over people with them then you HAVE NO LIABILITY. HAR HAR!
s/dumpster diving/google diving/g
Well I have to work with servers with no bash installed (AIX, Solaris). I'm the fortunate one as I know that tcsh is present, and am comfortable with using it. I cringe when I have to watch coworkers stumble on a Korn shell. Mistype a letter and you have to type that shit all over again. EGADS!
:)
;)
Not to mention the "intuitive" ^S ^Q semantics. "What the hell, why is vi not responding - oh I PAUSED IT!" how useful is that.
If you are used to doing stuff in windows Ctrl-S is second nature for saving
Well, theoretically the same bayesian filter that knows to put spam in the "spam" folder, can be similarly taught to put arbitrary content in an arbitrary folder. The trick is training it. The email client would have to somehow "record" every time you moved or copied something into a folder (or numerous folders), and then, when a message fit that criteria, it would have to replicate that action, move/copy, to the specified folder or folders. I don't think it's all that hard, but I don't think it's been done in major email clients. I REALLY wish the bayesian filter in Mozilla was upgraded for arbitrary content and arbitrary destinations or actions (for instance I may want to mark it important, AND move it to a folder, AND maybe forward it to somebody else, all at once).
Old technology? Hell, I am reminded of it every damn time when I log in from a 2 Ghz workstation to some 4-way unix box with 2 Gigs of memory, through a little fucking terminal emulator. TERMINAL EMULATOR. in 2004. sighdasdlfkj^H^H^H
fuck
stty erase ^H
dammit
tcsh
CSS makes text mode browsing even BETTER because it removes presentation from content (well, much better than without CSS at least).
No, anonymous coward, it isn't a false choice between technology-intensive-farming and no-farming-starve-the-children-to-death-you-monste r, but instead technology-intensive-farming and <insert some alternative>. I think it is legitimate to raise the question of whether solutions developed for our (read: wealthy, westernized) society are appropriate for all societies.
That's not the point irregardless...
Well, what is happening to niche shows NOW? Can the cable companies really disambiguate which shows are valuable? Critically acclaimed shows get cancelled all the time for mind rotting sitcome pastiche. Maybe a show's audience simply isn't prone to buying stuff through advertising. Right now I can't effectively vote with my dollars. If I buy a package, I vote for 100 different things, when I really wanted to vote for 3. I would be GLAD to pay a higher per-channel fee if I got ONLY the channels/shows I wanted, as I am sure that my end cost would be lower. As it is, I am cancelling my introductory "extended cable" simply because even the discounted rate is way too fucking high for the handful of shows I actually give a damn about. What do the cable companies think about that? Would they rather have my $0 because their package is too high, or would they want my $20 because I got to pick the 4 or so channels I wanted?
Wow you are right - because there are larger sized problems, we should stop entirely trying to deal with medium and smaller problems! Hell, as long as we still need to save the whales let's just get bent over and raped because, that's not as important right! Don't look at the CEO behind the curtain!
A-freakin-man. Government should restrict itself purely to CIVIL UNIONS which are government sactioned (for whatever the official reason-du-jour is now, "social stability" or "strong middle class" or whatever), which involve only government legal distinctions and privileges. The issue of "marriage" should be left entirely OUT of the government sphere, to non-governmental organizations like churches and whatnot.
One could make a further argument of course that government has no business granting civil unions in the first place, and the accompanying "subsidies" and entitlements that are entailed with such social engineering. But that is a step too far at the moment. OH MY GORD TEH GOVERNUBMENT IS TAEKIG OUR MARYAGE!
Uh right, it's not about "rights" it's about "power". What "power" anti-gay-marriage (or civil union, whatever) proponents think they are losing is beyond me. Probably the mantle of moral superiority. If we let gays have marriage I guess mine is no good anymore! Dammit, I'll have to get divorced now!
This is a good step forward but still does not go far enough. We must erase this "user interface" tyranny. First of all - the title - i mean, gosh, it says "Google" in my browser title bar, in clear letters. Such gratuitous self-advertising is unnecessary and garish if you ask me. Please leave the title bar alone. Also, why is there so much busy text on the page. I'm a busy man, I can't be bothered to read all that. I count over 25 words on the front page alone! That adds up to countless more letters. And that is not even counting source code. I'm bewildered and confused. Also, they decieve the user by providing, two, TWO COUNT THEM, buttons to search. One says redundantly "Google Search" the other poses the existential statement "I'm Feeling Lucky". Now I appreciate free psychological therapy like the next person, but PLEASE Google, leave that up to the experts on daytime shows like Dr. Phil. Now I am left pondering whether I really feel lucky or not, or whether I only am doubting my luck because I am being presented with a challenge towards it, whether this is all my parent's fault, and ultimately feeling that I need not search the web, but rather within myself to find out who I truly am.
But Google not only presents these "submission" buttons, but a range of categories to manifest my self doubt. Images: Is there something wrong with my own self image? Groups: Am I accepted as a member of a group. News: Does anything interesting or newsworthey ever happen in my life? Froogle: Am I managing my finances appropriately, or will I squander my fate through illiteracy or bad spelling? More>>: Is there something missing in my hollow pointless life...do I need something more to fill the void?
And as a last kick in the teeth, Google must remind me at the bottom that the page is copyrighted, and that it is "Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages", as if to say "you are not good enough to receive this page".
So, please stop the user interface terrorism Google!
What about the high cost of advanced pesticides and genetically engineered seeds (especially the ones which produce sterile plants, or for which it is illegal to reuse the seeds from)? Are poor nations supposed to magically get money to pay for this advanced agriculture, or are they supposed to take further loans, or rely on charity? If we really want to help out the third world I think we should exempt them from enforcement of pharmaceutical, pesticide, and bioengineering patents, so they don't have to mortgage decade after decade of their future not to starve now simply to meet some international patent treaty. Is this really a technological problem?
In fact, since gay people CAN'T naturally have children, they very often ADOPT children who genuinely need it, so in fact, prohibiting gay marriage may well do more to harm "families" than help them. The notion that giving somebody else the same rights you have is somehow weakening yours is stupid and craven.
Ransom Love
Havoc Pennington
Sander Striker
Geez, what books were your parents reading you to give you such cool names.
I think I'll change my name to "Gusto McAction".
I see, we will fight bioweapons with OTHER bioweapons. Because terrorists are deterred by us having bioweapons right? [1]
Err, no. I'm responding to
"*That's* why weapons like this are needed. Because others have them, too."
The claim that we need weapons because others have them as if having them would deter those "others". While it is understandable that a certain amount of research into "weaponization" is necessary in researching cures and defenses, I withhold a healthy skepticism of such practice. But I thank you for fabricating wild extrapolations of my position.
[1]: 0h n0es. Yuo are in t3h agreement with me! HAX!
Seriously, you seem a bit insecure. Do you really have to prove your point to me that bad?
Then we should only need exactly enough amount to deter those people. I think any capability beyond the capability to utterly destroy them over a few times, would be totally pointless. I can destroy you 100 times, but you can only destroy me 50 times! I WIN!
I for one am anxiously awaiting shrinkwrapped software with big stickers proclaiming:
Kitten Killer 2000 Compatible
"Oh so your game wouldn't install? Well, was it Kitten Killer 2000 Compatible? Well sir, then I can't help you, good day"
XFree84! Damn, that is 2 revs older than x86!
That's because they were 5 1/4" not 1/2... newbs :p
D00d, you are so wrong...that big box is the *CPU*. Duh.
Fundamentally: 10 poor (in different ways) solutions is not equivalent to 1 good solution.
Wow you're right. We should design software to be broken and hard to use from the start! That will prevent people from running malicious software. Of course it will prevent people from running good software also. And nevermind security settings, that couldn't be the problem.
"are their insurmountable technical barriers that would prevent compiling both Java and C# to the same bytecode"
No. IKVM for Mono/CLR compiles Java to CLR bytecode. I believe they even had the Java Eclipse IDE running on Mono.