Why don't you stop using the web, since you're so happy about the US contributions.
WTF are you talking about? I was reacting to this kind of sh*t:
The sheer arogance of the USA when it comes to all things technology is astounding. It's bad enough that the world has to put up with McDonalds, Coke, and Microsoft. Why should US Cultural Imperialism dominate the net as well??
Both this post and yours imply that americans think that they have a greater right to the inet than the rest of the peoples of the world... I don't think that. I've merely been defending the achievements of my country WRT the invention and early expansion of the inet. Surely you can acknowledge that.
I want to make it clear that I'm not with this guy... I love the peoples of the world. Even the Brits. But I don't want the achievements of my country being slighted. And if the fortunes of those achievements means that U.S. domains don't have to have a country code placed after them I think that's only fair.
Yep, and they also invented T.V. 6 foot wide spinning disks with a spiral pattern of holes in it.
You may have invented both T.V. and packet switched networks but what did you do with them? We implemented picture scanning with electronics and, and then we built tcp-udp/ip on top of packet switching and started the inet. Admit it.
Why should US Cultural Imperialism dominate the net as well??
Could it have something to do with the inet being invented and given a huge boost with our tax dollars? Maybe it's because the domain-name system was started here? Tell you what... reimburse us for the R & D costs and we'll start using.us after all of our domain names.
IIRC, the path the IETF is following infers that the tv:// protocol is more likely to be important for broadband delivery, similarly phone:// and fax:// will count more than the TLD does.
But as technology advances and more bandwidth becomes available protocols will change... once the tv:// protocol is created it must never change. Then we'll get into a mess with hbtv:// (High Bandwidth TV.), etc. *.tv will always mean (related to) multimedia entertainment.
IMHO, Hollywood will spend some big bucks for it. thatseventiesshow.tv will be more intuitive for a tv show ported to inet than thatseventiesshow.com. One says entertainment, the other says commercials.
When broadband becomes ubiquitious and television production becomes smarter and more interactive, multimedia content over the internet will become huge.
For giving up.tv for a lousy 50 million, I give those people the suckers of the year award.
...fraudulently renumber their releases in leaps and bounds,
I didn't find it fraudulent... I read the text file that concerned the version number... he said that he got tired of people asking why he wasn't running "Linux 6.1" It was all very open and (I thought) tongue-in-cheek.
No, no monitor and system combos. Before apple, the most popular combo was made by compaq - in fact, two of them. One was designed before the MPC2 craze and didn't have a sound card or cd-rom, and the second one integrated speakers, sound card, cd-rom, voice modem... etc. Unisys did it before them with the ICON 2 and ICON 3.
Maybe Jack Trammel should sue them all for copying the Commodore Pet. He could sue IBM, too... I just looked over at my PS/2 model 25. (Hey, this is fun... let everybody sue everybody else... who was the first to put a computer on the desktop?)
OK, but it's 1 000 times faster than my 1 Mhz C=64 ! [Snip] wow my god ! 1 000 times faster (not talking in MIPS, of course) than my first computer.
Yeah, I remember reading that my 1 Mhz C=64 ran it's code as fast as a 4.77 Mhz IBM PC... something about a more efficient design in the instruction decoding section of the chip. Where the the Intel chip used a ROM look up table, the 6502/6510 chip used combinatorial logic? Is that right?
I remember the days when people were running windows 3.1. Ever once in a while you would hear stories of newbies figuring that since the were running windows instead of dos that they didn't need their dos directory:) Oops! Wonder why the thing won't boot anymore!
One guy came into the shop I used to work at and bought a cheap 486 system to teach himself computers. He was running different programs and deleting those he didn't want and he came upon command.com. Since it didn't do anything he deleted it.
We bought the system back from him at a substantually reduced price.
I remember many years ago (3 or 4) reading Fidonet messages from people getting DOSEMU to work in DosLinux (by Kent Robotti, now called LoopLinux)... at first I didn't see the point in that, they already had DOS on their machines so they could just reboot. But DOSEMU lets you run the DOS on your FAT partition if you have it... you don't have to use a diskimage file. This let people just moving over from DOS to Linux to do so gradually without having to reboot to get back into their DOS system.
This raises the interesting question of booting up into DOS, running DosLinux (with loadlin), running DOSEMU using your FAT partition then CD-ing into the DosLinux directory and changing things around, then switching VCs and observing those changes.
Slightly OT, but I think I've thought of one answer to the bad docs problem:
As reported somewhere a while back, open source programmers do it for the respect they get from others in the open source community. Now, if the respect they get for their programming was also tied to their document writing I believe we would see an immediate and enormous increase in the quality of documentation.
However, I believe that we end users can't effect this change of attitude by ourselves, it has to come from the top. Face it, the programmers aren't looking for OUR respect, the want it from the people THEY respect. But this has another problem, the open source programming leaders themselves aren't known for their stellar document writing (if they were, we probably wouldn't even need this discussion because there wouldn't even be a problem with documentation.)
Now if we could get Linus and Alan and ESR and RMS and all those other luminaries in the open source movement to start leading by example in the document-writing area the problem would start to fix itself.
(If I've unfairly grouped someone who already documents their programs with those who don't, I'm sorry in advance.)
>We have no time for ALT tags, we don't care if >your platform does not support ShockWave (we >will use it anyway), and we definately do not >care at all if you can't browse the page with >Lynx.
>Lynx does not even display the banner ads, so >you can see why it is not a priority for us. All >that matters is that 99.7% of our target >demographic has access to the de-facto standard >- IE4
You guys that make these absurd statements and make them sound like your being serious, making the irony increase to epic proportions, really have my respect. My attempts at this sort of advocacy always fail miserably... too many people seem to sense my tounge-in-cheek.
Hats off to this AC and to all of his brilliant brethren.
>Al Gore also invented the Internet, making all >this possiable,
I've seen this so many times and I still don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make this claim in this manner. So how about some facts... what were his exact words? In what context? Since Arpanet was moved into public space by polititions is this what he was talking about? (ex: "I was instrumental in making the internet what it is today.")
I don't believe he ever said that he invented the internet and I want some facts.
>Strange how they haven't tested it >for 20 years.....Much less 200....
Strange how you didn't even visit/read the page before posting this... in 2 minutes you would have been reading words like "a very complex and statistics-based process" and "extensive media longevity studies" and "mathematical modeling techniques".
Like you, I'll believe it when I see it, but I wouldn't go shooting off my mouth without at least checking things out.
I'm not going to take the time to educate you, because you're obviously not interested. If you were then you would have found no difficulty in finding important reasons for space research.
I will say this: think of space research as a proven investment in mankind's future. Every dollar we spend today will return thousands (if not millions) of dollars sometime in the not-too-distant future. The reasons that support this claim are floating around all over the place out here in e-space and you should have no trouble finding it... if you really are interested.
"Since six idiots probably won't have enough genetic diversity to repopulate the species,"
I read somewhere, recently, that if you choose *very carefully* you could do it with 16 people. Surprised me, since I've always heard that 1000 people is the minumum needed.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just plain wrong.
I realized that 10 seconds after I posted it... I've been up too long, really should go to sleep, but can't stop typing...
Why don't you stop using the web, since you're so happy about the US contributions.
WTF are you talking about? I was reacting to this kind of sh*t:
The sheer arogance of the USA when it comes to all things technology is astounding. It's bad enough that the world has to put up with McDonalds, Coke, and Microsoft. Why should US Cultural Imperialism dominate the net as well??
Both this post and yours imply that americans think that they have a greater right to the inet than the rest of the peoples of the world... I don't think that. I've merely been defending the achievements of my country WRT the invention and early expansion of the inet. Surely you can acknowledge that.
...peanuts compared with what they need to spend on marketing the .tv TLD to make it accepted in the marketplace
...to view scenes from next week's all new Buffy the Vampire Slayer go to BuffySlayer.tv...
2001
2003
Be sure to catch next week's all new Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Interactive right here at BuffySlayer.tv
2005
????????
I want to make it clear that I'm not with this guy... I love the peoples of the world. Even the Brits. But I don't want the achievements of my country being slighted. And if the fortunes of those achievements means that U.S. domains don't have to have a country code placed after them I think that's only fair.
the British invented packet switched networks
Yep, and they also invented T.V. 6 foot wide spinning disks with a spiral pattern of holes in it.
You may have invented both T.V. and packet switched networks but what did you do with them? We implemented picture scanning with electronics and, and then we built tcp-udp/ip on top of packet switching and started the inet. Admit it.
Why should US Cultural Imperialism dominate the net as well??
.us after all of our domain names.
Could it have something to do with the inet being invented and given a huge boost with our tax dollars? Maybe it's because the domain-name system was started here? Tell you what... reimburse us for the R & D costs and we'll start using
every man, woman and child in Tuvalu just got $5000 each.
Hey, that means they can now afford servers to host their web-pag... er... uhmm... strike that.
IIRC, the path the IETF is following infers that the tv:// protocol is more likely to be important for broadband delivery, similarly phone:// and fax:// will count more than the TLD does.
But as technology advances and more bandwidth becomes available protocols will change... once the tv:// protocol is created it must never change. Then we'll get into a mess with hbtv:// (High Bandwidth TV.), etc. *.tv will always mean (related to) multimedia entertainment.
IMHO, Hollywood will spend some big bucks for it. thatseventiesshow.tv will be more intuitive for a tv show ported to inet than thatseventiesshow.com. One says entertainment, the other says commercials.
When broadband becomes ubiquitious and television production becomes smarter and more interactive, multimedia content over the internet will become huge.
.tv for a lousy 50 million, I give those people the suckers of the year award.
For giving up
Any thing that can shorten the 250+ms round trip to geosyncronous satellites would be good... those ping rates in Quake3 are killing me!
...fraudulently renumber their releases in leaps and bounds,
I didn't find it fraudulent... I read the text file that concerned the version number... he said that he got tired of people asking why he wasn't running "Linux 6.1" It was all very open and (I thought) tongue-in-cheek.
No, no monitor and system combos. Before apple, the most popular combo was made by compaq - in fact, two of them. One was designed before the MPC2 craze and didn't have a sound card or cd-rom, and the second one integrated speakers, sound card, cd-rom, voice modem... etc. Unisys did it before them with the ICON 2 and ICON 3.
Maybe Jack Trammel should sue them all for copying the Commodore Pet. He could sue IBM, too... I just looked over at my PS/2 model 25. (Hey, this is fun... let everybody sue everybody else... who was the first to put a computer on the desktop?)
OK, but it's 1 000 times faster than my 1 Mhz C=64 ! [Snip] wow my god ! 1 000 times faster (not talking in MIPS, of course) than my first computer.
Yeah, I remember reading that my 1 Mhz C=64 ran it's code as fast as a 4.77 Mhz IBM PC... something about a more efficient design in the instruction decoding section of the chip. Where the the Intel chip used a ROM look up table, the 6502/6510 chip used combinatorial logic? Is that right?
I remember the days when people were running windows 3.1. Ever once in a while you would hear stories of newbies figuring that since the were running windows instead of dos that they didn't need their dos directory :) Oops! Wonder why the thing won't boot anymore!
One guy came into the shop I used to work at and bought a cheap 486 system to teach himself computers. He was running different programs and deleting those he didn't want and he came upon command.com. Since it didn't do anything he deleted it.
We bought the system back from him at a substantually reduced price.
I remember many years ago (3 or 4) reading Fidonet messages from people getting DOSEMU to work in DosLinux (by Kent Robotti, now called LoopLinux)... at first I didn't see the point in that, they already had DOS on their machines so they could just reboot. But DOSEMU lets you run the DOS on your FAT partition if you have it... you don't have to use a diskimage file. This let people just moving over from DOS to Linux to do so gradually without having to reboot to get back into their DOS system.
This raises the interesting question of booting up into DOS, running DosLinux (with loadlin), running DOSEMU using your FAT partition then CD-ing into the DosLinux directory and changing things around, then switching VCs and observing those changes.
Slightly OT, but I think I've thought of one answer to the bad docs problem:
As reported somewhere a while back, open source programmers do it for the respect they get from others in the open source community. Now, if the respect they get for their programming was also tied to their document writing I believe we would see an immediate and enormous increase in the quality of documentation.
However, I believe that we end users can't effect this change of attitude by ourselves, it has to come from the top. Face it, the programmers aren't looking for OUR respect, the want it from the people THEY respect. But this has another problem, the open source programming leaders themselves aren't known for their stellar document writing (if they were, we probably wouldn't even need this discussion because there wouldn't even be a problem with documentation.)
Now if we could get Linus and Alan and ESR and RMS and all those other luminaries in the open source movement to start leading by example in the document-writing area the problem would start to fix itself.
(If I've unfairly grouped someone who already documents their programs with those who don't, I'm sorry in advance.)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You're BRILLIANT!
>We have no time for ALT tags, we don't care if
>your platform does not support ShockWave (we
>will use it anyway), and we definately do not
>care at all if you can't browse the page with
>Lynx.
>Lynx does not even display the banner ads, so
>you can see why it is not a priority for us. All
>that matters is that 99.7% of our target
>demographic has access to the de-facto standard
>- IE4
You guys that make these absurd statements and make them sound like your being serious, making the irony increase to epic proportions, really have my respect. My attempts at this sort of advocacy always fail miserably... too many people seem to sense my tounge-in-cheek.
Hats off to this AC and to all of his brilliant brethren.
You, sir, are my kind of people.
>Al Gore also invented the Internet, making all
>this possiable,
I've seen this so many times and I still don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make this claim in this manner. So how about some facts... what were his exact words? In what context? Since Arpanet was moved into public space by polititions is this what he was talking about? (ex: "I was instrumental in making the internet what it is today.")
I don't believe he ever said that he invented the internet and I want some facts.
Anybody?
Hahaha... Those were funny. I especially liked your 'Deter Cannabalistic Social Sacrifices' program.
The URL you provided (though interesting) didn't have the Microsoft story on it... is there anywhere I can read it?
>Strange how they haven't tested it
>for 20 years.....Much less 200....
Strange how you didn't even visit/read the page before posting this... in 2 minutes you would have been reading words like "a very complex and statistics-based process" and "extensive media longevity studies" and "mathematical modeling techniques".
Like you, I'll believe it when I see it, but I wouldn't go shooting off my mouth without at least checking things out.
I'm not going to take the time to educate you, because you're obviously not interested. If you were then you would have found no difficulty in finding important reasons for space research.
I will say this: think of space research as a proven investment in mankind's future. Every dollar we spend today will return thousands (if not millions) of dollars sometime in the not-too-distant future. The reasons that support this claim are floating around all over the place out here in e-space and you should have no trouble finding it... if you really are interested.
Look at that URL. I'm reading http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/01/095421 1&mode=nested
Is this a bug? Or a feature?
"Since six idiots probably won't have enough genetic diversity to repopulate the species,"
I read somewhere, recently, that if you choose *very carefully* you could do it with 16 people. Surprised me, since I've always heard that 1000 people is the minumum needed.