could someone make an opt in slashcode to filter out cats' articles
They could, and they have.
I dislike Catz' waffle as much as the next man (I think I only read them and participate in the inane discussions as a form of self loathing) but fair's fair, you can just switch them off in your prefs.
Re:Globalization without rules == Corporate Heaven
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
A central goverment who collects Earnings Tax worldwide and then invest on poor regions to improve living standards
I won't bother to argue against this, I've been beaten to it already.
Free and open migration from one country to another. This ensures that no region will be rich and other poor. Because people can migrate.
Yeah, get rid of the armed border controls that stop people moving out of the ghettos in American cities and into the rich neighborhoods (same all across the developed and developing world).
And lastly, did you not notice how much your 2 statements contradict?
Pump money into the poor regions which don't exist because people migrate...
Given that every comment you make gets modded to 5 by your adoring minions, and you must have plenty of karma to spare, have you ever thought of trolling? I think you'd enjoy it, and you'd get a bite every time.
You're probably also the only poster alive who could get a rise out of the BSD is dying troll, or Linus was found dead aged 54...
Fair comment about the pseudocode/VBscript thing - I'm not a VB developer so didn't recognise it.
But I'm not convinced about it running on your server; are you sure it wouldn't complain about the } on the penultimate line?
And yes I do know how to run a server, just not the sort that runs VB;-P
Granted -- none of us would do it, having seen the video
Well...not intentionally. It is possible that *ahem*somebody not thinking too clearly might reassemble his (Intel) computer and forget to put the heatsink assembly on. It was on for a good half minute before I realised what I'd done, so I...err...he quickly switched the machine off and fitted the heatsink/fan, and all worked fine. Now if it had been an Athlon...
And I'm sure you'll find lots of bios update utilities kindly requesting you boot into dos - and Amishly shunning such technologies as emm386.
Besides, I rather liked dos. I never installed windows until 98 was released (sure it restricted my games, but Win3.11? Come on. And by the time I'd been convinced by 95, 98 had been released.)
And at least the command prompt is still here, and getting more and more powerful; in Win2k there's a proper grep utility, and even a poor man's version of awk. It isn't a full programming language, but it allows you to parse a stream token by token - type 'help for' to see what I mean.
OTOH, I beleive MS will "invent" a new "standard" now and use it on msn.com, and for some strange reason the only browser capable of utilising the standard will be the latest MSIE. "We're sorry, but your inferior browser will not let you experience the MSN.com site at its full extent. Please upgrade [microsoft.com] your browser."
Hmmm...Sounds familiar...Flash anyone? A proprietary, closed standard that has spread all over the web, leading to pages that say 'I see you have not got Flash. Please download it or piss off'
I believe that with Flash, Macromedia are the worst of the lot - push a product that appeals to arty people (have you ever tried writing a database driven website presented through Flash? I'd rather not repeat the experience) and then harp on about how it's the best standard there is.
Well, sure it's the best standard. Just like if only MS were allowed to write browsers, they would be standard, because they would *be* the standard.
</rant>
Phew. Anyone would think I really hate Flash.
PS. The next person who sends me an hilarious flash game...
Or perhaps you should run a good video compression codec over it, say mpeg.
Should be able to strip down the datapool down to at least a tenth...
Oh, hell, why not even assume it compresses to a hundredth of the size? No...hold on...he already did that.
Come on, I expect people saying this sort of thing when they have to be arsed to actually read an article, but to not even read the post beggars belief.
There are two reasons why I don't feel the need to flame you:
You're going to remove the ban
You wrote Microsoft not Micro$soft
Incidentally, I went to your site using IE6, and followed the link to show me how insecure my browser is. After meekly asking me to accept a certificate that was out of date and invalid in some other way (I forget why, but I accepted it in the name of science) When I got to the page I was shown some seriously lame things aimed at scaring me. Such as how many pages I'd visited in that window. And a couple of vulnerabilities that I was immune to.
But before I take the piss too much, I was not too happy about the fact my clipboard was visible - this was especially rubbed in as I had just copied a password from an email.
Still, I didn't see anything that caused me any security concern, just a vague annoyance that it keeps grabbing the focus when it refreshed.
BTW, I use IE because Netscape is seriously crap (admittedly I hear 6.1 is much better, and Mozilla is better still) and I'm not going to refuse to use what is IMHO the best browser on the 'market'. Perhaps when I try Mozilla I may be converted?
At the moment, the only evidence we have that asymmetric cryptography techniques is that it hasn't been compromised by 'better minds than mine'.
However, that is not to say that it will always remain like this; it is possible that in the future we can prove mathematically that an algorithm is unbreakable (or at least only breakable by an exponential complexity brute force attack. Of course this relies on proving that P!=NP This trivial proof is left for the reader)
This is directed at the post claiming that encryption will *always* be broken; one day we may have provably secure asymmetric encryption.
Quantum computers counter my argument nicely as they don't care whether they are working on a problem in P or NP. As such I shall ignore them and hope they go away.
IIRC, there are no background checks when issuing certificates to corporations or individuals. Equally a certificate does not guarantee that the code is not a trojan/virus or other malicious code - the people at Thawte and other digital signers do not have the time to check through lines of code to guess the meaning.
All a certificate means is that the code has been created by company X and has not been modified since then. If you trust company X then you allow it to run; if you don't trust them, then don't run it.
Quite why this has led to Thawte refusing to sign for individuals' code I don't know. Perhaps they are shielding users who believe that signed code is automatically safe - corporations at least leave a trail of culpability if the code is malicious.
Still, I don't see what relevance this has to world events...
99% of the time I would agree with you. Also, I would point out that I had not had a single Win2k BSOD *ever* (having run it for ~1 year) until a recent change of hardware, when I got around 1 per week.
Just imagine a newbie wannabe geek who started with this configuration. He'd be posting along all of the other people saying "Microsoft is crap, I get a BSOD every week!" While you make good points, please remember they all apply (with specifics changed) to Windows also.
However, I badly disagree with your assertion that these are the *only* things that can go wrong. I think it is foolish to have that much trust in any programmers. Incidentally, there are methodologies to mathematically prove program correctness (eg Floyd-Hoare, but I don't think that'd cope too well in concurrent environments) and if you showed me such a proof worked all the way through, maybe then I'd believe that Linux has perfect kernel stability. Until then, I continue to believe in Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:
There is ALWAYS one more bug
PS. Cyrix CPU? Maybe I should be gentler on you - you already have a lot to put up with;-P
I wish this were so, but it has to be said that even English papers are making something of a meal of the situation. Admittedly it has not fully saturated the papers, but a single Sept. 11 related story is guaranteed full front page coverage, no matter how inane. But the worst example of how trashy the UK papers have become is the *ludicrous* coverage given when Princess Di died. Jesus, you wouldn't believe the percentage of media space devoted to talking crap about her. But that said, there was truly sickening mass hysteria, with thousands of people crying, queueing for hours. Maybe we deserve tripe in the press if we act like that.
Oh, hell. I think I'll emigrate. Anyone think of a country not populated with fools?
Soooooooo........Microsoft should allow piracy as part of their business model, to support further growth. I like it - suggest it to Billy G, he may even give you a job.
Or alternatively, this could result in a lot less support emails from clueless users.
A service we offer to our clients involves them using an ActiveX control. Can you imagine the issues involved if IE didn't warn you that the page may display incorrectly?
...an I entered all of the data, which took 30 minutes, but when I clicked the save button it went to the next page but didn't save it! So I tried again and it still di....
I for one am very grateful for that warning, as I don't get asked dumb questions like that. The users are grateful because they can see what the problem is and act accordingly.
Subject: Bill Gates Is The Antichrist
Uhhhhh huh. Whatever floats your boat.
Body: The more I hear stuff like this, the more I believe Microsoft is the brain child of Satan. Riiiiight. Well, this is the usual/. crud (if this can't be called FUD, what can?)
Bill Gates has far to much power, and is taking far to many liberties. Right. Now he's said something that isn't just a childish insult. A single sentence that says nothing new, just the usual 'Hold on, I don't like Microsoft'
And yet it gets a +1 informative. Well, I don't feel very well informed by it.
By this reckoning, I should get a +5 informative for this next line - stand back, it'll be a killer:
Windows Bad start, I meant:
Windoze is less good at stuff than what Linux^H^H^H^H^H L00nix is. Can I have some karma now, please?
Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong. I should write use strict; at the top of my PHP programs. And foolishly it seems I've been running my PHP scripts through the Zend engine, whereas I should probably run them through the Perl interpreter.
Come on, if you're going to flame me, at least make sense. I replied to a post about PHP, gave some PHP code examples as to why PHP is bad, and you've come back with that Perl users' mainstay: use strict;
Just to be picky, did your calculations take into account the fact that during the day X% of the road surface is covered by traffic?
Also, probably a bigger hassle is in transferring the current from the cells to where it is useful. The relatively low voltage output from the cells means that over a long cable much of the energy is lost - and I have no idea how much more efficiency is lost if every mile of cells has to go through a transformer to increase the voltage...
Slashdot Mirror
could someone make an opt in slashcode to filter out cats' articles
They could, and they have.
I dislike Catz' waffle as much as the next man (I think I only read them and participate in the inane discussions as a form of self loathing) but fair's fair, you can just switch them off in your prefs.
Yeah, get rid of the armed border controls that stop people moving out of the ghettos in American cities and into the rich neighborhoods (same all across the developed and developing world).
And lastly, did you not notice how much your 2 statements contradict?
Pump money into the poor regions which don't exist because people migrate...
Sounds like an interesting policy.
Given that every comment you make gets modded to 5 by your adoring minions, and you must have plenty of karma to spare, have you ever thought of trolling? I think you'd enjoy it, and you'd get a bite every time.
You're probably also the only poster alive who could get a rise out of the BSD is dying troll, or Linus was found dead aged 54...
Just a thought.
PS. Have you ever claimed a +5 first post?
Fair comment about the pseudocode/VBscript thing - I'm not a VB developer so didn't recognise it.
;-P
But I'm not convinced about it running on your server; are you sure it wouldn't complain about the } on the penultimate line?
And yes I do know how to run a server, just not the sort that runs VB
Now that's impressive. I've never seen syntax errors in pseudo-code before.
bash != linux
bsh != unix
cmd != dos
The death of DOS does not mean the death of the Microsoft CLI.
Well...not intentionally. It is possible that *ahem*somebody not thinking too clearly might reassemble his (Intel) computer and forget to put the heatsink assembly on. It was on for a good half minute before I realised what I'd done, so I...err...he quickly switched the machine off and fitted the heatsink/fan, and all worked fine. Now if it had been an Athlon...
And I'm sure you'll find lots of bios update utilities kindly requesting you boot into dos - and Amishly shunning such technologies as emm386.
Besides, I rather liked dos. I never installed windows until 98 was released (sure it restricted my games, but Win3.11? Come on. And by the time I'd been convinced by 95, 98 had been released.)
And at least the command prompt is still here, and getting more and more powerful; in Win2k there's a proper grep utility, and even a poor man's version of awk. It isn't a full programming language, but it allows you to parse a stream token by token - type 'help for' to see what I mean.
Still, I'm glad to be mostly rid of 8/16bit code.
I believe that with Flash, Macromedia are the worst of the lot - push a product that appeals to arty people (have you ever tried writing a database driven website presented through Flash? I'd rather not repeat the experience) and then harp on about how it's the best standard there is.
Well, sure it's the best standard. Just like if only MS were allowed to write browsers, they would be standard, because they would *be* the standard.
</rant>
Phew. Anyone would think I really hate Flash.
PS. The next person who sends me an hilarious flash game...
Come on, I expect people saying this sort of thing when they have to be arsed to actually read an article, but to not even read the post beggars belief.
Incidentally, I went to your site using IE6, and followed the link to show me how insecure my browser is. After meekly asking me to accept a certificate that was out of date and invalid in some other way (I forget why, but I accepted it in the name of science) When I got to the page I was shown some seriously lame things aimed at scaring me. Such as how many pages I'd visited in that window. And a couple of vulnerabilities that I was immune to.
But before I take the piss too much, I was not too happy about the fact my clipboard was visible - this was especially rubbed in as I had just copied a password from an email.
Still, I didn't see anything that caused me any security concern, just a vague annoyance that it keeps grabbing the focus when it refreshed.
BTW, I use IE because Netscape is seriously crap (admittedly I hear 6.1 is much better, and Mozilla is better still) and I'm not going to refuse to use what is IMHO the best browser on the 'market'. Perhaps when I try Mozilla I may be converted?
Just to add to point 2:
At the moment, the only evidence we have that asymmetric cryptography techniques is that it hasn't been compromised by 'better minds than mine'.
However, that is not to say that it will always remain like this; it is possible that in the future we can prove mathematically that an algorithm is unbreakable (or at least only breakable by an exponential complexity brute force attack. Of course this relies on proving that P!=NP This trivial proof is left for the reader)
This is directed at the post claiming that encryption will *always* be broken; one day we may have provably secure asymmetric encryption.
Quantum computers counter my argument nicely as they don't care whether they are working on a problem in P or NP. As such I shall ignore them and hope they go away.
IIRC, there are no background checks when issuing certificates to corporations or individuals. Equally a certificate does not guarantee that the code is not a trojan/virus or other malicious code - the people at Thawte and other digital signers do not have the time to check through lines of code to guess the meaning.
All a certificate means is that the code has been created by company X and has not been modified since then. If you trust company X then you allow it to run; if you don't trust them, then don't run it.
Quite why this has led to Thawte refusing to sign for individuals' code I don't know. Perhaps they are shielding users who believe that signed code is automatically safe - corporations at least leave a trail of culpability if the code is malicious.
Still, I don't see what relevance this has to world events...
...and they can inform you that there is no such thing as the DCMA.
Pedantic I know, but I suspect that a letter complaining about the DCMA[sic] will hardly come across as a well researched opinion.
99% of the time I would agree with you. Also, I would point out that I had not had a single Win2k BSOD *ever* (having run it for ~1 year) until a recent change of hardware, when I got around 1 per week.
;-P
Just imagine a newbie wannabe geek who started with this configuration. He'd be posting along all of the other people saying "Microsoft is crap, I get a BSOD every week!" While you make good points, please remember they all apply (with specifics changed) to Windows also.
However, I badly disagree with your assertion that these are the *only* things that can go wrong. I think it is foolish to have that much trust in any programmers. Incidentally, there are methodologies to mathematically prove program correctness (eg Floyd-Hoare, but I don't think that'd cope too well in concurrent environments) and if you showed me such a proof worked all the way through, maybe then I'd believe that Linux has perfect kernel stability. Until then, I continue to believe in Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:
There is ALWAYS one more bug
PS. Cyrix CPU? Maybe I should be gentler on you - you already have a lot to put up with
I wish this were so, but it has to be said that even English papers are making something of a meal of the situation. Admittedly it has not fully saturated the papers, but a single Sept. 11 related story is guaranteed full front page coverage, no matter how inane.
But the worst example of how trashy the UK papers have become is the *ludicrous* coverage given when Princess Di died. Jesus, you wouldn't believe the percentage of media space devoted to talking crap about her. But that said, there was truly sickening mass hysteria, with thousands of people crying, queueing for hours. Maybe we deserve tripe in the press if we act like that.
Oh, hell. I think I'll emigrate. Anyone think of a country not populated with fools?
It is probably the best (and funniest) way to illustrate his point.
Soooooooo........Microsoft should allow piracy as part of their business model, to support further growth.
I like it - suggest it to Billy G, he may even give you a job.
Or alternatively, this could result in a lot less support emails from clueless users.
...an I entered all of the data, which took 30 minutes, but when I clicked the save button it went to the next page but didn't save it! So I tried again and it still di....
A service we offer to our clients involves them using an ActiveX control. Can you imagine the issues involved if IE didn't warn you that the page may display incorrectly?
I for one am very grateful for that warning, as I don't get asked dumb questions like that. The users are grateful because they can see what the problem is and act accordingly.
I like this sort of maths ;-)
Subject: Bill Gates Is The Antichrist
/. crud (if this can't be called FUD, what can?)
Uhhhhh huh. Whatever floats your boat.
Body:
The more I hear stuff like this, the more I believe Microsoft is the brain child of Satan.
Riiiiight. Well, this is the usual
Bill Gates has far to much power, and is taking far to many liberties.
Right. Now he's said something that isn't just a childish insult. A single sentence that says nothing new, just the usual 'Hold on, I don't like Microsoft'
And yet it gets a +1 informative. Well, I don't feel very well informed by it.
By this reckoning, I should get a +5 informative for this next line - stand back, it'll be a killer:
Windows
Bad start, I meant:
Windoze is less good at stuff than what Linux^H^H^H^H^H L00nix is.
Can I have some karma now, please?
Ah, so that's where I've been going wrong. I should write use strict; at the top of my PHP programs. And foolishly it seems I've been running my PHP scripts through the Zend engine, whereas I should probably run them through the Perl interpreter.
Come on, if you're going to flame me, at least make sense. I replied to a post about PHP, gave some PHP code examples as to why PHP is bad, and you've come back with that Perl users' mainstay: use strict;
Did you even read my post before you wrote this?
Just to be picky, did your calculations take into account the fact that during the day X% of the road surface is covered by traffic?
Also, probably a bigger hassle is in transferring the current from the cells to where it is useful. The relatively low voltage output from the cells means that over a long cable much of the energy is lost - and I have no idea how much more efficiency is lost if every mile of cells has to go through a transformer to increase the voltage...