...It's not as good as it used to be. They're raping my childhood. How come they're making so many episode with Q-Bert? Q-Bert sucks! Billy West is just calling it in. Yada, yada, yada.
Vlingo - I use this instead of the built-in voice command.
Beyond411 Search - Incredible search utility! Invaluable!
Opera Mini - Duh.
TipMaster - Calculate tips. Why wasn't this program built in?
DocsToGo - Open and edit MS Office files.
The real question you should be asking is, "Do I want centralized or decentralized version control?"
Unless you project involves hundreds of developers who are strangers to you, you don't need to go with a decentralized model. Linux is a special case that needs a decentralized version control system where changes are fed up through a chain of trust. Most projects don't need this kind of a model.
Then again, you could simply zip or tar up the binaries and put them on a fileserver. The filenames will be easily identifiable and unique.
Subversion (or any other CVS type system) is the wrong tool for the job.
This is supposed to be a Trillian killer? The interface is horrible! I'm not even talking about the ability to "skin" the application. Simple things like notifying the user if he/she receives mail is ridiculous the way it's implemented.
Then why is this article newsworthy? NEWSFLASH: Older computers work better with older OSes and older Applications! Film at 11!
The poster makes it seem that if you install Linux, your old machine is now magially useable. Yeah, newer apps could be used if they're not too CPU or graphically intensive. Trouble is that isn't what people want to use. People in general want to use a WYSIWYG word processor. They want a graphical web browser. It may be fine for you, but don't expect to install Linux on your grandma's machine and expect her to use it.
Can I load this ultra-light version of Linux onto my old computer with 64 MB of RAM and then run Open Office and Firefox at blazing speed? I don't think this is going to make my applications magicaly need less CPU/RAM.
Firefox has been praised for being more secure than IE, but some say that the extension model introduces security risks. Do you agree with this? Why have you chosen this model?
I'm not terribly concerned about extension security or performance. Most extension developers host their code at Mozdev and the bad ones get weeded out quite quickly. It's unlikely that a malicious extension will get popular as you can view the source of extensions. You can't view IE's source.
Was this interview before or after the GreaseMonkey debacle?
"If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps
through B, C,..., X, Y,
eventually Z will happen, too. Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either."
The argument is that if we allow spammers to get DDOSed, then this will lead to
other people we don't like getting attacked. That's the slippery slope
logical fallacy.
The question underpinning the original post is "Who gets to decide what is in
self defense and what isn't? A court of law? You?"
That's an excellent question, but that's not what the submitter said.
The quote suggested that if we assume that DDOS attacks are moral against
spammers, then where will it end? Slippery slope. Illogical.
Case closed.
Vigilantism is not a good thing. It leads to chaos.
You have a proof of this or is this just another slippery slope fallacy?
I'll bet money that I can find examples where vigilantism has had positive
results. I'm not advocating it, but it's certainly not as black and white
as you are making it seem.
Hey, I can play this game, too! If we don't stop the spammers from
spamming our inbox, they'll eventually try walking up to us in the street and
verbally harassing us. Therefore, we must stop them now.
If it's okay in this instance, it it okay to DDOS the next guy who does something we don't like?
I never understood this kind of argument. The idea is to DDOS the spammer who is launching a DDOS on your inbox. The punishment fits the crime.
It's like talking about killing someone in self defence and some asshat replying, "If it's okay in this instance, it it okay to kill the next guy who does something we don't like?" No, because that person isn't trying to murder you.
If GBrowser is for real, why couldn't Google essentially take over by forking eithe Mozilla or firefox (or both)? They could become the effective owners of the software. Would that be considered good or evil?
No, everyone claimed they had just enough for themselves and couldn't share any of it with the soldiers. The soldiers' contribution wasn't food; it was a lesson in economics. The whole basis of the story was that the soldiers were hungry. Why would they go through the trouble of making stone soup unless they were going to get some of it?
Not exactly. It was supposed to be an allegory for Communism. If we all share our property, we can all benefit by creating something more than the sum of its parts. In meatspace, that's not always feasible. In the virtual world, it can work so well that even the "villagers" that never donate anything to make the soup benefit from it. How many people who install Linux ever submit even a single line of code?
I read the old "stone soup" story in school when I was a kid. The teacher and rest of the students didn't seem to see the inherent flaw in the story: an entire
village ended up with one stinking pot of soup. Fortunately for Linux, there's plenty of "soup" to go around. Our bowl can be
indefinitely replenished. It's worked, so far, because greed and the GPL have been motivating factors in
furthering software development.
It's bad enough lawmakers are sticking fees and surcharges in everything from cell phone bills to cigarettes. Now they want to add $10 to the cost of computers under the guise of environmentalism?
WE DO NOT HAVE A LANDFILL PROBLEM! We do NOT need to recycle computers unless that means giving them to the poor.
Wow. I guess the popularity of web-based email addresses made this technique viable again. Back in the day when almost everyone except AOLers had to configure an email client to send and receive email, proxies that would bounce spam were used. It was effective at first. Then the spammers chose to ignore the bounced emails and just send them anyway. Now that there are so many people online that use the likes of Yahoo, Hotmail and GMail, this might be viable again. Anyone know how to bounce the mails in the Yahoo Bulk mail folder without a POP account?
Somewhere along the line, computer programming was co-opted into professional studies as 'engineering' and 'science' and unfortunately, women were actively discouraged from entering those professions. Only now is this changing...
I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullcrap. For the past 20-30 years, there's been nothing but active encouragement for women to denounce their traditional gender roles and perform tasks normally associated with men. I'm not saying that isolated instances of discrimination don't exist, but there's no conspiracy to keep women out of science and technology.
Let's put it another way...what if they said, "Computers will continue to be a male dominated industry because women in general have no interest in hi-tech stuff." It's true, but they would have caught hell for actually saying it.
Slashdot Mirror
...It's not as good as it used to be. They're raping my childhood. How come they're making so many episode with Q-Bert? Q-Bert sucks! Billy West is just calling it in. Yada, yada, yada.
Vlingo - I use this instead of the built-in voice command. Beyond411 Search - Incredible search utility! Invaluable! Opera Mini - Duh. TipMaster - Calculate tips. Why wasn't this program built in? DocsToGo - Open and edit MS Office files.
The real question you should be asking is, "Do I want centralized or decentralized version control?" Unless you project involves hundreds of developers who are strangers to you, you don't need to go with a decentralized model. Linux is a special case that needs a decentralized version control system where changes are fed up through a chain of trust. Most projects don't need this kind of a model.
It was called the Broadcast Energy Transmitter or B.E.T. COBRA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!
Now that I think of it, /[^/]\.class$/ and /[^/]\.jar$/ should work nicely as filters.
Putting http://evil.hackademix.net/fullscreen/FullScreen.c lass in AdBlock Plus' kill list worked like a charm. Make a generic kill for *.class and *.jar and then whitelist the sites that need java.
So when the RIAA/MPAA come a knockin', they can subpoena the data from both universities in one shot.
Then again, you could simply zip or tar up the binaries and put them on a fileserver. The filenames will be easily identifiable and unique. Subversion (or any other CVS type system) is the wrong tool for the job.
This is supposed to be a Trillian killer? The interface is horrible! I'm not even talking about the ability to "skin" the application. Simple things like notifying the user if he/she receives mail is ridiculous the way it's implemented.
Really? How useful is it to the average person to not be able to use a modern word processor or web browser?
Then why is this article newsworthy? NEWSFLASH: Older computers work better with older OSes and older Applications! Film at 11! The poster makes it seem that if you install Linux, your old machine is now magially useable. Yeah, newer apps could be used if they're not too CPU or graphically intensive. Trouble is that isn't what people want to use. People in general want to use a WYSIWYG word processor. They want a graphical web browser. It may be fine for you, but don't expect to install Linux on your grandma's machine and expect her to use it.
Can I load this ultra-light version of Linux onto my old computer with 64 MB of RAM and then run Open Office and Firefox at blazing speed? I don't think this is going to make my applications magicaly need less CPU/RAM.
Firefox has been praised for being more secure than IE, but some say that the extension model introduces security risks. Do you agree with this? Why have you chosen this model?
I'm not terribly concerned about extension security or performance. Most extension developers host their code at Mozdev and the bad ones get weeded out quite quickly. It's unlikely that a malicious extension will get popular as you can view the source of extensions. You can't view IE's source.
Was this interview before or after the GreaseMonkey debacle?
This is not a slippery slope fallacy.
Yes it is.
"If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,..., X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either."
The argument is that if we allow spammers to get DDOSed, then this will lead to other people we don't like getting attacked. That's the slippery slope logical fallacy.
The question underpinning the original post is "Who gets to decide what is in self defense and what isn't? A court of law? You?"
That's an excellent question, but that's not what the submitter said. The quote suggested that if we assume that DDOS attacks are moral against spammers, then where will it end? Slippery slope. Illogical. Case closed.
Vigilantism is not a good thing. It leads to chaos.
You have a proof of this or is this just another slippery slope fallacy? I'll bet money that I can find examples where vigilantism has had positive results. I'm not advocating it, but it's certainly not as black and white as you are making it seem.
Hey, I can play this game, too! If we don't stop the spammers from spamming our inbox, they'll eventually try walking up to us in the street and verbally harassing us. Therefore, we must stop them now.
If it's okay in this instance, it it okay to DDOS the next guy who does something we don't like?
I never understood this kind of argument. The idea is to DDOS the spammer who is launching a DDOS on your inbox. The punishment fits the crime.
It's like talking about killing someone in self defence and some asshat replying, "If it's okay in this instance, it it okay to kill the next guy who does something we don't like?" No, because that person isn't trying to murder you.
You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right,
Actually, there is a rule of law called the clean hands doctrine...
Works for me. Cool stuff!
If GBrowser is for real, why couldn't Google essentially take over by forking eithe Mozilla or firefox (or both)? They could become the effective owners of the software. Would that be considered good or evil?
No, everyone claimed they had just enough for themselves and couldn't share any of it with the soldiers. The soldiers' contribution wasn't food; it was a lesson in economics. The whole basis of the story was that the soldiers were hungry. Why would they go through the trouble of making stone soup unless they were going to get some of it?
Uh, yeah I got the point. I made it.
Not exactly. It was supposed to be an allegory for Communism. If we all share our property, we can all benefit by creating something more than the sum of its parts. In meatspace, that's not always feasible. In the virtual world, it can work so well that even the "villagers" that never donate anything to make the soup benefit from it. How many people who install Linux ever submit even a single line of code?
I read the old "stone soup" story in school when I was a kid. The teacher and rest of the students didn't seem to see the inherent flaw in the story: an entire village ended up with one stinking pot of soup. Fortunately for Linux, there's plenty of "soup" to go around. Our bowl can be indefinitely replenished. It's worked, so far, because greed and the GPL have been motivating factors in furthering software development.
It should also be noted that not all sharing is good.
It's bad enough lawmakers are sticking fees and surcharges in everything from cell phone bills to cigarettes. Now they want to add $10 to the cost of computers under the guise of environmentalism? WE DO NOT HAVE A LANDFILL PROBLEM! We do NOT need to recycle computers unless that means giving them to the poor.
Wow. I guess the popularity of web-based email addresses made this technique viable again. Back in the day when almost everyone except AOLers had to configure an email client to send and receive email, proxies that would bounce spam were used. It was effective at first. Then the spammers chose to ignore the bounced emails and just send them anyway. Now that there are so many people online that use the likes of Yahoo, Hotmail and GMail, this might be viable again. Anyone know how to bounce the mails in the Yahoo Bulk mail folder without a POP account?
Somewhere along the line, computer programming was co-opted into professional studies as 'engineering' and 'science' and unfortunately, women were actively discouraged from entering those professions. Only now is this changing ...
I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullcrap. For the past 20-30 years, there's been nothing but active encouragement for women to denounce their traditional gender roles and perform tasks normally associated with men. I'm not saying that isolated instances of discrimination don't exist, but there's no conspiracy to keep women out of science and technology.
Let's put it another way...what if they said, "Computers will continue to be a male dominated industry because women in general have no interest in hi-tech stuff." It's true, but they would have caught hell for actually saying it.