Well, you gotta admit: If I'm going to be a masochist and use DOS, I might as well just go all the way and write all my code with copy con. For that matter, I might as well use edlin. (ahh, the fond memories of edlin)
It copies from the console (keyboard) into a file name. That's it. No editing (backspace works). To save the file you have to hit ctrl-z (the EOF control character).
First, how many of you can legally bring guns to school? Why would you be allowed to land a FIGHTER in the parking lot?
By that rationale, since that Volkswagon comercial shows the car doing all sorts of illegal maneuvers, you can't reasonably assume they're actually selling the car. Examples abound of real products being portrayed as doing unreasonable things.
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record. Pepsi realized they screwed up after about a week and changed the commercial. Sounds like even they knew they were in a grey area.
It seems like there are some people who haven't seen the commercial and don't know the circumstances, or are just plain confused.
The comercial aired. A week later, Pepsi realized they screwed up and pulled the comercial.
This guy had a tape of the commercial, talked with his lawyers, and found investors. His plan, ostensibly, was to book rides on the thing. The 700,000 wasn't to buy lots of cans of Pepsi, they actually sold points for 10 cents a piece.
IMHO, this guy is not stupid. Pepsi (before this guy had his 700,000 dollars) realized they'd fucked up and pulled the commercial.
Yes, the week after that commercial aired, Pepsi realized they screwed up. They pulled the commercial and changed it to something outragious like 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 points.
This goes right along with what I've thought for quite a while. And ties in nicely with the current problems with rabid Linux "advocates" (the first ones to jump ship, probably).
Anyway, as a self descibed OS junkie (I run Win 95, NT, BeOS, Linux, and NetBSD. Along with a partition for playing around) I figure I've got all my bases covered. Hell, I'll even be covered if Windows ever becomes hip!:)
now he is saying that a good parent would leave their kids at SouthPark. Just becuase "They could get it off of the Net anyway" does not make it a good thing to do.
BZZZTTT! Sorry, you're missing the point. I believe the problem that he (and I) have with this situation, is that the movie theaters wouldn't let the parent make a decision she felt was appropriate for her children. She would be allowed to drop them off at "The Little Mermaid", but because someone deemed the content of South Park inappropriate for anyone under a certain (arbatrary) age, her parental decision was subverted. The issue wasn't with children going to see a naughty movie without there parents permission. In this case, the parent was there, and the parent was second guessed by a corporate policy.
Excuse me Mr. Shuman, but not all of us can afford a nice new system everytime a new Intel product comes out. Many of us have to make due with what we have until we can afford a new system. Becasue of Micro$oft and a few others, the typical lifespan of a home computer is greatly reduced, thus in the Micro$oft world your system becomes obsolete quicker
I think his point is that you don't HAVE to use the latest versions of software. No one's forcing you to run Office 2000 on your 486!
Re:An Investor in the "Morality Industry" speaks o
on
South Park The Movie
·
· Score: 1
Two comments: "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there. That attitude is most decidedly not politically correct, especially in light of recent events. Anyway, on to my main point.
I have no problem with CAP rating movies. They can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't affect me. I do have a problem with statements like: "*South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell." I think that's rude and gratuitous(I also think the review as a whole was gratuitus, and I can almost guarantee that page would be blocked by filtering software) I also think that this group is way, way out of line from what can be considered reasonable. The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization. Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it. And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!
Okay, hopefully that clarifies my point...On to the next one. Don't worry, this one's a little shorter. I don't expect you'll ever see the movie (and don't think you should if you will be offended by it) but let me assure you, it IS a sharp, political film, with wonderful satire. I would say it's in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". (Where swift proposes helping the poor Irish out by slaughtering and eating their children.) (If you want to read it, go here) Shocking? Yes. Especially for the time (1729) But, that's the point. Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language. They have real and important messages in South Park.
I'm going to stop now (self imposed limits, don't you know), but I hope you can see my point of view and respect it.
I dug up this review from the Childhood Action Project (A Christian group devoted to saving the children.) Needless to say, this review is almost as funny as the movie itself was.
Here's a choice quote from the review: "WARNING! This analysis is blunt. *South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell."
This isn't directed at Linux advocates or anyone else in particular. If this letter is for you, well, you know who you are.
They are everywhere, IIRC, Douglas Adams (a Mac advocate) once referred to some of his Mac-loving kin as "blithering zealots". Perfect. That is exactly the description of many Linux/MS/Mac/BeOS/OS/2 etc. ad nauseum "advocates". The funny thing is...most of the "blithering zealots" don't have a clue.
"Blah, blah, blah...use FooOS," they say.
"Why?" BarOS user says.
"Because anyone who doesn't use FooOS is lame," blithering zealot intellegently replies.
I've been around, in communication with other savvy, bleeding edge computer users, for quite a while now. It's always the same. There seems to be this "blithering zealot" gene. Without exception, there is always someone who will find something (anything!) and cling to it religiously without anything intellegent to back it up.
For those who fit the above description, this message is for you.
Stop it. If you find yourself:
1. NEVER installing a different OS because, "FooOS is better". 2. Flaming anyone who likes another OS better. 3. Flaming anyone. 4. Bashing MS (or any other software company) in response to an article about Linux....
You may have a problem. Step back and think, because you are just like the people you say you hate. "MS lemmings" is a rich term I've heard a lot. Well, ask yourself this: If FooOS started to suck...for whatever reason, are you past the point where you can objectively say, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should start to look for something new." ? Or, better yet, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should work to fix it."
There is a pattern that I've noticed, and it involves most (almost all) zealots going down with their chosen sinking ship, just like they say their "opponents" are.
Wow...this turned from what I originally intended (an honest to god open letter) to more of a rant. I appologize for that. But IMHO, what I said needed to be said, so I'll leave it at that.
I appologize for the spelling errors that are probably scattered about in this.
This is useful for small screens. The Windows taskbar can quickly fill a lot of space on a small screen. Basically, this solves that problem because the icons go away, either outside of your screenspace or in the "black hole". You can find them again by quickly expanding or shrinking until the icons you want come back into view. It is a tad confusing right now, but it's a good beginning for solving a tough problem, IMHO.
I just have a comment on one point in Brin's article. He wonders why Yoda would train Luke when he said Anakin was too old. I initially thought the same thing, but then an explaination occurred to me. In TPM, the Jedi are an established order. There is no hint that they will be all but wiped out. So there is really no compelling reason for training Anakin. When Yoda agrees to train Luke, the Jedi were all but wiped out. Luke is the last (well, second to the last anyway) hope against the Emipire.
Looking at the paper, this looks like the start of a good idea. In it's current form, it seems a tad confusing, but I think there are some definate possibilities here. I envision something like a "snap" feature on this, where you can instantly restore positions instead of manually expanding them back. Or even better, swappable event horizons, like switching between desktops...cool.
Re:Life is a Parody Old Boy...Come to the Parody
on
The Onion on Robots
·
· Score: 1
I would say that the fact that a kernel of truth lies in the parody isn't ironic at all. After all, that's what parodies and satire are all about, IMHO.
Anyhow, to be extremely nitpicky (sorry) I'd have to say that this is article would more acurately be called satire than parody (as are most Onion articles). On the other hand, maybe you could call satire a specific form of parody. Oh well.
The creators of the Onion are brilliant in their ability to create that "haha, only serious" brand of humor. Many of their articles are even painful to laugh at because their message rings so true (a good example would be the one a few weeks ago, "Neighbors Confront Alcoholic Child-Abuser About His Lawn").
The Onion is definately the ultimate in "nerd" humor, because it's always so damn intellegent.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you want ^Z.
Generic Man,
Everyones favorite DOS support technician
Well, you gotta admit: If I'm going to be a masochist and use DOS, I might as well just go all the way and write all my code with copy con. For that matter, I might as well use edlin. (ahh, the fond memories of edlin)
the full command would be "copy con filename"
It copies from the console (keyboard) into a file name. That's it. No editing (backspace works). To save the file you have to hit ctrl-z (the EOF control character).
First, how many of you can legally bring guns to school? Why would you be allowed to land a FIGHTER in the parking lot?
By that rationale, since that Volkswagon comercial shows the car doing all sorts of illegal maneuvers, you can't reasonably assume they're actually selling the car. Examples abound of real products being portrayed as doing unreasonable things.
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record. Pepsi realized they screwed up after about a week and changed the commercial. Sounds like even they knew they were in a grey area.
It seems like there are some people who haven't seen the commercial and don't know the circumstances, or are just plain confused.
The comercial aired. A week later, Pepsi realized they screwed up and pulled the comercial.
This guy had a tape of the commercial, talked with his lawyers, and found investors. His plan, ostensibly, was to book rides on the thing. The 700,000 wasn't to buy lots of cans of Pepsi, they actually sold points for 10 cents a piece.
IMHO, this guy is not stupid. Pepsi (before this guy had his 700,000 dollars) realized they'd fucked up and pulled the commercial.
I'm willing to bet that episode was inspired by this. IIRC the time frame is about right.
Yes, the week after that commercial aired, Pepsi realized they screwed up. They pulled the commercial and changed it to something outragious like 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 points.
I was really rooting for that guy. stupid judge.
That would be kind of like trying to write serious code with copy con.
:)
And what, exactly, is wrong with that?
This goes right along with what I've thought for quite a while. And ties in nicely with the current problems with rabid Linux "advocates" (the first ones to jump ship, probably).
:)
Anyway, as a self descibed OS junkie (I run Win 95, NT, BeOS, Linux, and NetBSD. Along with a partition for playing around) I figure I've got all my bases covered. Hell, I'll even be covered if Windows ever becomes hip!
now he is saying that a good parent would leave their kids at SouthPark. Just becuase "They could get it off of the Net anyway" does not make it a good thing to do.
BZZZTTT! Sorry, you're missing the point. I believe the problem that he (and I) have with this situation, is that the movie theaters wouldn't let the parent make a decision she felt was appropriate for her children. She would be allowed to drop them off at "The Little Mermaid", but because someone deemed the content of South Park inappropriate for anyone under a certain (arbatrary) age, her parental decision was subverted. The issue wasn't with children going to see a naughty movie without there parents permission. In this case, the parent was there, and the parent was second guessed by a corporate policy.
Thanks...I think that's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
Excuse me Mr. Shuman, but not all of us can afford a nice new system everytime a new Intel product comes out. Many of us have to make due with what we have until we can afford a new system. Becasue of Micro$oft and a few others, the typical lifespan of a home computer is greatly reduced, thus in the Micro$oft world your system becomes obsolete quicker
I think his point is that you don't HAVE to use the latest versions of software. No one's forcing you to run Office 2000 on your 486!
Two comments: "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there. That attitude is most decidedly not politically correct, especially in light of recent events. Anyway, on to my main point.
I have no problem with CAP rating movies. They can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't affect me. I do have a problem with statements like: "*South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell." I think that's rude and gratuitous(I also think the review as a whole was gratuitus, and I can almost guarantee that page would be blocked by filtering software) I also think that this group is way, way out of line from what can be considered reasonable. The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization. Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it. And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!
Okay, hopefully that clarifies my point...On to the next one. Don't worry, this one's a little shorter. I don't expect you'll ever see the movie (and don't think you should if you will be offended by it) but let me assure you, it IS a sharp, political film, with wonderful satire. I would say it's in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". (Where swift proposes helping the poor Irish out by slaughtering and eating their children.) (If you want to read it, go here) Shocking? Yes. Especially for the time (1729) But, that's the point. Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language. They have real and important messages in South Park.
I'm going to stop now (self imposed limits, don't you know), but I hope you can see my point of view and respect it.
Thanks
Casey
I dug up this review from the Childhood Action Project (A Christian group devoted to saving the children.) Needless to say, this review is almost as funny as the movie itself was.
Here's a choice quote from the review: "WARNING! This analysis is blunt. *South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell."
C'mon people...this isn't right.
This isn't directed at Linux advocates or anyone else in particular. If this letter is for you, well, you know who you are.
They are everywhere, IIRC, Douglas Adams (a Mac advocate) once referred to some of his Mac-loving kin as "blithering zealots". Perfect. That is exactly the description of many Linux/MS/Mac/BeOS/OS/2 etc. ad nauseum "advocates". The funny thing is...most of the "blithering zealots" don't have a clue.
"Blah, blah, blah...use FooOS," they say.
"Why?" BarOS user says.
"Because anyone who doesn't use FooOS is lame," blithering zealot intellegently replies.
I've been around, in communication with other savvy, bleeding edge computer users, for quite a while now. It's always the same. There seems to be this "blithering zealot" gene. Without exception, there is always someone who will find something (anything!) and cling to it religiously without anything intellegent to back it up.
For those who fit the above description, this message is for you.
Stop it. If you find yourself:
1. NEVER installing a different OS because, "FooOS is better".
2. Flaming anyone who likes another OS better.
3. Flaming anyone.
4. Bashing MS (or any other software company) in response to an article about Linux....
You may have a problem. Step back and think, because you are just like the people you say you hate. "MS lemmings" is a rich term I've heard a lot. Well, ask yourself this: If FooOS started to suck...for whatever reason, are you past the point where you can objectively say, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should start to look for something new." ?
Or, better yet, "Wow...FooOS has started to suck. Maybe I should work to fix it."
There is a pattern that I've noticed, and it involves most (almost all) zealots going down with their chosen sinking ship, just like they say their "opponents" are.
Wow...this turned from what I originally intended (an honest to god open letter) to more of a rant. I appologize for that. But IMHO, what I said needed to be said, so I'll leave it at that.
I appologize for the spelling errors that are probably scattered about in this.
Casey
This is useful for small screens. The Windows taskbar can quickly fill a lot of space on a small screen. Basically, this solves that problem because the icons go away, either outside of your screenspace or in the "black hole". You can find them again by quickly expanding or shrinking until the icons you want come back into view. It is a tad confusing right now, but it's a good beginning for solving a tough problem, IMHO.
I just have a comment on one point in Brin's article. He wonders why Yoda would train Luke when he said Anakin was too old. I initially thought the same thing, but then an explaination occurred to me. In TPM, the Jedi are an established order. There is no hint that they will be all but wiped out. So there is really no compelling reason for training Anakin. When Yoda agrees to train Luke, the Jedi were all but wiped out. Luke is the last (well, second to the last anyway) hope against the Emipire.
Looking at the paper, this looks like the start of a good idea. In it's current form, it seems a tad confusing, but I think there are some definate possibilities here. I envision something like a "snap" feature on this, where you can instantly restore positions instead of manually expanding them back. Or even better, swappable event horizons, like switching between desktops...cool.
What's to disagree with? It's satire!
Casey
I would say that the fact that a kernel of truth lies in the parody isn't ironic at all. After all, that's what parodies and satire are all about, IMHO.
Anyhow, to be extremely nitpicky (sorry) I'd have to say that this is article would more acurately be called satire than parody (as are most Onion articles). On the other hand, maybe you could call satire a specific form of parody. Oh well.
The creators of the Onion are brilliant in their ability to create that "haha, only serious" brand of humor. Many of their articles are even painful to laugh at because their message rings so true (a good example would be the one a few weeks ago, "Neighbors Confront Alcoholic Child-Abuser About His Lawn").
The Onion is definately the ultimate in "nerd" humor, because it's always so damn intellegent.
Generic Man