My brother and I still say that to each other 10 years after playing Return to Zork. He said some other things that we would repeat, but we've forgotten. However, that line will be stuck in my brain forever.
While I agree that looking at a little screen can cause eye strain, reading an actual physical book can cause eye strain too.
With enough light, and proper eyewear if necessary, I don't think most books cause eye strain, unless you are reading for a huge amount of time. I can read a book for hours before I start to feel the effects while looking at a decent computer monitor or even a PDA can cause strain after not too long. Maybe it is just me.
I think this is defniately the holdup for eBooks. Without a portable device, you are tied to a computer to read them, and even with them you are tied to battery life plus the possible eye strain associated with looking at a little screen to read.
I know some people that talk about the allure of paper, and the sentimentality they have for holding a book with paper, but personally if I could buy eBooks and download them into a nice sized reader that had acceptable battery life and a nice, easy to read screen, I'd prefer that. I'm guessing the device exists out there, I'm just not willing to pay a few hundred bucks for it yet.
That's what Microsoft says, but any musician will tell you that a sharp sign has upright verticals and slanted horizontals - a pound sign has slanted verticals and level horizontals. There's a separate unicode and HTML character for sharp, but Microsoft uses pound.
I have to tell you, you sounded mostly intelligent in your first post, and now you just sound like a zealous loser. Please, drop the stupid pound vs. sharp vs. eucothorpe or whatever the hell people call it. The language is pronounced "C Sharp". Get over it.
In any event, this is not a criminal case but a civil one. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine, instead a "guilty with preponderance evidence".
Right, and you will notice in my original posting I said they will have the same rights afforded anyone else in this kind of case.
the EFF needs you donations more then ever. Remember, you don't have to do anything wrong to find yourselves in a position to prove your inocense. Yes, under these circumstances, you have to prove your inocense, simple disgusting.
Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.
There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?
Thank you for that clarification. I stupidly assumed that.NET was simply one more layer around the old COM code, thus actually adding more to the problem than it took away. Silly, silly me!
I'm going to guess you were being sarcastic. For your information,.NET is not "simply one more layer" around the old COM code. It is internally, completely and totally different and unrelated to COM. It is a complete departure from it. Period. If you don't understand that, you don't know enough about COM or.NET to be speaking on the subject.
We don't need to sound like corporate marketing weenies.
There is a huge difference in just being professional and sounding like a "marketing weenie". And if you are telling me that the Open Source movement only wants to be left alone and isn't interested in getting businesses and individuals to use open source, I'll tell you that you are full of it.:-)
This kind of ranting and raving is typical of the open source community. It is one of the reasons looks at open source with such a dubious eye. Most open source web sites you can point them to contain all sorts of unprofessional writing that makes them out to look like amateurs.
This is honestly not meant to be flamebait. I am in no way against open source. I just dislike the image the movement has because of people like ESR.
The question asked "Is Linux as secure as We'd Like to Think?" (emphasis mine) reveals a lot about the mentality of Slashdot. Not all of us are zealots who ignore the shortcomings of Linux while blasting away at any slightest problem with Windows. Some of us realize that there are insecurities in all pieces of software and that proper administration of our systems is required for security, not just a simple choice between OS's or web servers.
Please stop acting like everyone here is part of the Slashdot groupthink.
I bet it's the same for every profession. I'm sure real firefighters look at firefighting scenes in movies and find a hundred little inaccuracies or unrealistic stretches. Lawyers must have retched at "Legally Blonde". Hell, I've been on a witness stand and your average real-life court case is about as exciting as boiling pasta, and lawyers don't holler "I object" every two minutes.
+5 bingo. See, nerds get all hot and bothered when some law of physics is broken, or some "hacker" is using a 3D interface to their OS, but probably miss all the other inaccuracies of life in movies. I mean, do you ever hear of nerds complaining about the fact that women's breasts are rarely larger than their head when discussing their favorite animated films? I don't think so.
But it is that propietary code Microsoft writes and hides and does not publish full specifications for that is making their OS vulnerable to worms. It is their defect, they should own up to responsibilty for it.
And yes, if they did publish full specs for their system calls and interfaces, or God forbid, released their code for all to review, I would cut them more slack.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This has absolutely nothing to do with specification of a protocol. First of all, the DCOM protocol is published, it your point would be moot on that alone. Second, this issue had nothing to do with a failure in the specification, but in the implementation. A buffer overflow has nothing to do with a protocol specification.
The very fact that you are getting all religious over "properietary" vs. "open" with this issue shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Question: How many of you figured out, on your own, the shortcut on the stadium level in MK64? I can't remember of the specific level, but with the correct timing of a jump using the speed bump, you could get yourself over the wall on the long strip at the beginning of the course.
I used to piss people off to know end that I could usually do it on the first or second try. There was no point racing me on the track unless you could do it.:-)
I remember reading about these restrictions back when they were first imposed and thought to myself, "AOL will continue to lose market share and will eventually convince the FCC to lift the ban."
It sounds like a valid reason to me. As usual, most monopolies, especially in technology, get broken down by the market sooner (Word Perfect) or later (MS?).
Expect texting to be banned by the MPAA in the near future.
I sure hope you were joking because if you weren't you are an absolute fool, and so is anyone who thinks this might happen. This is obviously free speech and will be protected as such as long as the First Amendment is around. And to preempt the 43 l33t posts shouting "BUT THE DMCA", be aware that the judge in the case ruled that code has a functioning capability that makes it different from normal speech and so it won't always be protected. Obviously this is nothing like that, so you don't have to worry.
Of course, this will do nothing to prevent the onslaught of uninformed Slashdotters thinking that free speech "is a thing of the past" by coming up with all sorts of idiotic examples.
To offset these costs, it seems like advertising is the only way to go. Now I can see that some search engines handle this in a more "slimey" way than others (I am happy with Google) but this project seems to want to avoid advertising at all costs. Where does the money come from then?
You speak blasphemy! How dare you speak of such practical issues as money when talking about free software!
Let me say first that I'm a total Nintendo Fanboy(tm). I've seriously been considering getting an XBox since XBox Live has been released. I know most people think it isn't a huge selling point, but to me it is one of the coolest things to happen so far to console gaming. Now if I could only find a few hundred dollars in disposable income....;-)
Slashdot Mirror
MSG'ED!
My brother and I still say that to each other 10 years after playing Return to Zork. He said some other things that we would repeat, but we've forgotten. However, that line will be stuck in my brain forever.
I thought we were the only ones that heard "choppin' brocolli!" :-)
With enough light, and proper eyewear if necessary, I don't think most books cause eye strain, unless you are reading for a huge amount of time. I can read a book for hours before I start to feel the effects while looking at a decent computer monitor or even a PDA can cause strain after not too long. Maybe it is just me.
How much are we talking? I was hoping I could find a dedicated eBook reader, not a general purpose PDA. I already have a Blackberry for that.
I think this is defniately the holdup for eBooks. Without a portable device, you are tied to a computer to read them, and even with them you are tied to battery life plus the possible eye strain associated with looking at a little screen to read.
I know some people that talk about the allure of paper, and the sentimentality they have for holding a book with paper, but personally if I could buy eBooks and download them into a nice sized reader that had acceptable battery life and a nice, easy to read screen, I'd prefer that. I'm guessing the device exists out there, I'm just not willing to pay a few hundred bucks for it yet.
I have to tell you, you sounded mostly intelligent in your first post, and now you just sound like a zealous loser. Please, drop the stupid pound vs. sharp vs. eucothorpe or whatever the hell people call it. The language is pronounced "C Sharp". Get over it.
Right, and you will notice in my original posting I said they will have the same rights afforded anyone else in this kind of case.
Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.
There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?
I'm going to guess you were being sarcastic. For your information, .NET is not "simply one more layer" around the old COM code. It is internally, completely and totally different and unrelated to COM. It is a complete departure from it. Period. If you don't understand that, you don't know enough about COM or .NET to be speaking on the subject.
Um, what?
I made a joke about the lack of games on the Mac. I was modded down. I didn't say they were more expensive. So why accuse me of that?
What is your problem?
I see the Apple zealots have mod points today. :-)
Yeah, go ahead, mod this one down too.
... that this just screams "horror flick"?
Yeah, like Breakout, Super Breakout....
...
... photoshop..
There is a huge difference in just being professional and sounding like a "marketing weenie". And if you are telling me that the Open Source movement only wants to be left alone and isn't interested in getting businesses and individuals to use open source, I'll tell you that you are full of it. :-)
This kind of ranting and raving is typical of the open source community. It is one of the reasons looks at open source with such a dubious eye. Most open source web sites you can point them to contain all sorts of unprofessional writing that makes them out to look like amateurs.
This is honestly not meant to be flamebait. I am in no way against open source. I just dislike the image the movement has because of people like ESR.
The question asked "Is Linux as secure as We'd Like to Think?" (emphasis mine) reveals a lot about the mentality of Slashdot. Not all of us are zealots who ignore the shortcomings of Linux while blasting away at any slightest problem with Windows. Some of us realize that there are insecurities in all pieces of software and that proper administration of our systems is required for security, not just a simple choice between OS's or web servers.
Please stop acting like everyone here is part of the Slashdot groupthink.
+5 bingo. See, nerds get all hot and bothered when some law of physics is broken, or some "hacker" is using a 3D interface to their OS, but probably miss all the other inaccuracies of life in movies. I mean, do you ever hear of nerds complaining about the fact that women's breasts are rarely larger than their head when discussing their favorite animated films? I don't think so.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This has absolutely nothing to do with specification of a protocol. First of all, the DCOM protocol is published, it your point would be moot on that alone. Second, this issue had nothing to do with a failure in the specification, but in the implementation. A buffer overflow has nothing to do with a protocol specification.
The very fact that you are getting all religious over "properietary" vs. "open" with this issue shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Question: How many of you figured out, on your own, the shortcut on the stadium level in MK64? I can't remember of the specific level, but with the correct timing of a jump using the speed bump, you could get yourself over the wall on the long strip at the beginning of the course.
I used to piss people off to know end that I could usually do it on the first or second try. There was no point racing me on the track unless you could do it. :-)
I remember reading about these restrictions back when they were first imposed and thought to myself, "AOL will continue to lose market share and will eventually convince the FCC to lift the ban."
It sounds like a valid reason to me. As usual, most monopolies, especially in technology, get broken down by the market sooner (Word Perfect) or later (MS?).
I sure hope you were joking because if you weren't you are an absolute fool, and so is anyone who thinks this might happen. This is obviously free speech and will be protected as such as long as the First Amendment is around. And to preempt the 43 l33t posts shouting "BUT THE DMCA", be aware that the judge in the case ruled that code has a functioning capability that makes it different from normal speech and so it won't always be protected. Obviously this is nothing like that, so you don't have to worry.
Of course, this will do nothing to prevent the onslaught of uninformed Slashdotters thinking that free speech "is a thing of the past" by coming up with all sorts of idiotic examples.
Yeah, go ahead and mod me down.
You speak blasphemy! How dare you speak of such practical issues as money when talking about free software!
Let me say first that I'm a total Nintendo Fanboy(tm). I've seriously been considering getting an XBox since XBox Live has been released. I know most people think it isn't a huge selling point, but to me it is one of the coolest things to happen so far to console gaming. Now if I could only find a few hundred dollars in disposable income.... ;-)
God forbid that a teacher has this information handy. Big Brother and all.
Just another example of the YRO section of this site becoming more and more irrelevent.