It's guaranteed to work better than the Californian experiment. The flakes cannot make things worse because they don't reproduce!
The Gypsy Moth pheremone is an attractant, not a stimulant, so another bad scenario - the male moths find the female and are extra randy - cannot happen either.
However, one should not underestimate nature. There could be unforeseen side-effects.
a) The HHGTTG is fiction b) Just because something is a [fictional] supercomputer does not preclude the existance of another, superer computer simulating it.
Not trivial no, but lots of people have solved the problem before without advanced electronics. They aren't going into space on first principles; I'm sure they've been to the library and read a book or two
Introduction Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.
The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".
Slashcode's HTML Output
Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator [w3.org] to test this claim. The results were shocking.
Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..
So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge. [w3.org]
Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.
Microsoft's HTML Output
Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.
Conclusion
1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.
2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or.NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or.NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.
Introduction Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.
The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".
Slashcode's HTML Output
Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator [w3.org] to test this claim. The results were shocking.
Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..
So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge. [w3.org]
Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.
Microsoft's HTML Output
Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.
Conclusion
1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.
2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or.NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or.NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.
When searching through song files we noticed no discernible lag that might be caused by the slower RPMs of the 1GB Microdrive that runs at 3600 RPM, down from the 4500 RPM of the original 340MB drive.
It looks like they might be trying to optimise these fpecifically for MP3 players.
A small cache for the directory so browsing is quick but a low transfer rate for data because playing an MP3 doesn't need fast speeds but does need long battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
It's guaranteed to work better than the Californian experiment. The flakes cannot make things worse because they don't reproduce!
The Gypsy Moth pheremone is an attractant, not a stimulant, so another bad scenario - the male moths find the female and are extra randy - cannot happen either.
However, one should not underestimate nature. There could be unforeseen side-effects.
But you don't need much improvement before it becomes really useful.
At 50ft or so you've got your house covered.
I know the cheat codes!
Hmmm blonde or redhead first?
a) The HHGTTG is fiction
b) Just because something is a [fictional] supercomputer does not preclude the existance of another, superer computer simulating it.
simulating something as small as cigarette smoke
.... but they're simulating big things. Big things are easier to simulate than little things, not harder.
Ah
Not trivial no, but lots of people have solved the problem before without advanced electronics. They aren't going into space on first principles; I'm sure they've been to the library and read a book or two
They're going to beat the Oregon Rocketguy. That's sad.
Google cache to avoid registration
Bad Slash: SlashCode cutters don't know HTML?
.NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.
Introduction
Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.
The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".
Slashcode's HTML Output
Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator [w3.org] to test this claim. The results were shocking.
Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..
So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge. [w3.org]
Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.
Microsoft's HTML Output
Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.
Conclusion
1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.
2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or
These are just suggestions. I am here to help.
Introduction
.NET server and rewriting their code using a stable, reliable platform like Visual C++ or .NET. Perhaps only then will the browser compatbility issues will be resolved.
Recently there has been some controversy over Slashdot's apparent disregard for browsers other than Konqueror or Netscape (*cough* IE *cough) ability to render the page, and some unfortunate crapfloods which would appear differently in different browsers.
The "editors" (I use the term loosely) of Slashdot appear to believe that Slashcode generates perfect HTML which any browser should render correctly, else the browser must be "buggy".
Slashcode's HTML Output
Just curious, I tried running the front page of Slashdot through the W3 validator [w3.org] to test this claim. The results were shocking.
Lets stick to the facts and drill down into the numbers. The W3 validator found HUNDREDS of errors on the very first page of Slashdot that you view every day. It terminated with the simple line Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 3.2..
So, what is broken? Is it IE? Or is it the amateur garage-style open source code which is at fault? You be the judge. [w3.org]
Apparently, Slashcode follows the open source coding and testing ethic of "it worked for me". It's just too much to ask them to try to test their code for conformance and compliance, or even just try it on a variety of platforms.
Microsoft's HTML Output
Still curious, I tried running msn.com and microsoft.com through the validator. I was totally taken aback when the validator reported ZERO ERRORS in *either* of these pages.
Conclusion
1. It may benefit the coders to attempt to adapt to some kind of acceptable process for designing, writing, and testing their own code. Perhaps some professional experience would be beneficial here. Certainly an accountability for certain quality standards must be implemented.
2. Perhaps Slashdot should consider switching to IIS 5.0 or
These are just suggestions. I am here to help.
There is a secret message hidden in Rho's journal
Rho
user and/or IP got banned with the corrupted UUEncoded post.
New password is bollocks
They're probably not affected by states opposing the dismissal of the MSFFT case.
For example
.Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you
Jamie
total of 5+ days without access
What a whiner! Wait until the appropriate person is well again and stop moaning. Internet access isn't a right.
If you need it for your studies borrow your friends' (if you have any) or go to the library.
Why won't Slashdot fix the PAGE WIDENING BUG???
.Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you .Jamie .Mccarthy .hates .you
More information on why Jamie Mccarthy hates you
Signs that are too wide for example.
Why won't Slashdot fix the PAGE WIDENING BUG???
More information on why Jamie Mccarthy hates you
Why WONT Slashdot fix the PAGE WIDENING BUG???
More discussion on why Jamie Mccarthy hates you
When searching through song files we noticed no discernible lag that might be caused by the slower RPMs of the 1GB Microdrive that runs at 3600 RPM, down from the 4500 RPM of the original 340MB drive.
It looks like they might be trying to optimise these fpecifically for MP3 players.
A small cache for the directory so browsing is quick but a low transfer rate for data because playing an MP3 doesn't need fast speeds but does need long battery life.
2001's predictions
he might be 70% right on the obvious stuff, but his stock predictions are 0% right, so I won't take any notice of the new ones
Yes, the old logo is here
You can disable UP&P and SSDP before connecting. Instructions for doing this can be found by non-internet means.
net stop ssdpsrv
net stop upnphost
To be fair, if you drop the warning level back down to 3 (the VC default) you get
... I think this is crap, it makes warning level 4 useless. MS - fix your SDK!)
quake2.exe - 0 error(s), 8 warning(s)
lots of level 4 warnings occur in Microsoft's own headers (yes
Someone needs a copy of Lint
gamex86.dll - 0 error(s), 332 warning(s)
Flamebait maybe - but if a build of my project generated 332 warnings I'd be fired.