I used to draw a big Snidely Whiplash moustache on Peter's smirking face whenever I was within arm's reach of it (like on the cover of the Norton products documentation).
Sadly, I don't have a lot of copies of Darl's photo in the SL Weekly sitting around, here in the Pacific Northwest.
Maybe times have changed, but when I started my career as a _maintenance_ coder, there were two ways to do it:
1) The usual way: fix small sections of code in the same style and technique that it was originally written,
2) rewrite large sections of code that were _truly_ hard to maintain, taking great care to leave something much more maintainable behind. This route requires much more thorough testing than (1).
I remember another of us "programmers" who said he didn't do maintenance, he was a "development animal." Wrote abysmal code. When he rewrote a major module of our system he tried to make FORTRAN look like ALGOL, using GOTO statements in the righthand margin of the code.
I bet that module got a rewrite not long after that. Something that was maintainable and written for the language that was being compiled, not the language that didn't even exist on our system.
People expect that earthquake prediction would be accurate to within a few hours, so that evacuations can be accomplished, while avoiding unneccessary evacuations. The trouble is, evacuations are expensive, have their own hazards, and it's going to be incredibly hard to choose the lesser evil of bad evacuation timing, versus the present practice of not evacuating and being unprepared for the quake.
What would really help is a preparation protocol that can be syncronized more accurately with risk. If an earthquake could be predicted with a graduated probability, then gradually more disruptive preparation steps could be taken as the risk rises.
> but a lot of people thought Einstein and Newton were crazy too
This is the fallacy of "since something that is now known as true was considered crazy, something that is now considered crazy might be true."
I don't know, off the cuff, about Newton's published record, but Einstein did subject his work to peer review. His Nobel prize was awarded on a published paper, and that work preceeded his relativity theory.
If some "licensee" really feels that they ought to respond to the letter, but doesn't want to do a cpu-by-cpu certification, there are standard stalling tactics that they can use to keep SCO from calling them non-compliant until IBM kills SCO.
For example, the day before the deadline, send a letter explaining there are exigent circumstances, and asking for a 90-day extension of the deadline.
Repeat until SCO says no, then send a "please accept under separate cover" letter, referring to a document that seems to have gotten lost in the mail. Buy more time by "searcing" for the lost document.
When SCO demands a new copy of the document be prepared and sent, send an open envelope, and marvel at the bad luck that the contents of the envelope have been lost.
So on and so forth.
All you have to do is stall until SCO is killed by the big guys.
Slashdot Mirror
Y'all are assuming that the inquirer is female and the boyfriend is straight. Neither of those are implied in the question.
Just thought I'd bring that up when you brought up "girl on girl action."
...where some e-commerce developers are huddled around a monitor and they start the website.
They immediately get about 27 hits, and they cheer. Then they get a few hundred hits, and they cheer louder.
Then they get about 50 thousand hits, and they get the "Oh, Shit" look on their faces.
Just goes to show: careful what you wish for.
If you put internet into sewage, you get sewage.
If you put sewage into the internet, you get sewage.
> official resolution of all desktops to 640x480, 256 colors
Sixteen colors should be enough for anybody.
This just points out the fundamental flaw of Windows Update: a smart hacker would attack the update process that's used to harden the system.
Just wait.
Well, there must be some Linux code in it. I can't say what code, but my engineers are doing a source scan right now.
Since there is Linux code in the virus, even a small amount of Linux code, then the virus must belong to SCO, because SCO owns Linux.
Since SCO owns the virus, they're guilty, and they owe a lot of people a whole lot of money.
Tuesday's comment about Girl Scout Cookies:
"Are they made from real Girl Scouts?"
It's the alpha release of the Monty Python "And Now For Something Completely Different" Secret Weapon!
.mike
Once it's perfected, we'll inflict it on our enemies, and they'll die laughing!
Now, how do you stop Darl from smelling?
I used to draw a big Snidely Whiplash moustache on Peter's smirking face whenever I was within arm's reach of it (like on the cover of the Norton products documentation).
Sadly, I don't have a lot of copies of Darl's photo in the SL Weekly sitting around, here in the Pacific Northwest.
Proxy, anyone?
> I can't imagine that little bit of lost heat was the difference between life and death for anyone.
Well, if your fingers are too cold to light a match (which can happen)...
> Bye bye Doubleclick ads...
Hello RBL!
> If I opt to be put on the do-not-call list, ... the companies are not losing any of my business ... If anything, they're saving money
>
>
At least they have cost as an incentive not to call you. That's not the case with popups or spam.
Maybe times have changed, but when I started my career as a _maintenance_ coder, there were two ways to do it:
1) The usual way: fix small sections of code in the same style and technique that it was originally written,
2) rewrite large sections of code that were _truly_ hard to maintain, taking great care to leave something much more maintainable behind. This route requires much more thorough testing than (1).
I remember another of us "programmers" who said he didn't do maintenance, he was a "development animal." Wrote abysmal code. When he rewrote a major module of our system he tried to make FORTRAN look like ALGOL, using GOTO statements in the righthand margin of the code.
I bet that module got a rewrite not long after that. Something that was maintainable and written for the language that was being compiled, not the language that didn't even exist on our system.
Just who do you think gave the world the USA?
> Heaven forbid that NASA names the rovers after the things that make America great.
Like "Shock" and "Awe?"
(Things that make America "Great" as in "the Great Tzar of Russia" or "the Great San Francisco Earthquake.")
"We specialize in ink for Brother printers."
Okay, now use numerical control devices to make cheese sculptures of the Simpsons.
People expect that earthquake prediction would be accurate to within a few hours, so that evacuations can be accomplished, while avoiding unneccessary evacuations. The trouble is, evacuations are expensive, have their own hazards, and it's going to be incredibly hard to choose the lesser evil of bad evacuation timing, versus the present practice of not evacuating and being unprepared for the quake.
What would really help is a preparation protocol that can be syncronized more accurately with risk. If an earthquake could be predicted with a graduated probability, then gradually more disruptive preparation steps could be taken as the risk rises.
Picture this: steganographic propaganda aimed at government spooks.
Picture Montgomery Scott from the starship Enterprise speaking into the mouse.
> Florida is not allowed to vote in the next federal election.
Well, it's not beyond imagination that they wouldn't be allowed to vote in the next _presidential_ election.
A state has to meet minimum voting standards for their electoral votes to count.
If I don't want any of the candidates, I still cast a ballot. I just don't vote for any of them.
I'm surprised that the elections officials are surprised at this.
Not that I like their idea of how to count the votes. It's just that they don't seem to understand how voters make the choices they make.
> but a lot of people thought Einstein and Newton were crazy too
This is the fallacy of "since something that is now known as true was considered crazy, something that is now considered crazy might be true."
I don't know, off the cuff, about Newton's published record, but Einstein did subject his work to peer review. His Nobel prize was awarded on a published paper, and that work preceeded his relativity theory.
If some "licensee" really feels that they ought to respond to the letter, but doesn't want to do a cpu-by-cpu certification, there are standard stalling tactics that they can use to keep SCO from calling them non-compliant until IBM kills SCO.
For example, the day before the deadline, send a letter explaining there are exigent circumstances, and asking for a 90-day extension of the deadline.
Repeat until SCO says no, then send a "please accept under separate cover" letter, referring to a document that seems to have gotten lost in the mail. Buy more time by "searcing" for the lost document.
When SCO demands a new copy of the document be prepared and sent, send an open envelope, and marvel at the bad luck that the contents of the envelope have been lost.
So on and so forth.
All you have to do is stall until SCO is killed by the big guys.
Taking health and medical advice from slashdot postings decreases your risk of sanity.