If you want to call somebody in the same area code as yourself (here in the US), you only have to dial the 3 number exchange prefix and the 4 numbers that follow (don't know what they're called).
Maybe we could have "dot u s" at the end of all "stateside" sites, but only make it necessary to use it if outside the US, letting us go on deluding ourselves and making it more difficult for "foreigners" at the same time.:-)
"...his actions are motivated by his own twisted Jesse sense of what's right, not by the latest opinion poll..."
Here in North Carolina we sometimes say the same thing:-)
Don't turn a "blind" eye to this angle
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 5
The Register has a bad habit of posting otherwise excellent stories with what appear to be mistakes caused by typing them fast and not proofreading, but if I understand this story correctly it seems that the software developed by Dmitry Sklyarov's employer, for the sale of which he was arrested, is designed to let sight-empaired people use eBooks that they have already paid for.
Yeah, well, either that or somebody in a mask about to throw what may or may not have only been a fire extinguisher at the police. Sounds like a Darwin award to me.
I believe the expression is "Root hog, or die". As in when times are hard a hog has to dig up roots to eat to avoid starvation. Also written with a comma after the word "root".
Perhaps you already knew this, and were punning, but Slashdot draws a world-wide audience and as Tony Joe White said in Polk Salad Annie, "Some of y'all ain't never been down South might not know what I'm talkin' about..."
"Whoops, disqualification! (Score:1, Flamebait)
by SumDeusExMachina (god_from_the_machine@*REMOVETHIS*hotmail.com) on 06:37 PM July 21st, 2001 EDT (#36)
(User #318037 Info)
making them less vulnerable to viruses and hacking...
Well, you can just forget about Linux getting included in this initiative. After all, it is the most hacked-on operating system. Just ask Alan Cox or Linus.
"Everybody knows what's best for you" - Bad Religion"
have karma, will burn
Guerilla moderation (or meta-mod, not sure which)
on
Unsafe At Any Runlevel
·
· Score: 2
"Question... (Score:0, Flamebait)
by GriffX (DONTjlgriffithsSPAM@MEearthlinkPLEASE.net) on 06:23 PM July 21st, 2001 EDT (#25)
(User #130554 Info) http://www.griffx.com
Will the leader of the Center for Internet Security be running for President in twenty years as a spoiler, handing the election to oh, say, George P. Bush that time around?
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be."
Dear moderator: A joke about Ralph Nader isn't necessarily a flame, especially since Nader was mentioned right off the bat in the story post.
Back in Edison's day he could finance his next invention from the proceeds of the previous one, partly because of the protection that the patent system afforded him, and partly because he was very focused on developing stuff that could be quickly exploited commercially. He didn't discover that electricity could make something get hot enough to give off light, he worked on the idea until he found something that could do it without burning out to soon to be used in a commercial product.
The idea of using geosynchronous satellites has been around at least since Clarke back around WWII, but if there had never been the government funded Soviet and U.S. space programs, do you really think that the companies who make money uplinking to and downlinking from those satellites would have financed and developed a way to get them into orbit all by themselves as quickly as it happened with all that previous government funded work to piggyback on?
Institutions whose function is to earn a return on investment will usually spend a lot more on applied science research than "pure" science research.
Perhaps Kazmat submitted even earlier than you did, although possibly by only a couple of seconds, and the both of you, along with everybody else who submitted it, sat in the submission queue for a while 'til they (Slashdot) finally got around to posting it.
Great. Now I'm going to have to go throw some old hardware together and install 3.1 so that I can come back here and be snippy about how I'm right and you're wrong.:-)
Some time back, various users started creating accounts that were basically "typosquatting", for instance if someone created Old_Wolf, this would be seen by the system as different and distinct from Old Wolf, as would other variations, such as putting a period at the end of the name.
The victims of this were, to begin with, some of the higher profile or more controversial Slashdot users, such as CmdrTaco, Hemos, and others, including the real, original, low user ID number, Bruce Perens. Someone created an account that was his name with, as I recall, a period at the end, and, of course, the user ID was a much higher number.
Apparently enough of the twaddle that they posted was mistaken by some readers for something that the "real" Bruce Perens had written that Bruce decided to do something about it.
He changed his sig (or added one, I forget which) to something like "The real Bruce Perens has user id # xxxx (except that he put in whatever low user id number he has instead of x's). All others are imposters."
This, of course, meant that you could compare the user id in the sig to the one in the comment header and know that it was a post by the "real" Bruce, as any other account, even if they duplicated the sig, would have a different, and much higher, id number.
If I remember right (it's been a while), a few other users came up with similar sigs. Some of them were users who *had* been "impostered". Some merely created humorous sigs satirizing the serious ones.
Mine was an attempt at self-deprecating humor, i.e., I wasn't important enough to attract the interest of an imposter. I used to have one that said something like "Now that I browse above the default I don't have to put up with as much junk, but I kinda miss seeing my own posts", the implication being that what I posted wasn't ever good enough to get moderated up. (I really don't browse higher than minus one, 'though I often have reason to wish that I had). A lot of people didn't get that one.
I would be remiss in not noting that at one point someone created an account with a very similar user name as mine and used it to answer one of my posts just so that they could point out that I now *do* have an imposter.
To expand further on your perceptive realization that "...its not stupidity, its simply lack of experience.", sewing machines, electronic keyboards, and other items often have an approximately hand sized object on the end of a cable that's intended to be placed on the floor and operated with the foot. Someone who's unfamiliar with the concept of a mouse and is confronted with one for the first time has only their previous experiences to call upon in trying to figure out how to deal with this new unknown. Perhaps the lack of intelligence was on the part of mouse designers for not making it more obvious what the mouse isn't.
"For example, why does everybody copy the design that the 'window kill' button should be right next to 'maximize'? That's horrible design, put window kill on the left, maximize and minize on the right."
Windows 3.1 had the minimize and maximize buttons in the upper right hand corner, and the "close box", a big X, in the upper left hand corner. In Windows95, they moved the close box over to the right, where I hit it instead of maximize more times than I care to remember.
I read somewhere that they did some focus groups or something like that of people who hadn't used any version of MS Windows and half the people said leave it where it was and half the people said it didn't make a difference, but I don't think that they actually put it in front of the people to try out, they just asked it as a theoretical question. Note that none of them specifically said that they wanted it on the right, right next to the maximize and minimize buttons (or boxes).
I guess moving it to where it made it easier for 3.1 users to screw up without there being any particular benefit for newbies is what MS considers "innovation".
They also changed the keyboard shortcuts used in 3.1 for creating a new directory to something else in 95 and then changed them again in 98. As far as I can tell, it was change for the sake of change, not change for the sake of improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we could have "dot u s" at the end of all "stateside" sites, but only make it necessary to use it if outside the US, letting us go on deluding ourselves and making it more difficult for "foreigners" at the same time. :-)
Somebody gave me an old PC-XT. I see this technique as a way to make it lighter.
If you stand barefoot on a damp patch on a concrete floor and grab a live wire you will be convinced very quickly that yes, it does.
Here in North Carolina we sometimes say the same thing :-)
The Register has a bad habit of posting otherwise excellent stories with what appear to be mistakes caused by typing them fast and not proofreading, but if I understand this story correctly it seems that the software developed by Dmitry Sklyarov's employer, for the sale of which he was arrested, is designed to let sight-empaired people use eBooks that they have already paid for.
LOL
Perhaps. I'm only an expert on the parts of language on which I'm an expert. And self-appointed at that.
It seems it never fails, the post that corrects someone else always contains a mistake of its own.
I'm sure I'll see mine about .01 second after clicking "Submit".
There seems to be a higher rate of crack-smoking moderators lately, but that's probably not related.
Yeah, well, either that or somebody in a mask about to throw what may or may not have only been a fire extinguisher at the police. Sounds like a Darwin award to me.
The bogosity meter just pegged.
Coincidence or conspiracy?
So are we all bozos on this bus or all bosuns on this boat?
He only said to pick it up. Didn't say a thing about opening it up and reading. Maybe the truth is hiding underneath it.
Perhaps you already knew this, and were punning, but Slashdot draws a world-wide audience and as Tony Joe White said in Polk Salad Annie, "Some of y'all ain't never been down South might not know what I'm talkin' about..."
Just who is stealing what from who (or maybe it's whom)?
by SumDeusExMachina (god_from_the_machine@*REMOVETHIS*hotmail.com) on 06:37 PM July 21st, 2001 EDT (#36)
(User #318037 Info)
making them less vulnerable to viruses and hacking
Well, you can just forget about Linux getting included in this initiative. After all, it is the most hacked-on operating system. Just ask Alan Cox or Linus.
"Everybody knows what's best for you" - Bad Religion"
have karma, will burn
by GriffX (DONTjlgriffithsSPAM@MEearthlinkPLEASE.net) on 06:23 PM July 21st, 2001 EDT (#25)
(User #130554 Info) http://www.griffx.com
Will the leader of the Center for Internet Security be running for President in twenty years as a spoiler, handing the election to oh, say, George P. Bush that time around?
These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be."
Dear moderator: A joke about Ralph Nader isn't necessarily a flame, especially since Nader was mentioned right off the bat in the story post.
The idea of using geosynchronous satellites has been around at least since Clarke back around WWII, but if there had never been the government funded Soviet and U.S. space programs, do you really think that the companies who make money uplinking to and downlinking from those satellites would have financed and developed a way to get them into orbit all by themselves as quickly as it happened with all that previous government funded work to piggyback on?
Institutions whose function is to earn a return on investment will usually spend a lot more on applied science research than "pure" science research.
Now if only you'd included a link to that carrier pigeon transfer protocol you could have picked up some major karma.
Perhaps Kazmat submitted even earlier than you did, although possibly by only a couple of seconds, and the both of you, along with everybody else who submitted it, sat in the submission queue for a while 'til they (Slashdot) finally got around to posting it.
Great. Now I'm going to have to go throw some old hardware together and install 3.1 so that I can come back here and be snippy about how I'm right and you're wrong. :-)
The victims of this were, to begin with, some of the higher profile or more controversial Slashdot users, such as CmdrTaco, Hemos, and others, including the real, original, low user ID number, Bruce Perens. Someone created an account that was his name with, as I recall, a period at the end, and, of course, the user ID was a much higher number.
Apparently enough of the twaddle that they posted was mistaken by some readers for something that the "real" Bruce Perens had written that Bruce decided to do something about it.
He changed his sig (or added one, I forget which) to something like "The real Bruce Perens has user id # xxxx (except that he put in whatever low user id number he has instead of x's). All others are imposters."
This, of course, meant that you could compare the user id in the sig to the one in the comment header and know that it was a post by the "real" Bruce, as any other account, even if they duplicated the sig, would have a different, and much higher, id number.
If I remember right (it's been a while), a few other users came up with similar sigs. Some of them were users who *had* been "impostered". Some merely created humorous sigs satirizing the serious ones.
Mine was an attempt at self-deprecating humor, i.e., I wasn't important enough to attract the interest of an imposter. I used to have one that said something like "Now that I browse above the default I don't have to put up with as much junk, but I kinda miss seeing my own posts", the implication being that what I posted wasn't ever good enough to get moderated up. (I really don't browse higher than minus one, 'though I often have reason to wish that I had). A lot of people didn't get that one.
I would be remiss in not noting that at one point someone created an account with a very similar user name as mine and used it to answer one of my posts just so that they could point out that I now *do* have an imposter.
Well then, what operating system *will* make me special? :-)
To expand further on your perceptive realization that "...its not stupidity, its simply lack of experience.", sewing machines, electronic keyboards, and other items often have an approximately hand sized object on the end of a cable that's intended to be placed on the floor and operated with the foot. Someone who's unfamiliar with the concept of a mouse and is confronted with one for the first time has only their previous experiences to call upon in trying to figure out how to deal with this new unknown. Perhaps the lack of intelligence was on the part of mouse designers for not making it more obvious what the mouse isn't.
Windows 3.1 had the minimize and maximize buttons in the upper right hand corner, and the "close box", a big X, in the upper left hand corner. In Windows95, they moved the close box over to the right, where I hit it instead of maximize more times than I care to remember.
I read somewhere that they did some focus groups or something like that of people who hadn't used any version of MS Windows and half the people said leave it where it was and half the people said it didn't make a difference, but I don't think that they actually put it in front of the people to try out, they just asked it as a theoretical question. Note that none of them specifically said that they wanted it on the right, right next to the maximize and minimize buttons (or boxes).
I guess moving it to where it made it easier for 3.1 users to screw up without there being any particular benefit for newbies is what MS considers "innovation".
They also changed the keyboard shortcuts used in 3.1 for creating a new directory to something else in 95 and then changed them again in 98. As far as I can tell, it was change for the sake of change, not change for the sake of improvement.