The XBox was sold at a loss. These days though it cost them less to make. Plus they make less loss of a sold XBox with no games than an unsold one.
You aren't hurting MS by buying and XBox and not getting games.
Re:Scary (saracasm)
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I can't imagine.NET is going to take over the Internet, but ASP.NET is a very nice platform for writing web apps. OK they will probably run on IIS, unless you use Mono, but it is a big step up from the scripting languages approach of basically just printing out the web page.
It gives some nice abstraction to writing web pages, you don't have to worry about hand crafting every bit of HTML that is going out to the browser (although you can if you want or need to), and can deal with the concepts, objects and events.
.NET does little that is new, Java was doing much of it first, but for writing web apps it is pretty simple and powerful and has good development software. We are moving to it at work because it makes us more productive.
OK, explain then what is funny about using 666 in the article for us humour impeared types.
I see plenty of stuff on Slashdotted modded up as funny that isn't the "in Soviet Russsa" and the like. The thing is they usually are actually funny, just mentioning 666 is not.
Chinese electronics is generally known for being cheap. Now, this may be the exception, but it will be hard to convince people of that. That's isn't racist, just making a generality based on experience (rather than prejudice).
Now, if after being shown the quality is as good they refuse because it is Chinese, that may be racist, unless they have other reasons (like wanting to buy domestic to support domestic companies and jobs).
No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse.
Some scientists in the environmental areas do subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis, but even that has many levels. At it's most basic it means treating the whole ecosystem as a macro-organism. It doesn't mean you think the Earth is one living creature, or you are some tree-hugging hippy, just because some of those people believe in the more extreme end of the hypothesis.
Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press.
You must have missed that whole Slashdot thread based on a Wired article, about how media's desire to show both sides of the argument in cases like global warming meant they had to hunt around for people on the "humans have no effect side". The mainstream press was out there looking for these guys, but all they could find was people in the pay of companies. The whole thing was about how they got a disproportionately large amount of media coverage in the name of balanced reporting.
Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,
If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.
If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defence as provided for in the Constitution.
It would be nice if life always gave us all the information we need before making a decision. Sometimes though, it doesn't. You have to try and assess the risks, and potential consequences, if you wait too long for proof, it will be too late.
Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.
Because all those other countries that signed up are head straight for economic chaos, right? Kyoto has flaws, but those aren't an excuse for doing nothing because you don't want to upset big business. It looks to the rest of the world like the US Government isn't just showing some scepticism, which would be no bad thing, but sticking its fingers in its ears and going 'la la la' to the topic. As irrationally opposed to the concept as these fiendish "worse than Gaian" types whose danger you highlight for us.
why does running of the application, which actually accomlishes something, must be compromise to enable the OS to run better?
In this case the application is already broken, it is doing something unsecure. The application really needs to be fixed.
even if it's the truth, they shouldn't say it.
So you would rather they didn't tell you the truth?
You seem to have entirely missed the point. It isn't the apps need to be fixed so the OS runs better, it is the apps need to be fixed because there is a problem with them.
If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
One of the big advantages of the web is the client has control of how the content is presented. I can change the text size, or the font, or the colours, make a CSS page and override the site's own. Turn off images, not run javascript or flash, or disable cookies.
Before AdBlock I used to use a style sheet with images hidden and plain colours for much of my browsing, that facility is built into IE.
The ability to choose how to see content drives a lot of the desire for RSS feeds, where clients can show it even more flexibly than web pages. Even with HTML/CSS the ability of the client's choices to overrule the page creators is in the standard. It is hardly "being a dick" when it is how the system is supposed to work. Client control is one of the advantages of the web.
I'm a web developer professionally, one thing you have to keep in mind writing pages is you can't control what the client does with it. It drives the marketing types up the wall sometimes, but the provider has never had control.
Anyone providing a web page who thinks there is an implicit agreement that someone coming to a web site will view it as the creator made and intended has no clue about the web. It has never worked like that. If that is what a content provider wants to do, they are using the wrong technology for the job.
Now I understand there is a risk that if lots of people use ad blocking, some site will fold. So be it, it isn't the users job to support people who make bad technological or business choices. It isn't rude, or stealing, or being a dick, or breaking any implicit agreement to use a browser's ability to control what it shows in a way you like.
His point is that isn't Doom,Ddoom is about a doorway to Hell, not a virus.
Re:How to screw up a game-movie 101
on
Doom Movie Update
·
· Score: 1
I had a problem with the snow too, then someone pointed out the temple was giving of a huge themeral signature. Presumably the temple itself was therefore pretty warm, and the Predators were not outside long.
As for the bomb, maybe it can be set off without the suit if the Predator codes it too.
You're right about the transition now, those aliens seem to grow much quicker than before.
Big companies who have to pay people to install and maintain anti-spam measures
Small business where people have to deal with spam themselves. Anyone owning a domain name gets bucketfuls of the stuff
ISPs and backbone providers who it costs money to move the messages around
Parents who don't want their kids getting pornographic email
Anyone who values their time at all
People's civil liberties and not suffering from anti-spam laws (maybe other things, but that is off topic). They exist for the same reasons their are laws against unsolicited fax spamming. It costs people other than the sender, and the receiver didn't ask to receive it.
It is method, not content, that is the problem. Nobody's right to try and sell stuff is being harmed.
If someone came around and put up posters advertising stuff all over your house, would you just "DEAL WITH THE GODDAMN INCONVENIENCE" of removing them? No? Think how much of people's time is wasted by millions of spam emails. You are talking years.
Most anti-spam laws do allow spam if it has opt out, doesn't spoof the sender and sometimes has to be labled.
No idea where you get "People dont mind rapists and murderes getting away" from. Maybe on planet Troll, but down here, yes they very much do.
The KKK have a much more obnoxious message, but are easy to ignore. The spammers have a (sometimes) less obnoxious message, but a much more intrusive and costly method of forcing that message on people who wish to ignore it.
With the exceptions of actually illegal spam content, nobody is saying the spammers can't try and sell their wares, they object to how. If someone put up posters all over my house without my permission, I'd be pissed at them whatever the message.
You pay in time, and our ISP pays moving the messages around, and dealing with spam, and the costs get passed on.
People just want an email account, becuase there are technical ways to reduce spam doesn't makie it any better. There are technical ways to reduce burglary too, but that doesn't excuse it.
I assume you are also against laws that stop people spamming with fax machines too, right? Even though it costs the recepiant?
Email spam costs, it isn't free to transport it across the network, but like with faxes the sender doesn't foot the bill.
I also object to being harassed, which is what spam amounts it. I don't want to wade through it, I don't want to spend my time on it, but what about my rights? Must I give up on email because of other people's right to "free speech"?.
Does your ideal of free speech include the right to go around holding up porn pictures to kids? Should that be protected? Sending porn spam to kids?
Living in a society requires some compromises, you recognise that yourself when you say "with exceptions". They may the only exceptions you want, but most societies (including the US) seem to want a few more.
The net was founded by the military to make a distributed system that could withstand a nuclear attack. It was then used by academia to exchange information. Then the geeks and techie types outside those groups got in on it, finally the rest of the world, including big business and so government attention.
It certainly went through anarchic times, and is still pretty anarchic, but I think it is a stretch to say it was founded on it. As for above national law, why? Because it wasn't enforced for a while? What is so magic about using your computer and a phone line that means the law doesn't apply?
If anyone connecting to the net has to take whatever it throws at them, what about on-line extortion? If DOS attacks on spammers are legal, than aren't DOS attacks on everyone? How about fraud, phishing attacks or grooming minors? Do the victims of all these deserve it for connecting to the net?
Is the self-correcting net going to protect them? Because I don't see any sign of it happening, but I do see people being arrested and charged (and convicted) for these things.
The ideal of a self-correcting anarchic net sounds neat, but is hopelessly naive, and suffers the same problems as off-line anarchy. Too many people are arseholes, and too many of them can get away things, and too many are apathetic and won't do anything about it. Self correction isn't stopping spam, spam is getting worse. Self correction lacks accountability too, what if an innocent site is targeted by mistake?
It's clearly a popular idea on/., as you have been modded right up. Doesn't make it smart or means it works.
Not that I'm convinced governments can stop spam either, I'm not sure what the solution is, but the idea anyone connecting to the net implicitly agrees to anything that they receive through it boggles me. It won't wash in court either.
The lack of referential integrity means you cannot guarantee the state of the data in the database, unless you run a whole bunch of queries to check.
If there is only one way to get data in, through one application that can enforce the integrity on entry, and check it on retrieval, you may be OK. As long as you know nobody will ever be updating it directly in the database.
Commercial DBs often require a degree of tunning. They may also be doing things like keeping transaction logs.
Plus if you are using platform neutral SQL that works on MySql, you are basically using a small subset of SQL. You could probably get much better perfomance using the imporved features they offer.
The questions is, do you need those things, are they worth the extra cost? If not, MySql is going to be fine for you.
Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap. Unfortunately as the barrier gets lower the 90% becomes 95%, 99%, 99.9%. On the plus side there is more good stuff, you just have to be able to find it amoungst all the noise.
Becuase what you likely end up with is something from MS that does everything badly, is buggy and insecure. Plus, if it does kill the competition, they will stop adding anything new worthwhile.
Of course, maybe this offering from MS will be different.
It may help if you actuall read the post you are replying to.
Most really do not want to hurt innocent people.
See that most part? In any large group you get some bad ones. This is true of military forces numbering the 10s of thousands. At least they are being punished for it, and it wasn't typical behvaiour.
It is simple logic based on unfounded assumptions. You think that the deaths may result in more people deciding to fight, but you don't have anything to base it on.
By your insane troll logic you shouldn't give soldiers guns, because hey, cowardice by killing at a distance. Tanks, artillery and air support are right out to. What do you want soldiers to use, their teeth?
War isn't a bravery contest, or about fighting fair face to face, you are there to win. Minimising your own casualties is something just about everyone tries to do. It is sort of important in fighting.
I assume you are equally down on "cowardly" guerilla tactics too?
Slashdot Mirror
The XBox was sold at a loss. These days though it cost them less to make. Plus they make less loss of a sold XBox with no games than an unsold one.
You aren't hurting MS by buying and XBox and not getting games.
I can't imagine .NET is going to take over the Internet, but ASP.NET is a very nice platform for writing web apps. OK they will probably run on IIS, unless you use Mono, but it is a big step up from the scripting languages approach of basically just printing out the web page.
It gives some nice abstraction to writing web pages, you don't have to worry about hand crafting every bit of HTML that is going out to the browser (although you can if you want or need to), and can deal with the concepts, objects and events.
.NET does little that is new, Java was doing much of it first, but for writing web apps it is pretty simple and powerful and has good development software. We are moving to it at work because it makes us more productive.
OK, explain then what is funny about using 666 in the article for us humour impeared types.
I see plenty of stuff on Slashdotted modded up as funny that isn't the "in Soviet Russsa" and the like. The thing is they usually are actually funny, just mentioning 666 is not.
Chinese electronics is generally known for being cheap. Now, this may be the exception, but it will be hard to convince people of that. That's isn't racist, just making a generality based on experience (rather than prejudice).
Now, if after being shown the quality is as good they refuse because it is Chinese, that may be racist, unless they have other reasons (like wanting to buy domestic to support domestic companies and jobs).
No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse.
Some scientists in the environmental areas do subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis, but even that has many levels. At it's most basic it means treating the whole ecosystem as a macro-organism. It doesn't mean you think the Earth is one living creature, or you are some tree-hugging hippy, just because some of those people believe in the more extreme end of the hypothesis.
Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press.
You must have missed that whole Slashdot thread based on a Wired article, about how media's desire to show both sides of the argument in cases like global warming meant they had to hunt around for people on the "humans have no effect side". The mainstream press was out there looking for these guys, but all they could find was people in the pay of companies. The whole thing was about how they got a disproportionately large amount of media coverage in the name of balanced reporting.
Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,
If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.
If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defence as provided for in the Constitution.
It would be nice if life always gave us all the information we need before making a decision. Sometimes though, it doesn't. You have to try and assess the risks, and potential consequences, if you wait too long for proof, it will be too late.
Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.
Because all those other countries that signed up are head straight for economic chaos, right? Kyoto has flaws, but those aren't an excuse for doing nothing because you don't want to upset big business. It looks to the rest of the world like the US Government isn't just showing some scepticism, which would be no bad thing, but sticking its fingers in its ears and going 'la la la' to the topic. As irrationally opposed to the concept as these fiendish "worse than Gaian" types whose danger you highlight for us.
why does running of the application, which actually accomlishes something, must be compromise to enable the OS to run better?
In this case the application is already broken, it is doing something unsecure. The application really needs to be fixed.
even if it's the truth, they shouldn't say it.
So you would rather they didn't tell you the truth?
You seem to have entirely missed the point. It isn't the apps need to be fixed so the OS runs better, it is the apps need to be fixed because there is a problem with them.
If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
One of the big advantages of the web is the client has control of how the content is presented. I can change the text size, or the font, or the colours, make a CSS page and override the site's own. Turn off images, not run javascript or flash, or disable cookies.
Before AdBlock I used to use a style sheet with images hidden and plain colours for much of my browsing, that facility is built into IE.
The ability to choose how to see content drives a lot of the desire for RSS feeds, where clients can show it even more flexibly than web pages. Even with HTML/CSS the ability of the client's choices to overrule the page creators is in the standard. It is hardly "being a dick" when it is how the system is supposed to work. Client control is one of the advantages of the web.
I'm a web developer professionally, one thing you have to keep in mind writing pages is you can't control what the client does with it. It drives the marketing types up the wall sometimes, but the provider has never had control.
Anyone providing a web page who thinks there is an implicit agreement that someone coming to a web site will view it as the creator made and intended has no clue about the web. It has never worked like that. If that is what a content provider wants to do, they are using the wrong technology for the job.
Now I understand there is a risk that if lots of people use ad blocking, some site will fold. So be it, it isn't the users job to support people who make bad technological or business choices. It isn't rude, or stealing, or being a dick, or breaking any implicit agreement to use a browser's ability to control what it shows in a way you like.
If it isn't useful I won't use it. If don't use it, I won't see the ads.
Ads are how Google makes money, so there is good reason for them to care.
His point is that isn't Doom,Ddoom is about a doorway to Hell, not a virus.
I had a problem with the snow too, then someone pointed out the temple was giving of a huge themeral signature. Presumably the temple itself was therefore pretty warm, and the Predators were not outside long.
As for the bomb, maybe it can be set off without the suit if the Predator codes it too.
You're right about the transition now, those aliens seem to grow much quicker than before.
I think it's a great movie, but I had no interest when it came out in seeing it. Only when my mate lent me the DVD and told me it was really good.
The problem is, if I did know what the movie was about, it would have rathered spoiled it. I'm not sure how you could market Fight Club well.
All you losers .. WHO CARES ABOUT SPAM?
People's civil liberties and not suffering from anti-spam laws (maybe other things, but that is off topic). They exist for the same reasons their are laws against unsolicited fax spamming. It costs people other than the sender, and the receiver didn't ask to receive it.
It is method, not content, that is the problem. Nobody's right to try and sell stuff is being harmed.
If someone came around and put up posters advertising stuff all over your house, would you just "DEAL WITH THE GODDAMN INCONVENIENCE" of removing them? No? Think how much of people's time is wasted by millions of spam emails. You are talking years.
Most anti-spam laws do allow spam if it has opt out, doesn't spoof the sender and sometimes has to be labled.
No idea where you get "People dont mind rapists and murderes getting away" from. Maybe on planet Troll, but down here, yes they very much do.
Method
The KKK have a much more obnoxious message, but are easy to ignore. The spammers have a (sometimes) less obnoxious message, but a much more intrusive and costly method of forcing that message on people who wish to ignore it.
With the exceptions of actually illegal spam content, nobody is saying the spammers can't try and sell their wares, they object to how. If someone put up posters all over my house without my permission, I'd be pissed at them whatever the message.
You pay in time, and our ISP pays moving the messages around, and dealing with spam, and the costs get passed on.
People just want an email account, becuase there are technical ways to reduce spam doesn't makie it any better. There are technical ways to reduce burglary too, but that doesn't excuse it.
I assume you are also against laws that stop people spamming with fax machines too, right? Even though it costs the recepiant?
Email spam costs, it isn't free to transport it across the network, but like with faxes the sender doesn't foot the bill.
I also object to being harassed, which is what spam amounts it. I don't want to wade through it, I don't want to spend my time on it, but what about my rights? Must I give up on email because of other people's right to "free speech"?.
Does your ideal of free speech include the right to go around holding up porn pictures to kids? Should that be protected? Sending porn spam to kids?
Living in a society requires some compromises, you recognise that yourself when you say "with exceptions". They may the only exceptions you want, but most societies (including the US) seem to want a few more.
The net was founded by the military to make a distributed system that could withstand a nuclear attack. It was then used by academia to exchange information. Then the geeks and techie types outside those groups got in on it, finally the rest of the world, including big business and so government attention.
It certainly went through anarchic times, and is still pretty anarchic, but I think it is a stretch to say it was founded on it. As for above national law, why? Because it wasn't enforced for a while? What is so magic about using your computer and a phone line that means the law doesn't apply?
If anyone connecting to the net has to take whatever it throws at them, what about on-line extortion? If DOS attacks on spammers are legal, than aren't DOS attacks on everyone? How about fraud, phishing attacks or grooming minors? Do the victims of all these deserve it for connecting to the net?
Is the self-correcting net going to protect them? Because I don't see any sign of it happening, but I do see people being arrested and charged (and convicted) for these things.
The ideal of a self-correcting anarchic net sounds neat, but is hopelessly naive, and suffers the same problems as off-line anarchy. Too many people are arseholes, and too many of them can get away things, and too many are apathetic and won't do anything about it. Self correction isn't stopping spam, spam is getting worse. Self correction lacks accountability too, what if an innocent site is targeted by mistake?
It's clearly a popular idea on /., as you have been modded right up. Doesn't make it smart or means it works.
Not that I'm convinced governments can stop spam either, I'm not sure what the solution is, but the idea anyone connecting to the net implicitly agrees to anything that they receive through it boggles me. It won't wash in court either.
The lack of referential integrity means you cannot guarantee the state of the data in the database, unless you run a whole bunch of queries to check.
If there is only one way to get data in, through one application that can enforce the integrity on entry, and check it on retrieval, you may be OK. As long as you know nobody will ever be updating it directly in the database.
Commercial DBs often require a degree of tunning. They may also be doing things like keeping transaction logs.
Plus if you are using platform neutral SQL that works on MySql, you are basically using a small subset of SQL. You could probably get much better perfomance using the imporved features they offer.
The questions is, do you need those things, are they worth the extra cost? If not, MySql is going to be fine for you.
You could create a set of views with a where clause. Each view will only see one ID and give access to the views, not the whole table.
However, you shouldn't be giving direct database access out like that. Use a front end or interface of some kind and have the code there handle it.
Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crap. Unfortunately as the barrier gets lower the 90% becomes 95%, 99%, 99.9%. On the plus side there is more good stuff, you just have to be able to find it amoungst all the noise.
Or visiting a website the needs Real or Quicktime. Both install pretty easily through the web if you need them as a plugin.
Becuase what you likely end up with is something from MS that does everything badly, is buggy and insecure. Plus, if it does kill the competition, they will stop adding anything new worthwhile.
Of course, maybe this offering from MS will be different.
It may help if you actuall read the post you are replying to.
Most really do not want to hurt innocent people.
See that most part? In any large group you get some bad ones. This is true of military forces numbering the 10s of thousands. At least they are being punished for it, and it wasn't typical behvaiour.
It is simple logic based on unfounded assumptions. You think that the deaths may result in more people deciding to fight, but you don't have anything to base it on.
I can't believe anyone modded that crap up.
By your insane troll logic you shouldn't give soldiers guns, because hey, cowardice by killing at a distance. Tanks, artillery and air support are right out to. What do you want soldiers to use, their teeth?
War isn't a bravery contest, or about fighting fair face to face, you are there to win. Minimising your own casualties is something just about everyone tries to do. It is sort of important in fighting.
I assume you are equally down on "cowardly" guerilla tactics too?