Really? Mum and Dad seemed to manage it quite fine.
On the other hand, I don't know what the cost of living is in your area. People should consider that living, say, in New York, is going to cost a lot more, simply in terms of housing, than living in Australian suburbia.
But all the people whinging about their overpaid (and tech jobs during the bubble were definately overpaid) jobs getting knocked down get on my nerves.
Yeah, except that you'd then have Bush saying words like "domicile". I'm sorry, but nobody's gullible enough to believe he could pronounce that right on his first try.
Have a read of "Wyrm" by Mark Fabi. It's a great book. The main focus of it is a virus that acts in the way you describe, incorporating useful software when it finds it.
This wasn't supposed to be Google's job. These categories were built into the system in the form of TLDs.
.com was supposed to be commercial; for online stores and retailers. If you didn't want to look for retail stuff, you could just avoid the.coms. Unfortunately, that system is totally screwed over now. TLDs are basically meaningless. The only ones that seem to retain any relevance are.gov,.edu and.mil.
For all the people who didn't read the article, but commented anyway:
This company is NOT re-using previously aired ads. They are taking ads that were filmed, but never aired, giving them a once over, then selling them. They are buying these ads off the company that filmed them. They are not ripping off other companies commercials, icons, or jingles. They are buying other companies rejects, improving them, then selling them.
IANAL, but the only way I can think of to get a settlement nullified would be if the settlment itself was illegal. For example, if the settlement included granting rights that were not owned by the settling party.
Probably because the artical is detailing aeronautical inventions, and the closest any of my OSes have come to flying is the short, sharp drop out my window.
There is one major problem with this argument. Oh sure, it sounds wonderful and post-modern to say that meaning is in the mind of the hearer, but the problem is that it totally screws up the purpose of language.
The purpose of language is to communicate. If there are no hard and fast definitions on the meaning of words and phrases, then they become useless. If I say "baked potato", and my audience deomcratically decides I really mean boiled pumpkin, then I have no way of converying what I mean.
The English language is just like any other communications protocol; it has standard rules and usage. If I wrote a program that received HTTP requests, and responded to them based on what it "thought" the sender should mean, the program would still be totally pointless, even if I defended it by saying "But HTTP is a living protocol, man".
The English language still needs to evolve, and, of course, it will. There's no stopping it. But just because a language changes over time is no reason to chuck out the dictionary, abolish the semi-colon, and tell people that black really means white 'cause thats what people think it means.
They can't. Many EU nations (I'm not sure if it's all of them) agreed to a number of international copyright laws at the Berne convention. The EU cannot simply declare MS' copyright null and void without breaking the treaty; which would mean no US copyright would be protected in the EU. And then the US would declare all EU copyrights null and void...one big mess. That's what (among other things) the Berne convention was aiming to prevent.
"The cause of the disease is the government in Washington D.C. and its members who only listen to the wishes of monied special interests. Root that out, and all our lives will be much, much easier in tech."
Uh-huh, and this is accomplished how? You can't compete with the corporations on a financial level; they have more money. You can't complain about the technical merit of laws; they either don't understand, don't care, or care about their lobby money more. And if Diebold et al keep heading down their current path, the possibility of voting them out is approacing zero.
Originally, the US had processes in place to allow citizens to influence those governing them. This was democracy. Over time, these democratic processes have been corrupted, and now seem to be virtually useless.
However, there is one way out of the mess. Leave. Bugger off. If America's tech industry suddenly died overnight, then maybe they'd pay attention. If everyone who cared about politics and law left in disgust, that would show up on the radar.
It's the ultimate strike, I suppose. If a union wants better working condiions for their workers, they will stop being workers in order to demonstrate their power. If a group of citizens dislikes the way their country is heading, they should stop being citizens.
Of course, leaving the country is a pain in the arse, and would mean losing jobs, maybe leaving family members, a rather large upheaval in your life, and probably a bit of expense. But the options are shrinking everyday, and right now it's approaching "put up, or get out".
"In fact, if I were an SCO lawyer I'd definitely bait him until the judge sanctioned him."
Um, why? Usually when you subpoena someone to appear before a court, it's because you want the judge to hear what they're saying. If they didn't want the court to hear Stallman's testimony, they could have just not subpoenaed him.
But then again, this is SCO, so I suppose it depends what particular drugs they mainlined before sitting down to figure out their legal tactics.
Well, the problem is the phrase "the Desktop". It's come to imply more than just its literal meaning. "The Desktop" now seems to mean "everyday use by normal folk", and no, Linux isn't ready for this.
Just look at what your write of yourself "I started...on an Atari ST", "general techfreak", "web pioneer", "experimented with a Slackware installation", "building my own boxes", "wasn't much interested in games".
Linux will only be ready for "The Desktop" when it can be run by the lowest common denominator of users, and that doesn't mean a sci-fi writer with a history of computer use, experimentation, and time and inclination to tinker with them. Linux is ready for your desktop, but not "The Desktop".
It may not be new, but iTunes was the first one that worked. Say what you will about originality, in the end, it's not worth a hoot if nobody uses your product.
"I personally prefer characters as ciphers, this allows me to become that character."
Which is fine, until you come across a conversation essential to moving the plot forwards, in which there are no alternatives presented that match your envisioned character. Or you find that your character can't really toss in his lot with the Evil Sorcerer, as he would really like to do.
I commented on this before, waaaaaaay back, when people were bitching about the lack of flexibility in the Japanese-style RPGs like Final Fantasy.
Basically, there's a dichotomy in computer RPGs. On the one hand, you have the plot-driven games, like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. These are the ones that present the characters as mere ciphers. The problem is, even if you really get into the character, as you can in tabletop gaming, the system is not flexible enough to take into account your background. Why does my elven ranger, whose parents were brutally murdered by a bunch of bloodthirsty human peasants not treat humans like scum? Because the background you write for your characters has absolutely no effect on the game. In this sort of a game, the player can mould the character however they wish, but the character may not always fit well into the game.
On the other hand, you have the character-oriented RPGs like Final Fantasy. Here your choice is taken away from you - you can't play Final Fantasy 7 as a 4-foot black midget, you're gonna have to play as a spikey-haired white guy. But because the programmers know what sort of personality each character has, they can program the game so that Cloud acts like Cloud, Squall acts like Squall, and whoever the guy is in FFX acts like himself too. In this genre, the player is forced into the mould of a particular character, but that character fits in well within the game.
Now, with the advent of Neverwinter Nights, and such games, we are getting closer; the re-introduction of a GM brings back the flexibility of a human intelligence. But until we can make a program capable of understanding a natural language, and being able to rewrite the script of a game on the fly on the basis of deducations made from information inferred from a natural language, we're going to be stuck with this dichotomy in single-player RPGs. Whichever flavour you choose is based entirely on personal preferrence; would you rather choice in character design, or a set of smoothly integrated predefined characters?
Anyone trying to start a RPG holy war proclaiming one of these as the only true way just doesn't get this; each type of game is following a different subset of the RPG ethos, and with current technology, it is just not possible to combine the two totally.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, "destroying its energy" would be a rather major accomplishment, if I remember my highschool lessons regarding conservation of energy...
Really? Mum and Dad seemed to manage it quite fine.
On the other hand, I don't know what the cost of living is in your area. People should consider that living, say, in New York, is going to cost a lot more, simply in terms of housing, than living in Australian suburbia.
But all the people whinging about their overpaid (and tech jobs during the bubble were definately overpaid) jobs getting knocked down get on my nerves.
"can be billed per election transferred"
:)
I'm sure you meant electron, but the typo's funnier anyway.
Yeah, except that you'd then have Bush saying words like "domicile". I'm sorry, but nobody's gullible enough to believe he could pronounce that right on his first try.
Have a read of "Wyrm" by Mark Fabi. It's a great book. The main focus of it is a virus that acts in the way you describe, incorporating useful software when it finds it.
This wasn't supposed to be Google's job. These categories were built into the system in the form of TLDs.
.com was supposed to be commercial; for online stores and retailers. If you didn't want to look for retail stuff, you could just avoid the .coms. Unfortunately, that system is totally screwed over now. TLDs are basically meaningless. The only ones that seem to retain any relevance are .gov, .edu and .mil.
The citizen is at the top in a democracy.
Agreed. What's that got to do with America again?
Which is all fine and dandy till sitefinder rears its ugly head again.
For all the people who didn't read the article, but commented anyway:
This company is NOT re-using previously aired ads. They are taking ads that were filmed, but never aired, giving them a once over, then selling them. They are buying these ads off the company that filmed them. They are not ripping off other companies commercials, icons, or jingles. They are buying other companies rejects, improving them, then selling them.
I can see why a student of bogodynamics is following SCO so closely - a fine example of bogon poisoning at the near-terminal level.
IANAL, but the only way I can think of to get a settlement nullified would be if the settlment itself was illegal. For example, if the settlement included granting rights that were not owned by the settling party.
Probably because the artical is detailing aeronautical inventions, and the closest any of my OSes have come to flying is the short, sharp drop out my window.
RTFA, what on earth are you talking about? Reading the *headline* would do the trick.
- Keep excellent logs. Redirect everything through a proxy if you have to, but LOG EVERYTHING.
- Never watch what they are doing. It creates the wrong impression.
Uhhhh, how exactly do these two work together?There is one major problem with this argument. Oh sure, it sounds wonderful and post-modern to say that meaning is in the mind of the hearer, but the problem is that it totally screws up the purpose of language.
The purpose of language is to communicate. If there are no hard and fast definitions on the meaning of words and phrases, then they become useless. If I say "baked potato", and my audience deomcratically decides I really mean boiled pumpkin, then I have no way of converying what I mean.
The English language is just like any other communications protocol; it has standard rules and usage. If I wrote a program that received HTTP requests, and responded to them based on what it "thought" the sender should mean, the program would still be totally pointless, even if I defended it by saying "But HTTP is a living protocol, man".
The English language still needs to evolve, and, of course, it will. There's no stopping it. But just because a language changes over time is no reason to chuck out the dictionary, abolish the semi-colon, and tell people that black really means white 'cause thats what people think it means.
They can't. Many EU nations (I'm not sure if it's all of them) agreed to a number of international copyright laws at the Berne convention. The EU cannot simply declare MS' copyright null and void without breaking the treaty; which would mean no US copyright would be protected in the EU. And then the US would declare all EU copyrights null and void...one big mess. That's what (among other things) the Berne convention was aiming to prevent.
"The cause of the disease is the government in Washington D.C. and its members who only listen to the wishes of monied special interests. Root that out, and all our lives will be much, much easier in tech."
Uh-huh, and this is accomplished how? You can't compete with the corporations on a financial level; they have more money. You can't complain about the technical merit of laws; they either don't understand, don't care, or care about their lobby money more. And if Diebold et al keep heading down their current path, the possibility of voting them out is approacing zero.
Originally, the US had processes in place to allow citizens to influence those governing them. This was democracy. Over time, these democratic processes have been corrupted, and now seem to be virtually useless.
However, there is one way out of the mess. Leave. Bugger off. If America's tech industry suddenly died overnight, then maybe they'd pay attention. If everyone who cared about politics and law left in disgust, that would show up on the radar.
It's the ultimate strike, I suppose. If a union wants better working condiions for their workers, they will stop being workers in order to demonstrate their power. If a group of citizens dislikes the way their country is heading, they should stop being citizens.
Of course, leaving the country is a pain in the arse, and would mean losing jobs, maybe leaving family members, a rather large upheaval in your life, and probably a bit of expense. But the options are shrinking everyday, and right now it's approaching "put up, or get out".
"In fact, if I were an SCO lawyer I'd definitely bait him until the judge sanctioned him."
Um, why? Usually when you subpoena someone to appear before a court, it's because you want the judge to hear what they're saying. If they didn't want the court to hear Stallman's testimony, they could have just not subpoenaed him.
But then again, this is SCO, so I suppose it depends what particular drugs they mainlined before sitting down to figure out their legal tactics.
Well, the problem is the phrase "the Desktop". It's come to imply more than just its literal meaning. "The Desktop" now seems to mean "everyday use by normal folk", and no, Linux isn't ready for this.
Just look at what your write of yourself "I started...on an Atari ST", "general techfreak", "web pioneer", "experimented with a Slackware installation", "building my own boxes", "wasn't much interested in games".
Linux will only be ready for "The Desktop" when it can be run by the lowest common denominator of users, and that doesn't mean a sci-fi writer with a history of computer use, experimentation, and time and inclination to tinker with them. Linux is ready for your desktop, but not "The Desktop".
Hey, seems like a good method to me. I, for one, welcome our randomly elected overlords.
"Mac users, who represent only 3% of the computer world...in the 97% of the world that uses Windows PCs"
Sorry guys, it's now official. *BSD is dead. Time says so. In fact, so is Linux.
It may not be new, but iTunes was the first one that worked. Say what you will about originality, in the end, it's not worth a hoot if nobody uses your product.
"I personally prefer characters as ciphers, this allows me to become that character."
Which is fine, until you come across a conversation essential to moving the plot forwards, in which there are no alternatives presented that match your envisioned character. Or you find that your character can't really toss in his lot with the Evil Sorcerer, as he would really like to do.
I commented on this before, waaaaaaay back, when people were bitching about the lack of flexibility in the Japanese-style RPGs like Final Fantasy.
Basically, there's a dichotomy in computer RPGs. On the one hand, you have the plot-driven games, like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. These are the ones that present the characters as mere ciphers. The problem is, even if you really get into the character, as you can in tabletop gaming, the system is not flexible enough to take into account your background. Why does my elven ranger, whose parents were brutally murdered by a bunch of bloodthirsty human peasants not treat humans like scum? Because the background you write for your characters has absolutely no effect on the game. In this sort of a game, the player can mould the character however they wish, but the character may not always fit well into the game.
On the other hand, you have the character-oriented RPGs like Final Fantasy. Here your choice is taken away from you - you can't play Final Fantasy 7 as a 4-foot black midget, you're gonna have to play as a spikey-haired white guy. But because the programmers know what sort of personality each character has, they can program the game so that Cloud acts like Cloud, Squall acts like Squall, and whoever the guy is in FFX acts like himself too. In this genre, the player is forced into the mould of a particular character, but that character fits in well within the game.
Now, with the advent of Neverwinter Nights, and such games, we are getting closer; the re-introduction of a GM brings back the flexibility of a human intelligence. But until we can make a program capable of understanding a natural language, and being able to rewrite the script of a game on the fly on the basis of deducations made from information inferred from a natural language, we're going to be stuck with this dichotomy in single-player RPGs. Whichever flavour you choose is based entirely on personal preferrence; would you rather choice in character design, or a set of smoothly integrated predefined characters?
Anyone trying to start a RPG holy war proclaiming one of these as the only true way just doesn't get this; each type of game is following a different subset of the RPG ethos, and with current technology, it is just not possible to combine the two totally.
No, you don't understand. This exploit was disguised as error checking code. It'd stick out in Longhorn like a sore thumb.
Actually, I think a human would be able to perceive the low density of space damn quickly.