You *can* zoom in fully already.:) As for artificially limiting the zoom level... maybe it's just me, but I always thought pedophiles were after children, not swing sets.
Oh, we do talk to machines, all the time - they just don't answer, or even understand us.:) When was the last time you cursed at your computer when it didn't work the way you wanted it to?
I do that pretty often, myself (and yes, that probably says a lot about my skills with regard to *getting* it to do what I want).
This guy can go and and think new thoughts for Google.
You hit the nail on the head there. I think the root of the issue is that Microsoft is not able to understand that it is, in fact, possible to think new thoughts and come up with new ideas instead of just stealing and copying from everywhere.
Noone, probably - Slashdot, after all, is just a news site. The *readership*, on the other hand...
But then, while the question whether Slashdot commentors are being hypocritical certainly has merit sometimes, I don't think this is one of those times. Google hasn't done anything immoral, and they aren't the ones who're suing.
For that matter, *can* you even sue someone for *helping* to break a contract at all? A contract, after all, is kinda like a private law that two (or more) parties agree to be bound by; anyone not involved in that isn't bound by the contract, obviously, and may in fact not even know that it exists. There might be merit if Google had known about the contract and encouraged the guy to break it (assuming such a clause is valid in a contract at all), but even then, the whole thing seems wholly unclear to me, as far as the moral side (which the legal side is supposed to codify) is concerned, at least. And how would you go about proving that Google knew about it or encouraged him?
I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but this seems like yet another case of the playground bully trying to beat up someone else, and I think it's not entirely unreasonable to support the one being beaten up, even though you don't know whether the playground bully just *might* have a valid reason this time.
Why would a site that's nothing but bullshit be the 5th most viewed site on the web?
Why is 90% of the email I get spam?:) Same reason really - most people are stupid. Admittedly, that's a somewhat misanthropic point of view, but it seems to be true more often than not...
I would think that as a regular Internet surfer I would be able to easily rattle the top 5 sites off w/o hestitation.
I'm pretty sure that Yahoo and Google (in whatever order) are #1 and 2, but what's #3, 4 and 5? I'm not sure that it's really something that you'd "just know" as a web surfer - there simply are too many sites with lots of visitors.
I hadn't heard of the site yet, either, but from your description, it sounds very much like Orkut, and while I wouldn't go as far as the grandparent poster and describe that as a spam webportal, it isn't exactly useful, either.
Ultimately, it probably fits right in with sports news sites, online poker sites and the like - sites that are popular because they appeal to the masses, but that the intelligentsia is much less likely to visit.
I once crashed an ATM running OS/2, myself, although I have no idea how I actually did it - it simply died after I inserted my card. When I informed the bank people, one of the came over to reboot it; it turns out it was a 486 (DX2-66, I think, but that particular detail is rather hazy in my memory), with 8 MB of RAM, running OS/2.
I never was able to crash it again, nor have I ever seen another ATM crash. I have, however, frequently seen bluescreens on the plasma screen info panel of another bank I used to visit each Sunday evening for a year - in fact, I'd estimate that about every 4 weeks or so, the thing had crashed some time during the weekend.
I'm really genuinely glad that I never encountered an ATM running some sort of windows.
Well, IBM could clean it up. The best way would be to rewrite all portions that can't be licensed under an open license; the easiest way would be to simply rip out the offending parts and tell the community "this and that is what the parts we had to remove did, so you'll have to replace them before you get something usable again". Obviously, the former would be better for the users and those still interested in OS/2, but the latter would be a very good starting point, too - remember that in projects like OpenOffice.org or Mozilla, a vast portion of the original code was eventually replaced, too, even though the original code *was* avaiable.
That being said, it's certainly sad to see OS/2 come to an end. I remember buying a copy of OS/2 2.0 when it came out, in 1992 or so - it was *very* impressive indeed. What I liked most was the fact that even very hardware-specific DOS programs like demos or games could still be run without difficulties in most cases; I don't know how IBM managed to pull this off, but they did an admirable job.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for OS/2.
Slashdot Mirror
At DefCon, "spot the fed" is a fun game (so to speak) every year that you can participate in. I imagine it's similar at other security cons.
I think someone's been watching Blues Brothers once too often. :)
Stating that you did something is not enough to successfully sentence you; it still has to be proven that you actually did it.
Of course, IANAL.
Thanks for the info. :) Are there any current estimates regarding the release date of the first Perl6 version?
The author just forgot to escape some < and > characters in there, so part of the regexes gets interpreted as HTML.
And of course, the Slashdot editors didn't catch that, but that's probably hardly surprising...
I personally absolutely loved Programming Perl (3rd edition), and in fact, it's the book I used to learn Perl, too.
:)
I also still use it as a reference - finding stuff in there usually takes less time than Googling for it or looking at the manpages.
To each their own, of course, but I think it's not fair to characterise Programming Perl at least as a bad book.
Darn. :P
Sounds interesting. Does anyone know whether there's gonna be a 4th edition of Programming Perl (the Camel Book) anytime soon, too?
Oh, OK. :) Thanks. :)
You still don't understand. :) I don't mean this comment by Raul654:
That one, of course, is obvious funny. But iendedi's reply to that one has also been modded Funny:
That's the one I don't get. What's funny about *that*? Maybe I'm just being a blockhead, but I really can't figure it out.
I know *that*... but that doesn't explain why it's funny. :)
It's a valid an interesting question to ask, though.
OK, I stared at it for 10 seconds (more than that, even), but I have no idea why it might be funny. Enlighten me, please? :) Thanks. :)
There were more than 6 moon landings. Russia had at least two unmanned rovers on the moon in the early 1970s.
You *can* zoom in fully already. :) As for artificially limiting the zoom level... maybe it's just me, but I always thought pedophiles were after children, not swing sets.
Oh, we do talk to machines, all the time - they just don't answer, or even understand us. :) When was the last time you cursed at your computer when it didn't work the way you wanted it to?
I do that pretty often, myself (and yes, that probably says a lot about my skills with regard to *getting* it to do what I want).
You hit the nail on the head there. I think the root of the issue is that Microsoft is not able to understand that it is, in fact, possible to think new thoughts and come up with new ideas instead of just stealing and copying from everywhere.
Noone, probably - Slashdot, after all, is just a news site. The *readership*, on the other hand...
But then, while the question whether Slashdot commentors are being hypocritical certainly has merit sometimes, I don't think this is one of those times. Google hasn't done anything immoral, and they aren't the ones who're suing.
For that matter, *can* you even sue someone for *helping* to break a contract at all? A contract, after all, is kinda like a private law that two (or more) parties agree to be bound by; anyone not involved in that isn't bound by the contract, obviously, and may in fact not even know that it exists. There might be merit if Google had known about the contract and encouraged the guy to break it (assuming such a clause is valid in a contract at all), but even then, the whole thing seems wholly unclear to me, as far as the moral side (which the legal side is supposed to codify) is concerned, at least. And how would you go about proving that Google knew about it or encouraged him?
I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but this seems like yet another case of the playground bully trying to beat up someone else, and I think it's not entirely unreasonable to support the one being beaten up, even though you don't know whether the playground bully just *might* have a valid reason this time.
Hey, it's a Dvorak story. Those *always* get front-paged, because everybody likes to get mad at and/or make fun of that ranting idiot (me included).
:)
Still, congrats!
Why is 90% of the email I get spam? :) Same reason really - most people are stupid. Admittedly, that's a somewhat misanthropic point of view, but it seems to be true more often than not...
I'm pretty sure that Yahoo and Google (in whatever order) are #1 and 2, but what's #3, 4 and 5? I'm not sure that it's really something that you'd "just know" as a web surfer - there simply are too many sites with lots of visitors.
I hadn't heard of the site yet, either, but from your description, it sounds very much like Orkut, and while I wouldn't go as far as the grandparent poster and describe that as a spam webportal, it isn't exactly useful, either.
Ultimately, it probably fits right in with sports news sites, online poker sites and the like - sites that are popular because they appeal to the masses, but that the intelligentsia is much less likely to visit.
I once crashed an ATM running OS/2, myself, although I have no idea how I actually did it - it simply died after I inserted my card. When I informed the bank people, one of the came over to reboot it; it turns out it was a 486 (DX2-66, I think, but that particular detail is rather hazy in my memory), with 8 MB of RAM, running OS/2.
I never was able to crash it again, nor have I ever seen another ATM crash. I have, however, frequently seen bluescreens on the plasma screen info panel of another bank I used to visit each Sunday evening for a year - in fact, I'd estimate that about every 4 weeks or so, the thing had crashed some time during the weekend.
I'm really genuinely glad that I never encountered an ATM running some sort of windows.
Well, IBM could clean it up. The best way would be to rewrite all portions that can't be licensed under an open license; the easiest way would be to simply rip out the offending parts and tell the community "this and that is what the parts we had to remove did, so you'll have to replace them before you get something usable again". Obviously, the former would be better for the users and those still interested in OS/2, but the latter would be a very good starting point, too - remember that in projects like OpenOffice.org or Mozilla, a vast portion of the original code was eventually replaced, too, even though the original code *was* avaiable.
That being said, it's certainly sad to see OS/2 come to an end. I remember buying a copy of OS/2 2.0 when it came out, in 1992 or so - it was *very* impressive indeed. What I liked most was the fact that even very hardware-specific DOS programs like demos or games could still be run without difficulties in most cases; I don't know how IBM managed to pull this off, but they did an admirable job.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for OS/2.
Thanks a lot, you just made me spew yoghurt through my nose from laughing. :)
Think of it as evolution in action - those who're stupid enough to fall for this won't be able to pass on their genes.
:)
What, cynic? Me?