I was wondering how long until a terrible BSOD joke, then I realized IT'S IN THE FUCKING POST! It's not funny anymore, folks! Let the dead horse rest in peace.
Try neverball. You tilt a map and try to get a ball into a hole, and it comes with an extension, Neverputt, which is a mini-putting game. It's great fun. I can even play it with a touchpad (I play it while travelling): Neverball!
With Formatting (doh): Wait, wait, wait. Stop the crazy train, I want to get off. Microsoft is saying that Open Source can't interoperate with the closed standards of windows, but Windows can interoperate with the open standards of OSS. Shocking, absoluly shocking! Open source builds open, easy to implement standards and microsoft implements them. Microsoft builds unpublished, buggy standards and they blame OSS for their inability to emulate them? Doesn't this remind anyone of Calvinball, where the ability to make secret rules affects gameplay? Consider what would happen in the reverse case. Suppose a software company created a free document editor that couldn't open.doc or OpenOffice's format. Would anyone buy that? No, it would be a disaster. Their objection is pure crap.
But wait! There's more! Microsoft is the ultimate deamon of incompatibility. Whereas cygwin and Exceed allow windows to move from OSS to Windows based on intercompatibility, Microsoft would be loathe to allow windows from Windows to move to Linux. True, this represents a fundimental difference in program design, server v. client based, but the fact that programs such as GoToMyPC and Altris exist is strong evidence of which will win out in the end. Worse, Microsoft makes no effort to interoperate with OSS. Can OpenOffice documents be opened in word by default? Hell no! Does Microsoft take steps to assure OSS compatibility? Not bloody likely. OSS takes those steps for Microsoft to assure interoperability, creating the simple Linux->Windows route, while Microsoft makes every effort to derail Windows->Linux. Consider the difficulties of WINE. Micrsoft doesn't give a crap about interoperability, except where their clients would demand it. This is pure FUD.
Wait, wait, wait. Stop the crazy train, I want to get off.
Microsoft is saying that Open Source can't interoperate with the closed standards of windows, but Windows can interoperate with the open standards of OSS. Shocking, absoluly shocking! Open source builds open, easy to implement standards and microsoft implements them. Microsoft builds unpublished, buggy standards and they blame OSS for their inability to emulate them? Doesn't this remind anyone of Calvinball, where the ability to make secret rules affects gameplay? Consider what would happen in the reverse case. Suppose a software company created a free document editor that couldn't open.doc or OpenOffice's format. Would anyone buy that? No, it would be a disaster. Their objection is pure crap.
But wait! There's more!
Microsoft is the ultimate deamon of incompatibility. Whereas cygwin and Exceed allow windows to move from OSS to Windows based on intercompatibility, Microsoft would be loathe to allow windows from Windows to move to Linux. True, this represents a fundimental difference in program design, server v. client based, but the fact that programs such as GoToMyPC and Altris exist is strong evidence of which will win out in the end. Worse, Microsoft makes no effort to interoperate with OSS. Can OpenOffice documents be opened in word by default? Hell no! Does Microsoft take steps to assure OSS compatibility? Not bloody likely. OSS takes those steps for Microsoft to assure interoperability, creating the simple Linux->Windows route, while Microsoft makes every effort to derail Windows->Linux. Consider the difficulties of WINE. Micrsoft doesn't give a crap about interoperability, except where their clients would demand it. This is pure FUD.
Commence one hundred "HAR HAR DOOMZ REALLY DARK" jokes now. You may see: "Yeah, but you can only see 1 space ahead" "WTF WE nEed duct taPe" or "OMG DICE ATTACK YOU FORM KNOQWERE". We get it. Doom's dark. Enough already.
This article ran fine under firefox and delivered interesting content. The methodology was fundimentally flawed as viruses use obscure problems in Windows. Nevertheless, I'll give this article four meta-penguins, for a score of 4/5.
Oh christ, not you whackjobs again. You've infested our forum. Sure, --; is a neat emoticon, but when could one ever use it?
On a seperate note, anyone cringe when reading "He far from succeeded."?
On a completely seperate note, anyone notice how programmers write with slightly different grammar? Extra punctuation always goes outside the ", never inside, as above.
I don't know the specifics of the terrorist groups in Iraq; however, I do know that Hezbollah is not just confined to the Israeli/Palistinian Conflict. Here's a cite. Here's annother cite suggesting they aren't involved only in the Israel/Palistine protracted conflict. Feel free to replace Hezbollah with the terrorist group of your choosing. It's not really important, I'm more interested in the ethics of the situation.
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area.
A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date.
On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder.
The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed.
Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area.
A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date.
On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder.
The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed.
Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
You know, the sites hosted things that weren't copyrighted too. Stuff that's hard to find and dying out, such as early films and books. Ignoring scale, knocking out these sites is like shutting down microsoft for it's sound programm piracy, as discussed a feew weeks ago.
Yeah, this would be cool if you could burn data on both sides. It'd probably cost more though, and the burners might be more expensive. It could even, with a little work, perhaps go up to 3 gigs! Think of the versitility. And it's digital too. We could call it a Digital Versitile Disc.
As for the product being advertised here (because that's what this is, a/vertisement (and isn't even as cool as a double sided CD (they have double sided DVD's, too ))), this is all I've got to say.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you win the best-analogy-ever contest.
Where funny goes to die.
I've seen "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," and it's just pretty fish swimming around. Nothing too serious and I'm suprised people are up in arms about it.
Well, fine. We all know LARPers are huge fucking losers.
I was wondering how long until a terrible BSOD joke, then I realized IT'S IN THE FUCKING POST! It's not funny anymore, folks! Let the dead horse rest in peace.
From the retroactive good choice department...
What was the size of the data leaked? I've seen figures vary, I'm wondering if anyone knows, including ChoicePoint.
You've struck one of my pet peeves! Please stop blaming the lawyers. Blame the litigants and lawmakers.
Try neverball. You tilt a map and try to get a ball into a hole, and it comes with an extension, Neverputt, which is a mini-putting game. It's great fun. I can even play it with a touchpad (I play it while travelling):
Neverball!
Damn straight! Kaleidoscope has had it coming!
God, I hope helldesk was a typo...
With Formatting (doh): .doc or OpenOffice's format. Would anyone buy that? No, it would be a disaster. Their objection is pure crap.
Wait, wait, wait. Stop the crazy train, I want to get off.
Microsoft is saying that Open Source can't interoperate with the closed standards of windows, but Windows can interoperate with the open standards of OSS. Shocking, absoluly shocking! Open source builds open, easy to implement standards and microsoft implements them. Microsoft builds unpublished, buggy standards and they blame OSS for their inability to emulate them? Doesn't this remind anyone of Calvinball, where the ability to make secret rules affects gameplay? Consider what would happen in the reverse case. Suppose a software company created a free document editor that couldn't open
But wait! There's more!
Microsoft is the ultimate deamon of incompatibility. Whereas cygwin and Exceed allow windows to move from OSS to Windows based on intercompatibility, Microsoft would be loathe to allow windows from Windows to move to Linux. True, this represents a fundimental difference in program design, server v. client based, but the fact that programs such as GoToMyPC and Altris exist is strong evidence of which will win out in the end. Worse, Microsoft makes no effort to interoperate with OSS. Can OpenOffice documents be opened in word by default? Hell no! Does Microsoft take steps to assure OSS compatibility? Not bloody likely. OSS takes those steps for Microsoft to assure interoperability, creating the simple Linux->Windows route, while Microsoft makes every effort to derail Windows->Linux. Consider the difficulties of WINE. Micrsoft doesn't give a crap about interoperability, except where their clients would demand it. This is pure FUD.
Wait, wait, wait. Stop the crazy train, I want to get off. Microsoft is saying that Open Source can't interoperate with the closed standards of windows, but Windows can interoperate with the open standards of OSS. Shocking, absoluly shocking! Open source builds open, easy to implement standards and microsoft implements them. Microsoft builds unpublished, buggy standards and they blame OSS for their inability to emulate them? Doesn't this remind anyone of Calvinball, where the ability to make secret rules affects gameplay? Consider what would happen in the reverse case. Suppose a software company created a free document editor that couldn't open .doc or OpenOffice's format. Would anyone buy that? No, it would be a disaster. Their objection is pure crap.
But wait! There's more!
Microsoft is the ultimate deamon of incompatibility. Whereas cygwin and Exceed allow windows to move from OSS to Windows based on intercompatibility, Microsoft would be loathe to allow windows from Windows to move to Linux. True, this represents a fundimental difference in program design, server v. client based, but the fact that programs such as GoToMyPC and Altris exist is strong evidence of which will win out in the end. Worse, Microsoft makes no effort to interoperate with OSS. Can OpenOffice documents be opened in word by default? Hell no! Does Microsoft take steps to assure OSS compatibility? Not bloody likely. OSS takes those steps for Microsoft to assure interoperability, creating the simple Linux->Windows route, while Microsoft makes every effort to derail Windows->Linux. Consider the difficulties of WINE. Micrsoft doesn't give a crap about interoperability, except where their clients would demand it. This is pure FUD.
Commence one hundred "HAR HAR DOOMZ REALLY DARK" jokes now.
You may see:
"Yeah, but you can only see 1 space ahead"
"WTF WE nEed duct taPe"
or "OMG DICE ATTACK YOU FORM KNOQWERE".
We get it. Doom's dark. Enough already.
Please explain more. I'm really interested in the question posed by my sig.
Hey, what happens when you plug a standard (2 button) mouse into a mac USB port? Does only one button register? Will it reject the mouse?
Wait till it becomes abandonware and Valve's servers shut down in five years. HL2 will fall by the wayside and will be forgotten.
This article ran fine under firefox and delivered interesting content. The methodology was fundimentally flawed as viruses use obscure problems in Windows. Nevertheless, I'll give this article four meta-penguins, for a score of 4/5.
Oh christ, not you whackjobs again. You've infested our forum. Sure, --; is a neat emoticon, but when could one ever use it? On a seperate note, anyone cringe when reading "He far from succeeded."? On a completely seperate note, anyone notice how programmers write with slightly different grammar? Extra punctuation always goes outside the ", never inside, as above.
I don't know the specifics of the terrorist groups in Iraq; however, I do know that Hezbollah is not just confined to the Israeli/Palistinian Conflict. Here's a cite. Here's annother cite suggesting they aren't involved only in the Israel/Palistine protracted conflict.
Feel free to replace Hezbollah with the terrorist group of your choosing. It's not really important, I'm more interested in the ethics of the situation.
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area.
A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date.
On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder.
The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed.
Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
A robot sets out in a wind-swept day in Baghdad. It's patrolling the paths between the partially-collapsed buildings of Sadr City, looking for known terrorist vehicles. As such, it is equipped with a single anti-tank round which will be used to destroy known enemy vehicles operated by Hezbollah that may be used in a suicide attack against Americans in a camp suspected to be in the general area. A sandstorm begins. The grained ground of the ancient city begins to rise into the air and engulf all who traverse the much-battled land. The view is obscured by the whirling sand and the darkening sky. The mission operators decide that since intelligence gathering is nearly impossible in such an environment, the robot should be recalled and relaunched at some later date. On the way back, with sandstorm in full force, the operators see a ominous figure on a yellowed rooftop to the left of the bot and about 2 stories above street level. The person, siloetted by the sun and obscured by sand and dust, carries the threatening circle of a rocket-propelled grenade over his sholder. The threat is such that if a soldier were in the place of the robot, he would fire at the siloetted man; however, the robot carries an anti-tank round, not an M16. If the robot were to fire at the man, he would destroy the corner of the building. Collateral damage is nearly certain, as many take refuge because of the storm. Should the robot fire? If he does not, a likely, but not proven, a terrorist may live to kill friendly soldiers and the robot's 'life' will be saved. If he does fire, civilians will likely be killed. Should the robot fire? Should the 'life' of the robot be weighed into the decision?
You know, the sites hosted things that weren't copyrighted too. Stuff that's hard to find and dying out, such as early films and books. Ignoring scale, knocking out these sites is like shutting down microsoft for it's sound programm piracy, as discussed a feew weeks ago.
I usually just rename and reicon the shortcut to Firefox and hide the real IE shortcut, after installing flash and java.
Yeah, this would be cool if you could burn data on both sides. It'd probably cost more though, and the burners might be more expensive. It could even, with a little work, perhaps go up to 3 gigs! Think of the versitility. And it's digital too. We could call it a Digital Versitile Disc.
/vertisement (and isn't even as cool as a double sided CD (they have double sided DVD's, too ))), this is all I've got to say.
As for the product being advertised here (because that's what this is, a