By the time that happens, CGI will be more than good enough that it isn't necessary to build an actual robot. Even if people's opinion of CGI gets more critical to match improvements in the technology, it's unlikely that actual, real robots are going to be able to do any better.
CDs may *possibly* have been expensive to produce in the early days- but they milked that long after it ceased to be an issue, keeping the prices of CDs higher than LPs and cassettes.
It obviously wasn't an issue by the point (at least ten years ago) when AOL could *give away* countless CD-ROMs. I don't care how much CDs cost to replicate, it couldn't have come anywhere near justifying the UK £4 cost of a CD single in the mid-1990s (taking inflation into account, that's probably between £5-6 or US $8-11 - with tax - in today's money).
CD singles were disgustingly overpriced. Even during the first week many of them were out, when they were often sold at £2 / £2.50 to get them in the charts wasn't particularly cheap. They were padded out with multiple bonus tracks, some of which were good, but much of it was crap B-side filler material one suspects was put in to (a) justify the bloated price and (b) get diehard fans to push it into the charts and fork out money. Oh, and remember the old CD1, CD2 promotional bullshit? Buy both editions of the single to get *all* the bonus tracks including 101 crappy remixes by name producers that bear no resemblance to the original.
And they all came in those nasty slimline plastic cases.
Ordinary people may have concluded that they'd rather buy the album for £11-12 than fork out £4 for one song, another nice way of pushing expensive albums over not-cheap singles.
I'm sure that they could have sold two-track CD singles at a similar price to vinyl and made a decent profit- the difference in duplication costs would have been negligible by that stage. Any issues with the CD single format were likely due to the record companies' desire to cynically exploit it and turn it into an overpriced way to sell endless crap tracks to fans via promotional "collectors' edition" scams.
I still bought the damn things (normally the week they came out when they weren't extortionate- else I'd sometimes buy the tape or vinyl version purely because it was cheaper). However, I have no fondness for the format; on top of all that, having a bloody CD and case just for one song is annoying. I was so used to paying through the nose for one of a limited selection of overpriced lumps of plastic that even paying 80p for virtually any track on iTunes minus all the irrelevant physical garbage seems like a great deal.
That's why Sealand needs nuclear weapons, prefarrably deployed in several nuclear subs spread out around the oceans.
Yeah, I heard that they're having a "Blue Peter" style appeal for people to send them their old smoke detectors so they can collect enough of the radioactive parts to build a bomb...
Sounds like you need a simple proxy server whose only job is to insert the cookie. Then direct all your clients to use the proxy server. Could even be a transparent proxy in your router.
Frankly, the fact that anyone should need to even consider going to such lengths to make up for such a flawed opt-out system on a disgusting scheme like Phorm (that would suck even if it were opt-in) says a lot about the whole obnoxious setup.
Problem is, no other manufacturer offers me a 160GB drive with good batterylife (40hrs+). Apple does.
Actually...Apple doesn't offer that either anymore. Their largest iPod classic now is only 120G.
I've wondered why they dropped down the size on the unit??
So that when flash memory becomes cheap enough that it's feasible to base their largest models around, but not quite cheap enough that they can get (e.g.) 160GB instead of 80GB, the drop doesn't seem quite as bad?
"Yes, it's slightly smaller," people will rationalise, "but it's a minor difference considering the advantages of flash memory".
They *could* wait until flash memory got cheap enough that they could build 160GB models around it, but that might take some time, this way they get to meet in the middle.
Just an idea, and possibly nonsense. Who knows? (One possible problem being that flash memory is growing in capacity and dropping in price at the same phenomenal rate that hard drives were during the 1990s and early 2000s, so 80GB->160GB would happen in less than a year- i.e. one generation).
Offer a new line of openSUSE laptops with all the hardware configured and working out of the box (wireless, webcam, etc) and that will send a message to Microsoft.
MS's overwhelming dominance (if not monopoly) in the desktop market means that they can force companies to dance to their tune by- for example- threatening to charge those who do such things more for Windows. Which would of course damage HP's competitiveness and/or profitability since- like it or not- most people will still want Windows on their computer.
Whether such behaviour is legal or not is highly questionable. No doubt they'd weasel it such that HP simply weren't given a "discount" that all the other major players got rather than being overtly charged more. Anyway, it's irrelevant if MS can get away with it or if the consequences for them would be minimal, which is probably the case.
Much like movies based on super heroes and video games have gotten better, some even to the point of being able to be called good, the same has happened with games based on movies.
Have you played any of the Evil Dead games? Fistful of Boomstick was fun and while I didn't play all of Hail to the King, what I did play of it was good.
Have you played the originalEvil Dead game? I think it proves your point about movie games having improved since that era:)
Although I was fortunate in that by the time I got my 8-bit Atari 800XL there was a healthy budget games market (UK £1.99-2.99) and most games were cheap, I understand that this wasn't always true earlier on, particularly with the Atari. Some of the early Atari home computer games were apparently very expensive, and AFAIK 8-bit console games- whether for the early Atari VCS or the later NES- were *never* that cheap. In fact, taking inflation into account a lot of those games were just as expensive.
The cover scan of this early 1980s Atari game has an (I assume) contemporary price tag of $29.99 (US I assume, again) on it, and I don't believe that this was out of the ordinary.
Well, the C64 only had C= Basic V2 which would fit in a 8kb ROM.
Atari BASIC also had to fit into 8KB (one of the reasons they didn't go with MS BASIC). Yet while it's not one of the most advanced BASICs on the face of the planet, it's a passable implementation. And didn't *most* BASICs on early-to-mid-era 8-bit home computers have to fit into 8KB anyway?
Actually, perhaps the problems Atari had fitting MS BASIC into 8KB suggest that C=, who *did* go for it, may have had to trim features to get it in.
Anyway, it's nice that C= put one over on MS, but we all know who won out in the long run:-(
And the three-finger salute realy restarted the machine by that time. No soft restart (learn that Linux!), no set of options (learn that XP!), and was never ignored (learn that crashing Vista!), just a restart, managed by the BIOS, the way IBM meant it to be!
Are there any cases where the "reset" button on the front of a PC *doesn't* force an immediate hard restart in the same way that ALT-CTRL-DEL did back then?
And who would be using a 266MHz P2 in a new device when you could get a Via or an ARM CPU that would do so much more with less juice?
Companies that sold systems/products built around P2s and P2-compatible chipsets that weren't worth spending money redesigning just to work with a slightly cheaper Via whose extra power they likely wouldn't be using anyway. The ARM isn't compatible on a software level either; not only would the hardware need redesigned but so would the software.
Or companies that had niche computer systems built around P2s that would be a PITA to refit with the processors you describe since that would require a mobo (and possibly software) update, and other hardware replacement. Etc...
The P2 would also have been a reasonably proven design by that time, and while Joe Public might not have such good reasons for conservatism and compatibility considerations, many companies and institutions do. I doubt the P2 was selling in big numbers by 2004, but I'm equally sure that there was a niche market for it. Processors have been continued a lot longer than that after their mainstream time is over, you know.
Actually Atari Basic was arguably worse the Basic 2.0.
Atari Basic had totally none standard String handling.
C64 Basic lacked extensions for graphics and sound but other than that it wasn't terrible.
Atari BASIC was no worse than a lot of 8-bit BASICs. Nothing amazing- it lacked structured programming beyond GOTO (but then so did most 8-bits apart from the BBC Micro) and it wasn't too fast, but it was respectable enough.
Yeah, the string handling was a bit nonstandard (and slightly annoying in some ways), but that was hardly the end of the world. Supported lettered device handler names and access to drivers via XIO. I'd take that over a mess of POKEs and control characters for even the most simple facilities any day.
Since Commodore Basic was originally written by Microsoft, that seems almost approriate.
I heard that the reason the C64's BASIC sucked so hard was that C= got the license to the original MS BASIC for the PET on very good terms, and didn't want to renegotiate this and pay them more for a newer version (that would have done the hardware justice).
The BASIC on the C16/Plus4 machines is supposed to be much improved (maybe they forked out?) but as those computers bombed commercially it was all to no avail.
Whoever decided on trying to shove a round Wikipedia into a square GFDL initially made a big mistake. I'm suspecting they just didn't even read the GFDL or make any cursory effort to try to map the concepts in the GFDL, which are very obviously designed for software manuals and only for software manuals [my emphasis], onto what they were trying to build.
It's arguably worse than that; I assume that you had the main part of Wikipedia (i.e. the text) in mind, but of course, WP also consists of images and it permits- if not encourages- licensing of them under the GFDL. Problem is that some important parts of it just don't seem to make sense *at all* when applied to images!
A lot of people probably just think of the general gist of the GFDL and think "oh, GFDL, that's good", then license their work under it. I've done that myself.
However, I've since re-read it and tried (and failed) to understand what *exactly* it said when applied to images as opposed to text. The conclusion I came to wasn't merely that it was wasn't originally designed with that use in mind and hence slightly convoluted- that much is obvious- it's that much of it just does not- and hence can not- be applied to images.
It's a while since I read it, but from what I remember- at best, a literal interpretation of the GFDL would make image reuse under it impractical, and at worst (and more likely) it has so many key parts that don't really make sense when applied to images that it (a) provides no guidance to people using it about what they can and can't do and (b) if it was ever used legally in court, it would require undue amounts of interpretation, judgement and legalistic judgement to even make it "fit" this context and hence- just guessing since IANAL- (c) any of its use for images may be thrown out of court for that precise reason.
In short, IMHO the GFDL is at best vague and inappropriate and at worst meaningless when applied to images. The CC licenses OTOH, seem to be much more appropriate.
I'd really like to give you an "Insightful" on this one, but I prefer to reward logged-in users with those few mod points I have.
You don't deserve any damn mod points whatsoever- it's assholes like you that ruin moderation systems.
Mod points are meant to highlight posts that are worth reading- even if you disagree with them- and bury the crap. It's not meant to signal approval/disapproval nor (in your case) should it be a self-indulgent reward for user behaviour that you happen to prefer. Yeah, tell me that's not how people use it in real life- that's exactly why certain moderation systems suck (last time I checked, the Digg one was worse than useless for this reason).
ACs start at 0 anyway- which makes it worthwhile logging in anyway- not as a "punishment" but purely because posting ACs makes troll/flamebait/drivel posts more likely. If an AC makes a good valid point that isn't reliant upon proof of identity, it's valid regardless.
What makes it worse is your inappropriately sanctimonious attitude towards the other user who (quite validly) chose to post AC, and your implication that your misuse (or lack of) mod points in this case was the reward for "good behaviour". *You* were the one in the wrong.
This is old news everywhere. Schemes like this were tried in the United States several times in the late nineties/early 00's. They were all failures.
No, this obviously isn't the same at all. The schemes you described were to give people free or very cheap PCs in exchange for agreeing to be bombarded by advertising, using a variant of the "get the eyeballs first and then profit will somehow follow" dotcom-era mantra.
The one here is where you get a "free" PC if you agree to commit to a (paid) two year mobile broadband contract; very similar to existing deals with mobile phones and contracts. The phone isn't really free, it's effectively covered by the cost of the contract which you've agreed to pay and the company knows in advance. Nothing new and not the same thing.
Well, to be fair, their discussion took place on Wiki pages, so it was either Ubuntu 8.04 or HAHAHHAYOUSUCKCOCKS.
Yeah, I can see that some 13 year old vandal might think that it was funny to replace "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2" with something silly like, er... "Ubuntu 8.04";-)
BTW, HAHAHHAYOUSUCKCOCKS 2.06 is a fine server distro and I won't hear a word against it.
Awesome, I wish I had some old computer stuff you could really play with. The most soldering you get to do nowadays is to overclock certain computers and often you can use pencil hah.
Well, to be fair, you can't exactly get inside a Z80 or 6502 and play around with it, can you? It's still a black box.
I remember reading old computer mags my Dad had from the early 1980s, and one of the letters was someone complaining that his Dragon 32 computer was a closed box whose inner workings were relatively opaque. Of course, compared to the early, self-assembled hobbyist computers with their hexadecimal keypads, such computers probably *were* closed consumer devices.
And as I said earlier, a microchip-based CPU is effectively unhackable, no matter what it's plugged into.
No; DOS used the backslash as a directory separator (since- apparently- someone had permitted forward slash to be a legal filename character before subdirectories had been introduced).
AFAIK PHP uses the forward slash for that purpose (or does this depend upon the server/OS it's running under?) Either way, namespaces have nothing to do with the infamous DOS usage.
Slashdot Mirror
By the time that happens, CGI will be more than good enough that it isn't necessary to build an actual robot. Even if people's opinion of CGI gets more critical to match improvements in the technology, it's unlikely that actual, real robots are going to be able to do any better.
CDs may *possibly* have been expensive to produce in the early days- but they milked that long after it ceased to be an issue, keeping the prices of CDs higher than LPs and cassettes.
It obviously wasn't an issue by the point (at least ten years ago) when AOL could *give away* countless CD-ROMs. I don't care how much CDs cost to replicate, it couldn't have come anywhere near justifying the UK £4 cost of a CD single in the mid-1990s (taking inflation into account, that's probably between £5-6 or US $8-11 - with tax - in today's money).
CD singles were disgustingly overpriced. Even during the first week many of them were out, when they were often sold at £2 / £2.50 to get them in the charts wasn't particularly cheap. They were padded out with multiple bonus tracks, some of which were good, but much of it was crap B-side filler material one suspects was put in to (a) justify the bloated price and (b) get diehard fans to push it into the charts and fork out money. Oh, and remember the old CD1, CD2 promotional bullshit? Buy both editions of the single to get *all* the bonus tracks including 101 crappy remixes by name producers that bear no resemblance to the original.
And they all came in those nasty slimline plastic cases.
Ordinary people may have concluded that they'd rather buy the album for £11-12 than fork out £4 for one song, another nice way of pushing expensive albums over not-cheap singles.
I'm sure that they could have sold two-track CD singles at a similar price to vinyl and made a decent profit- the difference in duplication costs would have been negligible by that stage. Any issues with the CD single format were likely due to the record companies' desire to cynically exploit it and turn it into an overpriced way to sell endless crap tracks to fans via promotional "collectors' edition" scams.
I still bought the damn things (normally the week they came out when they weren't extortionate- else I'd sometimes buy the tape or vinyl version purely because it was cheaper). However, I have no fondness for the format; on top of all that, having a bloody CD and case just for one song is annoying. I was so used to paying through the nose for one of a limited selection of overpriced lumps of plastic that even paying 80p for virtually any track on iTunes minus all the irrelevant physical garbage seems like a great deal.
That's why Sealand needs nuclear weapons, prefarrably deployed in several nuclear subs spread out around the oceans.
Yeah, I heard that they're having a "Blue Peter" style appeal for people to send them their old smoke detectors so they can collect enough of the radioactive parts to build a bomb...
Perhaps "intentionally flawed" would be a better description then?
Sounds like you need a simple proxy server whose only job is to insert the cookie. Then direct all your clients to use the proxy server. Could even be a transparent proxy in your router.
Frankly, the fact that anyone should need to even consider going to such lengths to make up for such a flawed opt-out system on a disgusting scheme like Phorm (that would suck even if it were opt-in) says a lot about the whole obnoxious setup.
I used FDR of raping me years after he died, and won.
FDR raped you years after he'd died...?!
OMG ZOMBIESECKS!!!!!1111111
Problem is, no other manufacturer offers me a 160GB drive with good batterylife (40hrs+). Apple does.
Actually...Apple doesn't offer that either anymore. Their largest iPod classic now is only 120G. I've wondered why they dropped down the size on the unit??
So that when flash memory becomes cheap enough that it's feasible to base their largest models around, but not quite cheap enough that they can get (e.g.) 160GB instead of 80GB, the drop doesn't seem quite as bad?
"Yes, it's slightly smaller," people will rationalise, "but it's a minor difference considering the advantages of flash memory".
They *could* wait until flash memory got cheap enough that they could build 160GB models around it, but that might take some time, this way they get to meet in the middle.
Just an idea, and possibly nonsense. Who knows? (One possible problem being that flash memory is growing in capacity and dropping in price at the same phenomenal rate that hard drives were during the 1990s and early 2000s, so 80GB->160GB would happen in less than a year- i.e. one generation).
Offer a new line of openSUSE laptops with all the hardware configured and working out of the box (wireless, webcam, etc) and that will send a message to Microsoft.
MS's overwhelming dominance (if not monopoly) in the desktop market means that they can force companies to dance to their tune by- for example- threatening to charge those who do such things more for Windows. Which would of course damage HP's competitiveness and/or profitability since- like it or not- most people will still want Windows on their computer.
Whether such behaviour is legal or not is highly questionable. No doubt they'd weasel it such that HP simply weren't given a "discount" that all the other major players got rather than being overtly charged more. Anyway, it's irrelevant if MS can get away with it or if the consequences for them would be minimal, which is probably the case.
I'm very dissapointed to see Buster Gonads wasn't on that list.
Well, speaking of Viz characters, they already made one of The Fat Slags. Never seen it myself, but it's supposedly dire.
:)
Even so, I'd love to see the reaction of the average American Slashdot reader going to see that because it was a "comic book movie".
On second thoughts, they can check out the claymation version
Much like movies based on super heroes and video games have gotten better, some even to the point of being able to be called good, the same has happened with games based on movies. Have you played any of the Evil Dead games? Fistful of Boomstick was fun and while I didn't play all of Hail to the King, what I did play of it was good.
Have you played the original Evil Dead game? I think it proves your point about movie games having improved since that era :)
Whereas in the 8-bit days games were cheap
Although I was fortunate in that by the time I got my 8-bit Atari 800XL there was a healthy budget games market (UK £1.99-2.99) and most games were cheap, I understand that this wasn't always true earlier on, particularly with the Atari. Some of the early Atari home computer games were apparently very expensive, and AFAIK 8-bit console games- whether for the early Atari VCS or the later NES- were *never* that cheap. In fact, taking inflation into account a lot of those games were just as expensive.
The cover scan of this early 1980s Atari game has an (I assume) contemporary price tag of $29.99 (US I assume, again) on it, and I don't believe that this was out of the ordinary.
Well, the C64 only had C= Basic V2 which would fit in a 8kb ROM.
Atari BASIC also had to fit into 8KB (one of the reasons they didn't go with MS BASIC). Yet while it's not one of the most advanced BASICs on the face of the planet, it's a passable implementation. And didn't *most* BASICs on early-to-mid-era 8-bit home computers have to fit into 8KB anyway?
:-(
Actually, perhaps the problems Atari had fitting MS BASIC into 8KB suggest that C=, who *did* go for it, may have had to trim features to get it in.
Anyway, it's nice that C= put one over on MS, but we all know who won out in the long run
Many companies buy mass qty's of TY and re-brand them.
That doesn't necessarily guarantee quality; they could be TY rejects or ones that haven't undergone such rigorous testing as the branded TYs.
And the three-finger salute realy restarted the machine by that time. No soft restart (learn that Linux!), no set of options (learn that XP!), and was never ignored (learn that crashing Vista!), just a restart, managed by the BIOS, the way IBM meant it to be!
Are there any cases where the "reset" button on the front of a PC *doesn't* force an immediate hard restart in the same way that ALT-CTRL-DEL did back then?
And who would be using a 266MHz P2 in a new device when you could get a Via or an ARM CPU that would do so much more with less juice?
Companies that sold systems/products built around P2s and P2-compatible chipsets that weren't worth spending money redesigning just to work with a slightly cheaper Via whose extra power they likely wouldn't be using anyway. The ARM isn't compatible on a software level either; not only would the hardware need redesigned but so would the software.
Or companies that had niche computer systems built around P2s that would be a PITA to refit with the processors you describe since that would require a mobo (and possibly software) update, and other hardware replacement. Etc...
The P2 would also have been a reasonably proven design by that time, and while Joe Public might not have such good reasons for conservatism and compatibility considerations, many companies and institutions do. I doubt the P2 was selling in big numbers by 2004, but I'm equally sure that there was a niche market for it. Processors have been continued a lot longer than that after their mainstream time is over, you know.
Actually Atari Basic was arguably worse the Basic 2.0. Atari Basic had totally none standard String handling. C64 Basic lacked extensions for graphics and sound but other than that it wasn't terrible.
Atari BASIC was no worse than a lot of 8-bit BASICs. Nothing amazing- it lacked structured programming beyond GOTO (but then so did most 8-bits apart from the BBC Micro) and it wasn't too fast, but it was respectable enough.
Yeah, the string handling was a bit nonstandard (and slightly annoying in some ways), but that was hardly the end of the world. Supported lettered device handler names and access to drivers via XIO. I'd take that over a mess of POKEs and control characters for even the most simple facilities any day.
Since Commodore Basic was originally written by Microsoft, that seems almost approriate.
I heard that the reason the C64's BASIC sucked so hard was that C= got the license to the original MS BASIC for the PET on very good terms, and didn't want to renegotiate this and pay them more for a newer version (that would have done the hardware justice).
The BASIC on the C16/Plus4 machines is supposed to be much improved (maybe they forked out?) but as those computers bombed commercially it was all to no avail.
Whoever decided on trying to shove a round Wikipedia into a square GFDL initially made a big mistake. I'm suspecting they just didn't even read the GFDL or make any cursory effort to try to map the concepts in the GFDL, which are very obviously designed for software manuals and only for software manuals [my emphasis], onto what they were trying to build.
It's arguably worse than that; I assume that you had the main part of Wikipedia (i.e. the text) in mind, but of course, WP also consists of images and it permits- if not encourages- licensing of them under the GFDL. Problem is that some important parts of it just don't seem to make sense *at all* when applied to images!
A lot of people probably just think of the general gist of the GFDL and think "oh, GFDL, that's good", then license their work under it. I've done that myself.
However, I've since re-read it and tried (and failed) to understand what *exactly* it said when applied to images as opposed to text. The conclusion I came to wasn't merely that it was wasn't originally designed with that use in mind and hence slightly convoluted- that much is obvious- it's that much of it just does not- and hence can not- be applied to images.
It's a while since I read it, but from what I remember- at best, a literal interpretation of the GFDL would make image reuse under it impractical, and at worst (and more likely) it has so many key parts that don't really make sense when applied to images that it (a) provides no guidance to people using it about what they can and can't do and (b) if it was ever used legally in court, it would require undue amounts of interpretation, judgement and legalistic judgement to even make it "fit" this context and hence- just guessing since IANAL- (c) any of its use for images may be thrown out of court for that precise reason.
In short, IMHO the GFDL is at best vague and inappropriate and at worst meaningless when applied to images. The CC licenses OTOH, seem to be much more appropriate.
I'd really like to give you an "Insightful" on this one, but I prefer to reward logged-in users with those few mod points I have.
You don't deserve any damn mod points whatsoever- it's assholes like you that ruin moderation systems.
Mod points are meant to highlight posts that are worth reading- even if you disagree with them- and bury the crap. It's not meant to signal approval/disapproval nor (in your case) should it be a self-indulgent reward for user behaviour that you happen to prefer. Yeah, tell me that's not how people use it in real life- that's exactly why certain moderation systems suck (last time I checked, the Digg one was worse than useless for this reason).
ACs start at 0 anyway- which makes it worthwhile logging in anyway- not as a "punishment" but purely because posting ACs makes troll/flamebait/drivel posts more likely. If an AC makes a good valid point that isn't reliant upon proof of identity, it's valid regardless.
What makes it worse is your inappropriately sanctimonious attitude towards the other user who (quite validly) chose to post AC, and your implication that your misuse (or lack of) mod points in this case was the reward for "good behaviour". *You* were the one in the wrong.
This is old news everywhere. Schemes like this were tried in the United States several times in the late nineties/early 00's. They were all failures.
No, this obviously isn't the same at all. The schemes you described were to give people free or very cheap PCs in exchange for agreeing to be bombarded by advertising, using a variant of the "get the eyeballs first and then profit will somehow follow" dotcom-era mantra.
The one here is where you get a "free" PC if you agree to commit to a (paid) two year mobile broadband contract; very similar to existing deals with mobile phones and contracts. The phone isn't really free, it's effectively covered by the cost of the contract which you've agreed to pay and the company knows in advance. Nothing new and not the same thing.
It's like the 80's except better since the software is open-source and you aren't locked into the whims of the supplier!
And also that Tiffany isn't at #1.
Well, to be fair, their discussion took place on Wiki pages, so it was either Ubuntu 8.04 or HAHAHHAYOUSUCKCOCKS.
Yeah, I can see that some 13 year old vandal might think that it was funny to replace "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2" with something silly like, er... "Ubuntu 8.04" ;-)
BTW, HAHAHHAYOUSUCKCOCKS 2.06 is a fine server distro and I won't hear a word against it.
Awesome, I wish I had some old computer stuff you could really play with. The most soldering you get to do nowadays is to overclock certain computers and often you can use pencil hah.
Well, to be fair, you can't exactly get inside a Z80 or 6502 and play around with it, can you? It's still a black box.
I remember reading old computer mags my Dad had from the early 1980s, and one of the letters was someone complaining that his Dragon 32 computer was a closed box whose inner workings were relatively opaque. Of course, compared to the early, self-assembled hobbyist computers with their hexadecimal keypads, such computers probably *were* closed consumer devices.
And as I said earlier, a microchip-based CPU is effectively unhackable, no matter what it's plugged into.
I told you to scrape Slashdot, not read it. Now get back to work!
I've only one thing to say to Anonymous Slashdot Scraper... '); DROP TABLE rippedoffcomments; -- Goodbye!
Going back to DOS style...
No; DOS used the backslash as a directory separator (since- apparently- someone had permitted forward slash to be a legal filename character before subdirectories had been introduced).
AFAIK PHP uses the forward slash for that purpose (or does this depend upon the server/OS it's running under?) Either way, namespaces have nothing to do with the infamous DOS usage.