Anyway, the article is more of note for the doctor who reference at the start. An amusing piece of nostalgia You're nostalgic for something that happened in the 2005 Christmas Special?
It indeed crashes IE here... Windows 2K3, IE7 I'm using IE7 bog-standard Windows XP with SP2, and it "crashed" in the manner described for me too. Remember that (as the article states) you have to open a new tab.
It takes a few seconds to crash after the new tab is opened; that's enough time to type in an auto-completed URL and have it start loading. Strange thing about this is that even though Windows shows the standard "crashed" dialog box for IE, beneath that I can still see (e.g.) Slashdot continue to load in the background until I dismiss the dialog.
Even signing up to a £15/month contract, I can get any of the popular phones for free. That's only really worth it if you wanted the contract or they're giving away a more expensive phone anyway.
Someone who just wants one for very occasional use in the UK can pick up a dirt-cheap model for £20, and some of those include £10 airtime. Given the lack of a contract, that's as close to free as makes no difference.
Obviously if you're talking a lot, it's not such a good deal, but horses for courses and all that cal.
I would sooner move into the woods and live off of squirrel feces than put up with ANOTHER stream of ads assaulting my senses. You're doing that anyway- the Soylent Brown you enjoy *is* squirrel faeces.
Whenever I dial someone, it usually rings a couple times before they answer. Instead of listening to the ringing sound, perhaps they'll have you listen to an ad instead? You mean something short and snappy that directly replaces the "ring ring"? Hmm...
(Taps number in).
(Pause).
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
(Two minutes later)
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply direc.... Hello?"
"If you ever take that long to reply to your phone again, I swear I will kill you."
but then again in any halwfay free country they can do the choice someday That doesn't make sense. Everyone has to obey the law (and receive its protection, whether they like it or not) of the country they live in. There's no choice in the matter.
If you mean moving to another country, saying "in any halfway free country" doesn't make sense, since they'd no longer be living in that country. And they don't have an automatic or guaranteed right of residency elsewhere.
i am sorry i had to bring money to that equation, i also value human and civil rights a lot, but some ultra-egoists cannot understand it the other way. That as may be- but by making it into a simple issue of money, you're reducing it to their level and almost negating the point you are trying to make.
Saying "Black Magic Woman by Carlos Santana" makes no sense. Neither does a song about a song about a woman who likes mass-produced chocolate assortments. He was going to call it "Milk Tray Woman" at first, but Cadbury's wouldn't pay him enough, and "Quality Street Woman" was banned because it sounded like it was about a prostitute.
Beyond being a brand/certification, what does Unix actually mean these days, really?
My guess is very little (as the summary acknowledges, to be fair). Though I can't say it was pointless for Apple to get the certification, if only because it's a selling point to ageing senior managers who vaguely remember when "Unix" actually meant something (and think it still does). Since the Apple and Mac names aren't particularly associated with the Enterprise/Server market, the Unix brand gives them a "serious" selling point.
Sure, they could have pointed out the "BSD" underpinnings, and any real expert would know what they meant. But for the management types, "Unix" is probably still the name to go for.
Linux meanwhile *is* spiritually just as much "Unix" as any of the "official" licensees... but it has enough brand recognition in its own right anyway.
At its highest price, the Blue Gene/L cost $1.3 million per rack Pamela Anderson eat your heart out! my rack is bigger than yours it brings the researchers to the yard i could teach you but i'd have to charge... *dances* I hear that David Bowie has a thing for Blue Gene computers:
"Blue Jean^wGene, I just met a supercomputer named Blue Gene
Blue Gene, She got a camouflaged face and no money" Remember, they always let you down when you need `em"
(Guess IBM's reliability sucks, then...)
"Oh Blue Gene
Is heaven any sweeter than Blue Gene?
She got a one-petaflop 294,912-processor, 72-rack system configuration harnessed to a high-speed, optical network,
She got a turned up nose..."
I'm not defending everything the GP said, not by a long shot. However...
i have got news for you: you have no inherent rights at all. [..] all rights you have are the rights the society is willing to rent you. taxes you pay are the rental fees for [rights] That's a very dubious line. While I accept that no-one has inherent rights, to tie legal rights to the payment of taxes is the thin end of a very large and dangerous wedge.
(Also, before I go further, we should remember that the term "rights" is used both for moral rights and for legal/practical rights. The former would ideally lead to the latter, but they're not the same thing, and it helps to keep discussion clear if we know which we're talking about.)
the landlord has the right to throw someone unwilling to pay the rental fee out, or to sue them until they pay - business as usual. same thing with taxes, really. Society is not the same as a private arrangement with a landlord, and you greatly cheapen and dilute the concept of human rights by reducing it to that level, or even by bringing money into the equation.
Whilst I agreed that there was nothing *inherent* about "rights"- since by definition they are a human construct, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have them or that they aren't more valuable than a private contract.
I mean, even moral rights are a human construct, simply because morality itself is too, but that doesn't make either any less important.
if you don't want to be part of the society, then get the hell out of it and stop doing business with it. The inherent flaw in your argument is that most people are born into the society they live in; they had no choice in the matter, and you assume that there is somewhere else that they can go to.
I don't want this to turn into one of those pseudo-intellectual (but in truth quite stupid) discussions common amongst a certain type of Slashdotter that uses crap analogies and misapplies logic from other fields to "argue" moral cases. So I won't say something stupid like "they didn't sign a contract when they were born, so they don't have to obey the rules"...
*However*, I will re-emphasise that people have no choice in where they are born, and that rights which are based on fundamental morality should not *ever* be compared to some petty contract, nor whipped away. Ironically, I think you've damaged the original point you were trying to make (which in certain respects I would have agreed with).
I have a patent for an electromechanical device that like a human brain is able to make choices based on a series of logical assessments of sensed data, like "they're both true" or "neither are true." Generally speaking, the human brain doesn't work like that, and I very much doubt a workable AI system could be built on such logic. The complexity would grow to horrendous levels, and logics is fragile in the sense that everything has to be able to be considered "true" or "false"- and any single wrong input may throw the whole thing totally.
Also, many of the jokes are more subtle than those usual to the Simpsons, and probably people won't want to look at a cartoon and have to think harder to understand its humour. I'm not convinced; I think you've mistaken "specialist" humour that's more reliant upon knowledge of a particular area (including its pop-culture references) for genuine "subtlety".
The Simpsons *did* contain subtle humour in some areas. Whereas I feel Futurama's was very reliant upon parodying retro science fiction cliches and the old "aspects of present-day society given a futuristic twist" school of sci-fi comedy.
For my money, Futurama *never* felt like it would have the same universal appeal that The Simpsons managed so effectively. That's not to say that it was bad, but dakameleon put his (her?) finger on it very well when he said that The Simpsons had more characters people could identify with.
FWIW, I feel that The Simpsons actually has more creativity and freedom than Futurama. On first glance you'd expect the opposite, as being set in a fantasy future it has the freedom to do anything. In reality, it's quite tied by its retro sci-fi roots and reliance upon parody, both of which limit it creatively and in terms of audience appeal.
This probably sounds like I think Futurama sucks; I don't. It's all relative- but there are sound and legitimate reasons why it's not- and never will be- as well-loved as The Simpsons.
7" is way too small. Contrary to what some people think, 7" is slightly above average and nothing to be ashamed about.
Even 10" is too small. Whoah... talk about high standards. Is this for yourself or what you're looking for in another guy? What a size queen...
There should be a 12 or 14" option for $299. Now you're just getting silly. Even the most outlandish spam doesn't promise that much, and who really wants 14" when it comes down to it? Given the choice, I'd stick with the 10".
It may even have to have a fake keyboard, just like the cheap computers of the 80's, which, btw, were also just a few chips and few ports. What's a "fake keyboard"? Is that like the ZX81's touch-sensitive thing?
New ZX81-sized thing for bugger all? That'd be cool:)
The 280x192 pixel resolution of the original Apple II computer didn't stop it, Newsflash, it's not the late 1970s any more and people expect more from a computer these days.
and the 256x192 pixel resolution of each screen of the Nintendo DS Lite Homebrew Edition pocket computer ($169.95) doesn't stop it either. I'm sure that's a nice toy, and it might even make a good organiser if the software's properly integrated and it doesn't have bits of software dangling off. But it's probably not a replacement for a "real" computer, and I seriously doubt many non-geeks/hobbyists (i.e. "normal" users) have bought one... or even considered one. Or frankly even know that you can play anything more than games on a DS.
True, Queen II was an excellent album, and I know that half of it was basically his. (Wish they'd left off Taylor's "Loser in the End" off that side. It wasn't that great, and it really didn't fit with the rest of the album).
I wasn't implying that he hadn't done anything of note, just nothing that I could think to make a joke out of:-)
That having been said, all his musical work nowadays seems to be related to mining the Queen legacy. That might sound a bit more mean-spirited than I meant it to be, but it seems that he's just reworking the past now.
This is just anther retread... they tried this during the Atari - Colecovision days, and it was a HUGE FLOP! [..] all these advertisers are just SUCKERS! Well, GamesMaster ran for six years and ten series, which is pretty respectable... and the WP article suggests that its axing was due to personal politics rather than ratings (which were still healthy by Channel 4 standards at the time of its demise).
As I said, I wasn't too keen on it personally for similar reasons to the ones you give, but plenty of others must have disagreed. Whether it would have done as well on say, BBC1 or ITV (the two highest-rated and more mainstream channels of the time) is unclear. Also, although I said C4's sports department dealt with it, it was more just a series of informal challenges than a proper "sports" type tournament. Perhaps the show you talked about was different, I don't know.
It is high time that the geekier sports such as video gaming be given a chance on network television. Anyone in the UK from their mid-teens onwards will likely remember GamesMaster, a show on Channel 4 that primarily focused on people playing computer games in just that manner. And this was over 15 years ago... okay, to be fair, it's not been on TV since 1998- but my point is that showing gaming on TV is nothing new.
Personally, I'd rather have seen less people playing games and more reviews and stuff. (But apparently- according to the article- GamesMaster was under the jurisdiction of Channel 4's sports department.) Watching people play computer games just wasn't that exciting to me.
soon people are too lazy to even play anymore, and just watch when someone else playes. Like with ice hockey and other sports. Ice hockey? Not bloody surprising; I'd rather watch some other guy getting his head bashed in than having it done to me.
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me
Any way the stellar wind blows... Sorry to ruin the joke, but Freddie Mercury wrote that one. OTOH, May did write the aforementioned.... Fat Bottomed Girls. Okay, maybe not such a good joke in there;-)
Sure, "odd-numbered-Star-Treks-suck" is a good rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean they uniformly suck. Am I the only person who thought that the first Star Trek film was actually quite good? Yes, it was a bit slow, and the plot was a complete ripoff of a ST:TOS episode, but as a sci-fi film it was pretty good.
OTOH, I'm not that big a fan of the original Star Trek, or the Star Trek films, and it's notable that ST:TMP doesn't feel as much like Star Trek as the other films. Perhaps (as has been suggested elsewhere), this is a reason that fans don't like it.
On the other hand, I feel that it is an interesting take on the original crew getting back together after some time, and in a different context (both from their point-of-view and the filmic world in which they've been put). So it's Star Trek, just not as we know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be...
It takes a few seconds to crash after the new tab is opened; that's enough time to type in an auto-completed URL and have it start loading. Strange thing about this is that even though Windows shows the standard "crashed" dialog box for IE, beneath that I can still see (e.g.) Slashdot continue to load in the background until I dismiss the dialog.
...then here's a word perfect translation of that article (courtesy of Babelfish).
Erm... then again, maybe not.
(If you liked that translation, you might enjoy Babelfish's attempt at Slashdot.jp.)
Someone who just wants one for very occasional use in the UK can pick up a dirt-cheap model for £20, and some of those include £10 airtime. Given the lack of a contract, that's as close to free as makes no difference.
Obviously if you're talking a lot, it's not such a good deal, but horses for courses and all that cal.
(Taps number in).
(Pause).
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
(Two minutes later)
"Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!"
"Head on! Apply direc.... Hello?"
"If you ever take that long to reply to your phone again, I swear I will kill you."
352 pixels x 288 pixels x 3 bytes/pixel = 304,128 bytes uncompressed!
If you mean moving to another country, saying "in any halfway free country" doesn't make sense, since they'd no longer be living in that country. And they don't have an automatic or guaranteed right of residency elsewhere. i am sorry i had to bring money to that equation, i also value human and civil rights a lot, but some ultra-egoists cannot understand it the other way. That as may be- but by making it into a simple issue of money, you're reducing it to their level and almost negating the point you are trying to make.
Beyond being a brand/certification, what does Unix actually mean these days, really?
My guess is very little (as the summary acknowledges, to be fair). Though I can't say it was pointless for Apple to get the certification, if only because it's a selling point to ageing senior managers who vaguely remember when "Unix" actually meant something (and think it still does). Since the Apple and Mac names aren't particularly associated with the Enterprise/Server market, the Unix brand gives them a "serious" selling point.
Sure, they could have pointed out the "BSD" underpinnings, and any real expert would know what they meant. But for the management types, "Unix" is probably still the name to go for.
Linux meanwhile *is* spiritually just as much "Unix" as any of the "official" licensees... but it has enough brand recognition in its own right anyway.
"Blue Jean^wGene, I just met a supercomputer named Blue Gene
Blue Gene, She got a camouflaged face and no money"
Remember, they always let you down when you need `em"
(Guess IBM's reliability sucks, then...)
"Oh Blue Gene
Is heaven any sweeter than Blue Gene?
She got a one-petaflop 294,912-processor, 72-rack system configuration harnessed to a high-speed, optical network,
She got a turned up nose..."
(Also, before I go further, we should remember that the term "rights" is used both for moral rights and for legal/practical rights. The former would ideally lead to the latter, but they're not the same thing, and it helps to keep discussion clear if we know which we're talking about.) the landlord has the right to throw someone unwilling to pay the rental fee out, or to sue them until they pay - business as usual. same thing with taxes, really. Society is not the same as a private arrangement with a landlord, and you greatly cheapen and dilute the concept of human rights by reducing it to that level, or even by bringing money into the equation.
Whilst I agreed that there was nothing *inherent* about "rights"- since by definition they are a human construct, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have them or that they aren't more valuable than a private contract.
I mean, even moral rights are a human construct, simply because morality itself is too, but that doesn't make either any less important. if you don't want to be part of the society, then get the hell out of it and stop doing business with it. The inherent flaw in your argument is that most people are born into the society they live in; they had no choice in the matter, and you assume that there is somewhere else that they can go to.
I don't want this to turn into one of those pseudo-intellectual (but in truth quite stupid) discussions common amongst a certain type of Slashdotter that uses crap analogies and misapplies logic from other fields to "argue" moral cases. So I won't say something stupid like "they didn't sign a contract when they were born, so they don't have to obey the rules"...
*However*, I will re-emphasise that people have no choice in where they are born, and that rights which are based on fundamental morality should not *ever* be compared to some petty contract, nor whipped away. Ironically, I think you've damaged the original point you were trying to make (which in certain respects I would have agreed with).
The Simpsons *did* contain subtle humour in some areas. Whereas I feel Futurama's was very reliant upon parodying retro science fiction cliches and the old "aspects of present-day society given a futuristic twist" school of sci-fi comedy.
For my money, Futurama *never* felt like it would have the same universal appeal that The Simpsons managed so effectively. That's not to say that it was bad, but dakameleon put his (her?) finger on it very well when he said that The Simpsons had more characters people could identify with.
FWIW, I feel that The Simpsons actually has more creativity and freedom than Futurama. On first glance you'd expect the opposite, as being set in a fantasy future it has the freedom to do anything. In reality, it's quite tied by its retro sci-fi roots and reliance upon parody, both of which limit it creatively and in terms of audience appeal.
This probably sounds like I think Futurama sucks; I don't. It's all relative- but there are sound and legitimate reasons why it's not- and never will be- as well-loved as The Simpsons.
New ZX81-sized thing for bugger all? That'd be cool
With respect, your examples are silly.
True, Queen II was an excellent album, and I know that half of it was basically his. (Wish they'd left off Taylor's "Loser in the End" off that side. It wasn't that great, and it really didn't fit with the rest of the album).
:-)
I wasn't implying that he hadn't done anything of note, just nothing that I could think to make a joke out of
That having been said, all his musical work nowadays seems to be related to mining the Queen legacy. That might sound a bit more mean-spirited than I meant it to be, but it seems that he's just reworking the past now.
As I said, I wasn't too keen on it personally for similar reasons to the ones you give, but plenty of others must have disagreed. Whether it would have done as well on say, BBC1 or ITV (the two highest-rated and more mainstream channels of the time) is unclear. Also, although I said C4's sports department dealt with it, it was more just a series of informal challenges than a proper "sports" type tournament. Perhaps the show you talked about was different, I don't know.
Personally, I'd rather have seen less people playing games and more reviews and stuff. (But apparently- according to the article- GamesMaster was under the jurisdiction of Channel 4's sports department.) Watching people play computer games just wasn't that exciting to me.
Nothing really matters to me
Any way the stellar wind blows
OTOH, I'm not that big a fan of the original Star Trek, or the Star Trek films, and it's notable that ST:TMP doesn't feel as much like Star Trek as the other films. Perhaps (as has been suggested elsewhere), this is a reason that fans don't like it.
On the other hand, I feel that it is an interesting take on the original crew getting back together after some time, and in a different context (both from their point-of-view and the filmic world in which they've been put). So it's Star Trek, just not as we know it.
Sorry