Instead of buying a book, trying to do your own network, buying the wrong crap that you don't need, and getting no where, pay someone from slashdot to do it. How much simpler can it get?
Well, since we're talking about 'Linksys', *this* simple; tell them not to bother buying or setting up a router, just slap a wireless card in their PC and connect to the nearest unprotected network named 'linksys' (the two are pretty much synonymous).
Has the added bonus that they don't have to pay for Internet access (although if you're a clever geek, and they aren't, you'll fiddle them into paying for this "free.... er, I meant half price!" wireless broadband Internet access).
Linksys Cheapass Routers in association with Your Friends and Neighbours: Providing free wireless access since.... everyone started jumping on the bandwagon (TM)
Oh yeah; Glasgow (and the mountainous west coast in general) is *bad* for rain; I'm from the east coast, and I can tell you it's nowhere near as wet there.
In Glasgow one year, it seemed to rain from October to April, took a couple of weeks off, then p****d down for another couple of months. This was NOT fun; there's definitely some truth in S.A.D.:(
That was definitely the worst I saw it, though. Plus, if you want to live in the driest city in Scotland, you have to stay in Dundee. I'll leave you to decide whether that's worth it or not:-/
My guess is that customers are using Amazon Marketplace in a semi-transparent manner, as a cheaper alternative to Amazon themselves. This ties in with what was said elsewhere about Amazon making sellers more anonymous- Amazon doesn't involve the "personal" interest in sellers; they're just businesses that happen to sell what you want at a particular price.
At any rate, I got 40-50% feedback from Amazon (all 5 stars) without playing the silly-buggers 'Mutually Assured Destruction' feedback game as happens on eBay.
I've *never* had problems selling stuff on Amazon. eBay might have benefits for some people, but it's just not worth the hassle for me.
Somehow I'm not able to shed any tears for poor little Target and Toys R Us. I suspect that they are big boys who can take care of themselves when it comes to Amazon.
If
this story is true, 'Toys R Us' deserve nothing more than to be screwed into bankruptcy on all sides.
Even if it weren't, what you say stands; they'd do the same to anyone else in a heartbeat. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Unfortunately, your argument involved quoting eBay's own spiel from their website. The reality is...
eBay makes you do all the work in making your item presentable, which right off the bat is a PITA if, like me, you don't sell much.
Paypal has a lousy reputation (as many other replies to your message have indicated); I really do *not* want to deal with a separate transaction system that has a reputation for yanking money back on the basis of spurious complaints. If I go with cheques, my item is less popular, and I have to cash the things.
'Buy it now' is fine, but I'm not convinced that the kind of people who are willing to 'buy it now' instead of bidding aren't more likely to be checking the item out on Amazon (if you're buying a book, are you more likely to check out Amazon, or dig through various eBay auctions with information in varying formats?). Maybe better for higher value stuff.
In addition, I think the 'Buy it now'-ers (for the kind of stuff I'd be selling) are more likely to see my item on a *free* 60-day (renewable) listing with Amazon than they are with a paid 10-day auction on eBay.
Yes, Amazon charge more, but if I have to keep relisting on eBay, it's going to be more than my time, let alone money, is worth.
The main drawback with Amazon is that you can only really sell things that they sell, in the *form* that they sell. I had a bundle of old computer games that I really didn't want to bin (but at the same time I didn't want to hoard around for the rest of my life); I couldn't sell them on Amazon, so I tried eBay.
Cut a long story short, it took a long time to get them presentable, it cost me money to list them. One of the two bundles sold for better than I'd hoped, and the guy seemed very happy with his purchase. The other sold for the minimum bid (i.e. next-to-nothing), which wasn't great, but it happens. Unfortunately, the bidder wasted my time and never paid (despite the fact she was basically getting them for the cost of postage and packing); I left negative feedback because I took the effort to package the goods for the buyer, help them out and resolve any problems. I still don't know *why* the heck they bid if they were really that disinterested- she left negative feedback for me; I replied to her negative feedback, and she took *her* entire feedback list private (which at least I can point out in the future to anyone else).
Bottom line; I'll stick with Amazon. eBay is only worth your time if you have a lot to sell.
I always thought they should just do away with charging for postage costs. Just have the seller name a minimum bid he or she is willing to accept, one which incorporates the shipping cost already.
Do you propose then that postage should be a flat rate, even if the person is willing to ship to several different countries/regions that may have wildly varying postal rates?
Or should they only ship within their own country? Actually, I guessed you were from the US, because this would *definitely* be restricting were you from a smaller country (although I reckon Americans would still notice the difference once this measure was in place). Then I noticed your name; if you really *are* from Alaska, aren't shipping rates still far higher there? Do you suggest that buyers should bite the extra cost of shipping to Alaska, or just say "sorry, can't ship to Alaska or Hawaii"?
Finally, I don't see the problem in having flexibility with postal options; I prefer to have the choice.
All kidding aside, I had a friend who was trying (or at least telling us he was trying) to write a virus to do exactly that - FTP a Linux distribution and install it over a Windows box.
No need to do that; simply write a 'free smileys' package that includes the above defenestration program, and include mention of it in the terms and conditions they agree to.
Remember, while TV corporations are the "Company" and the viewers are the "Customer"
Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer!
As far as the majority of TV stations go (moreso in the US), the correct answer was "the *advertisers* are the customer". The viewers are in fact the product being delivered to advertisers; programmes are not the product, they are simply a necessary lure to draw viewers to the adverts.
There may be exceptions on certain subscription stations, but even in cases where you are paying, you may wish to question how far the adverts (if there are any) are subsidising the cost. Obviously, the BBC in the UK is another notable exception.
The day I start believing I know How The World Works is the day my critical faculties are permanently screwed up.
I used the words "it could be argued that" for a reason; the argument was a fairly obvious extrapolation of existing arguments, and I'm sure someone somewhere has already made it.
And there's probably a lot of truth in it; but my knowledge of history isn't good enough to say how much. For that reason, I'd want to hear someone argue against it before I nailed my colours to the mast in support of it.
What people claim their motives are, and what they actually are never usually match up exactly; even if that argument was a good justification for dropping the bomb on Japan, it's not necessarily the one that was going through people's heads when they were making the decision.
It was only insecure because Microsoft left those components turned on upon installation. Several of the components that are turned on upon installation are unnecessary for daily use.
That was *exactly* the point I was making.
It was all designed for ease of use, so that you don't have to go back and wade through their GUI to find where you can turn on those services.
Quick-n'-lazy easy-to-use, rather than "design the GUI to be easy to use", then. IMHO anyone wanting to use that kind of thing will probably need to do some 'hard' stuff anyway.
My problem with Windows, and the reason I consider my time better spent learning Linux (and looking into BSD) is that Linux doesn't fundamentally change the way of setting X/Y/Z round as often; with Windows, even if the underlying tech is the same, the way you set it isn't, and GUIs can be a PITA for that kind of thing.
More importantly, most Linuxes are not consumer OSes, whereas Windows (particularly Home), is. I'd be quite unimpressed if a distro like (e.g.) Linspire shipped with server-grade stuff running.
It was neccessary to attack population centers to prove to the Nation we were at war with that we really did mean business. It's one thing to destroy a mountain -- it's another thing to destroy a city. Killing people tends to make a bigger point than turning rocks into glass.
The irony is that Japan did not even surrender after Hiroshima; IIRC they did not believe the Allies had more then one atomic weapon, and it took the bombing of Nagasaki to prove that the allies Meant Business.
Ironically again, it could also be argued that Japan's unwillingness to surrender after the dropping of the first bomb proved their stubbornness and justified the use of atomic weapons against them.
> > Do you think that if hitler would have developed the Atomic Bomb he would
> > have hesitated to use it?"
> No, probably not, so?
I agree; this is somewhat of a red herring WRT the Japanese situation, as the Nazis (Japan's allies) had been defeated by this time, and I don't think anyone realistically thought there was a chance of Japan having a working A-bomb. (Although the Nazis *had* shipped support for a 'dirty bomb' to Japan shortly before their defeat, IIRC).
However, remember that the Allies believed Germany was trying to develop its own atomic weapon. Although we *now* know the Germans were nowhere near developing a 'true' atomic bomb, that was not known at the time.
And, if I was an Allied commander who had an atomic bomb, and believed that Hitler may be close to getting one in the next few months if Germany didn't lose the war, I would *certainly* have considered its use morally justifiable, and almost certainly essential.
Of course, if the US had had the bomb *before* Germany's defeat and it was clear that Germany didn't have the bomb, would they have used it against them anyway, and would it still have been morally justifiable?
If the Nazis had still had any real chance of winning the war, then yes. If they had been near defeat, probably not.
My gut reaction is that the A-bomb would have been used to bring the war to a swift conclusion, regardless, simply to stop Stalin gaining ground in Eastern Europe. After all, it's widely speculated that this is one reason why Japan was bombed; to win victory before the Russians got there (and send a signal of superiority to them). You can say what you like, but I believe the suffering of the Japanese people would have been far greater under Stalin (who I consider comparable to Hitler).
Hitting civilian targets was a Nazi idea. When we copied their idea we made sure we did a better job; the Dresden bombings were truly catastrophic.
It should be pointed out that, as far as I know, there was nothing particularly 'special' about the bombing of Dresden, compared to the bombing of other German cities- it was the conditions (either weather or due to the layout/position of the city) that whipped the resultant fires up into a firestorm.
Anyway, *would* life have been better without the atomic bomb? If we only consider its effect from 1945-2005, I think not. On the other hand, it's a very high risk; especially now that they are more likely to fall into the hands of fanatics and less self-preserving regimes.
It certainly should never have been used on a civilian target , At-least this quash shows that perhaps they had a little shame about it
I don't know that 'shame' enters into it when dealing with the military. My best guess is that they figured they had a job to do, realised the tactical advantage atomic weapons would bring, and realised that an adverse public reaction would possibly rob them of this advantage.
Quite frankly, I'd assume that the high-ups in the US military saw the general public as little more than a hindrance to their objectives; at best, viewed in a patronising, paternalistic manner.
That having been said, was the target bombed because it was civilian, or was it bombed because of its manufacturing facilities?
Of course, the irony is that, whilst the US military may have been zealous in concealing unpalatable information, the Japanese regime were 100 times worse, and continue to deny or obfuscate their actions during WWII to this day.
we dropped it within a mile of a prisoner of war camp, although I suppose it makes sense when combined with the knowledge that the pow camp existed so close to many manufacturing plants. Sense that it may make, I still wouldn't want to be the guy to decide to drop an atom bomb within a mile of an allied pow camp.
Has to be asked- was it entirely a coincidence that the camp was situated near the manufacturing facilities?
I doubt it; it seems a logical tactic to discourage bombing of the most likely targets. If so, the Japanese were likely not the first, and certainly not the last to use prisoners as hostages in this manner.
The only reason to create "server" and "client" operating systems is rake in the money at both ends of the spectrum. It's a licensing fiction which makes guys like MS considerable amounts of money.
The particular irony being that the vanilla Windows XP was made more insecure than it needed to be for Joe Sixpack the Desktop User- because it shipped with a whole load of server-class stuff running that would *not* have been required by them, but each presented a security hole.
Any user requiring those services would (or at any rate *should*) know enough to turn them on manually.
The $-notation is used as a prefix for variables in Perl and other languages. Unfortunately, the '-' symbol used within is not a valid character for variable names under those languages.
Free copy of "Honey to the B" for Insightful mods
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Here's the full interview with Billie Piper:
Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to chat with us, Billie. First off, why did you decide to stay on 'Doctor Who' for another series? Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to! Interviewer: I see... so your enthusiasm for the show is as strong as ever. I'm sure the fans will be pleased to hear that. The other question everyone's been asking is.... why you always run around in crowds? Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to! Interviewer: Why d'you always have to dance all night? Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to! Interviewer: Why d'you always say what's on your mind? Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to! Interviewer: Uh, it doesn't sound like you have a lot on your mind. What makes you think you can get away with palming one-dimensional answers off on your fans? Billie: I can do anything that I want, I can, I can,
I can, I can do anything that I want Interviewer: Finally, in response to rumours of your sexuality, the question everyone wants an answer to- "Do you have a girlfriend?"
(Billie kicks the interviewer where it hurts and storms off).
The guy has a PhD in Computer Science? I'm sure he's done some incredible proof on why Duke Nukem Forever will never run on a Turing Machine, but he probably doesn't know how to turn a real computer on.
If he was responsible for writing Linux, it would only be available on an infinite length of paper tape. Trust me on this, I know my stereotypes:)
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of buying a book, trying to do your own network, buying the wrong crap that you don't need, and getting no where, pay someone from slashdot to do it. How much simpler can it get?
Well, since we're talking about 'Linksys', *this* simple; tell them not to bother buying or setting up a router, just slap a wireless card in their PC and connect to the nearest unprotected network named 'linksys' (the two are pretty much synonymous).
Has the added bonus that they don't have to pay for Internet access (although if you're a clever geek, and they aren't, you'll fiddle them into paying for this "free.... er, I meant half price!" wireless broadband Internet access).
Linksys Cheapass Routers in association with Your Friends and Neighbours: Providing free wireless access since.... everyone started jumping on the bandwagon (TM)
Oh yeah; Glasgow (and the mountainous west coast in general) is *bad* for rain; I'm from the east coast, and I can tell you it's nowhere near as wet there.
:(
:-/
In Glasgow one year, it seemed to rain from October to April, took a couple of weeks off, then p****d down for another couple of months. This was NOT fun; there's definitely some truth in S.A.D.
That was definitely the worst I saw it, though. Plus, if you want to live in the driest city in Scotland, you have to stay in Dundee. I'll leave you to decide whether that's worth it or not
I'm an "economic migrant" working in the UK. Originally from NZ, I've lived in the UK since 1979 and in Glasgow since 1990.
Let me guess; you got fed up of the sheep and endless rain in NZ and decided the west coast of Scotland was the best place to be?
Oh, hang on...
My guess is that customers are using Amazon Marketplace in a semi-transparent manner, as a cheaper alternative to Amazon themselves. This ties in with what was said elsewhere about Amazon making sellers more anonymous- Amazon doesn't involve the "personal" interest in sellers; they're just businesses that happen to sell what you want at a particular price.
At any rate, I got 40-50% feedback from Amazon (all 5 stars) without playing the silly-buggers 'Mutually Assured Destruction' feedback game as happens on eBay.
I've *never* had problems selling stuff on Amazon. eBay might have benefits for some people, but it's just not worth the hassle for me.
Somehow I'm not able to shed any tears for poor little Target and Toys R Us. I suspect that they are big boys who can take care of themselves when it comes to Amazon.
If this story is true, 'Toys R Us' deserve nothing more than to be screwed into bankruptcy on all sides.
Even if it weren't, what you say stands; they'd do the same to anyone else in a heartbeat. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Unfortunately, your argument involved quoting eBay's own spiel from their website. The reality is...
eBay makes you do all the work in making your item presentable, which right off the bat is a PITA if, like me, you don't sell much.
Paypal has a lousy reputation (as many other replies to your message have indicated); I really do *not* want to deal with a separate transaction system that has a reputation for yanking money back on the basis of spurious complaints. If I go with cheques, my item is less popular, and I have to cash the things.
'Buy it now' is fine, but I'm not convinced that the kind of people who are willing to 'buy it now' instead of bidding aren't more likely to be checking the item out on Amazon (if you're buying a book, are you more likely to check out Amazon, or dig through various eBay auctions with information in varying formats?). Maybe better for higher value stuff.
In addition, I think the 'Buy it now'-ers (for the kind of stuff I'd be selling) are more likely to see my item on a *free* 60-day (renewable) listing with Amazon than they are with a paid 10-day auction on eBay.
Yes, Amazon charge more, but if I have to keep relisting on eBay, it's going to be more than my time, let alone money, is worth.
The main drawback with Amazon is that you can only really sell things that they sell, in the *form* that they sell. I had a bundle of old computer games that I really didn't want to bin (but at the same time I didn't want to hoard around for the rest of my life); I couldn't sell them on Amazon, so I tried eBay.
Cut a long story short, it took a long time to get them presentable, it cost me money to list them. One of the two bundles sold for better than I'd hoped, and the guy seemed very happy with his purchase. The other sold for the minimum bid (i.e. next-to-nothing), which wasn't great, but it happens. Unfortunately, the bidder wasted my time and never paid (despite the fact she was basically getting them for the cost of postage and packing); I left negative feedback because I took the effort to package the goods for the buyer, help them out and resolve any problems. I still don't know *why* the heck they bid if they were really that disinterested- she left negative feedback for me; I replied to her negative feedback, and she took *her* entire feedback list private (which at least I can point out in the future to anyone else).
Bottom line; I'll stick with Amazon. eBay is only worth your time if you have a lot to sell.
I always thought they should just do away with charging for postage costs. Just have the seller name a minimum bid he or she is willing to accept, one which incorporates the shipping cost already.
Do you propose then that postage should be a flat rate, even if the person is willing to ship to several different countries/regions that may have wildly varying postal rates?
Or should they only ship within their own country? Actually, I guessed you were from the US, because this would *definitely* be restricting were you from a smaller country (although I reckon Americans would still notice the difference once this measure was in place). Then I noticed your name; if you really *are* from Alaska, aren't shipping rates still far higher there? Do you suggest that buyers should bite the extra cost of shipping to Alaska, or just say "sorry, can't ship to Alaska or Hawaii"?
Finally, I don't see the problem in having flexibility with postal options; I prefer to have the choice.
All kidding aside, I had a friend who was trying (or at least telling us he was trying) to write a virus to do exactly that - FTP a Linux distribution and install it over a Windows box.
No need to do that; simply write a 'free smileys' package that includes the above defenestration program, and include mention of it in the terms and conditions they agree to.
No-one will read the them anyway...
Yeah, but there's black hat and white hat.
What about the guy who broke into my computer, erased my copy of Windows and installed Fedora Core in its place?
I suspect he was a Red Hat hacker, personally...
I actually work at a large electronics retailer [...] unfortunatly i do not remember the model # and am too lazy to look it up for you! =-)
Yeah, but the bit about being lazy was already implied when you said you were an employee of a large electronics retailer (^_^)
Remember, while TV corporations are the "Company" and the viewers are the "Customer"
Bzzt! Sorry, wrong answer!
As far as the majority of TV stations go (moreso in the US), the correct answer was "the *advertisers* are the customer". The viewers are in fact the product being delivered to advertisers; programmes are not the product, they are simply a necessary lure to draw viewers to the adverts.
There may be exceptions on certain subscription stations, but even in cases where you are paying, you may wish to question how far the adverts (if there are any) are subsidising the cost. Obviously, the BBC in the UK is another notable exception.
The day I start believing I know How The World Works is the day my critical faculties are permanently screwed up.
I used the words "it could be argued that" for a reason; the argument was a fairly obvious extrapolation of existing arguments, and I'm sure someone somewhere has already made it.
And there's probably a lot of truth in it; but my knowledge of history isn't good enough to say how much. For that reason, I'd want to hear someone argue against it before I nailed my colours to the mast in support of it.
What people claim their motives are, and what they actually are never usually match up exactly; even if that argument was a good justification for dropping the bomb on Japan, it's not necessarily the one that was going through people's heads when they were making the decision.
It was only insecure because Microsoft left those components turned on upon installation. Several of the components that are turned on upon installation are unnecessary for daily use.
That was *exactly* the point I was making.
It was all designed for ease of use, so that you don't have to go back and wade through their GUI to find where you can turn on those services.
Quick-n'-lazy easy-to-use, rather than "design the GUI to be easy to use", then. IMHO anyone wanting to use that kind of thing will probably need to do some 'hard' stuff anyway.
My problem with Windows, and the reason I consider my time better spent learning Linux (and looking into BSD) is that Linux doesn't fundamentally change the way of setting X/Y/Z round as often; with Windows, even if the underlying tech is the same, the way you set it isn't, and GUIs can be a PITA for that kind of thing.
More importantly, most Linuxes are not consumer OSes, whereas Windows (particularly Home), is. I'd be quite unimpressed if a distro like (e.g.) Linspire shipped with server-grade stuff running.
How long would it have taken to build another one or more atomic bombs?
Please stop talking out of your ass. You haven't got a clue.
I know you're modest, but why not log in and get the credit for such a comprehensive, well thought-out argument?
It was neccessary to attack population centers to prove to the Nation we were at war with that we really did mean business. It's one thing to destroy a mountain -- it's another thing to destroy a city. Killing people tends to make a bigger point than turning rocks into glass.
The irony is that Japan did not even surrender after Hiroshima; IIRC they did not believe the Allies had more then one atomic weapon, and it took the bombing of Nagasaki to prove that the allies Meant Business.
Ironically again, it could also be argued that Japan's unwillingness to surrender after the dropping of the first bomb proved their stubbornness and justified the use of atomic weapons against them.
> > Do you think that if hitler would have developed the Atomic Bomb he would
> > have hesitated to use it?"
> No, probably not, so?
I agree; this is somewhat of a red herring WRT the Japanese situation, as the Nazis (Japan's allies) had been defeated by this time, and I don't think anyone realistically thought there was a chance of Japan having a working A-bomb. (Although the Nazis *had* shipped support for a 'dirty bomb' to Japan shortly before their defeat, IIRC).
However, remember that the Allies believed Germany was trying to develop its own atomic weapon. Although we *now* know the Germans were nowhere near developing a 'true' atomic bomb, that was not known at the time.
And, if I was an Allied commander who had an atomic bomb, and believed that Hitler may be close to getting one in the next few months if Germany didn't lose the war, I would *certainly* have considered its use morally justifiable, and almost certainly essential.
Of course, if the US had had the bomb *before* Germany's defeat and it was clear that Germany didn't have the bomb, would they have used it against them anyway, and would it still have been morally justifiable?
If the Nazis had still had any real chance of winning the war, then yes. If they had been near defeat, probably not.
My gut reaction is that the A-bomb would have been used to bring the war to a swift conclusion, regardless, simply to stop Stalin gaining ground in Eastern Europe. After all, it's widely speculated that this is one reason why Japan was bombed; to win victory before the Russians got there (and send a signal of superiority to them). You can say what you like, but I believe the suffering of the Japanese people would have been far greater under Stalin (who I consider comparable to Hitler).
Hitting civilian targets was a Nazi idea. When we copied their idea we made sure we did a better job; the Dresden bombings were truly catastrophic.
It should be pointed out that, as far as I know, there was nothing particularly 'special' about the bombing of Dresden, compared to the bombing of other German cities- it was the conditions (either weather or due to the layout/position of the city) that whipped the resultant fires up into a firestorm.
Anyway, *would* life have been better without the atomic bomb? If we only consider its effect from 1945-2005, I think not. On the other hand, it's a very high risk; especially now that they are more likely to fall into the hands of fanatics and less self-preserving regimes.
It certainly should never have been used on a civilian target , At-least this quash shows that perhaps they had a little shame about it
I don't know that 'shame' enters into it when dealing with the military. My best guess is that they figured they had a job to do, realised the tactical advantage atomic weapons would bring, and realised that an adverse public reaction would possibly rob them of this advantage.
Quite frankly, I'd assume that the high-ups in the US military saw the general public as little more than a hindrance to their objectives; at best, viewed in a patronising, paternalistic manner.
That having been said, was the target bombed because it was civilian, or was it bombed because of its manufacturing facilities?
Of course, the irony is that, whilst the US military may have been zealous in concealing unpalatable information, the Japanese regime were 100 times worse, and continue to deny or obfuscate their actions during WWII to this day.
we dropped it within a mile of a prisoner of war camp, although I suppose it makes sense when combined with the knowledge that the pow camp existed so close to many manufacturing plants. Sense that it may make, I still wouldn't want to be the guy to decide to drop an atom bomb within a mile of an allied pow camp.
Has to be asked- was it entirely a coincidence that the camp was situated near the manufacturing facilities?
I doubt it; it seems a logical tactic to discourage bombing of the most likely targets. If so, the Japanese were likely not the first, and certainly not the last to use prisoners as hostages in this manner.
The only reason to create "server" and "client" operating systems is rake in the money at both ends of the spectrum. It's a licensing fiction which makes guys like MS considerable amounts of money.
The particular irony being that the vanilla Windows XP was made more insecure than it needed to be for Joe Sixpack the Desktop User- because it shipped with a whole load of server-class stuff running that would *not* have been required by them, but each presented a security hole.
Any user requiring those services would (or at any rate *should*) know enough to turn them on manually.
> > there were also lots of arabic rooms that the Al Queada may have been > > hanging out in, I can't really be sure because most were in arabic font
> God bless you sir, for being American
Is it possible to write English language stuff using the 'appearance' of (true) Arabic letters?
That would be hilarious; US intelligence going through screeds of Arabic in what they perceived to be some obscure dialect for hours on end.
Eventually, one guy holds the printout upside down and says...
"You know, if you squint at this, it kind of looks like 'Oh my God, Laura Bush is hot and she sucks me ofF LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!'"
"LOLOLOLOLOL? Doesn't make sense. Must be some fiendish Middle-eastern call to Allah before they invade God's own country. Keep working on this men!"
The $-notation is used as a prefix for variables in Perl and other languages. Unfortunately, the '-' symbol used within is not a valid character for variable names under those languages.
Here's the full interview with Billie Piper:
Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to chat with us, Billie. First off, why did you decide to stay on 'Doctor Who' for another series?
Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to!
Interviewer: I see... so your enthusiasm for the show is as strong as ever. I'm sure the fans will be pleased to hear that. The other question everyone's been asking is.... why you always run around in crowds?
Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to!
Interviewer: Why d'you always have to dance all night?
Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to!
Interviewer: Why d'you always say what's on your mind?
Billie: Because I want to! Because I want to!
Interviewer: Uh, it doesn't sound like you have a lot on your mind. What makes you think you can get away with palming one-dimensional answers off on your fans?
Billie: I can do anything that I want, I can, I can, I can, I can do anything that I want
Interviewer: Finally, in response to rumours of your sexuality, the question everyone wants an answer to- "Do you have a girlfriend?"
(Billie kicks the interviewer where it hurts and storms off).
The guy has a PhD in Computer Science? I'm sure he's done some incredible proof on why Duke Nukem Forever will never run on a Turing Machine, but he probably doesn't know how to turn a real computer on.
:)
If he was responsible for writing Linux, it would only be available on an infinite length of paper tape. Trust me on this, I know my stereotypes