After reading through the posts I have realized that I never want see the movie "Office Space" again, nor see those two words in close proximity to one another. Dear lord.
...to see Serkis rush the stage and yank the Oscar out of whoever's hands wins it this year while screaming "my precious!". Would be a great way to generate hype for the next movie, as well as make a mockery of the snide-old-men's club that rejected him.
I'm not the sexiest guy on the planet, but ever since I was 5 or 6 I never had problems with the opposite sex. Hell, all I really remember from high school is that my "count" (how many chicks I nailed throughout my 4 years of high school) broke 20 during the first week of senior year. Just reading the first couple paragraphs of the "Geek girl" article made me feel suddenly sorry for all those geeks out there just can't balance an intense interest in electronics and/or computing with basic social interaction.
Don't settle on an ugly chick. Hot chicks will lay down with just about anything during high school and college, too.
I forge myself a sword (a device whom's main purpose is to disable or kill a person or animal). I feel ill will towards a particular person in my community. If a lawyer or a bill can show that I may harbor the intent to kill this person, is that substantial enough to prosecute me for attempted, premeditated murder?
It is highly likely that these people were in fact developing these devices/software/whatever with the sole purpose of hacking the satelite networks, when considering how specific and tailored the devices must be. They didn't actually go through the act of committing the crime however. In this country, I always assumed that one had lack the benefit of a doubt in order to be prosecuted. There sure is a lot of doubt here.
Let's take another example: At 3 AM one evening a police officer sees three guys sitting in front a bank, all wearing black masks, 2 with rope and one with a pick axe. Should the police officer be allowed to arrest these guys, just because it appears as though they are planning on robbing the bank? I guess that's the question really, should we be allowed to arrest people just because they might be a threat.......hey wait, this is starting to sound famailar........
It's almost transparent - most people (99.9%) don't know the difference between http and ftp. The.1% that "gets it" don't care what you're using as long as the pr0n gets from point A to point B (point B being my computer, which I lovingly call "My Pr0ndex").
And I wouldn't care about the opinion of someone who would actually judge you over what friggin protocol you use to provide downloads. Such an utter nerd is somethig that I can not relate too. Maybe after I use Linux for a few more years, who knows.
"c) favors the tell-tale signature of biochemistry based on a dominant left-handed chirality, compared to random or racemic mixtures found in test-tube syntheses."
.....compared to random or racemic mixtures found in test tubes on Earth. We have yet had no other "lab" from which to study life and it's building blocks (life as we know it: carbon based and mostly made of water). Therefore, the sudden appearence of such components from the stars might very well appear to be "based on dominant left-handed chirality" when compared to the billions-old formula we have here on our planet.
We also don't know how the environment of space will effect amino acids contained in the rock. Since these amino acids (and other material) are foreign, then how do we know that it isn't natural for them to be collected in such a manner?
Never forget the scientific method. You have to ask questions. After you're done asking questions, submit to your peers for them to ask questions.
It really isn't compelling at all. It's similar to how UFOlogists focus on half truths and anamolies that confirm their theories, while ignoring the evidence that shows how 90-95% of all sightings are reasonably explained (the tons of disconfirming evidence). They also turn their nose up to the community and the world, effectively becoming the closed-minded character that they try to call the real scientists: Real scientists submit their work to thousands of peers and accept feedback and analysis. Psuedoscientists do not, and yet they call the critical thinkers that reject their ideas closed-minded.
In related news an RIAA accountant reported the mysterious dissapearence of millions of dollars from the organizations budget. Across the Pacific in Tokyo, a Yamaha senior exectuive just bought himself a new Ferrari.
I for one was learning to enjoy the deluge of late night calls and the oppurtunities for abuse that they offerred. If the caller is a woman, I always just start hitting on her and ignore eveything she says until she hangs up. I will also repeatedly ask her "what are you wearing", ignoring all other statements other then those concerning her dress. As soon as she tells me what she's wearing, I thank her and hang up.
If the caller is a man, I keep responding to their sales pitches with sensless phrases like "Remember the Alamo" or start reading to them whatever book I was currently reading when they called. I'll miss these good times.
Re:Two kinds of Internet, two kinds of online game
on
Spector, Garriott on Games
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's true for the modern day MMORPGs (to a certain extent), but if you played Ultima Online in it's hayday (I.E. before EA took the reigns), then you would remember the unity between developer and customer. Once the corporation mind-set wriggled it's way into development the entire experience changed drastically.
For one, numbers don't lie. Ultima Online's subscription totals dropped drastically in the year that EA started imposing it's will. I played that game, Ultima Online, before the EA integration, and it really was surreal how much weight the consumer's voice carried. After EA came on the scene the corporate influence was so evident that each and every little change carried it's stench. It was amazing, really, now that I actually take the time to reflect. UO had started to become a EverQuest (Sony's baby) clone with an outdated engine. Subscriptions went from 500,000 strong to 220,000 in a very brief time - the most reported cause for quitting wasn't because of the competition (in fact, many EverQuest players were actually first time MMORPG customers). The leading cause of quitting wasn't a bad product. Most people that quit UO in the now infamous exodus was because of the disloyalty that EA showed it's long term customers in the form of terrible support, a change to a time-sink-centric experience, and the elimination of intense community interaction in game development. Hell, they even cut their customer support staff in half at a time when more people then ever were trying their game out!
However, I don't know how right I am. My info comes from first hand experience as a player and the occassional chat with my pal that worked in customer support for Origin (the company that runs UO under the EA umbrella). He was laid off right after I quit playing a year and half or so ago.
Well, in any event, I hear that Ultima Online subscriptions have gained by about 15,000 over the past year since they started listening to their consumer again. The new expansion has caused a little buzz amongst the MMORPG crowd as well.
I express my grief and resepect for the astronaughts with this post. I just want to say that I respect these men highly for their cooperation in the effort to take mankind beyond the threshhold of this tiny biosphere, and express my regret to their families.
Times are changing. A good number of casual, novice computer users are beginning to become comfortable enough to use other ISPs that lack the complete solution of AOL. I still don't see AOL ever losing a substantial userbase any time soon though.
I think that a few of you can relate to this: I don't make a heck of alot of money off my single, constant IT job. This forces me to do alot of consulting for everyone from small businesses to "Joe User". Joe User still doesn't have or need much understanding about computers, and still prefers the simplistic experience that is AOL. Until another major ISP can offer the ease of use that AOL can for a significantly lower cost (unlike MSN), then most AOL userrs have no incentive to switch.
A database that isn't reccomended to be implemented on the internet in these days and times? That should be telling you something.....
I for one don't respect vendors that pass off almost the entirety of security responsibilities onto the user. That's like Redhat telling their users "You know, you really should use our OS on a workstation that has access to the internet". Today a database is a crucial piece of any network, and yet, it shouldn't be exposed to the same risks? Even Apple doesn't approach commercial use that way (however ingsigficant their corporate prescence may be).
The general sentiment here is: "The admins should have patched their systems, so it's all their fault". This entire concept of reactive patching is flawed though. Once the problem is revealed, it's usually too late. On the other hand, the approach to open source security is proactive instead of reactive, where numerous potential vulnerabilities are addressed daily, before any catastrophes occur. This latest MS-SQL bug was similar in this respect, true, but one case out of a thousand isn't saying much.
The truth is that with open source, you have thousands of eyes scouring code for problems. Alot of these problems are even found by accident. Much more secure. With Microsoft, businesses are expected to rely on Microsoft solely to discover and resolve vulnerabilities. Sources like CERT can only do so much to help, as even they don't have ready access to the source code. To compound the problem, Microsoft routinely realeses multiple versions of multiple dll's without warning, rendering a system that was pathced just the day before, in good faith by the admin, vulnerable yet again. And then the process repeats itself.
Yes, crackers live a loser existance that revolves around wasting their life looking for potential exploits in popular software. At least with open source, you can defeat them with numbers: 5 crackers try their hardest to find a flaw in mySQL, while about 2 on the white hat side do the same. But, the white hats also have the luxury of a thousand other coders around the world looking at the code for different reasons, coders that just might (and usually do) find a flaw before the 5 crackers can.
But fool yourselves all you like and keep relying on Microsoft and their new "secure motives" (or whatever the term one of their marketing people came up with). The more sensible amongst us will run our open source "alternatives" and only face a potential threat once in a blue moon, while you MS guys will have to fret over the next big threat constantly.
Their theocracies and monarchies seize all of the riches and mismanage those nations with dated, middleage philosophy. The Middle Easts' lack of a diverse economic model is no fault but there own.
Tons, and I mean tons of money goes into many of those countries for oil and industries related to oil daily. Where does it all go? To some rich prince's pockets, or some other theocracy equivalent. And we all know where it comes from: the West.
But yea, losing jobs here in our well managed, established nation for the sake of saving some CEO somewhere 5% is really going to help the Middle East solve it's economic problems. Note the burning scarcasm.
I was going to post something, but there really isn't anything to say. Not much humor can be mined from this, and the story is about as entertaining as a review about dictionary.com.
I think the "thr0d p1st su|ers!!" comments will ultimately be more entertaining then any productive discussion that could possibly be conceived on this topic.
I hereby volunteer to aid in the storage and backup duties of everyone's data that has at least three instances of the letter "x" or the string "britney" within it's file name. This is because my backup scripts only save files that satisfy these requirements. In return, could someoneplease help me store my vast collection Star Trek bloopers. It's just funny to hear Patrick Stewart cuss.
Additionally, I extend a warm hand of support to Microsoft. I will accept any request by chairman Bill Gates to store sensitive files.
It's unbelievable that our government would pour all of these man hours into a problem that is easily fixed: use a secure and open alternative you damn retards. To compound the problem, this is something that Microsoft, the vendor, should be doing. They aren't. They never have been. They hardly ever proactively fix anything themselves.
Tax payers shouldn't accept their government using all of these man hours and dollars to make some private company's software acceptable for government use.
Microsoft should be dropped outright, because second or third best shouldn't be good enough for our tax dollars. DAMN such examples of utter idiocy and extreme mis-management of funds by government makes me angry.
That myth needs dispelling. What can Linux not do that makes it a bad choice as a desktop OS? The only "hurdle" left is vast commercial support for new games. And that isn't even a factor for the workplace.
1. Linux is better for developers (even some Microsoft developers like to use it as their developing platform - see the whole Roblimo Linux Fest deal)
2. There is more and better software available for Linux then Windows or Macintosh
3. Everything that the casual user needs is available after a 20 minute install process
4. Linux can be more easily managed regardless of overall network configuration
5. Again, and this can't be stressed enough since it is the main factor for management and pointy-hairs everywhere: Linux is far, far cheaper.
If an expensive cost, inflexibility, high risk factor, constant and forced upgrade cycles, and poor memory management makes a good desktop operating system then no, Linux sucks on the desktop.
Just responding to the inevitable Linux vs BSD threads: it could go either way. Both operating systems have their strengths and weakeesses. It just so happens that right now Linux has the major commercial backing.
Most web hosting companies use BSD for shared servers. BSD is more secure.
Most 'Nix desktops and programmer workstations run Linux. Linux is friendlier, has commerical backing, and has a bunch of companies that put it out on "20 minute install and go" distros.
Other then that, both operating systems are equal, can perform the same tasks, are flexible, and better then the immoral alternative.
The middle ground is a joyous place. Let's just hope that both projects continue to grow and prosper. Two choises are better then one. Both causes fight for what's right.
I have to concur, but I realize that this limitation will be short lived. I am a major Linux freak, and tried to push it as a Unix replacement to a company that I consult for. After many trials with their IT manager, it became appearent that Linux performed a little worse then their 3 year old AIX solution when managing their massive database. (As a side note, they still decided on using Linux to replace a few servers, mail and web of course, just not this one or their NT Exchange box)
However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the support of powerhouses like Sun and IBM, coupled with the incredible power of the open source community, will have Linux up to par with major the popular Unices in this respect rather rapidly. I give Linux maybe 1 year to reach that same level of performance. If you have the money to spend on Redhat or IBM (or a combination of the two) custom jobs now, you can actually have this power in a month.
I always wondered why games cost a ludicrously high 25 cents to play. Many would argue that a charge of 25 cents was practical, since the largest coin in major circulation is the quarter.
I knew better.
This outrageous charge of 25 cents was in fact due to the facist arcade ruler Chairman Bushnell! How dare he drive the price of Pong and Pacman up well over the accepted industry-standard 15 cents (for those younger folk here, many games only cost you a measily 15 centes before the rebel leader Bushnell took power in the now infamous but little known arcade block wars). Once he had monopoly status from the outrageous profits reaped by the masterpiece "Cocnuts" for the Atari 2600, he proceeded to embrace and extend into other markets. For example, did you know that Whack-A-Mole was open source and only cost you 10 cents to play once? (you didn't pay for the game, but rather services rendered by Whack-A-Mole repair men)
We must prevent such atrocities from occuring again, by forcing the Bushnell empire to accept our arcade inspectors.
Really though, I doubt this guy had much to do with the iflated prices of games.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading through the posts I have realized that I never want see the movie "Office Space" again, nor see those two words in close proximity to one another. Dear lord.
...to see Serkis rush the stage and yank the Oscar out of whoever's hands wins it this year while screaming "my precious!". Would be a great way to generate hype for the next movie, as well as make a mockery of the snide-old-men's club that rejected him.
...you're just too damn stupid to do it yourselves.
Don't settle on an ugly chick. Hot chicks will lay down with just about anything during high school and college, too.
It is highly likely that these people were in fact developing these devices/software/whatever with the sole purpose of hacking the satelite networks, when considering how specific and tailored the devices must be. They didn't actually go through the act of committing the crime however. In this country, I always assumed that one had lack the benefit of a doubt in order to be prosecuted. There sure is a lot of doubt here.
Let's take another example: At 3 AM one evening a police officer sees three guys sitting in front a bank, all wearing black masks, 2 with rope and one with a pick axe. Should the police officer be allowed to arrest these guys, just because it appears as though they are planning on robbing the bank? I guess that's the question really, should we be allowed to arrest people just because they might be a threat.......hey wait, this is starting to sound famailar........
And I wouldn't care about the opinion of someone who would actually judge you over what friggin protocol you use to provide downloads. Such an utter nerd is somethig that I can not relate too. Maybe after I use Linux for a few more years, who knows.
.....compared to random or racemic mixtures found in test tubes on Earth. We have yet had no other "lab" from which to study life and it's building blocks (life as we know it: carbon based and mostly made of water). Therefore, the sudden appearence of such components from the stars might very well appear to be "based on dominant left-handed chirality" when compared to the billions-old formula we have here on our planet.
We also don't know how the environment of space will effect amino acids contained in the rock. Since these amino acids (and other material) are foreign, then how do we know that it isn't natural for them to be collected in such a manner?
Never forget the scientific method. You have to ask questions. After you're done asking questions, submit to your peers for them to ask questions.
It really isn't compelling at all. It's similar to how UFOlogists focus on half truths and anamolies that confirm their theories, while ignoring the evidence that shows how 90-95% of all sightings are reasonably explained (the tons of disconfirming evidence). They also turn their nose up to the community and the world, effectively becoming the closed-minded character that they try to call the real scientists: Real scientists submit their work to thousands of peers and accept feedback and analysis. Psuedoscientists do not, and yet they call the critical thinkers that reject their ideas closed-minded.
OK, rant over.
In related news an RIAA accountant reported the mysterious dissapearence of millions of dollars from the organizations budget. Across the Pacific in Tokyo, a Yamaha senior exectuive just bought himself a new Ferrari.
If the caller is a man, I keep responding to their sales pitches with sensless phrases like "Remember the Alamo" or start reading to them whatever book I was currently reading when they called. I'll miss these good times.
For one, numbers don't lie. Ultima Online's subscription totals dropped drastically in the year that EA started imposing it's will. I played that game, Ultima Online, before the EA integration, and it really was surreal how much weight the consumer's voice carried. After EA came on the scene the corporate influence was so evident that each and every little change carried it's stench. It was amazing, really, now that I actually take the time to reflect. UO had started to become a EverQuest (Sony's baby) clone with an outdated engine. Subscriptions went from 500,000 strong to 220,000 in a very brief time - the most reported cause for quitting wasn't because of the competition (in fact, many EverQuest players were actually first time MMORPG customers). The leading cause of quitting wasn't a bad product. Most people that quit UO in the now infamous exodus was because of the disloyalty that EA showed it's long term customers in the form of terrible support, a change to a time-sink-centric experience, and the elimination of intense community interaction in game development. Hell, they even cut their customer support staff in half at a time when more people then ever were trying their game out!
However, I don't know how right I am. My info comes from first hand experience as a player and the occassional chat with my pal that worked in customer support for Origin (the company that runs UO under the EA umbrella). He was laid off right after I quit playing a year and half or so ago.
Well, in any event, I hear that Ultima Online subscriptions have gained by about 15,000 over the past year since they started listening to their consumer again. The new expansion has caused a little buzz amongst the MMORPG crowd as well.
I express my grief and resepect for the astronaughts with this post. I just want to say that I respect these men highly for their cooperation in the effort to take mankind beyond the threshhold of this tiny biosphere, and express my regret to their families.
I think that a few of you can relate to this: I don't make a heck of alot of money off my single, constant IT job. This forces me to do alot of consulting for everyone from small businesses to "Joe User". Joe User still doesn't have or need much understanding about computers, and still prefers the simplistic experience that is AOL. Until another major ISP can offer the ease of use that AOL can for a significantly lower cost (unlike MSN), then most AOL userrs have no incentive to switch.
I for one don't respect vendors that pass off almost the entirety of security responsibilities onto the user. That's like Redhat telling their users "You know, you really should use our OS on a workstation that has access to the internet". Today a database is a crucial piece of any network, and yet, it shouldn't be exposed to the same risks? Even Apple doesn't approach commercial use that way (however ingsigficant their corporate prescence may be).
The truth is that with open source, you have thousands of eyes scouring code for problems. Alot of these problems are even found by accident. Much more secure. With Microsoft, businesses are expected to rely on Microsoft solely to discover and resolve vulnerabilities. Sources like CERT can only do so much to help, as even they don't have ready access to the source code. To compound the problem, Microsoft routinely realeses multiple versions of multiple dll's without warning, rendering a system that was pathced just the day before, in good faith by the admin, vulnerable yet again. And then the process repeats itself.
Yes, crackers live a loser existance that revolves around wasting their life looking for potential exploits in popular software. At least with open source, you can defeat them with numbers: 5 crackers try their hardest to find a flaw in mySQL, while about 2 on the white hat side do the same. But, the white hats also have the luxury of a thousand other coders around the world looking at the code for different reasons, coders that just might (and usually do) find a flaw before the 5 crackers can.
But fool yourselves all you like and keep relying on Microsoft and their new "secure motives" (or whatever the term one of their marketing people came up with). The more sensible amongst us will run our open source "alternatives" and only face a potential threat once in a blue moon, while you MS guys will have to fret over the next big threat constantly.
Tons, and I mean tons of money goes into many of those countries for oil and industries related to oil daily. Where does it all go? To some rich prince's pockets, or some other theocracy equivalent. And we all know where it comes from: the West.
But yea, losing jobs here in our well managed, established nation for the sake of saving some CEO somewhere 5% is really going to help the Middle East solve it's economic problems. Note the burning scarcasm.
We need a political movement, and we need one now.
I gots that karma to burn playboy.
Should be out just in time for World Of Warcraft. This must be why Blizzard is dragging their feet, they're gonna wow us with a 64 bit MMORPG!
I think the "thr0d p1st su|ers!!" comments will ultimately be more entertaining then any productive discussion that could possibly be conceived on this topic.
Additionally, I extend a warm hand of support to Microsoft. I will accept any request by chairman Bill Gates to store sensitive files.
Tax payers shouldn't accept their government using all of these man hours and dollars to make some private company's software acceptable for government use.
Microsoft should be dropped outright, because second or third best shouldn't be good enough for our tax dollars. DAMN such examples of utter idiocy and extreme mis-management of funds by government makes me angry.
1. Linux is better for developers (even some Microsoft developers like to use it as their developing platform - see the whole Roblimo Linux Fest deal)
2. There is more and better software available for Linux then Windows or Macintosh
3. Everything that the casual user needs is available after a 20 minute install process
4. Linux can be more easily managed regardless of overall network configuration
5. Again, and this can't be stressed enough since it is the main factor for management and pointy-hairs everywhere: Linux is far, far cheaper.
If an expensive cost, inflexibility, high risk factor, constant and forced upgrade cycles, and poor memory management makes a good desktop operating system then no, Linux sucks on the desktop.
Most web hosting companies use BSD for shared servers. BSD is more secure.
Most 'Nix desktops and programmer workstations run Linux. Linux is friendlier, has commerical backing, and has a bunch of companies that put it out on "20 minute install and go" distros. Other then that, both operating systems are equal, can perform the same tasks, are flexible, and better then the immoral alternative.
The middle ground is a joyous place. Let's just hope that both projects continue to grow and prosper. Two choises are better then one. Both causes fight for what's right.
I really never understood all of the bickering.
However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the support of powerhouses like Sun and IBM, coupled with the incredible power of the open source community, will have Linux up to par with major the popular Unices in this respect rather rapidly. I give Linux maybe 1 year to reach that same level of performance. If you have the money to spend on Redhat or IBM (or a combination of the two) custom jobs now, you can actually have this power in a month.
I knew better.
This outrageous charge of 25 cents was in fact due to the facist arcade ruler Chairman Bushnell! How dare he drive the price of Pong and Pacman up well over the accepted industry-standard 15 cents (for those younger folk here, many games only cost you a measily 15 centes before the rebel leader Bushnell took power in the now infamous but little known arcade block wars). Once he had monopoly status from the outrageous profits reaped by the masterpiece "Cocnuts" for the Atari 2600, he proceeded to embrace and extend into other markets. For example, did you know that Whack-A-Mole was open source and only cost you 10 cents to play once? (you didn't pay for the game, but rather services rendered by Whack-A-Mole repair men)
We must prevent such atrocities from occuring again, by forcing the Bushnell empire to accept our arcade inspectors.
Really though, I doubt this guy had much to do with the iflated prices of games.