Enough! Lies, lies, lies! I did it! I did it all! There. Only _I_ could have executed such a masterpiece of leet coding. And I have the records to prove it! Here, just look at these -- [pulls out binders and floppy disks] each one a work of Machiavellian art. Now,...
Oh.. heh heh heh... I nearly walked straight into that one! Just passing, nothing to see.
Whew. 2 name changes... good job they did their homework and, being so desperate to have a unique name, finally settled on a name that was really unique!
University networks are wide open, first there are computer labs where any one can sit down and pop in a knoppix std cd...
Well, here's one solution - set the BIOS not to boot from CD. Set a sensible BIOS password. That's that problem sorted.
Seriously, I don't know why so many people bang on about Linux-on-a-CD being dangerous; it's like ActiveX - it's only dangerous if your computer setup allows it to be.
One of the advantage of the system is that the upstream provider (i.e. usually your distro) checks the package for validity. The packages you download won't contain virii or spyware (even if those were to exist on Linux) because the provider would likely not allow them...something MS would certainly do if they controlled the software ppl are downloading. There seems to be a rather fatal error in this philosophy - it costs money, serious money, for providers to be constantly checking software packages and providing bandwidth for all users to download and install these pieces of software. Linux is free (beer), right? Oh, you mean it's free UNLESS I want to have ease of use, in which case I have to start paying, which is kinda sucky?
Yeah, there might be some distroes offering this kind of automated package management to even non-paying users now, but I can't see how they can keep that up if people generally take a free-lunch approach. It seems more feasible to me to design a software installation system that allows easy installation, yet downloading from anywhere on the web.
The thing is, I presume these background are just still shots. So they're not really that clever at all.
What if Apple embedded an actual webcam in the back of their laptops, and allowed a live background? Then you'd really have a truly transparent background:-)
I'm inclined to agree. What Tim Berners-Lee is doing saying things like "Everyone was supposed to be browsing the Web with their mobile phone, but the problem is that it has not happened" is beyond me; the guy seems to have lost the plot. When he originally came up with the idea of the web, I *bet* he didn't envision people surfing it on a mobile phone, and with good reason. It's an impractical thing to do. Use a PC for all but very basic informational sites.
I'm just saying that, for 'basic tools', you should read 'bundled pieces of software'. Then consider why THIS bundling is more acceptable than web browser bundling.
WTF good is a whitelisting feature if it doesn't stop any calls from non-listed numbers? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you mean 'blacklisting feature', which is what that would be. And yes, it would be very useful, becasue there are some people who I would not like to be able to call me.:-) I would also block any caller IDs withheld.
Or do you mean it lacks a mode where you can say "let everybody EXCEPT these asshats call me"
No, that's the exact feature it has, but it's fecking useless to me, as I want anyone to be able to call me except those on the blacklist. You think a blacklist is useless? Funny, because most people don't... what about blacklisting features on, for example, IM clients?
If GCC can compile C++, then...
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
But look at Skype. It 'just works' for the simple reason that it effectively uses proxy servers (P2P technology) to carry calls, so people behind retarded NATs, etc, don't have to have a dedicated IP addy. Block proxies, and lose your service... if you're using something like Skype.
Conversely, my phone has a goddamn whitelisting feature but NOT a blacklisting feature!!! Drives me crazy, because I do want the latter. The phone is a Sony Ericsson T610.
Maybe instead of working on WinFS, they should focus on coming up with an alternative to the registry.
There is. They're called INI files, and I always try to use them for my programs. Too simple a format? Try XML, or extending INI files to hold different datatypes. But local files kick the crap out of the registry, which should only be used IMHO for system data but is used all too often for app data.:-(
I don't quite see how that can happen. By the time X realises that both buttons have been pressed at once, the app has surely already been sent the mousedown message... unless X doesn't support this in the way Windows does?
That doesn't seem very clever either. What if there's an app that catches mousedowns? I can think of many such apps that I use, such as Final Burn Alpha, Trillian, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger... etc.
Just out of interest (I hardly ever use Linux), what if you wish to paste some text over a region of already selected text? Oops, the selected text is autocopied.
This always seemed like a pretty stupid way of doing things to me. OK, autocopying is fair enough for some apps where text tends to scroll, making manual copying annoying (IRC clients, etc), but in the main I prefer the Windows way of doing it.
And what's the the Linux assumption that your mouse will have a third button? There're still plenty out there without. Don't tell the user to go buy another mouse, because that's arrogant assholism speaking.
Joe Sixpacks. Because they realise just enough to know that both Windows and Linux are OSes, and just know that Linux is free, but don't care to figure out how that would make business sense for a business.
£25/mo is enormous, and way more than I'd consider paying even for a landline. Why do people agree to pay these ridiculous sums for a mobile phone contract?
Slashdot Mirror
Enough! Lies, lies, lies! I did it! I did it all! There. Only _I_ could have executed such a masterpiece of leet coding. And I have the records to prove it! Here, just look at these -- [pulls out binders and floppy disks] each one a work of Machiavellian art. Now, ...
Oh.. heh heh heh... I nearly walked straight into that one! Just passing, nothing to see.
Whew. 2 name changes... good job they did their homework and, being so desperate to have a unique name, finally settled on a name that was really unique!
University networks are wide open, first there are computer labs where any one can sit down and pop in a knoppix std cd...
Well, here's one solution - set the BIOS not to boot from CD. Set a sensible BIOS password. That's that problem sorted.
Seriously, I don't know why so many people bang on about Linux-on-a-CD being dangerous; it's like ActiveX - it's only dangerous if your computer setup allows it to be.
One of the advantage of the system is that the upstream provider (i.e. usually your distro) checks the package for validity. The packages you download won't contain virii or spyware (even if those were to exist on Linux) because the provider would likely not allow them...something MS would certainly do if they controlled the software ppl are downloading.
There seems to be a rather fatal error in this philosophy - it costs money, serious money, for providers to be constantly checking software packages and providing bandwidth for all users to download and install these pieces of software. Linux is free (beer), right? Oh, you mean it's free UNLESS I want to have ease of use, in which case I have to start paying, which is kinda sucky?
Yeah, there might be some distroes offering this kind of automated package management to even non-paying users now, but I can't see how they can keep that up if people generally take a free-lunch approach. It seems more feasible to me to design a software installation system that allows easy installation, yet downloading from anywhere on the web.
The thing is, I presume these background are just still shots. So they're not really that clever at all.
:-)
What if Apple embedded an actual webcam in the back of their laptops, and allowed a live background? Then you'd really have a truly transparent background
Ehm, no troll intended here, but...
'Just like the whites came along and slaughtered all the blacks in Western society?'
I'm inclined to agree. What Tim Berners-Lee is doing saying things like "Everyone was supposed to be browsing the Web with their mobile phone, but the problem is that it has not happened" is beyond me; the guy seems to have lost the plot. When he originally came up with the idea of the web, I *bet* he didn't envision people surfing it on a mobile phone, and with good reason. It's an impractical thing to do. Use a PC for all but very basic informational sites.
Out of interest, why have you been stupid enough not to setup the 911 information with Vonage?
"Robin ood" was seen as, and it always portrayed as, a hero in stories including him. Why is the modern 'Robin Hood' suddenly the villain?
I'm just saying that, for 'basic tools', you should read 'bundled pieces of software'. Then consider why THIS bundling is more acceptable than web browser bundling.
But then, an ftp client would have to be 'bundled' with the OS.
Oh, FTP is more important so it's ok for it to be bundled, but a web browser isn't? How do you draw the distinction?
WTF good is a whitelisting feature if it doesn't stop any calls from non-listed numbers? :-) I would also block any caller IDs withheld.
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you mean 'blacklisting feature', which is what that would be. And yes, it would be very useful, becasue there are some people who I would not like to be able to call me.
Or do you mean it lacks a mode where you can say "let everybody EXCEPT these asshats call me"
No, that's the exact feature it has, but it's fecking useless to me, as I want anyone to be able to call me except those on the blacklist. You think a blacklist is useless? Funny, because most people don't... what about blacklisting features on, for example, IM clients?
... what's the difference between gcc and g++?
Guy: Hey baby, here's my number... 555-8219. Call me.
Girl: *giggles*...
Guy: Oh, what's your number by the way? I need to add you to my whitelist.
But look at Skype. It 'just works' for the simple reason that it effectively uses proxy servers (P2P technology) to carry calls, so people behind retarded NATs, etc, don't have to have a dedicated IP addy. Block proxies, and lose your service... if you're using something like Skype.
Conversely, my phone has a goddamn whitelisting feature but NOT a blacklisting feature!!! Drives me crazy, because I do want the latter. The phone is a Sony Ericsson T610.
A gun owner 'can' abuse their gun.
The 'big US corporations have a right to big profits' law.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Pirates! Arr, shiver me fucking timbers!
This joke has worn so thin now it's become transparent. Please STFU and stop repeating it.
Maybe instead of working on WinFS, they should focus on coming up with an alternative to the registry.
:-(
There is. They're called INI files, and I always try to use them for my programs. Too simple a format? Try XML, or extending INI files to hold different datatypes. But local files kick the crap out of the registry, which should only be used IMHO for system data but is used all too often for app data.
I don't quite see how that can happen. By the time X realises that both buttons have been pressed at once, the app has surely already been sent the mousedown message... unless X doesn't support this in the way Windows does?
That doesn't seem very clever either. What if there's an app that catches mousedowns? I can think of many such apps that I use, such as Final Burn Alpha, Trillian, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger... etc.
That's not a good solution at all.
Just out of interest (I hardly ever use Linux), what if you wish to paste some text over a region of already selected text? Oops, the selected text is autocopied.
This always seemed like a pretty stupid way of doing things to me. OK, autocopying is fair enough for some apps where text tends to scroll, making manual copying annoying (IRC clients, etc), but in the main I prefer the Windows way of doing it.
And what's the the Linux assumption that your mouse will have a third button? There're still plenty out there without. Don't tell the user to go buy another mouse, because that's arrogant assholism speaking.
Joe Sixpacks. Because they realise just enough to know that both Windows and Linux are OSes, and just know that Linux is free, but don't care to figure out how that would make business sense for a business.
£25/mo is enormous, and way more than I'd consider paying even for a landline. Why do people agree to pay these ridiculous sums for a mobile phone contract?