This is marginally off-topic, but I'll consider this public service.
apparently slashdot convulses if you put a greater than in your text...
No, it silently ignores your bad HTML markup. After all, "<" and ">" are tag markers. If you post a comment in "HTML Formatted" mode (and most do, 'cuz it's the default), you don't own less-than and greater-than; markup does.
And there's a hint: it's HTML, so use HTML character entities. like, "<" and ">".
BTW, that was painful, cuz I had to escape the ampersand to quote the escape. Ick.
Why is it that the music industry seems to be so corrupt?
A property which is both intangible and easily reproducable. That's not at all conducive to the artificial scarcity necessary to make a buck.
Money. Lots of money. A tradition of lots of money. And now that money is at risk. The artificial scarcity is taking a serious beating, and now the middleman's essential role of getting between the creator and the consumer is becoming much less essential, so that sweet sweet moolah is crossing their palm less often.
Success. Because the entertainment IP dinosaur still has influence, the law (both legislative and, to an extent, judicial) is swinging in their direction. Success in lawmaking and litigation encourages more of the same, even if an outside observer would call the process "corrupt". Cuz, you know, "corrupt" or "not corrupt" doesn't matter; "successful" and "moneymaking" is the only standard.
I think that's why it seems worse. Because, to some degree, it is.
"Amid protests in the streets and on social networks calling for Guatemala's president to step down after the assasination of a whistleblower attorney, Guatemalan police have arrested a text messaging user for 'inciting panic' through SMS. In the capital city today, police raided his home and confiscated his cell phone."
What's the difference? None.
I suppose Tweeters can be proud their chosen technology joins the illustrious ranks of the telephone, the fax machine, and the mimeocopied bill pasted on a telephone pole as agents of protest.
If WoW were like the Matrix, I'm not sure how many people would voluntarily play on a PvP realm. Getting ganked's bad enough without neural feedback making me perceive the actual pain of being on the receiving end of an ice lance or a mortal strike.
Well, to use the current Darwin Award rules, death is not required. Inability to reproduce is. Specifically, sterilization is a viable alternative. So, given sufficient quantities of sufficiently hot coffee dumped into a crotch (which, by normal human physiology, is necessary to reproduction), non-lethal hot coffee burns may qualify.
Well, at least in the Unix/Linux model, processes are mostly independent, memory-wise. Shared memory is an explicit thing, under the category of Interprocess Communications (IPC). Under no condition does a fandango-on-core in one user process trash non-shared core in another process, and shared memory is generally restricted to shared-context communications, so both a smaller victim space and functionally more resilient. (Code using IPC shmem expects it to be volatile, and well-written code that uses IPC shmem vets its contents carefully before using it, so catastrophic oopses should be rare.)
Compare that to the more modern thread model, which, in almost every architecture I'm aware of, mostly runs in exactly the same user space. If a thread eats atomic hot buffalo wings, all its brother threads in the same process get the same heartburn. The upside, barring badness, is that thread management is lightweight: no need to copy the parent memory image to a separate allocation and set up full process "OS bureaucracy" data structures. In contrast, it's practically "wave your magic wand et voila you have created a new thread". Very responsive. Very fragile.
I think this responsiveness is a lot of the reason to love threads. And that "crashing" stuff? That never happens to me. So I don't need to worry about how fragile threads are.
ObDisclaimer: it's been a few years since I've done any hardcore coding, so I may have missed some important details. If I did, I'm sure someone vastly smarter than me will be happy to point it out.
Except, you know, double-clicking on a document to activate its standard editor and double-clicking an executable is indistinguishable to a user. (at least until it's too late.) And you know a malware skidiot smart enough to take advantage of the l334 h@x0r feature of Windows will be smart enough to turn on the executable bit before releasing his opus magnum.
By Slashdot-approved car analogy, Enderle admitted long ago that he shouldn't have driven off the cliff. But the constant bashing by the "OMG The bridge is out" community made him believe the bridge was fine in the first place.
"It's your fault! You warned me! That makes it YOUR FAULT!"
I can almost respect making excuses, but not making lame, totally illogical, absolutely non-credible excuses. THAT, I can laugh at and mock.
You mean electrolysis, some kind of mass-distillation to fractionate the hydrogen into hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium, followed by burning just H2 (rather than D2 or T2).
Well, actually, there are several different industrial techniques to isolate heavy water (deuterium or tritium oxides), but none of them would preserve the "branch water" distinction important in whisky. You may as well mix up a batch of colors, flavors, neutral grain spirits, and distilled water and call it whisky. Just don't expect to pass it off as whisky, and expect violence from anyone you try to pass it off on.
Well here's mine: decreasing the radioactive content of "fake" whiskey to match that of the "genuinely" old stuff!
Well, if you do manage to invent the nuclear damper and accelerate the 1/2 life decay of carbon-14, let me know. I can think of a lot of people who'd be interested in forcing accelerated decay of stuff like plutonium.
Slashdot Mirror
This is marginally off-topic, but I'll consider this public service.
apparently slashdot convulses if you put a greater than in your text...
No, it silently ignores your bad HTML markup. After all, "<" and ">" are tag markers. If you post a comment in "HTML Formatted" mode (and most do, 'cuz it's the default), you don't own less-than and greater-than; markup does.
And there's a hint: it's HTML, so use HTML character entities. like, "<" and ">".
BTW, that was painful, cuz I had to escape the ampersand to quote the escape. Ick.
YW. H2H.
We really ought to ban banning. Down with negativism!
Meh. Obvious difference is obvious. It's also functionally irrelevant.
See also flash mob. The fact that this is based on Twitter is really only important to Twitter aficionados.
Anything to lend an air of significance, I guess. Yes, Twitter, you matter. Really. We respect you now.
Why is it that the music industry seems to be so corrupt?
I think that's why it seems worse. Because, to some degree, it is.
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
-- Isaac Asimov
See also Amiga Persecution Complex.
Twidiots always assume they invented everything.
What's the difference? None.
I suppose Tweeters can be proud their chosen technology joins the illustrious ranks of the telephone, the fax machine, and the mimeocopied bill pasted on a telephone pole as agents of protest.
My program initialization contains an "ON ERROR RESUME NEXT".
I thought all machines had sensory technology with reacted to the user's activity state. I just look forward to this being used for something besides making the machine malfunction when I need it the most.
is no match for natural evil.
"What the..? This is lemonade! What happened to my culture of amoebic dysentery?"
Godwin'd by puppet state proxy
And it will run in unblocked javascript. Just to complete the irony and failitude.
Reviewer sez...
We're from the Government and we're here to help.
Won't someone thing of something besides the children!?
If WoW were like the Matrix, I'm not sure how many people would voluntarily play on a PvP realm. Getting ganked's bad enough without neural feedback making me perceive the actual pain of being on the receiving end of an ice lance or a mortal strike.
Well, to use the current Darwin Award rules, death is not required. Inability to reproduce is. Specifically, sterilization is a viable alternative. So, given sufficient quantities of sufficiently hot coffee dumped into a crotch (which, by normal human physiology, is necessary to reproduction), non-lethal hot coffee burns may qualify.
Well, at least in the Unix/Linux model, processes are mostly independent, memory-wise. Shared memory is an explicit thing, under the category of Interprocess Communications (IPC). Under no condition does a fandango-on-core in one user process trash non-shared core in another process, and shared memory is generally restricted to shared-context communications, so both a smaller victim space and functionally more resilient. (Code using IPC shmem expects it to be volatile, and well-written code that uses IPC shmem vets its contents carefully before using it, so catastrophic oopses should be rare.)
Compare that to the more modern thread model, which, in almost every architecture I'm aware of, mostly runs in exactly the same user space. If a thread eats atomic hot buffalo wings, all its brother threads in the same process get the same heartburn. The upside, barring badness, is that thread management is lightweight: no need to copy the parent memory image to a separate allocation and set up full process "OS bureaucracy" data structures. In contrast, it's practically "wave your magic wand et voila you have created a new thread". Very responsive. Very fragile.
I think this responsiveness is a lot of the reason to love threads. And that "crashing" stuff? That never happens to me. So I don't need to worry about how fragile threads are.
ObDisclaimer: it's been a few years since I've done any hardcore coding, so I may have missed some important details. If I did, I'm sure someone vastly smarter than me will be happy to point it out.
Except, you know, double-clicking on a document to activate its standard editor and double-clicking an executable is indistinguishable to a user. (at least until it's too late.) And you know a malware skidiot smart enough to take advantage of the l334 h@x0r feature of Windows will be smart enough to turn on the executable bit before releasing his opus magnum.
Weak. Very weak.
By Slashdot-approved car analogy, Enderle admitted long ago that he shouldn't have driven off the cliff. But the constant bashing by the "OMG The bridge is out" community made him believe the bridge was fine in the first place.
"It's your fault! You warned me! That makes it YOUR FAULT!"
I can almost respect making excuses, but not making lame, totally illogical, absolutely non-credible excuses. THAT, I can laugh at and mock.
If I were pushing this plan, I wouldn't try "general welfare", I'd go for "security".
Again proving that the backdoor password to the Bill of Rights is "terrorism".
Oh, I'm not saying it won't work. Frankly, it probably would work. It certainly has a good track record.
I'm just saying it's not right. FWIW.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
The stunlock hemo rogue of viruses
You mean electrolysis, some kind of mass-distillation to fractionate the hydrogen into hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium, followed by burning just H2 (rather than D2 or T2).
Well, actually, there are several different industrial techniques to isolate heavy water (deuterium or tritium oxides), but none of them would preserve the "branch water" distinction important in whisky. You may as well mix up a batch of colors, flavors, neutral grain spirits, and distilled water and call it whisky. Just don't expect to pass it off as whisky, and expect violence from anyone you try to pass it off on.
Well here's mine: decreasing the radioactive content of "fake" whiskey to match that of the "genuinely" old stuff!
Well, if you do manage to invent the nuclear damper and accelerate the 1/2 life decay of carbon-14, let me know. I can think of a lot of people who'd be interested in forcing accelerated decay of stuff like plutonium.