Don't like the adverts? Block them, ban them, remove them, its your choice. Setup a proxy server to dish out your own galleries for every requested advert. During a lanparty having the proxy feed webcam images of the rest of the room. Us geeks can see whats happening without straining our necks:D
I'm here a lot. I see he gets a lot of things accepted. Does it bother me - No it certainly doesn't, the things he finds are cool and certainly newsworthy.
I would rather see good articles posted under Rolands name than half the other crap weve had recently.
Yet again, I must point out that the summary he places at the bottom of each submission is just that - a summary, the main articles ALL have real links which don't involve going anywhere near his blog. Infact, I tried to find a submission of his that forces you to pass through his blog to reach the article, just to see if I had infact missed something, but I couldn't see any. Perhaps you could show me.
I can see the point in getting irate about ny times or other registration sites where the article is posted, but I just see his blog as a bit of a mirror.
Thats the same link as the article text up there? Informative? mods on crack its 100% redundant.
As for linking to his summary at the bottom of the story text, I couldnt care less, unlike you I read from top to bottom.
Its more embarrasing to see people complaining when they should be opening their eyes.
Ive stopped by this guys blog once, and tbh the style isn't my scene (still better than mirrordot or IT.slash), but as far as I'm aware his posts are relatively informative and technical.
This guy is giving slashdot the fodder and has come up with some of the best stories of late. Should the editors stop accepting his posts altogether?
Also, linking to a secondary summary page is probably helpful to lots of people, and it allows a discussion to continue even if the original site is overloaded.
Norton suddenly decided to detect and remove a file on my drive thats been there for years recently. It was a Service Pack 1 installation guide thats been happily sitting there since sp1 was released. I got a shock when the scan results window told me it had found a threat! First time its ever come up wheen I'm not expecting it (EICAR testing).
It was caught as part of a weekly scan, lets just say I removed the automatic cleanup immediately after.
Hey, what would happen if a virus somehow managed to change the NAV definitions to consider *.exe or *.dll a threat?.....
I bet a ninja could stop your alliance of unstoppable destructive machines.
Thats because Ninjas have Real Ultimate Power.
Now, if a virus could somehow enact the power of 10,000 ninjas on the internet, then it would be unstoppable, they would all go and stab your webserver in the eye, and they wouldn't even flinch.
[/tongue_in_cheek]
Back in reality, I'm watching out for the lower level Router attacks, or an attack of some type on the DNS roots. Whilst we believe we have the infrastructure to cope, I believe it will be a much more serious problem than DoSing somebodies website. Only recently we had a scare, and the powers that be hushed up and covered up to give themselves some room.
I still have a link on my xp desktop here called "crashme.htm". I used to be able to bring IE to its knees with it.
It consists of 11 characters - a Style opening tag and some malformed crap after it. It doesn't make it crash anymore, but I keep it there as a reminder.
MS mustv done a major cleanup of code to prevent egg on their faces. SP2 has also done a lot to cure problems of this nature.
I think MS might actually (finally) have an upper hand with this. Throwing manpower and resources at the problem will no doubt have assisted. However, this is only one facet in a much larger stack of cards.
Of course, just like you I don't see it as a problem and the OS developers will cure all issues allowing us to browse easy once again:)
Some folks like to be private on their computer. Up until now, there has been relative cosiness in seperating user accounts with a simple password. Mary-Lou doesnt know where to look on the computer to find Freds secret files, she thinks they are locked up behind the password.
However now, Google comes along and makes it nice and easy to see them all. And oh look if I search for this, it shows me those. Isnt that amazing!
It is not the location of the Search cache that is the problem, it is that the search itself caches folders belonging to other users which most people expect to be private (My documents/ local settings mail folders etc).
I believe this is a problem for users with either Fat32 User partitions (no inbuilt access rights), or the user running the search is an administrator.
When reading the help for this desktop search, it includes a method for blocking certain folders on your file system, and one specific one it mentions as an example is
"C:\Documents and Settings\private"
They knew of this issue before it even started, so how they let it ship without defaulting the search to local users' folders only I don't know.
I have other security concerns with this tool, but if they can be ironed out, I believe having google on my desktop will still be a "good thing". I was a little freaked out seeing my local files and folders listed essentially in a google window. Yet another shift - like seeing gmail for the 1st time.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet it still played faster than Doom 3 on my machine.
Heck, a 3year old with a crayon could render the blackness in higher quality and with a quicker refresh than it!
Of course licensing costs won't change.
;)
The new contracts will be EXACTLY the same price, except they will now only last 6months
Don't like the adverts? :D
Block them, ban them, remove them, its your choice.
Setup a proxy server to dish out your own galleries for every requested advert.
During a lanparty having the proxy feed webcam images of the rest of the room.
Us geeks can see whats happening without straining our necks
I'm here a lot. I see he gets a lot of things accepted. Does it bother me - No it certainly doesn't, the things he finds are cool and certainly newsworthy.
i lle+writes%22+site:slashdot.org
I would rather see good articles posted under Rolands name than half the other crap weve had recently.
Yet again, I must point out that the summary he places at the bottom of each submission is just that - a summary, the main articles ALL have real links which don't involve going anywhere near his blog. Infact, I tried to find a submission of his that forces you to pass through his blog to reach the article, just to see if I had infact missed something, but I couldn't see any. Perhaps you could show me.
http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22Roland+Piquepa
I can see the point in getting irate about ny times or other registration sites where the article is posted, but I just see his blog as a bit of a mirror.
Thats the same link as the article text up there?
Informative? mods on crack its 100% redundant.
As for linking to his summary at the bottom of the story text, I couldnt care less, unlike you I read from top to bottom.
Its more embarrasing to see people complaining when they should be opening their eyes.
Ive stopped by this guys blog once, and tbh the style isn't my scene (still better than mirrordot or IT.slash), but as far as I'm aware his posts are relatively informative and technical.
This guy is giving slashdot the fodder and has come up with some of the best stories of late. Should the editors stop accepting his posts altogether?
Also, linking to a secondary summary page is probably helpful to lots of people, and it allows a discussion to continue even if the original site is overloaded.
Norton suddenly decided to detect and remove a file on my drive thats been there for years recently. It was a Service Pack 1 installation guide thats been happily sitting there since sp1 was released. I got a shock when the scan results window told me it had found a threat! First time its ever come up wheen I'm not expecting it (EICAR testing).
.....
It was caught as part of a weekly scan, lets just say I removed the automatic cleanup immediately after.
Hey, what would happen if a virus somehow managed to change the NAV definitions to consider *.exe or *.dll a threat?
Turn the computers immune system on itself.
How long before SCO uses this as "evidence"?
I bet a ninja could stop your alliance of unstoppable destructive machines.
Thats because Ninjas have Real Ultimate Power.
Now, if a virus could somehow enact the power of 10,000 ninjas on the internet, then it would be unstoppable, they would all go and stab your webserver in the eye, and they wouldn't even flinch.
[/tongue_in_cheek]
Back in reality, I'm watching out for the lower level Router attacks, or an attack of some type on the DNS roots. Whilst we believe we have the infrastructure to cope, I believe it will be a much more serious problem than DoSing somebodies website. Only recently we had a scare, and the powers that be hushed up and covered up to give themselves some room.
I have a file sitting on my desktop here at work which says IE was still growing up in July of this year.
:)
It was an 11 byte html file which made IE go BOOOOOOOOM. I aptly named it "crashme.htm".
It remains on my desktop as a reminder of MS crap
I still have a link on my xp desktop here called "crashme.htm". I used to be able to bring IE to its knees with it.
:)
It consists of 11 characters - a Style opening tag and some malformed crap after it. It doesn't make it crash anymore, but I keep it there as a reminder.
MS mustv done a major cleanup of code to prevent egg on their faces. SP2 has also done a lot to cure problems of this nature.
I think MS might actually (finally) have an upper hand with this. Throwing manpower and resources at the problem will no doubt have assisted. However, this is only one facet in a much larger stack of cards.
Of course, just like you I don't see it as a problem and the OS developers will cure all issues allowing us to browse easy once again
My guess is this was recompiled with the new SP2 compilers?
But I guess I would have to rtfa for that (which I'm gonna do now)
One thing, if it is the compiler thats automagically cleaning up the code, does the gcc compiler support the same optimisations?
If not, why not, if so Woooohooooooo get recompiling.
They were aiming for a Dupe story, but misread the timelines slightly and ended up looking at the 1994 headlines.
Sorry.
Microsoft already loves Linux.
They bought SCO didn't they?
One click is actually 2 events if I'm not mistaken.
;)
I am going to impliment the all new
"MouseDown/MouseUp Purchasing Combination"
found it was not damaged at all
Maybe we should build houses for happy go lucky aging chinese folks in Utah?
It would certainly be cheaper than hiring helecoptor stunt pilots.
Perhaps then Genesis would have more valuable science data for us.
The system looks for multiple hits and grades them algorythmicly.
PigeonRank?
No, but we can mechanise the process.
A factory machine is not autonomous, it doesnt just do everything itself, it must still be told what to do.
I see development work adapting and expanding, and yes I see fewer actually code monkey jobs.
In a computerised brassband, there is still a need for a skilled composer.
How long until "demi vie deux" is available ;)
Why on earth would I want a trumpet playing Segway?
I know these people are known for blowing their own trumpet, but for someone to actually make one *really* do it is a little bit bizarre.
But thats EXACTLY what it does.
Some folks like to be private on their computer.
Up until now, there has been relative cosiness in seperating user accounts with a simple password.
Mary-Lou doesnt know where to look on the computer to find Freds secret files, she thinks they are locked up behind the password.
However now, Google comes along and makes it nice and easy to see them all.
And oh look if I search for this, it shows me those. Isnt that amazing!
Mary-Lou is the 3rd party, Fred gets violated.
The effect is simple, the damage could be great.
I agree 100% it should honor the ACLs, but I wonder if we could do anything else?
We essentially have the google bot on our machines, would it be good to honor the standards the realbot uses?
Would it pick up and honor my robots.txt file?
Will we start seeing meta tags inside emails and word documents and stored pages to exclude from indexing?
Very slight factual error (I just reinstalled it to check).
The folder they suggest to hide is actually:
c:\Documents and Settings\username\Private
It is not the location of the Search cache that is the problem, it is that the search itself caches folders belonging to other users which most people expect to be private (My documents/ local settings mail folders etc).
I believe this is a problem for users with either Fat32 User partitions (no inbuilt access rights), or the user running the search is an administrator.
When reading the help for this desktop search, it includes a method for blocking certain folders on your file system, and one specific one it mentions as an example is
"C:\Documents and Settings\private"
They knew of this issue before it even started, so how they let it ship without defaulting the search to local users' folders only I don't know.
I have other security concerns with this tool, but if they can be ironed out, I believe having google on my desktop will still be a "good thing". I was a little freaked out seeing my local files and folders listed essentially in a google window. Yet another shift - like seeing gmail for the 1st time.
Certain cases involving porn and actresses?
isnt this like craigslist type sites only without the friendly, relaxed online, nospam good things about it?