Do they have a new version that doesn't segfault as often? Last time I tried it, I could only use it on Slashdot when I didn't have moderator points, or else the forms would overload it. --
That's exactly right. Your Karma is the sum of the moderations done on you, no matter what score you start at. (Well, meta-moderation now plays a part in your Karma as well, but most of it is moderation.) --
Kill two birds with one stone. Clear your nasal passages and show your distaste for paper towel-less bathrooms. Blow your nose on the electric hand dryer. --
The difference is that PNG isn't proprietary. It can be supported by any Web browser, but some don't because they're old versions. It's good when the standards improve, because then the web browsers don't have to invent their own rules just to make any progress. --
An example of lossy text compression is the (pretty much useless) "AutoSummarize" command in Word 97. It can take, for example, the entire text of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, and reduce it to "Arthur!" over and over again, with various punctuation. --
Someone could type a 10,000 letter "word" with no spaces. It wouldn't have anywhere to wrap, so it'd just keep going on to the right, making the whole table extremely wide. Then, to read the other comments, you'd have to keep scrolling horizontally. --
It seems they are switching to names. Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium. So what'll the next one be? Some thoughts:
Windows: The Next Generation Windows 2001: A Crash Odyssey Son of Windows Windows vs. Godzilla Windows vs. Mozilla Windows Returns Windows Forever The Windows Show Windows-mon: The Sixth OS Windows I: The Saga Begins --
I agree that Roman numerals are a problem, because they're either too long or you can't tell them apart from normal letters. Which is why it's so hard to figure out where the version number is in "X11R6". (From what I've heard, the 11 is part of the name.)
Incidentally, how'd you get a movie from 6808? It must have had really nice special effects:) --
A few responses. Your first point doesn't make much sense. You could just as easily say, would that be Windows 1898, 1998, or 2098? There's a point where you have to use common sense.
I never realized that Microsoft was switching their names around like that. I guess Microsoft realizes that, for them, confused users are good users.
On the subject of silly names, how much sillier can they get than "Millennium"? No matter how many N's you put in it, it's just going to confuse people. "Is it another name for Windows 2000? Or maybe 2001? Or something totally different? Is it even an operating system?" Also, I don't see why Microsoft would want a consumer release that can be misspelled so easily. Quick, someone go register www.windowsmillenium.com! --
You're reminding me of Chessmaster 5500, which was basically Chessmaster 5000 plus a stupid intro by Josh Waitzkin. Okay, there might have been a few new things, but not enough to add half a version (divide these numbers by 1000 to get a real version number). --
Thankfully, most major version numbers have managed to stay in the single digits so far. That is, besides programs that have been around long enough to deserve a high number.
That makes me wonder. Has anyone sighted a version number higher than "Emacs 21"? --
Now why would the scanner see through all the clothes except underwear?
That's not underwear in the picture. You're just seeing the skin being relocated by the underwear. So this picture would be revealing regardless of what underclothes someone is wearing. --
Nice explanation, but this doesn't work how you think. The clock's not going to "run out of digits" and decide to set itself back to 0. It's going to keep on happily counting in binary, setting the most significant bit, which determines the sign of an integer. Thus it will roll back to -2^31, which is in 1901. --
I agree - manuals have their priorities all out of order.
For example - look at the format of your average 'man' file. It starts by showing you the command along with every single option you could possibly type, then explains (in alphabetical order) what those options do. If you go farther down, it might tell you what the command does, and how to use it, if you're lucky. Take the 'tar' man file as an example.
This particular file also demonstrates another problem - manual writers think their program exists in a vacuum. I can't think of a time I've wanted to tar something without gzipping it as well, yet the option to gzip is only mentioned as part of the mess of options. It also talks about writing to tape being the main purpose of tar - now, anyone here who still uses tar to write to tape, raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
It took me way too long to learn to use 'tar zxvf'. I would gunzip the file, then tar -x it with the file as standard input. I still don't know the best option group to create a.tar.gz archive. (tar zcvf would be logical, but gives the extremely obtuse error message 'Cowardly refusing to create an empty archive'.)
So it would be really nice if the 'tar' man page started, for example, by saying "To extract a.tar.gz file, type 'tar zxvf (file)'. To create a.tar.gz file..." --
You make some good points, but I think your reasoning's backwards about Win98. Nobody was excited about Win98 because, once you look past the cosmetic changes to Explorer and the scrolly slidey menus, it essentially was a service patch.
Remember Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11? They happened all over again, except they were prettier and they were called Windows 95, 98, and 98SE. --
This happens to me too... but I guess it's normal. X comes up with screenfuls of error messages all the time, but keeps working. Though I agree that Linux would gain credibility if they just hid those error messages a bit.
And that includes error messages for really stupid things too. Like if I hit the "logout" button in Gnome, then say "No", it puts an error message on tty1 that looks pretty serious. --
You know, moderation needs to have more options. I want to give that post a "Score: 1-2i, Disturbing". There are probably some other posts that I'd like to moderate sideways, too. --
Bob must like the taste of processed wood pulp. Otherwise he'd stop this "I'll eat my column if I'm wrong" business. Or actually try being right for once. --
Slashdot Mirror
However, do we want the people with enough free time on their hands to rate every comment from 0 to 100 to be the most influential moderators?
--
Do they have a new version that doesn't segfault as often? Last time I tried it, I could only use it on Slashdot when I didn't have moderator points, or else the forms would overload it.
--
That's exactly right. Your Karma is the sum of the moderations done on you, no matter what score you start at. (Well, meta-moderation now plays a part in your Karma as well, but most of it is moderation.)
--
Kill two birds with one stone. Clear your nasal passages and show your distaste for paper towel-less bathrooms.
Blow your nose on the electric hand dryer.
--
It seems that most of the comments on this article are saying one of the following:
"ROX sux"
"ROX rox"
"ROX sux rox"
...only more elaborately.
--
The difference is that PNG isn't proprietary. It can be supported by any Web browser, but some don't because they're old versions. It's good when the standards improve, because then the web browsers don't have to invent their own rules just to make any progress.
--
An example of lossy text compression is the (pretty much useless) "AutoSummarize" command in Word 97. It can take, for example, the entire text of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, and reduce it to "Arthur!" over and over again, with various punctuation.
--
It's a nice idea, but I prefer to see results in the same year that I join the project...
--
Someone could type a 10,000 letter "word" with no spaces. It wouldn't have anywhere to wrap, so it'd just keep going on to the right, making the whole table extremely wide. Then, to read the other comments, you'd have to keep scrolling horizontally.
--
Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium. So what'll the next one be? Some thoughts:
Windows: The Next Generation
Windows 2001: A Crash Odyssey
Son of Windows
Windows vs. Godzilla
Windows vs. Mozilla
Windows Returns
Windows Forever
The Windows Show
Windows-mon: The Sixth OS
Windows I: The Saga Begins
--
I agree that Roman numerals are a problem, because they're either too long or you can't tell them apart from normal letters. Which is why it's so hard to figure out where the version number is in "X11R6". (From what I've heard, the 11 is part of the name.)
:)
Incidentally, how'd you get a movie from 6808? It must have had really nice special effects
--
A few responses. Your first point doesn't make much sense. You could just as easily say, would that be Windows 1898, 1998, or 2098? There's a point where you have to use common sense.
I never realized that Microsoft was switching their names around like that. I guess Microsoft realizes that, for them, confused users are good users.
On the subject of silly names, how much sillier can they get than "Millennium"? No matter how many N's you put in it, it's just going to confuse people. "Is it another name for Windows 2000? Or maybe 2001? Or something totally different? Is it even an operating system?" Also, I don't see why Microsoft would want a consumer release that can be misspelled so easily. Quick, someone go register www.windowsmillenium.com!
--
You're reminding me of Chessmaster 5500, which was basically Chessmaster 5000 plus a stupid intro by Josh Waitzkin. Okay, there might have been a few new things, but not enough to add half a version (divide these numbers by 1000 to get a real version number).
--
Thankfully, most major version numbers have managed to stay in the single digits so far. That is, besides programs that have been around long enough to deserve a high number.
That makes me wonder. Has anyone sighted a version number higher than "Emacs 21"?
--
Now why would the scanner see through all the clothes except underwear?
That's not underwear in the picture. You're just seeing the skin being relocated by the underwear. So this picture would be revealing regardless of what underclothes someone is wearing.
--
Well, obviously they're just trying to get the computer to accept "plague of locusts" and "rain of frogs" as weather conditions.
Or maybe their forecast is exactly right... hmm...
--
Nice explanation, but this doesn't work how you think. The clock's not going to "run out of digits" and decide to set itself back to 0. It's going to keep on happily counting in binary, setting the most significant bit, which determines the sign of an integer. Thus it will roll back to -2^31, which is in 1901.
--
Au contraire, I think that as soon as we get through 2000, everyone will say "Oops, we were wrong" so they can party again in 2001.
--
I agree - manuals have their priorities all out of order.
.tar.gz archive. (tar zcvf would be logical, but gives the extremely obtuse error message 'Cowardly refusing to create an empty archive'.)
.tar.gz file, type 'tar zxvf (file)'. To create a .tar.gz file..."
For example - look at the format of your average 'man' file. It starts by showing you the command along with every single option you could possibly type, then explains (in alphabetical order) what those options do. If you go farther down, it might tell you what the command does, and how to use it, if you're lucky. Take the 'tar' man file as an example.
This particular file also demonstrates another problem - manual writers think their program exists in a vacuum. I can't think of a time I've wanted to tar something without gzipping it as well, yet the option to gzip is only mentioned as part of the mess of options. It also talks about writing to tape being the main purpose of tar - now, anyone here who still uses tar to write to tape, raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
It took me way too long to learn to use 'tar zxvf'. I would gunzip the file, then tar -x it with the file as standard input. I still don't know the best option group to create a
So it would be really nice if the 'tar' man page started, for example, by saying "To extract a
--
You make some good points, but I think your reasoning's backwards about Win98. Nobody was excited about Win98 because, once you look past the cosmetic changes to Explorer and the scrolly slidey menus, it essentially was a service patch.
Remember Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11? They happened all over again, except they were prettier and they were called Windows 95, 98, and 98SE.
--
This happens to me too... but I guess it's normal. X comes up with screenfuls of error messages all the time, but keeps working. Though I agree that Linux would gain credibility if they just hid those error messages a bit.
And that includes error messages for really stupid things too. Like if I hit the "logout" button in Gnome, then say "No", it puts an error message on tty1 that looks pretty serious.
--
etoy.com was creative. This was before "eFoo" was a buzzword. I believe they picked "etoy" just because it had a unique sound.
--
My guess is that the kids had had it up to here (attempts to gesture via text) with the "spirit of Christmas".
--
You know, moderation needs to have more options. I want to give that post a "Score: 1-2i, Disturbing". There are probably some other posts that I'd like to moderate sideways, too.
--
Bob must like the taste of processed wood pulp. Otherwise he'd stop this "I'll eat my column if I'm wrong" business. Or actually try being right for once.
--