If you truly didn't make it through the first episode of Firefly, you may want to consider giving the series another chance. Yes, there are a lot of overbearing Western elements, but I really thought it was one of the more enjoyable shows I've seen. It's a relatively small commitment of time given there are just 14 episodes as well.
I know this is Slashdot, but at least give it a full episode before you condemn it. I've yet to encounter someone who gave the show a chance and didn't thoroughly enjoy it after getting into the first few episodes.
I also must admit I find your acceptance of Insurrection disturbing. There hasn't been a memorable Trek movie since First Contact, and the complete disregard for the story and character arcs from DS9 is downright criminal in the face of the tripe that has been trotted out under the Star Trek banner since that series' demise.
Yep, he sure did. I glossed right over that as it's not something I was previously familiar with. Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like an interesting product.
I would be surprised if Alexander used the Visual Studio debugger; more likely he used SoftICE or one of the Windows debuggers (NTSD/CDB/KD/WinDbg). SoftICE is a commercial product sold by Compuware and provides both user-mode and kernel-mode debugging. A version of the NTSD debugger comes with Windows, but is less useful than the one that comes with Debugging Tools for Windows. NTSD and CDB provide user-mode debugging, the only difference between the applications being that NTSD opens a new console window and CDB does not. KD is the kernel debugger. WinDbg provides the same functionality as NTSD/CDB/KD but with a (spartan) Windows interface.
I remember a time not all that long ago when the primary motivation for a kid writing a virus was to see his name in the lights or to learn something about technology. I could never really find fault with that, even though what they were doing was clearly misdirected and destructive. At least they were learning something, and being misdirected and destructive is what all kids do almost as a matter of course.
To read this now is both unsurprising and saddening, like the end of an era. A part of me misses the simple pleasure of a BBS, a modem, and people who had to care enough about technology to visit the same places that I was. Reading this story is where the new age of the Internet really hit home for me, though it's certainly been this way for at least a couple of years. The people who care simply don't have their own home anymore, or if they do I don't know where it is. Now that anyone can get on the Internet and the primary motivation for exploring technology is the cash offered by malevolent advertising, I can only sit and be dismayed at what this has all become.
I guess it's all spilled milk and sour grapes for me, though. And I'm sure those who were around at the very beginning, in the late 70s and through the 80s would look at me as a disrespectful babe in diapers for not showing up until the early 90s and sullying what they'd built just as I look upon this jerk as a harbinger of a new generation that just doesn't care.
Kerry lost too. The Democrats have just a bit more cash than the Libs or the Greens, why aren't they the ones paying for this?
As someone who's voted Libertarian in the past two presidential elections, it seems like a terrible waste of limited party funds to do this. Why not spend that money toward winning more local elections?
Not the same address used in the FA, which i guess is also the one on his site, maybe that one is just used for trolling people like us
AT&T Broadband Internet (attbi) was acquired by Comcast in late '02 or '03. That would jive with the domain being registered with an attbi address, but Jack's current address being comcast.
The real problem is not that the sentence for spamming is too harsh, it's that sentences for serious crimes are too weak. If you rape or murder someone and a jury convicts you based on conclusive evidence, that should be it. Instead, we have murderes and rapists walking out of prison after 10 years of hard time. I find it hard to believe a person in that situation would not come out more of a monster than they went in.
You're giving the average Internet user way too much credit. Sure, you and I understand immediately that there's no way that this thing is affiliated with Google. However, we're also not the people who are propagating MyDoom after being warned for 5 years about clicking on attachments.
Anyone with a clue will immediately see Booble for what it is, but the better part of the people connected to the Internet don't have a clue.
I understand that the spate of frivilous and poorly thought out litigation that has swept over the Internet in the past few years has made everyone who appreciates the freedom that the net offers cringe when they see lawsuits and C&Ds like this one. However, Google's concerns don't appear to be unfounded.
The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.
Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.
Re:Program Not Responding
on
PC Annoyances
·
· Score: 1
16: Why do many experts not think very highly of Herbert Schildt's books?
A good answer to this question could fill a book by itself. While no book is perfect, Schildt's books, in the opinion of many gurus, seem to positively aim to mislead learners and encourage bad habits. Schildt's beautifully clear writing style only makes things worse by causing many "satisfied" learners to recommend his books to other learners.
Do take a look at the following scathing articles before deciding to buy a Schildt text.
T he above reviews are admittedly based on two of Schildt's older books. However, the language they describe has not changed in the intervening period, and several books written at around the same time remain highly regarded.
The following humorous post also illustrates the general feeling towards Schildt and his books.
http://www.qnx.com/~glen/deadbeef/2764.html
Th ere is exactly one and ONLY one C book bearing Schildt's name on its cover that is at all recommended by many C experts - see Q 25.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. My only question would be, given that owning a CD means I own that particular copy of the content in question, is it a copyright violation to rip the CD or copy the CD in any regard?
I'm sure I need to RTFL (that's an L for law) somewhere, but is the law broken when someone who owns a license to listen to a song shares that song, or is it broken when someone who doesn't own a license to listen to that song comes along and downloads it?
If it's illegal to share in the first place then the RIAA should be able to take legal action against file-sharing services forcing them to disallow users from sharing their music files, but the ruling in the Streamcast case seems to indicate that just the act of sharing isn't illegal, because it could be that the files are being shared only between people who already have a license.
If it's an unlicensed user downloading the file that's illegal, how in the world does the RIAA prove the absence of a license? We've already been made to understand that when we go buy a CD, we don't own that CD, we own a license to listen to the music on that CD. So even if that CD is lost in a fire, the license to listen to the music should still persist, right? It would then follow that obtaining the content from a P2P network would be perfectly legal. For the RIAA to prosecute a file-swapper, they'd have to prove that the receiving party never owned a license, and they'd be hard pressed to do that.
I know it can't be that simple, so someone kindly flame me for missing the obvious illegality here. Obviously the law is being broken daily, but how are they going to prove infringement under the 'licensing' system they've created? It seems to me like they've shot themselves in the foot, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
I have not read the article, but I think this simply works by allowing different versions of the same DLL. If you have two programs that require the same version of the same DLL, they'll both use that DLL. However, if you install a new program that wants to install a different version of an already-installed DLL, that program will use its version of the DLL while allowing other programs to continue using the pre-existing DLL.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevermind, Leenock is safe.
If you truly didn't make it through the first episode of Firefly, you may want to consider giving the series another chance. Yes, there are a lot of overbearing Western elements, but I really thought it was one of the more enjoyable shows I've seen. It's a relatively small commitment of time given there are just 14 episodes as well.
I know this is Slashdot, but at least give it a full episode before you condemn it. I've yet to encounter someone who gave the show a chance and didn't thoroughly enjoy it after getting into the first few episodes.
I also must admit I find your acceptance of Insurrection disturbing. There hasn't been a memorable Trek movie since First Contact, and the complete disregard for the story and character arcs from DS9 is downright criminal in the face of the tripe that has been trotted out under the Star Trek banner since that series' demise.
Yep, he sure did. I glossed right over that as it's not something I was previously familiar with. Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like an interesting product.
For x86 assembler, Intel is a good source of information: http://www.intel.com/design/Pentium4/documentation .htm#manuals. You'll want to check out volumes 2A and 2B at a minimum for reference material.
I would be surprised if Alexander used the Visual Studio debugger; more likely he used SoftICE or one of the Windows debuggers (NTSD/CDB/KD/WinDbg). SoftICE is a commercial product sold by Compuware and provides both user-mode and kernel-mode debugging. A version of the NTSD debugger comes with Windows, but is less useful than the one that comes with Debugging Tools for Windows. NTSD and CDB provide user-mode debugging, the only difference between the applications being that NTSD opens a new console window and CDB does not. KD is the kernel debugger. WinDbg provides the same functionality as NTSD/CDB/KD but with a (spartan) Windows interface.
I remember a time not all that long ago when the primary motivation for a kid writing a virus was to see his name in the lights or to learn something about technology. I could never really find fault with that, even though what they were doing was clearly misdirected and destructive. At least they were learning something, and being misdirected and destructive is what all kids do almost as a matter of course.
To read this now is both unsurprising and saddening, like the end of an era. A part of me misses the simple pleasure of a BBS, a modem, and people who had to care enough about technology to visit the same places that I was. Reading this story is where the new age of the Internet really hit home for me, though it's certainly been this way for at least a couple of years. The people who care simply don't have their own home anymore, or if they do I don't know where it is. Now that anyone can get on the Internet and the primary motivation for exploring technology is the cash offered by malevolent advertising, I can only sit and be dismayed at what this has all become.
I guess it's all spilled milk and sour grapes for me, though. And I'm sure those who were around at the very beginning, in the late 70s and through the 80s would look at me as a disrespectful babe in diapers for not showing up until the early 90s and sullying what they'd built just as I look upon this jerk as a harbinger of a new generation that just doesn't care.
Kerry lost too. The Democrats have just a bit more cash than the Libs or the Greens, why aren't they the ones paying for this?
As someone who's voted Libertarian in the past two presidential elections, it seems like a terrible waste of limited party funds to do this. Why not spend that money toward winning more local elections?
Email: jackthompson@attbi.com
Created on..............: Tue, Dec 03, 2002
Not the same address used in the FA, which i guess is also the one on his site, maybe that one is just used for trolling people like us
AT&T Broadband Internet (attbi) was acquired by Comcast in late '02 or '03. That would jive with the domain being registered with an attbi address, but Jack's current address being comcast.
The real problem is not that the sentence for spamming is too harsh, it's that sentences for serious crimes are too weak. If you rape or murder someone and a jury convicts you based on conclusive evidence, that should be it. Instead, we have murderes and rapists walking out of prison after 10 years of hard time. I find it hard to believe a person in that situation would not come out more of a monster than they went in.
You're giving the average Internet user way too much credit. Sure, you and I understand immediately that there's no way that this thing is affiliated with Google. However, we're also not the people who are propagating MyDoom after being warned for 5 years about clicking on attachments.
Anyone with a clue will immediately see Booble for what it is, but the better part of the people connected to the Internet don't have a clue.
I understand that the spate of frivilous and poorly thought out litigation that has swept over the Internet in the past few years has made everyone who appreciates the freedom that the net offers cringe when they see lawsuits and C&Ds like this one. However, Google's concerns don't appear to be unfounded.
The comments that I've seen so far have been quick to point out that parodies such as Spaceballs and Hot Shots! made money and were protected, but the analogy falls down quicky, in my opinion. The Booble site looks exactly like Google, and the only indication (from the front page) that you're not dealing with the same company and the same search technology is the fine print at the bottom of the page that Joe Internet User couldn't read and understand if he wanted to. Going back to the film parody analogy, Booble's parody of Google would be akin to Mel Brooks casting Mark Hammill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII: Spaceballs and creating a film that looked and felt like it fit in the series, while providing a small disclaimer at the beginning that it wasn't affiliated with the franchise.
Most litigation and "big guy ordering little guy to C&D" that we see is bad and hurts everybody, but there are still times when it's legitimate. I submit that Google has done what it had to do in this case, and that we shouldn't all immediately run to back the little guy without considering the situation.
You might try this.
From the alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. My only question would be, given that owning a CD means I own that particular copy of the content in question, is it a copyright violation to rip the CD or copy the CD in any regard?
Thanks for the lucid reply.
I'm sure I need to RTFL (that's an L for law) somewhere, but is the law broken when someone who owns a license to listen to a song shares that song, or is it broken when someone who doesn't own a license to listen to that song comes along and downloads it?
If it's illegal to share in the first place then the RIAA should be able to take legal action against file-sharing services forcing them to disallow users from sharing their music files, but the ruling in the Streamcast case seems to indicate that just the act of sharing isn't illegal, because it could be that the files are being shared only between people who already have a license.
If it's an unlicensed user downloading the file that's illegal, how in the world does the RIAA prove the absence of a license? We've already been made to understand that when we go buy a CD, we don't own that CD, we own a license to listen to the music on that CD. So even if that CD is lost in a fire, the license to listen to the music should still persist, right? It would then follow that obtaining the content from a P2P network would be perfectly legal. For the RIAA to prosecute a file-swapper, they'd have to prove that the receiving party never owned a license, and they'd be hard pressed to do that.
I know it can't be that simple, so someone kindly flame me for missing the obvious illegality here. Obviously the law is being broken daily, but how are they going to prove infringement under the 'licensing' system they've created? It seems to me like they've shot themselves in the foot, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
I have not read the article, but I think this simply works by allowing different versions of the same DLL. If you have two programs that require the same version of the same DLL, they'll both use that DLL. However, if you install a new program that wants to install a different version of an already-installed DLL, that program will use its version of the DLL while allowing other programs to continue using the pre-existing DLL.