Good to see that other people understand how powerful Usenet can be today. Weird technical problems that sound to rare to be documented? You'll find a solution. A good discussion on C++/AI/whatever? You'll find one, or a couple hundred. If this is a dead medium, then show me a real replacement of such size, depth and convenience.
When I was reading on the features of MSN Search, the only one I found interesting was the automatic Encarta lookup (try it, it's pretty cool: "Who were the KKK?"). First thing I thought was that Google would surely make the same move very soon.
Will Google be ripping off that feature? Perhaps, and I surely hope so. Why not? Microsoft ripped off most of Google first and I'm not complaining about it (more power to them) . And it'd be nice giving Google cred to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know of the problems with a Wiki pedia. I just hope they will find a way around them).
Shouldn't they have a "validate all logins" fallback system? Allow those pesky pirates a chance every 2-3 months to actually login, in exchange for no DoS for
the paying customers? Sounds like a good deal to me, since they can't guarantee 24/7/365 uptime.
Good point. I like the way Blizzard dealt with this, providing the BT client packed as one of those old-school downloader executables. Have it download the file for you, then delete it.
Yeah, I guess it depends on Karma, or hardware, or something.On the Linux side, I thought Debian was more than satisfactory, the libc thing sounds like a Karma thing too : )
I don't mind a MS joke guys, but can we please move to the 'security' stuff, which is at least topical? It's not funny when for most purposes, and most people, today's Windows works for months straight.
The situation is almost exactly the same, but switch the companies, and have Slashdot editors do the comment. While the comment on Windows 2003 crashing proves absolutely nothing (since all other parameters are unknown), people have commented against it already, and you can be pretty sure that at least some of the people who had any respect for Win2003's reliability began to have doubts. Not because a lot of people who use it in real-life environments said that it's not any good, but because an article said that Win2003 couldn't handle the pressure.
It's not a very harmful piece of FUD but it's certainly neither subtle or hard fact. It's also a piece of FUD, it doesn't have to include all three elements. Just another shell in this stupid FUD war.
It is certain and there is no doubt that Microsoft's 2003 crashed under the pressure and OSX did not.
If MS ran a single-server web site with OSX and it crashed under the pressure they brought on it, and someone there used that as an example of how OSX is inferior to Windows, wouldn't that be FUD? They don't even have to say that it is inferior, just the mention of the crash would make people uncertain of OSX's perfomance/reliability. There's your uncertainty.
And if you say that people would surely see through such an obvious fallacy, check your own words and see that you did not.
I humbly apologize. I figured out that the AI wasn't all that great, yeah, but the can o' paint thing was way over the line.
Still a very very fun game, spoiled by a half-assed (or half finished) AI and hitbox code. I'm glad i didn't run into such things while playing, and I understand people being bitter about it. It simply ruins the game!
What the hell? This "news item" is is 3 to 4 years old, and the VERY FIRST LINE of the article says that the "20 years" are from 1981 to - we'll need mathematics here - 2001! (If you're wondering, we're in the year 2005 now.)
That page has been there forever, I've visited it multiple times a long time ago and I'm certainly not the only one.
I'm sorry, it's just that sometimes I wonder what the editors are doing in this site. It's not rocket science, dammit.
The difference, in this case, lies in the way the materials are used.
Game engines enable people to create their own games. They make it easier to be creative without building a game engine from scratch.
The game is what the end-user sees,plays and (theoretically) enjoys. It's creative work and should be treated as such. Whether or not the treatment should be similar to the game engine (Creative Commons Licenses) or commercial is a matter that should be left to the creator, and is beyond Stallman's scope.
I was 8 or 9. Father had an Enterprise 64 home computer.
No permanent storage device(tape recorder). Just the computer and an IS-BASIC cartridge.
My first program that I remember was an alarm clock. I remember setting it with my brother and sister and then pretending we were asleep so we could wait for it:)
Next was a dice-throwing game, complete with graphics, and a failed attempt at a space shoot'em up. And then we got a tape recorder and I started playing games:)
So I guess my advice is "don't install any games". And have QBasic or something installed, and a good, simple book on it somewhere accessible.
Re:"do no evil" vs "nonprofit"?
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
They said that it will remain free, somewhere in the 'New Features' blurb. Too tired to find it, don't even know if it's still there.
That's probably what people thought before the Industrial Revolution. And where's that olde patent-office quote about us running out of inventions (or something) when you need it:)
If you want to look forward to something, there's nanotechnology and genetics for now. The advances there will most definitely be revolutionary, just not the way people imagined.
Given the skill and experience that it takes, in my experience, to be able to run Unix as naturally as some people do... perhaps they've earned that attitude.
That's complete nonsense. Installing and running Unix hardly counts as one of the more difficult intellectual tasks. It's hard, sure, if you're used to something different, but the description 'windows people' includes novelists, artists and nuclear scientists who just don't give a damn about the stupid OS their computer runs.
Would you like it if an artist made fun of your pens and call you and your friends BIC people? Well, that's how stupid this sounds.
but it isnt exactly anything that hasn't been done before, is it?
We wouldn't know from your description. All you say is that:
a)it's written from scratch ( so it very likely that it's offering something new)
b)it's not based on unix at all ( which has been done before many times and therefore would not have been something completely new).
So you make it sound very exciting, and then reject it (because it's commercial? because it's, um, not based on *nix? the hell?).
If you don't find that kind of stuff exciting, what are you doing posting on computer geek site?
Slashdot Mirror
Aww. The last one was news to me.
Good to see that other people understand how powerful Usenet can be today. Weird technical problems that sound to rare to be documented? You'll find a solution. A good discussion on C++/AI/whatever? You'll find one, or a couple hundred. If this is a dead medium, then show me a real replacement of such size, depth and convenience.
Ballmer: "We finally released IE 8. It was about..."
*world slows down, freezes*
Time, Mr.Ballmer? Is it really that time again?
When I was reading on the features of MSN Search, the only one I found interesting was the automatic Encarta lookup (try it, it's pretty cool: "Who were the KKK?"). First thing I thought was that Google would surely make the same move very soon.
Will Google be ripping off that feature? Perhaps, and I surely hope so. Why not? Microsoft ripped off most of Google first and I'm not complaining about it (more power to them) . And it'd be nice giving Google cred to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know of the problems with a Wiki pedia. I just hope they will find a way around them).
MSoffice is not nearly as functional as Openoffice
It does screw up on nested numbering. I haven't managed to make it have 1), 2) points and a nested a) b) c) 's. (OpenOffice 2.0 Preview).
Frankly, I kind of hate both at the time. I hope one, either of them, reaches the point of being truly usable, at last.
Shouldn't they have a "validate all logins" fallback system? Allow those pesky pirates a chance every 2-3 months to actually login, in exchange for no DoS for the paying customers? Sounds like a good deal to me, since they can't guarantee 24/7/365 uptime.
Good point. I like the way Blizzard dealt with this, providing the BT client packed as one of those old-school downloader executables. Have it download the file for you, then delete it.
Yeah, I guess it depends on Karma, or hardware, or something.On the Linux side, I thought Debian was more than satisfactory, the libc thing sounds like a Karma thing too : )
I don't mind a MS joke guys, but can we please move to the 'security' stuff, which is at least topical? It's not funny when for most purposes, and most people, today's Windows works for months straight.
Instincts do not directly relate to survival of the species. Rather, instincts are very selfish things. They are all about the individual.
Dr.Breen, is that you?
The situation is almost exactly the same, but switch the companies, and have Slashdot editors do the comment. While the comment on Windows 2003 crashing proves absolutely nothing (since all other parameters are unknown), people have commented against it already, and you can be pretty sure that at least some of the people who had any respect for Win2003's reliability began to have doubts. Not because a lot of people who use it in real-life environments said that it's not any good, but because an article said that Win2003 couldn't handle the pressure.
It's not a very harmful piece of FUD but it's certainly neither subtle or hard fact. It's also a piece of FUD, it doesn't have to include all three elements. Just another shell in this stupid FUD war.
It is certain and there is no doubt that Microsoft's 2003 crashed under the pressure and OSX did not.
If MS ran a single-server web site with OSX and it crashed under the pressure they brought on it, and someone there used that as an example of how OSX is inferior to Windows, wouldn't that be FUD? They don't even have to say that it is inferior, just the mention of the crash would make people uncertain of OSX's perfomance/reliability. There's your uncertainty.
And if you say that people would surely see through such an obvious fallacy, check your own words and see that you did not.
I humbly apologize. I figured out that the AI wasn't all that great, yeah, but the can o' paint thing was way over the line.
Still a very very fun game, spoiled by a half-assed (or half finished) AI and hitbox code. I'm glad i didn't run into such things while playing, and I understand people being bitter about it. It simply ruins the game!
Hold a paint can and be invincible and invisible to the enemies.
Sounds like you hit a bug or two there. That's not the way it goes.
What the hell? This "news item" is is 3 to 4 years old, and the VERY FIRST LINE of the article says that the "20 years" are from 1981 to - we'll need mathematics here - 2001! (If you're wondering, we're in the year 2005 now.)
That page has been there forever, I've visited it multiple times a long time ago and I'm certainly not the only one.
I'm sorry, it's just that sometimes I wonder what the editors are doing in this site. It's not rocket science, dammit.
Yeah, it sounds great! Like those pseudo-hacker babblings in movies, only , you know, not fake!
The difference, in this case, lies in the way the materials are used.
Game engines enable people to create their own games. They make it easier to be creative without building a game engine from scratch.
The game is what the end-user sees,plays and (theoretically) enjoys. It's creative work and should be treated as such. Whether or not the treatment should be similar to the game engine (Creative Commons Licenses) or commercial is a matter that should be left to the creator, and is beyond Stallman's scope.
Ditto that. I didn't know if the topic is too advanced or if it's just simple stuff using ten dollar words.
br. Turned out to be the second.
I was 8 or 9. Father had an Enterprise 64 home computer.
:) :)
No permanent storage device(tape recorder). Just the computer and an IS-BASIC cartridge.
My first program that I remember was an alarm clock. I remember setting it with my brother and sister and then pretending we were asleep so we could wait for it
Next was a dice-throwing game, complete with graphics, and a failed attempt at a space shoot'em up. And then we got a tape recorder and I started playing games
So I guess my advice is "don't install any games". And have QBasic or something installed, and a good, simple book on it somewhere accessible.
They said that it will remain free, somewhere in the 'New Features' blurb. Too tired to find it, don't even know if it's still there.
Damn. Just lost my mod points :-)
That's probably what people thought before the Industrial Revolution. And where's that olde patent-office quote about us running out of inventions (or something) when you need it :)
If you want to look forward to something, there's nanotechnology and genetics for now. The advances there will most definitely be revolutionary, just not the way people imagined.
Yup. Your observation is hilariously ambiguous. Well, at least to the sleep-depried mind.
Given the skill and experience that it takes, in my experience, to be able to run Unix as naturally as some people do... perhaps they've earned that attitude.
That's complete nonsense. Installing and running Unix hardly counts as one of the more difficult intellectual tasks. It's hard, sure, if you're used to something different, but the description 'windows people' includes novelists, artists and nuclear scientists who just don't give a damn about the stupid OS their computer runs.
Would you like it if an artist made fun of your pens and call you and your friends BIC people? Well, that's how stupid this sounds.
but it isnt exactly anything that hasn't been done before, is it?
We wouldn't know from your description. All you say is that:
a)it's written from scratch ( so it very likely that it's offering something new)
b)it's not based on unix at all ( which has been done before many times and therefore would not have been something completely new).
So you make it sound very exciting, and then reject it (because it's commercial? because it's, um, not based on *nix? the hell?).
If you don't find that kind of stuff exciting, what are you doing posting on computer geek site?