Whenever the woman on the Bamzu commercial says "... one-stop shopping for many of the great products..." it makes me wanna punch someone in the face. More than likely the person who thought of that ad.
Ad companies must be deliberately trying to DDoS their own servers. They have their server hit a million times a day by having their ads branding many popular webpages, and therefore you get an effect similar to the Slashdot effect but on a much greater magnitude because it's not just one popular website linking directly to them.
Quick! Everyone! Click on all the ads you see at the exact same time! We can make the ad companies go down once and for all!
(By the way, for those who can't tell, I am not being serious; but the effect still seems rather plausible to me)
I love it when people on Slashdot talk about avoiding MS products, building their own machines, running Linux, etc., and they think they're pioneers or rebels.
In a sense, they are. Not many people do these things. I will whenever I can, of course, though.
It's not that it's a new thing to do, it's that it's uncommon.
True enough; but the process is still accelerated in that once the exploit is found in the wild and unreported, you will have a metric assload of people hunting that exploit down. Since, after all, the same source code is available to everyone, you'd probably get someone coming up with a patch perhaps slower than usual (since they don't know right from the start where the bug is), but it would still be quicker than, say, IE.
As a matter of course though, most "hackers" tend to report security issues. The only problem you have is when a script kiddie or a computer criminal gets a hold of it... but even then, see above.
Dear Semantic-Obsessed Assholes: Yes, I used this in the sense of someone who breaks security for the sake of curiosity even if breaking that security may illegal, SUE ME. There are very different definitions used by many very different people, but I'm using it in the security sense for the sake of clarity and because I couldn't find a better word. So shut up before you start ranting. Love, FxChiP.
P.S. I like using "crackers" as the term for a computer criminal, just because it's more specific than "criminal" and not as long to type. "Criminal" means "someone who commits a crime", but there are more specific names for people who commit crimes that tell you exactly what they do instantly: "murderer", "thief", "embezzler", "rapist", etc. so why not a term just like those, "cracker"? However, I used computer criminal above so you won't be angry. Though you probably will be anyway.:P
I support gay marriage simply because why in the hell should they be denied any right that everyone else has? For the "civil union" argument people: if it's the same damn thing with a different title, why bother changing the title? There are probably other things in marriages that your precious "civil unions" don't have. And if there aren't, then it's just plain stupid to leave only the name changed.
While I do not want to tax people with money into oblivion, I believe they should still be taxed more, because it would mean a lot more income for the government than taxing more heavily those without money.
Anyway, that seems like a good idea. PPC is rumored to be more efficient than x86 anyway, but it would be nice if Apple could beef up their CPU speeds more than 30 MHz.:P
But I don't know much. Plus I wanted to have first post at least once in my life.;)
How is Gaim kludgy, anyway? You're connected to three unrelated networks, but they appear as one.
You can call that kludgy in that it's sort of like they just threw everything together. I'd love it if you could more easily separate protocols/accounts in the buddy list, but instead, they had to go and make it all mesh together. It makes me wish I could code. *sigh*
When you double-click on someone's name, Gaim automagically uses the right network to communicate with them. That's about the best you can do when nobody will standardize on a single IM protocol.
If there's one bug I dislike about gaim, it's that it likes to sometimes add people from buddylists on different accounts to buddylists on other accounts of the same protocol. I don't call that a feature, I call it annoying; separate screen names have separate buddy lists for a freaking reason, dammit. Then again, they probably fixed it a few versions ago.
By the way, it has nothing to do with the code, but the coders are jerk-offs, at least from what I saw. I mean, yeah, I'll admit to being a tad annoying in #Gaim, but they're brutal to people, especially newbies, and they seem to have an extreme prejudice against Gentoo.
And I know I'll get modded down for this "anti-Gaim" post probably because the Gaim developers read Slashdot. But seriously, I think they dislike damn near every Linux distro except maybe (MAYBE) Debian. Possibly Linspire for all the sponsoring and crap. Everyone else is apparently an idiot.
Gentoo users can be zealous idiots. That's obvious. Users of any distro can be zealous, including (and especially at times!) Debian.
Sorry, but that exclusiveness "you don't use the same distro as us, so we don't have to help you" BS shouldn't fly in the OSS world.
I heard once that someone was complaining about their computer trying to kill them.
A technician went to their house, inspected the machine, and said simply, "Yup. Looks like someone set this thing to evil," and reset it to "Good". From that point on, the computer loved the user and brought him food, drinks, and all that good stuff.
My chemistry teacher (who shall for obvious reasons remain nameless) did something similar; some of my classmates would get their hands wet under some water, then scoop some bubbles out of the half-bottle that served as a holder for the bubbles.
The teacher would then use his lighter (or someone else's) to light the bubbles on fire. FWOOSH!
No one ever got hurt, but a few people (including me) got hairs singed (to be fair, the teacher didn't light the bubbles on me, someone else did).
(You can't *see* stability improvements, security improvements, more drivers, etc)
I like your posts and all, but speak for yourself. Personally, if I click a button and the program usually crashes when I click that button, then the updated program doesn't crash when I click that button anymore, I think that I'd happen to notice it.
But that's a more blunt example than you were going for.:)
That's pretty dumb; why the hell should it? As I understand it, Firefox doesn't depend on any features of any operating system or any architecture, so long as Gecko has a way to render and Firefox has a way to show itself as well. Yet, it's at least as secure as MSIE (probably including 7!), if not even more so. Though I could be mistaken.
It's not even (entirely) a matter of religion; Firefox really is (or at least seems) operating system independent, so long as the OS has a GUI. It relies on its own security features and just the GUI itself; no more, no less.
But please for the love of $DEITY correct me if I'm wrong.
The problem as I see it is that Intel's optimizations would work perfectly fine on an AMD processor, but Intel is purposely crippling the generated code for AMD processors through their compiler.
I suppose what is meant here is that you'd think Intel compilers generate optimized code while assuming by default (as it should) that the program is being compiled specifically for Intel [Celeron/Pentium 4/Xeon] processors. In other words: ICC should generate Intel-optimized machine code blindly, without a care as to what processor is being used.
Instead, what ICC does do is check the CPUID for "GenuineIntel" and if it doesn't see it, then it uses generic/crippled/much slower x86 code. It's not blindly optimizing (and if it was, then it would be much harder if not impossible for AMD to make a case), it's purposely making sure that the optimizations are being run only on Intel even though they'd work on competing processors (which, as far as I know, only AMD makes at the moment).
I'm not too familiar with LDAP, but doesn't Samba support Active Directory stuff now?
... and make decisions based on technical issues rather than religion.
Not to start a flamewar, but I have usually found UNIX to be a bit better technically. However, it is harder to use (and I'd love to see that change, it's one of the things holding Linux (and possibly BSD) back from true mainstream integration). Plus, there's the slight probability that something will go wrong with one or both due to some strange incompatibility/error/peculiarity (like Samba deciding randomly that it hates 10.30.15.132. It's never happened to me, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happened to someone)
Slashdot Mirror
(Think about it... I'm not correcting your spelling.)
There's always GPLFlash...
Whenever the woman on the Bamzu commercial says "... one-stop shopping for many of the great products..." it makes me wanna punch someone in the face. More than likely the person who thought of that ad.
:P
You think it's funny.
This just made a thought occur to me.
Ad companies must be deliberately trying to DDoS their own servers. They have their server hit a million times a day by having their ads branding many popular webpages, and therefore you get an effect similar to the Slashdot effect but on a much greater magnitude because it's not just one popular website linking directly to them.
Quick! Everyone! Click on all the ads you see at the exact same time! We can make the ad companies go down once and for all!
(By the way, for those who can't tell, I am not being serious; but the effect still seems rather plausible to me)
I have this horrible, sinking feeling that one day they're going to start putting advertisements in books.
If not the printed books we have now, then possibly the eBooks of the future.
4. Many ads are made in Macromedia Flash nowadays, which is a bitch to render on old computers.
5. Many ads are scripted to invade your privacy without a thank-you note.
6. Most ads are just plain annoying.
Now, now, let's be fair.
:)
KDE is equally (if not more) guilty of this.
Then again, you don't buy from RIAA labels, now do you? ;)
It's not that it's a new thing to do, it's that it's uncommon.
Did you just say less freedom is often valuable and good?
What country were you born in? I don't care what the Bush Administration says, thinking like that is un-American.
This WWE HARDCORE match is scheduled for one fall!
;)
Weighing in at 185 pounds, he is the world Hardcore Champion, the CEO of Microsoft, STEVE, BALLMER!!!
And weighing in at 193 pounds, he is the CEO of Google, Inc., ERIC, SCHMIDT!!
*Ding ding ding!*
Bet you guys anything that Bill Gates interferes.
True enough; but the process is still accelerated in that once the exploit is found in the wild and unreported, you will have a metric assload of people hunting that exploit down. Since, after all, the same source code is available to everyone, you'd probably get someone coming up with a patch perhaps slower than usual (since they don't know right from the start where the bug is), but it would still be quicker than, say, IE. As a matter of course though, most "hackers" tend to report security issues. The only problem you have is when a script kiddie or a computer criminal gets a hold of it... but even then, see above.
:P
Dear Semantic-Obsessed Assholes: Yes, I used this in the sense of someone who breaks security for the sake of curiosity even if breaking that security may illegal, SUE ME. There are very different definitions used by many very different people, but I'm using it in the security sense for the sake of clarity and because I couldn't find a better word. So shut up before you start ranting. Love, FxChiP.
P.S. I like using "crackers" as the term for a computer criminal, just because it's more specific than "criminal" and not as long to type. "Criminal" means "someone who commits a crime", but there are more specific names for people who commit crimes that tell you exactly what they do instantly: "murderer", "thief", "embezzler", "rapist", etc. so why not a term just like those, "cracker"? However, I used computer criminal above so you won't be angry. Though you probably will be anyway.
Gentoo's portage is rumored to be similar, but having never used BSD, I can't honestly say that's true because I don't know firsthand.
Talk like Yoda, you cannot. Stop trying, you must. hmmm...
:)
:D
The reversing of words, it is not. The switching around of sentence parts, it is. The beginning of the sentence, the end is in Yoda speak.
A nice day, I hope you have.
My dearest fuckwad,
I support gay marriage simply because why in the hell should they be denied any right that everyone else has? For the "civil union" argument people: if it's the same damn thing with a different title, why bother changing the title? There are probably other things in marriages that your precious "civil unions" don't have. And if there aren't, then it's just plain stupid to leave only the name changed.
While I do not want to tax people with money into oblivion, I believe they should still be taxed more, because it would mean a lot more income for the government than taxing more heavily those without money.
I live in Pittsburgh, PA.
-FxChiP
Aren't all processors space-heaters?
Whoo, my first first post ever.
:P
;)
Anyway, that seems like a good idea. PPC is rumored to be more efficient than x86 anyway, but it would be nice if Apple could beef up their CPU speeds more than 30 MHz.
But I don't know much. Plus I wanted to have first post at least once in my life.
By the way, it has nothing to do with the code, but the coders are jerk-offs, at least from what I saw. I mean, yeah, I'll admit to being a tad annoying in #Gaim, but they're brutal to people, especially newbies, and they seem to have an extreme prejudice against Gentoo.
And I know I'll get modded down for this "anti-Gaim" post probably because the Gaim developers read Slashdot. But seriously, I think they dislike damn near every Linux distro except maybe (MAYBE) Debian. Possibly Linspire for all the sponsoring and crap. Everyone else is apparently an idiot.
Gentoo users can be zealous idiots. That's obvious. Users of any distro can be zealous, including (and especially at times!) Debian.
Sorry, but that exclusiveness "you don't use the same distro as us, so we don't have to help you" BS shouldn't fly in the OSS world.
Hooray for unfair accusations!
I remember a case like this once.
I heard once that someone was complaining about their computer trying to kill them.
A technician went to their house, inspected the machine, and said simply, "Yup. Looks like someone set this thing to evil," and reset it to "Good". From that point on, the computer loved the user and brought him food, drinks, and all that good stuff.
Oh, wait... no, it wasn't a computer...
My chemistry teacher (who shall for obvious reasons remain nameless) did something similar; some of my classmates would get their hands wet under some water, then scoop some bubbles out of the half-bottle that served as a holder for the bubbles.
The teacher would then use his lighter (or someone else's) to light the bubbles on fire. FWOOSH!
No one ever got hurt, but a few people (including me) got hairs singed (to be fair, the teacher didn't light the bubbles on me, someone else did).
Still freakin' cool, though.
But that's a more blunt example than you were going for.
That's pretty dumb; why the hell should it? As I understand it, Firefox doesn't depend on any features of any operating system or any architecture, so long as Gecko has a way to render and Firefox has a way to show itself as well. Yet, it's at least as secure as MSIE (probably including 7!), if not even more so. Though I could be mistaken.
It's not even (entirely) a matter of religion; Firefox really is (or at least seems) operating system independent, so long as the OS has a GUI. It relies on its own security features and just the GUI itself; no more, no less.
But please for the love of $DEITY correct me if I'm wrong.
Fullmetal Alchemist maybe?
The problem as I see it is that Intel's optimizations would work perfectly fine on an AMD processor, but Intel is purposely crippling the generated code for AMD processors through their compiler.
I suppose what is meant here is that you'd think Intel compilers generate optimized code while assuming by default (as it should) that the program is being compiled specifically for Intel [Celeron/Pentium 4/Xeon] processors. In other words: ICC should generate Intel-optimized machine code blindly, without a care as to what processor is being used.
Instead, what ICC does do is check the CPUID for "GenuineIntel" and if it doesn't see it, then it uses generic/crippled/much slower x86 code. It's not blindly optimizing (and if it was, then it would be much harder if not impossible for AMD to make a case), it's purposely making sure that the optimizations are being run only on Intel even though they'd work on competing processors (which, as far as I know, only AMD makes at the moment).
Not to start a flamewar, but I have usually found UNIX to be a bit better technically. However, it is harder to use (and I'd love to see that change, it's one of the things holding Linux (and possibly BSD) back from true mainstream integration). Plus, there's the slight probability that something will go wrong with one or both due to some strange incompatibility/error/peculiarity (like Samba deciding randomly that it hates 10.30.15.132. It's never happened to me, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happened to someone)