You don't understand. The problem with dupe stories is not the mere fact that they are dupes, but that the discussion will now be fractured across two articles. That is why it is vitally important that any dupe story have its discussion reduced to a smouldering wasteland of "DUPE!" comments as quickly as possible. As you say, only 99 messages speak the obvious in this discussion - and as a result, some people have posted interesting and worthwhile comments that should have been instead posted to the first article.
Maybe next time, if 999 people scream "DUPE!", this tragedy can be avoided.
I have no comment to make in reply to your comment - I just wanted to say that, from now on, whenever I have to fill out an obnoxious registration form on a website, my location is gonna be "Goatse, Minnesota".
They want the file hierarchy within the archive to be browseable without decryption (TFA also briefly mentions that). Zillions of winzip users seem to value that feature higher than protection against such middleman attacks.
Yeah, but zillions of other Winzip users HATE that feature, because it means they have to rename all their pr0n to have less.. err.. explicit filenames, before they can zip it up in a password-protected zip and feel secure.
I cant wait til they hit some rich kid who decides to fight them on it.
I agree. Maybe when someone fights them, and loses, as they inevitably will, as these people are all guilty, Slashdot will be able to post a story about the RIAA issuing lawsuits without someone saying "I cant wait til they hit some rich kid who decides to fight them on it".
So a fixed CD distro can freeze the software config, while allowing more advanced hardware to improve gameplay.
And this "more advanced hardware" will just magically work, without drivers, despite the fact that it didn't even exist when the fixed CD distro was frozen?
Nebula? You mean the game engine that doesn't support Linux/OpenGL because the developer says "Things get done faster and cleaner under D3D9 compared to current OpenGL with extensions. It's as simple as that, unfortunately."
Did you consider buying a quieter fan for the Athlon, rather than throwing it away and buying a whole new PC?
My previous box was irritatingly loud. That's because when I mail-ordered it, I picked a cheap fan. My current box (which I had to buy after my flat got robbed and the old one stolen), I asked the guy at the shop to recommend a nice, quiet fan. It only ended up costing a few bucks more and I'm a lot happier.
They're both Athlons (the first one a 1600+, the current one a 2500+) - you don't need to buy a particular brand of CPU to get a quiet setup.
Hey, roll your eyes as much as you like, but it sure seemed like you were putting forward these ST fake "1 meg on a 720k disk" formatters as a datapoint arguing that these claims tend to be bullshit. I put forward my Amiga example as a datapoint showing that sometimes they are for real.
Or were you just zinging me out of nostalgia for the good old days of Amigadudes and STers flaming each other?:-)
You wish. Floppy format programs that could magically get 1 meg from a 720k floppy were all the rage for the Atari ST.
Well, floppy format programs that could magically get 984k on an 880k floppy were all the rage on the Amiga, and they did work. 82 tracks instead of 80, 12 sectors per track instead of 11 - bang, over a million bytes on an 880k disk. And I never had a problem.
All very highly scientific. Do you know who owned WordPerfect? Might want to look into that, they didn't used to be a small company, untill Microsoft destroyed them.
He didn't say that WordPerfect was owned by a small company: he said that WordPerfect was "a poor competitor". Do you disagree?
I actually have no opinion on the matter. As an old Amiga man, by the time I first used Windows, WordPerfect was already in the dustbin of history.
That CUPS sure does sound difficult. Luckily ESR is white, and therefore has a high IQ. I'd hate to see how much difficulty a member of one of the lesser races would have configuring that printer.
My ex watched a series of Buffy on DVD once. I gave up after a couple of episodes, but could hear it from the next room. And every time Spike graced the scene, the question would prey on my mind: "Is that a German actor doing a bad Texan accent, or a Texan actor doing a bad German accent?"
Then someone told me the character was supposed to be English. wtf?
I still get many sites that don't work in Mozilla - and because I know how HTML works and know the whole history behind W3C compatability standards I'll launch IE and look at the site with that. my mother would probably think the website was screwed.
No child wants to hear this, but I'm sorry: your mother is right.
I'm getting real sick and tired of having to edit esoteric scripts in every damned OSS application I want to run, which are in half a dozen different locations on a hard drive.
If the application has an option it should be at the very least under a tab labeled ADVANCED.
If you'd bothered to read the comment you're replying to, instead of launching into your canned and ignorant rant, you'd know that Firefox does it exactly the way you recommend. Except the tab isn't labelled "ADVANCED", it's labelled "about:config".
I do take issue with that particular writeup, although it is true in many senses.
Today, many so-called internet users have their access mediated by firewalls and NAT. This reduces the set of internet services available to them.
(I'd even say, as a slight exaggeration, that their ISPs had engaged in false advertising by calling it "Internet Access")
By the original definition of the internet, anyone with access (control of one host) could send packets to any address:port combination, and open any port to inbound connections.
This means that everyone with internet access should be able to run an HTTP, FTP, or UT server. But many people are prevented by their ISP's routing policies.
Firewalls and NATs supposedly "add value" to the internet by making it safer for some users. But it's not made a lot safer (worms get through even today), and it has "lowered value", because creating new applications is more difficult. For example, today there is a movement towards SOAP; XML-RPC. Unfortunately, one of the motivations to promote it is to allow arbitrary, application-specific traffic to travel over port 80. To work around firewalls which only permit HTTP, we're starting to see a legitimization of tunneling commands over HTTP.
(I'm not saying that was the original goal of SOAP- but sneaking around firewalls is one reason that some developers are eager to try it)
So there's an example of why "adding value to the Internet" is generally bad.
However, there are cases where it may be good. We all know that IPv6 will be a postive (someday). Multicast extensions to the internet were developed well after it was first created, and are generally accepted as a good thing, although their deployment so far is well short of universal. Multicasting is a superset of existing internet functionality (assigning a single packet to be destined to multiple recipients).
Multicasting may turn out to have downsides, depending on how it's implemented (and I haven't followed development closely enough to be sure what the direction is). If it creates an unfair environment, where large corporations (CBS, MTV, RIAA) can create multicast streams, but individual users cannot, then it will cement inequality and make internet use move closer to resembling traditional television viewing. I feel justified in hoping this won't happen, however.
And QoS (quality of service) is a debatable issue, not a flat-out bad one like the article suggests. IP, the existing internet protocol (not to be confused with Intellectual Property), makes no guarantee that packets will arrive quickly or in order. It doesn't state that packets will travel at the same speed as each other. It doesn't even state that a packet which is sent will ever arrive, only that the network make a "best effort" at getting it through someday.
Since IP makes no guarantees of transmission speed, adding an optional mechanism to request QoS efforts won't break the existing protocol definitions. Yes, it may disturb some people to consider that internet packets, which used to be fair and unbiased, may someday have preference given to them based on the sender's bank account- but look at the alternative:
Today, internet access is filtered by bank account- if your wealth is too low, you can't use the internet at all. Allowing some packets to be more expensive to send allows the rich to subsidize the poor, who might be able to afford some access instead of none.
Today, deploying applications like voice, moving video, and arcade games over the internet is difficult, because your packets have latency and jitter. That's because they are competing will all kinds of email, IM, HTTP, FTP, and NTTP protocols as they move accross the network. To make low-latency interaction work better, we can either invest a lot to make the entire internet super-fast, or invest a little to recognize which packets need high speed, and bump them ahead of the lines.
The original poster may have been referring to the abysmal critical response to Episode II. But I think the $648 million probably took the sting out of that a little - I can't see any reason why George Lucas would serve up anything other than another bucket of shit for Episode III.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no copy protection!
You don't understand. The problem with dupe stories is not the mere fact that they are dupes, but that the discussion will now be fractured across two articles. That is why it is vitally important that any dupe story have its discussion reduced to a smouldering wasteland of "DUPE!" comments as quickly as possible. As you say, only 99 messages speak the obvious in this discussion - and as a result, some people have posted interesting and worthwhile comments that should have been instead posted to the first article.
Maybe next time, if 999 people scream "DUPE!", this tragedy can be avoided.
..there's no umlaut in Türing!
I have no comment to make in reply to your comment - I just wanted to say that, from now on, whenever I have to fill out an obnoxious registration form on a website, my location is gonna be "Goatse, Minnesota".
They want the file hierarchy within the archive to be browseable without decryption (TFA also briefly mentions that). Zillions of winzip users seem to value that feature higher than protection against such middleman attacks.
Yeah, but zillions of other Winzip users HATE that feature, because it means they have to rename all their pr0n to have less.. err.. explicit filenames, before they can zip it up in a password-protected zip and feel secure.
I saw it in a bookshop several days ago.. and I'm in Sydney, Australia. I still haven't finished reading Quicksilver though, so I didn't buy it..
How about: because perjury is a crime that carries more serious penalties than just a $3000 fine?
I cant wait til they hit some rich kid who decides to fight them on it.
I agree. Maybe when someone fights them, and loses, as they inevitably will, as these people are all guilty, Slashdot will be able to post a story about the RIAA issuing lawsuits without someone saying "I cant wait til they hit some rich kid who decides to fight them on it".
So a fixed CD distro can freeze the software config, while allowing more advanced hardware to improve gameplay.
And this "more advanced hardware" will just magically work, without drivers, despite the fact that it didn't even exist when the fixed CD distro was frozen?
Nebula? You mean the game engine that doesn't support Linux/OpenGL because the developer says "Things get done faster and cleaner under D3D9 compared to current OpenGL with extensions. It's as simple as that, unfortunately."
Did you consider buying a quieter fan for the Athlon, rather than throwing it away and buying a whole new PC?
My previous box was irritatingly loud. That's because when I mail-ordered it, I picked a cheap fan. My current box (which I had to buy after my flat got robbed and the old one stolen), I asked the guy at the shop to recommend a nice, quiet fan. It only ended up costing a few bucks more and I'm a lot happier.
They're both Athlons (the first one a 1600+, the current one a 2500+) - you don't need to buy a particular brand of CPU to get a quiet setup.
Hey, roll your eyes as much as you like, but it sure seemed like you were putting forward these ST fake "1 meg on a 720k disk" formatters as a datapoint arguing that these claims tend to be bullshit. I put forward my Amiga example as a datapoint showing that sometimes they are for real.
Or were you just zinging me out of nostalgia for the good old days of Amigadudes and STers flaming each other? :-)
Actually, Jesus uses an iGod.
You wish. Floppy format programs that could magically get 1 meg from a 720k floppy were all the rage for the Atari ST.
Well, floppy format programs that could magically get 984k on an 880k floppy were all the rage on the Amiga, and they did work. 82 tracks instead of 80, 12 sectors per track instead of 11 - bang, over a million bytes on an 880k disk. And I never had a problem.
All very highly scientific. Do you know who owned WordPerfect? Might want to look into that, they didn't used to be a small company, untill Microsoft destroyed them.
He didn't say that WordPerfect was owned by a small company: he said that WordPerfect was "a poor competitor". Do you disagree?
I actually have no opinion on the matter. As an old Amiga man, by the time I first used Windows, WordPerfect was already in the dustbin of history.
911 is serious business
Are you sure? 'Cos Chuck D told me that 911 is a joke.
CML2 didn't go in because it added a mountain of new requirements to the kernel, not because "a lot of people don't like him all that much".
Although, it is true that a lot of people don't like him all that much. With good reason.
That CUPS sure does sound difficult. Luckily ESR is white, and therefore has a high IQ. I'd hate to see how much difficulty a member of one of the lesser races would have configuring that printer.
He's also done some good work for the crusade to prove that whites are smarter than blacks.
I got a letter from my ISP's abuse team, regarding "unauthorized distribution of microsoft source".
Out of curiosity, what means did you use to obtain the source?
My ex watched a series of Buffy on DVD once. I gave up after a couple of episodes, but could hear it from the next room. And every time Spike graced the scene, the question would prey on my mind: "Is that a German actor doing a bad Texan accent, or a Texan actor doing a bad German accent?"
Then someone told me the character was supposed to be English. wtf?
I still get many sites that don't work in Mozilla - and because I know how HTML works and know the whole history behind W3C compatability standards I'll launch IE and look at the site with that. my mother would probably think the website was screwed.
No child wants to hear this, but I'm sorry: your mother is right.
I'm getting real sick and tired of having to edit esoteric scripts in every damned OSS application I want to run, which are in half a dozen different locations on a hard drive. If the application has an option it should be at the very least under a tab labeled ADVANCED.
If you'd bothered to read the comment you're replying to, instead of launching into your canned and ignorant rant, you'd know that Firefox does it exactly the way you recommend. Except the tab isn't labelled "ADVANCED", it's labelled "about:config".
I do take issue with that particular writeup, although it is true in many senses.
Today, many so-called internet users have their access mediated by firewalls and NAT. This reduces the set of internet services available to them.
(I'd even say, as a slight exaggeration, that their ISPs had engaged in false advertising by calling it "Internet Access")
By the original definition of the internet, anyone with access (control of one host) could send packets to any address:port combination, and open any port to inbound connections.
This means that everyone with internet access should be able to run an HTTP, FTP, or UT server. But many people are prevented by their ISP's routing policies.
Firewalls and NATs supposedly "add value" to the internet by making it safer for some users. But it's not made a lot safer (worms get through even today), and it has "lowered value", because creating new applications is more difficult. For example, today there is a movement towards SOAP; XML-RPC. Unfortunately, one of the motivations to promote it is to allow arbitrary, application-specific traffic to travel over port 80. To work around firewalls which only permit HTTP, we're starting to see a legitimization of tunneling commands over HTTP.
(I'm not saying that was the original goal of SOAP- but sneaking around firewalls is one reason that some developers are eager to try it)
So there's an example of why "adding value to the Internet" is generally bad.
However, there are cases where it may be good. We all know that IPv6 will be a postive (someday). Multicast extensions to the internet were developed well after it was first created, and are generally accepted as a good thing, although their deployment so far is well short of universal. Multicasting is a superset of existing internet functionality (assigning a single packet to be destined to multiple recipients).
Multicasting may turn out to have downsides, depending on how it's implemented (and I haven't followed development closely enough to be sure what the direction is). If it creates an unfair environment, where large corporations (CBS, MTV, RIAA) can create multicast streams, but individual users cannot, then it will cement inequality and make internet use move closer to resembling traditional television viewing. I feel justified in hoping this won't happen, however.
And QoS (quality of service) is a debatable issue, not a flat-out bad one like the article suggests. IP, the existing internet protocol (not to be confused with Intellectual Property), makes no guarantee that packets will arrive quickly or in order. It doesn't state that packets will travel at the same speed as each other. It doesn't even state that a packet which is sent will ever arrive, only that the network make a "best effort" at getting it through someday.
Since IP makes no guarantees of transmission speed, adding an optional mechanism to request QoS efforts won't break the existing protocol definitions. Yes, it may disturb some people to consider that internet packets, which used to be fair and unbiased, may someday have preference given to them based on the sender's bank account- but look at the alternative:
The original poster may have been referring to the abysmal critical response to Episode II. But I think the $648 million probably took the sting out of that a little - I can't see any reason why George Lucas would serve up anything other than another bucket of shit for Episode III.