Then again, it's okay for OS X to be all about the eye candy, but not Windows? Hypocrisy at its finest, I guess.
I didn't want to barge into this conversation, but after reading that line I pretty much have to.
How do you know that he likes Apple? He's never stated it as far as I'm aware (I didn't read the conversation fully I admit), but you assume that he likes Apple? Just because when something about OSX is posted, all the Apple fanboys come out and post, and when something about Linux is posted, all the Linux fanboys come out, doesn't mean everybody here likes both Linux and Apple.
I infact am a pro-Linux person that thoroughly hates Apple almost more than I hate MS. At least MS hasn't forced you to buy new hardware for their OS, it runs on standard hardware that lots of vendors create hardware for. Sure Apple is trying to switch over now, but the fact that they haven't for however many years it's been since the old days of Apple shows they really don't care about it that much.
I don't really understand this post... two quotes from it:
"Recently, we had several former staff members revolt against the entire P2P community as a whole. They tried to sabatoge Methlabs and attempted to wipe the Methlabs server of all its data."
"To update everyone on the current situation, there has been some news going around the Internet of a revolt which happened in Methlabs. This is hearsay. The current real news is that PeerGuardian development and Blocklist development is on schedule, and Blocklist should be out of Beta within the next week or so."
"hearsay", as in, "I heard you say it"?
It sounds like they are trying to wave this situation off like nothing happened, they are just trying to change the topic to "We're coming out with new versions!".
I'm using 1.5.3 and 1.6.0 doesn't seem to like me, but its as simple as./configure, make, checkinstall -S (instead of make install) and it'll make install a slackware package that you can remove with pkgtool like everything else.
I think Checkinstall 1.6.0 just plain doesn't work. First, you have to make sure you use the new "--install=yes" option, but even then only about 1% of programs work with it. The only one I got working was TightVNC, so I switched back to 1.5.3 again.
I hope nobody looks into Checkinstall, downloads 1.6.0, and thinks it's utter crap immediately after trying it...
On that note, here are links for all the relevant packages:
I could see the address book being stored in MySQL, so I'll concede that. But with a high performance server like Cyrus (with whatever backend you want) the webmail system should not do its own storage of mail.
I just installed this and I'm looking at the MySQL tables, it looks like for settings and contacts. I think that using contacts in SQL is a very good idea, because you can back it up easier through phpMyAdmin, rather than trying to figure out which file stores your contacts, and converting it to different formats or whatever. SQL is much easier to convert stuff like that.
Regarding this Web Client, I must say, this is probably the best web client I've ever seen. I've been using GMail most recently because it's a good interface, but I wanted to start reusing my web server as email. This kicks the shit out of GMail, and on top of that is open source, and can be transported to/from different servers easily. This is just amazing. My new email client, thanks great grandparent (or whoever it was):)
Now, tell me which episodes of Dr. Who have been lost in entirity, and also list which Hartnell episodes are only partly available.
Both of these things wre dead easy on TV tome and cannot be done on TV.com.
What if I want to check continuity between episodes of Thundercats? Show me that on tv.com.
I don't think that is at all relevant to this conversation. "I watch shows 1-2 years late and I want reviews of it" has nothing to do with old shows. I agree that this information should be available on this site, but we aren't talking about you, we are talking about him. It should be more than sufficient for him.
Also, the information you are looking up is not very representative of the common person. If 90% of people hate TV.com, and 50% still have all the information they would need on the site, then why does it matter to them? Obviously it should still gather that information you are talking about, but it's still a new site. This TVIV site has even less, so how could it possibly be "better" in your opinion (which I know you never stated).
The site is more than sufficient for me, and should be for the great grandparent. That's all I was arguing. Even the older shows I watch (Black Adder and Yes, Minister to name a couple) have plenty of information on it, at least what I want to know, I haven't looked for what I don't want to know.
As far as Buffy goes, that's a bit more on topic. That is about 4 years old (that episode), so I looked it up. Apparently Buffy was, well, I didn't look up the previous episodes so I didn't see what happened, but in S06E02 she dug herself out of a grave and was back and ready to kill more vampires. Also regarding the Charmed thing, TV.com's code is still new, so there are probably bugs in it still.
"*24* is your example of an "old" show? If you're a 10-year-old, sure that's an "old" show--but it's so "new" from an objective standpoint that it's still a TV current event and not TV history."
"For me it is. I'm not in the US, and many of the US series are shown here a year or two later."
I was creating an example of an American show that is older than a YEAR OR TWO. It's been awhile since kindergarten but I believe 2001 was 4 years ago, which is over twice as old as the shows he was wanting reviews for. How about people here learn how to read comments in context, rather than skip halfway down the page and read half of a response to a random comment?
For me it is. I'm not in the US, and many of the US series are shown here a year or two later. So I could read the reviews and such about episodes immediately after watching. However, TV.com apparently didn't carry over these reviews, written by editors who knew the shows and added to the experience with their insights. As these shows are "old", they're probably not going to be reviewed at all again, and unlikely to be of the same quality; in any case they have none when I want to read them. Unfortunately, the Wayback Archive doesn't help, every time I try after I get a few pages in I get bounced to the new TV.com site with nothing but ads.
It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions in that, "As these shows are 'old', they're probably not going to be reviewed at all again".
Let's take 24 for instance, that show started in 2001 (old enough for you?). Now let's take a random episode from season 1, but not too close to the beginning, and especially not close to the end, because those are the episodes that are supposed to get you into the show, and keep you on it, so there are probably a lot of reviews for those. Here's season 1 episode 8, aired on 01/15/02:
http://www.tv.com/24/700-a.m.-800-a.m./episode/854 03/reviews.html
So, we have one very long review, one good sized review, and one somewhat small review. That should be plenty to gauge how good the episode is, especially with 61 people rating it an average of 9.3.
I agree with RupW, this is not a big deal, yet everything thinks it is. This is coming from someone who used to use TVTome almost daily to look up TV information.
The only "big deal takeover" that CNET has done in my opinion was Mp3.com, lots of my favorite indy artists disappeared off the face of the Earth after that happened...
It's still a big deal. A lot of the content missing are goofs/nitpicks/cultural reference items (at least for the shows I used TVTome for, namely all the Star Trek series). Not all the notes made it intact either, none of those had any potential to create a lawsuit unless it's now against the law to note that such and such actor has now played a character in so many different Star Trek series. (Some of the missing notes are exactly like that along with other equally innocent stuff.)
I have a feeling that if data wasn't successfully transferred over, there was just a problem trying to convert all/some of the data into the new format. If you've ever actually tried to convert databases that are COMPLETELY (not just somewhat) different, you would realize how hard it can be to get it to work properly. Also, as far as I'm concerned, goofs/nitpicks/cultural references aren't exactly infomation that is a necessity to run a TV information site, just interesting tid bits.
Completely disregarding that fact though, I believe there is plenty of that information available. I read through goofs for Red Dwarf for a day straight before just because I was bored. Just a week or two ago I looked up the Peacekeeper Wars (Farscape Miniseries):
http://www.tv.com/farscape/the-peacekeeper-wars-pa rt-2/episode/367768/summary.html
Under Episode Allusions it seems that it has three, when I actually only spotted one while watching it. Seems more than adequate to me.
As far as "such and such now plays this person", I don't quite understand. Click Cast on any show page and it has a list of the cast members, click
a cast member and you can see what shows he's been in.
You also can no longer pull up a complete episode listing on one page. At best you can get one season at a time per page. With all the fancy widgets/graphics/flash/crap on the pages now it takes a good 10 times as long just to view the entire episode listing of a series.
The also seem to think that everyone wants lots of fancy, flashy graphics and widgets on every page. All of this makes it difficult to get the information you actually came there for, unless you visit to look at flashy graphics and viewer ratings.
So what, they are supposed to know exactly what YOU want to know about the show immediately when clicking a show? It's difficult to type "farscape", "star trek next generation", or whatever then click "episodes", "cast", or "reviews"?
And what do you mean it has "fancy widgets"? Gradients on a tab to make it look a bit nicer doesn't make it "fancy" or "bloated", it's when you have animations for every action and Flash for everything (having a flash menu thing on the front page is not "everything") when you get bloat and fanciness. Also, most modern web browsers cache images, they don't download them on every page. Lynx is an exception to that.
The split columns are just fine, and yes I do care about similar shows, otherwise half of the shows I'm watching right now I wouldn't have known existed. You are complaining about how little of the screen it uses, well, I'm using a widescreen laptop and it still looks just fine to me.
This is coming from someone who absolutely despises Mac, Windows, KDE, and GNOME for their overuse of graphics and hard to use menus. I don't have a problem with graphical interfaces when they make sense, like TV.com does. All your "major problems" are non-existant or very minor.
Actually, default deny is just as stupid as default allow, as if you have default deny, people just get sick of being asked if they want to allow something, and end up clicking "yes" on every box they see.
I'm pretty sure he's meaning general network big corporation security, hence him mentioning "managers" on multiple occasions. He's not talking about ways to secure Windows for the general population.
So you want to write a virus scanner that somehow can recognise viruses without being told which programs are viruses. Modern virus checkers already mostly do this. With spyware it's very hard for a computer to tell the difference between a program you wanted installing and one you didn't. How do you expect it to tell?
No, this is more like using Samhain, AIDE, Tripwire, or some other such HIDS program monitoring. Instead of any notable bad changes to your system being reported, it ignores what you specify as an acceptable change and logs the rest (such as certain log files increasing in size, applications being accessed but not modified, etc, then certain files that should never be accessed logged, and things like that).
This idea is also illustrated in rkhunter, scanning for known "good" hashes to common applications instead of scanning for known "bad" hashes of programs that contain rootkits.
So you are saying we should write code without bugs and holes? What a great idea that is? why did no-one think of saying that before?
No, he means instead of searching for buffer overflows, XSS holes, SQL injection holes, etc, we should write security systems that make it impossible to do so in the first place. I have made security systems for XSS/SQLI prevention (and I don't mean filtering "union select" out of URLs, that's what's known above as "default allow") but I'm not smart/knowledgeable enough to do so for buffer overflows. I understand that this is extremely hard to do, but in languages like Python, Ruby, Perl, etc there is no such thing as a buffer overflow. Altering C/C++'s management of stacks and variables would possibly completely abolish the thought of buffer overflows, but instead we have had to deal with them for the last 15+ years. Surely there is SOMETHING we can do to get rid of them, even if it involves rewriting an OS completely from scratch again.
You think people should learn how to stop hacking and intrusion without learning how existing hacks work? Then you are stupid. Shush.
I think he's meaning "cracking" here. This is sort of fallout from my previous reply, but instead of actively searching for specific buffer overflow holes, we should fix the problem altogether.
So you are saying that we have to do security without teaching users how to do it. That just isn't going to work unless you never let users install their own applications or plug-ins. Yes teaching users is hard, but it has to be a vital part.
Again, I think this is in regards to managing big corporations again. If you force the security policies on the computers they are using, they won't have to know what it does. Allowing only what they need to do their jobs on their computers and all outgoing traffic to port 80 and 443 will allow them do their jobs just fine without any interuptions (given you set the rules correctly), and even have some slack to browse the internet when you are bored/have to wait on something. Allowing employees to download and install Half-Life 2 or BitTorrent isn't exactly productive, and it's not going to make them MORE productive by "treating them well". That will only lead to completely lazy employees doing jack shit and getting away with it.
So, after saying the state we are in is rubbish, you now say we shouldn't actually change anything. Eh? Or are you saying "don't try something new without testing it first"? Well thats more than a little obvious.
I agree with you on this one, you should research things before you adopt it complete
While 10 buttons may seem a bit too much for a 3buttons mouse user (just as 3 buttons looked horribly complicated to a Macintosh user until Apple released the Mighty Mouse *wink*) you get addicted to them really fast, i'd say that 5 buttons is a bare minimum for me nowadays (with 1 button mapped to double clic and 1 to "close application").
That's what the keyboard is for. There is no real reason to have your hand on your mouse for extra buttons when you can use your keyboard to type, run, navigate, manage windows, etc, with just a custom set of key commands. I rarely touch my mouse, and that's usually when just randomly browsing my live bookmarks in Firefox (mouse gestures to ease the navigation with the mouse).
You have plenty of keys on the keyboard, and you can easily set them to fit like a glove specifically for you. As an idea, my keys (using Fluxbox's ~/.fluxbox/keys file) are set up as follows:
Left Hand
Alt+Tab: Guess...
Alt+Q: Close
Alt+W: Calculator
Alt+E: Terminal
Alt+R: Run Command (fbrun)
Alt+A: Show Desktop
Alt+S: Maximize Window
Alt+D: Shade Window
Alt+F: Toggle Decorations
Alt+Z: Fluxbox Menu
Alt+X: Minimize Window
Alt+C: Text Editor
Alt+V: KSysGuard
Right Hand
Alt+U: Desktop 1
Alt+I: Desktop 2
Alt+O: Desktop 3
Alt+P: Desktop 4
Alt+H: Previous Desktop
Alt+J: Previous Tab
Alt+K: Next Tab
Alt+L: Next Desktop
Alt+M: Send Current Window to Desktop 1
Alt+,: Send Current Window to Desktop 2
Alt+.: Send Current Window to Desktop 3
Alt+/: Send Current Window to Desktop 4
Okay, you obviously have a PhD in english, you way over analyzed that sentence, and your IT culture skills are lacking.
The reason he posted that, and the reason it's so funny, is because that would be the typical response a "bot" such as Alice or Eliza would give to the comment he was replying to.
This isn't like adding a new motor to the disc drive to make the disc spin faster, its modding it to do something illegal.
Like those cars that just stopped accelerating at 55 MPH, so you didn't do anything illegal? I'm sure any self respecting driver would have tried to figure out how to remove that, imagine being chased by someone and you can only go 55 MPH, wow you're screwed.
Sure this isn't life or death, but you purchased the damn thing, you should be able to do with it what you want. The DMCA may make it "illegal", but that doesn't mean the DMCA is God's word, just because it was passed into law.
Once we remove the ability to "tinker" with hardware, there will be no more engineers, only theoretical ones that have never touched a peice of equipment in their lives.
I'm sure auto mechanics would revolt if it became against the law to tinker with a car unless you were the manufacturer, eventually the same thing would happen there, too, no more auto mechanics because they can't open up the car.
To really answer your question, what they... need to know is what you'e using your computer(s) for. Are the advantages of the 2.6 kernel as listed above advantages for you?
I've used a vanilla kernel 2.6 on Slackware for three different uses, my headless server, my media center PC, and my brand spanking new laptop.
All 3 have worked perfectly without freezing since 2.6.5 (I didn't start using 2.6 until 2.6.5 came out). Now they are all running on 2.6.12, and they will soon be upgraded to 2.6.13.
I'd say the organization of the configuration (make menuconfig) and the overall model the kernel is based on is much more clean and organized. I could never go back to 2.4 now.
If you really want to test out the 2.6 kernel without installing/configuring anything, download Knoppix and try it out on your computers. If it runs well, then try it yourself, if it doesn't, then just stick with 2.4.
It doesn't matter that the "MUTE" didn't look quite like my TV's overlay, at that point I was too into the game to think that out. Best trick ever pulled on a player. Why is this unique? The nastier tricks were rare, and never repeated (something you can't say for, say, status ailment effects, which are usually the same, or predictable).
I still don't understand when people say these things, I played Eternal Darkness and not only was I killing too many enemies to possibly get my meter down, but even once it did get down I never had any "nasty" tricks pulled. That's the REASON I played the game, I thought it was going to be a bunch of nasty tricks put together, but it turned into a boring game.
Also, putting "MUTE" on the screen wasn't the nastiest or best trick ever pulled. In MGS2 (I didn't really enjoy this game, I just got really bored and ended up playing through it), at the end, you enter this big room and a bunch of enemies rush at you from all directions. I was fighting, fighting, fighting, then all the sudden it executed the "MISSION FAILED" stuff, same music, same screen, everything, but in the top left hand corner the game was still going on instead of zooming in on you.
When I heard the music and saw the screen come up I threw the controller across the room and refreshed a page on here (slashdot). Glanced at the screen again and noticed instead of "MISSION FAILED" it said "FISSION MAILED". I was utterly confused for a good 10 seconds, then I noticed the screen in the corner, I picked up the controller, moved left, moved right, and hurried to kill the people that were attacking me for the last 20-30 seconds.
That was the best trick ever pulled, and I would like a game made SOLELY for these purposes, Eternal Darkness didn't have enough apparently, since I never saw one in the 8 or so hours I played it.
I've been hearing a lot about this word, "podcast". I have never actually been able to find a definition or anywhere that explains what the hell anyone is talking about until now.
So, is a "podcast" Apple's branding of internet radio broadcasting?
I've been listening to internet radio for over 7 years now, why do we need a catch phrase such as "podcast" to describe it? Is it any different when said broadcasts are sent through Apple's servers are not?
For instance, Bob might buy the cheap cereal because he only has 2 dollars and the expensive cereal is 2.99. Sure you can probably track backwards far enough to tie an emotion into any decision, but the emotion isn't necessarily what drives the decision.
Exactly, hunger drives it. However these people will probably attach a "fear of hunger/starvation" onto the decision.
I might also add that I do a lot of things without thinking, emotionally or logicaly, so they can't be linked to emotions either. Such as staring into space for no reason in the middle of this post for 2 minutes.
I've been hearing stuff about how Firefly is so awesome, how it is one of the best SciFi shows ever made, and how everyone hates SciFi for cancelling the show (or was it Fox or something?).
A friend has the DVD set, I found out, so I sat down to watch it with my brother, who also wanted to see it. Started with the two hour pilot (was this a mistake?), and at about the one hour to one hour 15 minute mark, we put it away so we didn't fall asleep.
What I saw of the show makes me wonder how it was approved as a show in the first place. The whole western/SciFi mix does NOT work well at all.
Hey, now there's a service I'd like to see from Google: search web sites from the future. That would put an end to all of this tiring speculation on what new service they'll think up next.
Come to think of it, they could incorporate the technology into other parts of the side. Why present a list of results when you can search the future logs to find out which result I'm going to click and take me straight there.
That would create a paradox, it would click a link because in the future you were to click that link, but since it clicked that link for you, you couldn't have clicked the link, and the information it used to determine which link to click couldn't possibly have existed, so we're screwed.
Just wait until the standards are updated, when verison 2.0 of the future comes out, then you'll be able to do this.
Actually, it costs about a billion dollars to comply with regulations for the FDA. Eliminate the miles of red tape, and hundreds of millions in graft to government officials, and it could be orders of magnitude cheaper. Jonas Salk certainly didn't need a billion dollars.
Jonas Salk also was a good, decent, intelligent human being.
Sure we should simplify, and even reduce the cost, to comply with the FDA, but from your post it sounded like you meant abolishing it altogether. Without it, we would be eating racid meat, taking poison pills, and drinking mud in a month.
No, Cringely, you shouldn't be able to stop people from using your invention just because you don't like them or what they might do with it. That's an abuse of the patent system, just like sitting on out-of-print books and obsolete software is an abuse of the copyright system. If you aren't going to make your invention available to people who want to use it, then you don't deserve to have a patent.
Exactly, sort of like NMap being used for malicious purposes, a certain company's material being used for nuclear bombs, or an Xbox being modded (isn't this declared illegal now? you can't legally touch the inside of the box, or something? if it is/were this way, then would-be engineers would not be able to legally learn anything, because tinkering is the only way you can learn how, really).
2. Even if you are serious, you'll never be able to bring it to market in any kind of meaningful way, anyway.
Nobody said anything about not being able to come up with $30k, just not an EXTRA $30k. Say you come up with $100k, but you need all of that for production, you don't have an extra $30k to pay the patent lawyer, etc.
Unless you are a doctor, lawyer, or corporate whore, $30k is a LOT of money to most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only has Ars already run this, but Slashdot has already run this...
Running a quick Slashdot search of "zeta":
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=zeta
We have 5 articles about Zeta OS in the last 5 months, yet this article is posted like they just discovered the lost city of Atlantis...
Then again, it's okay for OS X to be all about the eye candy, but not Windows? Hypocrisy at its finest, I guess.
I didn't want to barge into this conversation, but after reading that line I pretty much have to.
How do you know that he likes Apple? He's never stated it as far as I'm aware (I didn't read the conversation fully I admit), but you assume that he likes Apple? Just because when something about OSX is posted, all the Apple fanboys come out and post, and when something about Linux is posted, all the Linux fanboys come out, doesn't mean everybody here likes both Linux and Apple.
I infact am a pro-Linux person that thoroughly hates Apple almost more than I hate MS. At least MS hasn't forced you to buy new hardware for their OS, it runs on standard hardware that lots of vendors create hardware for. Sure Apple is trying to switch over now, but the fact that they haven't for however many years it's been since the old days of Apple shows they really don't care about it that much.
I don't really understand this post... two quotes from it:
"Recently, we had several former staff members revolt against the entire P2P community as a whole. They tried to sabatoge Methlabs and attempted to wipe the Methlabs server of all its data."
"To update everyone on the current situation, there has been some news going around the Internet of a revolt which happened in Methlabs. This is hearsay. The current real news is that PeerGuardian development and Blocklist development is on schedule, and Blocklist should be out of Beta within the next week or so."
"hearsay", as in, "I heard you say it"?
It sounds like they are trying to wave this situation off like nothing happened, they are just trying to change the topic to "We're coming out with new versions!".
I'm using 1.5.3 and 1.6.0 doesn't seem to like me, but its as simple as ./configure, make, checkinstall -S (instead of make install) and it'll make install a slackware package that you can remove with pkgtool like everything else.
I think Checkinstall 1.6.0 just plain doesn't work. First, you have to make sure you use the new "--install=yes" option, but even then only about 1% of programs work with it. The only one I got working was TightVNC, so I switched back to 1.5.3 again.
I hope nobody looks into Checkinstall, downloads 1.6.0, and thinks it's utter crap immediately after trying it...
On that note, here are links for all the relevant packages:
Source
SlackPack TGZ
RedHat RPM
Debian DEB
I could see the address book being stored in MySQL, so I'll concede that. But with a high performance server like Cyrus (with whatever backend you want) the webmail system should not do its own storage of mail.
:)
I just installed this and I'm looking at the MySQL tables, it looks like for settings and contacts. I think that using contacts in SQL is a very good idea, because you can back it up easier through phpMyAdmin, rather than trying to figure out which file stores your contacts, and converting it to different formats or whatever. SQL is much easier to convert stuff like that.
Regarding this Web Client, I must say, this is probably the best web client I've ever seen. I've been using GMail most recently because it's a good interface, but I wanted to start reusing my web server as email. This kicks the shit out of GMail, and on top of that is open source, and can be transported to/from different servers easily. This is just amazing. My new email client, thanks great grandparent (or whoever it was)
No. Find a review of Blake's 7 episode 3.
n ing-2/episode/70472/summary.html
Now, tell me which episodes of Dr. Who have been lost in entirity, and also list which Hartnell episodes are only partly available.
Both of these things wre dead easy on TV tome and cannot be done on TV.com.
What if I want to check continuity between episodes of Thundercats? Show me that on tv.com.
I don't think that is at all relevant to this conversation. "I watch shows 1-2 years late and I want reviews of it" has nothing to do with old shows. I agree that this information should be available on this site, but we aren't talking about you, we are talking about him. It should be more than sufficient for him.
Also, the information you are looking up is not very representative of the common person. If 90% of people hate TV.com, and 50% still have all the information they would need on the site, then why does it matter to them? Obviously it should still gather that information you are talking about, but it's still a new site. This TVIV site has even less, so how could it possibly be "better" in your opinion (which I know you never stated).
The site is more than sufficient for me, and should be for the great grandparent. That's all I was arguing. Even the older shows I watch (Black Adder and Yes, Minister to name a couple) have plenty of information on it, at least what I want to know, I haven't looked for what I don't want to know.
As far as Buffy goes, that's a bit more on topic. That is about 4 years old (that episode), so I looked it up. Apparently Buffy was, well, I didn't look up the previous episodes so I didn't see what happened, but in S06E02 she dug herself out of a grave and was back and ready to kill more vampires. Also regarding the Charmed thing, TV.com's code is still new, so there are probably bugs in it still.
http://www.tv.com/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/bargai
"*24* is your example of an "old" show? If you're a 10-year-old, sure that's an "old" show--but it's so "new" from an objective standpoint that it's still a TV current event and not TV history."
"For me it is. I'm not in the US, and many of the US series are shown here a year or two later."
I was creating an example of an American show that is older than a YEAR OR TWO. It's been awhile since kindergarten but I believe 2001 was 4 years ago, which is over twice as old as the shows he was wanting reviews for. How about people here learn how to read comments in context, rather than skip halfway down the page and read half of a response to a random comment?
For me it is. I'm not in the US, and many of the US series are shown here a year or two later. So I could read the reviews and such about episodes immediately after watching. However, TV.com apparently didn't carry over these reviews, written by editors who knew the shows and added to the experience with their insights. As these shows are "old", they're probably not going to be reviewed at all again, and unlikely to be of the same quality; in any case they have none when I want to read them. Unfortunately, the Wayback Archive doesn't help, every time I try after I get a few pages in I get bounced to the new TV.com site with nothing but ads.
4 03/reviews.html
It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions in that, "As these shows are 'old', they're probably not going to be reviewed at all again".
Let's take 24 for instance, that show started in 2001 (old enough for you?). Now let's take a random episode from season 1, but not too close to the beginning, and especially not close to the end, because those are the episodes that are supposed to get you into the show, and keep you on it, so there are probably a lot of reviews for those. Here's season 1 episode 8, aired on 01/15/02:
http://www.tv.com/24/700-a.m.-800-a.m./episode/85
So, we have one very long review, one good sized review, and one somewhat small review. That should be plenty to gauge how good the episode is, especially with 61 people rating it an average of 9.3.
I agree with RupW, this is not a big deal, yet everything thinks it is. This is coming from someone who used to use TVTome almost daily to look up TV information.
a rt-2/episode/367768/summary.html
d e_listings.html&season=0
The only "big deal takeover" that CNET has done in my opinion was Mp3.com, lots of my favorite indy artists disappeared off the face of the Earth after that happened...
It's still a big deal. A lot of the content missing are goofs/nitpicks/cultural reference items (at least for the shows I used TVTome for, namely all the Star Trek series). Not all the notes made it intact either, none of those had any potential to create a lawsuit unless it's now against the law to note that such and such actor has now played a character in so many different Star Trek series. (Some of the missing notes are exactly like that along with other equally innocent stuff.)
I have a feeling that if data wasn't successfully transferred over, there was just a problem trying to convert all/some of the data into the new format. If you've ever actually tried to convert databases that are COMPLETELY (not just somewhat) different, you would realize how hard it can be to get it to work properly. Also, as far as I'm concerned, goofs/nitpicks/cultural references aren't exactly infomation that is a necessity to run a TV information site, just interesting tid bits.
Completely disregarding that fact though, I believe there is plenty of that information available. I read through goofs for Red Dwarf for a day straight before just because I was bored. Just a week or two ago I looked up the Peacekeeper Wars (Farscape Miniseries):
http://www.tv.com/farscape/the-peacekeeper-wars-p
Under Episode Allusions it seems that it has three, when I actually only spotted one while watching it. Seems more than adequate to me.
As far as "such and such now plays this person", I don't quite understand. Click Cast on any show page and it has a list of the cast members, click a cast member and you can see what shows he's been in.
You also can no longer pull up a complete episode listing on one page. At best you can get one season at a time per page. With all the fancy widgets/graphics/flash/crap on the pages now it takes a good 10 times as long just to view the entire episode listing of a series.
What?
http://www.tv.com/the-black-adder/show/4747/episo
The also seem to think that everyone wants lots of fancy, flashy graphics and widgets on every page. All of this makes it difficult to get the information you actually came there for, unless you visit to look at flashy graphics and viewer ratings.
So what, they are supposed to know exactly what YOU want to know about the show immediately when clicking a show? It's difficult to type "farscape", "star trek next generation", or whatever then click "episodes", "cast", or "reviews"?
And what do you mean it has "fancy widgets"? Gradients on a tab to make it look a bit nicer doesn't make it "fancy" or "bloated", it's when you have animations for every action and Flash for everything (having a flash menu thing on the front page is not "everything") when you get bloat and fanciness. Also, most modern web browsers cache images, they don't download them on every page. Lynx is an exception to that.
The split columns are just fine, and yes I do care about similar shows, otherwise half of the shows I'm watching right now I wouldn't have known existed. You are complaining about how little of the screen it uses, well, I'm using a widescreen laptop and it still looks just fine to me.
This is coming from someone who absolutely despises Mac, Windows, KDE, and GNOME for their overuse of graphics and hard to use menus. I don't have a problem with graphical interfaces when they make sense, like TV.com does. All your "major problems" are non-existant or very minor.
Actually, default deny is just as stupid as default allow, as if you have default deny, people just get sick of being asked if they want to allow something, and end up clicking "yes" on every box they see.
I'm pretty sure he's meaning general network big corporation security, hence him mentioning "managers" on multiple occasions. He's not talking about ways to secure Windows for the general population.
So you want to write a virus scanner that somehow can recognise viruses without being told which programs are viruses. Modern virus checkers already mostly do this. With spyware it's very hard for a computer to tell the difference between a program you wanted installing and one you didn't. How do you expect it to tell?
No, this is more like using Samhain, AIDE, Tripwire, or some other such HIDS program monitoring. Instead of any notable bad changes to your system being reported, it ignores what you specify as an acceptable change and logs the rest (such as certain log files increasing in size, applications being accessed but not modified, etc, then certain files that should never be accessed logged, and things like that).
This idea is also illustrated in rkhunter, scanning for known "good" hashes to common applications instead of scanning for known "bad" hashes of programs that contain rootkits.
So you are saying we should write code without bugs and holes? What a great idea that is? why did no-one think of saying that before?
No, he means instead of searching for buffer overflows, XSS holes, SQL injection holes, etc, we should write security systems that make it impossible to do so in the first place. I have made security systems for XSS/SQLI prevention (and I don't mean filtering "union select" out of URLs, that's what's known above as "default allow") but I'm not smart/knowledgeable enough to do so for buffer overflows. I understand that this is extremely hard to do, but in languages like Python, Ruby, Perl, etc there is no such thing as a buffer overflow. Altering C/C++'s management of stacks and variables would possibly completely abolish the thought of buffer overflows, but instead we have had to deal with them for the last 15+ years. Surely there is SOMETHING we can do to get rid of them, even if it involves rewriting an OS completely from scratch again.
You think people should learn how to stop hacking and intrusion without learning how existing hacks work? Then you are stupid. Shush.
I think he's meaning "cracking" here. This is sort of fallout from my previous reply, but instead of actively searching for specific buffer overflow holes, we should fix the problem altogether.
So you are saying that we have to do security without teaching users how to do it. That just isn't going to work unless you never let users install their own applications or plug-ins. Yes teaching users is hard, but it has to be a vital part.
Again, I think this is in regards to managing big corporations again. If you force the security policies on the computers they are using, they won't have to know what it does. Allowing only what they need to do their jobs on their computers and all outgoing traffic to port 80 and 443 will allow them do their jobs just fine without any interuptions (given you set the rules correctly), and even have some slack to browse the internet when you are bored/have to wait on something. Allowing employees to download and install Half-Life 2 or BitTorrent isn't exactly productive, and it's not going to make them MORE productive by "treating them well". That will only lead to completely lazy employees doing jack shit and getting away with it.
So, after saying the state we are in is rubbish, you now say we shouldn't actually change anything. Eh? Or are you saying "don't try something new without testing it first"? Well thats more than a little obvious.
I agree with you on this one, you should research things before you adopt it complete
While 10 buttons may seem a bit too much for a 3buttons mouse user (just as 3 buttons looked horribly complicated to a Macintosh user until Apple released the Mighty Mouse *wink*) you get addicted to them really fast, i'd say that 5 buttons is a bare minimum for me nowadays (with 1 button mapped to double clic and 1 to "close application").
That's what the keyboard is for. There is no real reason to have your hand on your mouse for extra buttons when you can use your keyboard to type, run, navigate, manage windows, etc, with just a custom set of key commands. I rarely touch my mouse, and that's usually when just randomly browsing my live bookmarks in Firefox (mouse gestures to ease the navigation with the mouse).
You have plenty of keys on the keyboard, and you can easily set them to fit like a glove specifically for you. As an idea, my keys (using Fluxbox's ~/.fluxbox/keys file) are set up as follows:
Left Hand
Alt+Tab: Guess...
Alt+Q: Close
Alt+W: Calculator
Alt+E: Terminal
Alt+R: Run Command (fbrun)
Alt+A: Show Desktop
Alt+S: Maximize Window
Alt+D: Shade Window
Alt+F: Toggle Decorations
Alt+Z: Fluxbox Menu
Alt+X: Minimize Window
Alt+C: Text Editor
Alt+V: KSysGuard
Right Hand
Alt+U: Desktop 1
Alt+I: Desktop 2
Alt+O: Desktop 3
Alt+P: Desktop 4
Alt+H: Previous Desktop
Alt+J: Previous Tab
Alt+K: Next Tab
Alt+L: Next Desktop
Alt+M: Send Current Window to Desktop 1
Alt+,: Send Current Window to Desktop 2
Alt+.: Send Current Window to Desktop 3
Alt+/: Send Current Window to Desktop 4
Okay, you obviously have a PhD in english, you way over analyzed that sentence, and your IT culture skills are lacking.
The reason he posted that, and the reason it's so funny, is because that would be the typical response a "bot" such as Alice or Eliza would give to the comment he was replying to.
This isn't like adding a new motor to the disc drive to make the disc spin faster, its modding it to do something illegal.
Like those cars that just stopped accelerating at 55 MPH, so you didn't do anything illegal? I'm sure any self respecting driver would have tried to figure out how to remove that, imagine being chased by someone and you can only go 55 MPH, wow you're screwed.
Sure this isn't life or death, but you purchased the damn thing, you should be able to do with it what you want. The DMCA may make it "illegal", but that doesn't mean the DMCA is God's word, just because it was passed into law.
Once we remove the ability to "tinker" with hardware, there will be no more engineers, only theoretical ones that have never touched a peice of equipment in their lives.
I'm sure auto mechanics would revolt if it became against the law to tinker with a car unless you were the manufacturer, eventually the same thing would happen there, too, no more auto mechanics because they can't open up the car.
To really answer your question, what they ... need to know is what you'e using your computer(s) for. Are the advantages of the 2.6 kernel as listed above advantages for you?
I've used a vanilla kernel 2.6 on Slackware for three different uses, my headless server, my media center PC, and my brand spanking new laptop.
All 3 have worked perfectly without freezing since 2.6.5 (I didn't start using 2.6 until 2.6.5 came out). Now they are all running on 2.6.12, and they will soon be upgraded to 2.6.13.
I'd say the organization of the configuration (make menuconfig) and the overall model the kernel is based on is much more clean and organized. I could never go back to 2.4 now.
If you really want to test out the 2.6 kernel without installing/configuring anything, download Knoppix and try it out on your computers. If it runs well, then try it yourself, if it doesn't, then just stick with 2.4.
It doesn't matter that the "MUTE" didn't look quite like my TV's overlay, at that point I was too into the game to think that out. Best trick ever pulled on a player. Why is this unique? The nastier tricks were rare, and never repeated (something you can't say for, say, status ailment effects, which are usually the same, or predictable).
I still don't understand when people say these things, I played Eternal Darkness and not only was I killing too many enemies to possibly get my meter down, but even once it did get down I never had any "nasty" tricks pulled. That's the REASON I played the game, I thought it was going to be a bunch of nasty tricks put together, but it turned into a boring game.
Also, putting "MUTE" on the screen wasn't the nastiest or best trick ever pulled. In MGS2 (I didn't really enjoy this game, I just got really bored and ended up playing through it), at the end, you enter this big room and a bunch of enemies rush at you from all directions. I was fighting, fighting, fighting, then all the sudden it executed the "MISSION FAILED" stuff, same music, same screen, everything, but in the top left hand corner the game was still going on instead of zooming in on you.
When I heard the music and saw the screen come up I threw the controller across the room and refreshed a page on here (slashdot). Glanced at the screen again and noticed instead of "MISSION FAILED" it said "FISSION MAILED". I was utterly confused for a good 10 seconds, then I noticed the screen in the corner, I picked up the controller, moved left, moved right, and hurried to kill the people that were attacking me for the last 20-30 seconds.
That was the best trick ever pulled, and I would like a game made SOLELY for these purposes, Eternal Darkness didn't have enough apparently, since I never saw one in the 8 or so hours I played it.
I've been hearing a lot about this word, "podcast". I have never actually been able to find a definition or anywhere that explains what the hell anyone is talking about until now.
So, is a "podcast" Apple's branding of internet radio broadcasting?
I've been listening to internet radio for over 7 years now, why do we need a catch phrase such as "podcast" to describe it? Is it any different when said broadcasts are sent through Apple's servers are not?
For instance, Bob might buy the cheap cereal because he only has 2 dollars and the expensive cereal is 2.99. Sure you can probably track backwards far enough to tie an emotion into any decision, but the emotion isn't necessarily what drives the decision.
Exactly, hunger drives it. However these people will probably attach a "fear of hunger/starvation" onto the decision.
I might also add that I do a lot of things without thinking, emotionally or logicaly, so they can't be linked to emotions either. Such as staring into space for no reason in the middle of this post for 2 minutes.
I've been hearing stuff about how Firefly is so awesome, how it is one of the best SciFi shows ever made, and how everyone hates SciFi for cancelling the show (or was it Fox or something?).
A friend has the DVD set, I found out, so I sat down to watch it with my brother, who also wanted to see it. Started with the two hour pilot (was this a mistake?), and at about the one hour to one hour 15 minute mark, we put it away so we didn't fall asleep.
What I saw of the show makes me wonder how it was approved as a show in the first place. The whole western/SciFi mix does NOT work well at all.
Hey, now there's a service I'd like to see from Google: search web sites from the future. That would put an end to all of this tiring speculation on what new service they'll think up next.
Come to think of it, they could incorporate the technology into other parts of the side. Why present a list of results when you can search the future logs to find out which result I'm going to click and take me straight there.
That would create a paradox, it would click a link because in the future you were to click that link, but since it clicked that link for you, you couldn't have clicked the link, and the information it used to determine which link to click couldn't possibly have existed, so we're screwed.
Just wait until the standards are updated, when verison 2.0 of the future comes out, then you'll be able to do this.
Yes, companies do demand ridiculous things.. it's not even ucommon.
"ucommon"? Is that like "umount"? What does the "common" command do, just out of curiosity?
Mine's one point twenty-one jigawatts.
I assume that 1.21 jigawatts is when James Watt does 1.21 jiggs?
Actually, it costs about a billion dollars to comply with regulations for the FDA. Eliminate the miles of red tape, and hundreds of millions in graft to government officials, and it could be orders of magnitude cheaper. Jonas Salk certainly didn't need a billion dollars.
Jonas Salk also was a good, decent, intelligent human being.
Sure we should simplify, and even reduce the cost, to comply with the FDA, but from your post it sounded like you meant abolishing it altogether. Without it, we would be eating racid meat, taking poison pills, and drinking mud in a month.
IMHO if they want to "harmonize" it with the rest of the world's systems, they should start by making both business methods and software unpatentable.
I believe instead of blacklisting those two types of patents, we should whitelist only 'the way a certain product works'.
No, Cringely, you shouldn't be able to stop people from using your invention just because you don't like them or what they might do with it. That's an abuse of the patent system, just like sitting on out-of-print books and obsolete software is an abuse of the copyright system. If you aren't going to make your invention available to people who want to use it, then you don't deserve to have a patent.
Exactly, sort of like NMap being used for malicious purposes, a certain company's material being used for nuclear bombs, or an Xbox being modded (isn't this declared illegal now? you can't legally touch the inside of the box, or something? if it is/were this way, then would-be engineers would not be able to legally learn anything, because tinkering is the only way you can learn how, really).
2. Even if you are serious, you'll never be able to bring it to market in any kind of meaningful way, anyway.
Nobody said anything about not being able to come up with $30k, just not an EXTRA $30k. Say you come up with $100k, but you need all of that for production, you don't have an extra $30k to pay the patent lawyer, etc.
Unless you are a doctor, lawyer, or corporate whore, $30k is a LOT of money to most people.