As somebody typing this in Canada on a 28.8K dialup I don't see why you need to make an ass of yourself in a derogatory comment like that.
Can't wait till I get my 33.3K license. Woo hoo!
(Ectually, the.gov claims by mandate everybody in Canadia will have broadband by 2007, and I choose my 28.8K and rural isolation; I had broadband 10 yrs ago in Tronno and prefer it out here)
Law degree. Specialize in intellectual property. Fight the good fight; resist the dark side. I have as friends a number of people with (science/cs) PhD's that became intellectual property attornies. The are all exceptional people and the world is a better place because of them, not worse.
Itis utterly shocking the number of intellectual property "attornies" that don't actually understand the law.
"not one, but two international tax treaties, to make income from a foreign assignment by a non-U.S. citizen that would otherwise not be taxable in the U.S. intentionally so taxable (and, *poof*, completely offset by foreign tax credits, ta da!), so the eligible moving expenses associated with the assignment, but paid in the following year, when a U.S. tax resident, are deductable against U.S. income in that following year"
"A system is only that strong as it's weakest component"
Usually the CPU fan. And I'm not sure how long a modern AMD chip lasts without one but I know from very recent epirical evidence that it is less time than it takes me to shower.
The clue that you, so badly need, is in TFA, you didn't read.
The article does not answer the question "what should I use" the article tells you how to save on tapes if you have a DVHS machine.
Stupid is as stupid posts
on
DVHS on a Budget
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"You got temporary storage gains, but your discs would quickly fail. Not a good deal in the meantime."
Did you actually try it?
Anybody that was used to day in day out 8" floppy operations knew a bit about what brands of media worked and what didn't. This data was applicable to 5" floppies and then 3".
My first box of low density 3" floppies cost me $50 US.
If you used cheap floppies and punchd them you'd get a certain failure rate roughly equivalent to the failure rate of unpunched floppies on low density drives. Crap is crap no matter how many holes you punch in it.
I've used hundreds of punched disks. After a year of 18 hours a day they'd start to get errors, punched or unpunched. Use good media. Duh.
<rant> It appears only 2 people besides me RTFA and slashdot is beginning to make usenet look as credible as a peer reviewed scientific journal by comparison.
RTFA or don't bother posting. You may well be a clueless fucktard but posting here without reading no longer keeps this fact hidden. Spam waste less of my time than you nimrods.
And spare me the friggin dupe alerts. If that's all you have to say then STFU. </rant>
"Why do people insist on calling pointers a problem?"
Because they're too lazy or uneducated to check boundry conditions. These are the same ones that don't check every return code.
I'm gonna stick my neck out and say these account for 97.45% of bugs in software. Note the percent is not an even number so it's obviously much more believable.
"Just what is running on most websites that use those, anyway, I wonder?"
Do you always criticize things you don't know anything about? Although I can't say new.net was a shining example of alt.tld-ness.
But, to answer your question, no spam, for one thing. No malware, no viruses. Just people cooperating. And yes there is content that you can't see using the legacy root.
With djbdns and Bind-PE/Treewalk offering alt.dns optins there's now enough people using them that I'm seriously thinking about rejecting all mail not from alt.tlds. It'e been a slice, but I'm sick of the crap. You want to talk to me? Here's how you do that. Your choice.
At one point 2 of the ICANN board members used alternate roots. Now they're all lawyers and other slime, the techies didn't last.
One of the Alpha (peace be upon it) engineers I know (who also orignally wrote what is now gcc) went to Microsoft to work or something to do with hardware standards.
"The notion of a hybrid species is nonsensical. Individuals are hybrids, not entire species. Individuals descend directly from individuals, and are thus always hybrids of those individuals, at least in sexual reproduction. Species don't descend from sexual pairing of other species. Species are merely groups of individuals that are similar enough to successfully breed."
Close but no cigar.
First off the notion of what a species is, that I have read here, is not quite right. It's not as simple as "things that will interbreed".
There are species whose populations (races, klines, what have you) will not interbreed and there are different species that will interbreed.
See _Rivulins of the Old World_, Col JJ Scheel, 1968, TFH press 1968 for all sorts of neat examples of these.
"But wait!" I hear you say, "if they interbreed then they're the same species". Well, no, that's not what a species is.
The concept of species is an artificial one invented by man to make some sense of flora and fauna. He wants to pidgeon-hole them, classify them in a taxonomy (not an ontology!) so they make sense to him. But it's pretty arbitrary.
What a species is, is what the guy who knows most about them say they are. Whacked, I know, but that's the way it works.
We look for all sort of things, merisitcs, phylogony, geography, karyotype differences, DNA analysis so on and so forth, then we make an judgement call about where one species ends and where another begins. And, keep in mind, this changes over time. Animals and plants change, sometimes in as little as 5 years (Romand, Raymond, pers. commms, viz Roloffia geryi).
Plus opinions vary. Some are "spltters" who will divide populations of a currently accepted "species" into a bunch of new species and "lumpers" will do the opposite. Some poor critters vascillate back and forth decade after decade based on who published last. The ICZN acts as the scorekeeper for animals (plants have an equivalent). They make sure the rules get followed but other than that don't referee as to what's what.
Now why is there so much difference of opinion on the way these taxa are viewed? Becuase there's no right answer of course. It's all how we look at things and how we choose to classify them and in the end consensus wins and inevitably there are those who disagree. And probably always will be.
As for species that are hybrid species I can't think of an animal off the top of my head but I can offer up Cryptocoryne x willisii as an example of a hybrid "species" (there are others). It's a cross of two known plants and we're reluctant to give it species status because it's so obvioulsy a hybrid - but it's common as dirt, grows like made and one way of looking at it is that it is a species. If I write it up as such... then it is! But we're content to view it as the way we do.
Don't get me started on sub-species, that's even more messed up as the delineation between "populations" and "subspecies" is that well agreed on by scientists. I like Bill Eschemeyers example: Atlantic and Pacific salmon are subspcies of the same fish - there's a natural geographic break. If they they were separated by only a few miles or tens of miles then they're populations, not subspecies.
"C has a really crappy track record of being secure"
C doesn't kill people, sloppy programmers kill people.
C is just a language; it is neither secure nor insecure. It depends on how lazy the programmer using it is. I'm thrilled there's a thing called C# that helps sloppy programmers. Warn me if anybody writes an OS in that bloated pig.
But C by and of itself dosn't mean code is insecure.
"Sure you can. I see it at work all the time. Collect the prefix of an existing email address and append it to a different domain name. "bob237@hotmail.com" becomes "bob237@localisp.com," "bob237@yahoo.com," "bob237@yourcompany.com" and so forth. Not a huge deal for the user bob237 (but a big pain for the mail admins), but a significantly larger one for the user bob.smith@..." How they find your address does not change the points raised so far in this discussion.
"And once again, how exactly do I tell spammers that I don't want to talk to them, when they falsify their contact information, and don't read what gets through to them anyways?"
Fraudulant email is already a crime. You don't need any new laws there, exising ones cover this.
"ICANN is chartered by the US Department of Commerce. You might as well say that the plasma supply is controlled by the House of Representatives because the Red Cross is Chartered by Congress. It is the same relationship."
Right answer wrong reason.
The DoC, through NTIA oversees ICANN, but retains authority over the root zone. That is, DoC/NTIA must vet any changes to the root ICANN suggests. ICANN can do no more than suggest changes.
NTIA in theory will hand over this authority to ICANN once they trust it. The fact they keep renewing the current arrangement where NTIA retais authority means, in my mind one of two things. Either NTIA still (7?) years later still doesn't trust ICANN, or, "stakeholder consensus" (ie, big business lobbyists pumping tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars into the beltway) would like to remain, defacto, in charge.
I've been told that in a secret metting held by IBM involving NTIA, NSI and ICANN, IBM admitted they'd spent 2 years of their $60M a year lobbying budget in DC to prevent the introduction of new tlds. And that was more than 5 years ago. Vint Cert and Dave Farber were at that meeting. Perhaps they failed to mention this? Others who were are at that meeting, at the risk of their careers, have made this information public despite the NDA they signed to keep the details of this meeting secret. This was, I fear, just the tip of the iceberg.
Slashdot Mirror
"Canada has the Internet?? Weird, eh"
.gov claims by mandate everybody in Canadia will have broadband by 2007, and I choose my 28.8K and rural isolation; I had broadband 10 yrs ago in Tronno and prefer it out here)
As somebody typing this in Canada on a 28.8K dialup I don't see why you need to make an ass of yourself in a derogatory comment like that.
Can't wait till I get my 33.3K license. Woo hoo!
(Ectually, the
Law degree. Specialize in intellectual property. Fight the good fight; resist the dark side. I have as friends a number of people with (science/cs) PhD's that became intellectual property attornies. The are all exceptional people and the world is a better place because of them, not worse.
Itis utterly shocking the number of intellectual property "attornies" that don't actually understand the law.
The world needs a few more good IP lawyers.
Boy, doesn't that just roll off your tounge like
"I have to wonder if the market is going to be flooded with too many MBAs soon."
Only if you don't flush.
"Then there's the matter of the MCAT, an eight hour standardized exam from hell testing ..... writing 2 essays."
So, uh, how'd that work out for you?
Get a plumbing degree. You're gonna be putting up with people's shit either way; you may as well get paid decently for it for a change.
"A system is only that strong as it's weakest component"
Usually the CPU fan. And I'm not sure how long a modern AMD chip lasts without one but I know from very recent epirical evidence that it is less time than it takes me to shower.
Dude, that's the Jaws theme.
The clue that you,
so badly need,
is in TFA,
you didn't read.
The article does not answer the question "what should I use" the article tells you how to save on tapes if you have a DVHS machine.
"You got temporary storage gains, but your discs would quickly fail. Not a good deal in the meantime."
Did you actually try it?
Anybody that was used to day in day out 8" floppy operations knew a bit about what brands of media worked and what didn't. This data was applicable to 5" floppies and then 3".
My first box of low density 3" floppies cost me $50 US.
If you used cheap floppies and punchd them you'd get a certain failure rate roughly equivalent to the failure rate of unpunched floppies on low density drives. Crap is crap no matter how many holes you punch in it.
I've used hundreds of punched disks. After a year of 18 hours a day they'd start to get errors, punched or unpunched. Use good media. Duh.
<rant>
It appears only 2 people besides me RTFA and slashdot is beginning to make usenet look as credible as a peer reviewed scientific journal by comparison.
RTFA or don't bother posting. You may well be a clueless fucktard but posting here without reading no longer keeps this fact hidden. Spam waste less of my time than you nimrods.
And spare me the friggin dupe alerts. If that's all you have to say then STFU.
</rant>
"Why do people insist on calling pointers a problem?"
Because they're too lazy or uneducated to check boundry conditions. These are the same ones that don't check every return code.
I'm gonna stick my neck out and say these account for 97.45% of bugs in software. Note the percent is not an even number so it's obviously much more believable.
"Just what is running on most websites that use those, anyway, I wonder?"
Do you always criticize things you don't know anything about? Although I can't say new.net was a shining example of alt.tld-ness.
But, to answer your question, no spam, for one thing. No malware, no viruses. Just people cooperating. And yes there is content that you can't see using the legacy root.
With djbdns and Bind-PE/Treewalk offering alt.dns optins there's now enough people using them that I'm seriously thinking about rejecting all mail not from alt.tlds. It'e been a slice, but I'm sick of the crap. You want to talk to me? Here's how you do that. Your choice.
At one point 2 of the ICANN board members used alternate roots. Now they're all lawyers and other slime, the techies didn't last.
"new .NET runtime, beta 2, which will be released March 31st, will be 16MB"
Uh-huh. The first few versions of Netscape Navigator fit on a 1.2M floppy.
"Some decisions were taken as to not sue ASP.Net for web apps"
Pity.
"The fact is, that 23MB is non-harmful software which will probably help you run other software. It's a pointless complaint, really.
You can't help people that don't ask for or want help.
One of the Alpha (peace be upon it) engineers I know (who also orignally wrote what is now gcc) went to Microsoft to work or something to do with hardware standards.
"And why would anyone want to help the process along"
To sell the IP rights to the mpegs to thehun.
"Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C)"
Serious question, why don't (earlier) Eskimos get scurvy on a diet of meat and fat?
"Do you realize that true Islam does not condone terrorism?"
Do you realize if everybody spent all their time downloading porn there would be no war?
"The notion of a hybrid species is nonsensical. Individuals are hybrids, not entire species. Individuals descend directly from individuals, and are thus always hybrids of those individuals, at least in sexual reproduction. Species don't descend from sexual pairing of other species. Species are merely groups of individuals that are similar enough to successfully breed."
Close but no cigar.
First off the notion of what a species is, that I have read here, is not quite right. It's not as simple as "things that will interbreed".
There are species whose populations (races, klines, what have you) will not interbreed and there are different species that will interbreed.
See _Rivulins of the Old World_, Col JJ Scheel, 1968, TFH press 1968 for all sorts of neat examples of these.
"But wait!" I hear you say, "if they interbreed then they're the same species". Well, no, that's not what a species is.
The concept of species is an artificial one invented by man to make some sense of flora and fauna. He wants to pidgeon-hole them, classify them in a taxonomy (not an ontology!) so they make sense to him. But it's pretty arbitrary.
What a species is, is what the guy who knows most about them say they are. Whacked, I know, but that's the way it works.
We look for all sort of things, merisitcs, phylogony, geography, karyotype differences, DNA analysis so on and so forth, then we make an judgement call about where one species ends and where another begins. And, keep in mind, this changes over time. Animals and plants change, sometimes in as little as 5 years (Romand, Raymond, pers. commms, viz Roloffia geryi).
Plus opinions vary. Some are "spltters" who will divide populations of a currently accepted "species" into a bunch of new species and "lumpers" will do the opposite. Some poor critters vascillate back and forth decade after decade based on who published last. The ICZN acts as the scorekeeper for animals (plants have an equivalent). They make sure the rules get followed but other than that don't referee as to what's what.
Now why is there so much difference of opinion on the way these taxa are viewed? Becuase there's no right answer of course. It's all how we look at things and how we choose to classify them and in the end consensus wins and inevitably there are those who disagree. And probably always will be.
As for species that are hybrid species I can't think of an animal off the top of my head but I can offer up Cryptocoryne x willisii as an example of a hybrid "species" (there are others). It's a cross of two known plants and we're reluctant to give it species status because it's so obvioulsy a hybrid - but it's common as dirt, grows like made and one way of looking at it is that it is a species. If I write it up as such... then it is! But we're content to view it as the way we do.
Don't get me started on sub-species, that's even more messed up as the delineation between "populations" and "subspecies" is that well agreed on by scientists. I like Bill Eschemeyers example: Atlantic and Pacific salmon are subspcies of the same fish - there's a natural geographic break. If they they were separated by only a few miles or tens of miles then they're populations, not subspecies.
" God gets pretty much to the point He wants to make in scripture"
Yeah, and hey thanks for all the wars, killing, pestilence, famine and stuff. Nice touch there God.
"on slashdot, people get viscious against creationists"
No they don't. And if they do it's because creationists are fucking idiots.
Go ahead, push the funny button, I dare you.
"C has a really crappy track record of being secure"
C doesn't kill people, sloppy programmers kill people.
C is just a language; it is neither secure nor insecure. It depends on how lazy the programmer using it is. I'm thrilled there's a thing called C# that helps sloppy programmers. Warn me if anybody writes an OS in that bloated pig.
But C by and of itself dosn't mean code is insecure.
"Sure you can. I see it at work all the time. Collect the prefix of an existing email address and append it to a different domain name. "bob237@hotmail.com" becomes "bob237@localisp.com," "bob237@yahoo.com," "bob237@yourcompany.com" and so forth. Not a huge deal for the user bob237 (but a big pain for the mail admins), but a significantly larger one for the user bob.smith@..."
How they find your address does not change the points raised so far in this discussion.
"And once again, how exactly do I tell spammers that I don't want to talk to them, when they falsify their contact information, and don't read what gets through to them anyways?"
Fraudulant email is already a crime. You don't need any new laws there, exising ones cover this.
"ICANN is chartered by the US Department of Commerce. You might as well say that the plasma supply is controlled by the House of Representatives because the Red Cross is Chartered by Congress. It is the same relationship."
Right answer wrong reason.
The DoC, through NTIA oversees ICANN, but retains authority over the root zone. That is, DoC/NTIA must vet any changes to the root ICANN suggests. ICANN can do no more than suggest changes.
NTIA in theory will hand over this authority to ICANN once they trust it. The fact they keep renewing the current arrangement where NTIA retais authority means, in my mind one of two things. Either NTIA still (7?) years later still doesn't trust ICANN, or, "stakeholder consensus" (ie, big business lobbyists pumping tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars into the beltway) would like to remain, defacto, in charge.
I've been told that in a secret metting held by IBM involving NTIA, NSI and ICANN, IBM admitted they'd spent 2 years of their $60M a year lobbying budget in DC to prevent the introduction of new tlds. And that was more than 5 years ago. Vint Cert and Dave Farber were at that meeting. Perhaps they failed to mention this? Others who were are at that meeting, at the risk of their careers, have made this information public despite the NDA they signed to keep the details of this meeting secret. This was, I fear, just the tip of the iceberg.