I feelt hat the protection on the windows copies could be much more of a publisher's descision than the developers.
thinking about it, mass piracy (like it doesnt happen anyway...) on windows will have a much bigger sales impact than on linux... so obviously they're not as bothered....
I've noticed 42 comments posted to the post about the billing system troubles and looking through them they are all relating to the same thing. Looking at the stats, there have been 264 hits to that post as of now, which is quite high given the time since posting.
A quick grep on the access logs shows the first access and then POST request coming from an IBM address.
Here are all the hosts that have submitted POST requests to that entry so far:
As you may have noticed, there are some interesting hosts there. What makes it even more interesting is the fact all of the comments posted by all hosts are about the same thing and all around the same time. If you have not already guessed, I would think these hosts are compromised & possibly being used as relays to spam and other rubbish. Either way, I'm not bothered. It's all junk and all gone.
Another interesting thing is that hits from the IBM host have been coming in for ages - so either a regular visitor or web proxy. Some Google searches have resulted in visits from that host, quite a number of varied searches in fact.
I'm not interested in looking over this any more, however I may just contact the appropriate contacts for the hosts above just to alert them to the fact that something could well be up."///////////////
aww aint that cuuute! hasnt he heard of referrers?
wingsweep & wingspan are determined by the laws of physics generally. The size a space shuttle 'has' to be would be pretty obvious, so after that you're not left with much 'creative' freedom on wingspan....
I agree whole heartedly... It wasn't a rant at BBC... it was a rant at the slashdot 'ooo lets post it and not change a thing' attitude....i don't see why someone can't put a more realistic healdine on what is supposed to be a more technically apt and trained website...
But.. it's understandable... you can barely rely on the BBC ?News site for 'accurate' tech news.. the point is more that slashdot people submit it in the same bloody way... and the moderators dont go 'hmmm.. thats not gonna go down well with cynical geek scum'...........
Look, I'm not being a troll or flamebait or whatever, but seriously, I've had enough of this fucking pipedream chasing crap that gets posted to BBc news and then swiftly chucked up on slashDot.
The whole BBc News Technology section reminds me of the 'Tomorrows World' program when it was in full swing, saying how everything could be 'the next big thing' and that we'd likely se eit on shop shelves and in every home 'in a year'. Why do these people never learn that so much of this is just press release bullshit?
I'm gonna rant more, so sorry. It's just ridiculous... why do we always have to have these blopdy 'next big things'? Why can't people actually look at things rationally (say, as a geek not a mother of 2 who's never touched a computer) and think 'shit, that's not gonna get very far'.
All these posts are so ednlessly flawed, yet we still get news items with titles like 'THE END OF SPAM FOREVER?', 'LINUX COULD KILL WINDOWS IN A MONTH', 'COULD WE SAY GOODBYE TO THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT?'... it's all sensationalist bullshit that *might* happen, but not in the press-release inflated year like they always claim.
I used to love digitiser. It never strayed away from providing absolutely top notch, quality content without any ego. The cult following and subtle but huge community spirit made it something quite amazing.
It's sad to hear now, tha tit got wrapped up last year.
Oh yeah, and digital services suck. They're slow, lacking in information, hard to read (how much can you anti-alias the text so its unreadable competitions must go on at press-red-button meetings) and have far too much eyecandy. id love a faster, cleaner teletex/ceefax please.
The myth that Wikipedia is a plethora of incorrect knowledge is such a load of bullshit. In my school years, I reguarly found errors and anomalies in the textbooks, and kist count of the times I sat at home as a young kid and found factual errors in my encyclopedias & sceience books.
Wikipedia ISN'T gospel and certainly has quite a lot of errors, but to suggest that it's 'not authoritative' is a load of rubbish. In a printed encyclopeda (i.e. those pretentious brittanica things rich white middle class families seem to hav eon display), you depend on a select number of individuals to share their knowledge.
There's nothing to suggest that these people could be any more 'authoritative' than someone submitting on Wikipedia; Don't forget that the net is packed full of bored but highly intelligent 'geeks'... just read some of the more insightful/interesting slashdot comments in the sceintific articles & you'll see that the intellect of some people on the net surpasses that of the 'encyclopedia book writing' variety. Whatever suggests that the article in my brittanica encyclopedia WASN'T written by someone who knows less about the subject than myself, but has a good textbook to hand.
I'd never trust Wikipedia as being the absolute truth, but then again, as a kid & ever since, I've never trusted textbooks and the such to be 100% accurate.
Comments like yours are what gives - what is wholly a selfless project - a bad name for no really good reason. If they were intentionally creating their own little rift, i'd be annoyed, but it's all in the name of free information.
For someone like me who left education much MUCH erlier than I was ever advised to, but was always a very high scoring individual at school, I enjoy the resource because it means I can learn new things in my own time... not forgetting to use my head and check the validity of the content before I concrete it in my brain. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's learnt a lot of stuff just by clicking 'random page' a few times a day...
I noticed that too, and I've now decided that I could code better actionscript than that with one arm behind my back & my eyes covered with a blindfold:-).
I agree that there should be a simple listing of it (although any half-decent programmer could try packet catching and watch what it requests.. its probably very easy to make a bespoke script to go get the data)....
BUT.. the flash implementation is very clear, easy to use and a good bit of coding. So Ner.
But so so so right as well. I agree... but then, when is there ever NOT some kind of error in slashdot stories?
Re:So they don't poop.
on
Animal Robots
·
· Score: 1
Um, a few days ago when my kids asked me if we could 'give the kittens a bath'...
Re:Animals don't like robots
on
Animal Robots
·
· Score: 1
The problem with getting an animal to react with something mechanical is that, despite dogs generally being quite 'stupid', they can tell if something's alive or not.
It really sucks, but to even remotely make an aibo 'real' to a dog, you'd have to give it fur, a distinctive smell, an arsehole (all a dog wants to do is sniff it, honest), and some wierd high-pithced ultra sonic sounds.........
until we learn how dogs communicate fully, we'll never get a dog to communicate with a robot properly...
It could be positioned in a mosquito filled lake... then quite cleverly skim accross water systematically and send a sharp, high frequency signal accross the surface of the water.... i think that might just work:-)
Agree in many ways... I think these jobs can be done already by boats, although the feleing is that if it's SKIMMING the water, it is not penetrating the miniscus (spag?), so wouldn't get eroded or contaminate any chemical mixture...
Slashdot Mirror
I feelt hat the protection on the windows copies could be much more of a publisher's descision than the developers.
thinking about it, mass piracy (like it doesnt happen anyway...) on windows will have a much bigger sales impact than on linux... so obviously they're not as bothered....
Why am I talking about my ass on slashdot? :-)
Better than the rest of the people here talking OUT their asses...
I'm not entirely sure that the 'scooped particles' survived really. It's not really amazing that some bits of random metal survived is it?
Bet I could find you a shitty matress for a few tenners :-).
The point is... BOTH the odds are small.
Yes, it's all a bit of a joke really. A bloody matress would have been better than endless hyppe about stunt helicopters.
"Comment spam? - What about comment rubbish?
///////////////
I've noticed 42 comments posted to the post about the billing system troubles and looking through them they are all relating to the same thing. Looking at the stats, there have been 264 hits to that post as of now, which is quite high given the time since posting.
A quick grep on the access logs shows the first access and then POST request coming from an IBM address.
Here are all the hosts that have submitted POST requests to that entry so far:
As you may have noticed, there are some interesting hosts there. What makes it even more interesting is the fact all of the comments posted by all hosts are about the same thing and all around the same time. If you have not already guessed, I would think these hosts are compromised & possibly being used as relays to spam and other rubbish. Either way, I'm not bothered. It's all junk and all gone.
Another interesting thing is that hits from the IBM host have been coming in for ages - so either a regular visitor or web proxy. Some Google searches have resulted in visits from that host, quite a number of varied searches in fact.
I'm not interested in looking over this any more, however I may just contact the appropriate contacts for the hosts above just to alert them to the fact that something could well be up."
aww aint that cuuute! hasnt he heard of referrers?
This is becoming one of those Slashdot-isms isn't it.
Seriously, when the fuck is that game coming out?
wingsweep & wingspan are determined by the laws of physics generally. The size a space shuttle 'has' to be would be pretty obvious, so after that you're not left with much 'creative' freedom on wingspan....
I agree whole heartedly... It wasn't a rant at BBC... it was a rant at the slashdot 'ooo lets post it and not change a thing' attitude... .i don't see why someone can't put a more realistic healdine on what is supposed to be a more technically apt and trained website...
But.. it's understandable... you can barely rely on the BBC ?News site for 'accurate' tech news.. the point is more that slashdot people submit it in the same bloody way... and the moderators dont go 'hmmm.. thats not gonna go down well with cynical geek scum'...........
grr
Look, I'm not being a troll or flamebait or whatever, but seriously, I've had enough of this fucking pipedream chasing crap that gets posted to BBc news and then swiftly chucked up on slashDot.
The whole BBc News Technology section reminds me of the 'Tomorrows World' program when it was in full swing, saying how everything could be 'the next big thing' and that we'd likely se eit on shop shelves and in every home 'in a year'. Why do these people never learn that so much of this is just press release bullshit?
I'm gonna rant more, so sorry. It's just ridiculous... why do we always have to have these blopdy 'next big things'? Why can't people actually look at things rationally (say, as a geek not a mother of 2 who's never touched a computer) and think 'shit, that's not gonna get very far'.
All these posts are so ednlessly flawed, yet we still get news items with titles like 'THE END OF SPAM FOREVER?', 'LINUX COULD KILL WINDOWS IN A MONTH', 'COULD WE SAY GOODBYE TO THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT?'... it's all sensationalist bullshit that *might* happen, but not in the press-release inflated year like they always claim.
Second, please tell me -- exactly -- what is "good" about hand written letters?
Rearrange these words: Law Anthrax In Mother
that's a debatable one. not sure they'd enjoy you getting your joystick out whilst filming. or would they............
...Taken directly from every porn film ever.
"oh no! the camera man has his penis out! what shall we do? I'll eat it till it goes away!"
Do they even still make Palmolive?
Yes.
I used to love digitiser. It never strayed away from providing absolutely top notch, quality content without any ego. The cult following and subtle but huge community spirit made it something quite amazing.
It's sad to hear now, tha tit got wrapped up last year.
Oh yeah, and digital services suck. They're slow, lacking in information, hard to read (how much can you anti-alias the text so its unreadable competitions must go on at press-red-button meetings) and have far too much eyecandy. id love a faster, cleaner teletex/ceefax please.
The myth that Wikipedia is a plethora of incorrect knowledge is such a load of bullshit. In my school years, I reguarly found errors and anomalies in the textbooks, and kist count of the times I sat at home as a young kid and found factual errors in my encyclopedias & sceience books.
Wikipedia ISN'T gospel and certainly has quite a lot of errors, but to suggest that it's 'not authoritative' is a load of rubbish. In a printed encyclopeda (i.e. those pretentious brittanica things rich white middle class families seem to hav eon display), you depend on a select number of individuals to share their knowledge.
There's nothing to suggest that these people could be any more 'authoritative' than someone submitting on Wikipedia; Don't forget that the net is packed full of bored but highly intelligent 'geeks'... just read some of the more insightful/interesting slashdot comments in the sceintific articles & you'll see that the intellect of some people on the net surpasses that of the 'encyclopedia book writing' variety. Whatever suggests that the article in my brittanica encyclopedia WASN'T written by someone who knows less about the subject than myself, but has a good textbook to hand.
I'd never trust Wikipedia as being the absolute truth, but then again, as a kid & ever since, I've never trusted textbooks and the such to be 100% accurate.
Comments like yours are what gives - what is wholly a selfless project - a bad name for no really good reason. If they were intentionally creating their own little rift, i'd be annoyed, but it's all in the name of free information.
For someone like me who left education much MUCH erlier than I was ever advised to, but was always a very high scoring individual at school, I enjoy the resource because it means I can learn new things in my own time... not forgetting to use my head and check the validity of the content before I concrete it in my brain. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's learnt a lot of stuff just by clicking 'random page' a few times a day...
I noticed that too, and I've now decided that I could code better actionscript than that with one arm behind my back & my eyes covered with a blindfold :-).
..or has someone hacked the query count part?
I agree that there should be a simple listing of it (although any half-decent programmer could try packet catching and watch what it requests.. its probably very easy to make a bespoke script to go get the data)....
BUT.. the flash implementation is very clear, easy to use and a good bit of coding. So Ner.
So. Anally. Retentive.
But so so so right as well. I agree... but then, when is there ever NOT some kind of error in slashdot stories?
Um, a few days ago when my kids asked me if we could 'give the kittens a bath'...
The problem with getting an animal to react with something mechanical is that, despite dogs generally being quite 'stupid', they can tell if something's alive or not.
It really sucks, but to even remotely make an aibo 'real' to a dog, you'd have to give it fur, a distinctive smell, an arsehole (all a dog wants to do is sniff it, honest), and some wierd high-pithced ultra sonic sounds.........
until we learn how dogs communicate fully, we'll never get a dog to communicate with a robot properly...
Well, i have great fun with my solderless xenium...
it needs paper rammed between it and the HDD to keep it from coming loose. wonderful.
It could be positioned in a mosquito filled lake... then quite cleverly skim accross water systematically and send a sharp, high frequency signal accross the surface of the water.... i think that might just work :-)
Agree in many ways... I think these jobs can be done already by boats, although the feleing is that if it's SKIMMING the water, it is not penetrating the miniscus (spag?), so wouldn't get eroded or contaminate any chemical mixture...