People more concerned about spending umpteen billions sending a remote controlled car to some distant rock than the starving millions in Africa.
I mean what great insight is this contributing? Can anyone justify using this money to study some rocks, instead of supplying clean drinking water for a thousand villages?
I support science that may directly help mankind, some time we may be forced to leave this rock. I think the tracking of near earth objects is money well spent, and research into rocket design and fuels. But this is none of those things. We are coddling stellar geologists while real people die. Get some priorities.
real charm of your basic [paper-based] magazine news feature: it takes plain old news and turns it into something you don't mind sitting down and reading for a long time
Paper magazines will always have a niche as, unlike online magazines, you can read them on the toilet.
How would you make a MMORPG significant for 'casual' players, yet not boring or too easy for the 'hardcore?'
This is a troubling question, but there is surely some creative spark that could figure out a workable solution around the problem.
How about, for instance, that you have characters that live and die as game time passes, having offspring which you can then control? Each character reaches a peak in late adulthood, then gradually decreases in power as age sets in. The casual gamer will have just as long at the peak as the hardcore gamer. And a casual gamer at their peak could be a match for a juvenile hardcore gamer.
Characteristics will be passed on, items, feuds, and to some extent, innate or trained ability. The hardcore gamers will get through a huge number of generations and this on its own would have a certain kudos. But they won't become so incredibly powerful that they are invulnerable to the casual player. Anyway, that's an idea off the top of my head, though it would create an interesting dynamic about protecting your offspring, passing on items, retiring characters and reforming relationships. And having sex with other characters.
I'm not familiar with the detail of the iTunes system. Is it legally your right to sell your downloaded songs onto a third party? If so, the watermarking issue is moot, if songs watermarked as being purchased by you were found to be shared, could you not concoct some plausible evidence that some A.Non from the Internet bought them off you, prior to them being shared?
"It wasn't me your honour. It was IP 212.34.56.12 who bought my tunes off me. I'm just the patsy."
As long as our hardware remains free of the Microsoft backed Palladium and "Trusted Computing" hardware DRM, it will always remain possible to circumvent and bypass any restrictions placed on media files.
It's clear that as DRM becomes more restrictive, the normal user will have to put up with more and more hassle just to use their own property. This can't and won't last forever. A consumer backlash is imminent.
It is a shame that even Apples middle road approach has been hijacked. I agree with the submitter, and I am confident Microsoft will be playing this up for all it's worth behind the scenes to hurt Apples iTunes business.
Some games have place where you just cannot get past. I had a frustrating morning trying to find the next part of a level in Jedi Knight II, then checked a FAQ where it should be. Turns out there was a bug in the game, and I downloaded a patch and moved on.
Otherwise the rest of the game would have been lost to me. Extreme example perhaps, but web stategy guides do come in useful, and it isn't always cheating.
You wouldn't be searching for "hate" or "love" as it is an image database. By definition you cannot get images of abstract complexes, just symbolic representations of them such as a love heart.
You know how to spend all day configuring various things. But here's the point you clearly aren't by any means what you would call a typical Apple user. You cannot extrapolate from the single case (you) to the whole of the Apple userbase.
The point I was trying to make was Apple computers are no more inherently secure than any other system from the point of view of the major problem, users.
Let's do a thought experiment. Say overnight, the market share that Microsoft enjoys was turned to Apple. All those users accessing the net with Apple computers and checking their e-mail with Apple computers. Now imagine that that community is coming under attack from the same diverse set of virus writers and professional gangsters that windows is. Would Apple stand up to that significantly better?? I would say not, for two reasons.
Aforementioned users: no matter what hoops they have to jump through, ignorant users will propagate viruses.
The power of the community: Apple has, I'm sure many vulnerabilities but they remain obscure because it is not worth virus writers time to discover them. The malicious scrutiny of global criminals and misguided hackers is an incredibly powerful force. Windows cannot stand up to it. Apple would have similar troubles in their shoes. One company against the combined (what could be called) "open source" virus community?
Many of you will disagree with the second point. We will see whether I am right or not, as Microsoft works to cover some of their blatant security holes. If they can succeed, then it will show that the open source virus community is not as powerful as I think it is.
By arguing the technical aspect, you're missing my point. Yes, an Apple out of the box is more secure than Windows Generic. But it still suffers from flaws, and these flaws will be revealed and exploited should Apple come to predominate, just as the flaws in Windows are exploited since they predominate the home user market. That was my point. Thanks for a constructive reply anyway. Some people get too worked up over their flavour of OS.
The REAL security problem in '04
on
Gates on Winsecurity
·
· Score: -1, Insightful
Whatever Gates may say, I think most people will agree most security problems boil down to one simple thing, the stupidity of the user. When I say stupidity, I do not mean it as an insulting term as it applies in every day life. Perhaps ignorance is a better term to use. For every RPC vulnerability in a badly written program, there are millions of users clicking on virus laden attachments. To know better is not rocket science. Once you get a feel for them, computers are very simple systems, complicated only in the fine detail, and there is a huge resource of information out there for anyone to easily find.
So how have we come to the situation as it appears today? How is there this sudden increase in ignorant users who, while singly can only destroy their own connective experience, in their millions can ruin the Internet for all of us. I mean the virus propagaters, the incompetent admins, the 1% who buy spam products.
I would suggest there are two modern phenomenon which account for the huge numbers of inept computing users. One is contained by the phrase "the October that never ended". Yes, AOL (and other ISPs) have to bear the burden for some of the mess. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving the inexperienced access to the web. But not giving them the most cursory Internet security information and programs is akin to leaving your car running and throwing the keys in the midst of a nearby group of drunken adolescents.
IMO the other main player in the make-a-fast-buck-off-the-stupid industry has to be Apple computers. Controversial, but let me explain. Apple computers are created for, and solely used by people who know, and want to know nothing about computers, the "proudly ignorants". This is a dangerous mindset to encourage. Their computers are set up to do everything for you, to treat the user with a kind of benevolent contempt. Some recent pricing of upgrades illustrates the kind of attitude Apple has to its customers. While relatively unpopular, Apple computers can safely get away with this. But like "security through obscurity" it is not a policy that can scale safely.
AOL and Apple are a twin prong attack on our Internet experience. Perhaps it is time to introduce a licensing scheme beginning with the users of these two products. We license Car drivers, because a bad car driver is a danger to others as well as himself. Increasingly it is becoming clear that inexperienced users must fall in the same category.
I guess I take your point, but there is a world of difference between me remembering a few hundred opening moves and hazily the tactical advantages available therafter, and a computers quickly searchable and comprehensive opening move database.
It's a bit like having a dictionary in a spelling contest, IMO. Cheating.
This little guy shows that as far as the goal of a fully working robotic (human-avatar) intelligence, mechanistically we're there. We can create an avatar which is robust enough to do the full human movements. Now we just need to improve the AI side of things. Let's face it, AI is severly lacking at the moment. I wouldn't say I'm an expert by any means, but I do try to keep up with the relevant research in the field.
Most experts agree the real test of artificial intelligence is, of course, found in game theory, with chess programs in particular gaining a lot of attention and publicity because of their year on year increase in performance thanks to better and better AI. But these certainly aren't quite up to scratch - a good example is a game I played just 10 minutes ago against the computer at so-called "Intermediate II" level.
I find most computer chess programs good at opening moves, because most have built in opening move databases (which I regard as cheating). I played the two knights defense as always, leading with 1....d4. The computer answered with its own two knights defense which is particularly annoying and insipid. That's one mark down for AI, mimicking human behaviour.
The trouble is chess AI is reactive rather than proactive and so whereas I was working to take down the right flank of the computers defence using a Queen bishop rook combo, it was just skirmishing around the centre to take a few pawns off me. Very poor AI.
Frankly, it's stategic thinking that the computer can't match us at, which was clear by move 27, where my move 27...KnC3-E4 forked a queen and rook. That sort of manouvering is quite obvious to the human intellect, and the advantage in points meant I went on to win the game quite comfortably again, with a rook v bishop endgame and quick checkmate.
Really all this just goes to illustrate that AI has a long way to go...I wouldn't say I was much more than a very good chess player.
Is anyone else worried that some future, deep theoretical physical measurement will, thanks to some poorly understood quantum something-or-other, cause the entire earth to explode?
Some physicist, meddling with a high powered particle accelerator, "click...oops?"
"How fascinating, I have accidentally annhilated the core of the earth...I must write this down, has anyone a biro?"
Gary Larson got there first of course. Physics worries me deeply.
Did you ever wonder what the hell was going on at the end of X-men 2?
Why did Jean Grey climb out of the ship to stop the tidal wave of water from the dam. If she's telekinetic, why couldn't she do it from in the ship? Why didn't she just lift the ship above the water?
How come Iceman didn't create a wall of ice to protect them? Or cyclops shot big red bolts of energy to vaporise the oncoming flood. Xaviar can move stuff telekinetically, why didn't he help? It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Personally, I think we should surrender to the terrorists straight away. Fighting it just means more children dying on the streets for your own ideals, which is a bit like the terrorists attitude. Obviously all the money saved could help the school system. And it isn't like the terrorists are going to appear in the US and start trying to run the place.
Aha, I know what you're going to say - that Israel would be destroyed. Invite all the Israelis to live in the US and become teachers. 2 problems sorted at once. We have to think out of the box on this one.
I utterly agree. A quick browse of the first few paragraphs made it clear the only intent of this article was to whip up a fervour by selective misrepresentation of the facts.
I work in the UK, in a Cat III laboratory and, like theirs, our laboratory ventilation is dependant on a power supply. Like them, we have numerous back ups. If I'm working in there, and the power goes out, I get 10 mins gratis from a UPS, then it goes over to generator. It takes about 30 seconds to make my work safe.
If any of you knew about the painstaking and utterly tedious bureaucracy we have to go through to make sure everything is totally safe, like me you'd laugh at this article for the ignorant piece of shit that it is. And for chrissakes, I'm not even working on anything that dangerous.
In every lab like this everything is done in safety cabinets which can be sealed, labs which can be sealed (NOT dependant on negative pressure to surroundings) and using disposable clothing and copious amounts of disinfectant. We spray every piece of equipment, every vial with 70% IMS like it was going out of fashion. If they were duct taping the doors, it was probably to keep them from blowing open without power to operate the locks. It wouldn't surprise if this 'journalist' took it from there to create his "DEADLY BIOLAB RELEASES DEADLY STUFF" bullshit.
(Oh, and West Nile virus is transmitted from ticks. The ticks bite the humans (or deer) and the virus is transmitted. If Plum Island was the source of the original outbreak, why did the ticks fly 13 miles NE when they could infect the lab workers all around? Oh, that's right it was a load of utter shite. Gutter journalism, among the crisp papers and fag ends.)
(Citing the Cuban government as a believable source really does it for me, too.)
Sigh...once again all sorts of frankly stupid claims are being made about the GPL. I don't even need to read the article here, it's clear what has happened.
Look, as it stands the GPL is a good license for protecting the collated effort of a large group of individuals, though it does have it's drawbacks. But for the submitter to claim the GPL can "bring back Loki", in other words can breath life back into failed and bankrupt companies is simply out the box. It's not going to happen. It's just a license.
Really, slashdot is so full of factual errors and frankly biased opinions like this that I wonder why I bother.
I've got to say these predictions seem pretty much spot on. Nintendo have never matched Sony nor really tried to as they are going for different markets. Nintendo was always aimed at the younger gamer, though it had enough top quality games like *Mario and *Zelda to appeal to a wider audience. But the hard core realistic driving games or stuff like resident evil were exceptions on Nintendo, rather than ubiquitous like with the Playstation.
I've been a bit hesitant about posting to Slashdot for a while, after being unfairly branded a troll and personally insulted just for expressing my views. But I have to say something here about my experiences with Firefox. I recently tried out Firefox, and found it to be a easy to use, speedy, convenient and powerful package which really improved my browsing experience. A bit like setting my filter to only show +5 posts on Slashdot! But I went back to Internet Explorer for this reason: my uneasiness over the morality of tabbed browsing. Bear with me here, I'll explain.
Pornography is a major problem on the internet, it is in fact THE major problem, worse than spam, hackers or even Windows!;) I find it difficult to admit to surfing the Internet to my Bible group. I can see the thought in their minds, that I'm misusing the Internet for the purposes of perverted onanism.
But what has this to do with Tabbed browsing and Mozilla? Well, I have to admit there was time in my life when I was very low and accidentally found a web page containing a host of pictures of a woman in a state of undress. I believe they are called thumbnail gallery posts. Now, with tabbed browsing, it is possible to easily middle click on all those thumbnails and download the lot, then flick through each picture one handed by just pressing a few keys, so my friends tell me. Luckily, I am stronger than that - I place my faith in the Lord, not my flesh in my shameful hand.
It was at this moment I realised that tabbed browsing made certain activities just TOO EASY, and as such Firefox as a whole was a temptation too far for many surfers. I deleted the History, and sold my computer and after a few months, when I felt safe again, bought a new one. I continue to use only Internet Explorer and have never looked back. With its cumbersome habit of only opening new windows, it is simply impossible to get up a good rhythm and click open the next tiny box on the taskbar at the same time, thank G-d.
Really this post was a call to the Mozilla and Firefox developers- please take this so-called "functionality" out of your product. It degrades woman.
Agreed. Wasted far too little of my life on my old C64 playing that game. Those homing fireballs every third or so fireball. Flicking from one side of the screen to the other. The absurd colour changes. The drum beat in the background. Sheer class. Pity it took half an hour to load.
How dare the US government walk over my civil liberties in such a way? If anyones going to simulate my back yard in a computer it'll goddam well be me.
What next, I wonder? Will our tax dollars be spent simulating what people look like underneath their clothes? Take a photo of someone in normal dress, then extrapolate their dangling manhoods? Is this the road we want to go down? Computer assisted blackmail?
Consider this: let's say that the information that the government uses to make this map is inaccurate. And then consider what might happen then if my backyard is invaded by terrorists (which could very well happen, my devasting counter replies to terrorist sympathisers on Slashdot is seriously crippling their propaganda campaign). Instead of the US soldiers studying the ground ahead and carefully setting down their lines of fire to avoid unecessary damage to my ornamental mirror pool with the plastic flamingo, they just crash on through regardless. And wither then my constitutional rights?
We are travelling down the rollercoaster of madness.
Slashdot Mirror
People more concerned about spending umpteen billions sending a remote controlled car to some distant rock than the starving millions in Africa.
I mean what great insight is this contributing? Can anyone justify using this money to study some rocks, instead of supplying clean drinking water for a thousand villages?
I support science that may directly help mankind, some time we may be forced to leave this rock. I think the tracking of near earth objects is money well spent, and research into rocket design and fuels. But this is none of those things. We are coddling stellar geologists while real people die. Get some priorities.
real charm of your basic [paper-based] magazine news feature: it takes plain old news and turns it into something you don't mind sitting down and reading for a long time Paper magazines will always have a niche as, unlike online magazines, you can read them on the toilet.
How would you make a MMORPG significant for 'casual' players, yet not boring or too easy for the 'hardcore?'
This is a troubling question, but there is surely some creative spark that could figure out a workable solution around the problem.
How about, for instance, that you have characters that live and die as game time passes, having offspring which you can then control? Each character reaches a peak in late adulthood, then gradually decreases in power as age sets in. The casual gamer will have just as long at the peak as the hardcore gamer. And a casual gamer at their peak could be a match for a juvenile hardcore gamer.
Characteristics will be passed on, items, feuds, and to some extent, innate or trained ability. The hardcore gamers will get through a huge number of generations and this on its own would have a certain kudos. But they won't become so incredibly powerful that they are invulnerable to the casual player. Anyway, that's an idea off the top of my head, though it would create an interesting dynamic about protecting your offspring, passing on items, retiring characters and reforming relationships. And having sex with other characters.
I'm not familiar with the detail of the iTunes system. Is it legally your right to sell your downloaded songs onto a third party? If so, the watermarking issue is moot, if songs watermarked as being purchased by you were found to be shared, could you not concoct some plausible evidence that some A.Non from the Internet bought them off you, prior to them being shared?
"It wasn't me your honour. It was IP 212.34.56.12 who bought my tunes off me. I'm just the patsy."
As long as our hardware remains free of the Microsoft backed Palladium and "Trusted Computing" hardware DRM, it will always remain possible to circumvent and bypass any restrictions placed on media files.
It's clear that as DRM becomes more restrictive, the normal user will have to put up with more and more hassle just to use their own property. This can't and won't last forever. A consumer backlash is imminent.
It is a shame that even Apples middle road approach has been hijacked. I agree with the submitter, and I am confident Microsoft will be playing this up for all it's worth behind the scenes to hurt Apples iTunes business.
Some games have place where you just cannot get past. I had a frustrating morning trying to find the next part of a level in Jedi Knight II, then checked a FAQ where it should be. Turns out there was a bug in the game, and I downloaded a patch and moved on.
Otherwise the rest of the game would have been lost to me. Extreme example perhaps, but web stategy guides do come in useful, and it isn't always cheating.
You wouldn't be searching for "hate" or "love" as it is an image database. By definition you cannot get images of abstract complexes, just symbolic representations of them such as a love heart.
The point I was trying to make was Apple computers are no more inherently secure than any other system from the point of view of the major problem, users.
Let's do a thought experiment. Say overnight, the market share that Microsoft enjoys was turned to Apple. All those users accessing the net with Apple computers and checking their e-mail with Apple computers. Now imagine that that community is coming under attack from the same diverse set of virus writers and professional gangsters that windows is. Would Apple stand up to that significantly better?? I would say not, for two reasons.
Aforementioned users: no matter what hoops they have to jump through, ignorant users will propagate viruses.
The power of the community: Apple has, I'm sure many vulnerabilities but they remain obscure because it is not worth virus writers time to discover them. The malicious scrutiny of global criminals and misguided hackers is an incredibly powerful force. Windows cannot stand up to it. Apple would have similar troubles in their shoes. One company against the combined (what could be called) "open source" virus community?
Many of you will disagree with the second point. We will see whether I am right or not, as Microsoft works to cover some of their blatant security holes. If they can succeed, then it will show that the open source virus community is not as powerful as I think it is.
By arguing the technical aspect, you're missing my point. Yes, an Apple out of the box is more secure than Windows Generic. But it still suffers from flaws, and these flaws will be revealed and exploited should Apple come to predominate, just as the flaws in Windows are exploited since they predominate the home user market. That was my point. Thanks for a constructive reply anyway. Some people get too worked up over their flavour of OS.
Whatever Gates may say, I think most people will agree most security problems boil down to one simple thing, the stupidity of the user. When I say stupidity, I do not mean it as an insulting term as it applies in every day life. Perhaps ignorance is a better term to use. For every RPC vulnerability in a badly written program, there are millions of users clicking on virus laden attachments. To know better is not rocket science. Once you get a feel for them, computers are very simple systems, complicated only in the fine detail, and there is a huge resource of information out there for anyone to easily find.
So how have we come to the situation as it appears today? How is there this sudden increase in ignorant users who, while singly can only destroy their own connective experience, in their millions can ruin the Internet for all of us. I mean the virus propagaters, the incompetent admins, the 1% who buy spam products.
I would suggest there are two modern phenomenon which account for the huge numbers of inept computing users. One is contained by the phrase "the October that never ended". Yes, AOL (and other ISPs) have to bear the burden for some of the mess. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving the inexperienced access to the web. But not giving them the most cursory Internet security information and programs is akin to leaving your car running and throwing the keys in the midst of a nearby group of drunken adolescents.
IMO the other main player in the make-a-fast-buck-off-the-stupid industry has to be Apple computers. Controversial, but let me explain. Apple computers are created for, and solely used by people who know, and want to know nothing about computers, the "proudly ignorants". This is a dangerous mindset to encourage. Their computers are set up to do everything for you, to treat the user with a kind of benevolent contempt. Some recent pricing of upgrades illustrates the kind of attitude Apple has to its customers. While relatively unpopular, Apple computers can safely get away with this. But like "security through obscurity" it is not a policy that can scale safely.
AOL and Apple are a twin prong attack on our Internet experience. Perhaps it is time to introduce a licensing scheme beginning with the users of these two products. We license Car drivers, because a bad car driver is a danger to others as well as himself. Increasingly it is becoming clear that inexperienced users must fall in the same category.
How does gravity work?
I guess I take your point, but there is a world of difference between me remembering a few hundred opening moves and hazily the tactical advantages available therafter, and a computers quickly searchable and comprehensive opening move database.
It's a bit like having a dictionary in a spelling contest, IMO. Cheating.
This little guy shows that as far as the goal of a fully working robotic (human-avatar) intelligence, mechanistically we're there. We can create an avatar which is robust enough to do the full human movements. Now we just need to improve the AI side of things. Let's face it, AI is severly lacking at the moment. I wouldn't say I'm an expert by any means, but I do try to keep up with the relevant research in the field.
Most experts agree the real test of artificial intelligence is, of course, found in game theory, with chess programs in particular gaining a lot of attention and publicity because of their year on year increase in performance thanks to better and better AI. But these certainly aren't quite up to scratch - a good example is a game I played just 10 minutes ago against the computer at so-called "Intermediate II" level.
I find most computer chess programs good at opening moves, because most have built in opening move databases (which I regard as cheating). I played the two knights defense as always, leading with 1....d4. The computer answered with its own two knights defense which is particularly annoying and insipid. That's one mark down for AI, mimicking human behaviour.
The trouble is chess AI is reactive rather than proactive and so whereas I was working to take down the right flank of the computers defence using a Queen bishop rook combo, it was just skirmishing around the centre to take a few pawns off me. Very poor AI.
Frankly, it's stategic thinking that the computer can't match us at, which was clear by move 27, where my move 27...KnC3-E4 forked a queen and rook. That sort of manouvering is quite obvious to the human intellect, and the advantage in points meant I went on to win the game quite comfortably again, with a rook v bishop endgame and quick checkmate.
Really all this just goes to illustrate that AI has a long way to go...I wouldn't say I was much more than a very good chess player.
Is anyone else worried that some future, deep theoretical physical measurement will, thanks to some poorly understood quantum something-or-other, cause the entire earth to explode?
Some physicist, meddling with a high powered particle accelerator, "click...oops?"
"How fascinating, I have accidentally annhilated the core of the earth...I must write this down, has anyone a biro?"
Gary Larson got there first of course. Physics worries me deeply.
You must be the *BSD developer. And user.
Why is this offtopic? Can any of you fucks even read?
I never realised you could actually have a negative IQ.
Did you ever wonder what the hell was going on at the end of X-men 2?
Why did Jean Grey climb out of the ship to stop the tidal wave of water from the dam. If she's telekinetic, why couldn't she do it from in the ship? Why didn't she just lift the ship above the water?
How come Iceman didn't create a wall of ice to protect them? Or cyclops shot big red bolts of energy to vaporise the oncoming flood. Xaviar can move stuff telekinetically, why didn't he help? It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Personally, I think we should surrender to the terrorists straight away. Fighting it just means more children dying on the streets for your own ideals, which is a bit like the terrorists attitude. Obviously all the money saved could help the school system. And it isn't like the terrorists are going to appear in the US and start trying to run the place.
Aha, I know what you're going to say - that Israel would be destroyed. Invite all the Israelis to live in the US and become teachers. 2 problems sorted at once. We have to think out of the box on this one.
I utterly agree. A quick browse of the first few paragraphs made it clear the only intent of this article was to whip up a fervour by selective misrepresentation of the facts.
.
I work in the UK, in a Cat III laboratory and, like theirs, our laboratory ventilation is dependant on a power supply. Like them, we have numerous back ups. If I'm working in there, and the power goes out, I get 10 mins gratis from a UPS, then it goes over to generator. It takes about 30 seconds to make my work safe.
If any of you knew about the painstaking and utterly tedious bureaucracy we have to go through to make sure everything is totally safe, like me you'd laugh at this article for the ignorant piece of shit that it is. And for chrissakes, I'm not even working on anything that dangerous.
In every lab like this everything is done in safety cabinets which can be sealed, labs which can be sealed (NOT dependant on negative pressure to surroundings) and using disposable clothing and copious amounts of disinfectant. We spray every piece of equipment, every vial with 70% IMS like it was going out of fashion. If they were duct taping the doors, it was probably to keep them from blowing open without power to operate the locks. It wouldn't surprise if this 'journalist' took it from there to create his "DEADLY BIOLAB RELEASES DEADLY STUFF" bullshit
(Oh, and West Nile virus is transmitted from ticks. The ticks bite the humans (or deer) and the virus is transmitted. If Plum Island was the source of the original outbreak, why did the ticks fly 13 miles NE when they could infect the lab workers all around? Oh, that's right it was a load of utter shite. Gutter journalism, among the crisp papers and fag ends.)
(Citing the Cuban government as a believable source really does it for me, too.)
Oh man! You accuse me of errors. No where in my post did I mis-spell GPL!!! What are you on about???
I can read fine - get thee to an optician!
Sigh...once again all sorts of frankly stupid claims are being made about the GPL. I don't even need to read the article here, it's clear what has happened.
Look, as it stands the GPL is a good license for protecting the collated effort of a large group of individuals, though it does have it's drawbacks. But for the submitter to claim the GPL can "bring back Loki", in other words can breath life back into failed and bankrupt companies is simply out the box. It's not going to happen. It's just a license.
Really, slashdot is so full of factual errors and frankly biased opinions like this that I wonder why I bother.
I've got to say these predictions seem pretty much spot on. Nintendo have never matched Sony nor really tried to as they are going for different markets. Nintendo was always aimed at the younger gamer, though it had enough top quality games like *Mario and *Zelda to appeal to a wider audience. But the hard core realistic driving games or stuff like resident evil were exceptions on Nintendo, rather than ubiquitous like with the Playstation.
I've been a bit hesitant about posting to Slashdot for a while, after being unfairly branded a troll and personally insulted just for expressing my views. But I have to say something here about my experiences with Firefox. I recently tried out Firefox, and found it to be a easy to use, speedy, convenient and powerful package which really improved my browsing experience. A bit like setting my filter to only show +5 posts on Slashdot! But I went back to Internet Explorer for this reason: my uneasiness over the morality of tabbed browsing. Bear with me here, I'll explain.
;) I find it difficult to admit to surfing the Internet to my Bible group. I can see the thought in their minds, that I'm misusing the Internet for the purposes of perverted onanism.
Pornography is a major problem on the internet, it is in fact THE major problem, worse than spam, hackers or even Windows!
But what has this to do with Tabbed browsing and Mozilla? Well, I have to admit there was time in my life when I was very low and accidentally found a web page containing a host of pictures of a woman in a state of undress. I believe they are called thumbnail gallery posts. Now, with tabbed browsing, it is possible to easily middle click on all those thumbnails and download the lot, then flick through each picture one handed by just pressing a few keys, so my friends tell me. Luckily, I am stronger than that - I place my faith in the Lord, not my flesh in my shameful hand.
It was at this moment I realised that tabbed browsing made certain activities just TOO EASY, and as such Firefox as a whole was a temptation too far for many surfers. I deleted the History, and sold my computer and after a few months, when I felt safe again, bought a new one. I continue to use only Internet Explorer and have never looked back. With its cumbersome habit of only opening new windows, it is simply impossible to get up a good rhythm and click open the next tiny box on the taskbar at the same time, thank G-d.
Really this post was a call to the Mozilla and Firefox developers- please take this so-called "functionality" out of your product. It degrades woman.
Agreed. Wasted far too little of my life on my old C64 playing that game. Those homing fireballs every third or so fireball. Flicking from one side of the screen to the other. The absurd colour changes. The drum beat in the background. Sheer class. Pity it took half an hour to load.
How dare the US government walk over my civil liberties in such a way? If anyones going to simulate my back yard in a computer it'll goddam well be me.
What next, I wonder? Will our tax dollars be spent simulating what people look like underneath their clothes? Take a photo of someone in normal dress, then extrapolate their dangling manhoods? Is this the road we want to go down? Computer assisted blackmail?
Consider this: let's say that the information that the government uses to make this map is inaccurate. And then consider what might happen then if my backyard is invaded by terrorists (which could very well happen, my devasting counter replies to terrorist sympathisers on Slashdot is seriously crippling their propaganda campaign). Instead of the US soldiers studying the ground ahead and carefully setting down their lines of fire to avoid unecessary damage to my ornamental mirror pool with the plastic flamingo, they just crash on through regardless. And wither then my constitutional rights?
We are travelling down the rollercoaster of madness.