That's because when you search for 'windows computer' you are really saying this: "Please find all the sites with 'windows' OR 'computer', but sort them so the ones with both 'windows' AND 'computer' are at the top of the list.
"Mac" is a substring of "Macintosh". Therefore every "Macintosh" site will also show up as a "Mac" site. You are counting the same sites twice.
Fair Enforcement impossible.
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Okay, Let's step aside for a moment and ignore the issue about whether you are for or against drug legalization. There are other big problems with this law, starting with the fact that WEB URLS ARE NOT STATIC!!! If I link to someone's geocities site today with an article about kittens, then that person drops their account, then the same URL will point to someone else's page later on. So just because I link to a drug page doesn't mean I did so knowingly. You can't prove intent. And what if someone changes their homepage after you linked to it? What if someone adds drug information to their page after your link was made? There's no way you should be held responsible for that.
And what about Search engines? Will Altavista, Yahoo, and Excite and so on have to filter their engine's content to block drug sites? If they try it will have all the same stunning success as attempts at porn censoring have had (none).
I'm sick of this shit. I want to start a technocracy - if you don't know a damn thing about something, then you have no right to legislate how it works.
He never said you can't tweak it. Just that you can't tweak it with anything other than the publicly available information. (No 'secret' registry twiddling, for example, unless its a well-known published twiddle.)
You try to make the point that the parent should be there to make the judgement call when things get 'too adult' for the kid. Your argument has the hole that the movie industry has chosen ahead of time, before the parents had any say, that movie X requires their attendence and movie Y does not. The decision to require their attendence or not is removed from the parent's control.
Oh, man. I love Weird Al, but of all the songs on the album he could've picked a better one to make a video for. I skip past that song on the CD every time it comes up. It's too full of tired old cliche's and "I'm cool cause I know how to turn on a computer"-type claptrap. "I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him Money for short." - Puh-lease. Barf.
I'd have much rather seen *any* of the other songs turned into videos. (Somehow I think the song that would be best enhanced with visuals is "Truck Drivin Song" - that could come out very funny if it was doen right.
IMO "All about the Pentiums" is the second worst Al song ever. It would be the worst if it weren't for the existence of "Waffle King".
Other than that one song, though, it was a great album.
Again, let me repeat what the earlier poster pointed out: HITLER is high on the list. This is clearly not about whether the person was a good guy or not. It is about how much events tended to pivot around the person and how influential they were. An awful lot of modern day politics and culture is a backlash against Hitler. Much of the map of Europe is like it is due to his influence. The divided east/west Germany that existed for so long was done out of fear of Hitler's legacy. His immensely powerful dark menace was enough to get the US and USSR to cooperate, which is no small thing. Any time someone acts predjudiced we immediately are reminded of Hitler. His influence was *huge*, mostly as an example of how easy it is to corrupt otherwise good people.
So anyway, it's not a contest for who is most likeable. And I don't think Linus belongs there. The nature of open/free software is such that no single leader's name really belongs up there. It's the power of lots of cooperating people that made Linux good, and it got where it is by standing on the shoulders of others (instead of crushing them). This is a really good thing, but the credit for it is spread out amongst lots of people, such that there is no one single person that deserves the 'man of the year'. it's really more of a 'team of the year'.
Yes, there's lots more non-programming users than programmers. But without the programmers there'd be nothing for the non-programming users to actually use. Saying the programmers' preferences are irrelevant because we are the minority is short-sighted. It's like saying that grocery stores are more important than farmers, since most people buy their food from grocery stores and not from the farmers. Without the farmers there's nothing for the stores to sell. Without people who 'hack', there's nothing for the Jobs, Gates, and their collegues to sell either.
The media loved the image of a nice old nun giving up everything to help the poor and choosing to go live amongst them to share their plight. So they helped Mother T. get that image. But she was anything *but* compassionate. She liked to see suffering, saying that it was a good thing. She refused painkillers to her patients, saying that fighting through the pain was spiritually enriching. She was a sadist, wrapped up in the false sancity of religion. Her 'clinics' were just houses of beds for people to go to die.
I think you are falling victim to a common bug in the English Language 1.0: There are no clear definite associative operators other than long pauses in time. You can't use parentheses because they already are used in English 1.0 as comment delimiters (like this). I think the trademark is supposed to be this: (Redhat Linux) is a trademark, not Redhat (Linux) is a trademark.
My link got altered by slashdot's HTML filtering, I think. It has the same problem yours did. I typed in this: <A HREF="buncha stuff here"> buncha stuff here </A> And it deleted the stuff after the HREF= when I submitted it.
Yours doesn't work either. (It works if I select it and cut&paste, but not when I click it. It looks like the URL you put in the HREF=... part doesn't match what you are showing on the screen.) What you show on the screen was right, though. Here's the corrected correct link.
To all the NRA types out there: note that despite all your theories to the contrary, the countries that have stricter gun control, like Canada and most of Europe, don't step on personal liberties as much as the US does. This is in direct contradiction to your claims that an unarmed citizenry will inevitably be persecuted by its government. I have no idea why this is. In theory the NRA idea makes sense to me, but in practice it hasn't worked out that way. Why is this?
What does the first amendment have to do with this? You are completely free to say whatever it is you want to say.
You aren't free to say, "Here's an encryption program I wrote: ". Source code is speech, just as much as writing any other 'document' is."
(Yes I know that the law is technically about the software and not the source code. But if you use an interpeted language like perl then they are the same thing.)
The CIA has no jurisdiction outside the US either. No US agency has jurisdiction outside the US. Not that that stops them from acting like they do anyway...
The best defense against this idiocy is to point out that not all links are made manually by a human. What about links made programatically? If linking to a 'hate' site makes you just as guilty as creating the site in the first place, then you can claim that all search engines are guilty for all hate sites that they have on record that a search might return. That would pretty much be all the hate sites on the net excepting any that might be deliberately hiding from spiders.
It shouldn't be the linker's responsibility to compensate for the fact that Universal has incompetent web designers. If they want to force all visitors to see the banner ads, then all they need to do is put the HTML boilerplate for the banner section into a seperate small file and include it at the top of every page with.shtml files. Then it doesn't matter how deep you link, you still get the banner on each page.
(Look at slashdot - no matter how deep you go, the banner is always there.)
If they want all visitors to see ads, then put the ads on each page like that. Otherwise don't. But they shouldn't ruin the entire WWW by setting the precident that deep links are illegal without permission ahead of time. Deep links should be legally no different than telling a friend "Hey, check out page 47 of the November 4th issue of NewsWeek." When I read a magazine or newspaper am I breaking the law when I skim past the ads and ignore them?
Let the owner decide how to dedicate secondary storage to save-points. It's such a waste to have a fixed number of save 'slots' on each game when with some games you will have few savepoints and with others you will have many. When you save them on your hard drive you get to decide how to proportion the total save space, by saving one game many times and other games not so manytimes. (For example, I might want to have 40 saved Strategy games, but only 1 or 2 saved racing games.)
Buy lots of memory and swap between two games at once.
Play a game 'in the background' while getting work done, all on the same screen.
high digital resolutions: TV screens suck.
I can choose to spend lots of money only on those bits of hardware that matter to me. For example, since my hearing is less than perfect, I can't really hear the difference between 8-bit and 16-bit audio anyway, so I might as well just go with the cheap cards. Similarly a color-blind person doesn't need as expensive a monitor as someone else.
Re:8-ball page is fake.
on
Quickie Fu
·
· Score: 1
In response to the above comments: Yes I know all about proxies and shift-reload. I was not using a proxy server, and shift-reload still gave the same page. Even doing a "clear memory cache" and "clear disk cache" didn't change anything, and *that* was a clear sign that something was up. But the weird thing is that it works correctly now and I didn't change anything on my side. (doing the same exact steps now yeilds different results on each hit. It didn't before.)
Coming in to vote and giving a write-in sends the message that you are fed up with the other choices, but you aren't lazy. Not voting is indistinguishable from apathy and your little protest goes totally uncounted.
I think we need a Godwin's Law Version 2.0: Any on-line debate, in whatever forum (usenet, slashdot, whatever), eventually turns into a debate about gun control, at which point all useful discussion is done and the thread is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because when you search for 'windows computer' you are really saying this: "Please find all the sites with 'windows' OR 'computer', but sort them so the ones with both 'windows' AND 'computer' are at the top of the list.
"Mac" is a substring of "Macintosh". Therefore every "Macintosh" site will also show up as a "Mac" site. You are counting the same sites twice.
And what about Search engines? Will Altavista, Yahoo, and Excite and so on have to filter their engine's content to block drug sites? If they try it will have all the same stunning success as attempts at porn censoring have had (none).
I'm sick of this shit. I want to start a technocracy - if you don't know a damn thing about something, then you have no right to legislate how it works.
He never said you can't tweak it. Just that you can't tweak it with anything other than the publicly available information. (No 'secret' registry twiddling, for example, unless its a well-known published twiddle.)
You try to make the point that the parent should be there to make the judgement call when things get 'too adult' for the kid. Your argument has the hole that the movie industry has chosen ahead of time, before the parents had any say, that movie X requires their attendence and movie Y does not. The decision to require their attendence or not is removed from the parent's control.
I'd have much rather seen *any* of the other songs turned into videos. (Somehow I think the song that would be best enhanced with visuals is "Truck Drivin Song" - that could come out very funny if it was doen right.
IMO "All about the Pentiums" is the second worst Al song ever. It would be the worst if it weren't for the existence of "Waffle King".
Other than that one song, though, it was a great album.
So anyway, it's not a contest for who is most likeable. And I don't think Linus belongs there. The nature of open/free software is such that no single leader's name really belongs up there. It's the power of lots of cooperating people that made Linux good, and it got where it is by standing on the shoulders of others (instead of crushing them). This is a really good thing, but the credit for it is spread out amongst lots of people, such that there is no one single person that deserves the 'man of the year'. it's really more of a 'team of the year'.
Yes, there's lots more non-programming users than programmers. But without the programmers there'd be nothing for the non-programming users to actually use. Saying the programmers' preferences are irrelevant because we are the minority is short-sighted. It's like saying that grocery stores are more important than farmers, since most people buy their food from grocery stores and not from the farmers. Without the farmers there's nothing for the stores to sell. Without people who 'hack', there's nothing for the Jobs, Gates, and their collegues to sell either.
The media loved the image of a nice old nun giving up everything to help the poor and choosing to go live amongst them to share their plight. So they helped Mother T. get that image. But she was anything *but* compassionate. She liked to see suffering, saying that it was a good thing. She refused painkillers to her patients, saying that fighting through the pain was spiritually enriching. She was a sadist, wrapped up in the false sancity of religion. Her 'clinics' were just houses of beds for people to go to die.
Certainly he's no hero, and as far as villiany goes, he's too small-time to be at #4. Plenty of dictators existed that should outrank him.
I think you are falling victim to a common bug in the English Language 1.0: There are no clear definite associative operators other than long pauses in time. You can't use parentheses because they already are used in English 1.0 as comment delimiters (like this). I think the trademark is supposed to be this: (Redhat Linux) is a trademark, not Redhat (Linux) is a trademark.
<A HREF="buncha stuff here">
buncha stuff here
</A>
And it deleted the stuff after the HREF= when I submitted it.
Rob, something is broke on your site I think.
Yours doesn't work either. (It works if I select it and cut&paste, but not when I click it. It looks like the URL you put in the HREF=... part doesn't match what you are showing on the screen.) What you show on the screen was right, though. Here's the corrected correct link.
To all the NRA types out there: note that despite all your theories to the contrary, the countries that have stricter gun control, like Canada and most of Europe, don't step on personal liberties as much as the US does. This is in direct contradiction to your claims that an unarmed citizenry will inevitably be persecuted by its government. I have no idea why this is. In theory the NRA idea makes sense to me, but in practice it hasn't worked out that way. Why is this?
- What does the first amendment have to do with this? You are completely free to say whatever it is you want to say.
You aren't free to say, "Here's an encryption program I wrote: ". Source code is speech, just as much as writing any other 'document' is."(Yes I know that the law is technically about the software and not the source code. But if you use an interpeted language like perl then they are the same thing.)
The CIA has no jurisdiction outside the US either. No US agency has jurisdiction outside the US. Not that that stops them from acting like they do anyway...
The best defense against this idiocy is to point out that not all links are made manually by a human. What about links made programatically? If linking to a 'hate' site makes you just as guilty as creating the site in the first place, then you can claim that all search engines are guilty for all hate sites that they have on record that a search might return. That would pretty much be all the hate sites on the net excepting any that might be deliberately hiding from spiders.
(Look at slashdot - no matter how deep you go, the banner is always there.)
If they want all visitors to see ads, then put the ads on each page like that. Otherwise don't. But they shouldn't ruin the entire WWW by setting the precident that deep links are illegal without permission ahead of time. Deep links should be legally no different than telling a friend "Hey, check out page 47 of the November 4th issue of NewsWeek." When I read a magazine or newspaper am I breaking the law when I skim past the ads and ignore them?
You're supposed to ask only yes/no questions.
Anyway, the 8-ball is a really cool idea.
I get the exact same answer every time I hit
the 8-ball page. Exactly. The same look to
the images too. I think it's a fake mockup.
Coming in to vote and giving a write-in sends the message that you are fed up with the other choices, but you aren't lazy. Not voting is indistinguishable from apathy and your little protest goes totally uncounted.
I think we need a Godwin's Law Version 2.0: Any on-line debate, in whatever forum (usenet, slashdot, whatever), eventually turns into a debate about gun control, at which point all useful discussion is done and the thread is dead.
I stopped reading right there. This is a false statement, and since your article seems to be based on this premise, it is pointless to go any further.