Is the OP suggesting that one or more politicans may have lied? That's unprecedented! I supposed next he'd have us believe that beer drinkers belch or that the whole notion of royalty is sadly dated and rather silly.;-P
I have an assignment for both of you C-sprang-from-itself guys. Get a chicken egg from the source I specify. Write the letter 'U' on it. Hatch it. It will be a hen, because I have mad skills like that. Name the hen 'C'. When that hen is old enough to lay eggs, introduce it to a rooster and give them some privacy in whatever setting chickens find romantic. I don't know what that might be, but I think it's safe to assume it will be a space free of foxes and cats. That hen is your source. Wait for it to lay the egg from which it hatched, the one on which you already wrote 'U', you know, back before it hatched. Document your method and the results. When you manage that, get back to me with your data, sans semantic BS.
"Obviously C wasn't used to build the OS that C was built on."
Actually.... C was pretty much was made as the language they were implementing Unix in (which was, of course, the operating system that C was built on.
In 1969 Dennis Ritchie started to create the C programming language for use with UNIX. He couldn't have created the OS on the computer on which he began creating C in C because he hadn't created it yet. If he created it on a UNIX machine, then he created C on an OS written in assembly language.
...who said you couldn't write an OS in C#, or that you couldn't write one without C? Obviously C wasn't used to build the OS that C was built on. And if that someone said they couldn't do it was their reason for doing it, quick, someone tell them that there isn't an OS written in COBOL and that they can't paint your house with a toothbrush. And no, if I say I think it's a waste of your time to paint a house with a toothbrush, it isn't because it's a Microsoft toothbrush or Microsoft paint or that you're painting a Microsoft house, it's because it's a frickin' toothbrush. By the way, I love how the FAQ link takes you to a page that tells you they moved the FAQ instead of just taking you there. It reminds me of all those links wannabe web designers did in the style If you'd like to read about Obvious Anchor Target click here.
You have to opt in for Google to get any information beyond your IP address, they are in charge of many of the communication channels you use if you choose to use those they control and they effectively control much of the information that you receive through them. How does any of that make them remarkably different from News Corp., Microsoft, Verizon or the like?
Google's naming policy strikes me as a non-issue. It won't prevent anyone from publishing indirectly, by way of an out-of-area friend, which is safer option anyway if you're posting about a government that wishes to silence you. It seems to me that worst case, it creates an opening for Google's competitors. Last I checked there were still many of those. Were it a government decision it'd be a different matter.
Have you seen the show? You're giving more credit than is due in suggesting any intent to teach or learn anything at all, let alone science. 500 bored, unfocused child volunteers as an analogue for an experienced, disciplined military unit? It's entertainment, not science. The goal is never really to prove or to disprove anything, it's to destroy stuff. The *cough* science *cough* is there to provide an excuse for destroying it. That's why when a few ounces of some common household substance doesn't blow something up you find them substituting 400 pounds of high explosive before show's end.
First, get a million dollars...
If you can get the user to download and open your attachment it doesn't matter which platform is involved, you've got them.
It turns it out it's not much of an indicator of anything. Since first hearing about the study, I embarked on a study of my own, starting with guitarists, and then extending to just about everyone I met or saw.
</snip>
The trouble with your study, and theirs, isn't with the size of the finger but the size of the sample. I'd love to see the results of yours get press though. There would be something oddly satisfying about a headline which read Study Finds No Particular Correlation Between Finger Sizes and Skill Sets. More satisfying, though, would be one that read Study Finds Researchers and Reporters Unduly Influenced by Statistical Anomalies. And neither would be a good name for a band.
Score 1? Gosh, someone mod that up. Sure it's mean, a tad exaggerated and rather typical here, but it's funny. And there's a little truth in it. The single thing that most made me start appreciating XP was having to start repairing Vista machines at work. On more than one occasion I've turned a Vista PC on and fixed the computer next to it before it finished booting. Vista is pretty, and no doubt improves on security, but fire it up on the more affordable PCs and XP's startup seems blazing fast by comparison. Unrelated... isn't a vista a place from where you see a distant view of where you really want to be?;-)
Holy cow yes! You're addicted to all of those things! How many times a day do you use the restroom? JUNKIE!!;-)
What's with the journalistic trend of equating frequency with addiction anyway? I say 'hi' at least 30 times a day, on a slow day. Am I hooked?
The ultimate fair playing field doesn't represent social change? It's not about social change, politics, etc., to you, but it is not about you. It is about social change to Richard Stallman, who has contributed to it far more than you have, but it isn't about him either. Can what it is be reduced to soundbite? Is there any reason to try?
And not even a good joke. Yeah, yeah, wouldn't it be cute if we took a picture of that tradeshow mock-up and reported on it as if it were an actual product. That hasn't been done two million times before.
I have read pretty much everyones response and no one seems to like this.As far as I can tell,everyone...
I wouldn't worry too much about what most people think. Most people are lousy prognosticators. When it opened, most people predicted Chuck E. Cheese's would take off but it faultered while and nearly died. Then when it went bankrupt and changed hands most people predicted that we'd seen the end of Chuck E. Cheese's but it took off and there are now somewhere around 500 locations. Most people once thought microcomputers would never go beyond niche market status. Then when it when it started to become clear that they were wrong about that, most people predicted that IBM would dominate the desktop. Then they thought the Internet just a fad. Then...
What do you think that they thought they were doing?
Who are they? Putting aside whether or not they were hacking, and whether or not they should be punished for it, how would one know just who they were? How would one know that the person who tried to check an applicant's status was actually the applicant and not his friend, or his neighbor, or his enemy, or just someone who pulled a name out of a hat because he wanted to see how it worked?
I can't name a single other programmer I've known who writes/has written REXX applications.
REXX was my Swiss Army knife for the last two BBSes I ran. I used it to fetch FidoNet mail for our network, test and process files from FidoNet file echos, pull and convert newsgroup content, mirror ftp sites, let users of my public BBS chat with users of my private BBS, handle fax transmissions coming in on the BBS lines and to do most anything Maximus or RemoteAccess didn't do out-of-the-box or didn't do the way I'd liked. But I haven't done anything with it since I took my last BBS down in '97...
The bottom line is, was, and always will be, this: if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about!
So let's get rid of the need for warrants, eh? If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. Let's allow law enforcement officers to wiretap whomever they want, whenever they want. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. And let's outlaw blinds, drapes, curtains and other window coverings so criminals can't hide as well. If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need privacy? If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need any rights at all?
I'm think that this, like many other "security measures" since 9/11, is a placebo designed soley to comfort an ignorant population by making them think that someone is actually doing something useful.
And then there's the matter of perspective. On average, how many people in the US are killed by terrorists each year? And how does it compare to the number killed in countries with twice as much security? Or in countries with half as much? How does it compare to the number of people killed by spoiled lunchmeat? Snakes? Choking? And how many may be dying thanks to where monies no longer go now that they go toward security issues? It's definitely more about playing on emotions than applying logic.
...with a password prompt and the message 'your server will gladly enter the password for you'? I'd wager that having to interact with the wait staff to get connected would dramatically reduce the number of leeches.
I was fully aware that no matter how far I travelled, how many people I interviewed, and how huge and long the thing would be, someone would come out, point, and go 'you missed a spot'. You won't be the last, I am sure.
I wasn't saying you missed a spot as much as wondering aloud why you missed it. It goes without saying that you couldn't get to everyone. And hey, I applaud your achievement. Judging by your site it appears to be an impressive work. Just FYI, the reason I noticed the spot I did is that in it is almost everyone I remember who wrote something that I ran on my BBSes between '85 and '97. Of all those authors, only Chuck Forsberg made your list. Considering what you've put into it, it really says something about the sheer size of the BBS scene in its heyday, doesn't it?
Looks to be interesting, and good fun, and congratulations on getting it finished, but is that interview list complete? Not that it isn't a lovely list, but aside from a few of the obvious, like Tom Jennings, Wynn Wagner, Bob Hartman and Chuck Forsberg, there seem to be a significant number of glaring omissions. Just some of those (listed with things they wrote or to which they contributed, for those who don't recognize them by name) would be...
Amit Patel - Barren Realms Elite
Andrew Milner - RemoteAccess
Chris Sherrick - Trade Wars
Dave Kaufman - Star Trader
Dave Winer - LBBS
Gregory Yob - Hunt The Wumpus
John Morris - Trade Wars
Mark Kimes - XBBS
Mike Berry - XBBS
Ray Gwinn - X00, SIO FOSSILs
Scott Dudley - Maximus, Squish
Seth Abel - LoRD
Vince Perriello - BinkleyTerm
I wouldn't have expected to see all of those names on your list, as I'd imagine not all would be available, but I'm quite surprised to see none of them on it. And those were just the ones that jumped out at me. Perhaps just a matter of availability? Or maybe reason for a sequel?;-) And hey, if you do another, look up John Cowan and Jon Shemitz. I think their influence on the BBS scene has been seriously underestimated.
My apologies to anyone whose name I mangled. It's been a few years since I took the last of my BBSes down.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the OP suggesting that one or more politicans may have lied? That's unprecedented! I supposed next he'd have us believe that beer drinkers belch or that the whole notion of royalty is sadly dated and rather silly. ;-P
I have an assignment for both of you C-sprang-from-itself guys. Get a chicken egg from the source I specify. Write the letter 'U' on it. Hatch it. It will be a hen, because I have mad skills like that. Name the hen 'C'. When that hen is old enough to lay eggs, introduce it to a rooster and give them some privacy in whatever setting chickens find romantic. I don't know what that might be, but I think it's safe to assume it will be a space free of foxes and cats. That hen is your source. Wait for it to lay the egg from which it hatched, the one on which you already wrote 'U', you know, back before it hatched. Document your method and the results. When you manage that, get back to me with your data, sans semantic BS.
"Obviously C wasn't used to build the OS that C was built on."
Actually.... C was pretty much was made as the language they were implementing Unix in (which was, of course, the operating system that C was built on.
In 1969 Dennis Ritchie started to create the C programming language for use with UNIX. He couldn't have created the OS on the computer on which he began creating C in C because he hadn't created it yet. If he created it on a UNIX machine, then he created C on an OS written in assembly language.
...who said you couldn't write an OS in C#, or that you couldn't write one without C? Obviously C wasn't used to build the OS that C was built on. And if that someone said they couldn't do it was their reason for doing it, quick, someone tell them that there isn't an OS written in COBOL and that they can't paint your house with a toothbrush. And no, if I say I think it's a waste of your time to paint a house with a toothbrush, it isn't because it's a Microsoft toothbrush or Microsoft paint or that you're painting a Microsoft house, it's because it's a frickin' toothbrush. By the way, I love how the FAQ link takes you to a page that tells you they moved the FAQ instead of just taking you there. It reminds me of all those links wannabe web designers did in the style If you'd like to read about Obvious Anchor Target click here.
You have to opt in for Google to get any information beyond your IP address, they are in charge of many of the communication channels you use if you choose to use those they control and they effectively control much of the information that you receive through them. How does any of that make them remarkably different from News Corp., Microsoft, Verizon or the like?
Google's naming policy strikes me as a non-issue. It won't prevent anyone from publishing indirectly, by way of an out-of-area friend, which is safer option anyway if you're posting about a government that wishes to silence you. It seems to me that worst case, it creates an opening for Google's competitors. Last I checked there were still many of those. Were it a government decision it'd be a different matter.
Have you seen the show? You're giving more credit than is due in suggesting any intent to teach or learn anything at all, let alone science. 500 bored, unfocused child volunteers as an analogue for an experienced, disciplined military unit? It's entertainment, not science. The goal is never really to prove or to disprove anything, it's to destroy stuff. The *cough* science *cough* is there to provide an excuse for destroying it. That's why when a few ounces of some common household substance doesn't blow something up you find them substituting 400 pounds of high explosive before show's end.
First, get a million dollars... If you can get the user to download and open your attachment it doesn't matter which platform is involved, you've got them.
It turns it out it's not much of an indicator of anything. Since first hearing about the study, I embarked on a study of my own, starting with guitarists, and then extending to just about everyone I met or saw. </snip>
The trouble with your study, and theirs, isn't with the size of the finger but the size of the sample. I'd love to see the results of yours get press though. There would be something oddly satisfying about a headline which read Study Finds No Particular Correlation Between Finger Sizes and Skill Sets. More satisfying, though, would be one that read Study Finds Researchers and Reporters Unduly Influenced by Statistical Anomalies. And neither would be a good name for a band.
Score 1? Gosh, someone mod that up. Sure it's mean, a tad exaggerated and rather typical here, but it's funny. And there's a little truth in it. The single thing that most made me start appreciating XP was having to start repairing Vista machines at work. On more than one occasion I've turned a Vista PC on and fixed the computer next to it before it finished booting. Vista is pretty, and no doubt improves on security, but fire it up on the more affordable PCs and XP's startup seems blazing fast by comparison. Unrelated... isn't a vista a place from where you see a distant view of where you really want to be? ;-)
Holy cow yes! You're addicted to all of those things! How many times a day do you use the restroom? JUNKIE!! ;-)
What's with the journalistic trend of equating frequency with addiction anyway? I say 'hi' at least 30 times a day, on a slow day. Am I hooked?
The ultimate fair playing field doesn't represent social change? It's not about social change, politics, etc., to you, but it is not about you. It is about social change to Richard Stallman, who has contributed to it far more than you have, but it isn't about him either. Can what it is be reduced to soundbite? Is there any reason to try?
And not even a good joke. Yeah, yeah, wouldn't it be cute if we took a picture of that tradeshow mock-up and reported on it as if it were an actual product. That hasn't been done two million times before.
I have read pretty much everyones response and no one seems to like this.As far as I can tell,everyone...
I wouldn't worry too much about what most people think. Most people are lousy prognosticators. When it opened, most people predicted Chuck E. Cheese's would take off but it faultered while and nearly died. Then when it went bankrupt and changed hands most people predicted that we'd seen the end of Chuck E. Cheese's but it took off and there are now somewhere around 500 locations. Most people once thought microcomputers would never go beyond niche market status. Then when it when it started to become clear that they were wrong about that, most people predicted that IBM would dominate the desktop. Then they thought the Internet just a fad. Then...
What do you think that they thought they were doing?
Who are they? Putting aside whether or not they were hacking, and whether or not they should be punished for it, how would one know just who they were? How would one know that the person who tried to check an applicant's status was actually the applicant and not his friend, or his neighbor, or his enemy, or just someone who pulled a name out of a hat because he wanted to see how it worked?
I can't name a single other programmer I've known who writes/has written REXX applications.
REXX was my Swiss Army knife for the last two BBSes I ran. I used it to fetch FidoNet mail for our network, test and process files from FidoNet file echos, pull and convert newsgroup content, mirror ftp sites, let users of my public BBS chat with users of my private BBS, handle fax transmissions coming in on the BBS lines and to do most anything Maximus or RemoteAccess didn't do out-of-the-box or didn't do the way I'd liked. But I haven't done anything with it since I took my last BBS down in '97...
Yes, and super users are the guys wearing tights and capes. But hey, this is a mixed crowd, so let's not get into end users.
The bottom line is, was, and always will be, this: if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about!
So let's get rid of the need for warrants, eh? If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. Let's allow law enforcement officers to wiretap whomever they want, whenever they want. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. And let's outlaw blinds, drapes, curtains and other window coverings so criminals can't hide as well. If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need privacy? If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you need any rights at all?I'm so there. That's cool on so many levels.
And you would represent a probably insignificant minority and you would still have to had requested the password.
I'm think that this, like many other "security measures" since 9/11, is a placebo designed soley to comfort an ignorant population by making them think that someone is actually doing something useful.
And then there's the matter of perspective. On average, how many people in the US are killed by terrorists each year? And how does it compare to the number killed in countries with twice as much security? Or in countries with half as much? How does it compare to the number of people killed by spoiled lunchmeat? Snakes? Choking? And how many may be dying thanks to where monies no longer go now that they go toward security issues? It's definitely more about playing on emotions than applying logic.
...with a password prompt and the message 'your server will gladly enter the password for you'? I'd wager that having to interact with the wait staff to get connected would dramatically reduce the number of leeches.
I was fully aware that no matter how far I travelled, how many people I interviewed, and how huge and long the thing would be, someone would come out, point, and go 'you missed a spot'. You won't be the last, I am sure.
I wasn't saying you missed a spot as much as wondering aloud why you missed it. It goes without saying that you couldn't get to everyone. And hey, I applaud your achievement. Judging by your site it appears to be an impressive work. Just FYI, the reason I noticed the spot I did is that in it is almost everyone I remember who wrote something that I ran on my BBSes between '85 and '97. Of all those authors, only Chuck Forsberg made your list. Considering what you've put into it, it really says something about the sheer size of the BBS scene in its heyday, doesn't it?
So he exaggerated. Have you never heard someone say that something took forever? Everyone exaggerates, all the time, and nobody cares. Follow? ;-)
Looks to be interesting, and good fun, and congratulations on getting it finished, but is that interview list complete? Not that it isn't a lovely list, but aside from a few of the obvious, like Tom Jennings, Wynn Wagner, Bob Hartman and Chuck Forsberg, there seem to be a significant number of glaring omissions. Just some of those (listed with things they wrote or to which they contributed, for those who don't recognize them by name) would be...
I wouldn't have expected to see all of those names on your list, as I'd imagine not all would be available, but I'm quite surprised to see none of them on it. And those were just the ones that jumped out at me. Perhaps just a matter of availability? Or maybe reason for a sequel? ;-) And hey, if you do another, look up John Cowan and Jon Shemitz. I think their influence on the BBS scene has been seriously underestimated.
My apologies to anyone whose name I mangled. It's been a few years since I took the last of my BBSes down.