Considering that Bill Gates and MSFT are both *American* and located in the United States, I find this rather unlikely. This case was settled, so this case has no precedent on case law. Even if it did, it would (apparently from discussion elsewhere) only affect England and Wales--not even the entire UK. Furthermore, since Slashdot is also an American entity, MSFT or Bill Gates would have to sue Slashdot under American case law. Therefore, Slashdot would win the case as a common carrier (I know, it's not so open and shut, but our precedant is more in that direction). I confess I don't know how international suits would be handled (jurisdiction, etc, etc), but things are certainly nowhere near so "automatic" as you claim.
until mpg123 -q http://mp3-2.thesync.com:8000; do echo -n; done
This'll work at a bash prompt or in a bash script with the standard header. This has the advantage of NOT respawning after you finally get in and later quit. (A lot less output too.)
If your math teacher told you that, then he/she should be shot;-) A number is even if it can be divided evenly by 2. Since zero can be divided by 2 w/o a remainder, 0 must be even.
An odd number is any number which is not even (or more elaborately, any number which cannot be divided evenly by two). Therefore 0 is not odd.
But it is most certainly not neither--mathematicians don't make any more exceptions than they absolutely have to as a general rule.
I am not defending the original poster, as he was quite rude, but...
Perhaps before you enter a sig like "Speak friend and enter" and say things like this, you should research a little grammatical rule -- commas used around names when used in direct address.
Well, that's all nice and good, but this is a quote from J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings (volume 1 or 2, I can't remember which exactly) and in that context, inserting commas would in fact be incorrect. The phrase was intended literally as written, as it was a lock to a magic door: to get in, you were to speak "friend" and thus enter. (This was something that stymied the characters for a while, since they couldn't figure out what they were to speak to get in. They thought as you did because they mistranslated mellon, friend, thinking it was vocative and not accusative.)
P.S. Vocative = direct address, Accusative = direct object
And this would be a bad thing? Karma is not an end-all and be-all. The whole point of moderation is to get rid of the crap that isn't worth reading and point out the good stuff. So if they got moderated down big time and deleted their post as a result, then all the better--nobody has to read the crap anymore and the poster has learned his lesson. And by the same token, a highly moderated person can retract on finding that their apparent "insight" was completely wrong (as happened to Sig11 once--and there wasn't a moderator willing to moderate it down--I tried, but nobody seemed to understand the "offtopic" as being valid (all they had to do was read the replies...))
At any rate, you could still have the moderation stick, as the karma is located in a separate field that moderation only makes +1/-1 modifications to. If when deleting the comment, you don't undo the moderation that was done on it, the karma stays the same. Ta da! Problem solved!
As to how to handle the reparenting, don't. If it has children, replace the text with <this comment has been retracted> and perhaps wipe the poster's name as well. If there are no children, then delete it straight. Not that hard, as I see it.
If that wasn't bad enough, it took me a while to figure out that the version of xmms & xmms-devel that came with RHAT 6.1 are not up-to-date enough to compile these plugins. (xmms/util.h is missing)
Now I've updated them and it's compiling like a charm:-)
No. From an intuitive standpoint, that is an incredibly awkward translation (and a good sign it's wrong). More concretely, technica is not a noun. Technica is derived from techna, technae (meaning "trick or artifice") by adding an -ic which makes it an adjective. Thus technicus, -a, -um means "pertaining to trick or artifice" (given the context, "technological"). Thus my translation stands:)
This does NOT deserve an "interesting". It's the same anonymous flaming bastard who's been spamming all the articles for weeks with the same offtopic and irrelevant flame. Don't cave in.
Except that now he's on topic. You or I may not like his methods, but it is wrong to moderate him down because we don't like him/what he has to say. It's in the moderation guidelines.
If it showed anything else according to the real world, you'd see Windows machines dwarfing all others, for the simple fact that there's huge numbrs of them.... Macs would come in second, with linux having just made a huge run up to the #3 spot...
Not quite, if you go to http://stats.distributed.net/csc/os.html, you will see that while windows is indeed first, linux is #2, with the Mac at #5. But this is just the CSC contest--and csc cores have only really come out rather recently for the Mac (I think), so the numbers may be skewed. But the fact that the Mac is on there at all doesn't lend too much credence to that argument, especially given the margin between them.
Now if only they would run the Platform/OS analysis for RC5...:-)
Actually, this is being worked on, believe it or not.
See RFC 2550 for all the glorious details. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is a reasonable assumption that the computer systems of today will really outlast our solar system (let alone the end of the universe) and/or still have the same system of time (24 hours, dated from 1 CE, etc) many many years from now (the RFC extends *that* far). Either way, we'll never have a rollover again if we follow the RFC.
I noticed the same thing. What's even more irritating is that these are added in anyway--but AFTER you have painstakingly chosen all the other packages. This is hardly easy to use, IMNSHO. Don't get me wrong, it did install, and I enjoy using linux far more than windows, but this is something that seriously needs improvement.
Someone around here (forget who) has a sig that basically says if someone can't bother to get a userid and thus post at level 1, he can't be bothered to read it. I agree, but in reverse: those aren't the kind of people I want to bother to communicate with anyway.
I've seen that sig (I presume we are referring to the same one), but I interpreted it differently. As I see it, the poster wasn't discouraging people from posting anonymously, but rather encouraging useful and quality posting (as opposed to the bung we seem to have on this page).
Arthur C. Clarke has been campaigning for something like this for a long time. In his books, there are several references to a "Spaceguard" which watches the night sky and alerts of any asteroids which look like they are on a collision course with Earth.
This doesn't sound like they are quite going that far--this is just some committee to advise on when we do find one, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
Some people might see this as a waste of money, but I disagree:
We know that asteroids have indeed hit the earth before.
We also know that they can cause a great deal of damage.
Statistically, it will have to someday happen again, as it has in the past.
By knowing it's coming in advance, we can prepare and do something about it. If we don't, then our chances drop dramatically.
Keeping our heads in the sand claiming "it costs too much!" isn't very smart when a single strike can wipe us out with all our precious money in the process.
If these paintings [credit pi31415 for the link] are all that the people had a chance to look at, no wonder they gravitated to the "landscape with water, animals, people and the color blue." That's almost all that was there! The only other types of paintings available were "geometric shapes,""yellow house scene," and "something with elvis." That's not very representative, IMHO.
What about Dali with his weird distorted objects? What about some indoor scene? What about a sunset?
There isn't much detail on how this "study" was done, but it appears to me to not have been particularly well done--unless there are details I'm not aware of.
If you would like to go strictly on how the grammatarians tell us we should spell, etc then:
The plural of virus is viruses
The plural of box is boxes
However, some people realize that we don't, never have, and never will speak the language as grammatarians try to define it, so they are more creative in making plurals:
*virii - hypothesized latin plural (as hadron said) which is also doubly incorrect: not only is there no plural (as said), but if that derivation were desired, it should have been *viri or *vires, but not *virii which would only work if the singular were *virius. However, it is still easier to type and IMHO looks better.
*boxen - This is a play on ox -> oxen. Interesting historical note: we almost went down the path where all plurals were formed by adding -en instead of -s/-es. In Shakespeare's day, both were in usage, but -en was more popular by far. However, some strange linguistic twist took place and now it's -s/-es all the way (except for ox, etc).
Oh, and the Geeks in Space section demonstrates some of the new custom section code. I can redefine colors on a section-by-section basis. No big deal right now, but as we bring new sections online, it'll add some variety
It's all part of the show:-)
As to the "Not news-worthy news": umm...notice how this article was on the front page? And how not all Ask Slashdot/Slashdot Radio/Apache/Your Rights Online articles make it to the front page either? It's a fact of life: not everything can make it to the front page, this is a way for the articles to make it for those who are interested in it. If you want "freak little group," consider taco hell! Now that's freaky (and I love it).
It's the BSD section's new colors. You'll note that Ask Slashdot, Apache, BSD, Radio, and YRO all have their own schemes now (Ask/. and Radio has had them, but the others are rather recent).
This is fine and good in a print media, but this isn't print. This is online media. HTML was designed with a great and glorious thing called the "hyperlink." There is no reason why they couldn't use it (in addition to what you said). If they are worried about liabilty (sad, but probable), they can disclaim all off-site links. Most do anyway.
You are taking that finding out of context. The judge never said that it was illegal to package products together, nor did he say it was illegal to integrate one product into another.
But he is saying that in this instance, Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices by bundling/integrating IE into windows.
What is the distinction?
The consumer did not want it. OEM's didn't want it, customers didn't want it. The reaction to the idea of a browser integrated into the OS was far from enthusiastic--but Microsoft didn't care and could get away with it because of their incredible clout.
Rather than to depend on the market to make or break their browser (i.e. competition) they used their monopolistic clout to force OEMs/IALs/etc to use and promote their browser (i.e. anti-competitive practices). The only reason they could get away with this was because they were virtually the only OS available.
Because of this, the consumer (who preferred Netscape) was bereft of choice in the matter. If they wanted Netscape, it would have to coexist alongside IE--which could not be uninstalled by the average user (by 98, anyway). Even then, IE still came up at strange times--confusing the user (see the FoF). This too is anti-competitive.
They had/have enough power in the market to destroy Apple by discontinuing Microsoft Office for the Macintosh. Furthermore, Microsoft was fully willing to waste all the money they had spent on that program's development to ensure that Netscape was no longer the Mac's default browser. So in essence they said "Do as we say, or we will destroy you." Again, the consumer was bereft of choice against their will.
There is a huge difference between eliminating consumer choice to take over a market and providing two products together. You will notice he didn't say anything detrimental about the bundling of Microsoft Office or the packaging of MS Media Player with Windows. And if you read the FoF carefully, Judge Jackson didn't really have a problem with IE coming with Windows, or that it was free. But he did have a major problem with Microsoft's overall business practices.
It's all in the context. If a future judge reads this ruling, it's going to be with that context in mind. If that context is ignored successfully, then we have bigger problems to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
Price can change, and this review gets archived. The two don't really work well together.
Perhaps you should read the article?
try mpg123 or xmms, both of these can stream mp3s. If these won't work for you, there's always http://freshmeat.net/.
until mpg123 -q http://mp3-2.thesync.com:8000; do echo -n; done
This'll work at a bash prompt or in a bash script with the standard header. This has the advantage of NOT respawning after you finally get in and later quit. (A lot less output too.)
An odd number is any number which is not even (or more elaborately, any number which cannot be divided evenly by two). Therefore 0 is not odd.
But it is most certainly not neither--mathematicians don't make any more exceptions than they absolutely have to as a general rule.
I am not defending the original poster, as he was quite rude, but...
Perhaps before you enter a sig like "Speak friend and enter" and say things like this, you should research a little grammatical rule -- commas used around names when used in direct address.
Well, that's all nice and good, but this is a quote from J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings (volume 1 or 2, I can't remember which exactly) and in that context, inserting commas would in fact be incorrect. The phrase was intended literally as written, as it was a lock to a magic door: to get in, you were to speak "friend" and thus enter. (This was something that stymied the characters for a while, since they couldn't figure out what they were to speak to get in. They thought as you did because they mistranslated mellon, friend, thinking it was vocative and not accusative.)
P.S. Vocative = direct address, Accusative = direct object
The eqivalent program on NT is called winntcfg. Why they changed the name, I don't know...
At any rate, you could still have the moderation stick, as the karma is located in a separate field that moderation only makes +1/-1 modifications to. If when deleting the comment, you don't undo the moderation that was done on it, the karma stays the same. Ta da! Problem solved!
As to how to handle the reparenting, don't. If it has children, replace the text with <this comment has been retracted> and perhaps wipe the poster's name as well. If there are no children, then delete it straight. Not that hard, as I see it.
Now I've updated them and it's compiling like a charm :-)
No. From an intuitive standpoint, that is an incredibly awkward translation (and a good sign it's wrong). More concretely, technica is not a noun. Technica is derived from techna, technae (meaning "trick or artifice") by adding an -ic which makes it an adjective. Thus technicus, -a, -um means "pertaining to trick or artifice" (given the context, "technological"). Thus my translation stands :)
Kudos to nd.edu (specifically http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?tec hnica) for the excellent resources they have available!
English: (1) Art, craft, skill , method, technique (2) an occupation, profession (and others which don't apply here)
So the best translation of Ars Technica is probably along the lines of "the technological art" (and perhaps profession)
Except that now he's on topic. You or I may not like his methods, but it is wrong to moderate him down because we don't like him/what he has to say. It's in the moderation guidelines.
Not quite, if you go to http://stats.distributed.net/csc/os.html, you will see that while windows is indeed first, linux is #2, with the Mac at #5. But this is just the CSC contest--and csc cores have only really come out rather recently for the Mac (I think), so the numbers may be skewed. But the fact that the Mac is on there at all doesn't lend too much credence to that argument, especially given the margin between them.
Now if only they would run the Platform/OS analysis for RC5... :-)
See RFC 2550 for all the glorious details. I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is a reasonable assumption that the computer systems of today will really outlast our solar system (let alone the end of the universe) and/or still have the same system of time (24 hours, dated from 1 CE, etc) many many years from now (the RFC extends *that* far). Either way, we'll never have a rollover again if we follow the RFC.
(See the link under recently completed)
I noticed the same thing. What's even more irritating is that these are added in anyway--but AFTER you have painstakingly chosen all the other packages. This is hardly easy to use, IMNSHO. Don't get me wrong, it did install, and I enjoy using linux far more than windows, but this is something that seriously needs improvement.
Welcome to life. Good and bad come in equal measure, whether you like it or not.
I've seen that sig (I presume we are referring to the same one), but I interpreted it differently. As I see it, the poster wasn't discouraging people from posting anonymously, but rather encouraging useful and quality posting (as opposed to the bung we seem to have on this page).
This doesn't sound like they are quite going that far--this is just some committee to advise on when we do find one, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
Some people might see this as a waste of money, but I disagree:
Keeping our heads in the sand claiming "it costs too much!" isn't very smart when a single strike can wipe us out with all our precious money in the process.
What about Dali with his weird distorted objects? What about some indoor scene? What about a sunset?
There isn't much detail on how this "study" was done, but it appears to me to not have been particularly well done--unless there are details I'm not aware of.
However, some people realize that we don't, never have, and never will speak the language as grammatarians try to define it, so they are more creative in making plurals:
Interesting historical note: we almost went down the path where all plurals were formed by adding -en instead of -s/-es. In Shakespeare's day, both were in usage, but -en was more popular by far. However, some strange linguistic twist took place and now it's -s/-es all the way (except for ox, etc).
So now you know.
It's all part of the show :-)
As to the "Not news-worthy news": umm...notice how this article was on the front page? And how not all Ask Slashdot/Slashdot Radio/Apache/Your Rights Online articles make it to the front page either? It's a fact of life: not everything can make it to the front page, this is a way for the articles to make it for those who are interested in it. If you want "freak little group," consider taco hell! Now that's freaky (and I love it).
It's the BSD section's new colors. You'll note that Ask Slashdot, Apache, BSD, Radio, and YRO all have their own schemes now (Ask /. and Radio has had them, but the others are rather recent).
This is fine and good in a print media, but this isn't print. This is online media. HTML was designed with a great and glorious thing called the "hyperlink." There is no reason why they couldn't use it (in addition to what you said). If they are worried about liabilty (sad, but probable), they can disclaim all off-site links. Most do anyway.
But he is saying that in this instance, Microsoft was engaging in illegal practices by bundling/integrating IE into windows.
What is the distinction?
There is a huge difference between eliminating consumer choice to take over a market and providing two products together. You will notice he didn't say anything detrimental about the bundling of Microsoft Office or the packaging of MS Media Player with Windows. And if you read the FoF carefully, Judge Jackson didn't really have a problem with IE coming with Windows, or that it was free. But he did have a major problem with Microsoft's overall business practices.
It's all in the context. If a future judge reads this ruling, it's going to be with that context in mind. If that context is ignored successfully, then we have bigger problems to deal with.