Uh, much of the energy in a regular fission bomb is released as gamma radiation. It is quickly absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, heating it immensely. That's what creates the fireball.
The Wikipedia article is definitely not very accurate.
A "limitation of its design" is what most people would call a "flaw" I really have no idea what you're talking about in the rest, and it really doesn't seem like you do, either.
No matter how many smilies you put in there, tracking down and getting on the list for every different packaging system isn't a realistic option.
How exactly do Linux people go around talking about freedom of choice, and then use package manager systems that only contain software approved by a central authority? Try imagining Microsoft telling people to install software through their package manager of their approved software, and see the sparks flying all over Slashdot.
> On a serious note, you do want to make packages available for the major distros. If you don't want to do it yourself, have buddies make packages for their distros and send them to you. I suspect you'd cover most of your bases with just a.deb and a.rpm file.
Somehow a requirement of having buddies that want to do your work for you and also run several different major Linux distros doesn't exactly seem realistic either.
> Well, what about installing Windows software that doesn't come with an installer ?
Windows software comes with an installer, if it needs to be installed. Otherwise, it's just an.exe file that you click. Your question makes no sense. As a programmer, I can easily make and test an installer for my program, or just make an exe file that doesn't need installing.
Just how on earth am I going to create and test several different kinds of packages, that work on some systems and not on others?
Have you ever written any real Javascript code and tried to run it on your browser? If not, shut the fuck up already, because you have no clue what you are talking about.
OK, I'll spell it out for you: Your browser is not following standards, thus standards-compliant code will not run correctly on it. None of the others follow standrads either. Thus, you HAVE to code for specific browsers to get anything to work. Get it now?
Other mapping sites suck horribly compared to Google Maps, too. That's not the issue I was talking about, though. I was saying that your claim that Google wasn't coding for standards was non-sensical.
Here's a hint: No current browsers follow the standards perfectly. Simple, standards-compliant code will work across most browsers, but as soon as you do anything more esoteric (which Google most definitely need to do), you run into the limitations of the partial implementations that most browsers use. Mozilla is the best of the bunch at the moment. Safari is catching up, but has some way to go yet. Opera is lagging behind. Konqueror I have no experience with, but it's a fair guess that it's no better than Safari.
I didn't look at it too carefully, but that page crashed my browser (Safari).
Thing is, Safari is pretty buggy, at least compared to the Mozilla browsers. Sometimes the page works just fine in Safari, sometimes it crashes and burns. I have no idea why, but no Javascript code should ever be able to crash a browser. Thus, Safari bug.
Because I can't be bothered to write it over and over again, let's just quote http://shii.org/shiichan:
* Registration keeps out good posters. Imagine someone with an involving job related to your forum comes across it. This person is an expert in her field, and therefore would be a great source of knowledge for your forum; but if a registration, complete with e-mail and password, is necessary before posting, she might just give up on posting and do something more important. People with lives will tend to ignore forums with a registration process.
* Registration lets in bad posters. On the other hand, people with no lives will thrive on your forum. Children and Internet addicts tend to have free time to go register an account and check their e-mail for the confirmation message. They will generally make your forum a waste of bandwidth.
* Registration attracts trolls. If someone is interested in destroying a forum, a registration process only adds to the excitement of a challenge. One might argue that a lack of registration will just let "anyone" post, but in reality anyone can post on old-type forum software; registration is merely a useless hassle. Quoting a 4channeler: Trolls are not out to protect their own reputation. They seek to destroy other peoples' "reputation"... Fora with only registered accounts are like a garden full of flowers of vanity a troll would just love to pick.
* Anonymity counters vanity. On a forum where registration is required, or even where people give themselves names, a clique is developed of the elite users, and posts deal as much with who you are as what you are posting. On an anonymous forum, if you can't tell who posts what, logic will overrule vanity. As Hiroyuki, the administrator of the largest forum in Japan, writes: If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don't know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them. Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, "it's boring," if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work.
Maybe you need to make a or that contains the , and put the:hover style on that? I think images don't have backgrounds by themselves, so you have to use a containing element.
Related to this (but much cooler), there used to be a site at WebOS.com where the site lauched a full-screen browser window and allowed you to interact with an entirely HTML desktop. Even the applications were downloaded on the fly, and the files were saved on the server.
Shameless plug: I've made something similar here: http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl Log in as test:test. It's fairly useful for doing management of a web server. Try not to Slashdot it too badly, OK?
> And if they use their own servers they're telling the people they're spamming where their own servers are.
They already do. Where do you think they host all those porn images in your spams? They include unique identifiers in the URLs too so they can track who looks at spam.
Incidentially, I found at least some spammers will just use the email address with some really simple encryption as the ID, which means you can generate them yourself and seed the database with whatever addresses you want. Great fun to be had that way.
> And... it does work. There's less spam on boards where you have to register.
And less users, because a lot of people, me included, will not bother to register.
And you can have far better protection with captchas, if spamming is a problem.
> Two, it makes it harder for spammers to autoregister without leaving a trail.
Because spammers have no idea how to register a free email account, and definitely don't have access to large numbers of servers of their own on which they could run any number of mail daemons.
Look at the number of people in this discussion saying "so just use a throwaway email account!". You really think spammers can't do just that?
I've seen few places as narrow-minded and full of groupthink as Slashdot. If you actually take opinions posted here seriously, I worry about you. There are lots of ways to challenge your own preconceptions, but dude, Slashdot ain't one.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my! They have upset a Slashdot reader! When they hear this, they will no doubt make every effort to bring the game to your platform of choice!
Uh, much of the energy in a regular fission bomb is released as gamma radiation. It is quickly absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, heating it immensely. That's what creates the fireball.
The Wikipedia article is definitely not very accurate.
A "limitation of its design" is what most people would call a "flaw" I really have no idea what you're talking about in the rest, and it really doesn't seem like you do, either.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. Sadly, collecting Linux installs isn't one of my hobbies.
> I'd quite like to see on-the-fly color depth changes though I understand that's far more difficult than resolution changes.
Yes, so difficult, no operating system has ever managed to do this correctly!
Oh wait, they all do, except for X. And they have been doing it for over ten years.
> First, I'd say, "get on the list." :-)
.deb and a .rpm file.
No matter how many smilies you put in there, tracking down and getting on the list for every different packaging system isn't a realistic option.
How exactly do Linux people go around talking about freedom of choice, and then use package manager systems that only contain software approved by a central authority? Try imagining Microsoft telling people to install software through their package manager of their approved software, and see the sparks flying all over Slashdot.
> On a serious note, you do want to make packages available for the major distros. If you don't want to do it yourself, have buddies make packages for their distros and send them to you. I suspect you'd cover most of your bases with just a
Somehow a requirement of having buddies that want to do your work for you and also run several different major Linux distros doesn't exactly seem realistic either.
> Well, what about installing Windows software that doesn't come with an installer ?
.exe file that you click. Your question makes no sense. As a programmer, I can easily make and test an installer for my program, or just make an exe file that doesn't need installing.
Windows software comes with an installer, if it needs to be installed. Otherwise, it's just an
Just how on earth am I going to create and test several different kinds of packages, that work on some systems and not on others?
And if you want to install a program that is not on the list?
For instance, I am a programmer. I have written several programs. I know they are not on this list. How would you suggest I let you run my software?
Have you ever written any real Javascript code and tried to run it on your browser? If not, shut the fuck up already, because you have no clue what you are talking about.
OK, I'll spell it out for you: Your browser is not following standards, thus standards-compliant code will not run correctly on it. None of the others follow standrads either. Thus, you HAVE to code for specific browsers to get anything to work. Get it now?
Other mapping sites suck horribly compared to Google Maps, too. That's not the issue I was talking about, though. I was saying that your claim that Google wasn't coding for standards was non-sensical.
Here's a hint: No current browsers follow the standards perfectly. Simple, standards-compliant code will work across most browsers, but as soon as you do anything more esoteric (which Google most definitely need to do), you run into the limitations of the partial implementations that most browsers use. Mozilla is the best of the bunch at the moment. Safari is catching up, but has some way to go yet. Opera is lagging behind. Konqueror I have no experience with, but it's a fair guess that it's no better than Safari.
IE, of course, is in another race entirely.
I didn't look at it too carefully, but that page crashed my browser (Safari).
Thing is, Safari is pretty buggy, at least compared to the Mozilla browsers. Sometimes the page works just fine in Safari, sometimes it crashes and burns. I have no idea why, but no Javascript code should ever be able to crash a browser. Thus, Safari bug.
Because I can't be bothered to write it over and over again, let's just quote http://shii.org/shiichan:
... Fora with only registered accounts are like a garden full of flowers of vanity a troll would just love to pick.
* Registration keeps out good posters. Imagine someone with an involving job related to your forum comes across it. This person is an expert in her field, and therefore would be a great source of knowledge for your forum; but if a registration, complete with e-mail and password, is necessary before posting, she might just give up on posting and do something more important. People with lives will tend to ignore forums with a registration process.
* Registration lets in bad posters. On the other hand, people with no lives will thrive on your forum. Children and Internet addicts tend to have free time to go register an account and check their e-mail for the confirmation message. They will generally make your forum a waste of bandwidth.
* Registration attracts trolls. If someone is interested in destroying a forum, a registration process only adds to the excitement of a challenge. One might argue that a lack of registration will just let "anyone" post, but in reality anyone can post on old-type forum software; registration is merely a useless hassle. Quoting a 4channeler:
Trolls are not out to protect their own reputation. They seek to destroy other peoples' "reputation"
* Anonymity counters vanity. On a forum where registration is required, or even where people give themselves names, a clique is developed of the elite users, and posts deal as much with who you are as what you are posting. On an anonymous forum, if you can't tell who posts what, logic will overrule vanity. As Hiroyuki, the administrator of the largest forum in Japan, writes:
If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don't know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them. Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, "it's boring," if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work.
Hooray for HTML parsing.
"Maybe you need to make a <span> or <div> that contains the <img>..."
Maybe you need to make a or that contains the , and put the :hover style on that? I think images don't have backgrounds by themselves, so you have to use a containing element.
As I mentioned in the thread the second link goes to: David Vigoni's Nuvola icon set: http://www.icon-king.com/
Fixed.
Shameless plug: I've made something similar here: http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl
Log in as test:test. It's fairly useful for doing management of a web server. Try not to Slashdot it too badly, OK?
Mor information here: http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1116806324
So I get to PAY to make content for them? Well SIGN ME UP!
> And if they use their own servers they're telling the people they're spamming where their own servers are.
They already do. Where do you think they host all those porn images in your spams? They include unique identifiers in the URLs too so they can track who looks at spam.
Incidentially, I found at least some spammers will just use the email address with some really simple encryption as the ID, which means you can generate them yourself and seed the database with whatever addresses you want. Great fun to be had that way.
> And... it does work. There's less spam on boards where you have to register.
And less users, because a lot of people, me included, will not bother to register.
And you can have far better protection with captchas, if spamming is a problem.
> Two, it makes it harder for spammers to autoregister without leaving a trail.
Because spammers have no idea how to register a free email account, and definitely don't have access to large numbers of servers of their own on which they could run any number of mail daemons.
Look at the number of people in this discussion saying "so just use a throwaway email account!". You really think spammers can't do just that?
> I've got a better idea. Don't require the user to give you their email address EXCEPT for initial registration.
Why would you need it even then?
Why do you need registration at all? The vast, vast majority of sites that require registration could do just as well without it.
Here's one that actually does something useful.
My own, still kind of early in development, but fully usable for remote web administration. Try not to Slashdot it too badly, OK?
I've seen few places as narrow-minded and full of groupthink as Slashdot. If you actually take opinions posted here seriously, I worry about you. There are lots of ways to challenge your own preconceptions, but dude, Slashdot ain't one.