Go learn something about the world wars. Seriously, you're so way off it's... I can't even think of a word for what it is without resorting to pejoratives which if you were just being stupid I would do, but you've obviously just got the wrong end of the stick from somewhere which is much better corrected.
Well... technically, there is some truth in that. Quite often people will just hand over chunks of money in moves of pure idiocy ("Hi, I am a Nigerian Prince...") and yeah, damn, how much protection should people have from being stupid, and how much should they just get that question - "and what did you learn?"? I don't think it should be the role of the law to step in in such situations, however, I think there are situations where I think it becomes less clear, where the ruse is more elaborate, or circumstances more dangerous, where the law should protect people. As with any line drawn, there will always be people who push it as far as they can, so it is probably best to draw the line lower (lower being the stupider end rather than the elaborate end) so that pushing the boundaries of the law doesn't result in as serious acts.
So, no I don't think it should be, but I think it's better that it is... which doesn't sound like it should make sense, but hopefully I've explained well enough:-)
What has WWII got to do with christianity? Even the most loving person will act in self defense, love's no carte blanche ya know. And what's this about Japan? If the rest of the world was "proper christian", Japan would be the last loveless waring society left?
What is it with the alignment of slashdot and christianity, that whether you're for or against, put the two together and the resulting arguments are even more ridiculous than the sum of the pair.
That mostly goes without saying, I'm sure most people on here do, if they actually stopped and thought about it, know that there's a big difference between what a religion preaches, and how. As far as the 'what's concerned, they're both silly enough to make "which one's sillier" not be all too relevant. The how, however, is a completely different story. Ignoring the murderous christians of old (past is past, people alive today aren't responsible for what people in the past did), christians are just wrong... scientologists aren't just wrong, they go about it all wrong as well, even maliciously.
My brother after getting caught up with them tried persistently to get them to leave him alone. He eventually pretended to be his dad when they tried contacting him, and told them he'd died. They still won't leave him alone, stuff still comes thru the post from them addressed to him fairly regularly. They just don't care. There're plenty of evil christians, but scientology itself is evil.
"Yeah, that whole indoctrination of the young thing is irrelevant, right?"
Yes. That's what happens when you're young, whether your "indoctrination" is about being christian, vegetarian, not dropping litter in streets, not stealing, learning to write, learning maths... you can be brought up christian, yet drop the religion when you grow up enough to think for yourself. I, many in my family, and many of my friends, are living proof of that. If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen. Like people are going to believe their religion is 'The True Way' yet hide it from their children. That's ridiculous. And the religion's ridiculous to begin with... so that's like... ridiculous squared!
"but leaving these con artists on the street while harassing scientology just seems unfair"
That's not how civil cases work. You can't just go after anyone and sue for damages based on them doing something not right to someone else. These are personal complaints against scientology by people who feel they've been wronged by the group. If someone else has been conned out of money by another group, it's up to them to try bring it before a court.
Re:That is not real, is cynical and unprofessional
on
Documenting a Network?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, not everyone takes pride in their work. Those of us who do will do as good and complete a job as we can, because of what it means to us to, somewhat irrespective of external consequences. Those who don't will do only as much as will be noticed and as little as they can get away with, but deprive themselves of the satisfaction and accomplishments that the prideful get to feel. Not that that's a perfect consolation for the damages they cause.
Because they come with so much crap you don't need. I've had HP driver setup program completely fail to run before. Using 7zip (highly recommend) extracting the files from the.exe is easy, and allows you to use Windows own driver installation procedure (eg, from Add New Printer or from Device Manager etc) to point to just the directory where the driver.inf file is in, which will install a much smaller amount of stuff that's needed than the full.exe will. I find this gets around a load of driver installation problems. I generally do the same with all kinds of hardware (eg, display drivers). Also saves your systray getting totally cluttered with branding icons and increases bootup speed.
"like using EBP for computations instead of its normal use (or is it ESP? I forget)"
EBP is correct. For anyone interested: normally the [extended] base pointer points to the top of your stack frame I think where you will find your return address (address of where you were CALLed from, or IRETurn if you were called by an INTerrupt). You can then use fixed offsets from EBP to access function parameters, which are pushed onto the stack before the CALL. Local variables go onto the stack after that, so with each local variable used, the [extended] Stack Pointer moves further (down in the case of x86). This way, you know that you just need to move the stack pointer back to the base pointer in order to return.
Of course this isn't needed if you have a compiler that keeps track of local variables placed onto the stack and knows at any point the different between what EBP and ESP should be. In this case, you can use ESP-VariableOffset instead of EBP+/-FixedOffset to access variables on the stack, which frees up EBP for you to use as a generic register for use, and saves you wrapping your functions in commands to manipulate EBP (in GCC you pass the -fomit-frame-pointer argument to enable this, but this destroys debugging, as the knowledge of what's-on-the-stack that the compiler uses to calculate the offsets aren't stored in the binary)
I disagree; balance tends to be pretty important in life, and obsessions are rarely if ever balanced. In the case of nutrition nuts, they can often and easily forget that there's more to food than pure nutrition, for example, taste and the general enjoyment of your meals. Obsessively focusing on either one of those things while neglecting the other I do not see as being A Good Thing. I'd rather take the advice of people who have struck the balances.
I find FF's rendering atrochious, at times when all other browsers I've been testing under (IE7/8, Safari4, Chrome and Opera) are rendering fine... not even always complex stuff, one I hit a couple weeks back was simply an element in the middle of the page with a single pixel solid back border around it. So, what you should see is basically just a black rectangle. Fine in all browsers except in FF, it was drawing three sides, but missing the right hand side, in some 4-5 out of 6 window resolutions (ie, as I expanded the window's width, the right hand border would occasionally flicker into existence, but then as the window gets one pixel wider again, it's gone). Safari, Chrome, and IE also seem much more compatible with each other on the javascript side, with FF being completely out of the pack and taking the most time and most tweaking of the code to get it working... meanwhile, I have a job to do!
heh, I did something similar in an sql stored procedure as I'm quite new to it and didn't know if there was another way to abort a stored procedure early (without changing it to a function which then lets you use the 'return' instruction).
I've never really got this deal with "goto's are bad" tho, but my second language (after basic) was x86 assembly, at first on an 8086, and it's all 'goto's (or jmp's) everywhere. Even 'if's in C etc translate to a compare instruction (which sets flags based on the comparison outcome) and then a conditional jump (which does the 'goto' if your flags of choice are set).
So, if the compilers generating jumps everywhere anyway, why not the programmer? As long as you don't do cross procedural jumps without care for the stackframe, you're fine... or is it a style thing rather than a technical thing?
"You're giving the big evil corporation the benefit of the doubt!?"
Doubt? No, there's no doubt in there at all, I'm saying quite categorically that whatever it was that was saved to disk that I opened was something netscape had never taken file association for; the browser was used in a way that file associations in the rest of the system were completely irrelevant to it, therefore the first time I did something that did use the file association system, it opened up IE; the version that came with the very first version of Win95. I seem to recall it was some time before I realised/understood that it was actually a different browser, rather than that I'd just found out some way of making netscape load up faster in some weird compact mode... which is why I'd been using it... it didn't take so long to start up.
And yeah, but who hasn't 'stolen' file associations? These days things seem to be better at giving you choice of what filetypes to associate with, but that's not always been the case. Might not excuse it, but MS doesn't really stand out from the crowd on that point... the negative feedback received over it would be why it doesn't happen so much now... all part of the process of progression.
*lol* no it wasn't, this was pre windows update, netscape never had the file association, but i'd never noticed it before because to get on the internet, the first part of he process was to open up netscape. Everything was done from within there then. The idea of saving a page to harddisk and opening it from there quite simply hadn't cropped up until obviously the first time it did.
Err... but that already exists (duh right back at ya), as does windows on window, which is what this is actually about. That being so, full virtualisation isn't needed and so would be total overkill.
This is so people can run their pre-vista software on vista. If your machine can only just barely run vista, then don't install vista, and you won't have these problems to begin with. Duh. It's not very complicated to, ya know, not do something. You don't even have to do anything to not do it. That's how I've managed to not be running vista.
"What part of history am I missing here? I'm sure that companies tried to compete with Microsoft back in the late '80s"
T'is true. First PC I got my hands on (an old 8086) came with MS-DOS 3.2 and err... was either PC-DOS or DR-DOS. So that would be... choice... not bad businesses practices or enforced monopoly. We didn't know anything before that, I'd not even heard 'Microsoft', so I played with both (and the gui, Gem, which was cool!)... I carried on using MS. The other eventually became unrunable as the discs weren't looked after and got trashed... cuz we never used it. Was a big step up from CPM I'd been in contact with before that. I guess we just liked MS's software better.
Slashdot Mirror
Go learn something about the world wars. Seriously, you're so way off it's... I can't even think of a word for what it is without resorting to pejoratives which if you were just being stupid I would do, but you've obviously just got the wrong end of the stick from somewhere which is much better corrected.
That's not true, it could also be picking up on your chakras.
*lol*
sorry, couldn't resist.
Well... technically, there is some truth in that. Quite often people will just hand over chunks of money in moves of pure idiocy ("Hi, I am a Nigerian Prince...") and yeah, damn, how much protection should people have from being stupid, and how much should they just get that question - "and what did you learn?"? I don't think it should be the role of the law to step in in such situations, however, I think there are situations where I think it becomes less clear, where the ruse is more elaborate, or circumstances more dangerous, where the law should protect people. As with any line drawn, there will always be people who push it as far as they can, so it is probably best to draw the line lower (lower being the stupider end rather than the elaborate end) so that pushing the boundaries of the law doesn't result in as serious acts.
So, no I don't think it should be, but I think it's better that it is... which doesn't sound like it should make sense, but hopefully I've explained well enough :-)
Or your right to not be scammed by one? Or, more to point, your right to seek damages for being scammed by one?
What has WWII got to do with christianity? Even the most loving person will act in self defense, love's no carte blanche ya know. And what's this about Japan? If the rest of the world was "proper christian", Japan would be the last loveless waring society left?
What is it with the alignment of slashdot and christianity, that whether you're for or against, put the two together and the resulting arguments are even more ridiculous than the sum of the pair.
That mostly goes without saying, I'm sure most people on here do, if they actually stopped and thought about it, know that there's a big difference between what a religion preaches, and how. As far as the 'what's concerned, they're both silly enough to make "which one's sillier" not be all too relevant. The how, however, is a completely different story. Ignoring the murderous christians of old (past is past, people alive today aren't responsible for what people in the past did), christians are just wrong... scientologists aren't just wrong, they go about it all wrong as well, even maliciously.
My brother after getting caught up with them tried persistently to get them to leave him alone. He eventually pretended to be his dad when they tried contacting him, and told them he'd died. They still won't leave him alone, stuff still comes thru the post from them addressed to him fairly regularly. They just don't care. There're plenty of evil christians, but scientology itself is evil.
"Yeah, that whole indoctrination of the young thing is irrelevant, right?"
Yes. That's what happens when you're young, whether your "indoctrination" is about being christian, vegetarian, not dropping litter in streets, not stealing, learning to write, learning maths... you can be brought up christian, yet drop the religion when you grow up enough to think for yourself. I, many in my family, and many of my friends, are living proof of that. If people believe in their religion, of course they're going to share it with their kids, it's not "evil conspiracy against children", that's a stupid argument, it's just the way things are going to happen. Like people are going to believe their religion is 'The True Way' yet hide it from their children. That's ridiculous. And the religion's ridiculous to begin with... so that's like... ridiculous squared!
Ya know there's plenty to despise about christianity without making shit up.
"but leaving these con artists on the street while harassing scientology just seems unfair"
That's not how civil cases work. You can't just go after anyone and sue for damages based on them doing something not right to someone else. These are personal complaints against scientology by people who feel they've been wronged by the group. If someone else has been conned out of money by another group, it's up to them to try bring it before a court.
don't knock it til you've tried it
Yeah, not everyone takes pride in their work. Those of us who do will do as good and complete a job as we can, because of what it means to us to, somewhat irrespective of external consequences. Those who don't will do only as much as will be noticed and as little as they can get away with, but deprive themselves of the satisfaction and accomplishments that the prideful get to feel. Not that that's a perfect consolation for the damages they cause.
Oops, forgot to check for overflow :-)
Okay, three bits then!
Because they come with so much crap you don't need. I've had HP driver setup program completely fail to run before. Using 7zip (highly recommend) extracting the files from the .exe is easy, and allows you to use Windows own driver installation procedure (eg, from Add New Printer or from Device Manager etc) to point to just the directory where the driver .inf file is in, which will install a much smaller amount of stuff that's needed than the full .exe will. I find this gets around a load of driver installation problems. I generally do the same with all kinds of hardware (eg, display drivers). Also saves your systray getting totally cluttered with branding icons and increases bootup speed.
"AWer234tfgv3556AEFW4yt6tyhbq46u7698"
Not that random, is only 1 bit different to mine:
AWer234tfgv3556AEFW4yt6tyhbq46u7678
What are the odds!!!
"like using EBP for computations instead of its normal use (or is it ESP? I forget)"
EBP is correct. For anyone interested: normally the [extended] base pointer points to the top of your stack frame I think where you will find your return address (address of where you were CALLed from, or IRETurn if you were called by an INTerrupt). You can then use fixed offsets from EBP to access function parameters, which are pushed onto the stack before the CALL. Local variables go onto the stack after that, so with each local variable used, the [extended] Stack Pointer moves further (down in the case of x86). This way, you know that you just need to move the stack pointer back to the base pointer in order to return.
Of course this isn't needed if you have a compiler that keeps track of local variables placed onto the stack and knows at any point the different between what EBP and ESP should be. In this case, you can use ESP-VariableOffset instead of EBP+/-FixedOffset to access variables on the stack, which frees up EBP for you to use as a generic register for use, and saves you wrapping your functions in commands to manipulate EBP (in GCC you pass the -fomit-frame-pointer argument to enable this, but this destroys debugging, as the knowledge of what's-on-the-stack that the compiler uses to calculate the offsets aren't stored in the binary)
Nooo, tastic is something that exhibits taste, so fan-fucking-tastic is not necessarily fan-fucking, but it's something that tastes as such.
I disagree; balance tends to be pretty important in life, and obsessions are rarely if ever balanced. In the case of nutrition nuts, they can often and easily forget that there's more to food than pure nutrition, for example, taste and the general enjoyment of your meals. Obsessively focusing on either one of those things while neglecting the other I do not see as being A Good Thing. I'd rather take the advice of people who have struck the balances.
I find FF's rendering atrochious, at times when all other browsers I've been testing under (IE7/8, Safari4, Chrome and Opera) are rendering fine... not even always complex stuff, one I hit a couple weeks back was simply an element in the middle of the page with a single pixel solid back border around it. So, what you should see is basically just a black rectangle. Fine in all browsers except in FF, it was drawing three sides, but missing the right hand side, in some 4-5 out of 6 window resolutions (ie, as I expanded the window's width, the right hand border would occasionally flicker into existence, but then as the window gets one pixel wider again, it's gone).
Safari, Chrome, and IE also seem much more compatible with each other on the javascript side, with FF being completely out of the pack and taking the most time and most tweaking of the code to get it working... meanwhile, I have a job to do!
heh, I did something similar in an sql stored procedure as I'm quite new to it and didn't know if there was another way to abort a stored procedure early (without changing it to a function which then lets you use the 'return' instruction).
I've never really got this deal with "goto's are bad" tho, but my second language (after basic) was x86 assembly, at first on an 8086, and it's all 'goto's (or jmp's) everywhere. Even 'if's in C etc translate to a compare instruction (which sets flags based on the comparison outcome) and then a conditional jump (which does the 'goto' if your flags of choice are set).
So, if the compilers generating jumps everywhere anyway, why not the programmer? As long as you don't do cross procedural jumps without care for the stackframe, you're fine... or is it a style thing rather than a technical thing?
Cool, am gonna keep an eye out for harddrives on ebay now, might just come with a free copy of vista installed!
"You're giving the big evil corporation the benefit of the doubt!?"
Doubt? No, there's no doubt in there at all, I'm saying quite categorically that whatever it was that was saved to disk that I opened was something netscape had never taken file association for; the browser was used in a way that file associations in the rest of the system were completely irrelevant to it, therefore the first time I did something that did use the file association system, it opened up IE; the version that came with the very first version of Win95. I seem to recall it was some time before I realised/understood that it was actually a different browser, rather than that I'd just found out some way of making netscape load up faster in some weird compact mode... which is why I'd been using it... it didn't take so long to start up.
And yeah, but who hasn't 'stolen' file associations? These days things seem to be better at giving you choice of what filetypes to associate with, but that's not always been the case. Might not excuse it, but MS doesn't really stand out from the crowd on that point... the negative feedback received over it would be why it doesn't happen so much now... all part of the process of progression.
What kind of a defense is that?
*lol* no it wasn't, this was pre windows update, netscape never had the file association, but i'd never noticed it before because to get on the internet, the first part of he process was to open up netscape. Everything was done from within there then. The idea of saving a page to harddisk and opening it from there quite simply hadn't cropped up until obviously the first time it did.
Err... but that already exists (duh right back at ya), as does windows on window, which is what this is actually about. That being so, full virtualisation isn't needed and so would be total overkill.
This is so people can run their pre-vista software on vista. If your machine can only just barely run vista, then don't install vista, and you won't have these problems to begin with. Duh. It's not very complicated to, ya know, not do something. You don't even have to do anything to not do it. That's how I've managed to not be running vista.
"What part of history am I missing here? I'm sure that companies tried to compete with Microsoft back in the late '80s"
T'is true. First PC I got my hands on (an old 8086) came with MS-DOS 3.2 and err... was either PC-DOS or DR-DOS. So that would be... choice... not bad businesses practices or enforced monopoly. We didn't know anything before that, I'd not even heard 'Microsoft', so I played with both (and the gui, Gem, which was cool!)... I carried on using MS. The other eventually became unrunable as the discs weren't looked after and got trashed... cuz we never used it. Was a big step up from CPM I'd been in contact with before that. I guess we just liked MS's software better.