> Be sure and back up those databses w/ Veritas Backup Exec exchange Option!!!
FWIW, we haven't had problems with corrupted mail databases so much as Backup Exec choking out servers. It's lovely to flip a server on and find a blue screen (not of death!) staring back at you. Easy does it!
...is the fact that (at the time that I'm posting this), 12 mod points have been burned on this artificial tripe-flavored morsel of geekish "violence". Feel free to threaten to beat my skull in for not agreeing with you, a0lc0d3gUrU.
And if you were among those that modded this misanthrope up, shame on you. So much for constructively teaching our children how to do right: let's just round them up and kill them all the first time they do something wrong.
> And, they published an entire blow-by-blow timeline of what happened.
And, as any good Anne Tomlinson troll (and you'd better believe this one will dredge them up) will remind you, they edited it multiple times after posting it removing a (possibly salient) detail or two.
So, who's more responsible? And isn't it a tad early to definitively state one way or another that they will or won't give a slightly more conclusive explaination for the downtime than "oops something went wrong but it's pretty much ok now sort of."? Easy does it!
Restate the obvious with the "I know I'm going to lose karma for this but I don't care!" *wink wink, nudge nudge* and watch it roll in.
In the meantime, I'll be trying to figure out how my karma's fluctuated down 15 points without anyone actually, you know. Moderating my posts down.
memepool.com featured a "Quit Slashdot" site that had all those points, only more and better.
Also, so I can get modded up, here's my "insightful" comment: 1+1=2.
> Another thing to note is that if you take a screenshot in OS 9 while playing a DVD you get a big magenta rectangle where the DVD screenshot is supposed to be. Is there a technical reason for this or are the MPAA really that paranoid?
It has less to do with MPAA paranoia than the bandwidth of video being sent down the bus.
From the rec.video.dvd FAQ...
[4.4] Why can't I take a screenshot of DVD video? Why do I get a pink or
black square?
Most DVD PCs, even those with software decoders, use video overlay hardware
to insert the video directly into the VGA signal. This an efficient way to
handle the very high bandwidth of full-motion video. Some decoder cards,
such as the Creative Labs Encore Dxr series and the Sigma Designs Hollywood
series, use a pass-through cable that overlays the video into the analog
VGA signal after it comes out of the video display card. Video overlay uses
a technique called colorkey to selectively replace a specified pixel color
(often magenta or near-black) with video content. Anywhere a colorkey pixel
appears in the computer graphics video, it's replaced by video from the DVD
decoder. This process occurs "downstream" from the computer's video memory,
so if you try to take a screenshot (which grabs pixels from video RAM), all
you get is a solid square of the colorkey color.
Some decoders write to normal video memory. In this case, utilities such as
Creative Softworx, HyperSnap, and SD Capture can grab still pictures. Some
player applications can also take screenshots.
But... that would make sense!
Shoddily-ported games, infuriating package dependencies and countless hours wasted trying to get things configured right just aren't where it's at.
Don't fool yourself: even with a killer app, people still need "bare minimums" to work with. You're right that people will need a decent productivity/"office" suite before they consider migrating, but Outlook is a rather useful little app as well when it comes to running an office.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mo de_w=on&site=jobs.osdn.com&submit=Examine
Note that there's a salient difference between www.osdn.com and jobs.osdn.com, which is why I didn't refer to the former.
Also, I'm still wondering why my karma's fluctuated from 16 back down to 10 without any moderation of my posts one way or another? Not being paranoid, just pointing out it's a wee bit shady.
...anyone else noticed what webserver jobs.osdn.com is running?
I'll give you a hint: last I checked, PHP and Perl don't have filenames with an extension of.ASP.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
>> don't have the time or the resources to fight this. > Then they have no recourse but to go directly to you.
I'm not sure exactly what wasn't clear about that? It's easy to be brave when you're not the one looking down the barrel of a lawyer's gun.
I can definitely empathize with this: I ran an inane little Mountain Dew fan site back in college and as part of it, people sent in recipes for Dew-based concoctions. Beverages (alcoholic and otherwise) and food and one that caught the ire of a pharmaceutical company that involved mixing Dew and (pseudo?)ephedrine Mini-Thins, the same brand that caused at least a handful of med students to drop dead of heart attacks in the late 80's/early 90's. They sent a nastygram to me and my school's webmaster. (i don't have the letter anymore, but something to the effect of they didn't appreciate my recipe for a can of Dew and a few minithins as a study aid as they didn't want to be liable for the cold bodies)
My school ha[d/s] a hands-off policy towards student pages, so I sat down with them and I decided that I'd rather keep my graduation on course than waste my life away fighting an inanely frivolous lawsuit over something that only remotely mattered to me with money that I never had in the first place.
Call me a cynic, but I feel it's true: equal justice for all... who can afford it. Was this what our founding fathers had in mind?
> Some time ago, companies were given the right to advertise on TV that "their product was better than {insert specific brand name}." Would winning such a court case undo all of that?
From my grossly limited knowledge of French pop culture, comparing your product to your competitor's in advertisements (at least as of three or so years ago) is strictly verboten.
Can't speak for whether this applies to the rest of the EU, but seeing as how they prosecute for Nazi memorabilia overseas, I wonder what would happen if someone took exception to such a banner ad...?
Re:This sounds scarily like Ice-9
on
Non-Wet Water
·
· Score: 1
Been there, done that.
See also: ice plus and ice minus. FDA-banned, too. Fun!
...that's exactly what I used Napster for.
If I knew what songs I wanted to listen to, I'd start WinAmp going with the copy of my CD that I ripped. But when it comes to finding new stuff, I've only got so many hours in the day, and I can't be bothered figuring out who Kool Keith's done work under an alias with this month, what other monikers Haujobb and Mouse on Mars are recording under and what new and hip crap will blow my mind that I've never even heard of.
So what to do? Search for artists I already know and like and look at the shared files of the people who have them. Plenty of "duhs", some head scratching (what are Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears doing alongside Carcass and Napalm Death?), and even the occasional gem.
That right there is my biggest gripe with Gnutella: I can't tell what files the guy on the other end's hosting.
To wit, ICQBot. They're giving its maintainer some hassle about dilution of brand blah blah blah, when it's obvious to all (and made explicitly clear on the front page) that this is a user-made add-on for ICQ and in no way affiliated with anyone.
Does dilution of brand even make sense anymore? Is it even remotely possible to prove that if Joe User is looking for AIM, he's going to go to gaim.sourceforge.net instead of aim.com? Will Jane Newbie go looking for ICQ at icqbot.net, see the big fat notice saying that ICQ isn't here, we're not affiliated with them, just fans of the software, continue on in and somehow suck revenue from AOL?
This tripe is right up there with software patents.
Also, I think I'm going to claim ownership on oxygen. I've got a bunch of plants and they're making some, so it stands to reason that you're inhaling some of my hard-earned oxygen. Cease and desist or my lawyers will be paying you a visit.
The guy who's depending on other people to find his holes for him. And since you haven't built your own compiler, there may not be any visible holes; they could be built into your compiler. Lovely thought, ain't it?
MS is as an all-powerful government... well. You don't like a politician, you say it with your vote. (in the case of presidential elections, this alone may or may not be enough)
You don't like a company, you say it wth your wallet. I hear this Linux is fantastic, so less jawing about how bad things are, more footwork getting things to work the way they should.
> They can't hide devious little "big brother" bits of code in their OS because we get the code with the OS.
You've got the source code; have you personally audited it from top to bottom, and verified that there are no back doors? Even if you have, have you also made your own compiler to rebuild everything?
If you've ever heard the phrase "security by obscurity", don't pretend that openness is a magic bullet; just because you and a herd of others bury your head in the sand doesn't mean that back doors aren't already in there.
For what it's worth, MS releases code to large clients; if there were glaring holes in there, well. I'd say they'd be released to the public, but I wouldn't doubt they'd pull NDAs to cover their asses a la Sun...
The best part of all this is the fact that RedHat's selling people the same things that they can download for free... and they're shitting their pants with excitement over it.
OTOH, if they actually did make a new product... I'm sure that there won't be a host of bugs that introduced to their, uh, rock solid systems by it or anything. Because everyone knows Linux is the most stablest operating system in the world blah blah blah.
Exactly what value is this adding?
...but as long as we're pooh-poohing M$ (how clever!) and rooting for GPL and Linux and whatever... what do Microsoft's financials look like this quarter? Not that facts should mean anything around here.
...I've had an Intellimouse (the optical kind) for over a year with no problems whatsoever. Light and weak plastic? Same could be said for the Logitech mice I've gone through in the past.
So it goes.
Working for a start-up way back when (May-ish 1998), we decided that "XBox" would be the perfect name for our product (NDAs live on post-mortem, yadda yadda yadda). So I do the whois, find out they're registered, port scan them (is that legal anymore?) and find out there's not a single service up and running on their webserver.
I get in touch with the domain contacts and ask them if they'd be willing to part with the domain, seeing as how they're not doing anything with it.
To paraphrase, the response I got back was, "We have many exciting business opportunities planned for the near future for xbox.com, but we would be willing to part with the name for $10,000." Long story short, maybe that extra Sun box instead of that domain name wasn't the most prudent business move we could have made; thankfully, I had nothing to do with the business end, so I'm not losing any sleep over it. As for their claims, it looks like it took them a year and a half to get a single press release out; on Internet time where OpenBSD gets scolded for taking 6 f'n days to get a patch out, is that near future?
At any rate, I'm glad to see that domain squatting's bad, except when it happens to Microsoft and open source is good, except when Microsoft uses it, etc., etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info, champ. I'll have to do that today.
Oddly enough, I couldn't find anything on groups.google.com about it? Go figure.
Easy does it!
> Be sure and back up those databses w/ Veritas Backup Exec exchange Option!!!
FWIW, we haven't had problems with corrupted mail databases so much as Backup Exec choking out servers. It's lovely to flip a server on and find a blue screen (not of death!) staring back at you.
Easy does it!
> selling hardware and servicing that hardware is a *very* good idea.
VA Linux seems to think otherwise...
Easy does it!
...is the fact that (at the time that I'm posting this), 12 mod points have been burned on this artificial tripe-flavored morsel of geekish "violence". Feel free to threaten to beat my skull in for not agreeing with you, a0lc0d3gUrU.
And if you were among those that modded this misanthrope up, shame on you. So much for constructively teaching our children how to do right: let's just round them up and kill them all the first time they do something wrong.
Whatever happened to the conventional wisdom that stated that one should never manage more than 8 people?
Easy does it!
> And, they published an entire blow-by-blow timeline of what happened.
And, as any good Anne Tomlinson troll (and you'd better believe this one will dredge them up) will remind you, they edited it multiple times after posting it removing a (possibly salient) detail or two.
So, who's more responsible? And isn't it a tad early to definitively state one way or another that they will or won't give a slightly more conclusive explaination for the downtime than "oops something went wrong but it's pretty much ok now sort of."?
Easy does it!
Restate the obvious with the "I know I'm going to lose karma for this but I don't care!" *wink wink, nudge nudge* and watch it roll in.
In the meantime, I'll be trying to figure out how my karma's fluctuated down 15 points without anyone actually, you know. Moderating my posts down.
memepool.com featured a "Quit Slashdot" site that had all those points, only more and better.
Also, so I can get modded up, here's my "insightful" comment: 1+1=2.
> Another thing to note is that if you take a screenshot in OS 9 while playing a DVD you get a big magenta rectangle where the DVD screenshot is supposed to be. Is there a technical reason for this or are the MPAA really that paranoid?
It has less to do with MPAA paranoia than the bandwidth of video being sent down the bus.
From the rec.video.dvd FAQ...
[4.4] Why can't I take a screenshot of DVD video? Why do I get a pink or
black square?
Most DVD PCs, even those with software decoders, use video overlay hardware
to insert the video directly into the VGA signal. This an efficient way to
handle the very high bandwidth of full-motion video. Some decoder cards,
such as the Creative Labs Encore Dxr series and the Sigma Designs Hollywood
series, use a pass-through cable that overlays the video into the analog
VGA signal after it comes out of the video display card. Video overlay uses
a technique called colorkey to selectively replace a specified pixel color
(often magenta or near-black) with video content. Anywhere a colorkey pixel
appears in the computer graphics video, it's replaced by video from the DVD
decoder. This process occurs "downstream" from the computer's video memory,
so if you try to take a screenshot (which grabs pixels from video RAM), all
you get is a solid square of the colorkey color.
Some decoders write to normal video memory. In this case, utilities such as
Creative Softworx, HyperSnap, and SD Capture can grab still pictures. Some
player applications can also take screenshots.
prompt $d $t $_$p$g
But... that would make sense!
Shoddily-ported games, infuriating package dependencies and countless hours wasted trying to get things configured right just aren't where it's at.
Don't fool yourself: even with a killer app, people still need "bare minimums" to work with. You're right that people will need a decent productivity/"office" suite before they consider migrating, but Outlook is a rather useful little app as well when it comes to running an office.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mo de_w=on&site=jobs.osdn.com&submit=Examine
Note that there's a salient difference between www.osdn.com and jobs.osdn.com, which is why I didn't refer to the former.
Also, I'm still wondering why my karma's fluctuated from 16 back down to 10 without any moderation of my posts one way or another? Not being paranoid, just pointing out it's a wee bit shady.
...anyone else noticed what webserver jobs.osdn.com is running? .ASP.
I'll give you a hint: last I checked, PHP and Perl don't have filenames with an extension of
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
>> don't have the time or the resources to fight this.
> Then they have no recourse but to go directly to you.
I'm not sure exactly what wasn't clear about that? It's easy to be brave when you're not the one looking down the barrel of a lawyer's gun.
I can definitely empathize with this: I ran an inane little Mountain Dew fan site back in college and as part of it, people sent in recipes for Dew-based concoctions. Beverages (alcoholic and otherwise) and food and one that caught the ire of a pharmaceutical company that involved mixing Dew and (pseudo?)ephedrine Mini-Thins, the same brand that caused at least a handful of med students to drop dead of heart attacks in the late 80's/early 90's. They sent a nastygram to me and my school's webmaster. (i don't have the letter anymore, but something to the effect of they didn't appreciate my recipe for a can of Dew and a few minithins as a study aid as they didn't want to be liable for the cold bodies)
My school ha[d/s] a hands-off policy towards student pages, so I sat down with them and I decided that I'd rather keep my graduation on course than waste my life away fighting an inanely frivolous lawsuit over something that only remotely mattered to me with money that I never had in the first place.
Call me a cynic, but I feel it's true: equal justice for all... who can afford it. Was this what our founding fathers had in mind?
> Some time ago, companies were given the right to advertise on TV that "their product was better than {insert specific brand name}." Would winning such a court case undo all of that?
From my grossly limited knowledge of French pop culture, comparing your product to your competitor's in advertisements (at least as of three or so years ago) is strictly verboten.
Can't speak for whether this applies to the rest of the EU, but seeing as how they prosecute for Nazi memorabilia overseas, I wonder what would happen if someone took exception to such a banner ad...?
Been there, done that.
See also: ice plus and ice minus. FDA-banned, too. Fun!
...that's exactly what I used Napster for.
If I knew what songs I wanted to listen to, I'd start WinAmp going with the copy of my CD that I ripped. But when it comes to finding new stuff, I've only got so many hours in the day, and I can't be bothered figuring out who Kool Keith's done work under an alias with this month, what other monikers Haujobb and Mouse on Mars are recording under and what new and hip crap will blow my mind that I've never even heard of.
So what to do? Search for artists I already know and like and look at the shared files of the people who have them. Plenty of "duhs", some head scratching (what are Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears doing alongside Carcass and Napalm Death?), and even the occasional gem.
That right there is my biggest gripe with Gnutella: I can't tell what files the guy on the other end's hosting.
To wit, ICQBot. They're giving its maintainer some hassle about dilution of brand blah blah blah, when it's obvious to all (and made explicitly clear on the front page) that this is a user-made add-on for ICQ and in no way affiliated with anyone.
Does dilution of brand even make sense anymore? Is it even remotely possible to prove that if Joe User is looking for AIM, he's going to go to gaim.sourceforge.net instead of aim.com? Will Jane Newbie go looking for ICQ at icqbot.net, see the big fat notice saying that ICQ isn't here, we're not affiliated with them, just fans of the software, continue on in and somehow suck revenue from AOL?
This tripe is right up there with software patents.
Also, I think I'm going to claim ownership on oxygen. I've got a bunch of plants and they're making some, so it stands to reason that you're inhaling some of my hard-earned oxygen. Cease and desist or my lawyers will be paying you a visit.
What does that \alpha directory on my Windows NT disc mean? I forget.
You think their license sucks? Great. Fine.
Go out and make your own SDK and open-source it. It's still a free world.
The guy who's depending on other people to find his holes for him. And since you haven't built your own compiler, there may not be any visible holes; they could be built into your compiler. Lovely thought, ain't it?
MS is as an all-powerful government... well. You don't like a politician, you say it with your vote. (in the case of presidential elections, this alone may or may not be enough)
You don't like a company, you say it wth your wallet. I hear this Linux is fantastic, so less jawing about how bad things are, more footwork getting things to work the way they should.
> They can't hide devious little "big brother" bits of code in their OS because we get the code with the OS.
You've got the source code; have you personally audited it from top to bottom, and verified that there are no back doors? Even if you have, have you also made your own compiler to rebuild everything?
If you've ever heard the phrase "security by obscurity", don't pretend that openness is a magic bullet; just because you and a herd of others bury your head in the sand doesn't mean that back doors aren't already in there.
For what it's worth, MS releases code to large clients; if there were glaring holes in there, well. I'd say they'd be released to the public, but I wouldn't doubt they'd pull NDAs to cover their asses a la Sun...
The best part of all this is the fact that RedHat's selling people the same things that they can download for free... and they're shitting their pants with excitement over it.
OTOH, if they actually did make a new product... I'm sure that there won't be a host of bugs that introduced to their, uh, rock solid systems by it or anything. Because everyone knows Linux is the most stablest operating system in the world blah blah blah.
Exactly what value is this adding?
...but as long as we're pooh-poohing M$ (how clever!) and rooting for GPL and Linux and whatever... what do Microsoft's financials look like this quarter? Not that facts should mean anything around here.
...I've had an Intellimouse (the optical kind) for over a year with no problems whatsoever. Light and weak plastic? Same could be said for the Logitech mice I've gone through in the past.
So it goes.
Working for a start-up way back when (May-ish 1998), we decided that "XBox" would be the perfect name for our product (NDAs live on post-mortem, yadda yadda yadda). So I do the whois, find out they're registered, port scan them (is that legal anymore?) and find out there's not a single service up and running on their webserver.
I get in touch with the domain contacts and ask them if they'd be willing to part with the domain, seeing as how they're not doing anything with it.
To paraphrase, the response I got back was, "We have many exciting business opportunities planned for the near future for xbox.com, but we would be willing to part with the name for $10,000." Long story short, maybe that extra Sun box instead of that domain name wasn't the most prudent business move we could have made; thankfully, I had nothing to do with the business end, so I'm not losing any sleep over it. As for their claims, it looks like it took them a year and a half to get a single press release out; on Internet time where OpenBSD gets scolded for taking 6 f'n days to get a patch out, is that near future?
At any rate, I'm glad to see that domain squatting's bad, except when it happens to Microsoft and open source is good, except when Microsoft uses it, etc., etc.