No, it's on the front page for the sole purpose of Slashdotting archive.org. It's not even funny, anymore, it's just disgusting how shitty Slashdot is about what they choose to post and how they choose to post it. I come here for posterity - who are the dumbasses who pay for this abuse?
You're just slightly off. I only read the ones that the editors think will interest me, and they evidently think that dupes accomplish that better than any of the stories they reject.
Or a 747 or A380. For that matter, an oil tanker converted to haul hard drive platters would give far greater throughput, although even worse latency and, if you take the platters out of the drive cases to increase throughput, you may get some increase in data loss.
The irony is that in both cases, the majority of people have gone on using the encumbered formats, blissfully ignorant of any issues.
That is precisely as ironic as the fact that the majority of people use Alanis Morisette's definition of irony instead of one that comes even remotely close to that in the dictionary.
There's a difference between sending merchandise you didn't order and sending the wrong merchandise from what you ordered. The Uniform Commercial Code, which is the law in most states, has provisions for when you order one thing and get something else, and saying that you can just keep it and still demand the original item you ordered isn't precisely the legal truth at all times.
From the US Code section you linked to, "(d) For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient."
I didn't RTFA, because I already know why fat geeks live just as long as professional basketball players, on average. The fat geeks die younger than the players would without STDs, but the players balance the field out a bit by getting laid all the time by all sorts of women. Just enough of them pick up the hiv or the clap to drop the average life expectancy to equal with the technically less healthy fat geeks.
The funny thing is that the reason I selected the "ls -l is how you list your files" assertion as an example is that -l is specifically not a part of my ls alias, so I end up typing 'ls -l' (or, admittedly more often, -lh) a lot to list files.
I also highly doubt that -l makes DOS users feel comfortable. Not that DOS users still exist, but I just don't think they'd be comforted. I can hear them all asking at once, "Why is my directory dirwicksed?" the first time they see the -l output.
Actually, the point wasn't about what the default is. My ls alias is actually --color=auto --classify. The point was that people, such as those I was responding to, seem to think that certain options are necessary when they are not. -f is not a mandatory ln option any more than -l is a mandatory ls option.
First off, -f is not necessary. That's like saying that 'ls -l' is how you list files. Only give what's necessary, so as not to confuse people.
Now, that being said, your explanation is not quite precise. A symbolic link (ln -s) is a file that is flagged as being a symbolic link (in the same way a directory is a file flagged as being a directory; for the purposes of this explanation, "file" means any entry in a directory) which points to a file system path, either relative or absolute. It is interpreted as being a pointer to the file (or, as explained in the previous parenthetic, the symbolic link or directory) named by that path.
Your explanation falls short because it assumes mandatory existence of the target file. Symbolic links do not depend on the target file existing, although it is generally advisable that it does indeed exist. But this is why you can type 'ls', see a file named 'bob', type 'cat bob', and get 'cat: bob: No such file or directory' in response.
If you laughed out loud at Catch-22, you will at H2G2. (I did at both, repeatedly.) I actually read, without other fiction in between, the first Hitchhiker's Guide book, then Catch-22, and then the remainder of the Hitchhiker's "trilogy." To be honest, the last book wasn't as good as the others, but it was still a good book.:)
Is it just me, or did the Hitchhiker sequels seem redundant and boring. I mean the humor was funny the first time around, but then it just got old and repetative.
Your brilliant failure to use a question mark, inability to punctuate the colloquialism "I mean" appropriately, and decision to misspell "repetitive" belie a deeper appreciation for the English language than the average Hitchhiker's Guide fan possesses. Maybe that's why you didn't like the sequels.
Adams is a literary genius. It took over 5 years of prodding before I actually sat down and read the book, but then I was hooked. That was only months ago. I strongly recommend you go buy a copy and read it. Get The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide, which should be on the bargain shelf in hardback (blue dust cover) at Barnes & Noble, probably in clearance/preparation for a reprint to coincide with increased demand from the movie. It should cost you $15 or less, and won't take more than two weeks to read all five books even if you're a slow reader like I am.
I really can't describe it with words - I'm not the writer Adams was, clearly - but all I can say is that you owe it to yourself to read at least the first book. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I suspect you will.
What's it about, though? Life, the universe, and everything about sums it up. Read it and find out.
The damages are greater to the copywrite [sic] holder.
That's fine and dandy, but what is the damage to society? The criminal law is a tool to punish those who harm society, whereas civil law exists to protect society's members from harm, or rather to give them a redress for it.
I do not think that it is the place of the criminal law to punish copyright violators. The individual (be it Joe Smith or Sony Pictures) is already entitled to sue for civil damages, so saying that the damages are greater means that they can already, without this new law, sue for those increased damages.
Moreover, if actual damages aren't a sufficient economic deterrent to keep people from violating copyrights in this manner, the appropriate response is to award punitive damages, not to throw the guy in prison.
That said, the story itself is pretty biased if it thinks that no side of the copyright debate thinks that this is not draconian or excessive. Clearly, a majority of Congress, which is a major player in the copyright debate, believes that this is necessary and proper.
That's all you pay? What kind of crappy two-bit backwoods state school do you go to? If it's my alma mater, will you say "hi" to the Delta Zeta girls (the "EZ DZs") for me?;-D
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's on the front page for the sole purpose of Slashdotting archive.org. It's not even funny, anymore, it's just disgusting how shitty Slashdot is about what they choose to post and how they choose to post it. I come here for posterity - who are the dumbasses who pay for this abuse?
You're just slightly off. I only read the ones that the editors think will interest me, and they evidently think that dupes accomplish that better than any of the stories they reject.
Or a 747 or A380. For that matter, an oil tanker converted to haul hard drive platters would give far greater throughput, although even worse latency and, if you take the platters out of the drive cases to increase throughput, you may get some increase in data loss.
Of course [it can't]! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.
The irony is that in both cases, the majority of people have gone on using the encumbered formats, blissfully ignorant of any issues.
That is precisely as ironic as the fact that the majority of people use Alanis Morisette's definition of irony instead of one that comes even remotely close to that in the dictionary.
There's a difference between sending merchandise you didn't order and sending the wrong merchandise from what you ordered. The Uniform Commercial Code, which is the law in most states, has provisions for when you order one thing and get something else, and saying that you can just keep it and still demand the original item you ordered isn't precisely the legal truth at all times.
From the US Code section you linked to, "(d) For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient."
I didn't RTFA, because I already know why fat geeks live just as long as professional basketball players, on average. The fat geeks die younger than the players would without STDs, but the players balance the field out a bit by getting laid all the time by all sorts of women. Just enough of them pick up the hiv or the clap to drop the average life expectancy to equal with the technically less healthy fat geeks.
Maybe the big AC conspiracy has just been married men, all along, covering their asses. I just hope that the goatse.cx and gnfos ACs are not married.
The funny thing is that the reason I selected the "ls -l is how you list your files" assertion as an example is that -l is specifically not a part of my ls alias, so I end up typing 'ls -l' (or, admittedly more often, -lh) a lot to list files.
I also highly doubt that -l makes DOS users feel comfortable. Not that DOS users still exist, but I just don't think they'd be comforted. I can hear them all asking at once, "Why is my directory dirwicksed?" the first time they see the -l output.
Actually, the point wasn't about what the default is. My ls alias is actually --color=auto --classify. The point was that people, such as those I was responding to, seem to think that certain options are necessary when they are not. -f is not a mandatory ln option any more than -l is a mandatory ls option.
First off, -f is not necessary. That's like saying that 'ls -l' is how you list files. Only give what's necessary, so as not to confuse people.
Now, that being said, your explanation is not quite precise. A symbolic link (ln -s) is a file that is flagged as being a symbolic link (in the same way a directory is a file flagged as being a directory; for the purposes of this explanation, "file" means any entry in a directory) which points to a file system path, either relative or absolute. It is interpreted as being a pointer to the file (or, as explained in the previous parenthetic, the symbolic link or directory) named by that path.
Your explanation falls short because it assumes mandatory existence of the target file. Symbolic links do not depend on the target file existing, although it is generally advisable that it does indeed exist. But this is why you can type 'ls', see a file named 'bob', type 'cat bob', and get 'cat: bob: No such file or directory' in response.
If only he had read the article, he'd know that!
Folks, we found the only married male Slashdotter. You can tell, because he posted that anonymously.
There are libraries available that do this for you on many different Lisps.
GCL sucks, CLISP kinda sucks, and SBCL is just fun. I'm still waiting for a Lisp compiler that can compile to a standalone executable, though.
There was a version 3?
Yeah, but does it have a Common Lisp compiler yet?
The day MIDI can duplicate Elvis's unique voice is the day they find a way to electrically control the spinal columns of about 10,000 people in Vegas.
I'm not finding Hitchhiker's Guide on the Listen Again page. A little more of a hint? :)
I just want the original show for my 35-hour drive in 2 weeks. :(
If you laughed out loud at Catch-22, you will at H2G2. (I did at both, repeatedly.) I actually read, without other fiction in between, the first Hitchhiker's Guide book, then Catch-22, and then the remainder of the Hitchhiker's "trilogy." To be honest, the last book wasn't as good as the others, but it was still a good book. :)
Your brilliant failure to use a question mark, inability to punctuate the colloquialism "I mean" appropriately, and decision to misspell "repetitive" belie a deeper appreciation for the English language than the average Hitchhiker's Guide fan possesses. Maybe that's why you didn't like the sequels.
Adams is a literary genius. It took over 5 years of prodding before I actually sat down and read the book, but then I was hooked. That was only months ago. I strongly recommend you go buy a copy and read it. Get The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide, which should be on the bargain shelf in hardback (blue dust cover) at Barnes & Noble, probably in clearance/preparation for a reprint to coincide with increased demand from the movie. It should cost you $15 or less, and won't take more than two weeks to read all five books even if you're a slow reader like I am.
I really can't describe it with words - I'm not the writer Adams was, clearly - but all I can say is that you owe it to yourself to read at least the first book. If you don't like it, that's fine, but I suspect you will.
What's it about, though? Life, the universe, and everything about sums it up. Read it and find out.
That's fine and dandy, but what is the damage to society? The criminal law is a tool to punish those who harm society, whereas civil law exists to protect society's members from harm, or rather to give them a redress for it.
I do not think that it is the place of the criminal law to punish copyright violators. The individual (be it Joe Smith or Sony Pictures) is already entitled to sue for civil damages, so saying that the damages are greater means that they can already, without this new law, sue for those increased damages.
Moreover, if actual damages aren't a sufficient economic deterrent to keep people from violating copyrights in this manner, the appropriate response is to award punitive damages, not to throw the guy in prison.
That said, the story itself is pretty biased if it thinks that no side of the copyright debate thinks that this is not draconian or excessive. Clearly, a majority of Congress, which is a major player in the copyright debate, believes that this is necessary and proper.
That's all you pay? What kind of crappy two-bit backwoods state school do you go to? If it's my alma mater, will you say "hi" to the Delta Zeta girls (the "EZ DZs") for me? ;-D