the real reason we have zombies everywhere is political correctness. it's a lot safer for game makers to use pretend antagonists than human beings. if a game has you shooting human beings, somebody's going to complain; monsters or robots are much less likely to offend the hyper-sensitive thought-police tipper gores of the world.
The story points to plus46.html which isn't useful for a general distribution announcement like this. Here's a much better choice (which includes a link to the plus46.html page):
for the record, i submitted it with different links. plus46.html was originally linked from the text "and lots more." they "improved" the links in the story before they published it.
well, this cements it. now that slashdot has explicitly stated that it will actively cling to bad editing, i'm out of here for good.
this stance says, "we don't *want* high standards;" this is intellectual laziness, the slacker ethic.
slashdot won't miss me; i know that. but neither will *i* miss slashdot, and, as more and more productive users abandon the site, the lower its already-embattled quality will sink. it won't be too long before slashdot is nothing but trolls.
later.
p.s. don't waste your time flaming me; i won't see it. i mean it; i'm never coming to this website again.
"I'd love to watch the [original commercials] that originally aired on these shows."
you do realize that different commercials were (and are) shown in different geographical regions? there's no such thing as "the original commercials" that aired during a certain TV show - each syndicated station will have played a different set; this was even more true back in the days before cable, when everything was broadcast.
"It is expected that the probe will return to earth in approximately 50 thousand years."
unlikely. the probe will be picked up by one of our own spacecraft long before then. it will sit in a museum for a while, and in 50'000 years it will be long returned to dust and forgotten by whatever we've evolved/mutated into by then.
it's been said before, and i'll say it again now: microsoft's dominance on the desktop has nothing to do with windows; it's all about Office. there are just too many people who need word/excel et al, so as long as their document formats are closed, they'll be able to maintain their death grip on the desktop.
things like openoffice.org and abiword are noble efforts, but they just aren't 100% yet, and, of course, MS changes their formats with every new release just to prevent the FOSS alternatives from catching up.
let's face it; most people, techies and lay people, agree windows sucks, but as long as MS continues this monopoly-abusing practice of anti-interoperability ("does not play well with others"), we're all stuck with it.
if documentation is important to you, check out openbsd'sdocumentation. their reputation for having the best docs in the open-source world are well-deserved.
i'd like to be able to use openoffice, but i'm not willing to give up my favorite OS for it. can anybody offer some enlightenment on why openoffice doesn't run on openbsd? i'm genuinely curious. is it something to do with the portability of the code? some aspect of openbsd which makes it somehow hostile to openoffice? whatever the case, i really hope it's something than can be addressed in the future; just this past week i've had MS word 2000 mangle my résumé for no good reason...
"I spend my days in Linux driver code. HTML it close to foreign to me. Some how I managed to get too many breaks in. I just checked the page source to find out.
"I made the fatal mistake of not testing my code by hitting the preview button."
i hope you're less sloppy with your linux drivers. 8-P
a) this new version of the gpl is going to cause a real problem, and there will be all sorts of forking and license incompatibility issues; or
b) this is a non-issue, but nevertheless the community now has to deal with clearing up a bunch of misconceptions, muddy water, and FUD.
either way, it's a problem. why does there even have to *be* a new version of the gpl? didn't they write it properly the first two times? personally, i admire the ethical intent of the gpl, but it's this kind of aggravation that makes the BSD license the only way to go.
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."
- Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996
the same principle applies to "page[s] that [are] designed for 1600x1200 resolutions." the idea is to keep content separate from presentation - that's what CSS and XHTML and so on are supposed to enable - but that goal is impossible with crap like flash etc.
as soon as anyone puts a label on a website that says, "this site is designed for _______," it means they're locking some people (blind people, users of text browsers, PDA and cel-phone users, etc.) out of your site, and that's bad business, plus it demonstrates their ignorance of web technology.
Slashdot Mirror
the real reason we have zombies everywhere is political correctness. it's a lot safer for game makers to use pretend antagonists than human beings. if a game has you shooting human beings, somebody's going to complain; monsters or robots are much less likely to offend the hyper-sensitive thought-police tipper gores of the world.
The story points to plus46.html which isn't useful for a general distribution announcement like this. Here's a much better choice (which includes a link to the plus46.html page):
http://www.openbsd.org/46.html
or
http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archives/html/openbsd-announce/2009-10/msg00001.html
for the record, i submitted it with different links. plus46.html was originally linked from the text "and lots more." they "improved" the links in the story before they published it.
well, this cements it. now that slashdot has explicitly stated that it will actively cling to bad editing, i'm out of here for good.
this stance says, "we don't *want* high standards;" this is intellectual laziness, the slacker ethic.
slashdot won't miss me; i know that. but neither will *i* miss slashdot, and, as more and more productive users abandon the site, the lower its already-embattled quality will sink. it won't be too long before slashdot is nothing but trolls.
later.
p.s. don't waste your time flaming me; i won't see it. i mean it; i'm never coming to this website again.
in front of their televisions, watching "reality tv."
...will it cure my Windows headaches?
8-)
you do realize that different commercials were (and are) shown in different geographical regions? there's no such thing as "the original commercials" that aired during a certain TV show - each syndicated station will have played a different set; this was even more true back in the days before cable, when everything was broadcast.
>> He sites examples
> cites. Sites are places. Cites are citations, things that you write or otherwise communicate.
no, you're as wrong as the guy you tried to correct. "cite" isn't a noun at all; it's a verb ("to cite").
"The article is astonishing for its frank comments from the principles, including Allchin and Gates..."
You mean principals. Microsoft doesn't have any principles.
8-D
no, i meant it exactly as i wrote it.
read it again, and this time bring your sense of humor (read jd's post, below yours; *he* got it).
cheers,
pete g
haha touche 8-)
Heterogeneous = "Consisting of dissimilar elements or parts; not homogeneous." (dictionary.com)
Heterogenius = Me.
8-)
"It is expected that the probe will return to earth in approximately 50 thousand years."
unlikely. the probe will be picked up by one of our own spacecraft long before then. it will sit in a museum for a while, and in 50'000 years it will be long returned to dust and forgotten by whatever we've evolved/mutated into by then.
"You can always get more women..."
not with that haircut
it's been said before, and i'll say it again now: microsoft's dominance on the desktop has nothing to do with windows; it's all about Office. there are just too many people who need word/excel et al, so as long as their document formats are closed, they'll be able to maintain their death grip on the desktop.
things like openoffice.org and abiword are noble efforts, but they just aren't 100% yet, and, of course, MS changes their formats with every new release just to prevent the FOSS alternatives from catching up.
let's face it; most people, techies and lay people, agree windows sucks, but as long as MS continues this monopoly-abusing practice of anti-interoperability ("does not play well with others"), we're all stuck with it.
for the record, the phrase is "throwing the baby out *with* the bathwater."
...when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
i do concede, though, that my environments are such that the internal networks (and users) *are* trustworthy.
>> Someone who's this greedy... would discretely get >> his ass kicked one day
> Do you mean stealthily?
(the creetin!)
if documentation is important to you, check out openbsd's documentation. their reputation for having the best docs in the open-source world are well-deserved.
i'd like to be able to use openoffice, but i'm not willing to give up my favorite OS for it. can anybody offer some enlightenment on why openoffice doesn't run on openbsd? i'm genuinely curious. is it something to do with the portability of the code? some aspect of openbsd which makes it somehow hostile to openoffice? whatever the case, i really hope it's something than can be addressed in the future; just this past week i've had MS word 2000 mangle my résumé for no good reason...
i hope you're less sloppy with your linux drivers. 8-P
...is 100% closed.
one of two possible scenarios exists here:
a) this new version of the gpl is going to cause a real problem, and there will be all sorts of forking and license incompatibility issues; or
b) this is a non-issue, but nevertheless the community now has to deal with clearing up a bunch of misconceptions, muddy water, and FUD.
either way, it's a problem. why does there even have to *be* a new version of the gpl? didn't they write it properly the first two times? personally, i admire the ethical intent of the gpl, but it's this kind of aggravation that makes the BSD license the only way to go.
"English is the most unpure language and suprisingly the most popular language because of its ease."
impure.
from anybrowser.org:
the same principle applies to "page[s] that [are] designed for 1600x1200 resolutions." the idea is to keep content separate from presentation - that's what CSS and XHTML and so on are supposed to enable - but that goal is impossible with crap like flash etc.
as soon as anyone puts a label on a website that says, "this site is designed for _______," it means they're locking some people (blind people, users of text browsers, PDA and cel-phone users, etc.) out of your site, and that's bad business, plus it demonstrates their ignorance of web technology.