Tried like five times to post a reply to the recent Slashback in Phoenix. Each time I hit "Preview" I got a list of current topics. Like the form had forgotten to specify or something. So finally in desperation, I fired up Windows (via Win4Lin) and tried IE.
Worked just fine.
Is this just a coincidence, or did Slashcode change during the move to be specifically mozilla-unfriendly? If this post goes through (trying from Phoenix first) then I'll assume it was just coincidence.
All you Microsoft-bashers crying about Microsoft getting off "scott-free" should read the article again. They had PERMITS for crying out loud! And the city didn't argue the fact that they had permits, only that the permits were improperly issued. Sounds to me like the CITY made the mistake, and Microsoft shouldn't have been fined at all!
Of course, I'm certainly no Microsoft-lover, but c'mon guys, be honest. If there's ONE thing that Microsoft has consistently done WELL, it's gotta be marketing. We geeks could learn something from them.
I know a guy who wrote a program to calculate Pi to an arbitrary number of digits in
You ready for this?
DOS
He wrote the entire progeram as a series of.BAT files that recursively called each other.
No external programs, no tricks. Nothing but the native capabilities of COMMAND.COM. Local variables were stored in the environment, and globals were stored in files.
djbdns doesn't count and we both already know that
Ah, I see. It's not "Open Source" software because it isn't published under an "Open Source" license, right? (sigh) Dan Bernstein is a total security freak. He doesn't trust ANYBODY. He especially doesn't trust anybody to distribute modified, binary versions of his software, ruining his reputation when one of their "enhancements" results in a security hole. This already happened once when a Qmail add-on was discovered to have a security problem, and thereby tarnished Qmail's otherwise perfect security record.
So he ONLY authorizies distribution of his ORIGINAL source code. No modifications allowed, except as diffs to the originals. And if you apply those diffs and something breaks, don't blame him; blame the author of the diff.
You might disagree with Dan; he's a hard-nosed, inflexible so-and-so. But he's got style, and his programs are a beautiful model of efficiency.
The Open Source community could use a few more people like Dan.
and we both already know that so don't bother with beating that dead horse.
Such Style! Such Wit! Such Argument! Such Rhetoric! Such Unquestionable Authority!
I'm not adversely affecting the root nameservers, and they're designed to handle a great deal more traffic than they do. Heck, even under a DDOS attack, about half of them stayed responsive.
Since I run djbdns, my DNS is more reliable than my ISP's, anyway.
Same experience here. The install tech said that he needed to install some software. I told him,
Well, I run Linux. If you really need me to, I can repartition the hard drive, install Windows 98, let you install your stuff, and delete it later, but you'll have to wait awhile.
So he says,
Well, I gotta install this stuff or I don't get paid. How about I just say that I installed it and you just sign here saying that I installed it.
Given the atrocious inaccuracy of VeriSign WHOIS info (have you ever tried to get them to change a phone number?), and the tendency of Goverment info to be even less accurate, on the average, than civilian counterparts, I'd say that this is a net gain for the hackers.
Actually, it sounds on the face of it like they're patenting a lossless compression scheme (eleminating redundancy). JPEG is lossy; it doesn't just discard redundant information; it discards the information that is less likely to be noticed by the human eye.
But the first example will allow you to have two tables with no intervening space (in IE) while the second will insert a paragraph-sized block of whitespace after the/form tag.
Of course, the first example is improper tag nesting (the tr tag shouldn't contain anything but td or th) but I do it that way because IE requires it and the other browsers don't complain.
I guess I always get confused someplace inbetween Schrödinger's Cat and what I've learned from Star Trek.
I seriously hope that nobody (at least nobody reading/.) actually considers the pseudo-technobabble-hogwash on Star Trek to have even the slightest foundation in science.
But then, I equally hope that nobody considers the esoteric notions embodied in quantum physics to have the slightest foundation in reality, Schrödinger's cat notwithstanding.
Scientific theories (especially at the particle physics level) are neither true nor false. It really doesn't matter whether quarks and leptons and muons and suchlike really exist, or whether the truth is far stranger. You'll never find out for sure in this life, anyway. If a theory happens to coincide with observable events closely enough to be useful at making accurate predictions of real-world behaviour, then it is a good theory. It's a useful theory. But don't confuse it with reality.
Believing in quantum physics is like believing in the Matrix. Or Star Trek.
I would like to say that the price for patents should be jacked up to cover the actual cost of examining the patent. . . .
However, this might make it more difficult for Mr. Inventor to submit a perfectly valid patent, again giving the advantage to the big guy.
And what's the matter with that?
Certainly the "big guy" has a better chance
to usher a really innovative idea to market.
And if "Mr. Inventor" has a really
valuable idea, then he should have no problem
attracting investors to help pay for the loan
he took out for patent fees.
<tongue-in-cheek>
But then again, the idea that government functions
should be self-funding is a throwback to the mindset
of the late 1700's.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like drivers licensing.
So it doesn't affect us "everyday individuals" who don't have any reason (or ability) to engage in interstate commerce.
(Too bad I gotta buy and sell to eat; guess I'll have to take the mark after all...
Hmm.. Somebody contributes to a significant number of GNU projects yet remains anonymous (and therefore unaccountable.)
Microsoft mole?
Tried like five times to post a reply to the recent Slashback in Phoenix. Each time I hit "Preview" I got a list of current topics. Like the form had forgotten to specify or something. So finally in desperation, I fired up Windows (via Win4Lin) and tried IE.
Worked just fine.
Is this just a coincidence, or did Slashcode change during the move to be specifically mozilla-unfriendly? If this post goes through (trying from Phoenix first) then I'll assume it was just coincidence.
All you Microsoft-bashers crying about Microsoft getting off "scott-free" should read the article again. They had PERMITS for crying out loud! And the city didn't argue the fact that they had permits, only that the permits were improperly issued. Sounds to me like the CITY made the mistake, and Microsoft shouldn't have been fined at all!
Of course, I'm certainly no Microsoft-lover, but c'mon guys, be honest. If there's ONE thing that Microsoft has consistently done WELL, it's gotta be marketing. We geeks could learn something from them.
I know a guy who wrote a program to calculate Pi to an arbitrary number of digits in
You ready for this?
DOS
He wrote the entire progeram as a series of .BAT files that recursively called each other.
No external programs, no tricks. Nothing but the native capabilities of COMMAND.COM. Local variables were stored in the environment, and globals were stored in files.
It ran really slow.
Like maybe an actual search?
You mean, like these?
Ah, I see. It's not "Open Source" software because it isn't published under an "Open Source" license, right? (sigh) Dan Bernstein is a total security freak. He doesn't trust ANYBODY. He especially doesn't trust anybody to distribute modified, binary versions of his software, ruining his reputation when one of their "enhancements" results in a security hole. This already happened once when a Qmail add-on was discovered to have a security problem, and thereby tarnished Qmail's otherwise perfect security record.
So he ONLY authorizies distribution of his ORIGINAL source code. No modifications allowed, except as diffs to the originals. And if you apply those diffs and something breaks, don't blame him; blame the author of the diff.
You might disagree with Dan; he's a hard-nosed, inflexible so-and-so. But he's got style, and his programs are a beautiful model of efficiency.
The Open Source community could use a few more people like Dan.
Such Style! Such Wit! Such Argument! Such Rhetoric! Such Unquestionable Authority!
Such a sterling example of my sigfile:
Friends don't let friends run BIND
I'm not adversely affecting the root nameservers, and they're designed to handle a great deal more traffic than they do. Heck, even under a DDOS attack, about half of them stayed responsive.
Since I run djbdns, my DNS is more reliable than my ISP's, anyway.
So he says,
Duh.
They're called "Root nameservers."
Here's a list (from my /etc/dnsroots.global file)
Yeah, my Casio EC4004 calculator was based on a 4004.
I read that story; it's very well done but obviously entirely fictitious. It's got holes you could drive that legendary car through.
They won't waste so much time on false leads.
You mean like a name in all capital letters?
Vexira website
I thought GW stood for GateWay...
Prove it! Show me your bandwidth bill!
Actually, it sounds on the face of it like they're patenting a lossless compression scheme (eleminating redundancy). JPEG is lossy; it doesn't just discard redundant information; it discards the information that is less likely to be noticed by the human eye.
Somebody wanna correct me, here?
So what it it's running Win98 (or WinCE, as another poster corrected).
It's got five different systems.
With that kind of redundancy, you can AFFORD to run Win98.
(Just kidding; I suppose they are five different systems for five different functions because WinCE isn't multitasking...)
Of course, the first example is improper tag nesting (the tr tag shouldn't contain anything but td or th) but I do it that way because IE requires it and the other browsers don't complain.
Tapes cost half as much because they're less durable and because they can't be copied without loss of fidelity.
Think about it. Wouldn't you be willing to trim your profit margin a little for a guaranteed repeat customer?
I seriously hope that nobody (at least nobody reading
But then, I equally hope that nobody considers the esoteric notions embodied in quantum physics to have the slightest foundation in reality, Schrödinger's cat notwithstanding.
Scientific theories (especially at the particle physics level) are neither true nor false. It really doesn't matter whether quarks and leptons and muons and suchlike really exist, or whether the truth is far stranger. You'll never find out for sure in this life, anyway. If a theory happens to coincide with observable events closely enough to be useful at making accurate predictions of real-world behaviour, then it is a good theory. It's a useful theory.
But don't confuse it with reality.
Believing in quantum physics is like believing in the Matrix. Or Star Trek.
My God will somebody please mod this up as funny!
As long as they're not too short.
And what's the matter with that? Certainly the "big guy" has a better chance to usher a really innovative idea to market.
And if "Mr. Inventor" has a really valuable idea, then he should have no problem attracting investors to help pay for the loan he took out for patent fees.
<tongue-in-cheek>
</tongue-in-cheek>Cool; I registered my spamtrap, spam@pillars.net on their site and instantly got another class-C on my blocking list.