This all depends on the physical architecture used for the said circuit. I don't know how frequently SONET is used these days on HiCap and Tier-1 circuits, but if your network is designed using what is known in the industry as UPSR (Unidirectional Path Switched Ring), there is a redundant path on another circuit that can handle the traffic around the disabled / failed segments of a SONET ring. If the fibers were located (physically) close to each other (which is not a good, secure practice), then this would be a huge problem, and the segments within the failed portion of the ring would be "in-wrap" so segments at either end of the failed sections would still have signal, and therefore, service. Multiple fiber cuts, as were reported, might have been done to intentionally disable this in-built service protection of UPSR. If there were 3 cuts, as reported, this would had to have been a coordinated & direct attack on the carrier's infrastructure.
....we can't have nice things" sub-thread in 5....4....3....2....1.........oh, wait.
Seriously, though - these are the kind of people that just make me want to walk up to them and just stare at them, wide-eyed, for about 2 minutes and calmly say "What is wrong with you". These are the same kind of people that used to throw rocks at my car when I drove up the hill to 1 Cyclotron Drive in Berkeley to work at Lawrence Berkeley Lab in the 80's - total nut-jobs who, despite their obviously misguide attempts at trying to make the world a "better place", are utterly clueless as to making the world a truly "better place".
Blame the Tier-1 & Tier-2 backbone providers and telcos for skimping on SONET implementations; UPSRs (Unidirectional, Path-Switched Rings) do not have the line-fault switching capabilities that a BLSR (Bi-directional, Line-Switched Ring) because of the single-direction design of a UPSR. Since UPSR networks are cheaper (1/2 the fiber-lay costs) than BLSR, many large telcos and backbone providers play fast and loose with fiber capacity and provisioning...which, in this case, apparently came back to bite them.
The original ARPANet, as it was designed at that time in history, *was* redundant and met the needs for the spec. The ARPANet / NSFNet is as distant from today's Internet as a Blue Whale is from granite.
During "The Great Internet Build-out" of the late 90's, outages similar to this were more common than what you have been led to believe; the reason why people heard virtually nothing about those outages was because (a such outages weren't "visible" to those outside of the telco industry, and there wasn't such a demand 10 years ago for such high capacity circuits, and (b circuits were more carefully planned-out and used BLSR as much as possible. Now, where stockholders go crazy if their investment in a given telco doesn't grow by 10%, those telcos scrimp and cut corners wherever they can - including running SONET networks with inherently unsafe ring topologies.
Based on your 3rd paragraph, are you saying that "we" expect Republicans - who, according to you, generally distrust the government, and that because of this distrust, are less-likely to want to get away with "crap"...and that politicians from the Democratic Party can "more easily get away with this kind of crap without infuriating their government-loving base (i.e. Democratic constituents) because they're expected to want to try to "get away with...crap"?
Hmmmmm.
Based on that, can we surmise the following?
1) Republicans are, generally, more honest - because they don't want to try (or even think of) "getting away with crap" (i.e. being dishonest)
2) Democrats are, generally, more dishonest - because they want to and we expect them to try to "get away with crap" - and that the process of "getting away with crap" is expected of them?
Works for me - especially in light of Sen. Obama's Real Estate scam involved with his home, his "donation" of US$800,000.00 to ACORN to "Help Get-out The Vote" while ACORN is filing phony & bogus Voter Regisrations in at least 6 States...not to mention his association with Weathermen Underground member William C. Ayers AND donations given from the Woods Fund to the Arab American Action Network - whose President, Mona Khalidi, is the wife of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi...who is, in turn, co-founder of an Arab organization which supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization when the PLO was still labeled a terrorist organization and called for the "obliteration of Israel and it's friend, AMERICA!"...and HE (Rashid Khalidi) even held a fund-raiser for Sen. Obama's campaign!
In comparison to your system, here's another interesting example:
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Sledgehammer) - No overclocking DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D 2GB RAM - 1GB Corsair XMS CMX512-3200LL (512x2) CS2 + 1GB Kingston PC3200 CS2 (512x2) eVGA GeForce 6800 GT-I eVGA GeForce 7100 GS (note: these cards are *not* running in SLI mode)
Various PATA & SATA drives.
This is a 3-year-old motherboard, CPU & Video cards. This is a 100% stock-configured system. Vista runs as smooth as silk, I can play games on it along with sending 2 audio streams to two ShoutCast servers. When I first starting using this system I installed XP X64 and loved the performance; soon after, I installed Vista Ultimate as part of the Longhorn/Vista Beta. Yes, driver support from companies was horrendous, but that is a horse that has been flogged once too many times.
This is a *very* pedestrian system, compared to all of you dual-core & quad-core users and I *do* push this system to it's limits on a regular basis and have had very little problem running Vista on this system since RTM (again, due to driver support) and zero problems since the driver-base has matured. This must be a "magical" system to be so under-powered and yet perform so smoothly.
It appears that the silver bullet to solve the problems with Vista that have been reported here (and elsewhere) comes down to doing a total wipe of the hard drive and performing a *clean* Vista install...especially so for OEM boxes; that is where your true "bloatware" comes from, where OEMs install their special docks, sidebars, embellishments, geegaws, widgets, "support" software, and so on ad nauseum.
Don't forget the number of launch failures that happened at Cape Canaveral / Cape Kennedy. Some of the more spectacular ones happened when the Gemini missions were going, and they had some fairly spectacular aborts / KATOs with the early Saturn I test launches, along with some equally spectacular engine failures for both the F1 and J1 engines, along with the early tests of the STS Engines - the bells were apparently not as robust as planned, and the engine bells went into a harmonic coupling that made them look like they were made of jello...and then abruptly collapsed at the test stands at Marshall. "Rocket Science" only works after you've destroyed several prototypes in the design and test process.
No, I don't work for NASA, but I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Ever hear of abuse of power? Was JFK giving up secret spy plane specs so that he could get revenge on an op/ed writer? In any case, your argument rests on the notion that Bush ok'd the leak. Did he do that?
No - JFK used the White House and the Oval Office as his own personal brothel...or didn't you get the memo of the numerous affairs and tet-a-tets, including Marilyn Monroe?
Only time will tell whether Pres. Bush ok'ed the leak or not. I find it funny that there is more emphasis on the "leak" than the business that Plame's husband had in Nigeria on the C.I.A.'s request - trying to either verify or disprove the 1 Downing Street claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing "yellowcake" from Nigeria.
Wow - do we now have a possible competitor to DWave's process trying to create FUD and deception as AC posts in a very thought-provoking thread?
What has the world come to?....oh, wait - what was I thinking; this is Slashdot, where AC posts are the most common (and sadly the most effective) method of generating thread-drift. It's true that most AC posts can be quite funny, so I'm not at the point of adjusting my threshold settings quite yet and I am aware of replying to a AC post is like arguing with someone on the Internet...but...day-am.
Ok - let's apply that to what is knonw about the event and see if we can match-up with your guide:
1) No, but they did cause disruption not just on Web Sites but Comcast's network as a whole: httpd, pop3, smtp, nntp, ftp, and any other protocol that you can think of that uses fqdn input to access data. Result: toss-up
2) It can be argued that hacking into NetworkSolution's DNS services and changing / redirecting Comcast's IP traffic is tanamount to a violent act against a corporation or business. Other "hackers" have done much less and have been hit with serious jail time. Result: barely
3) Since this event was not connected in any way, shape or form with on-going Military operations, there were no civilians in any region where Military operations are active that were affected or harmed; however, users of Comcast's services were denied access to services or products they purchased, which could fall under violation of "Restriction of Free Trade" laws. Result: kinda
4) Since they are a "hacking crew", they could be tagged as an "Organization", but not a registered NGO; however, if this was not the first attack from them, or each redirection of the comcast.net domain names can be argued in court to be an individual incident they could be prosecuted under RICO statutes Result: Murky, but interesting
5) Based on the Wired interview, they could meet this part of the guide if intent to do damage was based on the leftist/liberal distain for all large companies, such as Comcast. Since the statements were made in an interview which was recorder, taped or copied and made available to the general public, then they've pretty much hung themselves on this one. Result: Nearly there
6) Absolutely. They used social engineering to impersonate someone who had either legal ownership of the domain name, or the person who is registered with Comcast's DNS Registrar to illegally obtaining access to Comcast's DNS settings page to begin their assault.
From what I've read about this (not just the Wired article, but other spots on the net), I can predict a very sad, nasty future for the perps. One quote from the Wired article sums it up:
"The situation has kind of blown up here, a lot bigger than I thought it would," says Defiant, a 19-year-old man whose first name is James. "I wish I was a minor right now because this is going to be really bad."
Wait - where do you think you were posting this, on a Yahoo!Groups forum?
This is Slashdot, for heaven's sake - the most popular place on the Interweb where one of the world's richest men can take the billions he has personally earned as the Former CEO of one of the most successfull software companies in the world and give it away to save lives and fight HIV/AIDS and a host of other diseases that kill millions of children each year...and be called "evil".
In your attempt to help clarify which GiTS properties were movies / feature films, you left out a minor technical point:
"GITS: Solid State Society" was neither a compilation or just "new scenes" but was a feature-lenght release that had it's debut on Japan's SKY PerfectTV, and followed the anime series timeline versus Oshii's previous films.
Interestingly enough, early designs from North American Rockwell for the Shuttle included a crew escape system similar to what was going to be implemented in the North American Rockwell B-1A - which in itself was based on the F-111's Crew Escape Module, where the Crew Cabin / Cockpit blasts away from the rest of the vehicle using solid rocket motors. When the decision was made to use the area where the motors would have been for the extra crew seats and stowage, the whole escape system was scrapped. So much for hindsight.
Even more so than your comment: I'd lay hard money down that if FireFox was the dominant browser in the market as IE is today, that said developer would be aiming his comments just as squarely at the Mozilla / FireFox team. FireFox has just as many quirks (albeit different ones) as IE. CSS is implemented only *slightly* better in FireFox than IE but is in no way fully W3 CSS compliant.
The only way that you're going to get a web page that is implementation & platform neutral is to go back to HTML 1.0 and toss all of those things that make a webpage look like a TV commercial or a magazine page - like DHTML, Java, Scripting, CSS in their entirety.
That's how I approach most of the comments in a way-too-easy target for the linux-o-philes here.
While we're talking about footprint, and previous comments about 24".vs 8" footprints and extending the previously-started metaphor/meme, we can be sure of two facts:
1) If you're saying that the 24" footprint is the OS footprint of Windows, you can then be sure that what they say about shoe-size is true.
2) At least I don't have to cobble my own shoes together to try a new pair every few years or having to replace my shoe's soles by myself, and I can still put on new shoelaces without worrying if they'll fit in the shoelace holes that came with my shoes without having to use a leather punch to make new holes.
I don't really think that there has been a misuderstanding to the political leaning, or any topical leaning of the moderators or admins (or even founders and owners) of slashdot:
If you don't see that from a historical point of view that all of the above are correct, you are either fairly new to Slashdot or insanely, incredulously naive.
Now, focusing on the thread's Topic:
Google has any right to deny or turn-down advertizers. They are not a Government agency nor an NGO - they are a for-profit enterprise that has the absolute right to choose whom advertizes on their service. The Anti-MoveOn.org people would have easily been able to slip-by on Google's trademark protection process for AdSense if they had never mentioned MoveOn.org in their AdSense request and then did the changer-roo at the actual website. Even by just changing some words could have simply allowed the content to be approved; something along the lines of "The Truth about MoveOn" or "Vital information about MoveOn". Yes, it's all in semantics, but I'm unable to find any trademark registration for "MoveOn"; there are several trademark registrations in connection with 501(c)(4) NPO registrations, but they all identify the organization as "MoveOn.Org" and *not* "MoveOn". If Susan Collin's staff would have thought this through a bit, they would have had no problems (and a open-and-shut case against Google if there had been problems) with the content they were giving to Google AdSense for their Ad campaign.
Here's the other side to that coin: If MoveOn.Org is a Political Action committee and generates political content for the politicians and issues they support and are focused on - which are 99.9999% in lock-step / goose-step with the Left-wing / Liberal / Democratic / Socialist ideals and goals - the content that they (MoveOn.Org) place with AdSense could quite easily be deemed as "Political Speech", and therefor protected under the 1st Ammendment. Consequently, Google would be forced by Federal Law to provide equal time and equal distribution of content created by those opposed to their ideals and goals.
I sincerely hope that someone from Susan Collin's campaign group or someone who is in politics here and who is opposed to the gestapo tactics that MoveOn.org uses reads this post - but chances are that they'll avoid the leftist / liberal / left-wing / socialist bent that is part of the fun of slashdot (and I mean fun, as in "Laughing at").
"...and surely MS infringes that in places more than OSS tramples on MS patents, if at all."
CFR? (to the "unwashed", this stands for "Call For References").
I'd really like to see references to any GPL code in any current Microsoft product. I'll send the first-aid kit over to you after you finish repeatedly pounding your head into your monitor...then keyboard...then keyboard-and-monitor-less desk.
I can remember back to the day that we all took out a piece of paper that had our Slot numbers and the IRQ's, ports & memory block addresses written down in pencil to make sure that we didn't have any other card colliding with another cards memory address or trying to share an IRQ, and then checking that against the fabled "PC Ref" Blue Book to make sure that everything was cool.
I'm not sure if people are still aware that specific PCI slots *do* share IRQs, and that even though Windows has had "successful" IRQ sharing since Win98 that it's not always dead-on. We all know that there were huge (if not massive) changes in how Windows Vista manages resources; hence, maybe Vista has actually shown the world that IRQ assignments and which slots that they're assigned to still DOES matter. Since I only build my own systems, I'm still making sure that certain cards are not in slots that share IRQs - that's just a habbit of mine. I would like to hope that companies like HP, Dell, etc. still pay attention to those things and just don't slap cards or on-motherboard functions into any old position in the IRQ space, thinking "Oh, we don't have to care about that anymore and haven't had to care about it since the days of Win98"
If this is the case, wouldn't that just suck massively for users of "full-boat" motherboards, with video & networking features on them and have them hardwired for the same IRQ? I've seen the same companies listed above (and many more) do some pretty stupid things in the past, and I wouldn't be suprised if this scenario was prety close to home.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Adolescence of P-1" by Thomas J. Ryan - a good read, even today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, what you're saying is that a companies ethics, in fact it's *corporate* ethics is changeable depending on which government it is working with?
Horse-hockey!
This all depends on the physical architecture used for the said circuit. I don't know how frequently SONET is used these days on HiCap and Tier-1 circuits, but if your network is designed using what is known in the industry as UPSR (Unidirectional Path Switched Ring), there is a redundant path on another circuit that can handle the traffic around the disabled / failed segments of a SONET ring. If the fibers were located (physically) close to each other (which is not a good, secure practice), then this would be a huge problem, and the segments within the failed portion of the ring would be "in-wrap" so segments at either end of the failed sections would still have signal, and therefore, service. Multiple fiber cuts, as were reported, might have been done to intentionally disable this in-built service protection of UPSR. If there were 3 cuts, as reported, this would had to have been a coordinated & direct attack on the carrier's infrastructure.
Actually, the username of the poster you were responding to fits their post perfectly - at least, that's how *I* remembered Archie Bunker.
....we can't have nice things" sub-thread in 5....4....3....2....1.... .....oh, wait.
Seriously, though - these are the kind of people that just make me want to walk up to them and just stare at them, wide-eyed, for about 2 minutes and calmly say "What is wrong with you". These are the same kind of people that used to throw rocks at my car when I drove up the hill to 1 Cyclotron Drive in Berkeley to work at Lawrence Berkeley Lab in the 80's - total nut-jobs who, despite their obviously misguide attempts at trying to make the world a "better place", are utterly clueless as to making the world a truly "better place".
And, of course, this is based on your expert evidence?
Your dog does not hunt, sir - you cut-off it's legs.
Posted like a true AC.
...or Tin-foil?
Blame the Tier-1 & Tier-2 backbone providers and telcos for skimping on SONET implementations; UPSRs (Unidirectional, Path-Switched Rings) do not have the line-fault switching capabilities that a BLSR (Bi-directional, Line-Switched Ring) because of the single-direction design of a UPSR. Since UPSR networks are cheaper (1/2 the fiber-lay costs) than BLSR, many large telcos and backbone providers play fast and loose with fiber capacity and provisioning...which, in this case, apparently came back to bite them.
The original ARPANet, as it was designed at that time in history, *was* redundant and met the needs for the spec. The ARPANet / NSFNet is as distant from today's Internet as a Blue Whale is from granite.
During "The Great Internet Build-out" of the late 90's, outages similar to this were more common than what you have been led to believe; the reason why people heard virtually nothing about those outages was because (a such outages weren't "visible" to those outside of the telco industry, and there wasn't such a demand 10 years ago for such high capacity circuits, and (b circuits were more carefully planned-out and used BLSR as much as possible. Now, where stockholders go crazy if their investment in a given telco doesn't grow by 10%, those telcos scrimp and cut corners wherever they can - including running SONET networks with inherently unsafe ring topologies.
For more about the differences in SONET topologies, please visit:
http://www.hill2dot0.com/wiki/index.php?title=2F-BLSR
--ScottKin
Interesting...
Based on your 3rd paragraph, are you saying that "we" expect Republicans - who, according to you, generally distrust the government, and that because of this distrust, are less-likely to want to get away with "crap"...and that politicians from the Democratic Party can "more easily get away with this kind of crap without infuriating their government-loving base (i.e. Democratic constituents) because they're expected to want to try to "get away with...crap"?
Hmmmmm.
Based on that, can we surmise the following?
1) Republicans are, generally, more honest - because they don't want to try (or even think of) "getting away with crap" (i.e. being dishonest)
2) Democrats are, generally, more dishonest - because they want to and we expect them to try to "get away with crap" - and that the process of "getting away with crap" is expected of them?
Works for me - especially in light of Sen. Obama's Real Estate scam involved with his home, his "donation" of US$800,000.00 to ACORN to "Help Get-out The Vote" while ACORN is filing phony & bogus Voter Regisrations in at least 6 States...not to mention his association with Weathermen Underground member William C. Ayers AND donations given from the Woods Fund to the Arab American Action Network - whose President, Mona Khalidi, is the wife of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi...who is, in turn, co-founder of an Arab organization which supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization when the PLO was still labeled a terrorist organization and called for the "obliteration of Israel and it's friend, AMERICA!"...and HE (Rashid Khalidi) even held a fund-raiser for Sen. Obama's campaign!
--ScottKin
In comparison to your system, here's another interesting example:
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (Sledgehammer) - No overclocking
DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D
2GB RAM - 1GB Corsair XMS CMX512-3200LL (512x2) CS2 + 1GB Kingston PC3200 CS2 (512x2)
eVGA GeForce 6800 GT-I
eVGA GeForce 7100 GS
(note: these cards are *not* running in SLI mode)
Various PATA & SATA drives.
This is a 3-year-old motherboard, CPU & Video cards. This is a 100% stock-configured system. Vista runs as smooth as silk, I can play games on it along with sending 2 audio streams to two ShoutCast servers. When I first starting using this system I installed XP X64 and loved the performance; soon after, I installed Vista Ultimate as part of the Longhorn/Vista Beta. Yes, driver support from companies was horrendous, but that is a horse that has been flogged once too many times.
This is a *very* pedestrian system, compared to all of you dual-core & quad-core users and I *do* push this system to it's limits on a regular basis and have had very little problem running Vista on this system since RTM (again, due to driver support) and zero problems since the driver-base has matured. This must be a "magical" system to be so under-powered and yet perform so smoothly.
It appears that the silver bullet to solve the problems with Vista that have been reported here (and elsewhere) comes down to doing a total wipe of the hard drive and performing a *clean* Vista install...especially so for OEM boxes; that is where your true "bloatware" comes from, where OEMs install their special docks, sidebars, embellishments, geegaws, widgets, "support" software, and so on ad nauseum.
--ScottKin
Absolutely!
Don't forget the number of launch failures that happened at Cape Canaveral / Cape Kennedy. Some of the more spectacular ones happened when the Gemini missions were going, and they had some fairly spectacular aborts / KATOs with the early Saturn I test launches, along with some equally spectacular engine failures for both the F1 and J1 engines, along with the early tests of the STS Engines - the bells were apparently not as robust as planned, and the engine bells went into a harmonic coupling that made them look like they were made of jello...and then abruptly collapsed at the test stands at Marshall. "Rocket Science" only works after you've destroyed several prototypes in the design and test process.
No, I don't work for NASA, but I'd do it in a heartbeat.
--ScottKin
Ever hear of abuse of power? Was JFK giving up secret spy plane specs so that he could get revenge on an op/ed writer? In any case, your argument rests on the notion that Bush ok'd the leak. Did he do that?
No - JFK used the White House and the Oval Office as his own personal brothel...or didn't you get the memo of the numerous affairs and tet-a-tets, including Marilyn Monroe?
Only time will tell whether Pres. Bush ok'ed the leak or not. I find it funny that there is more emphasis on the "leak" than the business that Plame's husband had in Nigeria on the C.I.A.'s request - trying to either verify or disprove the 1 Downing Street claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing "yellowcake" from Nigeria.
--ScottKin
Wow - do we now have a possible competitor to DWave's process trying to create FUD and deception as AC posts in a very thought-provoking thread?
What has the world come to?....oh, wait - what was I thinking; this is Slashdot, where AC posts are the most common (and sadly the most effective) method of generating thread-drift. It's true that most AC posts can be quite funny, so I'm not at the point of adjusting my threshold settings quite yet and I am aware of replying to a AC post is like arguing with someone on the Internet...but...day-am.
--ScottKin
Ok - let's apply that to what is knonw about the event and see if we can match-up with your guide:
1) No, but they did cause disruption not just on Web Sites but Comcast's network as a whole: httpd, pop3, smtp, nntp, ftp, and any other protocol that you can think of that uses fqdn input to access data.
Result: toss-up
2) It can be argued that hacking into NetworkSolution's DNS services and changing / redirecting Comcast's IP traffic is tanamount to a violent act against a corporation or business. Other "hackers" have done much less and have been hit with serious jail time.
Result: barely
3) Since this event was not connected in any way, shape or form with on-going Military operations, there were no civilians in any region where Military operations are active that were affected or harmed; however, users of Comcast's services were denied access to services or products they purchased, which could fall under violation of "Restriction of Free Trade" laws.
Result: kinda
4) Since they are a "hacking crew", they could be tagged as an "Organization", but not a registered NGO; however, if this was not the first attack from them, or each redirection of the comcast.net domain names can be argued in court to be an individual incident they could be prosecuted under RICO statutes
Result: Murky, but interesting
5) Based on the Wired interview, they could meet this part of the guide if intent to do damage was based on the leftist/liberal distain for all large companies, such as Comcast. Since the statements were made in an interview which was recorder, taped or copied and made available to the general public, then they've pretty much hung themselves on this one.
Result: Nearly there
6) Absolutely. They used social engineering to impersonate someone who had either legal ownership of the domain name, or the person who is registered with Comcast's DNS Registrar to illegally obtaining access to Comcast's DNS settings page to begin their assault.
From what I've read about this (not just the Wired article, but other spots on the net), I can predict a very sad, nasty future for the perps. One quote from the Wired article sums it up:
"The situation has kind of blown up here, a lot bigger than I thought it would," says Defiant, a 19-year-old man whose first name is James. "I wish I was a minor right now because this is going to be really bad."
--ScottKin
Wait - where do you think you were posting this, on a Yahoo!Groups forum?
This is Slashdot, for heaven's sake - the most popular place on the Interweb where one of the world's richest men can take the billions he has personally earned as the Former CEO of one of the most successfull software companies in the world and give it away to save lives and fight HIV/AIDS and a host of other diseases that kill millions of children each year...and be called "evil".
--ScottKin
In your attempt to help clarify which GiTS properties were movies / feature films, you left out a minor technical point:
"GITS: Solid State Society" was neither a compilation or just "new scenes" but was a feature-lenght release that had it's debut on Japan's SKY PerfectTV, and followed the anime series timeline versus Oshii's previous films.
--ScottKin
Interestingly enough, early designs from North American Rockwell for the Shuttle included a crew escape system similar to what was going to be implemented in the North American Rockwell B-1A - which in itself was based on the F-111's Crew Escape Module, where the Crew Cabin / Cockpit blasts away from the rest of the vehicle using solid rocket motors. When the decision was made to use the area where the motors would have been for the extra crew seats and stowage, the whole escape system was scrapped. So much for hindsight.
--ScottKin
Either that, or at least have a chance to mark a Trollpost or to mark the user as a Troll-generator.
/.'s long-standing practice of being "fair and balanced".
Of course, that would go against the grain of
--ScottKin
Even more so than your comment: I'd lay hard money down that if FireFox was the dominant browser in the market as IE is today, that said developer would be aiming his comments just as squarely at the Mozilla / FireFox team. FireFox has just as many quirks (albeit different ones) as IE. CSS is implemented only *slightly* better in FireFox than IE but is in no way fully W3 CSS compliant.
The only way that you're going to get a web page that is implementation & platform neutral is to go back to HTML 1.0 and toss all of those things that make a webpage look like a TV commercial or a magazine page - like DHTML, Java, Scripting, CSS in their entirety.
--ScottKin
...generated with very little light.
.vs 8" footprints and extending the previously-started metaphor/meme, we can be sure of two facts:
That's how I approach most of the comments in a way-too-easy target for the linux-o-philes here.
While we're talking about footprint, and previous comments about 24"
1) If you're saying that the 24" footprint is the OS footprint of Windows, you can then be sure that what they say about shoe-size is true.
2) At least I don't have to cobble my own shoes together to try a new pair every few years or having to replace my shoe's soles by myself, and I can still put on new shoelaces without worrying if they'll fit in the shoelace holes that came with my shoes without having to use a leather punch to make new holes.
--ScottKin
I don't really think that there has been a misuderstanding to the political leaning, or any topical leaning of the moderators or admins (or even founders and owners) of slashdot:
1) Obvious Anti-Microsoft / Anti-Proprietary Software bias and zealotous / rabid Pro-F/OSS bias
2) Obvious Anti-Conservative / Anti-Right-wing / Anti-Republican bias
3) Obvious Pro-Liberal / Left-wing / Pro-Democratic bias
If you don't see that from a historical point of view that all of the above are correct, you are either fairly new to Slashdot or insanely, incredulously naive.
Now, focusing on the thread's Topic:
Google has any right to deny or turn-down advertizers. They are not a Government agency nor an NGO - they are a for-profit enterprise that has the absolute right to choose whom advertizes on their service. The Anti-MoveOn.org people would have easily been able to slip-by on Google's trademark protection process for AdSense if they had never mentioned MoveOn.org in their AdSense request and then did the changer-roo at the actual website. Even by just changing some words could have simply allowed the content to be approved; something along the lines of "The Truth about MoveOn" or "Vital information about MoveOn". Yes, it's all in semantics, but I'm unable to find any trademark registration for "MoveOn"; there are several trademark registrations in connection with 501(c)(4) NPO registrations, but they all identify the organization as "MoveOn.Org" and *not* "MoveOn". If Susan Collin's staff would have thought this through a bit, they would have had no problems (and a open-and-shut case against Google if there had been problems) with the content they were giving to Google AdSense for their Ad campaign.
Here's the other side to that coin: If MoveOn.Org is a Political Action committee and generates political content for the politicians and issues they support and are focused on - which are 99.9999% in lock-step / goose-step with the Left-wing / Liberal / Democratic / Socialist ideals and goals - the content that they (MoveOn.Org) place with AdSense could quite easily be deemed as "Political Speech", and therefor protected under the 1st Ammendment. Consequently, Google would be forced by Federal Law to provide equal time and equal distribution of content created by those opposed to their ideals and goals.
I sincerely hope that someone from Susan Collin's campaign group or someone who is in politics here and who is opposed to the gestapo tactics that MoveOn.org uses reads this post - but chances are that they'll avoid the leftist / liberal / left-wing / socialist bent that is part of the fun of slashdot (and I mean fun, as in "Laughing at").
--ScottKin
CFR? (to the "unwashed", this stands for "Call For References").
I'd really like to see references to any GPL code in any current Microsoft product. I'll send the first-aid kit over to you after you finish repeatedly pounding your head into your monitor...then keyboard...then keyboard-and-monitor-less desk.
--ScottKinYAI (Yet Another Idiot) who can't understand the difference between a group of objects and an individual in that group.
But of course, when you post as an AC you can always look just as incredibly ignorant as you actually are.
I can remember back to the day that we all took out a piece of paper that had our Slot numbers and the IRQ's, ports & memory block addresses written down in pencil to make sure that we didn't have any other card colliding with another cards memory address or trying to share an IRQ, and then checking that against the fabled "PC Ref" Blue Book to make sure that everything was cool.
I'm not sure if people are still aware that specific PCI slots *do* share IRQs, and that even though Windows has had "successful" IRQ sharing since Win98 that it's not always dead-on. We all know that there were huge (if not massive) changes in how Windows Vista manages resources; hence, maybe Vista has actually shown the world that IRQ assignments and which slots that they're assigned to still DOES matter. Since I only build my own systems, I'm still making sure that certain cards are not in slots that share IRQs - that's just a habbit of mine. I would like to hope that companies like HP, Dell, etc. still pay attention to those things and just don't slap cards or on-motherboard functions into any old position in the IRQ space, thinking "Oh, we don't have to care about that anymore and haven't had to care about it since the days of Win98"
If this is the case, wouldn't that just suck massively for users of "full-boat" motherboards, with video & networking features on them and have them hardwired for the same IRQ? I've seen the same companies listed above (and many more) do some pretty stupid things in the past, and I wouldn't be suprised if this scenario was prety close to home.
--ScottKin