Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Joy of joys! (Score 2) 109

Now I'll be able to communicate with some random, anonymous Internet person.

Yeah, first thing I thought was chats like this:

SPARTACUS19982: YO!

SPARTACUS4x9: 'Sup?

SPARTACUS12: U rite?

SPARTACUS19982: Wait, who said that?

SPARTACUS4x9: Said what?

SPARTACUS12: What?

SPARTACUS19982: That!

SPARTACUS12: What?

SPARTACUS19982: Yeah, what!

SPARTACUS12: Wait - which what?

SPARTACUS4x9: Dude, being Spartacus is starting to suck, ya know..?

SPARTACUS4x9: I mean, I don't even know who I am any more...

SPARTACUS@X0®: DISREGARD THAT I SUCK C0CKS!!!!

Comment Re:See you on the other side, Egon (Score 5, Interesting) 136

I concur. An inspirational nerd.

I sympathise, but as an old Canadian geezer, I always felt that by the time the US audience finally heard about them, the SCTV alumni had already done their best work. That troupe - and their cheezy, low-budget show - formed my sense of humour more than anything else. Dave Thomas, Harold Ramis, Eugene Levy, Andrea Martin, Catherine O'Hara... all of them went on to make memorable comedy in the US. I think Joe Flaherty was the only one who didn't make a big splash. (Which is America's loss, not his.)

But there was a time when all of them were callow, reckless youths with nothing to lose by making asses of themselves week after week on a second-rate Toronto-based network that was so small (it had only 13 stations at the start) it too had nothing to lose.

Back in junior high school, my week was centred around that blessed moment when the Indian-head test pattern would appear and the announcer would say, 'Don't touch that dial. Don't touch that one either. And stop touching yourself.' I still remember the intonation....

(... I never did stop touching myself, but that's another story.)

Comment Re:Long-term loss (Score 1) 520

Bandwidth and latency are neither free or infinite.

Nobody said it was. The issue here is that Comcast subscribers are not getting what they paid for, unless NetFlix pays again for the bandwidth. This is bandwidth for which NetFlix has already paid, and for which Comcast has already been paid by its customers.

Your argument is the same as saying that if you pay for a bridge with your taxes, you should be able to drive a fully loaded hauling truck (type Caterpillar 797F) on it. But guess what ? The bridge has not been designed to handle that load, it has been designed for lighter load (car, 40' truck, etc.).

You're dead wrong on this count. Comcast is arguing (speciously) that traffic to and from a particular destination doesn't deserve the same service as traffic to and from other destinations - unless the destination pays an additional toll. The fact that this is a popular destination is only relevant inasmuch as this increases Comcast's ability to extort payment for something which has already been paid for.

This is straight-up anti-competitive behaviour. If the US telecommunications regulatory environment made any sense at all, Comcast would be slapped down hard for doing this.

Comment Re:Editing? (Score 1) 98

1) "badly written" is acceptable

Not in this context. 'Badly written' normally means 'illegible'. 'Poorly written' is the appropriate phrase.

So Dexter, seeing a quotation from Paradise Lost scrawled by a bloody hand across the wall of a Miami condo, would say, 'That was badly written.'

Milton's ghost, on the other hand, would look at the awkward parts of the latter seasons of Dexter and say, 'That was poorly written.'

Comment Re:The Akamai question is actually pretty good (Score 4, Interesting) 692

For director-level types, not engineers ("How does the Internet work?"), especially with follow-ups to nail someone who has googled and memorized the canned "answer".

This could filter out those who have the requisite charisma and social skills but who don't have a clue about the technology.

A friend of mine once suggested that the best possible question you could ask of a potential sysadmin was, 'Explain how traceroute works.' There are so many levels of 'right' answer that you can determine whether the interviewee is a rank amateur or whether she's currently communing with the spirit of Ada Lovelace and spontaneously generating CS zen koans using the AI in her programmable calculator.

Comment Re:seems reasonable (Score 2) 216

Philips had been proposing 11.5cm and a playing time of one hour exactly, but the longest running version of Beethoven's 9th was Furtwangler's 1951 Bayreuth Festival recording at 74 minutes, requiring the extra 0.5cm.

So, just to bring this back on topic: What you're saying is that the size of your Furtwangler[*] DOES matter?

-----------------
[*] I'm assuming that's the German name for it....

Comment Re:Odd... (Score 1) 186

I understand GPL allowing CentOS and Scientific Linux to use Redhat in their respective products, but I find it really puzzling that they would actively *help* CentOS... Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Well, as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats.

RedHat gains in a number of ways:

  • - Build adherence to the RPM/YUM ecosystem of Linux distros (as opposed to DEB-based distros);
  • - Ensure that CentOS doesn't drift too far from the mothership, making CentOS a 'gateway drug', as it were, to RedHat;
  • - Major karma bump among sysadmins and other professionals (valuable when planning discussions are happening and IT gets a voice);
  • - Experiment and potentially learn a lot of important lessons without sullying the RedHat brand.

Comment Re:Waste of Time (Score 1) 611

Cheers. I tried to explain how I got people to change their mind about evolution and all you want to do is debate that which can and can not be proven. As I said my faith is not up for debate. Have a good night.

You might want to re-read my last line. It's tongue in cheek, but there for a reason. I'm not disregarding your faith; I'm simply replying to your comment that 'anything that is not based in truth does not serve God'.

Best regards.

Comment Re:Waste of Time (Score 1) 611

But if you want the simple 5 cent explanation I can give it to you. God loves the truth. Anything that is not based on truth does not serve God.

Problem is, the truth doesn't serve God:

Science doesn’t require a God of any kind to be complete.

Some people construe this to mean that they can keep God in one pocket and science in the other. But science is much more dangerous than that. In rationalising a space between the two, people implicitly accept Aristotle’s theory of the primum movens (or, unmoved mover). In other words, we can regress evolution, or cosmology or what have you back beyond the point of measurement, and beyond that resides the godhead. So Big Bang is okay, because God lit the fuse, as it were.

But the fly in the ointment is that you can actually push science past Big Bang and it still remains coherent (it’s not easily testable, but it’s theoretically coherent). Likewise, you can reverse engineer forces and causes of the evolutionary process past the origin of life. In other words, science doesn’t just end where God begins, and vice versa. No, science is complete - that is, it can conceive of the universe in its totality independently of any conception whatsoever of a Creator.

Which doesn’t leave a lot of space for God, if you’re honest about it.

(And God, for his part, says, ‘I am that I am‘ and plagues me with boils. So, swings and roundabouts, I guess.)

Comment Re:Waste of Time (Score 3) 611

It's called biblical ineffability--it's the idea that the Bible is NOT the literal Word of God, it is an allusion-and-metaphor filled collection of memoirs and tales by prophets inspired by God, and must be treated as such. Adopting that viewpoint allows one to read through the Bible as a rough guide, using critical thinking and personal experience to figure out for oneself what God or His prophets are saying.

Fair enough. It bears noting though that this approach works equally well when reading Moby Dick, 1984, Pride and Prejudice, The Power and the Glory, and for that matter, Superman comics.

Comment Re:Cover up. (Score 2) 87

Someone explain to me why the strange behavior of the tail before the object seemingly veers off.

Probably just burning up unevenly. Many celestial objects are not uniform in their composition. They are composed of different materials of varying density and some also have gas pockets - or holes, or empty spaces, anyway. I've seen one meteor changing colour as it fell, and when it broke in two, it appeared to suddenly change direction, because one of the two diverging remnants was burning much more brightly than the other.

So, unless its path described a curve, or it turned back on itself, slowed or accelerated quickly... it's probably not what you fear.

Now, if you would kindly direct your eyes to this pen I'm holding in my hand....

Slashdot Top Deals

You mean you didn't *know* she was off making lots of little phone companies?

Working...