Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Patenting Celebrity-Shaped Bing'ing

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the search-for-aliens-with-virtual-david-duchovny dept.

Microsoft 123

theodp writes "GeekWire reports that Microsoft is seeking a patent on the concept of applying the persona of a celebrity to Internet searches, allowing people to see search results shaped by the personalities and preferences of Hollywood celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, and Jessica Lange. A search for an evening dress using the persona of Jessica Lange, explains Microsoft, would return dresses that reflect the actress's 'style and/or fashion preferences,' including 'color, fit, designer, cut, etc.' Your move, Google."

cancel ×

123 comments

Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (5, Funny)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755398)

..nothing?

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755520)

Zing!

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755596)

Just remember kids, Binging is bad. Mkay?

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755648)

...let's just call the results 'adult marital aids' and leave it at that.

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756054)

As opposed to children's marital aids?

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756450)

You mean the Ballmer Squirter?

Re:Lets me guess, Paris Hilton returns.. (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755734)

A search for Paris Hilton automatically opens your e-mail program and fills in your father's e-mail address so you can ask daddy for money.

Searching as Clint Eastwood (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757498)

[] Do you feel lucky, punk?

Frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755402)

Piss!

Woooooooooow (2, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755408)

People USE Bing?

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755488)

All the time. Don't you watch Hawaii Five-0? There's no other search engine in the world! Just "Bing it!" (and, yes, they actually used the phrase on the show).

Re:Woooooooooow (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755540)

Hawii Five-0 aired from the late 60s till 1980, was Danno some sort of time traveler?

Re:Woooooooooow (3, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755562)

Let me guess, you don't even own a TV?

Re:Woooooooooow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758984)

TV? Isn't that that strangely glowing box that my grandparents used to have?

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759586)

I want to say "taste in what I watch"; but you're right, I have no TV. I'd used to watch endless hours of utter rubbish. Awful stuff. I've not had a TV since Feb and life is better. If I really "need" to watch something, it's all on-line legitimately. If it's not legitimately available, I don't watch it. I don't need it. Like a Newspaper pay wall, the content isn't worth the effort to see when there is so much else out there.

Re:Woooooooooow (2)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755572)

...and was brought back on CBS last year. Damn, man, couldn't get cable under that rock, huh?

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755670)

It's not like he missed much, from the looks of it.

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756160)

Worse than not having cable. Unless he is in the middle of no where, it is being broadcast directly through his body every Monday night via terrestrial antenna.

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758366)

Damn, man, couldn't get cable under that rock, huh?

You're making fun of somebody for not knowing about a knock off remake of a shitty old TV show, where the cast uses the phrase, "Just Bing it".

I don't know what he's doing under the rock, but I'm pretty sure he should be making fun of you.

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757820)

OK, there are two possibilities I can envision:

1) You knew off the top of your head the air dates of Hawaii Five-0.
2) You did a web search to determine those facts, and it didn't convey to you the fact that the show was rebooted last year.

Which is more embarrassing?

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759616)

3) You actually watch broadcast TV and are aware of the series on the air.
4) You think that remaking a show that went off the air when Nixon was president is a cool thing that's entirely appropriate.

I know which I consider more embarrassing.

Re:Woooooooooow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757302)

All the time. Don't you watch Hawaii Five-0? There's no other search engine in the world! Just "Bing it!" (and, yes, they actually used the phrase on the show).

Megan Fox... Just Bing it!

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757554)

Cool product placement for a search engine nobody uses on a show nobody watches.

Re:Woooooooooow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758810)

That's not people using Bing, that's Microsoft paying for product placement and actors pretending to use Bing.

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755530)

I'll bet there are more people using Bing than people using Google+.

Re:Woooooooooow (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756504)

And I bet there are more people riding bicycles than golf carts.

I'd like to bing that Megan Fox.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755420)

If ya know what I mean.

Re:I'd like to bing that Megan Fox.. (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759618)

Did you mean: "Toe thumbs?"

Google's move (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755440)

Google's move? I'm pretty sure it'll be a bewildered gaze followed by a light chuckle.

Re:Google's move (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756462)

Yes. This.

Unless Microsoft is getting a April Fool's joke in reeeeeally early, TFA represents one of the most retarded ideas I've heard in a long, long time.

Re:Google's move (0)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756562)

You forgot Bob?

Re:Google's move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37759614)

You forgot Bob?

That was between 3.11 and 95 IIRC. I think 15 years qualifies as "in a long, long time".

Re:Google's move (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759416)

Um, yeah. Isn't it easier to just go to google and type "Jessica Lange dresses" then to go through a whole 'select your celebrity' wizard.

Re:Google's move (2)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756626)

Yes, you mean like the time when google also started showing full size background images like bing.

Or the right side summary bar.

I think Google takes Bing more seriously than people think. I dont blame them since Bing is the only potential competitor.

Re:Google's move (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757222)

There were similar reactions to the first iMac.

Re:Google's move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37759542)

Which is a piece of shit, so the reactions where valid.

Re:Google's move - "we are prior art" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757474)

The astute reader will note that search engines already taylor results to the preferences of the user. So any celebrity using Google will cause a violation of this patent since the goog will be returning results conforming to the personality of a celebrity. The only real difference here is getting results based on someone ELSEs profile, not necessarily a celebrity.

bewildered (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757930)

I read the summary. I've read some of the discussion. Haven't bothered to read TFA. I'm just sitting here, wondering. Would I rather have my searches shaped by the preferences of someone like Paris Hilton, or would I rather be caught blaspheming against Allah in Iran? Tough question. FFS - if there were any "celebrities" that I gave a damn about, I still wouldn't want my searches to reflect their preferences!

Case in point - I happen to like Linus Torvalds. He's in my circle on G+. I've learned a few cool things about him. In fact, I've learned that we actually share some interests aside from his operating system. But, we're worlds apart. For starters, he's a young father. I'm an old grandfather. He has concerns, regarding his family, that I just don't give a rat's ass about anymore. Oh - I might sympathize with some of his day to day problems, momentarily. But, I solved all those problems, on a daily basis, a lifetime ago. I just don't give a rat's ass anymore. I don't WANT my searches to give me hits on childhood illnesses, discipline and motivation tips, etc ad nauseum.

The "celebrities" that are likely to show up on Bing are mostly mindless idiots. I'd just barf if my search results were keyed to any of them.

Re:bewildered (0)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759838)

Don't miss out on the fun. Suppose your hits are shaped by Richard Nixon, let your neighborhood know you might be interested in their political skeletons. Or J. Edgar Hoover, lady's dresses and lipstick might make it for you. How about Red Skelton? Every hit a laugh. Osama bin Laden? Mass murder and a harem to boot. Mephistopheles? Learn how to value your soul. George S. Patton? Find your local Tanks-Are-Us store. Jeff Bezos? Learn how to patent the most obvious, insignificant things, say, farts.

Bung is gimmick based search (1)

Gyrony (2463308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758220)

Google's move? I'm pretty sure it'll be a bewildered gaze followed by a light chuckle.

Followed by an hour of rolling around on the floor laughing!

Re:Google's move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758950)

Like Steve Ballmer's response to Chrome OS :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVaPZAJaqFM

You can't patent concepts. (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755452)

I doubt that will stop them though.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755568)

The only thing that won't stop is summary writers.

Patent lawyers use weasel-words to get around the fact that they're patenting a concept every time.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755582)

No, but figuring out how to correlate a third party's interests into a given search? That definitely seems like something that could (and should) be patentable.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755632)

Why? Seems to fail the obvious test. Would people want to be able to search as though they were someone else, like say their wife to see what she would want for Christmas? Hmm, yeah pretty fucking obvious.

How to do that, is a matter of code, and should be copyrighted not patented.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755834)

Is "how to do [it]" obvious? Thats the test, since patents cover 'how.'

Re:You can't patent concepts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756202)

Do you mean how you codify facts or what facts you codify? Either way it's pretty obvious. You look at pics and facts about a celeb on the internet (like colour of dress, designer here brand there) either automatically or manually. Then you put those facts in a database.

Then, a user can find out what dress, brands and things Henry Kissinger would order in preparation for the annual child-eating and enema-orgy this fall, or whatever it is they do.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756272)

It would be funnier if they let you pick a celebrity and then it would give you the same ad stream that they see. I'm sure some of them get things I'd rather not know about...

Re:You can't patent concepts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758520)

I'd actually pay for a celebrity filter, that would remove _all_ web articles about Charlie Sheen, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin Paris Hilton and similar pests.

Re:You can't patent concepts. (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756764)

It's actually pretty simple at this point. You know about all that data everyone siphons off of you? They have been using that profile to target ads using that for you. Now they are letting you pick an emaginary ego and punt you stuff from that.

Clever eh !

Now I bet you won't even get the privillage of returning results about top in class rehab centers and body mods but their clothing lines and calognes. Classy.

Microsoft? Innovating on searching??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755470)

Beats the hell out of copying Google's results.

Re:Microsoft? Innovating on searching??? (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755500)

Beats the hell out of copying Google's results.

Soon to be followed by a patent on searching for LOLCat pix. Clearly Microsoft are scraping at the bottom of the barrel with bloody fingers.

Re:Microsoft? Innovating on searching??? (3, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757164)

Beats the hell out of copying Google's results.

Actually, Bing did bring some new ideas to the table that Google managed to borrow. For a while I used Google for my text searches and Bing for image searches because of extra features that Bing had. Google has all those features now so I stick with Google for everything again.

More importantly for this story, this shows that patents can actually be used properly for good reasons. I have long been a critic of patents, but I think that Microsoft deserves some credit in this case. They have done an excellent job in patenting this concept to ensure that such a stupid idea will never be seen in public again.

It is possible that Bing will implement it, but I think that counts as not being seen in public.

I feel a great disturbance (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755476)

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of celebrity stalkers are crying out in terror and suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible is happening.

Re:I feel a great disturbance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755538)

Why would they have been crying out in terror? I mean they were dead in seconds. They didn't see it coming.

Re:I feel a great disturbance (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756232)

Because normal people have ghosts just like the Jedi, they just don't persist as long. It was their ghosts called out in the Force, during the seconds after their death. How's that for a made-up explanation?

Re:I feel a great disturbance (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756302)

Or maybe the big explosion and all the deaths just felt like as if they cried out, when they in fact just died without screaming.

Re:I feel a great disturbance (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758546)

Like the ripples in an ocean as it collapses into the vacuum left when a volume of water suddenly vanishes...I should probably stop before this gets to poetic.

True results? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755548)

Will I finally find out what celebrities wear wigs?

microsoft patents celebrity preferences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755558)

think of the possibilities!! now we will know exactly what type of porn Miley Cyrus watches!

Search for ... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755560)

... original ideas as Steve Ballmer.

Re:Search for ... (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759854)

Sheesh, are you mad? You want more of these "innovative" ideas?

It looks like... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755600)

"It looks like you are going to a party. Would you like some help?
* Help me choose my underwear
* No, thanks, I'll continue to use the last week's one."

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755620)

And you thought "Miserable Failure" Google-bombing was bad...

Singularity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755676)

What if I search as RMS?

Re:Singularity. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759172)

Don't you mean sing'ularity? Apparently the apostrophe, which used to be advance warning of an "s", is now doing double duty to inform you that a "g" just went past.

Original Free Thinking (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755684)

I would seem Microsoft is betting on at least the western world continuing on its trend of abandoning original thinking.

Don Draper: People want to be told what to do so badly that they'll listen to anyone.

Re:Original Free Thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758034)

And also for the rest of the world to keep copying that western world that is abandoning thinking.

Hmm. How would you google that.. (1)

Modern (252880) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755696)

Lets see...
Jessica Lange like evening dresses.

Well... I hope Google move is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755712)

Nothing.

When I search I want search results that I care about - not what Miley Cyrus cares about. Nice try MS, but perhaps the silliest and most useless idea I have heard all week.

wouldn't it be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755804)

if instead of just patenting things, companies actually built them?

A perfect example of redundancy in technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755828)

So I can do a web search to find out what my favorite actress or actor wears, and it will show me examples of all the types of clothes they wear, with links so I can buy the shit!

But I can already do a web search, and every picture of the actress or actor is (more than likely) going to have them wearing clothes that at some point they put on and it was considered their 'style', with links so I can buy the shit!

Am I missing the usefulness of this feature? Why are we so intent on making the same shit in a shiny new package over and over and over and over?

YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755928)

this is exactly the functionality that i've been waiting for since the ole vt220 mainframe days

Spend billions on R&D and wait for it... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755942)

Meanwhile google patents telepathic searching.
Apple patents voice based searching

Microsoft....
What are they gonna call this button?
CelebrastalkshoppBING!

But, what if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755968)

I'm looking for a bow-tie and fez?

Re:But, what if... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756630)

Major Hoople?

Re:But, what if... (1)

Billlagr (931034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757596)

Bow Ties are cool

Why would anyone care? (0)

PerlJedi (2406408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756110)

Maybe its just me, but I can't see any good reason to care what Miley Cyrus, or any other celebrity, thinks about when I'm searching the internet.

In my mind the variety the internet bring to everyone should be the freedom to find, learn about, and enjoy the things that make us who we are. Having a search engine model the result sets it gives me based on the preference of some one else just seems pathetic. Be yourself, not some wanna be celebrity impersonator.

Racing to the bottom makes money (2)

UnoriginalBoringNick (1562311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756136)

Although the average slashdot reader probably has difficulty imagining anyone dumb enough to want to use this service, I guess every click from those who do must be like pure gold to the advertisers.

MS's animal influenced search (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756220)

Monkeys- all results are "banana"
Kangaroo- all results are "jumping"
Dog- "Snausages!"
Australia & Drop Bear- "best deals on caskets"

Re:MS's animal influenced search (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756320)

Monkeys- all results are "banana"

No, with Balmer in charge, some of them are to do with chairs and dancing.

Re:MS's animal influenced search (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759182)

Can it search for the things a lebbo would like?

Patent on proactively tracking users' behavior? (1)

adrn01 (103810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756238)

Turning this patent around a bit, it sounds like just profiling someone, and predicting purchases based on that profile. Isn't this pretty much what all the "you might also be interested in..." pop-ups do, to some extent or other?

Idiocracy (0)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756326)

This surprises me not at all, especially after coming from msn.com (default IE page on a new Windows installation) where one of the lead stories is an embarrassing video of an elderly entertainer who fell asleep on live TV. Vapidity, voyeurism, and vanity are what sell in our culture.

Re:Idiocracy (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758804)

Based on some studies they've done with chimps, it's not just our society, but something deeply ingrained in our DNA, we're just wired that way. See the way Slashdot deals with RMS. There's articles in here about his opinions on things which have nothing at all to do with his areas of expertise or even FOSS. We all want to know about important people, some of us just have different definitions of who is important. Some folks like loud mouthed idiots who look good in a dress or a suit, others like loud mouthed idiots who can program and don't look good in anything.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37759678)

Some folks like loud mouthed idiots who look good in a dress or a suit, others like loud mouthed idiots who can program and don't look good in anything.

Which one is you? (Since you're offering a loud mouthed opinion)

I did a search for "thumbs" (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756330)

I did a Bing search for "thumbs" using the Megan Fox shape, but all I got back was pictures of toes. Must be broken.

triumvirate of evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756448)

This shit is brought to you by the assholes on Wall Street, K street and Rodeo Drive. They live their lives trying to fuck us. Well, fuck them. They are the minority and we can bury them as soon as we wake the fuck up.

Wait, does anyone care? (1)

MichaelJE2 (833360) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756512)

Seriously, who on /. cares about what a celebrity searches for?

Re:Wait, does anyone care? (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758838)

That depends on who you define as a celebrity doesn't it.

That could allow for interesting searches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756526)

Charlie Sheen: Medical suppliers
Steve Ballmer: Escort services
Hans Reiser: Where to hide a body

Internet for dummies, aka Bing users (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37756574)

To quote Bill Gates "that's the stupidest fucking idea I ever heard".

owch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37756946)

stupid hurts, stop it.

Great idea, will anybody use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757080)

Great idea, will anybody use it? does anybody use bing?

Ru Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37757190)

Ru Paul

You mean the people (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37757586)

who hire others to shop for them because they don't even have the basic sense to dress themselves?

win

Google already does one better; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758188)

Every time I try to search for something, they pull a RMS and try to correct my language. They search for what they think you ought to have typed instead of what you actually typed. Google tries to control language. And when you can control language, you can control thought.

I wonder what kind of porn Charlie Sheen likes? (1)

ErroneousBee (611028) | more than 2 years ago | (#37758238)

Something from a mirror site I guess.

Possible prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37758674)

Astrology software product called WOW - World of Wonder, IIRC - lets you see how in sync you are with famous actors' horoscopes.

A stalker's dream? (1)

lucidlyTwisted (2371896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37759356)

Am I the only one who find the ability to search with the "persona" of another person rather disturbing?
And, if you are sick enough in the head to use this service, how can you be sure that any "persona"is accurate? Wouldn't it be skewed by the celeb claiming to like XYZ and then trousering a nice pay-off for the promotion?
Also, I assume that this "persona" is based on what the celeb make publicly available or how they wish to appear in public. But that's not them, that's just a veneer. So will the search use the veneer or the real person?

Finally, how long before parents demand the ability to search using the "persona" of their child. They need to protect their child by finding out what they ware doing.
Dear god people, what is wrong with you? WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...