now, is a ping a type of communication with a web server? yes.
no, PING uses the ICMP protocol, not HTTP. it has nothing to do with web pages or parsing at all.
But you don't use HTTP to test the presence of a connection/route to a host- you use PING. As such, he is accurate in describing it as a type of communication with a web server.
Blogs are better because they give what people care about
They do?
Here's an interesting dilemma: How many people would maintain blog if no one were to read it? Think about the ramifications. If we post in hopes that people read, then we find that some bloggers are more popular than others, and that we aren't as popular, maybe, as we'd like. So then what? Do we change our content? Do we change our lives so that we can write about stuff that will result in better ratings? Do we start fabricating stuff just to gain an audience? Now we're faced with a very interesting integrity issue: is what you're writing about really you, or is it some alter-ego that the blog-reading public likes better than the real thing? While I will admit that there are probably some very interesting, enlightening, and genuine bloggers (I have yet to find any), the temptation to compete for an audience is there, and it's no different than being caught up in the popularity game in any other social venue.
It doesn't happen because right now, it can't. People trying to take back what they said happens a lot in debate. Imagine if they actually could alter the record to mask the history that they have done this?
Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and repeat after me...
"They do it on ars....they do it on ars....they do it on ars...."
Was it that he believed he owned the rights to it, or that he did his work on an "as-is" basis. That is, take this as I have done it, or don't take it at all. I can't remember, but didn't they even promise not to change his design, but did so anyway?
It's interesting to think about the differences you've mentioned.
It reminds me of the main character in one of Rand's works, as he sat in a court room and explained why he set a building ablaze that he designed. It's not the deed that I'm referring to, but the passion they both have for what they believe - and the good part is that in both cases, those beliefs are quite substantive.
It's about rewriting the record of what someone posted. If you say Foo, and I reply Bar (in the next 10 minutes), then you change your original post Foo to AntiFoo, then you have just effectively inverted what MY response means, putting words in my mouth.
Are you suggesting this because you think it *might* happen in a very limited number of circumstances, or are you suggesting this because it *does* happen? As I see it, your comments about moderation (assuming they are accurate) lends even further support to my suggestion - as I said, ars provides the ability to edit, but I don't see this kind of manipulation going on over there.
I'd also venture a guess that people who are participating in a conversation would be very quick to point out any discrepancies in this regard, and simply avoid dealing with anyone who attempts something like this. One other point...people often include the part of someone's post to which they are responding - if someone changes their post after someone else responds, they'll have a tough time explaining the descrepancy.
And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows.
Total bunk. I'd be willing to bet that anyone who uses windows could, after a few minutes of poking around, could not only find their way around a Linux machine running Gnome or KDE, but would also be surprised at just how similar they are.
This is not to say that either environment is problem-free. Just the other day, a friend who upgraded to Win XP Pro from 98 ran into an obscure error that cost him several hours hunting down a solution, and required dorking with the registry - something average users (of such an "easy-to-use" system no less) should never have to do.
Surely you can't deny the endless problems that security holes in IE have caused. The really unfortunate part is that due to Microsoft's brilliance, they've integrated one of the most insecure pieces of software right into to the OS - I can use a different internet browser, but any time I want to look at a directory, poof - there's IE.
And we all know how much easier our lives have been with the advent of e-mail that's able to install and execute code.
I think Linux still has a few rough edges, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the FUD-mongers make it sound.
Right. I purchased a Korg Trinity about 4 years ago, and it has a GUI touchscreen, optional hard drive, OS updates, the whole nine yards. It's an amazing piece of technology (even today), but I feel it was a bit hobbled by its measely 32-voice polyphony. If I'm reading the specs on this Lionstracs board, it has (256???) voice polyphony? I'd like to hear this thing.
Touche. After re-reading your post, I realized that you were probably making use of a double entendre- clever. For whatever reason, I didn't pick up on it.:)
Personally, I use command line for most of my work - cygwin on Win2K for most, Linux for some. But I would NOT want my wife to have to use it, nor my daughter the neuroscientist!
Your comments, and the points mentioned in the article form what seems to be an interesting paradox: we want technology to make our lives easier, but in doing so, we are becoming victims of our own success. The more of it there is, the less we collectively know about what it does. All we know is what we see...it's what we don't see or know about that can lead to some rather disturbing scenarios - information being collected that we do not know about, used in ways that we do not know about. Knowing how computers work seems to be more a matter of being able to protect oneself from flagrant intrusions into our personal lives, than anything else. For most, I suspect it's hassle, but can happen in the absence of vigilance can be even more frightening.
Longhorn should change this, with the rumoured next-gen command line implementation that approaches Unix-level capabilities.
If Microsoft's past performance is any indication, I guess this means we should all brace ourselves for all the security-related problems this may cause. I won't be worrying about my own system because I won't be running Longhorn, but I am not looking forward to the fallout from this.
First, ars provides this ability, but I have yet to see the catastrophic consequences that everyone keeps claiming- it reminds me of Chicken Little.
Second, it's not that difficult to devise a scheme that will allow for editing, but deal with the karma whores. For example: allow the editing of a post for only the first 10 minutes after posting. Second, any changes to the post result in a forfeiture of any moderation received up to that point, unless the moderation is negative.
Interestingly, comments rarely get rated within the first 10 minutes anyway (few, if any, of mine have), so this is almost a non-issue- just the same, I've proposed a safeguard that will prevent the kind abuse you're talking about.
Either I'm missing something here, or it really isn't rocket science after all.
Throughout time, there has been one hallmark of the existing user interface - despite the absence of any real tactile interface (save the keyboard), it's efficient. It seems like some of these interfaces strip away this efficiency and replace it with flexibility. This isn't a bad thing, but it does lead us to the point that for any given task, we'll need to decide if a given interface will provide the results we need.
I have to say that out of all the examples included on the MIT web site, the one I see with the most promise is the Audiopad. It lends itself to working with music on a more abstract level - mixing, combining, tweaking - in an incredibly fluid manner. It's also very intuitive- you can figure out what's going on just by moving things around. Once you have some basic components at your disposal (a few rhythm tracks, a few musical sequences, a few effects, etc.), it doesn't require endless hours of studying or practicing to produce something interesting.
What makes this even more compelling, is that there are some incredibly cool ways the Audiopad could be expanded. Why have just one mic? Why not two (left and right)? If you really wanted to make it interesting, carry the manipulation space into three dimensions, instead of just two. There are so many possibilities.
The most important question, of course, is when ThinkGeek will begin selling these, because I think I want one.
The obvious reason would be to raise the stock price, something that has been flat for the last two months.
Darl's next lesson in life deals with yet another economic reality: the point of diminishing returns.
Of course, maybe this whole thing signals SCO's exit from the tech sector entirely, preferring instead to pursue an interest in the field of entertainment. SCO's silliness is on par with some of the better soap operas.
... Comcast, and others will eventually turn the internet into a cesspool - they're the ones with the hardware, the network infrastructure, and they will do whatever they can to wring extra money out of anyone they can. I predict that not far out, your bandwidth charge will be sold just like cable TV channels - for a basic fee, you have access to the HTTP channel (one way), FTP channel (one way), and the SMTP channel. For an extra fee, they'll provide access to the telnet channel. For even more, access to ssh/VPN/IPSEC channels. Eventually, I suspect they'll reign in all the ports that are used dynamically to facilitate certain kinds of connections, charging for access to them.
Slashdot Mirror
now, is a ping a type of communication with a web server? yes.
no, PING uses the ICMP protocol, not HTTP. it has nothing to do with web pages or parsing at all.
But you don't use HTTP to test the presence of a connection/route to a host- you use PING. As such, he is accurate in describing it as a type of communication with a web server.
Blogs are better because they give what people care about
They do?
Here's an interesting dilemma: How many people would maintain blog if no one were to read it? Think about the ramifications. If we post in hopes that people read, then we find that some bloggers are more popular than others, and that we aren't as popular, maybe, as we'd like. So then what? Do we change our content? Do we change our lives so that we can write about stuff that will result in better ratings? Do we start fabricating stuff just to gain an audience? Now we're faced with a very interesting integrity issue: is what you're writing about really you, or is it some alter-ego that the blog-reading public likes better than the real thing? While I will admit that there are probably some very interesting, enlightening, and genuine bloggers (I have yet to find any), the temptation to compete for an audience is there, and it's no different than being caught up in the popularity game in any other social venue.
It doesn't happen because right now, it can't. People trying to take back what they said happens a lot in debate. Imagine if they actually could alter the record to mask the history that they have done this?
Close your eyes, take a deep breath, and repeat after me...
"They do it on ars....they do it on ars....they do it on ars...."
The facts simply do not support your position.
Social networking is just a fancy term for "meeting people". I'm guessing they had to call it something interesting in order to get funding.
Was it that he believed he owned the rights to it, or that he did his work on an "as-is" basis. That is, take this as I have done it, or don't take it at all. I can't remember, but didn't they even promise not to change his design, but did so anyway?
It's interesting to think about the differences you've mentioned.
It reminds me of the main character in one of Rand's works, as he sat in a court room and explained why he set a building ablaze that he designed. It's not the deed that I'm referring to, but the passion they both have for what they believe - and the good part is that in both cases, those beliefs are quite substantive.
It's about rewriting the record of what someone posted. If you say Foo, and I reply Bar (in the next 10 minutes), then you change your original post Foo to AntiFoo, then you have just effectively inverted what MY response means, putting words in my mouth.
Are you suggesting this because you think it *might* happen in a very limited number of circumstances, or are you suggesting this because it *does* happen? As I see it, your comments about moderation (assuming they are accurate) lends even further support to my suggestion - as I said, ars provides the ability to edit, but I don't see this kind of manipulation going on over there.
I'd also venture a guess that people who are participating in a conversation would be very quick to point out any discrepancies in this regard, and simply avoid dealing with anyone who attempts something like this. One other point...people often include the part of someone's post to which they are responding - if someone changes their post after someone else responds, they'll have a tough time explaining the descrepancy.
How do the good people of Boone County know that the new answer is correct?
Maybe they took a vote.
If you remove the space between the 7429 and the 261, it should work. Incidentally, that was Slashdot's doing, not mine.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=85222&cid=7
And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows.
Total bunk. I'd be willing to bet that anyone who uses windows could, after a few minutes of poking around, could not only find their way around a Linux machine running Gnome or KDE, but would also be surprised at just how similar they are.
This is not to say that either environment is problem-free. Just the other day, a friend who upgraded to Win XP Pro from 98 ran into an obscure error that cost him several hours hunting down a solution, and required dorking with the registry - something average users (of such an "easy-to-use" system no less) should never have to do.
Surely you can't deny the endless problems that security holes in IE have caused. The really unfortunate part is that due to Microsoft's brilliance, they've integrated one of the most insecure pieces of software right into to the OS - I can use a different internet browser, but any time I want to look at a directory, poof - there's IE.
And we all know how much easier our lives have been with the advent of e-mail that's able to install and execute code.
I think Linux still has a few rough edges, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the FUD-mongers make it sound.
Right. I purchased a Korg Trinity about 4 years ago, and it has a GUI touchscreen, optional hard drive, OS updates, the whole nine yards. It's an amazing piece of technology (even today), but I feel it was a bit hobbled by its measely 32-voice polyphony. If I'm reading the specs on this Lionstracs board, it has (256???) voice polyphony? I'd like to hear this thing.
Touche. After re-reading your post, I realized that you were probably making use of a double entendre- clever. For whatever reason, I didn't pick up on it.
And it's not above-average, it's above average. Retard. Take a bath or something.
Though there are several rules that govern the use of compound adjectives, my use of the term 'above-average' is entirely correct.
Personally, I use command line for most of my work - cygwin on Win2K for most, Linux for some. But I would NOT want my wife to have to use it, nor my daughter the neuroscientist!
Your comments, and the points mentioned in the article form what seems to be an interesting paradox: we want technology to make our lives easier, but in doing so, we are becoming victims of our own success. The more of it there is, the less we collectively know about what it does. All we know is what we see...it's what we don't see or know about that can lead to some rather disturbing scenarios - information being collected that we do not know about, used in ways that we do not know about. Knowing how computers work seems to be more a matter of being able to protect oneself from flagrant intrusions into our personal lives, than anything else. For most, I suspect it's hassle, but can happen in the absence of vigilance can be even more frightening.
Longhorn should change this, with the rumoured next-gen command line implementation that approaches Unix-level capabilities.
If Microsoft's past performance is any indication, I guess this means we should all brace ourselves for all the security-related problems this may cause. I won't be worrying about my own system because I won't be running Longhorn, but I am not looking forward to the fallout from this.
It's highly likely that I have an above-average intelligence, thank you. See my response to the prior post.
First, ars provides this ability, but I have yet to see the catastrophic consequences that everyone keeps claiming- it reminds me of Chicken Little.
Second, it's not that difficult to devise a scheme that will allow for editing, but deal with the karma whores. For example: allow the editing of a post for only the first 10 minutes after posting. Second, any changes to the post result in a forfeiture of any moderation received up to that point, unless the moderation is negative.
Interestingly, comments rarely get rated within the first 10 minutes anyway (few, if any, of mine have), so this is almost a non-issue- just the same, I've proposed a safeguard that will prevent the kind abuse you're talking about.
Either I'm missing something here, or it really isn't rocket science after all.
[sarcasm]
The innovation is killing me!
[/sarcasm]
Thanks for the correction
Throughout time, there has been one hallmark of the existing user interface - despite the absence of any real tactile interface (save the keyboard), it's efficient. It seems like some of these interfaces strip away this efficiency and replace it with flexibility. This isn't a bad thing, but it does lead us to the point that for any given task, we'll need to decide if a given interface will provide the results we need.
I have to say that out of all the examples included on the MIT web site, the one I see with the most promise is the Audiopad. It lends itself to working with music on a more abstract level - mixing, combining, tweaking - in an incredibly fluid manner. It's also very intuitive- you can figure out what's going on just by moving things around. Once you have some basic components at your disposal (a few rhythm tracks, a few musical sequences, a few effects, etc.), it doesn't require endless hours of studying or practicing to produce something interesting.
What makes this even more compelling, is that there are some incredibly cool ways the Audiopad could be expanded. Why have just one mic? Why not two (left and right)? If you really wanted to make it interesting, carry the manipulation space into three dimensions, instead of just two. There are so many possibilities.
The most important question, of course, is when ThinkGeek will begin selling these, because I think I want one.
The obvious reason would be to raise the stock price, something that has been flat for the last two months.
Darl's next lesson in life deals with yet another economic reality: the point of diminishing returns.
Of course, maybe this whole thing signals SCO's exit from the tech sector entirely, preferring instead to pursue an interest in the field of entertainment. SCO's silliness is on par with some of the better soap operas.
professional lawyers.
Interesting oxymoron.
Forget your prozac today?