Windows 2000 offers fit-to-page printing for anything. I don't know if Win9x offers such a thing as I've never needed it at home, and of course I'm not using Windows at the moment so I can't check it out.
Anyway, I don't think it's an IE thing but rather an OS/driver thing.
I've just got to admire Red Carpet. I'm commenting on this because some folks haven't tried it. =P In Red Carpet, first select a related channel to what you want (e.g. RH Linux 7.3), it'll show you what you can update, what is available to install, and what you can remove. Full information on the package (description, version, size, etc) is available at one click. Simply check those packages you wish to update/install/remove and click a button. It does the rest. No rebooting. Nothing. If that isn't easy to use, I don't know what is.
SuSE's YOU (YaST Online Update) is pretty much the same. I prefer to use it in manual mode, since I like to know exactly what is happening on my system, but I modify the suggestions it makes rarely enough that I could use it in automatic mode a save myself 2 or 3 clicks.
Is this very new hardware, or uncommon, or am I missing something? Wouldn't Win2K come with these drivers?
In my experience Win2k includes drivers for Soundblaster-16, Trident video cards, generic winmodems, and HP laser printers. Other than that, you have to get them from the vendor. It comes with an assload of drivers, but not for hardware anyone actually seems to be using.
My personal system, which is fairly representative of the systems I've dealt with, has: Athlon, AMD 750 chipset, GeForce2, Soundblaster Live, cheap NIC, USB optical mouse, CD-RW, DVD, 2 HDDs. The one thing I had to go out and find drivers for was my printer, a Lexmark z53 (which I bought specifically because Lexmark supports it's inkjets on Linux).
Surprisingly, NICs have been the component I've had the most trouble with in Win2k. I expect to have to download drivers for my video card and soundcard (even though it's 4 years old), but given that Win2k is such an improvement on the networking front you'd expect better support for NICs.
I love Linux's remote admin utilities: you can fix problems on your Aunt's computer in Pango Pango. =D It looks like I might be doing an install for a friend's home box (not very computer literate), and any problems that come up will most likely only require a few commands. =)
I set up a Linux file server for my old company (from which I was laid off, but no hard feelings). It's headless (no monitor, keyboard, mouse, everything done over ssh), and I was laid off the day after I brought it online. I've only recieved one call in 6 months, which was samba's createmode acting funny (nobody had access to files created by the boss). I sent the front office chick (who is responsible for documentation control, purchasing, shipping and recieving, and probably more that I don't know about. Small company, very smart chick, though not particularly computer oriented) an email telling her how to chmod the whole shared directory using putty (which I installed on the shared directory). A kludge for sure, but I haven't had a chance to stop by and fix the samba config.
My point is, though, that even Aunt Tilly can ssh to a server and enter chmod -R 777/dir if she happens to have the instructions written down somewhere. And even if she has to do it every day it really not a big deal if that's all she ever has to do to it. Even if you don't have remote access, support is still significantly easier with Linux.
$67/credit? How do you arrive at that figure? At the community college I'm going to the fees breaks down basically like this:
$11/(unit|credit) $12/session in other fees $60-120 for books $40/session for parking (or $1 per day, which may be cheaper)
For the Calculus series I took it works out to about $40/credit (3 semesters at 4 credits each, plus parking, plus $150 in books to cover the whole series). Even for a one semester class I estimate $44/credit.
The cost goes up if you consider your time, of course. 4 hours of class a week plus 2-3 times that for homework can add up pretty quick. Also it would be more if I had a degree. For CA CCs tuition is $11/credit normally for residents, and up to $125/credit for non-residents and people with 4-year degrees (I don't remember the exact breakdown, as it doesn't apply to me, but I do remember the upper cap, as it seemed like a lot).
Anyway, just curious how you arrived at that figure.
This is the best advice so far, because it will help you and your daughters. One of the things I learned while I was a math tutor was that I didn't know dick about math until I started tutoring. Sure, I had made it to Calculus, and I could keep up at that level, but I didn't know math. It has been said that the best way to really learn something is to try and tech it to someone else, and I've found that it really is true.
Having your daughters teach you the math they're studying will help you relearn the things you've forgotten (or maybe even teach you new things, depending on where they are at), but it will help them even more through the increased understanding they will gain by trying to teach these concepts to someone else, and perhaps as your memory is refreshed you can teach them concepts that don't seem to be presented to them otherwise (the way Kramer's Rule is presented currently is a prime example of this. It is more much more difficult to understand the mechanics of it with the current method, even though (or maybe because) it is more consistent with matrix mechanics).
A better understanding of math can only open more and better opportunities to them, which is a noble pursuit for any parent. Also, the time spent will help strengthen the bonds between you.
So, don't steal their books, ask them to teach you. This is by far the most beneficial solution for all involved.
before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe.
I totally agree, but I wanted to point out that the same is true for SuSE 7.x and 8.x, and I've heard that Mandrake 8.x is very good as well. KDE3 is quite usable as well, and so far I consider it a significant improvement on KDE2, which I also liked.
I'm not trying to start a distro/desktop flamewar or anything, I just want to point out that Linux in general has reached the point where it is quite usable by the average person. The installs of the current offerings from any of the major commercial distros can be handled by anyone with even moderate knowledge of computers. In fact, since drivers and apps are included in the distros, installation is actually far simpler than with Windows.
My annecdotal evidence to back up this claim: I've done about 10 installs of SuSE Linux (7.1, 7.3, and 8.0) in the last year, and about 15 installs of Windows 2000 in that same time. On average, a full up-to-date install of Windows takes me about 4 times as long as an equivalent Linux install (2 hours v. 30 minutes). Most of that time difference is CD shuffling and rebooting. Especially irritating are the MS updates, many of which have to be installed individually, requiring a reboot and then a return to the update site for the rest, which may or may not have to be installed individually. This is not user friendly, and it certainly does nothing to encourage the average user to keep their system up-to-date. One might even suggest that this lack of a truelly user-frindly update system encourages the proliferation of the unsecured systems that periodically flood the internet with the windows-virus-of-the-month.
With SuSE, by contrast, I have no need to find the driver CDs for my hardware (when will vendors learn to put actual meaningful labels on their driver disks?) since the drivers are included on my install disk and the hardware is autodetected. I have no need to find and install all the apps that actually make my machine useful, since they are all included. I have no need to reboot my machine for every driver or app installed, since they are all installed with the base package. And when it's all installed, a few clicks of the mouse gets all of my installed packages updated.
By all accounts, a similarly painless experience is available from all the other major Linux vendors.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I expect to have about half of my immediate family (including in-laws) using Linux at least part time by the end of summer. So far, no problem, and if they can use it anybody can;P
He and his team are laying the foundations right now in preparation for a possible mass exodus from windows
I certainly hope so.
Palladium would be enough to finally push me over to Apple (for hardware, anyway). So far it's been my roll-your-own nature that's kept me on x86. I like to play with hardware, and Apple has always been reticent in that regard (for good reasons, which I understand, but I am not in that market).
However, If I'm forced to choose between building my own system and using Linux, I'll choose Linux. If that means I pay more for the hardware, so be it.
The x86 platform has been so successful precisely because it has been so open. It would be ironic if Lords of x86, wcich have derived so much wealth from that openness, were to kill it by trying to close it.
This being a primarily US forum, I was referring to US copyright.
US law is based on British common law, and in it's origins was almost a direct transplant. Discussing the basis of US law while ignoring those roots is like discussing the history of the automobile while denying the existence of the horse and cart.
The market for XBox software is not a physical thing.
But we aren't talking about XBox software here, are we? We're talking about the XBox itself, which is physical, and what I can do with it once I've purchased it. What software Microsoft chooses to make available to me above and beyond the purchase of that hardware is totally irrelevant.
True, but you can't necesarily use the intellectual property contents of said piece of hardware.
Yes I absolutely can. The only restriction is that I can't sell a product based on any of that IP that is patented, and that is the only restriction placed upon me with regards to hardware which I have purchased.
I can make all the go-carts I want using Honda 2-cycle engines from motorcycles and lawnmowers. I can modify those engines however I want to increase power, efficiency, cooling, you name it. That is my right as the purchaser of a piece of hardware. The only thing I can't do is build and sell a clone of the V-Twin engine, because Honda owns the patent on that technology.
Similarly, I can reprogram my XBox to control my sprinkler system if I want to, or I can port Linux to it, or I can write my own games for it. The only thing MS can do to stop me is hide the APIs to make it more difficult for me to do that.
The tricky point is where you draw the line - does writing code that runs on an XBox require the use of MS intellectual property?
The line is already drawn. The only point at which MS can control this is through the licensing on the XBox Developers Kit. They can't prevent the source code from being distributed, they can only prevent the distribution of binaries produced using the XDK, and then only because those binaries include code copyrighted by MS. If someone produced a binary that didn't rely on any of their code, there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it. They know that, and they are relying on the fact that it will require a non-MS XDK to be written from scratch, which will be difficult and time consuming.
This question could be resolved, as I suggested, by the creation of a legal safe harbour that protects the console market. If it's in the interests of the general public, then a law can reasonably be enacted.
I don't think you have adequately thought through the consequences of such a law. It is absolutely not in the interest of the general public. What you are proposing is the equivalent of requiring all automobile service to be done using factory parts by dealer mechanics, and making all options, such as upgraded stereo, sporty graffics, spoilers, tinted windows, etc., mandatory at the time of purchase. How would that benefit the consumer? And if it doesn't benefit the consumer, how can you possibly argue that it is in the interest of the general public?
By refusing MS the right to safely create a low cost of entry console, you're pissing in the pool. Everybody loses, because consoles become too expensive to be a practical business model.
Bullshit. No one is refusing MS the right to safely create a low cost console, they've failed to do that all by themselves. You are suggesting that their piss-poor design and planning should be subsidized by law, and I am calling that the stupidest idea I've heard in a really long time.
Sony and Nintendo have both produced consoles which they can sell for less at a profit, and which are more compelling offers in terms of what's available on those platforms. If MS, or any other company, wants to offer a product that costs more, there needs to be a compelling reason for people to pay that price.
Intel has historically been a prime example of this concept. Historically, you could buy an Intel CPU or you could by a CPU from one of the various clone manufacturers; lets say Cyrix, just for an example. You could buy a Cyrix processor and it would run all your software, or you could buy an Intel and it would run all your software better, faster, and more stable. The Cyrix costs a lot less, but the Intel offers a compelling advantage for the increased price. That's why Intel has been on top of the CPU market, despite being more expensive than others offering the same basic functionality.
MS has failed to offer compelling functionality for the increased cost, and for that reason they now must sell the hardware at a loss and hope to regain that loss on software royalties when people buy games for it.
Halo is the only reason I would consider buying an XBox. I am perfectly within my rights to buy an XBox solely for the purpose of playing Halo and never purchasing another game ever again. MS loses money on me and it's their own damn fault.
Under the current situation, it is on MS and their developers to offer me additional software that I want in order for them to make a profit. Under the law you suggest I would be forced to buy additional software, even though it sucks (and it would suck, since there is no compelling reason for MS to produce anything compelling under that scenario).
Look up the history of copyright in British common law. The origional intent of copyright was to give the crown control over what could be published. Here and here are some decent sites detailing the history of copyright (in the US and UK, respectively). In particular, I'm refering to the Licensing Act of 1662, which granted publishers the monopoly currently refered to as copyright in exchange for censorship of information deemed damaging to the church or government.
No, copyright was enacted origionally as a censorship tool, and is currently used to artificially create scarcity for protected ideas, which then gives those ideas commercial value. Hardware, being a physical thing, is inherently scarce, and on that point your copyright analogy falls in upon itself.
Anyone who sells hardware for less than it costs to produce is an idiot. If people aren't willing to pay at least the cost of production, then either your product or your process needs to be redesigned.
Once I have bought a piece of hardware it is mine and I can do with it whatever I want. I can modify it, sell it, rent it out, smash it with a hammer, or use it as a fishtank and there's not a goddamned thing they can do about it. That idea is the basis of our economic system, and it is the reason why I can by parts for my truck that weren't made by Dodge. This is true for all hardware. It does not suddenly become untrue for consoles because Microsoft couldn't handle the basic laws of supply and demand. Sony and Nintendo seem to be doing just fine without such protection.
Are you honestly saying that you would have no problem with a law that required every console purchaser to also purchase X number of officially produced games for that console? Would you also have no problem with a law that requires you to get your car serviced only by official dealer mechanics using only official dealer parts? Are you honestly foolish enough to believe that such a law would benefit you, the consumer?
The simple fact is that Microsoft fucked up. They tried to apply a software business model to hardware, and it just won't work. Too fucking bad, I say. It's not my responsibility to bail them out of the hole they dug for themselves. That's what they have $40 billion in the bank for, and if they didn't have that I guess they'd just have to disappear, just like 3DO, TurboGrafix, and SEGA did before them.
Re:the real terrorists are governments and media
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If the missile defense intercepts the missile over the Pacific ocean, bordering the edge of space, we can assume that it will not affect the mainland as much as if its burst a mile over the ground.
Yes we can! After all, such an intercepted attack would only effect the coast, which means we have nothing to worry about since our most densely populated regions are the coasts. Oh, wait...
And for an intercept to happen as you describe we would have to launch the intercept at pretty much the same time as the attack was launched. I doubt that China is going to call us up and say, "OK, get ready because we're going to launch missiles at you on my mark..." We have to detect the launch, determine that it is actually an attack on us, and activate our defense system, all of which takes time. As my old sensei was fond of saying, action is always faster than reaction.
Then, of course, we have to actually hit the missile with something which, according to a friend of mine who is an engineer on a missile defense project, is extremely difficult. Sort of like using chicken wire to keep out mosquitos.
That pretty much invalidates Chinas' need to use several smaller warheads to "try" to get through the "defense". Even if we did intercept a big one, by the time we did it would be close enough to us to cause real and significant damage.
My terminally ill arguement had nothing to do with nuclear fallout (although I don't see how you've invalidated that, given the realities of the situation), but rather with the fact that we waste billions of dollars on an ineffectual defense against an improbable attack rather than spending that money on curing diseases that millions of real people battle with every day.
And as for my moronic economic arguement, I suppose you have a better explanation for why China is repeatedly granted Most Favoured Nation trading status, despite repeated, blatant, and systematic human rights abuse, not to mention our own claims to be fighting Communism, than that our economy is dependent on the cheap manufactured goods they provide?
For balance, X.0,.1,.2,.3 and.4 should get rounded to X, while.5,.6,.7,.8 and.9 should get rounded up to X+1, no?
No.
As already stated in this thread, that creates a slight error which pulls the average value towards X+1.
Part of the error of your example is that.0 isn't rounded. It can be ignored without changing the value of the number as a whole, and is only retained for the purpose of determining accuracy (aka significant digits).
For true balance.1,.2,.3,.4 get rounded to X,.6,.7,.8,.9 get rounded to X+1, and.5 has to have a perfectly 50/50 chance of being rounded to either X or X+1. The established standard is to round to the nearest even value of X; thus 4.5 rounds to 4, and 5.5 rounds to 6.
The commonly accepted standard, that.5 is always rounded up, is incorrect because it skews the results toward X+1.
Re:Have you learned nothing?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 2
simultaneously hijack FOUR aircraft
Requiring a few watches, maybe some calendars, and some flight schedules. Real high tech! I'm not saying that makes them dumb, but any desert goat-herder has the skills to do that.
in a country with absurdly tight border restrictions
You're joking, right? I don't know what country you're talking about, but it sure as hell isn't the USA. Our borders aren't even tight on paper.
keep the whole thing quiet from an increasingly Orwellian state
Yeah, that's dificult. Our "intelligence" community is almost totally focused on signals. If you don't use the phone or email, they probably don't even know you exist. It's pretty easy to not talk about a terrorist plot on the phone.
run the whole gig on a budget of eighty dollars and five camels
Christ, all they needed was some box cutters and some plane tickets. Yeah, some of them had some flight training, but I bet they could have done just fine without it. Flying a plane really isn't difficult. Taking off and landing is, but they really didn't care about that, did they?
A "cyber attack" is so thoroughly within the reach of Al Queda that the only reason I can suggest that they've not done it is that they've been busy regrouping after their previous hosts, the Taliban, had their arses royally kicked a few months back.
Here's a suggestion: maybe they haven't done it because they realize that it's pointless and stupid. Nobody's going to die from a "devastating cyber attack". Nobody's even going to be particularly worried, since Microsoft has conditioned us to expect computers to fuck up regularly. The biggest effect a cyber attack would have is a slight increase in help desk calls asking why the internet is broken. Who cares? Maybe, just maybe, they've decided to focus their attentions on something that would actually be effective?
Re:the real terrorists are governments and media
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Also, don't tell me that missle defense is a lesser issue than public health. If everyone is dead from a missle attack, there's no point to a "health program". Don't think its not possible. China is NOT our friend, and they have a LOT of missiles. Have you noticed all the talk about a Chinese space program? Thats because they have long range launching capabilites now, the kind that can also target the USA with nuclear missles.
Oh, please. You should really educate yourself about the realities of missile defense before you go around spouting such drivel.
Missile defense will not protect you from a nuclear attack. Why? Because an airburst several miles up will cause just as much havoc and death as one that actually hits the ground through EMP and spread of radiation. In fact, in many cases it would actually be preferable to have the missile "intercepted" by something like the Patriot system than to have it actually hit it's intended target.
And then there's the fact that we intercept so many missiles everyday... If everyone is terminally ill, what's the point of a "missile defense program"?
And as for China, what the hell do they need to attack us with missiles for? They already own our economy. All they'd have to do is stop trading with us and our whole economy would go to shit from the lack of cheap prison labor.
In short, pull your head out of your ass and realize that the Military Industrial Complex is a problem, not a solution.
Like it or not, the method VB uses for rounding is the mathematically correct one, as anyone with a decent grounding in math can tell you (which is, unfortunately, why you didn't learn it that way in grade school).
It is a feature because it is correct. Any program that always rounds '5's up has a serious, though subtle, bug, since it introduces errors that expand over time.
In the example you give the VB method will be more consistent with reality than the 'traditional' method, though if the rounding method you're using has that much potential to significantly skew your data, perhaps you shouldn't be rounding at all.
And regarding what system you use at work: I bring my laptop (w/Linux) to work for my personal use. I have had an office supplied PC in the past, but we're able to install Linux there if we choose. Why not, you're the only one using the computer, right? =)
Unfortunately I'm rarely given that choice. The last company I worked for let me build a linux fileserver for them, and as far as I know they're still using it happily, but Linux was not a viable option for the desktop there. Our main function was 3d CAD, an area where Linux is sorely lacking, and a switch to Linux/Pro-E would have been more expensive than Win2k/SolidWorks, even if we were starting from scratch.
I haven't gone past RH 7.1, but a RH 7.1 w/Ximian Gnome system I'd say is in fact easier to use than Windows. Especially for updating and installing programs (Red Carpet). Install, IMO, is very easy as well - even custom isn't difficult. And remember, the slight learning curve with this system matches that of any new windows user, at least IMO
SuSE has been really easy since 7.1, when YaST2 and YOU got 'finished', but 6.3 (the previous release I tried) was like pulling teeth, at least for a newbie like me. I think most of the major distros pulled the install/upgrade thing together at around the same time. I really wonder about these people that keep saying "Linux is to hard for the average user". I look at my Linux desktop and think, "If this is too hard, how the hell are they able to use Windows?"
What MS is attempting to solve here is "how can I trust party X out there? How do I even know that party X is party X? And how can I trust party X not to share my private information with party Y?"
The vast majority of users don't care. If they did we wouldn't have all these virii running around, because people would actually think before they opened email attachments.
Some admins care (not all, unfortunately), and they should know enough to be wary of trusting their security solely to an MS solution.
Well, my wife doesn't know anything about computers and doesn't want to. She leaves the cumputer stuff to me and doesn't question my decisions in that area. So long as she can get her email, read the few sites she visits, and occasionally print something, she's perfectly happy. Similarly, I leave home decorating to her and don't question her decisions in that area, and as long as she doesn't mess with my desk or put my guitars somewhere I can't get to them easily, I'm happy. This arrangement works out pretty well for both of us, as I expect slight variations would for most married couples. Chances are, if your SO knows enough about computers to be a part of that decision making process, they should know enough to understand the issues involved without your having to bring up pr0n, mp3 and divx will likely suffice.
More than 90% of folks use Windows for the desktop
This can change. I'm doing my part by refusing to install pirated copies of MS software when I build computers for people. If they want Windows and MS Office, they'll have to buy it or find it and install it themselves. I firmly believe that the popularity of MS software among home users is due to the ease of finding pirated copies. I inform them of the available options and how they compare with the MS software they're used to using and let them make that choice.
Before anyone flames me with the typical whining about how Linux is "too hard" for the average user to understand, let alone configure, let me point out that these are machines that I am building by hand. I install the OS, I install the software packages, I do the configuration, and I come to their house to set it up and help get them started with the basics of using their new machine. For me, Linux is actually easier on the install end. I use SuSE Pro, and the tools they give me to manage the process far excede anything Windows has to offer. No CD shuffle, no endless reboot cycle, no searching for drivers, because its all right there on my bootable DVD. On the users end it rarely makes a difference, it'll take them just as much time to get going in Windows as it will in KDE.
NFS (forgot new name)
You mean SMB, which is now called CIFS. NFS has always been a *nix thing, and SMB was created to give non-*nix OS' similar functionality.
If your boss sends you a Word Doc that you can't open, what can you do?
Well, I would tell my boss to quit sending me this crap at home, where I use Linux. If he really wants me to work at home, and he'd have to be willing to pay me extra for it, then he needs to provide me with a system and software to do that. At work I use whatever I'm given, so that sort of issue should never come up. At home, though, he's interfering with my time with my family, and I'm sure as hell not going to bend over backwards to facilitate that. If he wants some of that time, he's going to have to bend over backwards to make it painless for me.
Everyone will have this autentication code, a number which marks all of their interactions with the rest of the world, and no one will be able to buy or sell unless they have this mark^H^H^H^Hauthentication code.
There is a patch (or group of them) that give Linux ACL support. I don't remember the name of it, something like grsecurity. It was mentioned in the WOLKs interview a few stories before this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2000 offers fit-to-page printing for anything. I don't know if Win9x offers such a thing as I've never needed it at home, and of course I'm not using Windows at the moment so I can't check it out.
Anyway, I don't think it's an IE thing but rather an OS/driver thing.
I've just got to admire Red Carpet. I'm commenting on this because some folks haven't tried it. =P In Red Carpet, first select a related channel to what you want (e.g. RH Linux 7.3), it'll show you what you can update, what is available to install, and what you can remove. Full information on the package (description, version, size, etc) is available at one click. Simply check those packages you wish to update/install/remove and click a button. It does the rest. No rebooting. Nothing. If that isn't easy to use, I don't know what is.
/dir if she happens to have the instructions written down somewhere. And even if she has to do it every day it really not a big deal if that's all she ever has to do to it. Even if you don't have remote access, support is still significantly easier with Linux.
SuSE's YOU (YaST Online Update) is pretty much the same. I prefer to use it in manual mode, since I like to know exactly what is happening on my system, but I modify the suggestions it makes rarely enough that I could use it in automatic mode a save myself 2 or 3 clicks.
Is this very new hardware, or uncommon, or am I missing something? Wouldn't Win2K come with these drivers?
In my experience Win2k includes drivers for Soundblaster-16, Trident video cards, generic winmodems, and HP laser printers. Other than that, you have to get them from the vendor. It comes with an assload of drivers, but not for hardware anyone actually seems to be using.
My personal system, which is fairly representative of the systems I've dealt with, has: Athlon, AMD 750 chipset, GeForce2, Soundblaster Live, cheap NIC, USB optical mouse, CD-RW, DVD, 2 HDDs. The one thing I had to go out and find drivers for was my printer, a Lexmark z53 (which I bought specifically because Lexmark supports it's inkjets on Linux).
Surprisingly, NICs have been the component I've had the most trouble with in Win2k. I expect to have to download drivers for my video card and soundcard (even though it's 4 years old), but given that Win2k is such an improvement on the networking front you'd expect better support for NICs.
I love Linux's remote admin utilities: you can fix problems on your Aunt's computer in Pango Pango. =D
It looks like I might be doing an install for a friend's home box (not very computer literate), and any problems that come up will most likely only require a few commands. =)
I set up a Linux file server for my old company (from which I was laid off, but no hard feelings). It's headless (no monitor, keyboard, mouse, everything done over ssh), and I was laid off the day after I brought it online. I've only recieved one call in 6 months, which was samba's createmode acting funny (nobody had access to files created by the boss). I sent the front office chick (who is responsible for documentation control, purchasing, shipping and recieving, and probably more that I don't know about. Small company, very smart chick, though not particularly computer oriented) an email telling her how to chmod the whole shared directory using putty (which I installed on the shared directory). A kludge for sure, but I haven't had a chance to stop by and fix the samba config.
My point is, though, that even Aunt Tilly can ssh to a server and enter chmod -R 777
$67/credit? How do you arrive at that figure? At the community college I'm going to the fees breaks down basically like this:
$11/(unit|credit)
$12/session in other fees
$60-120 for books
$40/session for parking (or $1 per day, which may be cheaper)
For the Calculus series I took it works out to about $40/credit (3 semesters at 4 credits each, plus parking, plus $150 in books to cover the whole series). Even for a one semester class I estimate $44/credit.
The cost goes up if you consider your time, of course. 4 hours of class a week plus 2-3 times that for homework can add up pretty quick. Also it would be more if I had a degree. For CA CCs tuition is $11/credit normally for residents, and up to $125/credit for non-residents and people with 4-year degrees (I don't remember the exact breakdown, as it doesn't apply to me, but I do remember the upper cap, as it seemed like a lot).
Anyway, just curious how you arrived at that figure.
Ask [your daughters] to teach you.
This is the best advice so far, because it will help you and your daughters. One of the things I learned while I was a math tutor was that I didn't know dick about math until I started tutoring. Sure, I had made it to Calculus, and I could keep up at that level, but I didn't know math. It has been said that the best way to really learn something is to try and tech it to someone else, and I've found that it really is true.
Having your daughters teach you the math they're studying will help you relearn the things you've forgotten (or maybe even teach you new things, depending on where they are at), but it will help them even more through the increased understanding they will gain by trying to teach these concepts to someone else, and perhaps as your memory is refreshed you can teach them concepts that don't seem to be presented to them otherwise (the way Kramer's Rule is presented currently is a prime example of this. It is more much more difficult to understand the mechanics of it with the current method, even though (or maybe because) it is more consistent with matrix mechanics).
A better understanding of math can only open more and better opportunities to them, which is a noble pursuit for any parent. Also, the time spent will help strengthen the bonds between you.
So, don't steal their books, ask them to teach you. This is by far the most beneficial solution for all involved.
before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe.
;P
I totally agree, but I wanted to point out that the same is true for SuSE 7.x and 8.x, and I've heard that Mandrake 8.x is very good as well. KDE3 is quite usable as well, and so far I consider it a significant improvement on KDE2, which I also liked.
I'm not trying to start a distro/desktop flamewar or anything, I just want to point out that Linux in general has reached the point where it is quite usable by the average person. The installs of the current offerings from any of the major commercial distros can be handled by anyone with even moderate knowledge of computers. In fact, since drivers and apps are included in the distros, installation is actually far simpler than with Windows.
My annecdotal evidence to back up this claim: I've done about 10 installs of SuSE Linux (7.1, 7.3, and 8.0) in the last year, and about 15 installs of Windows 2000 in that same time. On average, a full up-to-date install of Windows takes me about 4 times as long as an equivalent Linux install (2 hours v. 30 minutes). Most of that time difference is CD shuffling and rebooting. Especially irritating are the MS updates, many of which have to be installed individually, requiring a reboot and then a return to the update site for the rest, which may or may not have to be installed individually. This is not user friendly, and it certainly does nothing to encourage the average user to keep their system up-to-date. One might even suggest that this lack of a truelly user-frindly update system encourages the proliferation of the unsecured systems that periodically flood the internet with the windows-virus-of-the-month.
With SuSE, by contrast, I have no need to find the driver CDs for my hardware (when will vendors learn to put actual meaningful labels on their driver disks?) since the drivers are included on my install disk and the hardware is autodetected. I have no need to find and install all the apps that actually make my machine useful, since they are all included. I have no need to reboot my machine for every driver or app installed, since they are all installed with the base package. And when it's all installed, a few clicks of the mouse gets all of my installed packages updated.
By all accounts, a similarly painless experience is available from all the other major Linux vendors.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I expect to have about half of my immediate family (including in-laws) using Linux at least part time by the end of summer. So far, no problem, and if they can use it anybody can
He and his team are laying the foundations right now in preparation for a possible mass exodus from windows
I certainly hope so.
Palladium would be enough to finally push me over to Apple (for hardware, anyway). So far it's been my roll-your-own nature that's kept me on x86. I like to play with hardware, and Apple has always been reticent in that regard (for good reasons, which I understand, but I am not in that market).
However, If I'm forced to choose between building my own system and using Linux, I'll choose Linux. If that means I pay more for the hardware, so be it.
The x86 platform has been so successful precisely because it has been so open. It would be ironic if Lords of x86, wcich have derived so much wealth from that openness, were to kill it by trying to close it.
That's where you go to find Anime in my neck of the woods. Also, some of the mall movie stores (sales, not rental) have decent Anime stock.
Well, I know a retired physicist whose pension pays over $250k/year. He only drives a Lexus, but hey, he's retired.
Maybe because it isn't open?
I'll believe OpenGL is dead when I can run all my DirectX games on Linux.
This being a primarily US forum, I was referring to US copyright.
US law is based on British common law, and in it's origins was almost a direct transplant. Discussing the basis of US law while ignoring those roots is like discussing the history of the automobile while denying the existence of the horse and cart.
The market for XBox software is not a physical thing.
But we aren't talking about XBox software here, are we? We're talking about the XBox itself, which is physical, and what I can do with it once I've purchased it. What software Microsoft chooses to make available to me above and beyond the purchase of that hardware is totally irrelevant.
True, but you can't necesarily use the intellectual property contents of said piece of hardware.
Yes I absolutely can. The only restriction is that I can't sell a product based on any of that IP that is patented, and that is the only restriction placed upon me with regards to hardware which I have purchased.
I can make all the go-carts I want using Honda 2-cycle engines from motorcycles and lawnmowers. I can modify those engines however I want to increase power, efficiency, cooling, you name it. That is my right as the purchaser of a piece of hardware. The only thing I can't do is build and sell a clone of the V-Twin engine, because Honda owns the patent on that technology.
Similarly, I can reprogram my XBox to control my sprinkler system if I want to, or I can port Linux to it, or I can write my own games for it. The only thing MS can do to stop me is hide the APIs to make it more difficult for me to do that.
The tricky point is where you draw the line - does writing code that runs on an XBox require the use of MS intellectual property?
The line is already drawn. The only point at which MS can control this is through the licensing on the XBox Developers Kit. They can't prevent the source code from being distributed, they can only prevent the distribution of binaries produced using the XDK, and then only because those binaries include code copyrighted by MS. If someone produced a binary that didn't rely on any of their code, there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it. They know that, and they are relying on the fact that it will require a non-MS XDK to be written from scratch, which will be difficult and time consuming.
This question could be resolved, as I suggested, by the creation of a legal safe harbour that protects the console market. If it's in the interests of the general public, then a law can reasonably be enacted.
I don't think you have adequately thought through the consequences of such a law. It is absolutely not in the interest of the general public. What you are proposing is the equivalent of requiring all automobile service to be done using factory parts by dealer mechanics, and making all options, such as upgraded stereo, sporty graffics, spoilers, tinted windows, etc., mandatory at the time of purchase. How would that benefit the consumer? And if it doesn't benefit the consumer, how can you possibly argue that it is in the interest of the general public?
By refusing MS the right to safely create a low cost of entry console, you're pissing in the pool. Everybody loses, because consoles become too expensive to be a practical business model.
Bullshit. No one is refusing MS the right to safely create a low cost console, they've failed to do that all by themselves. You are suggesting that their piss-poor design and planning should be subsidized by law, and I am calling that the stupidest idea I've heard in a really long time.
Sony and Nintendo have both produced consoles which they can sell for less at a profit, and which are more compelling offers in terms of what's available on those platforms. If MS, or any other company, wants to offer a product that costs more, there needs to be a compelling reason for people to pay that price.
Intel has historically been a prime example of this concept. Historically, you could buy an Intel CPU or you could by a CPU from one of the various clone manufacturers; lets say Cyrix, just for an example. You could buy a Cyrix processor and it would run all your software, or you could buy an Intel and it would run all your software better, faster, and more stable. The Cyrix costs a lot less, but the Intel offers a compelling advantage for the increased price. That's why Intel has been on top of the CPU market, despite being more expensive than others offering the same basic functionality.
MS has failed to offer compelling functionality for the increased cost, and for that reason they now must sell the hardware at a loss and hope to regain that loss on software royalties when people buy games for it.
Halo is the only reason I would consider buying an XBox. I am perfectly within my rights to buy an XBox solely for the purpose of playing Halo and never purchasing another game ever again. MS loses money on me and it's their own damn fault.
Under the current situation, it is on MS and their developers to offer me additional software that I want in order for them to make a profit. Under the law you suggest I would be forced to buy additional software, even though it sucks (and it would suck, since there is no compelling reason for MS to produce anything compelling under that scenario).
Look up the history of copyright in British common law. The origional intent of copyright was to give the crown control over what could be published. Here and here are some decent sites detailing the history of copyright (in the US and UK, respectively). In particular, I'm refering to the Licensing Act of 1662, which granted publishers the monopoly currently refered to as copyright in exchange for censorship of information deemed damaging to the church or government.
No, copyright was enacted origionally as a censorship tool, and is currently used to artificially create scarcity for protected ideas, which then gives those ideas commercial value. Hardware, being a physical thing, is inherently scarce, and on that point your copyright analogy falls in upon itself.
Anyone who sells hardware for less than it costs to produce is an idiot. If people aren't willing to pay at least the cost of production, then either your product or your process needs to be redesigned.
Once I have bought a piece of hardware it is mine and I can do with it whatever I want. I can modify it, sell it, rent it out, smash it with a hammer, or use it as a fishtank and there's not a goddamned thing they can do about it. That idea is the basis of our economic system, and it is the reason why I can by parts for my truck that weren't made by Dodge. This is true for all hardware. It does not suddenly become untrue for consoles because Microsoft couldn't handle the basic laws of supply and demand. Sony and Nintendo seem to be doing just fine without such protection.
Are you honestly saying that you would have no problem with a law that required every console purchaser to also purchase X number of officially produced games for that console? Would you also have no problem with a law that requires you to get your car serviced only by official dealer mechanics using only official dealer parts? Are you honestly foolish enough to believe that such a law would benefit you, the consumer?
The simple fact is that Microsoft fucked up. They tried to apply a software business model to hardware, and it just won't work. Too fucking bad, I say. It's not my responsibility to bail them out of the hole they dug for themselves. That's what they have $40 billion in the bank for, and if they didn't have that I guess they'd just have to disappear, just like 3DO, TurboGrafix, and SEGA did before them.
If the missile defense intercepts the missile over the Pacific ocean, bordering the edge of space, we can assume that it will not affect the mainland as much as if its burst a mile over the ground.
Yes we can! After all, such an intercepted attack would only effect the coast, which means we have nothing to worry about since our most densely populated regions are the coasts. Oh, wait...
And for an intercept to happen as you describe we would have to launch the intercept at pretty much the same time as the attack was launched. I doubt that China is going to call us up and say, "OK, get ready because we're going to launch missiles at you on my mark..." We have to detect the launch, determine that it is actually an attack on us, and activate our defense system, all of which takes time. As my old sensei was fond of saying, action is always faster than reaction.
Then, of course, we have to actually hit the missile with something which, according to a friend of mine who is an engineer on a missile defense project, is extremely difficult. Sort of like using chicken wire to keep out mosquitos.
That pretty much invalidates Chinas' need to use several smaller warheads to "try" to get through the "defense". Even if we did intercept a big one, by the time we did it would be close enough to us to cause real and significant damage.
My terminally ill arguement had nothing to do with nuclear fallout (although I don't see how you've invalidated that, given the realities of the situation), but rather with the fact that we waste billions of dollars on an ineffectual defense against an improbable attack rather than spending that money on curing diseases that millions of real people battle with every day.
And as for my moronic economic arguement, I suppose you have a better explanation for why China is repeatedly granted Most Favoured Nation trading status, despite repeated, blatant, and systematic human rights abuse, not to mention our own claims to be fighting Communism, than that our economy is dependent on the cheap manufactured goods they provide?
For balance, X.0, .1, .2, .3 and .4 should get rounded to X, while .5, .6, .7, .8 and .9 should get rounded up to X+1, no?
.0 isn't rounded. It can be ignored without changing the value of the number as a whole, and is only retained for the purpose of determining accuracy (aka significant digits).
.1, .2, .3, .4 get rounded to X, .6, .7, .8, .9 get rounded to X+1, and .5 has to have a perfectly 50/50 chance of being rounded to either X or X+1. The established standard is to round to the nearest even value of X; thus 4.5 rounds to 4, and 5.5 rounds to 6.
.5 is always rounded up, is incorrect because it skews the results toward X+1.
No.
As already stated in this thread, that creates a slight error which pulls the average value towards X+1.
Part of the error of your example is that
For true balance
The commonly accepted standard, that
simultaneously hijack FOUR aircraft
Requiring a few watches, maybe some calendars, and some flight schedules. Real high tech! I'm not saying that makes them dumb, but any desert goat-herder has the skills to do that.
in a country with absurdly tight border restrictions
You're joking, right? I don't know what country you're talking about, but it sure as hell isn't the USA. Our borders aren't even tight on paper.
keep the whole thing quiet from an increasingly Orwellian state
Yeah, that's dificult. Our "intelligence" community is almost totally focused on signals. If you don't use the phone or email, they probably don't even know you exist. It's pretty easy to not talk about a terrorist plot on the phone.
run the whole gig on a budget of eighty dollars and five camels
Christ, all they needed was some box cutters and some plane tickets. Yeah, some of them had some flight training, but I bet they could have done just fine without it. Flying a plane really isn't difficult. Taking off and landing is, but they really didn't care about that, did they?
A "cyber attack" is so thoroughly within the reach of Al Queda that the only reason I can suggest that they've not done it is that they've been busy regrouping after their previous hosts, the Taliban, had their arses royally kicked a few months back.
Here's a suggestion: maybe they haven't done it because they realize that it's pointless and stupid. Nobody's going to die from a "devastating cyber attack". Nobody's even going to be particularly worried, since Microsoft has conditioned us to expect computers to fuck up regularly. The biggest effect a cyber attack would have is a slight increase in help desk calls asking why the internet is broken. Who cares? Maybe, just maybe, they've decided to focus their attentions on something that would actually be effective?
Also, don't tell me that missle defense is a lesser issue than public health. If everyone is dead from a missle attack, there's no point to a "health program". Don't think its not possible. China is NOT our friend, and they have a LOT of missiles. Have you noticed all the talk about a Chinese space program? Thats because they have long range launching capabilites now, the kind that can also target the USA with nuclear missles.
Oh, please. You should really educate yourself about the realities of missile defense before you go around spouting such drivel.
Missile defense will not protect you from a nuclear attack. Why? Because an airburst several miles up will cause just as much havoc and death as one that actually hits the ground through EMP and spread of radiation. In fact, in many cases it would actually be preferable to have the missile "intercepted" by something like the Patriot system than to have it actually hit it's intended target.
And then there's the fact that we intercept so many missiles everyday... If everyone is terminally ill, what's the point of a "missile defense program"?
And as for China, what the hell do they need to attack us with missiles for? They already own our economy. All they'd have to do is stop trading with us and our whole economy would go to shit from the lack of cheap prison labor.
In short, pull your head out of your ass and realize that the Military Industrial Complex is a problem, not a solution.
Like it or not, the method VB uses for rounding is the mathematically correct one, as anyone with a decent grounding in math can tell you (which is, unfortunately, why you didn't learn it that way in grade school).
It is a feature because it is correct. Any program that always rounds '5's up has a serious, though subtle, bug, since it introduces errors that expand over time.
In the example you give the VB method will be more consistent with reality than the 'traditional' method, though if the rounding method you're using has that much potential to significantly skew your data, perhaps you shouldn't be rounding at all.
Star Control 2 would be re-released for Linux, Mac, and windows.... oh wait [classicgaming.com] it is
...and they're even bsing it on the 3DO version, which rocks the world.
I am squeezing the juice!
And regarding what system you use at work: I bring my laptop (w/Linux) to work for my personal use. I have had an office supplied PC in the past, but we're able to install Linux there if we choose. Why not, you're the only one using the computer, right? =)
Unfortunately I'm rarely given that choice. The last company I worked for let me build a linux fileserver for them, and as far as I know they're still using it happily, but Linux was not a viable option for the desktop there. Our main function was 3d CAD, an area where Linux is sorely lacking, and a switch to Linux/Pro-E would have been more expensive than Win2k/SolidWorks, even if we were starting from scratch.
I haven't gone past RH 7.1, but a RH 7.1 w/Ximian Gnome system I'd say is in fact easier to use than Windows. Especially for updating and installing programs (Red Carpet). Install, IMO, is very easy as well - even custom isn't difficult. And remember, the slight learning curve with this system matches that of any new windows user, at least IMO
SuSE has been really easy since 7.1, when YaST2 and YOU got 'finished', but 6.3 (the previous release I tried) was like pulling teeth, at least for a newbie like me. I think most of the major distros pulled the install/upgrade thing together at around the same time. I really wonder about these people that keep saying "Linux is to hard for the average user". I look at my Linux desktop and think, "If this is too hard, how the hell are they able to use Windows?"
What MS is attempting to solve here is "how can I trust party X out there? How do I even know that party X is party X? And how can I trust party X not to share my private information with party Y?"
The vast majority of users don't care. If they did we wouldn't have all these virii running around, because people would actually think before they opened email attachments.
Some admins care (not all, unfortunately), and they should know enough to be wary of trusting their security solely to an MS solution.
Well, my wife doesn't know anything about computers and doesn't want to. She leaves the cumputer stuff to me and doesn't question my decisions in that area. So long as she can get her email, read the few sites she visits, and occasionally print something, she's perfectly happy. Similarly, I leave home decorating to her and don't question her decisions in that area, and as long as she doesn't mess with my desk or put my guitars somewhere I can't get to them easily, I'm happy. This arrangement works out pretty well for both of us, as I expect slight variations would for most married couples. Chances are, if your SO knows enough about computers to be a part of that decision making process, they should know enough to understand the issues involved without your having to bring up pr0n, mp3 and divx will likely suffice.
More than 90% of folks use Windows for the desktop
This can change. I'm doing my part by refusing to install pirated copies of MS software when I build computers for people. If they want Windows and MS Office, they'll have to buy it or find it and install it themselves. I firmly believe that the popularity of MS software among home users is due to the ease of finding pirated copies. I inform them of the available options and how they compare with the MS software they're used to using and let them make that choice.
Before anyone flames me with the typical whining about how Linux is "too hard" for the average user to understand, let alone configure, let me point out that these are machines that I am building by hand. I install the OS, I install the software packages, I do the configuration, and I come to their house to set it up and help get them started with the basics of using their new machine. For me, Linux is actually easier on the install end. I use SuSE Pro, and the tools they give me to manage the process far excede anything Windows has to offer. No CD shuffle, no endless reboot cycle, no searching for drivers, because its all right there on my bootable DVD. On the users end it rarely makes a difference, it'll take them just as much time to get going in Windows as it will in KDE.
NFS (forgot new name)
You mean SMB, which is now called CIFS. NFS has always been a *nix thing, and SMB was created to give non-*nix OS' similar functionality.
If your boss sends you a Word Doc that you can't open, what can you do?
Well, I would tell my boss to quit sending me this crap at home, where I use Linux. If he really wants me to work at home, and he'd have to be willing to pay me extra for it, then he needs to provide me with a system and software to do that. At work I use whatever I'm given, so that sort of issue should never come up. At home, though, he's interfering with my time with my family, and I'm sure as hell not going to bend over backwards to facilitate that. If he wants some of that time, he's going to have to bend over backwards to make it painless for me.
So in other words:
Everyone will have this autentication code, a number which marks all of their interactions with the rest of the world, and no one will be able to buy or sell unless they have this mark^H^H^H^Hauthentication code.
Where have I heard this before?
No, kids buy gaming consoles to play games. I'll bet you can't name 5 people over 30 who own their own gaming console.
Adults buy computers for games and email, and use that four letter word to justify the cost.
Mmmmmm..... ACLs......
There is a patch (or group of them) that give Linux ACL support. I don't remember the name of it, something like grsecurity. It was mentioned in the WOLKs interview a few stories before this one.