I found a couple of these, but they take too much bandwidth. Where can I get a T3 for $9.95 a minth?
I'll tell you why.
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For the love of Christ, that's all we need is more ignorant AOL users on slow dialup connections.
I'll agree that ignoranmce can caus eproblems, but why do *you* care if they are on slow connections? Unless you just want to email huge attachments to everyone you know, or hijack their comupters. The majority of people I know (and I'm a big dog geek in a town full of geeks, but I know lots of folks all over) are still on dialup.
Frankly, I'm quite surprised that AOL hasn't gone the way of many other services (Prodigy, MSN, etc.) that abandoned their proprietary software for simple internet access.
Since they're hugely successful, that would be stupid. They would need a compelling case to change over. And a lot of people are *happy* with AOL. AOL works just fine for the teeming masses. Do I wish it were better than it is? Of course. But their users are happy, and keep sending them money. So why should they change?
Every public school in this country is teaching "morality". They rant an drave about being left alone by religious zealots who want to teach morality, but the schools are cramming the new morality down the kids' throats. Whether it's drugs, sexual identity, "tolerance", whatever, a *huge* amount of time and energy goes into this. And that's just the overt stuff, not the covert stuff (textbook changes).
It really doesn't matter whether they are teaching the morality *you* want or not, because history shows quite clearly that they can switch directions.
Horse dookie. Maybe it's useless for the person who'd shell out the bucks for Photoshop, but for the average PC user, it's just fine. Both my kids picked it up with practically no help from me while fairly young, and it was a lot less mature then. My daughter has done some production work in GIMP for a book we're about to publish, too.
She turned a bunch of other teens on to it. I've turned several engineers at work on to it. It's just fine for the average PC user, who doesn't need everything in PhotoShop, much less its cost.
Is it perfect? No. But what's the alternative for Windows that does as much as the GIMP, at anywhere near the cost?
As a victim of a somewhat similar, absurd situation, I'm appalled. Who expected to have to trademark domain names like "Katie.com"? When the problem was pointed out. Penguin should have apologized, put up a web site, and asked the Katie.com owner to put a one-line disclaimer and link to it. They should have then done the same for her. Problem solved.
Instead, some jackass lawyers decide to screw up someone's life. If someone knows a good lawyer (jackass or not) who'll help the Katie.com website owner kick Penguin's butt, please let her know.
First off, you'd be amazed how many people are still using W95, W98 and NT4.
Second, while I have seen only a handfull of BSODs in the last few years, I have seen more than 4, across a variety of systems (maybe 50 systems total). I think I've only seen one on XP, but then I'm not around many XP machines. So 1 on XP, half a dozen on W2K, and a ton on NT4, W98 and W95. I'm not counting those caused by failing hardware.
OTOH, during the same time period, I've been around hundreds of Linux systems running (in general) much, much harder than those Windows systems, and the very few panics I've seen were hardware failure related. Every last one.
For a huge percentage of non-business users, a more responsive desktop is all the faster computer they need.
I find the idea that you should buy new hardware when your old hardware is grossly-underutilized, or at best ill-utilized, appalling. Are you a hardware vendor? Or an MS employee?
Certainly the AGP video drivers should take care of acceleration. But apparently, they don't! At least, not as well as they should, by default.
I suspect most Windows users could get a noticeable speedup from their current hardware, if only MS had made it easy to do so. Instead. you have to be a registry expert, which is right up there with assembly language programming on most folks' skills list or list of things to learn.
By my estimate, there will be approximately 37.904 gazillion of these in use within 10 years. That's about 10 years before IPv6 will be widely deployed, so maybe we should just jump to IPv16 right now.
I find the statements about "we can go back to old pictures of JFK and see what he was looking at" to be questionable at best.
You need a LOT of pixels of the eye itself from which to reconstruct an image. Now, look at how much of a given normal picture the eyes of a person represent.
Pixels? What pixels? No photos of JFK were taken with digital cameras (well, some of the Roswell Conspiracy Gang migt think so).
Depending on the exact photo and the camera and film involved, you might be able to recover some useful information. Granted, probably not from Joe Blow's Polaroid at 30 feet, but from reasonably zoomed in photos from professional cameras, or even high quality 35MM and such, there could be a wealth of information available.
The real qustion is just how useful or interesting that information will be. Personally, I doubt it'll be that great. But we won't know until we check.
``Look! He was looking at Connoly's Dick Tracy TV-wristwatch, and it clearly shows Marily Monroe was the sniper on the grassy knoll!''
A couple of times when I was really, really tired (endless 80-100 hour weeks), I zoned out in a restaurant. When I came back to myself, the spot exactly in front of me across the room was occupied by some random woman at a table. The first time, the woman was smiling at me. The second time, the woman was glaring at me. In each case, they assumed I was staring at them. In fact, I wasn't looking at anything, and my eyes had focused on infinity. When I first returned, Imy eyes naturally focused in on something, which is when I realized I must appear to be staring at someone.
So even if they know what I am looking at, they may not know what I am looking at. That depends on whether they can really get good information on my eyeball lenses through these thick lenses I wear. Just the information on my cornea (or off my glasses lenses) won't necessarrily help.
If it's the best thing for the user, I don't really care why Intel does it, it's astill a good thing. If it's not the best thing for the user, I don't care why Intel is doing it, it's bad regardless of the motive.
So, the real question is, does it matter? I'm seeing good arguments on both sides.
[OTOH, I prefer AMD, anyway. Faster, less power, don't need a helicopter for a fan. more open...]
I'd almost go along with this. We definitely need much stricter standards for driving. I think you should need additional testing to be allowed to use a phone while driving, too. It's clear that most drivers aren't capable of doing them both at the same time-- at least not safely.
In Japan, a driver's liceense is just that-- a professional license (at least it used to be). If you kill someone through professional negligence, you are in deeeep doodoo.
How does that headline presume guilt? All it does is summarize the facts. Reporting that someone was charged no more presumes guilt than it presumes he'll be sentenced.
I can give you reams and reams of facts about, say, the area I grew up in (desert around El Paso). But...
If I stick to just the facts, such as a robot would gather, you don't get any of my impressions. These can be invaluable.
With new facts come new ideas. It won't take long before you have a list of the things the robot can't do, so you have to build a new robot, and send it up. Try again. Same limitations, new facts and ideas. Repeat. Really slows things down, doesn't it? Bad enough WRT the moon. Extremely painful WRT Mars. Intolerable WRT the asteroid belt, and downright absurd past that.
That set of facts above? You can have those, and my impressions, and there are still things you wouldn't know without experiencing them, still things you wouldn't think to ask or try because you don't have the input equivalent of first principles. If you get everything second hand, it's filtered. You always miss something.
You also won't get a variety of things that matter at the human level. What does the sand of Mars feel like bewteen the fingers? To walk on? What does the air feel and taste like? How does a human react to this environment?
You can write these off as irrelevant. If you're a soulless robot, you will. And that would be foolish, even at the purely logical level of a Vulcan. The feel of the sand between your fingers might be exactly the trigger to some insight that yields a new application, process or product that revolutionizes an industry.
(Frankly, whether it yields new products or not, I still want to feel it!)
Never discount the human presence or capabilities in these things.
Slashdot Mirror
I found a couple of these, but they take
too much bandwidth. Where can I get a
T3 for $9.95 a minth?
For the love of Christ, that's all we need is more ignorant AOL users on slow dialup connections.
I'll agree that ignoranmce can caus eproblems, but why do *you* care if they are on slow connections? Unless you just want to email huge attachments to everyone you know, or hijack their comupters. The majority of people I know (and I'm a big dog geek in a town full of geeks, but I know lots of folks all over) are still on dialup.
Frankly, I'm quite surprised that AOL hasn't gone the way of many other services (Prodigy, MSN, etc.) that abandoned their proprietary software for simple internet access.
Since they're hugely successful, that would be stupid. They would need a compelling case to change over. And a lot of people are *happy* with AOL. AOL works just fine for the teeming masses. Do I wish it were better than it is? Of course. But their users are happy, and keep sending them money. So why should they change?
...Even though your relatively clever, try not to be stupid. (emphasis mine)
That would be "you're".
Every public school in this country is teaching "morality". They rant an drave about being left alone by religious zealots who want to teach morality, but the schools are cramming the new morality down the kids' throats. Whether it's drugs, sexual identity, "tolerance", whatever, a *huge* amount of time and energy goes into this. And that's just the overt stuff, not the covert stuff (textbook changes).
It really doesn't matter whether they are teaching the morality *you* want or not, because history shows quite clearly that they can switch directions.
I've been wondering how long until he puts up a set of stocks in downtown Phoenix.
I think this is a great idea. I've long advocated the return of public stocks for certain crimes. (A lot of the local pols belong in them, too, IMO!)
GIMP is completely worthless for the end user.
Horse dookie. Maybe it's useless for the person who'd shell out the bucks for Photoshop, but for the average PC user, it's just fine. Both my kids picked it up with practically no help from me while fairly young, and it was a lot less mature then. My daughter has done some production work in GIMP for a book we're about to publish, too.
She turned a bunch of other teens on to it. I've turned several engineers at work on to it. It's just fine for the average PC user, who doesn't need everything in PhotoShop, much less its cost.
Is it perfect? No. But what's the alternative for Windows that does as much as the GIMP, at anywhere near the cost?
As a victim of a somewhat similar, absurd situation, I'm appalled. Who expected to have to trademark domain names like "Katie.com"? When the problem was pointed out. Penguin should have apologized, put up a web site, and asked the Katie.com owner to put a one-line disclaimer and link to it. They should have then done the same for her. Problem solved.
Instead, some jackass lawyers decide to screw up someone's life. If someone knows a good lawyer (jackass or not) who'll help the Katie.com website owner kick Penguin's butt, please let her know.
Your help-fu is strong today!
I'd have to migrate all my Fortune 500 client companies off Mosaic to one of the supported browsers!
First off, you'd be amazed how many people are still using W95, W98 and NT4.
Second, while I have seen only a handfull of BSODs in the last few years, I have seen more than 4, across a variety of systems (maybe 50 systems total). I think I've only seen one on XP, but then I'm not around many XP machines. So 1 on XP, half a dozen on W2K, and a ton on NT4, W98 and W95. I'm not counting those caused by failing hardware.
OTOH, during the same time period, I've been around hundreds of Linux systems running (in general) much, much harder than those Windows systems, and the very few panics I've seen were hardware failure related. Every last one.
For a huge percentage of non-business users, a more responsive desktop is all the faster computer they need.
I find the idea that you should buy new hardware when your old hardware is grossly-underutilized, or at best ill-utilized, appalling. Are you a hardware vendor? Or an MS employee?
Certainly the AGP video drivers should take care of acceleration. But apparently, they don't! At least, not as well as they should, by default.
I suspect most Windows users could get a noticeable speedup from their current hardware, if only MS had made it easy to do so. Instead. you have to be a registry expert, which is right up there with assembly language programming on most folks' skills list or list of things to learn.
The raticle talks about networking these.
By my estimate, there will be approximately 37.904 gazillion of these in use within 10 years. That's about 10 years before IPv6 will be widely deployed, so maybe we should just jump to IPv16 right now.
I find the statements about "we can go back to old pictures of JFK and see what he was looking at" to be questionable at best.
You need a LOT of pixels of the eye itself from which to reconstruct an image. Now, look at how much of a given normal picture the eyes of a person represent.
Pixels? What pixels? No photos of JFK were taken with digital cameras (well, some of the Roswell Conspiracy Gang migt think so).
Depending on the exact photo and the camera and film involved, you might be able to recover some useful information. Granted, probably not from Joe Blow's Polaroid at 30 feet, but from reasonably zoomed in photos from professional cameras, or even high quality 35MM and such, there could be a wealth of information available.
The real qustion is just how useful or interesting that information will be. Personally, I doubt it'll be that great. But we won't know until we check.
``Look! He was looking at Connoly's Dick Tracy TV-wristwatch, and it clearly shows Marily Monroe was the sniper on the grassy knoll!''
Sure you can. You just use lots and lots of fuzzy logic!
A couple of times when I was really, really tired (endless 80-100 hour weeks), I zoned out in a restaurant. When I came back to myself, the spot exactly in front of me across the room was occupied by some random woman at a table. The first time, the woman was smiling at me. The second time, the woman was glaring at me. In each case, they assumed I was staring at them. In fact, I wasn't looking at anything, and my eyes had focused on infinity. When I first returned, Imy eyes naturally focused in on something, which is when I realized I must appear to be staring at someone.
So even if they know what I am looking at, they may not know what I am looking at. That depends on whether they can really get good information on my eyeball lenses through these thick lenses I wear. Just the information on my cornea (or off my glasses lenses) won't necessarrily help.
Anybody remember Cairo?
Hmmmm. I seem to remember that name. Yes, yeah. Killer OS from Microsoft. The Next Big Thing. The Mother of All OSes.
So how come all I can remember is the name? I can't seem to recall the OS at all.
Must have been the first OS to do such a good job you didn't evn notice it. Yeah, that must be it!
Well, for starters, the EMP blast area is much bigger than the physical destruction blast area.
For another, it's easier to store an encyclopedia in a vault than a server farm.
And of course, the paper encyclopedia will work without power, A/C, etc. Just keep the hunmidity reasonable.
It's the time capsule approach.
(I agree with you, BTW).
If it's the best thing for the user, I don't really care why Intel does it, it's astill a good thing. If it's not the best thing for the user, I don't care why Intel is doing it, it's bad regardless of the motive.
So, the real question is, does it matter? I'm seeing good arguments on both sides.
[OTOH, I prefer AMD, anyway. Faster, less power, don't need a helicopter for a fan. more open...]
or how about an IQ test?
I'd almost go along with this. We definitely need much stricter standards for driving. I think you should need additional testing to be allowed to use a phone while driving, too. It's clear that most drivers aren't capable of doing them both at the same time-- at least not safely.
In Japan, a driver's liceense is just that-- a professional license (at least it used to be). If you kill someone through professional negligence, you are in deeeep doodoo.
Works for me.
How does that headline presume guilt? All it does is summarize the facts. Reporting that someone was charged no more presumes guilt than it presumes he'll be sentenced.
Why? Because if we don't allow idiots on juries, the average idiot on trial couldn't have a jury of smrtz peers!
You also won't get a variety of things that matter at the human level. What does the sand of Mars feel like bewteen the fingers? To walk on? What does the air feel and taste like? How does a human react to this environment?
You can write these off as irrelevant. If you're a soulless robot, you will. And that would be foolish, even at the purely logical level of a Vulcan. The feel of the sand between your fingers might be exactly the trigger to some insight that yields a new application, process or product that revolutionizes an industry.
(Frankly, whether it yields new products or not, I still want to feel it!)
Never discount the human presence or capabilities in these things.
Not only was it impossible, but it was as absurd and pointless as space exploration.
Which suggests that to refuse to explore space is foolish in the extreme.
Hmmm. I would have rated this insightful only if I thought it brilliant sarcasm, or if I had given up on life.
We haven't got a FREAKING CLUE what's out there. We haven't gota FREAKING CLUE what we will or won't learn, can or can't learn, by space exploration.
Did Van Allen have no sense of adventure when he was younger? Was there no excitement when he chased, and found, the Van Alen Belt? [1]
.
Or was it just his job? And if so, why bother? That article reads as one of the best demotivational pieces I've seen in some time.
I predict this will inspire new products from http://www.despair.com/
[1] black leather, 32", plain bronze buckle