I've heard this as the major argument for LCDs and frankly I don't buy it. Can't these graphic artists find a sturdy desk? I use a humongous 21" CRT for my daily use (I'm not even a graphics guy). It's huge, takes up about half my desk, but I don't mind it at all. If I had a 21" LCD, the only space I'd be recovering would be the space behind it, which I wouldn't be able to use much seeing as how there's a monitor in the way.
I suppose you could fit a computer in more places if you didn't have to fit a CRT, but a good desk will cost MUCH less than a LCD or even a slim CRT. LCDs just do not provide the value, IMO.
I don't have much of a point. Really, I was just looking to see what kind of money MP3.com artists make, but then I pretty much answered my own question.
Wow I should really look closer at my own links. I thought Anet was doing well, but the top bands make that much in a month. Flickerstick (the winning band from VH1's "Bands on the Run") has made a staggering $20,292.75! The Offspring has made over $40k! Freaky.
It seems that you've only made $250 total, and you're up to $37 this month. How much of that do you see? I notice you haven't sold a single CD this month; is this typical for a given month?
One Mp3.com artist I'm rather fond of, Anet, apparently makes off like a bandit. Comparatively, that is.
I considered "data-dependent", but stuck with immutable, for better or for worse.
Immutable or data-dependent, they're both inaccurate when discussing file types. Unless you can have a definitive and assuredly correct description of what exactly is in that file, you're bound to be wrong on occasion. As well, I'm not entirely convinced that it's important to have a definitive description of a file's contents; frequently a user will open a file in an app that isn't designed to handle it, intentionally. An OS does well to make changing a file's type as easy as possible, something the MacOS has had trouble with in the past. (Downloading a freeware app for something that should be an OS function is hardly convenient, IMO.)
This isn't a problem with metadata, just a problem with MacOS' file typing.
BeOS handled all this very well. Double click to open with the default app. Right click to see a list of every program on your hard drive that opens that kind of file or files like it. (IE, a text editor would show up as an option for an HTML file.) Choose another option and open a dialog to set a file-specific preference.
I must have said "BeOS did it better" about six times today. I feel like an Amiga user.
For that, you would need some sort of mechanism for decoding the stored information and turning it into, for lack of a better term, active intelligence. This could be a CPU or a machine that rebuilds the brain that the recording was based on.
And, once again, I would argue that the decoding mechanism provides the intelligence, not the state. If you were to record the state of the atoms that make up my brain, you'd have nothing. If you were to use that information to create a duplicate of my brain, well you'd have created a duplicate intelligence, but it wouldn't be my intelligence. As well, my brain is not sentient unless it exists in the real world; a "brain emulator" running on a PC would be no more sentient than Photoshop, for the same reasons I mentioned before.
All of this is not to say I believe artificial sentience is impossible. I only wish to say that a simulation of intelligence is not intelligence, no matter how convincing it is. People like those mentioned here will spend ever increasing amounts of time and effort to make unintelligent programs slightly more convincing, and I think they're wasting their time. We need to step back and try to identify what makes humans sentient and work from there, rather than gluing on feathers and flapping our arms, to borrow an analogy.
If the intelligence is stored in a volatile memory, turning it off would be murder. If it's non-volatile, well that's more like forcing it into "nap time".
I would argue that if an "intelligence" can be stored in memory at all, then it is not intelligent. Think about it. It's just information. If I turn off the computer and write down its memory on a piece of paper, is it still intelligent? If anything's intelligent, it'd be the CPU, which I don't buy. To a CPU, everything's just math. The program for a Turing-passable AI is completely indistinguishable from Photoshop from the CPU's point of view.
If we ever create an intelligent machine, it won't be a computer. And its memory state will have nothing to do with its sentience. For example, humans forget things all the time. Some people develop severe cases of amnesia and have no long term memory. Yet they're still sentient, intelligent, and self-aware.
Intelligence is in the hardware, not the software.
The SAT IIs are a series of tests in three subjects. The UCs require writing, either Math I or II (II is harder but looks better), and one more of your choice. There's a bunch of stuff to choose from, but one of the sciences is best if you're applying for a technical major.
For after school activities, Academic Decathalon, as much as I hate to admit it, does look good. Math club too. If you're the president of a club, that can work, especially if you work it into your personal statement (shows leadership skills). If your school has a computer club, run for president. If it doesn't, create one and call yourself president.
Don't worry though. The UCs seem to like AP masochists like yourself. I've no doubt that you'll go far.
Websites make it much too easy to avoid advertisements compared to TV or radio. Hell, when advertisers try to make them more noticeable (pop-ups and pop-unders), people become indignant. Micropayments may not be feasible, but advertising as it is won't work either.
1) Take a lot of AP classes. It doesn't matter if you get good grades in the class, just good scores on the tests.
2) Write a good personal statement. Hype up personal tragedy and overcoming difficulties.
3) Do well on the SAT II. SAT I counts for shit.
4) After school activities do matter. Sucks for us antisocial types, but it's true.
If you've got the rest, you can have a shit GPA and not only get into college, but get a free ride to boot.
1.) At $420 sans everything, it's still more expensive than a router and hub combo such as the ones sold by Linksys.
2.) A USB NIC would be fast enough for most broadband connections, which are usually less than 1.5Mbps.
So, you could do it, but I don't know why you would.
The various "home" versions of Windows (the 9x series) have all be fairly secure out of the box. They have no remotely accessable or exploitable services. It's only when users do stupid stuff like enable file sharing or run strange executables that problems develop. I don't see how'd you tighten them up more than that without OS-level security policies. And since the home version of XP is going to be similarly single user, so that's out too.
About the best the OEMs are willing to do is bundle Norton Antivirus and maybe a software firewall.
No, I don't think I'm the only one who's ever used Citrix, which is why I was so surprised by the number of people here so blatantly ignoring it. Since you've obviously heard of it, you deny that it works, I suppose.
I read your post thinking you were referring to Terminal Services and roaming profiles when you said "one-size-must-fit-somebody solutions you Windows guys kluge up just don't solve the problem", which pretty accurately describes them both. However, I will take issue with you if you intended to include Citrix with them.
There are some things Windows can't do. Running a remote desktop is not one of them.
If websites could guarantee an audience for advertising (which they can't), they'd get the kind of advertising money radio, TV, and newspapers have. The basic difference is that advertising is just not appropriate for the web, because people can avoid it so easily (and are incredibly annoyed when they can't!). Websites wouldn't get the kind of money TV gets unless your computer showed nothing but advertisements for three minutes every four.
Is it that you don't know Citrix MetaFrame exists or are unwilling to accept that it works?
If Citrix's website was up right now, I'd point you to a demo page where you could run a remote desktop over the web. Wow, intrestingly enough, the site just back up (or maybe it was my connection). The demo login is here. The UNIX/Linux client download page is here.
It sounds like you haven't tried Mandrake lately. I'm not saying it's better, but Mandrake has an RPM system which sounds very similar, except with a spiffy GUI. No website, no console commands, just check the boxes for the stuff you want to install, update, or remove, and it does it all automatically, pretty much the same way you described. Call it a bug rather than a feature, but you almost never need to use the console in Mandrake, a typical stumbling block for new users.
Mandrake is definitely developing into the distro for new Linux users. Installation and hardware detection is a cinch; everything "just works" without much intervention from the user.
Humorous spirit accepted. They didn't have any specific rule covering acronyms, so I figured a "collection of letters" is just as good.;) Plus they had "M.D.'s" as an example, so I think we're good.
Granted, it's hosted on e-sheep, which was mentioned in the article, but The Guy I Almost Was has to be about the best long form web comic I've read. No stupid gimicks like horizontal scrolling, just good story telling. (God I tried to read that Egyptian comic but gave up because it was too damned annoying.)
I've not seen any valid, technical reason to prohibit servers on broadband connections that cannot be satisfied by other means.
Other than patching thousands of websites run by people who largely don't even know they're running them and don't care to install the patch, I haven't seen a better technological resolution to problems like Code Red. Additionally, though the sites might get patched for Code Red after much effort, I've no doubt that more vulnerabilities will develop, which will also go unpatched.
As I've said before, the real push seems to be to restrict home users from being content producers.
As a matter of fact, I agree 100%. I don't doubt that this move is intended to force users to upgrade. However, as purely a matter of security, I have no problem with it. As a user, I also have no problem with it. Do you really think I'm trying to deny the free flow of technology? I don't think I'm being elitist, and I would hope you might understand that I'm not.
I have a theory that nearly all arguments more or less boil down to differing opinions on a single value judgement. Here, it seems to be the benefit of reducing the risk of Code Red and other vulnerabilities related to unpatched websites vs. the benefit of running an uncensored webserver with total control.
I'd love for everyone to be able to publish any content online for free, which is why I run a Freenet node on my DSL. Despite that, I feel that the number of users in such a situation is very small, and as unfortunate as it is that they might have to move to a pay service or switch to a non-standard port, I feel that this is justified given the risk. Obviously, you do not.
I don't really have much sympathy for people running web servers on a broadband connections. If you want to do something serious, you're likely limited by your AUP/TOS. And with the price (free) and availability of basic web hosting, it's hard to buy that many people can't find an acceptable alternative. For more serious stuff, you really should be using a professional hosting service, for your visitors' sakes (upload bandwidth, uptime, etc.). If you want total control of your server, consider co-locating or getting business class bandwidth. And if all else fails, run on port 81.
Yeah, a few people will get slightly inconvenienced or will have to shell out for real hosting, but I won't shed many tears. I think it's worth it if it stems the tide of Code Red, and I think you overestimate the number of people who couldn't be served well by Geocities. Frankly I think there are more people with webservers who have IIS installed unintentially.
We applaud ISP's when they filter out NetBIOS and Windows file sharing; I don't see this as much different.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard this as the major argument for LCDs and frankly I don't buy it. Can't these graphic artists find a sturdy desk? I use a humongous 21" CRT for my daily use (I'm not even a graphics guy). It's huge, takes up about half my desk, but I don't mind it at all. If I had a 21" LCD, the only space I'd be recovering would be the space behind it, which I wouldn't be able to use much seeing as how there's a monitor in the way.
I suppose you could fit a computer in more places if you didn't have to fit a CRT, but a good desk will cost MUCH less than a LCD or even a slim CRT. LCDs just do not provide the value, IMO.
I don't have much of a point. Really, I was just looking to see what kind of money MP3.com artists make, but then I pretty much answered my own question.
Wow I should really look closer at my own links. I thought Anet was doing well, but the top bands make that much in a month. Flickerstick (the winning band from VH1's "Bands on the Run") has made a staggering $20,292.75! The Offspring has made over $40k! Freaky.
It seems that you've only made $250 total, and you're up to $37 this month. How much of that do you see? I notice you haven't sold a single CD this month; is this typical for a given month?
One Mp3.com artist I'm rather fond of, Anet, apparently makes off like a bandit. Comparatively, that is.
I considered "data-dependent", but stuck with immutable, for better or for worse.
Immutable or data-dependent, they're both inaccurate when discussing file types. Unless you can have a definitive and assuredly correct description of what exactly is in that file, you're bound to be wrong on occasion. As well, I'm not entirely convinced that it's important to have a definitive description of a file's contents; frequently a user will open a file in an app that isn't designed to handle it, intentionally. An OS does well to make changing a file's type as easy as possible, something the MacOS has had trouble with in the past. (Downloading a freeware app for something that should be an OS function is hardly convenient, IMO.)
This isn't a problem with metadata, just a problem with MacOS' file typing.
BeOS handled all this very well. Double click to open with the default app. Right click to see a list of every program on your hard drive that opens that kind of file or files like it. (IE, a text editor would show up as an option for an HTML file.) Choose another option and open a dialog to set a file-specific preference.
I must have said "BeOS did it better" about six times today. I feel like an Amiga user.
For that, you would need some sort of mechanism for decoding the stored information and turning it into, for lack of a better term, active intelligence. This could be a CPU or a machine that rebuilds the brain that the recording was based on.
And, once again, I would argue that the decoding mechanism provides the intelligence, not the state. If you were to record the state of the atoms that make up my brain, you'd have nothing. If you were to use that information to create a duplicate of my brain, well you'd have created a duplicate intelligence, but it wouldn't be my intelligence. As well, my brain is not sentient unless it exists in the real world; a "brain emulator" running on a PC would be no more sentient than Photoshop, for the same reasons I mentioned before.
All of this is not to say I believe artificial sentience is impossible. I only wish to say that a simulation of intelligence is not intelligence, no matter how convincing it is. People like those mentioned here will spend ever increasing amounts of time and effort to make unintelligent programs slightly more convincing, and I think they're wasting their time. We need to step back and try to identify what makes humans sentient and work from there, rather than gluing on feathers and flapping our arms, to borrow an analogy.
If the intelligence is stored in a volatile memory, turning it off would be murder. If it's non-volatile, well that's more like forcing it into "nap time".
I would argue that if an "intelligence" can be stored in memory at all, then it is not intelligent. Think about it. It's just information. If I turn off the computer and write down its memory on a piece of paper, is it still intelligent? If anything's intelligent, it'd be the CPU, which I don't buy. To a CPU, everything's just math. The program for a Turing-passable AI is completely indistinguishable from Photoshop from the CPU's point of view.
If we ever create an intelligent machine, it won't be a computer. And its memory state will have nothing to do with its sentience. For example, humans forget things all the time. Some people develop severe cases of amnesia and have no long term memory. Yet they're still sentient, intelligent, and self-aware.
Intelligence is in the hardware, not the software.
You can read Japanese, but can you read American?
"He's a bad mother--"
"Watch your mouth!"
"I'm just talkin' 'bout Shaft."
"And we can dig it!"
Dig a Shaft, get it.. wooboy.
Do your best moderators! I'm woefully off-topic and I don't care!
The SAT IIs are a series of tests in three subjects. The UCs require writing, either Math I or II (II is harder but looks better), and one more of your choice. There's a bunch of stuff to choose from, but one of the sciences is best if you're applying for a technical major.
For after school activities, Academic Decathalon, as much as I hate to admit it, does look good. Math club too. If you're the president of a club, that can work, especially if you work it into your personal statement (shows leadership skills). If your school has a computer club, run for president. If it doesn't, create one and call yourself president.
Don't worry though. The UCs seem to like AP masochists like yourself. I've no doubt that you'll go far.
Websites make it much too easy to avoid advertisements compared to TV or radio. Hell, when advertisers try to make them more noticeable (pop-ups and pop-unders), people become indignant. Micropayments may not be feasible, but advertising as it is won't work either.
Quick guide to getting into a UC:
1) Take a lot of AP classes. It doesn't matter if you get good grades in the class, just good scores on the tests.
2) Write a good personal statement. Hype up personal tragedy and overcoming difficulties.
3) Do well on the SAT II. SAT I counts for shit.
4) After school activities do matter. Sucks for us antisocial types, but it's true.
If you've got the rest, you can have a shit GPA and not only get into college, but get a free ride to boot.
1.) At $420 sans everything, it's still more expensive than a router and hub combo such as the ones sold by Linksys.
2.) A USB NIC would be fast enough for most broadband connections, which are usually less than 1.5Mbps.
So, you could do it, but I don't know why you would.
Sorry, had to do it..
..particular collection of letters is definately called an ..
That should of read:
"That should have read" or "that should've read".
Definitely.
<grammar flame="off">
;)
The various "home" versions of Windows (the 9x series) have all be fairly secure out of the box. They have no remotely accessable or exploitable services. It's only when users do stupid stuff like enable file sharing or run strange executables that problems develop. I don't see how'd you tighten them up more than that without OS-level security policies. And since the home version of XP is going to be similarly single user, so that's out too.
About the best the OEMs are willing to do is bundle Norton Antivirus and maybe a software firewall.
No, I don't think I'm the only one who's ever used Citrix, which is why I was so surprised by the number of people here so blatantly ignoring it. Since you've obviously heard of it, you deny that it works, I suppose.
I read your post thinking you were referring to Terminal Services and roaming profiles when you said "one-size-must-fit-somebody solutions you Windows guys kluge up just don't solve the problem", which pretty accurately describes them both. However, I will take issue with you if you intended to include Citrix with them.
There are some things Windows can't do. Running a remote desktop is not one of them.
If websites could guarantee an audience for advertising (which they can't), they'd get the kind of advertising money radio, TV, and newspapers have. The basic difference is that advertising is just not appropriate for the web, because people can avoid it so easily (and are incredibly annoyed when they can't!). Websites wouldn't get the kind of money TV gets unless your computer showed nothing but advertisements for three minutes every four.
Is it that you don't know Citrix MetaFrame exists or are unwilling to accept that it works?
If Citrix's website was up right now, I'd point you to a demo page where you could run a remote desktop over the web. Wow, intrestingly enough, the site just back up (or maybe it was my connection). The demo login is here. The UNIX/Linux client download page is here.
It sounds like you haven't tried Mandrake lately. I'm not saying it's better, but Mandrake has an RPM system which sounds very similar, except with a spiffy GUI. No website, no console commands, just check the boxes for the stuff you want to install, update, or remove, and it does it all automatically, pretty much the same way you described. Call it a bug rather than a feature, but you almost never need to use the console in Mandrake, a typical stumbling block for new users.
Mandrake is definitely developing into the distro for new Linux users. Installation and hardware detection is a cinch; everything "just works" without much intervention from the user.
Humorous spirit accepted. They didn't have any specific rule covering acronyms, so I figured a "collection of letters" is just as good. ;) Plus they had "M.D.'s" as an example, so I think we're good.
Granted, it's hosted on e-sheep, which was mentioned in the article, but The Guy I Almost Was has to be about the best long form web comic I've read. No stupid gimicks like horizontal scrolling, just good story telling. (God I tried to read that Egyptian comic but gave up because it was too damned annoying.)
Read it. It's good.
Using an apostrophe to show plurals of numbers, letters, and figures is optional.
That being said, I'm opting not to use it because it looks freaky weird to write VCR's.
I've not seen any valid, technical reason to prohibit servers on broadband connections that cannot be satisfied by other means.
Other than patching thousands of websites run by people who largely don't even know they're running them and don't care to install the patch, I haven't seen a better technological resolution to problems like Code Red. Additionally, though the sites might get patched for Code Red after much effort, I've no doubt that more vulnerabilities will develop, which will also go unpatched.
As I've said before, the real push seems to be to restrict home users from being content producers.
As a matter of fact, I agree 100%. I don't doubt that this move is intended to force users to upgrade. However, as purely a matter of security, I have no problem with it. As a user, I also have no problem with it. Do you really think I'm trying to deny the free flow of technology? I don't think I'm being elitist, and I would hope you might understand that I'm not.
I have a theory that nearly all arguments more or less boil down to differing opinions on a single value judgement. Here, it seems to be the benefit of reducing the risk of Code Red and other vulnerabilities related to unpatched websites vs. the benefit of running an uncensored webserver with total control.
I'd love for everyone to be able to publish any content online for free, which is why I run a Freenet node on my DSL. Despite that, I feel that the number of users in such a situation is very small, and as unfortunate as it is that they might have to move to a pay service or switch to a non-standard port, I feel that this is justified given the risk. Obviously, you do not.
I don't really have much sympathy for people running web servers on a broadband connections. If you want to do something serious, you're likely limited by your AUP/TOS. And with the price (free) and availability of basic web hosting, it's hard to buy that many people can't find an acceptable alternative. For more serious stuff, you really should be using a professional hosting service, for your visitors' sakes (upload bandwidth, uptime, etc.). If you want total control of your server, consider co-locating or getting business class bandwidth. And if all else fails, run on port 81.
Yeah, a few people will get slightly inconvenienced or will have to shell out for real hosting, but I won't shed many tears. I think it's worth it if it stems the tide of Code Red, and I think you overestimate the number of people who couldn't be served well by Geocities. Frankly I think there are more people with webservers who have IIS installed unintentially.
We applaud ISP's when they filter out NetBIOS and Windows file sharing; I don't see this as much different.
Try this.