Of course no one needs floppies. As a PC user, I rarely use them myself except for when I can't boot from CD-ROM. The thing is though, there's no practical reason not to include them, except for an excessive fear of legacy. They're inexpensive and unobstrusive. The most common accessory is one of those color-coordinated USB floppy drives. (Which tend to cost more than an OEM floppy because they're Mac-specific.)
It may not be a hindrance, but it's certainly not the benefit Mac zealots claim it is.
No need to wonder
on
Case Tweaking
·
· Score: 5, Informative
As has been mentioned before, Apple is in a unique situation where they control nearly all the aspects of the computer. The ATX standard and most PC motherboards are designed with either tower or desktop cases in mind.
Separately sold cases, which have to be compatible with a wide variety of motherboards, have a hard time replicating Apple's designs. In particular, in a tower case, the internal devices are all above the motherboard, so the cable connectors are at the top. A swing out design, like in the G4, is hard to do because the cables will get in the way. Take a look ColorCases to see what "niche" case manufacturers are doing despite these limitations.
On the other hand, companies like Compaq, Sony, and Gateway already ship their computers with custom motherboards and cases, and so have fewer limitations. They do offer their own takes on PC case design, just not exact copies of Apple's design for legal reasons. I mean, check out Compaq's Ipaq and Sony's Vaio Line and tell me they're ignoring design considerations.
As for computer enthusiasts who actually prefer compatibility, performance, and value to fancy design, we typically opt for the kind of cases listed here. (My specific case isn't listed there; it's an Antec S830.) They offer better cooling, more expandibility, and better access than most of the cases that tend to form before function. We're not immune to the concerns of aesthetics either; we just prefer to take matters in our own hands. Granted, some of the mods are of questionable taste and talent, but there are as many clean, professional jobs as bad jobs. And every one is the pride and joy of someone, no matter what you think of them.
Full Throttle. Yep. Full Throttle. It was yet another story board adventure game from Lucasarts. The art and the music gave it a distinctive style that I wish they'd developed further. Here's webpage about it.
I got it up and running a while back because I remembered it so fondly, only to realize how amazingly short the game was. It was pretty easy, because even after a few years, I could still remember how to solve the puzzles. There's almost no replay value, which I guess fits its lack of popularity. It's really just like watching a really cool cartoon. You can watch it once but after that it's tedious. For that matter, I wish they had made it into a cartoon. It'd be one kick ass cartoon.
And, for the record, in 98 it's preferred to have "Windows Login" unless you're connecting to an NT server, because most Windows computers are single user anyway. If you're on an untrusted network you should never run file sharing in any event, so even that won't get "compromised".
I dunno, you're both way ahead of me, but I think what he meant was that in certain situations, especially with really complex robots doing really complex things, "15 per second until I say stop" isn't enough. (Though these situations may be more or less common, I have no clue.) For fluid, non-linear movement, you'd be sending so many signals to the microcontroller that its accuracy is wasted when the primary controller is inaccurate.
This is not possible unless you are dumb enough to run programs of whos origin you dont know, or run IIS, or any other exploitable software.
Most viruses, exploits, and trojans require the user to enable them to work, either through action (enabling system services, running unknown executables) or inaction (patching). The point here is that if you've already enabled these trojans/exploits, a dynamic IP won't hide you, and that if you haven't, a static IP won't hurt you. So, a static IP simply being more convenient, the question is why not?
They need to have all the advertisers and prawnographers deported to the Andromeda Galaxy. That'll improve network capacity by more than enough.
Yeah, sure. Geeks will rebuild the Internet, but they'll leave all the pr0n behind. Somehow, I doubt this.
Who paid for the Internet? Taxpayers? HAH! Porn sites have consistantly been the single most profitable enterprise on the Internet, before and after the "Age of the Dot-Com". They are the oldest and most secure method of making money online, and they have the most experience.
The infrastructure of the Internet is indirectly funded by pornography. Broadband connectivity, streaming video, high compression codecs, etc. all have their roots in pornography. ISP's are more than eager to run fiber for a garunteed-to-be-profitable triple X site. "Web portals" can only dream of the traffic porn sites get. And that traffic requires a lot of hardware and support personnel. These operations, too taboo for the Dow, fund the big players that Wall Street eats up.
And, amazingly enough, porn site banners are among the most effective, always testing new (and often insidious) ways to attract customers. You want to see how the new Internet is going to work? Check out the way the porn sites are handling the current Internet. (Here's a free hint: a video featuring Britney Spears sucking donkey dong, whether you have it or not, is worth about a gajillion click-throughs.)
default suggestion: slashdot@check.bizlnad.com (in this case of course the default suggestion is wrong. I misspelled the domain name for your benefit, it's not part of my illustration.)
I've fooled your script from the get-go. The word "spam" in my email address is actually a part of it, and not an attempt at munging. I think you give spammers too much credit. I've never gotten any spam to my slashdot at spamcheck.bizland.com account, even with minimal munging.
In the sad event that spammers grow wise to my scheme, I am fully able to fix it after the fact, and, if necessary, change to your(?) system with minimal disruption to any real email. I would rather spend a few minutes wading through spam dissecting how it got in than follow the aforementioned system every time I gave out an address.
Yes, my system does rely on obscurity, and it is prone to faults. However, this is just spam. The consequences of a fault are not too severe, and IMO the ease of use seriously outweighs the extra margin of security provided by the alternative. The issue of scalability seems a distant and unprobable threat; and should it rear its ugly head, it can be dealt with at that time. In the meantime, I'm happy using a system I can control in my head.
I use a similar system to the one mentioned above, and I've never gotten any spam to an alias other than one I've given out. Spammers don't expect you to have an unlimited ammount of addresses, and automated email catchers would have a hard time distinguishing it from normal addresses.
I've never had a "Bill Brady" sign me up for anything at any email address other than the one he was given. And if he did, it'd be easier just to block those out once then spending my time preparing just in case he might. Hell, he could spam every conceivable alias, and all I'd have to to do is tack on some extension (like 941) to new addresses and filter anything without that extension.
If you think that's bad, take a look at this virus/trojan that was floating around IRC a while back. The thing is indistinguishable from a text file at first glance, even if you're bright enough to check the extension. When it executes, it even opens a contained note in Notepad so you don't think anything is wrong.
This is the way it is supposed to work now. Joe's Pizza in Plano, in theory, can get joespizza.plano.tx.us for free. In practice, however, it's quicker and easier just to get joespizzaplano.com.
As for the free websites thing.. don't we have it already, and it isn't it called Geocities? It's not like people are in dire need of 10Mb online storage space.
Re:Improving BatleBots
on
BYO Battlebot
·
· Score: 2
The new season (which just started airing) is a little better. First off, the hazards are much more dangerous, and can actually do damage. (The hammer, which was rather useless previously, seriously crushed one bot that was on its way to victory.) Secondly, there were many more contestants this year, so not only is there a better crop of bots, but the producers can afford to be selective and not show the really boring and pointless matches.
It's an upward cycle, really. The more people that see it, the more people that participate and the better the competition.
Because they're all banned. There are reasons for all of them, if you think about it, mostly for the audience's safety and judging purposes. I don't think they're trying to make the bots wussy.
In a channel without ops, and even with a real/ignore, spambots become a real problem. New people to the channel who haven't ignored the 20 resident on-join spammers will be targeted. People with massive clonebot nets can still DoS those who aren't quick enough to block 240 different IPs. Opers become the policemen of IRC, spending much more time dealing with smaller problems.
The first come, first serve status of IRC may be prone to abuse, but more abuse occurs without anyone there to take quick and decisive action. In an ideal world, users would elect ops and confirm their decisions, but that's far too much to expect from a chat room.
The only things seperating "Final Fantasy" and "Reboot" are money and rendering technology. Sure, rendering gets progressively cheaper, but the sheer manpower required to emulate reality has not decreased and will not for the near future, as far as I can tell. One animator may cost less than one human actor, but you need an army of animators just to create one realistic CGI actor.
You act as if indistinguishable CGI humans are just around the corner, waiting for technology to catch up. But that last bit of realism, the 1% difference between "Final Fantasy" and reality that the human eye catches instinctively, is the hardest part. You can throw all the technology you want at it, but you can't just tell a computer to make a human and expect it to come out well. They're tools. Someone has to operate them, and do it well.
With "Final Fantasy", we're seeing what animators can do with loads of money and nearly no restrictions on technology. But it's obviously not enough. "Virtually indistinguishable" Sun's press release calls it. Are those super-fast SGI machines really the stumbling block?
Uh. If you had a spare PC with a working screen, why couldn't you just take the screen from the P120 and hook it up to the PIII? (By screen, you do mean monitor, right?)
Like I said, bandwidth costs aren't just a part of the problem, they're the biggest part of the problem. With no bandwidth costs you could produce a comic with little or no business-related costs. Established artists would make money through syndication, merchandising, and book sales, the same way they do now. A "struggling" artist would not make a profit immediately, but neither would he incurr a significant loss -- and indeed he could recoup whatever small costs with only minimal success and a handful of voluntary donations. This way, he may have to work to pay the rent, but at least he doesn't have to work to pay the rent and for his dream.
You want your favorite artists to work full time and earn a better than living wage producing your favorite comics. So, buy their branded t-shirts and mouse pads. Donate to their tip jars. Buy their books. Subscribe to any magazines that carry their comics. You do all that already, don't you? And if you're not too busy, you can host a node for them and turn all the money you gave them before into pure profit.
It may not make everyone rich by itself, but it makes getting rich a whole lot easier.
Bandwidth = money, right? It's the most expensive part of Internet hosting, and the price only increases with popularity. So, instead of people paying a dollar to view your page (or perhaps supplementing that), have people donate their bandwidth to your cause. Since many users don't value their bandwidth as much your host does, they're more willing to give it up than they are to pay for it (in an especially inefficient and unequal manner too). I don't think Napster would have worked if people had to pay per megabyte the way many sites pay per gigabyte.
I'm talking FREENET, baby. Or something similar, perhaps dedicated to one site. Bandwidth costs are very nearly eliminated and the system scales almost exactly with your users. Honest users will even include your ads, donate money, and buy merchandise, making not just a living for you, but profit. Dishonest users will leech off the system as always, but they won't cost you a dime.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course no one needs floppies. As a PC user, I rarely use them myself except for when I can't boot from CD-ROM. The thing is though, there's no practical reason not to include them, except for an excessive fear of legacy. They're inexpensive and unobstrusive. The most common accessory is one of those color-coordinated USB floppy drives. (Which tend to cost more than an OEM floppy because they're Mac-specific.)
It may not be a hindrance, but it's certainly not the benefit Mac zealots claim it is.
As has been mentioned before, Apple is in a unique situation where they control nearly all the aspects of the computer. The ATX standard and most PC motherboards are designed with either tower or desktop cases in mind.
Separately sold cases, which have to be compatible with a wide variety of motherboards, have a hard time replicating Apple's designs. In particular, in a tower case, the internal devices are all above the motherboard, so the cable connectors are at the top. A swing out design, like in the G4, is hard to do because the cables will get in the way. Take a look ColorCases to see what "niche" case manufacturers are doing despite these limitations.
On the other hand, companies like Compaq, Sony, and Gateway already ship their computers with custom motherboards and cases, and so have fewer limitations. They do offer their own takes on PC case design, just not exact copies of Apple's design for legal reasons. I mean, check out Compaq's Ipaq and Sony's Vaio Line and tell me they're ignoring design considerations.
As for computer enthusiasts who actually prefer compatibility, performance, and value to fancy design, we typically opt for the kind of cases listed here. (My specific case isn't listed there; it's an Antec S830.) They offer better cooling, more expandibility, and better access than most of the cases that tend to form before function. We're not immune to the concerns of aesthetics either; we just prefer to take matters in our own hands. Granted, some of the mods are of questionable taste and talent, but there are as many clean, professional jobs as bad jobs. And every one is the pride and joy of someone, no matter what you think of them.
Full Throttle. Yep. Full Throttle. It was yet another story board adventure game from Lucasarts. The art and the music gave it a distinctive style that I wish they'd developed further. Here's webpage about it.
I got it up and running a while back because I remembered it so fondly, only to realize how amazingly short the game was. It was pretty easy, because even after a few years, I could still remember how to solve the puzzles. There's almost no replay value, which I guess fits its lack of popularity. It's really just like watching a really cool cartoon. You can watch it once but after that it's tedious. For that matter, I wish they had made it into a cartoon. It'd be one kick ass cartoon.
I actually laughed aloud when I read that.
And, for the record, in 98 it's preferred to have "Windows Login" unless you're connecting to an NT server, because most Windows computers are single user anyway. If you're on an untrusted network you should never run file sharing in any event, so even that won't get "compromised".
I dunno, you're both way ahead of me, but I think what he meant was that in certain situations, especially with really complex robots doing really complex things, "15 per second until I say stop" isn't enough. (Though these situations may be more or less common, I have no clue.) For fluid, non-linear movement, you'd be sending so many signals to the microcontroller that its accuracy is wasted when the primary controller is inaccurate.
So are you the guy who provided the hackable image or the guy who came up with the webpage idea?
This is not possible unless you are dumb enough to run programs of whos origin you dont know, or run IIS, or any other exploitable software.
Most viruses, exploits, and trojans require the user to enable them to work, either through action (enabling system services, running unknown executables) or inaction (patching). The point here is that if you've already enabled these trojans/exploits, a dynamic IP won't hide you, and that if you haven't, a static IP won't hurt you. So, a static IP simply being more convenient, the question is why not?
They need to have all the advertisers and prawnographers deported to the Andromeda Galaxy. That'll improve network capacity by more than enough.
Yeah, sure. Geeks will rebuild the Internet, but they'll leave all the pr0n behind. Somehow, I doubt this.
Who paid for the Internet? Taxpayers? HAH! Porn sites have consistantly been the single most profitable enterprise on the Internet, before and after the "Age of the Dot-Com". They are the oldest and most secure method of making money online, and they have the most experience.
The infrastructure of the Internet is indirectly funded by pornography. Broadband connectivity, streaming video, high compression codecs, etc. all have their roots in pornography. ISP's are more than eager to run fiber for a garunteed-to-be-profitable triple X site. "Web portals" can only dream of the traffic porn sites get. And that traffic requires a lot of hardware and support personnel. These operations, too taboo for the Dow, fund the big players that Wall Street eats up.
And, amazingly enough, porn site banners are among the most effective, always testing new (and often insidious) ways to attract customers. You want to see how the new Internet is going to work? Check out the way the porn sites are handling the current Internet. (Here's a free hint: a video featuring Britney Spears sucking donkey dong, whether you have it or not, is worth about a gajillion click-throughs.)
Feh. I checked the wrong button.
But ... Santa Claus already conquered the Martians! Oh, no wait, I guess I was wrong. It looks like Santa is set to re-conquer them in 2002. (Gee, why in hell would they remake such a bad movie?)
--
default suggestion: slashdot@check.bizlnad.com (in this case of course the default suggestion is wrong. I misspelled the domain name for your benefit, it's not part of my illustration.)
I've fooled your script from the get-go. The word "spam" in my email address is actually a part of it, and not an attempt at munging. I think you give spammers too much credit. I've never gotten any spam to my slashdot at spamcheck.bizland.com account, even with minimal munging.
In the sad event that spammers grow wise to my scheme, I am fully able to fix it after the fact, and, if necessary, change to your(?) system with minimal disruption to any real email. I would rather spend a few minutes wading through spam dissecting how it got in than follow the aforementioned system every time I gave out an address.
Yes, my system does rely on obscurity, and it is prone to faults. However, this is just spam. The consequences of a fault are not too severe, and IMO the ease of use seriously outweighs the extra margin of security provided by the alternative. The issue of scalability seems a distant and unprobable threat; and should it rear its ugly head, it can be dealt with at that time. In the meantime, I'm happy using a system I can control in my head.
--
I use a similar system to the one mentioned above, and I've never gotten any spam to an alias other than one I've given out. Spammers don't expect you to have an unlimited ammount of addresses, and automated email catchers would have a hard time distinguishing it from normal addresses.
I've never had a "Bill Brady" sign me up for anything at any email address other than the one he was given. And if he did, it'd be easier just to block those out once then spending my time preparing just in case he might. Hell, he could spam every conceivable alias, and all I'd have to to do is tack on some extension (like 941) to new addresses and filter anything without that extension.
--
You know, he might have already had children..
--
If you think that's bad, take a look at this virus/trojan that was floating around IRC a while back. The thing is indistinguishable from a text file at first glance, even if you're bright enough to check the extension. When it executes, it even opens a contained note in Notepad so you don't think anything is wrong.
--
This is the way it is supposed to work now. Joe's Pizza in Plano, in theory, can get joespizza.plano.tx.us for free. In practice, however, it's quicker and easier just to get joespizzaplano.com.
As for the free websites thing.. don't we have it already, and it isn't it called Geocities? It's not like people are in dire need of 10Mb online storage space.
--
Assuming 600Kbyte/s,
600kbyte/s * 8bits/1byte = 4800kbit/s
4800kbit/s * 1m/1024k = 4.6875mbit/s
In theory, it could happen.
--
The new season (which just started airing) is a little better. First off, the hazards are much more dangerous, and can actually do damage. (The hammer, which was rather useless previously, seriously crushed one bot that was on its way to victory.) Secondly, there were many more contestants this year, so not only is there a better crop of bots, but the producers can afford to be selective and not show the really boring and pointless matches.
It's an upward cycle, really. The more people that see it, the more people that participate and the better the competition.
--
Because they're all banned. There are reasons for all of them, if you think about it, mostly for the audience's safety and judging purposes. I don't think they're trying to make the bots wussy.
--
In a channel without ops, and even with a real /ignore, spambots become a real problem. New people to the channel who haven't ignored the 20 resident on-join spammers will be targeted. People with massive clonebot nets can still DoS those who aren't quick enough to block 240 different IPs. Opers become the policemen of IRC, spending much more time dealing with smaller problems.
The first come, first serve status of IRC may be prone to abuse, but more abuse occurs without anyone there to take quick and decisive action. In an ideal world, users would elect ops and confirm their decisions, but that's far too much to expect from a chat room.
--
The only things seperating "Final Fantasy" and "Reboot" are money and rendering technology. Sure, rendering gets progressively cheaper, but the sheer manpower required to emulate reality has not decreased and will not for the near future, as far as I can tell. One animator may cost less than one human actor, but you need an army of animators just to create one realistic CGI actor.
You act as if indistinguishable CGI humans are just around the corner, waiting for technology to catch up. But that last bit of realism, the 1% difference between "Final Fantasy" and reality that the human eye catches instinctively, is the hardest part. You can throw all the technology you want at it, but you can't just tell a computer to make a human and expect it to come out well. They're tools. Someone has to operate them, and do it well.
With "Final Fantasy", we're seeing what animators can do with loads of money and nearly no restrictions on technology. But it's obviously not enough. "Virtually indistinguishable" Sun's press release calls it. Are those super-fast SGI machines really the stumbling block?
--
OK, I missed it, and it's a big DUH moment for me. But I take comfort in the fact that I'm not the only one. (prog-guru thinks you're just lazy.)
--
Uh. If you had a spare PC with a working screen, why couldn't you just take the screen from the P120 and hook it up to the PIII? (By screen, you do mean monitor, right?)
--
Like I said, bandwidth costs aren't just a part of the problem, they're the biggest part of the problem. With no bandwidth costs you could produce a comic with little or no business-related costs. Established artists would make money through syndication, merchandising, and book sales, the same way they do now. A "struggling" artist would not make a profit immediately, but neither would he incurr a significant loss -- and indeed he could recoup whatever small costs with only minimal success and a handful of voluntary donations. This way, he may have to work to pay the rent, but at least he doesn't have to work to pay the rent and for his dream.
You want your favorite artists to work full time and earn a better than living wage producing your favorite comics. So, buy their branded t-shirts and mouse pads. Donate to their tip jars. Buy their books. Subscribe to any magazines that carry their comics. You do all that already, don't you? And if you're not too busy, you can host a node for them and turn all the money you gave them before into pure profit.
It may not make everyone rich by itself, but it makes getting rich a whole lot easier.
--
Bandwidth = money, right? It's the most expensive part of Internet hosting, and the price only increases with popularity. So, instead of people paying a dollar to view your page (or perhaps supplementing that), have people donate their bandwidth to your cause. Since many users don't value their bandwidth as much your host does, they're more willing to give it up than they are to pay for it (in an especially inefficient and unequal manner too). I don't think Napster would have worked if people had to pay per megabyte the way many sites pay per gigabyte.
I'm talking FREENET, baby. Or something similar, perhaps dedicated to one site. Bandwidth costs are very nearly eliminated and the system scales almost exactly with your users. Honest users will even include your ads, donate money, and buy merchandise, making not just a living for you, but profit. Dishonest users will leech off the system as always, but they won't cost you a dime.
--