Same thing happened to me. I believe my nick was sp_ or something similar, and I believe it was in the neighborhood of 10k. I changed providers suddenly because the one I had went under.
I also tried emailing way back, like in 2000 or 2001, to get it back, but also got no response. Oh well!
Yeah, I did forget Basil Hayden. I haven't had it more than a couple of times, but I know it's good. I didn't realize, however, that it was that inexpensive. I'll have to pick up a bottle next time I'm looking for more bourbon.
Living in Louisville, KY, Maker's Mark is the go-to non-house bourbon. I use it almost exclusively for mixed drinks, mainly Maker's and Coke. The sweetness lends itself to mixing... plus, it doesn't have the qualities I personally look for in a sipping bourbon.
It's interesting, though. Outside of the Bourbon Belt, Maker's is the most well known "good" bourbon. I've also noticed that it's almost always the one chosen for product placements in TV shows and movies. Though, I'll notice Blanton's every now and then too. Probably because of its unique bottle and cork top.
Jack Daniels isn't bourbon, but by now I'm sure you've learned that from other comments.
I agree with x0's comment as well, just buy better bourbon. God help you if you're thinking of Sourthern Comfort when you're thinking about that sweet "bourbon" you've had.
I'd take Jack over Jim, too, but Jim is by no means representative of what good bourbon is.
Try Woodford, any Pappy Van Winkle, Baker's, Booker's, Blanton's... the list of good bourbons isn't short. And, if you're going to cry foul because of price differential between Jack and those I listed, try Bulleit bourbon, one of my personal favorites.
So? If you were in a position to justify such an experiment, wouldn't you do it, without any regard to prior studies?
Count me as one vote for the "best experiment subject of the year" award.
No kidding. I consider myself a newcomer, and I began my online days using a legitimate Netcom account, and AOHell for some amusement.
When I got to college in '96, I used a lot of Kermit and the like to dial into the university servers. Those were the days.
I feel your pain. I had a nickname associated with an email address that went defunct before I could change it on slashdot.
I emailed the admins back in, I dunno, 2004 or so to see if I could get it back. "They" of course denied the request. The account was created in '98 or '99. I want my old nick/UID back:-(
28.8kbps in the late 80's? Really? If that's true, I'm impressed.
I got my first "real" PC in '95, which came with a 28.8 modem, and I distinctly remember it being a major, newly-available, upgrade from the then-standard 14.4. Now, I'm talking getting a PC from one of those "big-box", OEM PC stores. Still, though, I'd hate to see how much you paid for a 28.8 in the late 80's, if it was even available.
To be considered "intellectual", I believe you need to be knowledgeable in more than just what is applicable to your "business or IT environment". You're saying that knowledge and "mental prowess" is only important if it's applied to a paying job. It's a reason that the most well known intellectuals are also known as great thinkers.
The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly.
Now, I don't have any proof or evidence to back this up, but common sense tells me the airlines want everyone to fly, and if it were up to them, I'd bet they would eliminate any kind of security check and load them cattle up as quickly, and as profitably, as possible.
Why exactly do those listed not fall under the category of malicious hackers? "Hacker" is only used as a negative word in this context because of the adjective "malicious".
I'd bet anything that the piece of perl code the parent poster was referring to that he/she "dusted off" had very little, if anything at all, to do with user experience. The web has everything to do with user experience. Given that, updating your software (read "website", since that's what the topic is about, right?) becomes a fairly frequent thing if you want to "compete".
Well-designed, maintainable software is kind of timeless (barring the obvious) and is orthogonal to the technology used.
I would have to say that "the obvious" would be if the software has anything to do with the user interface. The technologies and techniques the software makes use of determines the user experience, and that changes so often; if you don't change with it, you'll be left behind.
The corollary to this is too many developers aren't taught how to design software. Instead, they learn about "features" and technology-specific stuff
No doubt. I have a Master's degree in Computer Engineering and too many of my fellow students, who actually graduated, were like this. It dumbfounded me. It follows that many, if not most, of the self-taught programmers of the world are the same.
in reality the technology is just not that important.
Totally disagree, though it may just be due to semantics. I believe the technology is very important. It's the platform (or framework or API) that is not.
While I agree with most of your explanation.... no dependency on an outside power source? How will the weights get wound every century without using an outside power source? I imagine you're thinking of the use of man-power; but it is most certainly an outside power source.
I didn't read about the magnitude of these weights, but something tells me that man-power might not even be an option.
Well, if they were talking about probability, then I'd agree. However...
Disagreements about these figures (assumptions) leads to estimates for the number of advanced civilizations ranging from 10^-5 to 10^6.
So, it appears as though someone thinks that the total number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy could be so few as to be < 1. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if so, I'm missing their meaning then.
Slashdot Mirror
Same thing happened to me. I believe my nick was sp_ or something similar, and I believe it was in the neighborhood of 10k. I changed providers suddenly because the one I had went under. I also tried emailing way back, like in 2000 or 2001, to get it back, but also got no response. Oh well!
Yeah, I did forget Basil Hayden. I haven't had it more than a couple of times, but I know it's good. I didn't realize, however, that it was that inexpensive. I'll have to pick up a bottle next time I'm looking for more bourbon.
Living in Louisville, KY, Maker's Mark is the go-to non-house bourbon. I use it almost exclusively for mixed drinks, mainly Maker's and Coke. The sweetness lends itself to mixing... plus, it doesn't have the qualities I personally look for in a sipping bourbon.
It's interesting, though. Outside of the Bourbon Belt, Maker's is the most well known "good" bourbon. I've also noticed that it's almost always the one chosen for product placements in TV shows and movies. Though, I'll notice Blanton's every now and then too. Probably because of its unique bottle and cork top.
...as is using "loose" when you mean "lose" (and you even spell it correctly in the same sentence), or "to" when you mean "too".
http://www.jackdaniels.com/faqs
It's the extra filtering step, the "Lincoln County Process", that excludes it from being a bourbon.
Jack Daniels isn't bourbon, but by now I'm sure you've learned that from other comments. I agree with x0's comment as well, just buy better bourbon. God help you if you're thinking of Sourthern Comfort when you're thinking about that sweet "bourbon" you've had.
Try Woodford, any Pappy Van Winkle, Baker's, Booker's, Blanton's... the list of good bourbons isn't short. And, if you're going to cry foul because of price differential between Jack and those I listed, try Bulleit bourbon, one of my personal favorites.
So? If you were in a position to justify such an experiment, wouldn't you do it, without any regard to prior studies? Count me as one vote for the "best experiment subject of the year" award.
Not just at the end, but all the way through it.
No kidding. I consider myself a newcomer, and I began my online days using a legitimate Netcom account, and AOHell for some amusement. When I got to college in '96, I used a lot of Kermit and the like to dial into the university servers. Those were the days.
I feel your pain. I had a nickname associated with an email address that went defunct before I could change it on slashdot. I emailed the admins back in, I dunno, 2004 or so to see if I could get it back. "They" of course denied the request. The account was created in '98 or '99. I want my old nick/UID back :-(
In soviet Russia, Slashdot slashdots YOU.
I think you meant "over three quarters of an inch thick".
28.8kbps in the late 80's? Really? If that's true, I'm impressed. I got my first "real" PC in '95, which came with a 28.8 modem, and I distinctly remember it being a major, newly-available, upgrade from the then-standard 14.4. Now, I'm talking getting a PC from one of those "big-box", OEM PC stores. Still, though, I'd hate to see how much you paid for a 28.8 in the late 80's, if it was even available.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
To be considered "intellectual", I believe you need to be knowledgeable in more than just what is applicable to your "business or IT environment".
You're saying that knowledge and "mental prowess" is only important if it's applied to a paying job.
It's a reason that the most well known intellectuals are also known as great thinkers.
That's my take on it anyway.
The airlines do everything in their power to give us reasons not to fly.
Now, I don't have any proof or evidence to back this up, but common sense tells me the airlines want everyone to fly, and if it were up to them, I'd bet they would eliminate any kind of security check and load them cattle up as quickly, and as profitably, as possible.
...cumulates in the eponymous large-scale drill...
I believe the word you're looking for is culminate.
I agree, the title certainly is misleading.
No problem. It seems there are A LOT of people making that mistake in this thread.
Why exactly do those listed not fall under the category of malicious hackers?
"Hacker" is only used as a negative word in this context because of the adjective "malicious".
This really depends on the software's purpose.
I'd bet anything that the piece of perl code the parent poster was referring to that he/she "dusted off" had very little, if anything at all, to do with user experience. The web has everything to do with user experience. Given that, updating your software (read "website", since that's what the topic is about, right?) becomes a fairly frequent thing if you want to "compete".
Well-designed, maintainable software is kind of timeless (barring the obvious) and is orthogonal to the technology used.
I would have to say that "the obvious" would be if the software has anything to do with the user interface. The technologies and techniques the software makes use of determines the user experience, and that changes so often; if you don't change with it, you'll be left behind.
The corollary to this is too many developers aren't taught how to design software. Instead, they learn about "features" and technology-specific stuff
No doubt. I have a Master's degree in Computer Engineering and too many of my fellow students, who actually graduated, were like this. It dumbfounded me. It follows that many, if not most, of the self-taught programmers of the world are the same.
in reality the technology is just not that important.
Totally disagree, though it may just be due to semantics. I believe the technology is very important. It's the platform (or framework or API) that is not.
How about this... make Android (and sell the phones) in such a way that it does not require a data plan.
Instead of "unlocking" phones, how about "locking" phones with wifi enabled.
The first provider+phone manufacturer+OS combination to support enabling wifi even with a traditional *voice* service plan will become very rich.
While I agree with most of your explanation.... no dependency on an outside power source?
How will the weights get wound every century without using an outside power source?
I imagine you're thinking of the use of man-power; but it is most certainly an outside power source.
I didn't read about the magnitude of these weights, but something tells me that man-power might not even be an option.
Nah, let those around in 10,000 years shake in their boots for a few months.
Heck, maybe some will make some money off of all the hoopla (a la Y2K).
Well, if they were talking about probability, then I'd agree. However...
So, it appears as though someone thinks that the total number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy could be so few as to be < 1. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but if so, I'm missing their meaning then.