Yeah, but if you read the article, you'll see that they're planning on charging him with about the same amount of time as he actually spent in, minus some time for good behaviour. Assuming everything slides through the system with a minimum of hitch, he could be out REAL soon...
Of course, he'll be stuffed in a halfway house, and not be given much legal access to 'puters (a restriction which, in my opinion, is totally punitive and pretty much wipes out his chance at being a productive member of society given his now already heavily out-of-date skill set). We can expect to not be cracked by him any time in the immediate future.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
The government should, indeed, keep its hands and laws out of what I decide my children should experience... by the same token, I will steadily decrease my influence over thier choices of entertainment as they approach manhood, as they are more capable of making thier own choices and dealing with the consequences thereof.
I have 2 boys, 8 and 5 (nearly 9 and 6). I don't let them watch south park. If they were 17 and 14, I would let them. In all likelyhood they've already heard the Uncle Fucker song in school anyways so my restriction there may be moot, but my decision to do so is in line with my best effort to raise my kids to be responsible members of society. If they were my daughters, and were 14 or 15, I'd probably let them watch it too. Blair Witch as well... I heard more foul language from disgruntled viewers leaving the theatre than from the actors themselves.
Arranged marriages were an unfortunate fact of life (and in some places of the world, still are) as a means of political and economic necessity. I don't endorse the idea of marrying off your 13 year old daughter TODAY. If you were paying attention rather than engaging in semi-smarmy reactionism, you'd have seen that the point was saying that when such marriages were happening and that the participants were considered adults, and were given the rights and privilages thereof. Children matured faster by physical and societal necessity (shorter life expectancy, more need for able bodied labour to support family industry, yadda yadda yadda).
Those imperatives are no longer such a concern, in these days of the post-atomic family unit, where a single parent can conceivably provide all the necessities of life for a family.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
X was designed in a server-client way, where X clients (the programs you run) talked to an X server (usually a display) through the X protocol stream. The stream went over internal pipes, or over IP, or what-have-you. It made it REALLY nice for remote operation, but is not well designed for local graphics rendering which is what most of today's software requires. A Direct Rendering Interface is required, and with X 4.0 should be introduced, and should solve the speed problems without restricting the remote operation enjoyed by legacy X programs. The inclusion of the DRI should help solve a majority of the complaints heard about X's speed.
I've also heard a fair number of people complain about X's API and the basic toolkits (Xaw) and how ugly and kludgey they are, but that's what things like qt and gtk are for.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
It seems to me that most of the complaints Jon talks about are made by 15, 16, 17 year old 'children'. In the real world, while they may still have some childish ideals and attitudes towards life, many of these people are young men and women and are indeed being maligned by the arbitrary nature of minimum-age-limits. They may not know what's best for them... but how many of us do as adults anyways? Most people I know just keep doing what it looks like they're supposed to be doing until something new comes along.
Until recently, most cultures had specific ages or events which divided children from men, and most of those events took place at around the time of sexual maturity. Keep in mind that it was as little as 100 years ago where many marriages were made where the participants were 13 or 14 years old. In environments where the dividing line between child and adult was clear, such moronic ideals as are coming from the government nowadays would be scoffed at.
We shelter our children far more now than we ever have before. We keep them acting as kids longer, trying to hold back the inevitable tide of biological impulse... possibly because the urge to nurture isn't being outweighed by the need to have more able bodied helpers in the struggle for survival, who knows.
I also find it highly distasteful to be forced into a situation where other people make choices for me, or my family, as to what is suitable for our viewing pleasure. Your morals are not my morals, and I'll kindly thank you to keep your borderline-mind-control attitudes out of my choices of entertainment... and that of my children!
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
If you look at projection film, you can see the grainy-ness on the screen. It's more apparent in movies shot with super-35, of course, or older flicks.
Like with theatres: The larger the screen, the farther back you sit so you don't notice the fine detail imperfections. You'll hardly get the experience you might want from a movie if you stick your nose six inches awat from a 72x40" screen.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I agree that the movie itself was very fluffy bunny in typical disney fashion, but the vision of the people who came up with it opened an entirely new genre of movies and shows in its wake.
Unfortunately, quite a few of those really sucked too... does anyone remember 'Automan?';)
I loved TRON when I was a kid. I broke the Beta of it in the machine from watching it so much. Recognizers became my first 3d modelling projects. My grade 7 computer science class had something like 22 different versions of the lightcycle game independantly created as final projects (mine wasn't one of them;), so I guess I wasn't solely affected.
My worst fear is that a remake or sequel would be attempted, and it'd fall flat on it's face. We're better off letting it remain the somewhat campy geek-motivational flick from childhood, something to draw on subconciously for future 'cool things'.
I would, however, happily help to code and/or beta an opensource version of Space Paranoids. With all the 3d FPS game engines out there, I think 'Noids is long overdue. Any takers?
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I read somewhere in the days leading up to the SP release that Matt+Trey were quoted as 'Going back to the roots and the original cardboard'. There was definately CG anims in there (the hell scene was supersweet) but when I saw the closing credits it looked as though they outsourced that to a 3rd party CG house.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
That plane that flies up to 50000ft (or whatever) then does a freefall for a minute or so. Maybe not zero G exactly, but close enough to allow for free ball motion.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Yah yah, everyone wants a HAPPY FUN BALL(tm) (warning: do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!) to be thier spacebourne companion, kinda like a zero-g Aibo to zip about, make cute 'beep-beep' noises and occasionally give you a shot in the ass with a taser to wake you up out of a daydream or when you get 'spaced out'.
But am I the only person to recall what happens when these balls go BAD? Nasty, nasty results... I refer you to the Hellraiser series of movies as graphic and tragic examples of what the future might hold with Problem Balls.
I wholely denounce this ball exploration! If God wanted us to have balls in space, (s)he would have put them there!
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Then there's some developments in CCD technology I'm not aware of yet... in my experience with any CCD technology thus far (consumer grade, admittedly) the CCD either detects light, or it doesn't. Letting a 1-photon-per-second source expose to a film will always result in some sort of increase in exposure... is there then CCDs that will accumulate light increases in the same fashion as film? Will those CCDs be available for the average joe any time soon?
If those could be made cheap, and allow for the incremental increase of light collection as per film, then I could see how the last bastions of 'utility' work for film photography could be swept away by digital means, leaving it as a purely artistic medium.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
... if you're trying to get a nice blowup of a blue heron you snapped at a distance of 25 meters (ocean filling the space between yourself and the bird). The more dots you have, the better your enlarged/cropped images look.
I agree that film is a far more portable medium for tromping around with. It'd suck if I ran out of flashcard space just as that perfect picture popped up, losing the opportunity because I had to delete some images before getting enough space to take more.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
If you're talking about Movie Theature "Big Picture, Big Sound" type substrate, traditionally (since the 50s) film has predominantly been on 70mm film, with 65mm given to visual and 5mm given to multitrack audio, but the quality of the print was terrible and varied greatly based on the substrate itself and weather or not an anamorphic technique was used to compress more image onto the film... thus it'd be difficult to measure the optimum bandwidth needed to reproduce these old films.
However, going by Super35 (the latest film format with digital soundtracks and whatnot), here's a little math I did which would give my best guesstimate as to bandwidth usage for a near-film-quality digital stream.
35mm * 120 dots/mm = 4200 dots (horizontally). Super35 uses a 4/3 ratio frame (sometimes anamorphed out to 16:9, sometimes cropped, but lets assume the whole frame WANTS to be saved). 120 dots/mm is a scanning resolution of 3000dpi, which is achievable by even present day consumer grade products.
So, Frame size = 4200 x 3150
This would produce a 7dpi image horizontally if projected to a 50' foot wide screen, which I think would look pretty good if you were 20/30 feet away from it. In fact, it may look better than necessary from a resolution standpoint.
4200x3150x6 (16 bit RGB) = 76mb/frame. 16bit color may not be necessary, but I'd daresay it'd look nice. Consumer grade devices can scan at 12bits/color.
76mb/frame * 24 frame/sec = 1.77GB/second.
So, 1.8GB/second for raw, 16 bit per channel frames at 3000dpi. Lop off 50% if run through a lossless entropy encoder, so around 900MB/s. Take off half if you think 16 bit color is unnecessary and 8bit would be fine to 450MB/s, take off another 75% if 1500dpi will do (say, if destined for a wide screen monitor 2000 dots wide) to around 110MB/s, or just below 1Gbps.
The transport mechanisms are already available in such technologies as gigabit ethernet for consumer use. Storage is the only issue. At consumer grades, we'd need about 600GB for a 90 minute movie... approximately 1000 times that of a current CD. A theatre sized version would take just shy of 5TB.
Given the explosion in media storage size (an increase of 1000 times or more per dollar in the last 10 years), it's reasonable to assume that systems like the above would both be feasable and cheap within our lifetimes. Keep in mind though that lossy compression algos are in use that reduce the video size by a factor of 10, 100, or more. Old films could easily be so compressed with no apparent loss of quality.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
We spent around $500 on a Nikon F-50. Film price (on average, higher speed means higher price) runs around $2.50 a roll, development for 24 picture rolls costs typically $3. Getting prints are what really beefs that price up, usually running at $10 and up for 24 shots @ 4x6.
As most of my pics were destined for the net anyways, I invested $1.2k cdn in a negatives scanner (specifically, the Nikon Coolscan III). The color range and image detail is outstanding... so good that it even picks up the relatively crappy substrate of kodak film (at 800 ISO and higher the grain is VERY NOTICABLE... go with fuji if you need film speed higher than ISO 400). I'll be saving $10/roll in prints and a LOT of time that I'd be wasting doing color/brightness adjustments for better pictures. 100 rolls and this scanner will have been paid for. Considering I snapped off 5 rolls on my last road trip up island, I expect it'll have paid for itself well inside of christmas.
There are some things film photography is great for that CCDs handle poorly... for example, low light, extended exposure photography. Extending the exposure time to a CCD will NOT result in more light being accumulated (the overall brightness doesn't vary with time), whereas a film will continue to expose farther with each straggler photon striking the surface. Some of my recent experimentation has been with photographing naturally very dark areas which have been dimly lit in a variety of ways (mostly using candles). CCD technology would have quite poor results in those situations, whereas a 2 second exposure time on the tripod has turned out some sweet results from film.
Still, I expect that for the joe average, I-use-my-camera-4-times-a-year type owner though, a CCD would be plenty.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I get paid rather hansomely for programming specific applications required by my contractees, mostly made using open source tools, and running on open source OSes.
Once I finish, the code is thiers to do with as they will. Occasionally I'll come up with tidbits during the process that are worthy of sharing with others and (after I obtain permission by the people paying me) I gift these to others.
So, I'm using OS and FS to earn a handy living, and of the specialized products I produce, some bits are useful and get fed back to help others earn THIER livings.
Sounds pretty feasable to me, particularly as I trip down to the bank to cash the latest batch of cheques.;)
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
... at least nowadays in the computer arena. The younger and quick-to-adapt usually have thier fingers more firmly on the pulse of today's technology and grok it far more fully.
My eldest boy is 8, and I'm consistantly amazed at the things he does with his junky ol' P5-120 for someone his age. His younger brother is coming along nicely too, at the age of 5. I simultaneously shudder and fondly dream of what marvels thier brains will contain in the upcoming decade.
Metcalfe is owed props for the ethernet technology, but he's basically turned into a grumpy old man who shakes his shillelagh at the world whenever something comes along he can't understand fully or simply doesn't like.
To steal a line from the Who: hope I die before I get (that) old.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I make extensive use of linux and sun boxes running apache as webservers. If the benchmarks get people to streamline code and make the stuff that I'm trying to do run faster, then I'm *all* for it.
I'd personally have no problem seeing a head-to-head race between IIS and linux/apache(roxen,zeus,whatever), and I'd expect IIS users wouldn't either. If nothing else, it's forcing the parties involved to shoot for excellence in thier code areas, rather than merely mill about over mediocrity. Well, linux tends to keep moving in the excellence area, but a nudge from outside doesn't hurt.;)
More benchmarks! Lets see NFS performance tests, deeper SMB tests, every other kind of test that can be performed to show us where the weeknesses lie, and what strengths we already enjoy. Given the fact that linuxers will take a temporary loss as motivation to win and will quickly turn a negative publicity tidbit into a positive force for change, I say it's ALL good.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Good for NS... google does work well, and I definately prefer it over excite (altho that's mostly and interface issue).
I just wish these search engines would webcrawl a little more often. It's hard to turn up a search page that isn't stuffed full of months-old and outdated pages sometimes.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
SIIG makes decent and inexpensive scsi controllers. Not only that, but they were cooler than most back in the day and spontaneously decided to provide drivers for the 2.0.x kernels developed in-house.
I've got a couple SCSI HDs and a burner running off mine. Works like a charm, no coasters on burns and the card cost maybe $80cdn from London Drugs when I got it.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:HR people use Word - deal with it
on
Feature:Geek Jobs
·
· Score: 1
I don't expect someone with real SKILL to be working shlepping resumes. I *do* expect that the people who's job it is to make INFORMED DECISIONS as to whether an applicant is suitable be trained to the point where they can perform thier job competantly.
I've seen $8.50/hr data entry clerks who understand the basic concept of document importation.
-- rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, he'll be stuffed in a halfway house, and not be given much legal access to 'puters (a restriction which, in my opinion, is totally punitive and pretty much wipes out his chance at being a productive member of society given his now already heavily out-of-date skill set). We can expect to not be cracked by him any time in the immediate future.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Still, if memory serves me, he was the one who kept sabotaging his own defense, so one can't feel TOO anguished about it.
Hmmm... charges dropped, major attacks against machines at above.net. Coincidence? Must be... ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Damn... and I was so particular to NOT use the term "X Windows" in the body of my text too. Gotta watch that, too easy to slip in it.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I have 2 boys, 8 and 5 (nearly 9 and 6). I don't let them watch south park. If they were 17 and 14, I would let them. In all likelyhood they've already heard the Uncle Fucker song in school anyways so my restriction there may be moot, but my decision to do so is in line with my best effort to raise my kids to be responsible members of society. If they were my daughters, and were 14 or 15, I'd probably let them watch it too. Blair Witch as well... I heard more foul language from disgruntled viewers leaving the theatre than from the actors themselves.
Arranged marriages were an unfortunate fact of life (and in some places of the world, still are) as a means of political and economic necessity. I don't endorse the idea of marrying off your 13 year old daughter TODAY. If you were paying attention rather than engaging in semi-smarmy reactionism, you'd have seen that the point was saying that when such marriages were happening and that the participants were considered adults, and were given the rights and privilages thereof. Children matured faster by physical and societal necessity (shorter life expectancy, more need for able bodied labour to support family industry, yadda yadda yadda).
Those imperatives are no longer such a concern, in these days of the post-atomic family unit, where a single parent can conceivably provide all the necessities of life for a family.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I've also heard a fair number of people complain about X's API and the basic toolkits (Xaw) and how ugly and kludgey they are, but that's what things like qt and gtk are for.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Until recently, most cultures had specific ages or events which divided children from men, and most of those events took place at around the time of sexual maturity. Keep in mind that it was as little as 100 years ago where many marriages were made where the participants were 13 or 14 years old. In environments where the dividing line between child and adult was clear, such moronic ideals as are coming from the government nowadays would be scoffed at.
We shelter our children far more now than we ever have before. We keep them acting as kids longer, trying to hold back the inevitable tide of biological impulse... possibly because the urge to nurture isn't being outweighed by the need to have more able bodied helpers in the struggle for survival, who knows.
I also find it highly distasteful to be forced into a situation where other people make choices for me, or my family, as to what is suitable for our viewing pleasure. Your morals are not my morals, and I'll kindly thank you to keep your borderline-mind-control attitudes out of my choices of entertainment... and that of my children!
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Like with theatres: The larger the screen, the farther back you sit so you don't notice the fine detail imperfections. You'll hardly get the experience you might want from a movie if you stick your nose six inches awat from a 72x40" screen.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Even you use it. And told. Kinda tricky not to do so. ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Unfortunately, quite a few of those really sucked too... does anyone remember 'Automan?' ;)
I loved TRON when I was a kid. I broke the Beta of it in the machine from watching it so much. Recognizers became my first 3d modelling projects. My grade 7 computer science class had something like 22 different versions of the lightcycle game independantly created as final projects (mine wasn't one of them ;), so I guess I wasn't solely affected.
My worst fear is that a remake or sequel would be attempted, and it'd fall flat on it's face. We're better off letting it remain the somewhat campy geek-motivational flick from childhood, something to draw on subconciously for future 'cool things'.
I would, however, happily help to code and/or beta an opensource version of Space Paranoids. With all the 3d FPS game engines out there, I think 'Noids is long overdue. Any takers?
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I read somewhere in the days leading up to the SP release that Matt+Trey were quoted as 'Going back to the roots and the original cardboard'. There was definately CG anims in there (the hell scene was supersweet) but when I saw the closing credits it looked as though they outsourced that to a 3rd party CG house.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
That plane that flies up to 50000ft (or whatever) then does a freefall for a minute or so. Maybe not zero G exactly, but close enough to allow for free ball motion.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I gotta pay more attention when I froth.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
But am I the only person to recall what happens when these balls go BAD? Nasty, nasty results... I refer you to the Hellraiser series of movies as graphic and tragic examples of what the future might hold with Problem Balls.
I wholely denounce this ball exploration! If God wanted us to have balls in space, (s)he would have put them there!
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Heh.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
If those could be made cheap, and allow for the incremental increase of light collection as per film, then I could see how the last bastions of 'utility' work for film photography could be swept away by digital means, leaving it as a purely artistic medium.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I agree that film is a far more portable medium for tromping around with. It'd suck if I ran out of flashcard space just as that perfect picture popped up, losing the opportunity because I had to delete some images before getting enough space to take more.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
However, going by Super35 (the latest film format with digital soundtracks and whatnot), here's a little math I did which would give my best guesstimate as to bandwidth usage for a near-film-quality digital stream.
35mm * 120 dots/mm = 4200 dots (horizontally). Super35 uses a 4/3 ratio frame (sometimes anamorphed out to 16:9, sometimes cropped, but lets assume the whole frame WANTS to be saved). 120 dots/mm is a scanning resolution of 3000dpi, which is achievable by even present day consumer grade products.
So, Frame size = 4200 x 3150
This would produce a 7dpi image horizontally if projected to a 50' foot wide screen, which I think would look pretty good if you were 20/30 feet away from it. In fact, it may look better than necessary from a resolution standpoint.
4200x3150x6 (16 bit RGB) = 76mb/frame. 16bit color may not be necessary, but I'd daresay it'd look nice. Consumer grade devices can scan at 12bits/color.
76mb/frame * 24 frame/sec = 1.77GB/second.
So, 1.8GB/second for raw, 16 bit per channel frames at 3000dpi. Lop off 50% if run through a lossless entropy encoder, so around 900MB/s. Take off half if you think 16 bit color is unnecessary and 8bit would be fine to 450MB/s, take off another 75% if 1500dpi will do (say, if destined for a wide screen monitor 2000 dots wide) to around 110MB/s, or just below 1Gbps.
Bandwidth requirements: Theatre: 7.2Gbps
Home: 0.9Gbps
The transport mechanisms are already available in such technologies as gigabit ethernet for consumer use. Storage is the only issue. At consumer grades, we'd need about 600GB for a 90 minute movie... approximately 1000 times that of a current CD. A theatre sized version would take just shy of 5TB.
Storage requirements:
Theatre: 3.25TB/hr
Home: 400GB/hr
Given the explosion in media storage size (an increase of 1000 times or more per dollar in the last 10 years), it's reasonable to assume that systems like the above would both be feasable and cheap within our lifetimes. Keep in mind though that lossy compression algos are in use that reduce the video size by a factor of 10, 100, or more. Old films could easily be so compressed with no apparent loss of quality.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
As most of my pics were destined for the net anyways, I invested $1.2k cdn in a negatives scanner (specifically, the Nikon Coolscan III). The color range and image detail is outstanding... so good that it even picks up the relatively crappy substrate of kodak film (at 800 ISO and higher the grain is VERY NOTICABLE... go with fuji if you need film speed higher than ISO 400). I'll be saving $10/roll in prints and a LOT of time that I'd be wasting doing color/brightness adjustments for better pictures. 100 rolls and this scanner will have been paid for. Considering I snapped off 5 rolls on my last road trip up island, I expect it'll have paid for itself well inside of christmas.
There are some things film photography is great for that CCDs handle poorly... for example, low light, extended exposure photography. Extending the exposure time to a CCD will NOT result in more light being accumulated (the overall brightness doesn't vary with time), whereas a film will continue to expose farther with each straggler photon striking the surface. Some of my recent experimentation has been with photographing naturally very dark areas which have been dimly lit in a variety of ways (mostly using candles). CCD technology would have quite poor results in those situations, whereas a 2 second exposure time on the tripod has turned out some sweet results from film.
Still, I expect that for the joe average, I-use-my-camera-4-times-a-year type owner though, a CCD would be plenty.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Once I finish, the code is thiers to do with as they will. Occasionally I'll come up with tidbits during the process that are worthy of sharing with others and (after I obtain permission by the people paying me) I gift these to others.
So, I'm using OS and FS to earn a handy living, and of the specialized products I produce, some bits are useful and get fed back to help others earn THIER livings.
Sounds pretty feasable to me, particularly as I trip down to the bank to cash the latest batch of cheques. ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
My eldest boy is 8, and I'm consistantly amazed at the things he does with his junky ol' P5-120 for someone his age. His younger brother is coming along nicely too, at the age of 5. I simultaneously shudder and fondly dream of what marvels thier brains will contain in the upcoming decade.
Metcalfe is owed props for the ethernet technology, but he's basically turned into a grumpy old man who shakes his shillelagh at the world whenever something comes along he can't understand fully or simply doesn't like.
To steal a line from the Who: hope I die before I get (that) old.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I'd personally have no problem seeing a head-to-head race between IIS and linux/apache(roxen,zeus,whatever), and I'd expect IIS users wouldn't either. If nothing else, it's forcing the parties involved to shoot for excellence in thier code areas, rather than merely mill about over mediocrity. Well, linux tends to keep moving in the excellence area, but a nudge from outside doesn't hurt. ;)
More benchmarks! Lets see NFS performance tests, deeper SMB tests, every other kind of test that can be performed to show us where the weeknesses lie, and what strengths we already enjoy. Given the fact that linuxers will take a temporary loss as motivation to win and will quickly turn a negative publicity tidbit into a positive force for change, I say it's ALL good.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Or maybe a woodsman? ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I just wish these search engines would webcrawl a little more often. It's hard to turn up a search page that isn't stuffed full of months-old and outdated pages sometimes.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I've got a couple SCSI HDs and a burner running off mine. Works like a charm, no coasters on burns and the card cost maybe $80cdn from London Drugs when I got it.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
I've seen $8.50/hr data entry clerks who understand the basic concept of document importation.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)