Someone is linking to a dyndns server on Slashdot, for a large multimedia file, no less.
I have a feeling someone's cable modem is about to explode.
Re:This still won't work!
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
Yea, word-of-mouth is totally ineffective, and can very easily be stopped by government censorship. That's why drug dealers have to resort to big, flashy television ads to reveal where they are and what they're doing...
I swear, sometimes you technocrats don't seem to understand that human solutions are sometimes the best solutions. That sometimes there just isn't a technical solution nearly as effective as letting the people take care of the problem...
For more information, visit www.infowars.com. They've got the inside scoop.
Re:Now you're just being a luddite
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps what we really need is a productivity test. Give two individuals several similar tasks. One has a PC, one has a Mac.
You could start them out with their machine and it's components in the box, which would give you a really good idea about setup issues. Then again, you could have a pre-configured machine to stop arguments about "third-party hardware" being the problem (of course, with WinTel, everything's third-party...) Then it'd be one large task that would require many of the features a computer (PC and Mac) would offer.
Perhaps creating the layout of a magazine.
Writing an e-mail to an editorial staff and listening to their replies, researching information and writing up a short article. It could even be an album review (except I'm sure that including music would basically favor the Mac far too strongly.)
Damnit, now I want to write this up and actually try it. (Particularly because I'm 100% certain the Mac would win,) A computer test that actually measured something important, not just particular, highly unlikely upper-limits...
Re:Now you're just being silly
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
Wait. Just because the key+click option exists, doesn't mean it's used. I know many, many Mac users who either don't know about it or realize that they don't need it. The Mac team realized that after becoming accustomed to a handicapped system, some users would need something to ease their transition into a better, more elegant system. They were able to accomplish this without ruining the near-perfection of their user interface.
So let me reiterate:
I have a mouse. The mouse has a button. That is all.
Re:There's a good chance it's fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
There's a difference between making a tool effective and making it cumbersome. I suppose if one really wanted to, one could put another head on a hammer, at a twenty-degree angle so that you could hammer at two angles at once.
That's just like putting extra buttons on a mouse, you end up making an elegant tool into a clumbsy one, all to gain features that are hardly nessicary.
Re:There's a good chance it's fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 2
The point isn't that it's an option. The point is that it isn't nessicary. Sure, they went ahead and added it for redundancy, but it's hardly a requirement to use the programs...
Re:There's a good chance it's fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
C'mon, Bob. I never said Mac users can't figure it out. I said they don't need it.
Perhaps if windows and linux developers could figure out how to develop programs with an interface clean enough that you don't need to add extra buttons to use it. You'd think that after Mac developers have given them almost twenty year's worth of good examples they'd eventually pick it up...
Re:There's a good chance it's fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 1
Nah, a two-button mouse isn't groundbreaking. It's just redundant. You have mouse, you have button, who needs anything else?
There's a good chance it's fake...
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This comment on MacSlash has a big list of possibly problems with the "evidence" for the iWalk. (Hell, someone's gonna get a five for posting this, might as well be me.)
Exactly, they figured out that if the codec works perfectly on a P4, than all those snooty Mac users with their "Affordable Digital Video Stations" won't be able to watch it at all, as their chips will play the video faster than the human mind can comprehend it...
It's a diminishing-returns reward system. Just like gambling (which, coincidentally, takes the form of games). The very things that make games fun and "addictive" to average people make them truely addictive to certain types of people. Certainly not an addiction similar to cocain, where the very makeup of the brain itself is being changed, but a psychological addiction, which can be just as harrowing.
So, the question we should be asking ourselves isn't "Is it addictive?", but "How do we prevent people from becoming addicted?"
No, not really. Aside from the fact that the whole "government is lazy and inefficient, buisness is much better" myth. (Many public agencies are far more effecient than private counterparts.) You have to consider that the internet, while now a vital part of our economy, is not as important as the air we breath. Trying to say these arguments apply to enviornmental protection is like trying to say that the internet and the real world are similar things. That leads me to believe someone hasn't gone outside recently.
Well, I was joking. Getting the comment modded up as insightful was a bit of a shock.
A part of it I was going to include (but forgot to type up before hitting submit) was how having these agents would give the government the ability to view network activity whenever they needed, and not have to worry about an uppity admin. That would have probably given it away, though...
Federalize computer security. Make network admins another part of the executive branch, like the FBI, NSA, or ATF. Assign agents to every buisness with an internet connection (more significant the connection, more agents). Give them the authority to break down the doors of the script kiddie attempting to zombie user's workstations and point a gun at their head.
First of all, it's not corporate, it's government. State government at that.
The closest we have to a central computing authority are the network guys, and even they're horribly fractured. The computers could have been purchased by the College, by the department, by an outside organization, or perhaps from the proffessor's own research funds. Since there's no central purchase authority, there's no way to do a uniform setup for every machine. I don't think there's a single person in this building who knows how many computers we have. (Much less how old they are, what platform they're running, what software is used, etc.) Typically, when I go to fix a machine it will be the first time someone from the computer services section has ever seen the machine in question.
It's quite confusing, and all we can really do is send out reminders about installing anti-virus software and hope the users do it...
You didn't read my comment, did you? The machines I manage all have ant-virus software (they're pretty low-risk anyways, since we don't allow ICQ and people rarely check their e-mail here.)
The thing is, there is no central authority here in our department for machines, so even though people may go to me to fix it, that still means there are people who haven't been infected yet (or who choose to solve things themselves) in our department that I have no control over.
Oh yea, and as far as free anti-virus software, HA! Thore free packages are even worse than having nothing, because the user thinks they are safe, only to realize that their virus definitions expires months ago when the "trial period" for the software ended. They think that the attachment they're getting is safe, because their anti-virus software they have didn't pick it up...
Shit. I still have people getting Melissa and Nimbda here at work. (Matter-of-fact, I spent hald an hour just yesterday clearing a machine from its second infection.) A 159 byte virus? Using a sentimental pick-up line? I'm going to be busy...
Yes, I know user education and antivirus software would help stop this, but I'm in no position to get those kinds of things done here.
I would lug a 120-pound version of this up the stairs at my work if it meant: 1) I wouldn't have to pay a few hundred a year for parking, and 2) I wouldn't have to pay for gasoline.
Back when VA was trading in the hundreds... CmdrTaco: Oh man, check out this little gadget (Aibo, flatscreen TVs, etc.). It's so cool, and sure it costs a few grand, but I'm sure getting one!
Now... CmdrTaco: This might be a great, innovative, increduble invention that could change the way civil space in constructed and traversed, but it costs so much! (Or, for the Mac people: It only holds 1000 songs! It takes entire seconds to transfer them! The thing's as huge as a pack of cigarettes! They aren't even going to include any of the new copy-protection!) It's overpriced crap!
I'm just curious, how many bugs from old slash, or new, were first discovered by trolls? Do you feel that the trolls did you a service, like the way white-hat hackers reveal holes in certain software?
Well, as long as you keep your mirrors facing the ground, you should be all right...
Am I the only one here who can't stand all these pretentious fucking slashbots, without an iota of buisness knowledge in them, try and go around and spout shit like they're Alan fuckin' Greenspan? Wake up, asshole, you couldn't tell the difference between a successful buisness plan and one bound for failure if the Gods themselves painted you a fucking sign.
Slashdot Mirror
When you die, where do you re-spawn?
Is that...
No, it can't be...
Wait! It is.
Someone is linking to a dyndns server on Slashdot, for a large multimedia file, no less.
I have a feeling someone's cable modem is about to explode.
Yea, word-of-mouth is totally ineffective, and can very easily be stopped by government censorship. That's why drug dealers have to resort to big, flashy television ads to reveal where they are and what they're doing...
I swear, sometimes you technocrats don't seem to understand that human solutions are sometimes the best solutions. That sometimes there just isn't a technical solution nearly as effective as letting the people take care of the problem...
For more information, visit www.infowars.com. They've got the inside scoop.
Perhaps what we really need is a productivity test. Give two individuals several similar tasks. One has a PC, one has a Mac.
You could start them out with their machine and it's components in the box, which would give you a really good idea about setup issues. Then again, you could have a pre-configured machine to stop arguments about "third-party hardware" being the problem (of course, with WinTel, everything's third-party...) Then it'd be one large task that would require many of the features a computer (PC and Mac) would offer.
Perhaps creating the layout of a magazine.
Writing an e-mail to an editorial staff and listening to their replies, researching information and writing up a short article. It could even be an album review (except I'm sure that including music would basically favor the Mac far too strongly.)
Damnit, now I want to write this up and actually try it. (Particularly because I'm 100% certain the Mac would win,) A computer test that actually measured something important, not just particular, highly unlikely upper-limits...
Wait. Just because the key+click option exists, doesn't mean it's used. I know many, many Mac users who either don't know about it or realize that they don't need it. The Mac team realized that after becoming accustomed to a handicapped system, some users would need something to ease their transition into a better, more elegant system. They were able to accomplish this without ruining the near-perfection of their user interface.
So let me reiterate:
I have a mouse.
The mouse has a button.
That is all.
There's a difference between making a tool effective and making it cumbersome. I suppose if one really wanted to, one could put another head on a hammer, at a twenty-degree angle so that you could hammer at two angles at once.
That's just like putting extra buttons on a mouse, you end up making an elegant tool into a clumbsy one, all to gain features that are hardly nessicary.
The point isn't that it's an option. The point is that it isn't nessicary. Sure, they went ahead and added it for redundancy, but it's hardly a requirement to use the programs...
C'mon, Bob. I never said Mac users can't figure it out. I said they don't need it.
Perhaps if windows and linux developers could figure out how to develop programs with an interface clean enough that you don't need to add extra buttons to use it. You'd think that after Mac developers have given them almost twenty year's worth of good examples they'd eventually pick it up...
Nah, a two-button mouse isn't groundbreaking. It's just redundant. You have mouse, you have button, who needs anything else?
This comment on MacSlash has a big list of possibly problems with the "evidence" for the iWalk. (Hell, someone's gonna get a five for posting this, might as well be me.)
Exactly, they figured out that if the codec works perfectly on a P4, than all those snooty Mac users with their "Affordable Digital Video Stations" won't be able to watch it at all, as their chips will play the video faster than the human mind can comprehend it...
Yea, good thing we don't get our videogames tax-free like our cigarettes or our booze. Otherwise the government might start cracking down...
It's a diminishing-returns reward system. Just like gambling (which, coincidentally, takes the form of games). The very things that make games fun and "addictive" to average people make them truely addictive to certain types of people. Certainly not an addiction similar to cocain, where the very makeup of the brain itself is being changed, but a psychological addiction, which can be just as harrowing.
So, the question we should be asking ourselves isn't "Is it addictive?", but "How do we prevent people from becoming addicted?"
No, not really. Aside from the fact that the whole "government is lazy and inefficient, buisness is much better" myth. (Many public agencies are far more effecient than private counterparts.) You have to consider that the internet, while now a vital part of our economy, is not as important as the air we breath. Trying to say these arguments apply to enviornmental protection is like trying to say that the internet and the real world are similar things. That leads me to believe someone hasn't gone outside recently.
Well, I was joking. Getting the comment modded up as insightful was a bit of a shock.
A part of it I was going to include (but forgot to type up before hitting submit) was how having these agents would give the government the ability to view network activity whenever they needed, and not have to worry about an uppity admin. That would have probably given it away, though...
Federalize computer security. Make network admins another part of the executive branch, like the FBI, NSA, or ATF. Assign agents to every buisness with an internet connection (more significant the connection, more agents). Give them the authority to break down the doors of the script kiddie attempting to zombie user's workstations and point a gun at their head.
First of all, it's not corporate, it's government. State government at that.
The closest we have to a central computing authority are the network guys, and even they're horribly fractured. The computers could have been purchased by the College, by the department, by an outside organization, or perhaps from the proffessor's own research funds. Since there's no central purchase authority, there's no way to do a uniform setup for every machine. I don't think there's a single person in this building who knows how many computers we have. (Much less how old they are, what platform they're running, what software is used, etc.) Typically, when I go to fix a machine it will be the first time someone from the computer services section has ever seen the machine in question.
It's quite confusing, and all we can really do is send out reminders about installing anti-virus software and hope the users do it...
You didn't read my comment, did you? The machines I manage all have ant-virus software (they're pretty low-risk anyways, since we don't allow ICQ and people rarely check their e-mail here.)
The thing is, there is no central authority here in our department for machines, so even though people may go to me to fix it, that still means there are people who haven't been infected yet (or who choose to solve things themselves) in our department that I have no control over.
Oh yea, and as far as free anti-virus software, HA! Thore free packages are even worse than having nothing, because the user thinks they are safe, only to realize that their virus definitions expires months ago when the "trial period" for the software ended. They think that the attachment they're getting is safe, because their anti-virus software they have didn't pick it up...
Shit. I still have people getting Melissa and Nimbda here at work. (Matter-of-fact, I spent hald an hour just yesterday clearing a machine from its second infection.) A 159 byte virus? Using a sentimental pick-up line? I'm going to be busy...
Yes, I know user education and antivirus software would help stop this, but I'm in no position to get those kinds of things done here.
Don't you just love people who put things down out of ignorance?
I would lug a 120-pound version of this up the stairs at my work if it meant: 1) I wouldn't have to pay a few hundred a year for parking, and 2) I wouldn't have to pay for gasoline.
Back when VA was trading in the hundreds...
CmdrTaco: Oh man, check out this little gadget (Aibo, flatscreen TVs, etc.). It's so cool, and sure it costs a few grand, but I'm sure getting one!
Now...
CmdrTaco: This might be a great, innovative, increduble invention that could change the way civil space in constructed and traversed, but it costs so much! (Or, for the Mac people: It only holds 1000 songs! It takes entire seconds to transfer them! The thing's as huge as a pack of cigarettes! They aren't even going to include any of the new copy-protection!) It's overpriced crap!
I'm just curious, how many bugs from old slash, or new, were first discovered by trolls? Do you feel that the trolls did you a service, like the way white-hat hackers reveal holes in certain software?
I hate to see stupidity
Well, as long as you keep your mirrors facing the ground, you should be all right...
Am I the only one here who can't stand all these pretentious fucking slashbots, without an iota of buisness knowledge in them, try and go around and spout shit like they're Alan fuckin' Greenspan? Wake up, asshole, you couldn't tell the difference between a successful buisness plan and one bound for failure if the Gods themselves painted you a fucking sign.
--