No, what irks me about the inertial dampers is the human factors thing; with the crew being thrown out of their
chairs with every phaser blast, having to take precious time out to scramble back into them, why on earth don't
they have seat belts?;-)
According to the show's original directors, it was so it would look better on TV. Basically the same reason that spaceships make a "whoosh" sound as they fly by in the vacuum of space.
Exchange servers support "Outlook Web Access" - basically webmail access to your mailbox, calendar, contacts, etc. I don't know what version of Exchange server this requires, but it's not E2k because we don't have that here at work yet:) So for the requirements that you listed, it might work out OK. You probably have to ask an admin to turn it on - it helps to use the argument that now people can easily check their email and calendar from home (via a VPN) no matter what web browser they have.
It still doesn't support the usual gamut of email viruses and trojans, though, so the quest for full *nix LookOut/Exchange compatibility must continue:)
If you are up to completely reverse-engineering authentication.riaa.com's protocols, then you're right, you won't have a problem. For the rest of us, who don't want to have to figure out DeCSS, SDMI, or whatever the control method of the year is on our own, that "little piece of paper" is what's preventing us from getting the appropriate access software from the people that have the brains to figure out how to write it. Not to mention the average user who just wants to read their ebook on another PC without having to wonder about finding the (possibly illegal) decryption software, installing it, etc.
Hypothetically, you're right, and there is no way to totally lock things down. In the real world of limited time, money, and encryption know-how, just a few bad laws are all it takes to separate most people from their fair use rights and even to deny them the knowledge that such rights exist.
Here's why it matters - customers in Buffalo aren't going to pay you well enough to live in Silicon Valley and do this. Of course, if you lived in Buffalo and telecommunicated to SV you'd be in great shape:)
Is that the same way that the "Checkers" speech was widely believed to be the end of Richard Nixon's career? Last time I checked, Connie Chung was still working...
Why not run the conversion like the 6bone has? That is, start off with virtual IPv6 between IPv6 supporting sites over IPv4 links, and gradually shift to native IPv6 where possible as more and more of the intermediate "link" sites convert to IPv6? At some point, you switch over core routers one by one so that they're running virtual IPv4 over IPv6 transport, and switch out the last of the IPv4 hardware as it becomes obsolete.
Not that this necessarily provides an incentive for IPv4 users to switch, but IMHO, as a person that's not too knowledgeable about IPv6, I don't see why technically a migration has to be too difficult. Maybe you could make the incentive something like rewarding you with more IPv6 addresses as you move out of IPv4 space - that would definitely move big network operators along, at least.
I'm still not sure how to force a more equal global assignment of the dwindling IPv4 address space. It seems like if the IPv4 afficianados aren't careful, China will just switch to IPv6 immediately, and the rest of the world will get dragged along just so we can continue to communicate with that huge percentage of the human race.
Nope, according to the good Cmdr, we aren't that smart. You can turn off the annoying link things in your preferences, though.
Since it only took the trolls about a day to figure out how to use redirects to mask the goatse.cx links, I'm not sure what the point of the whole exercize was...
How about offering tiers of flat fees for different bandwidth caps, and allow the user to specify a point at which their connection should be cut off rather than risk further charges? That way you can still pay a flat fee most of the time, but retain some flexibility.
You could even specify it per day or per hour of the day, so that "parasitic" users don't run up your bills so high that you can't surf the 'net for the second half of the month.
Yeah, but who wants to type when you can't even see where you were yet? The buffered keyboard is overkill; no normal user is going to start typing before the display comes on and the last known document cursor position is displayed.
This is an embedded system; it's probably being restarted by a watchdog or failed over automatically and thus you want it up as quickly as possible in order to minimize system downtime. Human productivity has nothing to do with it.
I imagine (not having read the article yet) that they've got some other layer to ensure that a machine with a failed device or bad RAM will not be booted at all, or perhaps with an active-standby configuration you could have the machine only run the extended POST if it is the inactive machine in the pair. There's no need to auto-detect devices every time; how often do you change devices compared to how often you boot? (OK, for Linux boxes with a UPS this is 1:1, but for those of us with unreliable power distributors or Windows boxes it's a little more often...)
That explains a lot about how you can hit the lameness filter when just cutting-and-pasting from another web page, which with Netscape will insert a lot of spaces. Good compression == lame post, apparently.
How about posting your example alternative code somewhere else, and just not licensing it so that it could be used with slashcode? It would be interesting to see if you could come up with a method that would penalize (no pun intended, really) ascii art posts but not cut-and-paste quotes.
There are really only two ways to satisfy your need for "something that works" - you can either work on it yourself, or pay for someone else to do it. I don't really care which you choose, but if you choose to be part of a project that is predicated on users submitting bug reports and maybe even bug fixes to improve that project, then you probably shouldn't turn around and bitch that those are the project parameters. You knew it was a work in progress, you knew how Open Source works, and you knew that there was an expectation that it would be your job to contribute to the project (via bug reports and/or fixes) in order to earn the right to complain about it.
I'm not saying don't mention bugs that you find in Open Source projects (because nobody can be entirely involved in every Open Source project who's product you make use of); I'm just saying you shouldn't really be surprised when people tell you to shut up and start coding:)
That doesn't sound like good news to me - as you approach 1.0, you want to focus less and less on the core and on stability, and more and more on the GUI stuff. This is because core changes are costly and will introduce more bugs in unrelated areas, whereas GUI touchups can be localized and handled separately.
Although if you're saying that they're no longer focused on adding in more stuff to the product, then that's a good thing at least.
Well, to be completely honest a lot of businesses will do the same thing with Windows installs via ghost or some other drive imaging program. Of course, Microsoft's licensing makes this practice less-than-legal in some circumstances, whereas the licensing for Linux is equally simple for 10 or 10000 machines, so you still come out ahead with Linux IMHO.
It would be more like if Honda already had a huge profit margin because they already built the roads, and they plowed this money into making better cars and/or undercutting GM's prices at the same time that they used undocumented features of Honda brand roads to make Honda cars work better on those roads. This offends my sense of fair play, at least.
Maybe there's no immediate consumer harm, but there will be in the end once Honda has a monopoly on transportation. You don't think Microsoft's going to keep throwing away money at innovative new products once they've destroyed all competitors and locked customers into a subscription contract, do you? Developing software is a cost that diminishes your overall profits, you know. The only reason that Microsoft continues to release new versions of Windows is to drive the upgrade process which makes them money; once subscriptions are making them money without product upgrades, how long do you think upgrades will continue?
Sorry, I got a little off-topic there. Too much caffeine just now:)
Even better, just forbid the distribution of the current "illegal" version of Windows, and let Microsoft figure out how to make a legal version of Windows.
I will agree with Microsoft defenders on one point - it is becoming harder and harder to devise a remedy scheme that doesn't require too much tinkering into the direction of technology. Although being the cynic that I am, it seems to me that Microsoft likes it this way just fine...
More sophisticated tests conducted by KI RRC did confirm that execution of ?SELECT? with ?ORDER BY? statements by SQL Server v.6.5 ?randomly? fails depending upon format of data used in both SELECT and WHERE parts of statements, number of records in resulting data sets, and type of hardware used - CPU frequency, RAM volume and type of HDD used. Minimal size of data set with detected problems in execution of such statements was 5 records. Maximal size of data set achieved in a course of tests for detection these problems was about 100 ths. records. This flaw was detected with the highest frequency on PC with CPU 100-200 Mh and 400-500 Mh with RAM 32-64 Mb.
So, please let me know how the customer's poor query design is causing random failures that vary based on the amount of data and even the hardware used? Microsoft even admitted that this was a bug in their software which they didn't know about until it was discovered in this manner. To somehow blame the victim for this problem is utterly amazing - you must work somewhere in Redmond.... The workaround mentioned was to reformat the data involved (a huge application rewrite), or to upgrade to SQL server 7.0 which had some security problems that were unknown to Microsoft until the Russians figured them out.
I believe the story is coming to the 'Happy End'. But I have no idea that 'Happy End' means except restoration of KI-MACS functionality and operating status we are doing. No additional discoveries of flaws and gaps in Microsoft SQL Server to be expected every day, can change the picture - selection of the Microsoft SQL Server as a backbone for computerized nuclear material accounting systems was a big error for both sides.
As Microsoft has proved time and time again, it's always version 3.x that's the "getting it right" milestone. I'm just pointing out that you might want to be leery of a product that took twice as long to get stable, and that any claims that something is suddenly "rock solid" at version 7.0 might not be strictly truthful. If it took that long to get "rock solid", I imagine that it's not really.
FWIW, Linux 1.0 was a lot more functional than Microsoft anything 1.0.
Re:Tried to Order one of these ckt's
on
Make Your Own DSL
·
· Score: 1
They had to call them "burgalar alarm" circuits? Verizon wouldn't sell regular "burglar alarm" circuits instead? Man, those ILECs are dumb:)
Slashdot Mirror
According to the show's original directors, it was so it would look better on TV. Basically the same reason that spaceships make a "whoosh" sound as they fly by in the vacuum of space.
Exchange servers support "Outlook Web Access" - basically webmail access to your mailbox, calendar, contacts, etc. I don't know what version of Exchange server this requires, but it's not E2k because we don't have that here at work yet :) So for the requirements that you listed, it might work out OK. You probably have to ask an admin to turn it on - it helps to use the argument that now people can easily check their email and calendar from home (via a VPN) no matter what web browser they have.
It still doesn't support the usual gamut of email viruses and trojans, though, so the quest for full *nix LookOut/Exchange compatibility must continue :)
If you are up to completely reverse-engineering authentication.riaa.com's protocols, then you're right, you won't have a problem. For the rest of us, who don't want to have to figure out DeCSS, SDMI, or whatever the control method of the year is on our own, that "little piece of paper" is what's preventing us from getting the appropriate access software from the people that have the brains to figure out how to write it. Not to mention the average user who just wants to read their ebook on another PC without having to wonder about finding the (possibly illegal) decryption software, installing it, etc.
Hypothetically, you're right, and there is no way to totally lock things down. In the real world of limited time, money, and encryption know-how, just a few bad laws are all it takes to separate most people from their fair use rights and even to deny them the knowledge that such rights exist.
Here's why it matters - customers in Buffalo aren't going to pay you well enough to live in Silicon Valley and do this. Of course, if you lived in Buffalo and telecommunicated to SV you'd be in great shape :)
Is that the same way that the "Checkers" speech was widely believed to be the end of Richard Nixon's career? Last time I checked, Connie Chung was still working...
"They can't hit anything at that dist-" -- unknown (deceased) American Civil War Confederate General.
Maybe you should try searching for the name of the thing you're trying to find out about: "ipv6". I guarantee you'll find more than you want to know :)
Why not run the conversion like the 6bone has? That is, start off with virtual IPv6 between IPv6 supporting sites over IPv4 links, and gradually shift to native IPv6 where possible as more and more of the intermediate "link" sites convert to IPv6? At some point, you switch over core routers one by one so that they're running virtual IPv4 over IPv6 transport, and switch out the last of the IPv4 hardware as it becomes obsolete.
Not that this necessarily provides an incentive for IPv4 users to switch, but IMHO, as a person that's not too knowledgeable about IPv6, I don't see why technically a migration has to be too difficult. Maybe you could make the incentive something like rewarding you with more IPv6 addresses as you move out of IPv4 space - that would definitely move big network operators along, at least.
I'm still not sure how to force a more equal global assignment of the dwindling IPv4 address space. It seems like if the IPv4 afficianados aren't careful, China will just switch to IPv6 immediately, and the rest of the world will get dragged along just so we can continue to communicate with that huge percentage of the human race.
I think those were the goldfish.
For tech stocks, it was more like a stock market BSOD :)
Nope, according to the good Cmdr, we aren't that smart. You can turn off the annoying link things in your preferences, though.
Since it only took the trolls about a day to figure out how to use redirects to mask the goatse.cx links, I'm not sure what the point of the whole exercize was...
How about offering tiers of flat fees for different bandwidth caps, and allow the user to specify a point at which their connection should be cut off rather than risk further charges? That way you can still pay a flat fee most of the time, but retain some flexibility.
You could even specify it per day or per hour of the day, so that "parasitic" users don't run up your bills so high that you can't surf the 'net for the second half of the month.
They make 1 MHz Athlons? Even for embedded systems, that's a little underclocked, don't you think? :)
Yeah, but who wants to type when you can't even see where you were yet? The buffered keyboard is overkill; no normal user is going to start typing before the display comes on and the last known document cursor position is displayed.
This is an embedded system; it's probably being restarted by a watchdog or failed over automatically and thus you want it up as quickly as possible in order to minimize system downtime. Human productivity has nothing to do with it.
I imagine (not having read the article yet) that they've got some other layer to ensure that a machine with a failed device or bad RAM will not be booted at all, or perhaps with an active-standby configuration you could have the machine only run the extended POST if it is the inactive machine in the pair. There's no need to auto-detect devices every time; how often do you change devices compared to how often you boot? (OK, for Linux boxes with a UPS this is 1:1, but for those of us with unreliable power distributors or Windows boxes it's a little more often...)
That explains a lot about how you can hit the lameness filter when just cutting-and-pasting from another web page, which with Netscape will insert a lot of spaces. Good compression == lame post, apparently.
How about posting your example alternative code somewhere else, and just not licensing it so that it could be used with slashcode? It would be interesting to see if you could come up with a method that would penalize (no pun intended, really) ascii art posts but not cut-and-paste quotes.
TANSTAAFL.
There are really only two ways to satisfy your need for "something that works" - you can either work on it yourself, or pay for someone else to do it. I don't really care which you choose, but if you choose to be part of a project that is predicated on users submitting bug reports and maybe even bug fixes to improve that project, then you probably shouldn't turn around and bitch that those are the project parameters. You knew it was a work in progress, you knew how Open Source works, and you knew that there was an expectation that it would be your job to contribute to the project (via bug reports and/or fixes) in order to earn the right to complain about it.
I'm not saying don't mention bugs that you find in Open Source projects (because nobody can be entirely involved in every Open Source project who's product you make use of); I'm just saying you shouldn't really be surprised when people tell you to shut up and start coding :)
That doesn't sound like good news to me - as you approach 1.0, you want to focus less and less on the core and on stability, and more and more on the GUI stuff. This is because core changes are costly and will introduce more bugs in unrelated areas, whereas GUI touchups can be localized and handled separately.
Although if you're saying that they're no longer focused on adding in more stuff to the product, then that's a good thing at least.
"mental hillness" - is that where you act like Benny Hill a lot? Has Steve been going after the nurses again?
Well, to be completely honest a lot of businesses will do the same thing with Windows installs via ghost or some other drive imaging program. Of course, Microsoft's licensing makes this practice less-than-legal in some circumstances, whereas the licensing for Linux is equally simple for 10 or 10000 machines, so you still come out ahead with Linux IMHO.
It would be more like if Honda already had a huge profit margin because they already built the roads, and they plowed this money into making better cars and/or undercutting GM's prices at the same time that they used undocumented features of Honda brand roads to make Honda cars work better on those roads. This offends my sense of fair play, at least.
Maybe there's no immediate consumer harm, but there will be in the end once Honda has a monopoly on transportation. You don't think Microsoft's going to keep throwing away money at innovative new products once they've destroyed all competitors and locked customers into a subscription contract, do you? Developing software is a cost that diminishes your overall profits, you know. The only reason that Microsoft continues to release new versions of Windows is to drive the upgrade process which makes them money; once subscriptions are making them money without product upgrades, how long do you think upgrades will continue?
Sorry, I got a little off-topic there. Too much caffeine just now :)
Even better, just forbid the distribution of the current "illegal" version of Windows, and let Microsoft figure out how to make a legal version of Windows.
I will agree with Microsoft defenders on one point - it is becoming harder and harder to devise a remedy scheme that doesn't require too much tinkering into the direction of technology. Although being the cynic that I am, it seems to me that Microsoft likes it this way just fine...
Wow, I'm glad to hear that the only real problem Microsoft is having is a hemorrhage of version numbers :)
As far as nuclear material goes, I quote from the horse's mouth:
So, please let me know how the customer's poor query design is causing random failures that vary based on the amount of data and even the hardware used? Microsoft even admitted that this was a bug in their software which they didn't know about until it was discovered in this manner. To somehow blame the victim for this problem is utterly amazing - you must work somewhere in Redmond.... The workaround mentioned was to reformat the data involved (a huge application rewrite), or to upgrade to SQL server 7.0 which had some security problems that were unknown to Microsoft until the Russians figured them out.
As Microsoft has proved time and time again, it's always version 3.x that's the "getting it right" milestone. I'm just pointing out that you might want to be leery of a product that took twice as long to get stable, and that any claims that something is suddenly "rock solid" at version 7.0 might not be strictly truthful. If it took that long to get "rock solid", I imagine that it's not really.
FWIW, Linux 1.0 was a lot more functional than Microsoft anything 1.0.
They had to call them "burgalar alarm" circuits? Verizon wouldn't sell regular "burglar alarm" circuits instead? Man, those ILECs are dumb :)